They'll find something to get angry about.

According to independent organizations, Brett's history is actually further left than the person he replaces. @pratel

Yeah, that's why they picked him. He's a moderate compared to the people they were looking at.

So to those who say he polarizes the scotus lineup just believe the fake news media

@Blue Gale Quite frankly I think the plan of "do the thing you are going to do, ignore the 10% of the crazy fucks who are #resist and just make them constantly enraged." It will overwhelm them eventually and we will end up with the resistance in padded rooms.

Yeah and I get that

Exhaustion is a thing

Compensating people for their fines only works for so long

eventually theyll have to be paid to keep doing these protests

Cant keep taking time off from work to protest every single thing that trump does

and they been doing that exact thing..for 2 years now

That is one of the Rules for Radicals from the book of the same name IIRC, Overwhelm the system.

it would be a possibly good plan if he were to have fully committed to it.

The problem thus far has been that the republicans and democrats have been playing the game very differently for some time... and there has been a misunderstanding especially amongst republicans that this is the case.

What we saw with this USSC nom was another reminder that they don't play the same way and that the republicans are frequently surprised by it.

This endless Alinskism is just another aspect of it.

They're going to use whatever advantage they have in the media or any other institution they have some control over. They're going to say anything. They're going to try and stir up racial, gender, religious, and ethic hatred against anyone that stands against them and then conflate that with obtaining their own power and conflate all issues with their ideology.

It will not stop until the Republicans stop acting like "reactionaries" which is to say, dealing with every issue in isolation as if there is no precedence for it. Every time one of these things happens, the republicans act surprised. Various political allies of the republicans are engaging in little defensive moves against DNC aggression and there is very little coordination between the Republicans. They frequently fight alone. And whilst that is happening, the DNC is coordinated, their groups all work together, they have a plan, they attack... they often lose but you can't win if you only defend. You can win if you attack. And if the GOP always sits on the defensive, then losing is unavoidable.

This is why the Democrats hated Reagan and Trump so much. Whatever you think of their differences, they share one thing in common. They attack their political opposition directly at their ideological base. They go after strategic goals.

They try to win. That is why these men are hated. Because they try to win. Once the opposition to the Democrats TRIES to win... plays strategically... coordinates... plots to bait their rivals as their rivals plot to bait them....

Only then will the DNC behave themselves a bit more. Because nothing gets a rival to respect you like the knowledge that they can defend themselves. Right now, the RNC looks weak to the DNC. It doesn't defend itself effectively and it doesn't play strategically. It just reacts most of the time. You can't win if you're just reactive.

@TheDogOfSinope My only rebuttal is this. The only way to win this game being run by democrats is to not play it

@oprahsminge That's War Games and nuclear weapons.

Not applicable to politics in a republic.

Sure seems to be applicable

well, doing these things doesn't flatten cities or cause the extinction of species...

One is not sustainable and the other is

so, I would respectfully argue that they are not the same.

Your position is in my opinion fatally hyperbolic.

I only hold this opinion when one side is playing as though it IS a nuclear conflict

a proverbial one of course

Please make a less extreme analogy that more crediably fits this argument.

I personally can't take the argument seriously in this form.

That's unfortunate

I could respond with something equally hyperbolic in the other direction that you also wouldn't accept?

accept or be willing to debate?

accept is a bit of a loaded term

I don't honestly expect anyone to accept my arguments

I offered a reason why the position was not credible.

That reason was not rebutted.

I think the Republicans are scared of what they could become if they start, en mass, acting proactively like the Democrats have been.

Or rather, of what the perception others will have of them if they should start acting differently.

Well, the price of not being effective is losing.

And the price for winning could very well be an arguable case for civil war.

If you're willing to pay that price then... basically concede your end of the game and accept your loss. Those that wish to keep playing can do so on whatever terms they choose. But your part in the game is done if you choose to lose.

And that includes changing the rules to spite your opposition. Which is why the moderates among the population have no idea who they should be throwing their weight behind.

It's about perception at this point. Optics, not necessarily policy.

The high road option lead to 60ish years of DNC domination, the largely uncontended loss of most of our core civic institutions, and a network of controlled information that has basically created this situation.