Has the time come for the House Democrats to follow the KISS

[avebury]

principle (keep it simple stupid)?

The Rethugs are all about trying to obstruct the Democrats efforts to actually govern.

Instead of trying to always put huge bill packages out to vote, why not simplify it sometimes? Considering the issues that have overwhelming support of the American people, prepare and submit very simple, short & sweet bills on those issues (essentially a yes/no bill, you are either with the American people or you are not) that anybody can understand. It could be a way to actually reach people who otherwise don't support the Democrats.

They need to identify who, among the Trump supporters, have been hurt the worst and use it to develop a plan that would help those idiots and prove that Trump and the Rethugs don't care for them. We need to find a way to reach out to those in the middle of the country. Give them a reason to come into the Democrat fold.

For example, Camp LaJeune. A Democrat walks on the floor tomorrow and submits a bill to fund the repairs. Do you think that the Rethugs would actually vote against that? Do you think that McConnell would refust to allow it on the Senate Floor for a vote?

The KISS principle does not need to be used for everything, but it sure could be used to make some points to the American people. It is all about playing the game better than the Rethugs. If one tactic does not work, you develop another tactic.

It is just a thought.

[katmondoo]

1. Yes! It is time

[JayhawkSD]

2. Clearly, you don't know how Congress works.

A representative will not vote for a bill unless that bill contains something that benefits his/her district. That means each bill has to be big enough to have within it something that benefits each one of 435 districts in 50 states.

Your hypothetical bill would benefit only one district - the one in which Camp LaJeune is located. Therefor, only one representative would vote for it. The other 434 would either not vote or would vote against it because, "there's nothing in it for my constituents" and because, "my first responsibility is to represent the interests of my constituents."

The representative is incorrect, of course. A representative's actual duty is to represent the principles of his/her constituents in governing for the interests of the nation as a whole.

In which case your hypothetical bill would pass 435-0 because it benefits the military, and therefor the nation as a whole. But this nation is no longer governed in that manner. Rather than in terms of the nation as a whole, we are governed in the best interest of self seeking "identity groups" in categories almost too numerous to mention - gender, race, ethnicity, economic class, state, district, profession, religion, etc.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. I can't let this go . . . .

The idea posited in the OP is sound. As stated in the OP, it won't work for everything. Strategy has to be involved as must support from leadership for the strategy. The outcome you suggest is entirely possible, but also not every time.

The OP is suggesting this strategy would help us get things done and also allow us to point to GOPTRUMPers as not voting for x, y, or z bills.