This post may contain Mildly Adult content.
I'm totally in agreement with you that the DNC needs to find candidates and campaign on issues and try to vote out Trump and to replace his collaborators in Congress.
But, while I'm not thrilled with this suit, I don't think merely filing it is a terrible idea. Even though Trump is not named, he's the beneficiary of this corrupt conspiracy, and, substantive legitimate political issues aside, I think it's important not to just concede that Trumpism is ok and an acceptable part of the political process.
It would be nice if the criminal justice system could deal with this problem on its own, but Trump has pardon power, and the legal ability to clean out the justice department and shut down efforts to prosecute his minons and his family, and a seeming long shot like this seems like a worthwhile step in fighting against the threat he represents to the government, it's institutions, and indirectly, to the American people.
If the Republican Congress continues to protect him, his power wholly unchecked, save for "stunts" like this, and resistance on the State level. I'd like to see Democrats take the House in 2018, but if that doesn't happen, the odds of voting Trump out in 2020 go down dramatically, and, as time goes by, he continues to destroy and marginalize his opponents and critics, the 2024 election might well be meaningless.
Look at it this way. What's the downside?
But, while I'm not thrilled with this suit, I don't think merely filing it is a terrible idea. Even though Trump is not named, he's the beneficiary of this corrupt conspiracy, and, substantive legitimate political issues aside, I think it's important not to just concede that Trumpism is ok and an acceptable part of the political process.
It would be nice if the criminal justice system could deal with this problem on its own, but Trump has pardon power, and the legal ability to clean out the justice department and shut down efforts to prosecute his minons and his family, and a seeming long shot like this seems like a worthwhile step in fighting against the threat he represents to the government, it's institutions, and indirectly, to the American people.
If the Republican Congress continues to protect him, his power wholly unchecked, save for "stunts" like this, and resistance on the State level. I'd like to see Democrats take the House in 2018, but if that doesn't happen, the odds of voting Trump out in 2020 go down dramatically, and, as time goes by, he continues to destroy and marginalize his opponents and critics, the 2024 election might well be meaningless.
Look at it this way. What's the downside?
View 18 more replies »
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@beckyromero @room101 it's all good, as long as your having fun. And I got some history lessons, without having to take a test!!
room101 · 56-60, M
If it's YOUR party then you should know that in June 1972 they sued the Nixon re-election campaign for the burglary and bugging at Watergate. This strategy flagged the incident as being politically motivated. And the whole world knows how that panned out.
What you should also know is that the DNC IS NOT SUING Russia. They are suing the trump election campaign.
Oh and by the way, they won that civil law suit 1973 when they were proven right.
What you should also know is that the DNC IS NOT SUING Russia. They are suing the trump election campaign.
Oh and by the way, they won that civil law suit 1973 when they were proven right.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@room101 So sorry you can't comprehend the obvious. Most people that aren't completely apolitical would get it.
room101 · 56-60, M
@beckyromero Get what? How does specifying how and when your two term limit came about impact on its benefits and/or disadvantages (if there are any)? Does the use of obfuscation make things clearer in your little world?
While you're pondering that little conundrum, maybe you can tell me how someone becomes a mind reader. You named Obama, I spoke about Obama.
While you're pondering that little conundrum, maybe you can tell me how someone becomes a mind reader. You named Obama, I spoke about Obama.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@room101 I named Obama because he was the most recent two-term elected president whose party failed to keep the White House. If we were talking about Obama's election and we were in early 2010, I'd have said "Bush fatigue" was a contributing factor to Obama's election. "Clinton fatigue", "Eisenhower fatigue" (the phrase probably wasn't used back then), etc.

SW-User
Pretty sure it is simply a way to bring attention to the issue. Even if Russia simply admitted it, I don't think there is anything the Democratic party could do legally. The US government would have to be involved. I can't imagine that they expect to get much out of this.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@SW-User
To bring attention to the issue?
There's been so much attention that the news media at times has covered little else.
Pretty sure it is simply a way to bring attention to the issue.
To bring attention to the issue?
There's been so much attention that the news media at times has covered little else.



