>

Sounds benign compared to what's at stake. How about someone in the House file a bill for a clean increase, wait legislative 30 days, get all the Dems and 5-6 Republicans on board, and force the bill through the House before the June deadline?
The Democrats, who have caved on so many things, MUST NOT cave on this matter, not even a little. They must not negotiate, they must not accept anything less than a clean raising of the debt ceiling, just as they did during the Trump administration. >

The GQP has tried this a couple of times and the Dems have never caved.
Even McConnell knows this is a losing strategy. >

Someone explain all of this to Joe Manchin

“We have to work together. It has to be bipartisan and it has always been bipartisan as far as the debt ceiling,” Manchin said. “I think what we have to do is realize we have a problem, we have a debt problem.” >

Good god, if only we had gotten one more senator... >

GG sucks, but I can understand that it wasn't as obvious back then as it is now.
Democrats aren't a monolith. Pretending the absurd "rotating villain" idea holds water, rather than that Democrats are individuals who have different perspectives and different constituencies, only serves to demoralize Democratic voters, which, in turn, only serves to help elect Republicans. Which is GG's general objective these days.
The theory is simply false. Senate Democrats are more liberal than they were in 2010. They wouldn't have gotten 48 votes to abolish the legislative filibuster back then, like they did a year ago. Hell, Tester wouldn't have voted for it 12 years ago, either.
When they passed the ACA, the Senate had:
1. Max Baucus (D-MT)
2. Evan Bayh (D-IN)
3. Robert Byrd (D-WV)
4. Kent Conrad (D-ND)
5. Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
6. Kay Hagan (D-NC)
7. Tim Johnson (D-SD)
8. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
9. Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
10. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
11. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
12. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
13. Mark Pryor (D-AR)
14. John Rockefeller (D-WV)
15. Jon Tester (D-MT)
16. Jim Webb (D-WV)
For practical purposes, that's 16 Joe Manchins. We're now down to two (Manchin, and Sinema). Of those listed, only Tester is still in office (and he's willing to vote for things now he wouldn't have voted for then), and only two other seats are still held by Democrats (Byrd's & Lieberman's). The remaining 13 seats have all flipped to Republicans. Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, and South Dakota all have two Republican Senators now.
The truth of the matter is, we just need more Democrats in office. Not that they're all equally good or bad, but even a bad Democrat is better than the best Republican. Manchin and Sinema have both voted for bills and nominees that every, or nearly every, Republican has voted against. Each additional seat means additional paths to passage. It's just math. Assuming partisan votes, with 50 Senators, there's only one way to get to 50 votes. But with 51 Senators, there are now 51 ways to get to 50 votes. With 52, there are 1,326(!) ways to get 50 votes. At 53, it's 23,426, and so forth. >

You say that the Rotating Villain scenario is bullshit while mentioning Manchin. 
What's the party's plan to vet candidates to keep more Sinemas from lying their way in? 
Lmao. >

Elsewhere on this very thread, you're complaining that the democrats pick their candidates by fiat. In your own words, "We learned in 2016 that the party claims the legal right to overturn the will of voters and choose nominees in smoke filled back rooms". And now you're here claiming that the party has no plan to vet candidates and keeping more sinemas from weaseling in. Do you really not see how those are contradictory ideas? 
The party don't vet their candidates because their candidates are picked by the voters in a primary. To claim otherwise is as naive and stupid as the rotating villain bull shit. They're both just conspiracies for people who don't understand how politics work. >

How about a 1-part plan, do not negotiate with terrorists. >

Yup. The second part is just a bonus.  What the gop screw itself over and write campaign ads for them >

Maybe just point out that its them who are demanding something in return for not wrecking the global economy?
I may as well ask my employer "what will you give me for not selling customer's social security numbers?" >

If their constituents weren't morons and actually understood the debt ceiling issue then that would work. But these jackasses keep doing this, and their moron constituents keep voting them into office. >

You miss the point - to win the Dems have to do nothing and say nothing until the Reps have forwarded a plan. It’s the cuts they must propose to meet their goal, not an understanding of debt that will make the day. Now, let’s see if they can keep their egotistical mouths shut and win for a change. >

That's the gist of the article, yes. And I agree it's a good approach. 
I was actually more just venting about the fact we're in the situation in the first place. Playing politics with the debt ceiling is just utter weapons grade stupidity, and a better educated electorate would punish politicians who did it by never voting for them. But here we are, like 10 to 15 years after Republicans started playing these games and they haven't learned the lesson, because many voters don't understand.
I like your analogy about negotiating and not selling social security information. But I think a better one would be a person with a hand grenade threatening to pull the pin an blow everyone in the room up, including himself,  if they didn't give the jackass what he wanted. 
Pretty sure we're in agreement here, I just don't hold my frustration well. :-) >

Rewatch Clevon Little in "Blazing Saddles" to vent.  It will help. >

The hilarity of of Republican wringing their hands over debt after what Trump added to the national debt is astounding. >

It's not funny. It's calculated. One set of rules for Democrats. A completely different set of rules for Republicans who'll weaponize their advantage. >

It is an interesting question. Would you endure a worldwide recession/depression in order to end the Republican Party forever? >

That's a hell of a question >

Seriously. Tough choice. >

For those of us without a sub... what're the 2 parts? >


Part 1: Lay out the simple argument that Republicans are recklessly inviting an economic meltdown even by talking about a possible default.
Part 2: Force House Republicans to put forward a plan on the table and watch as they struggle with the fallout.