Did you hear? Vladimir Putin just peed his pants

@room101
What YOU should know is that they ARE suing Russia.

@beckyromero Oh I'm sorry, did you miss that list of people who were integral to the trump election campaign. Were you so fixated on the first ones that the rest just sailed past you?

@room101
Maybe you were so fixated on the name "Trump" that you missed who the DNC decided who to put at the TOP of the list.

"During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy."
- DNC Chairman Tom Perez said in a statement

@beckyromero And they (ie the Russians) did just that. In any event, the strategy worked in 1972/3 so why not try it again. Especially if the orange wannabe despot fires Sessions (or gets him to resign), Rosenstein and Mueller.

@room101
Investigative reporting, Congressional hearings and the threat of impeachment is what drove Nixon out of the White House.

And the result? An election that Jimmy Carter barely won.

The Democrats are not going to defeat Trump in 2020 with "Russia. Russia! RUSSIA." That whining sounds like an old Brady Bunch episode.

They'll need to defeat him on the ISSUES.

@beckyromero The strategy was successful in 1972 because everybody thought that the event was little more than a rather weird burglary. The strategy was successful because they kept the whole thing in the public eye and what they discovered, in their depositions, fueled both the investigative reporting and the subsequent criminal investigation.

This time round, the whole sorry mess doesn't need to be highlighted but, as I've alluded above, if trump gets rid of the key players in the investigation, their civil suit will continue on.

As to Carter and beating trump on issues, maybe the DNC will again not have a strong enough candidate and maybe the trumpettes don't want to hear about issues. They don't now so what makes you think that they will in 2020?

American politics has become the laughing stock of the entire world so anything that might work is worth a try.

@room101
Because the Democrats lost four states that they shouldn't have: WI, MI, OH and PA.

Issues will win those states back. Not lawyers.

And Hillary was a strong candidate.

What hurt Hillary's campaign far more than Russia Facebook ads was:

* Eight years of Obama fatigue
* Round the clock coverage of Campaign Trump by the same media that now detests him
* A weak VP pick
* Comey's double-dance routine
* self-inflicted wounds
* improper allocation of campaign resources the final weekend of the race

@beckyromero You're probably right in your last post. Except for two of your points.

What the hell is "Obama fatigue"? That's something that I just don't understand. I know that it's there. But I don't understand it.

The coverage that the media gave trump was far from positive and it was tinged with more than a little incredulity that he was saying the crap that he was. And getting cheers for it!

@room101
Same thing as people wanting change for change's sake. After eight years, there was "Bush fatigue," too. Some people who aren't die-hard partisans get a little weary of voting for the nominee of the same party more than twice in a row. Even if only half of one percent of the electorate feels that way it's enough, in combination with a few other factors, to swing a key state or two into the other party's column and thus possibly the election.

@beckyromero But isn't that why the two term limit is advantageous?

Obama sought to change the global perception of America as the bullies of the world stage. He sought to present America as per the values espoused in your Constitution, your Bill of Rights and, your Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, he sought to show the American people that social values are more important than the profit mechanism and should not be left in the hands of market forces.

The fact that he was derided, and is still derided, for his efforts is an indictment on American culture. Not of him as a president nor of him as a human being.

@beckyromero because the DNC is bankrupt. 6 mil in debt

@room101
You trying to make this about Obama. It's NOT about Obama per se.

There's a reason why George H. W. Bush was the first sitting vice president to win election to the presidency since Martin van Buren.

The more often you win, the more likely it is that the next time you will lose.

Look it as regression towards the mean.

@beckyromero erm.......sorry but wasn't it you that brought up Obama fatigue 🤔

Regression from the mean, I can understand. That's one of the reasons why we have limited terms in office. It's not just a proper application of the democratic process, it also allows (maybe inadvertently) for this element of regression from the mean to play itself out.

@room101
No, actually it was just a Republican-controlled Congress' reaction to Roosevelt winning four terms.

And when I said it's NOT about Obama per se, I would have thought you understood I meant that it was about ONE PARTY winning TWO consecutive terms in the White House and how hard it is for that PARTY to win a THIRD consecutive term. Thought you would have also understood that from the van Buren reference.

@beckyromero And I would have thought that, if you intended to talk about a party, you would have mentioned the party and not the man.

Good attempt at back-peddling though 👍

@room101 So sorry you can't comprehend the obvious. Most people that aren't completely apolitical would get it.

@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.

@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.