***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[gry60]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...t-back-trumps-russia-scandal?cid=sm_fb_maddow

The only thing Team Trump quietly pushed was a subtle change to make the Republican platform more in line with Russia’s foreign policy preferences. One GOP congressman was quoted saying soon after that the “most under-covered story” of the Republican convention” was Team Trump’s efforts to change the party platform to be more pro-Putin.

About a month later, ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos asked the then-candidate about this. “I wasn’t involved in that,” Trump said. “Honestly, I was not involved.” Told that members of his team were responsible for pushing the platform in a direction Russia wanted, Trump added, “Yeah. I was not involved in that.”

Left unresolved is why Team Trump found it necessary to change the platform, and who on the Republican’s team pushed for the change. As Rachel noted on last night’s show, this report from Politico brings the story into sharper focus.
U.S. and Ukrainian authorities have expressed interest in the activities of a Kiev-based operative with suspected ties to Russian intelligence who consulted regularly with Paul Manafort last year while Manafort was running Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

The operative, Konstantin Kilimnik, came under scrutiny from officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the State Department partly because of at least two trips he took to the U.S. during the presidential campaign, according to three international political operatives familiar with the agencies’ interest in Kilimnik.

Kilimnik, a joint Russian-Ukrainian citizen who trained in the Russian army as a linguist, told operatives in Kiev and Washington that he met with Manafort during an April trip to the United States. And, after a late summer trip to the U.S., Kilimnik suggested that he had played a role in gutting a proposed amendment to the Republican Party platform that would have staked out a more adversarial stance towards Russia, according to a Kiev operative.
I’m not in a position to say whether Kilimnik’s claims are true, but it would at least make sense of a story that, to date, has been very difficult to understand.

It also dovetails with a CNN report from last week in which J.D. Gordon, the Trump campaign’s national security policy representative at the Republican convention, said he helped push for the platform change that “Donald Trump himself wanted and advocated for.” Gordon later told TPM he spoke with RNC officials about the platform language, but denied having “pushed” for the change.

Shortly after learning about the platform change, practically everyone on Team Trump shrugged their shoulders and proceeded to spend months denying any involvement. Now, however, we’re learning that those denials, like so many claims about the Russia scandal, weren’t entirely true.

It's a looooooot of contradicting in Trump's camp as of lately.

Who isn't getting paid off the way they feel they should?

 

[RustyShackleford]

what's this obsession with circle jerks?

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

How else would you describe it?

If you have so many objections to what users post in this thread, why are you even here?

 

[EddieDoyers]

https://apnews.com/818fc3350c9a4dce...es-to-Trump's-travel-ban-mount-from-US-states

Legal challenges to Trump's travel ban mount from US states

SEATTLE (AP) — Legal challenges against President Donald Trump's revised travel ban mounted Thursday as Washington state said it would renew its request to block the executive order.

It came a day after Hawaii launched its own lawsuit, and Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said both Oregon and New York had asked to join his state's legal action.

Washington was the first state to sue over the original ban, which resulted in Judge James Robart in Seattle halting its implementation around the country. Ferguson said the state would ask Robart to rule that his temporary restraining order against the first ban applies to Trump's revised action.

Trump's revised ban bars new visas for people from six predominantly Muslim countries: Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen. It also temporarily shuts down the U.S. refugee program.

Unlike the initial order, the new one says current visa holders won't be affected, and removes language that would give priority to religious minorities.

Ferguson said it's not the government, but the court, that gets to decide whether the revised order is different enough that it would not be covered by previous temporary restraining order.

"It cannot be a game of whack-a-mole for the court," he said. "That (temporary restraining order) we've already obtained remains in effect."

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Thursday the administration believed the revised travel ban will stand up to legal scrutiny.

"We feel very confident with how that was crafted and the input that was given," Spicer said.

Ferguson said he was pleased that attorneys general from New York and Oregon had sought to take part in the legal action.

"We have a strong case and they are willing to join our efforts," he said of his fellow Democrats. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in a statement called the executive order "a Muslim ban by another name."

In his initial lawsuit Ferguson said the original ban was unconstitutional and hurt the state's businesses and universities.

A federal appellate court later upheld a temporary restraining order issued against the first travel ban.

The Trump administration says the old order will be revoked once the new one goes into effect on March 16.

In filing a lawsuit Wednesday night, Hawaii said the revised order would harm its Muslim population, tourism and foreign students

Attorneys for Hawaii filed the lawsuit against the U.S. government in federal court in Honolulu. The state had previously sued over Trump's initial travel ban, but that lawsuit was put on hold while other cases played out across the country.

Hawaii's complaint says it is suing to protect its residents, businesses and schools, as well as its "sovereignty against illegal actions of President Donald J. Trump and the federal government."

 

[iamdef]

If you have so many objections to what users post in this thread, why are you even here?

you'd have to agree at times there are moments when y'all chase pointless topics for pages

 

[handullz]

If you have so many objectionsto what users post in this thread, why are you even here?

[Video]





[emoji]129300[/emoji][/Video]

 

[RustyShackleford]

If you have so many objectionsto what users post in this thread, why are you even here?

[Video]

[emoji]129300[/emoji][/Video]

[Video]

You can miss me with that ******** because I am not telling you to leave.[/video]

 

[IATT]

 

[handullz]

you'd have to agree at times there are moments when y'all chase pointless topics for pages

 

[noskey]

Breitbart opposed? Drumpf needs to tread lightly...

 

[everysingletime]

'Democratic lawmakers: Just about all of them!'

 

[RustyShackleford]

If you have so many objections to what users post in this thread, why are you even here?

you'd have to agree at times there are moments when y'all chase pointless topics for pages

-The the thread has always been like that

-What is pointless to you, may not be for someone else. No one poster can dictate how the thread should go, probably everyone has a preference of what should be talked about, not everyone gets their way. People just skip over what they don't like

-This dude has constant objection to **** posted in here, this is not an isolated case.

 

[everysingletime]

It's just a matter of what dooms Trump first: some kind of smoking gun related to proof of Russian collusion....or Healthcare

 

[jthagreat]

Breitbart opposed? Drumpf needs to tread lightly...

Why Im not too sure of that chart.

never been on brietbart, but seems unbelievable.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Steve Bannon hates Paul Ryan btw.

 

[gry60]

Breitbart opposed? Drumpf needs to tread lightly...

Why Im not too sure of that chart.

never been on brietbart, but seems unbelievable.

Go back a few pages to read the reactions to the Breitbart article I posted. His followers are opening their eyes and realizing that they've been conned. That includes those who want Obamacare lite and those who want the full repeal.

 

[gry60]

Steve Bannon hates Paul Ryan btw.

It would be shorter to make a list of people President Bannon doesn't hate.

 

[noskey]

Steve Bannon hates Paul Ryan btw.

It would be shorter to make a list of people President Bannon doesn't hate.

A list? rico x hood please compile the list.

 

[RustyShackleford]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/donald-trump-conservative-leaders/index.html

See what the **** I mean. Party over country no matter what.

 

[iamdef]

-The the thread has always been like that

-What is pointless to you, may not be for someone else. No one poster can dictate how the thread should go, probably everyone has a preference of what should be talked about, not everyone gets their way. People just skip over what they don't like

-This dude has constant objection to **** posted in here, this is not an isolated case.

I like to follow this thread because it helps me be somewhat politically aware and hate to skip pages because in between the debates of nursing rank there's still news being posted. Skipping over it is fine but don't want to miss the posts I actually want to read

 

[everysingletime]

Bro. Ten pages of a one time nursing discussion that happened weeks ago in one of the fastest moving threads on NT is really nothing.

 

[sole vintage]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/donald-trump-conservative-leaders/index.html

See what the **** I mean. Party over country no matter what.

working hard on bringing Americans together

 

[iamdef]

Bro. Ten pages of a one time nursing discussion that happened weeks ago in one of the fastest moving threads on NT is really nothing.

Most recent example, but also the times we've battled with Ninja or Rico debating a point they intentionally play blind to

 

[gry60]

Basically starts all the way back in 2001. Trump's business connections in Russia run deeeep

 

[handullz]

Most recent example, but also the times we've battled with Ninja or Rico debating a point they intentionally play blind to

I've arrived at the assumption that dudes feel like they're superior to NH, and it bothers them that no matter how hard they try, they can't directly one-up him and have him admit it.

Sure, people make him look bad all the time, but he just slides right past it b/c he'll either change the subject or completely ignore it.

And there aren't too many things that smart people hate more than intellectually backing someone into a corner, and the someone finds a way to finesse out of it.

Donald Trump like, to be honest. :Lol

 

[dacomeup]

NH not admitting his incompetence is now him finessing out the situation?