>I appreciate you trying to have a good discussion and I hope I haven't discouraged you from trying to do so in the future, but this post was frustrating for me.
>
>I have interacted with FSP. I know a handful of them personally. I've been in their discord server(s). I understand what they like and what they don't like. So I can tell real fast how much somebody knows about the FSP when they start talking about it.

It's fine. We all get out of hand and react emotionally sometimes.

I read your comment and I get it. But I'll just say this, and please take this as *MY* own humble advice to be passed on to them if you like - and of course, this is JUST my opinion as someone who obviously is not embedded in their movement.

If the Free State Project folks truly aren't libertarian and not conservative, they have a real messaging issue in this state - one that I think they're going to have a tremendously difficult time countering at this late stage.

You cannot expect that folks are going to go into Discord servers and join groups to really dig into the nuance of the movement, or any movement for that matter. You just can't. You have to start with broad public outreach.

You can blame the media if you want, or blame progressives, or even conservatives who don't want to be lumped in with them for the current perception among most Granite Staters regarding the FSP, but the real fact is that everyone knows what their goal was right from the get go, because they stated it before they even arrived here. The goal was get as many people to move to NH so they could take over local town offices and the Legislature and slash government everywhere to be "more free."

My perception is that most traditional NH types reject that as an "invasion" in the same way they have always told Massachusetts liberals to leave their politics there when they move here. It's like "hey - we're giving you more freedom for your own good!"

Yes, the goal is to limit government toward protection of individual rights, but that message is LOST because some of the perceived execution of that goal has been from a bunch of abrasive, boneheaded idiots pushing things like slashing local school budgets in half (Croydon) and trying to force privatization of a beloved local recreational area.

In short, the movement needs better public representation. I don't think you'll find anyone who isn't a FSP member who would disagree. They're in a bubble, and the perception from the outside is that they don't seek compromise. Indeed, when their tactics are rejected by constituents, instead of attempting outreach and persuasion, they retreat/resign, and double-down with blog posts by Ian Underwood and others trying to gaslight everyone on FSP goals. If I could, I'd tell him he's not fooling anyone.

The point of my posting the article was to explain the need for them to be less belligerent in their messaging and negotiations. The *possibility* now exists, with an evenly divided chamber, that the FSP are going to say, "you'll take your freedom or you'll get obstruction." Now, we don't KNOW that's the road they're going to take, but the fact is they can now POTENTIALLY wield greater power in the GOP caucus. What actually happens depends on how much they can hammer out any kind of reasonable legislation amongst their own side before they even try crossing the aisle with it.

Again, just my take, so I'm not claiming to speak for anyone other than myself, just a mid-50's year old guy who has seen a lot of NH politics over the years.

I'm obviously a progressive, and if we keep this civil, I'm more than happy to discuss things with you and even learn more about the FSP. I think there are a lot of areas where progressives and FSP folks could potentially intersect, oddly enough. The problem is emotions get high because the two sides are kind of considered the "extremes" as it were, legitimately or not, and that's why I get it... but trust me, I don't agree with the belligerence on my own left wing of this party, so maybe we can proceed with some deep breaths lol.