1. Yes, as @danielsgoldman is talking about now on @MSNBC is playing a big part. Rep Senator reluctance to go after Trump is MUCH MORE now than mere political reluctance. And frankly Trump made these threats openly known. Yet, he had his "lists" for primaries. But there is much
More from Rachel "The Doc" Bitecofer 📈🔭🍌
For years Rs have had Ds on defense, crying "socialist!" while hiding a radicalism so extreme it seeks to destroy democracy itself.
— Rachel "The Doc" Bitecofer \U0001f4c8\U0001f52d\U0001f34c (@RachelBitecofer) January 11, 2021
That's why we're launching @StrikePac- its time to fight \U0001f525 with \U0001f525!
Strike back w STRIKE PAC
RT for democracy's sakehttps://t.co/xSVfNSqLNF https://t.co/O9q5mQXtE5
2. @MeidasTouch, @votevets & other "super pacs" which are essentially grassroots funded organizations that are making use of the "super pac" designation to electioneer. Organizing as a super pac actually affords groups a great deal of flexibility to perform pro-democracy work
3. so despite the "ewww, yuck!" factor of that designation, not all SP's are, in fact, evil entities (other than the fact that so many of you I wholly support a fully publicly funded system w very strict limits & honestly, a 30 day electioneering window per cycle which would
4. decimate a multi-billion $ industry BUT do a great deal of work to save our democracy & that type of system, by the way, is BY FAR, the norm among western democracies. Ours is literally the Wild West of electioneering systems and if there is 1 "fix all" reform that would have
5. the greatest & most immediate impact on pulling our democracy back from the precipice of our democracy it would be a fully publicly funded, tightly regulated election/campaigning system. We don't have one of those right now & if we ever want to reach the majorities that could
More from Trump
Can someone give me a google number or something? I want a party line.
https://t.co/SlJCsjWMUa
We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 9, 2020
I'm sorry, but #lawOFFunny #nominologicaldeterminism.
#thomists
This one is important:
PRESIDENT TRUMP: THIS MAY BE, THE MOST IMPORTANT SPEECH I'VE EVER MADE. 12/02/2020
— GEORGE NEWS (@GeorgenewsOrg) December 3, 2020
(Use English/French Subtitles and READ every single word) #GodWins https://t.co/ZJ9racUF6o
You May Also Like
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.