US Politics

[Nilgiri]

Both candidates seem bad to me,though I would choose Ellison to lead the Dems if I wanted victory for them.
He is a risky bet,but he seems smart & knows how to strengthen the party base.He is willing to go in a new direction & he recognized the fact that Trump could win pretty early.

i believe that Tom Vilsack could have helped to get back the forgotten rural dems back
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f8e0dd91dc7_story.html?utm_term=.af925a9070cb

=================================================================
Tom Perez brings nothing new to the table from what I can say.He has the establishment support+fundraisers behind him which HRC has. & the Latino head/representation card doesn't matter because to all those to whom it appeals already vote Dem.

Oh yes,wasn't he the Secretary for Labour in Obama's administration? Shouldn't some of the blame for white unionized workers abandoning the Dems which has has been going on since Obama won gone to him? Getting the support of the Union heads & managements does not matter much.They endorsed HRC & campaigned for her too, yet the white workers went for Trump.

& hasn't he been accused of being a race baiter & anti-white(which many cultural liberals & even white ones are). What a way to polarize white people away from you. Isn't that one other reason why the most unpopular guy to run for POTUS post WW2 won?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...le-not-entitled-protection-voting-rights-act/

http://freebeacon.com/politics/5-sc...t-democrats-if-thomas-perez-is-their-vp-pick/ (read the black panther part)
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/25/democrats-unify-around-shutting-down-white-people/

& he's not moderate to many people,he is a leftist idealogue as many conservatives see(& so do I)
https://capitalresearch.org/article...-be-near-the-top-of-hillary-clintons-vp-list/
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445269/new-dnc-chairman-tom-perez-no-moderate-all
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Ellison is a Muslim convert... that's enough to make lots of new conspiracy theories about him(Check Obama as reference;the present POTUS himself made numerous insinuations about him[He's a muslim??,He was not born here]etc).
Add to that his past is very shady. Allegations of being anti-white,anti-semitic,pro-Islamism etc...

https://thefederalist.com/2017/02/28/keith-ellison-wasnt-smeared-he-was-exposed/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/26/keith-ellison-once-proposed-making-a-separate-country-for-blacks/

I'm not going to get into any argument about him. Remember , "IN POLITICS- Perception matter more than facts" .
& all these allegations+articles & Trump's tweets would have energized the Republican base & could have turned off independents.

BUT... wasn't Trump supposed to make HRC win. Infact during primary time her surrogates in the media gave him excessive coverage for this very reason with the belief that him as POTUS candidate will make HRC the POTUS!!

Repubs are thinking the same way about Ellison as Democrats thought about Trump-[They are screwed,LOL HRC will sweep the floor, 4 more years of the WH for us ] & look what happened. =D

Ellison will only be DNC head,not the POTUS candidate.If he could have stayed in the shadows & focused on building the grassroots & wining the trust of the white working class which Bernie(who endorsed Ellison) got. Then perhaps Victory in 2020 would be possible.

He did a good job strengthening the party in Minneapolis & winning the trust of voters & even non-voters who he encouraged to vote. He lives in Dem bastion but never takes his voters for granted & always spends time with them answering thei queries!

His 3000+ county strategy sounded good to me & was one which I saw could help the Dems nationally.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-in-dnc-bid/?utm_term=.e48e46d92619#comments
http://www.startribune.com/rep-ellison-hones-new-voter-turnout-strategy-for-democrats/363536691/
=====================================================================
Anyway Perez has a long way to unify the party. He has to get the moderates,the economic leftists,the cultural leftists, the union workers,Silicon valley,the liberal free market guys etc etc together.

& the way the DNC was biased against Bernie & the lack of repentance it has displayed since then doesn't help to unite the party & it also shows what they think of Bernie & his supporters

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...-backfired-and-democrats-began-bashing-perez/

Look at the comments in the videos below. Trump,the liberal MSM(exaggerating fake news media)+Bannon & everybody else will get them to vote for the Dems. But the same passion & hope which Obama created in them & got them to campaign & get voters out will be very tough for any "usual establishment person" to do.

Perez has a tough job ahead of him,but if he can gain the trust & loyalty of everyone then he can change things

@Nilgiri @T-72M1 What do you think?

I honestly dont care much of what the democrat party does now. If they decide to veer further to the left or whatever, they can go right on ahead and see how that works out. They have all the time in the world to find something that actually works

 

[ptldM3]

View attachment 382174

Trump's 'Muslim Ban 2.0' is still the same flawed, un-American mess
BY MARIA CARDONA, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 03/06/17

Trump Muslim ban take two! Or you could call it a kinder, gentler Muslim ban. But make no mistake: It is a Muslim ban, no matter how much the Trump administration tries to wrap it in better legal reasoning, more docile language, and ribbon that screams national security.

Trump and his Muslim ban still have a huge uphill battle waiting for him simply because truth, reality, facts, his own quotes, and a country who yearns to uphold American values, are not on his side.

Let’s break down the difficulties Trump will face starting immediately:

First and foremost, and incredibly damning, are the reports that intelligence analysts from Trump’s own DHS agency dispute Trump’s notion that these countries that are part of the ban pose a major threat to our national security. They found scant evidence that citizens from these countries are a danger to us.

In fact, DHS found that additional vetting before entry won’t make us safer because most foreign-born, U.S.-based violent extremists become radicalized after living in the U.S. for a number of years rather than being radicalized when they first arrive.

Second, there is still that pesky fact that, from 9/11 through today, no immigrant or refugee from the countries included in the Muslim ban has ever successfully perpetrated a terror attack on U.S. soil that resulted in any deaths of American citizens.

Trump’s team has expanded the notion to counter that there have been attempts by nationals of these countries to hurt Americans, and some have succeeded. Fair enough. This is where actual vetting (not banning), FBI, police and intelligence work comes into play and becomes more important than ever.

And if the Trump administration’s reasoning continues to be the 9/11 terrorist attacks, then the burning question is why aren’t any of the countries whose citizens have perpetrated the most horrific acts of terror on our soil, part of the Muslim ban? Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan are all countries that people came from to do us harm in the U.S.

Could it be that Trump has major business dealings in these countries and he doesn’t want to do anything to harm those business relationships that continue to enrich him while he is in the Oval Office? We will never know since Trump refuses to release his tax returns.

Third, Trump is on the record from many times during the campaign saying he wants a complete ban on Muslims entering the country.

Period.

This was his intent from the beginning and he cannot escape the echo of his own campaign promise that excited his base, pushing many to a frenzied anti-Muslim bias that has sadly resulted in violence and hate crimes perpetrated against Muslim citizens and those who look like they might be Muslim.

To put it simply, Trump’s new version of the same ole’ Muslim ban seeks to codify bias, discrimination, fear and hatred against Muslims, and in essence helps validate some of his supporters’ anti-Muslim attitudes. You can’t get more un-American than that.

Fourth, the arbitrary nature of the list of countries in the ban is underscored by the removal of Iraq from the original list. I am glad they removed Iraq and Trump realized they are our allies, but it lays bare that the Trump administration is simply using the “Obama list” of countries that it designated as needing more vetting, as an excuse and not a real reason based on national security measures.

Trump officials say that Iraq has enhanced their security procedures for vetting. That’s great! But is it true? They did that in three weeks, just since the last Muslim ban?

In fact, Former DHS Deputy General Counsel Jonathan Meyer said “Taking Iraq off does harm the case for the travel ban” and “adds to the mounting evidence that this order is not based on risk-based policy-making.”

Reports state Iraq lobbied hard to get off the list, and Secretary Tillerson pushed Trump to take them off, again proving the capricious reasoning behind the list of Muslim countries included in the ban.

Fifth, the ban was supposed to be a matter of extremely “urgent national security.” Reince Priebus and Trump himself said the reason the first ban was done so quickly was so dangerous people could not sneak in with several days’ notice.

And yet, they have waited this long. Not to get it right, but apparently so Trump could enjoy more time in the positive after-glow of his so-called “presidential” speech before Congress from last Tuesday. I guess for this administration any positive press is more important than keeping Americans safe.

Good to know where we stand.

The new Muslim ban even has a phase-in period of 10 days. Aren’t they afraid some “bad hombres” will rush in?

Sixth, the Muslim ban, even though many of the courts have upheld our American values and prevented the first one from going into effect, has already had negative economic outcomes. There has since been a “devastating drop” in tourism and a 17 percent reduction in international flights to the U.S.

And last but not least, the new “and improved” Muslim ban, just like the first Muslim ban, will not increase our national security. It will do exactly the opposite.

It puts us more at risk and makes us less safe, by allowing radical terrorist groups like ISIS to point to the Muslim ban as a reason Islam should be at war with the west.

Trump’s insistence on the ban gives these groups a powerful recruiting tool that increases the chances of radicalization that can come from anywhere, including (and most likely) from inside the United States.

We are not fighting terrorism with this ban. We are feeding it.

Americans deserve better. We deserve a day when the president and the administration govern with facts, live in reality, listen to the experts, understand history, are rigorous in seeking out the truth, and ultimately legislates to continue making this country great.

Sadly, that day is not today, and that president is not Donald Trump. Link

You libs still don't get it. That "Muslim ban" was crafted by the Obama administration. Of course when the eveil white man does it it's "racist" but when Obama does it no one minds. Amazing how the Obama administration wire tapped journalists, got subpoenas to target phone records of Associated Press reporters and the liberals are silent about these police state tactics, lets not forget the IRS targeting conservatives but throw up a shit storm about fake news about Sessions, the "Muslim ban" and in general trivial matters that democrats bring up to cause civil unrest.

Oh yes and the illegal activities of Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, and Hillary Clinton are swept under the rug. Funny how you preach democracy, and try to act like you are on the moral high ground like all dems do but show me one instance where you posted your distain for the illegal, dishonest police state tactics of the Obama administion. Liberals like yourself are more concerned about Trump's hair and skin complexion then any facts or I'll doing of the Democrats.

 

[LA se Karachi]

Both candidates seem bad to me,though I would choose Ellison to lead the Dems if I wanted victory for them.
He is a risky bet,but he seems smart & knows how to strengthen the party base.He is willing to go in a new direction & he recognized the fact that Trump could win pretty early.

i believe that Tom Vilsack could have helped to get back the forgotten rural dems back
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f8e0dd91dc7_story.html?utm_term=.af925a9070cb

Yes, he represented the "Sanders-wing" of the party. He may have been a bit more risky, but he appealed more to the groups I mentioned in my previous post. Those groups are crucial to the future of the Democratic Party.

But yes, you bring up a good point about rural voters and White working-class Democrats, particularly in the Midwest, that we need to focus on. I wish Tom Vilsack and others like him the best of luck. Many rural voters voted for Obama in 2008, despite his political background. But they have since been forgotten in many ways by the Democratic Party. They were reminded of them in the 2016 election. Hopefully, Democrats will remember them from now on.

Tom Perez brings nothing new to the table from what I can say.He has the establishment support+fundraisers behind him which HRC has. & the Latino head/representation card doesn't matter because to all those to whom it appeals already vote Dem.

Oh yes,wasn't he the Secretary for Labour in Obama's administration? Shouldn't some of the blame for white unionized workers abandoning the Dems which has has been going on since Obama won gone to him? Getting the support of the Union heads & managements does not matter much.They endorsed HRC & campaigned for her too, yet the white workers went for Trump.

Agreed. Tom Perez brings nothing to the table, as you say, he is just another establishment Democrat. And yes, Democrats do indeed need to appeal to union workers after they only narrowly favored Hillary Clinton, despite having backed Obama by wide margins in both 2008 and 2012.

And you are right again that him being Hispanic will not help in the slightest. Most non-Cuban Hispanic votes are already overwhelmingly Democratic, and Trump will be the biggest motivating factor for many of them anyway. After trying to appeal to the ever-growing Hispanic share of the electorate for the past two decades (which is crucial in some swing states), Republicans destroyed most of whatever little goodwill they had among those communities with Trump.

& hasn't he been accused of being a race baiter & anti-white(which many cultural liberals & even white ones are). What a way to polarize white people away from you. Isn't that one other reason why the most unpopular guy to run for POTUS post WW2 won?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...le-not-entitled-protection-voting-rights-act/

http://freebeacon.com/politics/5-sc...t-democrats-if-thomas-perez-is-their-vp-pick/ (read the black panther part)
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/25/democrats-unify-around-shutting-down-white-people/

& he's not moderate to many people,he is a leftist idealogue as many conservatives see(& so do I)
https://capitalresearch.org/article...-be-near-the-top-of-hillary-clintons-vp-list/
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445269/new-dnc-chairman-tom-perez-no-moderate-all

Well, I don't agree with your comments about Tom Perez here at all. He's not race-baiter, and he's certainly not "anti-White"---whatever that means. That's completely false. And he isn't far left either. He's more of your typical establishment, technocratic Democrat.

Trump's win had far less to do with race, and far more to do with economics and a strong anti-establishment feeling across the country (along with Hillary being the Democratic candidate---she was quite unpopular). Many younger voters, Midwestern Democrats, rural Democrats, white-working class Democrats, and independents simply stayed home or voted third-party in the election. This led to Trump narrowly winning a few swing states (margins of less than 1%) that won him the Presidency. Keep in mind that he still did lose the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by a 46-48% margin.

Keith Ellison is a Muslim convert... that's enough to make lots of new conspiracy theories about him(Check Obama as reference;the present POTUS himself made numerous insinuations about him[He's a muslim??,He was not born here]etc).
Add to that his past is very shady. Allegations of being anti-white,anti-semitic,pro-Islamism etc...

https://thefederalist.com/2017/02/28/keith-ellison-wasnt-smeared-he-was-exposed/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/26/keith-ellison-once-proposed-making-a-separate-country-for-blacks/

I'm not going to get into any argument about him. Remember , "IN POLITICS- Perception matter more than facts" .
& all these allegations+articles & Trump's tweets would have energized the Republican base & could have turned off independents.

Well, I've addressed this in another post before, it's mostly just a smear campaign. Ellison never said anything anti-Semitic himself, apologized for his relatively brief involvement in the Nation of Islam, disavowed Louis Farrakhan, and many Jewish leaders (including Chuck Schumer---the Minority Leader in the Senate) endorsed his candidacy or defended him against false allegations.

And yes, perceptions matter more than reality, unfortunately. However, I think his benefits outweighed any "risks". I like Ellison a lot, but I wouldn't have minded if someone less exotic than him had run to represent the Sanders-wing of the party. However, no one really did.

Ellison will only be DNC head,not the POTUS candidate.If he could have stayed in the shadows & focused on building the grassroots & wining the trust of the white working class which Bernie(who endorsed Ellison) got. Then perhaps Victory in 2020 would be possible.

He did a good job strengthening the party in Minneapolis & winning the trust of voters & even non-voters who he encouraged to vote. He lives in Dem bastion but never takes his voters for granted & always spends time with them answering thei queries!

His 3000+ county strategy sounded good to me & was one which I saw could help the Dems nationally.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-in-dnc-bid/?utm_term=.e48e46d92619#comments
http://www.startribune.com/rep-ellison-hones-new-voter-turnout-strategy-for-democrats/363536691/

Precisely. This was the key to his candidacy. He wanted to reach out to rural voters and younger voters, building up a base of support county by county, replicating Sanders' success. There are very motivated Democrats across the country who can get the support of independents, working class voters, and rural voters that we need to win elections. But the Democratic Party has to give them a platform, without suppressing their power or ignoring their demands.

Older Democrats, African-Americans, other older minorities, and wealthy Democrats are reliable voters that will almost always show up to the polls and vote Democratic, especially against Trump. It is the votes of the other groups that we need the most, which Sanders' campaign and platform appealed to the most.

nyway Perez has a long way to unify the party. He has to get the moderates,the economic leftists,the cultural leftists, the union workers,Silicon valley,the liberal free market guys etc etc together.

& the way the DNC was biased against Bernie & the lack of repentance it has displayed since then doesn't help to unite the party & it also shows what they think of Bernie & his supporters

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...-backfired-and-democrats-began-bashing-perez/

Look at the comments in the videos below. Trump,the liberal MSM(exaggerating fake news media)+Bannon & everybody else will get them to vote for the Dems. But the same passion & hope which Obama created in them & got them to campaign & get voters out will be very tough for any "usual establishment person" to do.

To be honest, all of those groups are pretty united against Trump. And in general, those groups are pretty united ideologically as well. More so than Republicans, in fact. The problem is one of emphasis, however.

Senator Sanders' campaign showed that even a liberal Jewish Democrat originally from Brooklyn could get the overwhelming support of rural voters, working class whites, and independents. All while getting strong support from younger voters, college-educated voters, and many urban voters as well. The key is emphasizing economic issues, and putting Republicans on the defensive.

The Democratic Party has to return to its roots as the party of the middle and working classes. This is the road to victory, as polling and the Democratic Primary showed. And yes, it has to truly open the gates of power to Sanders' supporters. Obama did fill many of us passion and hope for change, though he squandered that somewhat. But if the Democrats choose the right path, it can rekindle that passion (and then some).

Perez has a tough job ahead of him,but if he can gain the trust & loyalty of everyone then he can change things

True. Across the country, many "Berniecrats" have been winning local office and positions within the Democratic Party. Right here in California, in fact, Berniecrats won most of the California Democratic Party's State Delegate positions, which are crucial to choosing party leaders and the influencing the party as a whole.

Similar things have taken place in many other places across the country. Especially in rural states and swing states, where local Democrats are doing their best to tie themselves to Senator Sanders' popular campaign and ideas as much as possible (even if they didn't vote for him). There is hope yet.

 

[CBU-105]

Keep in mind that he still did lose the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by a 46-48% margin.

He won the popular vote in 30 out of 50 states, and narrow as his margins might have been in those few crucial swing states, he still flipped them red after decades of them being blue bastions, did he not ?

 

[RabzonKhan]

In 2013, Trump said that he has “done lot of business with the Russians” and also said that he “met Putin once”, but in 2015 debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump said “he never met Putin”. Now the question is, why is he lying, what is he trying to hide?

2013, he met Putin:

2015, he never met Putin:

 

[Darmashkian]

@Nilgiri @CBU-105 @T-72 @F-22Raptor

Read these links. What if Trump was a women & Hillary the man?? What would their debate performance be like & would it change minds?
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/...ential-debate-and-the-results-surprised-them/

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publ...ch/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html


After watching the second televised debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in October 2016—a battle between the first female candidate nominated by a major party and an opponent who’d just been caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women—Maria Guadalupe, an associate professor of economics and political science at INSEAD, had an idea. Millions had tuned in to watch a man face off against a woman for the first set of co-ed presidential debates in American history. But how would their perceptions change, she wondered, if the genders of the candidates were switched? She pictured an actress playing Trump, replicating his words, gestures, body language, and tone verbatim, while an actor took on Clinton’s role in the same way. What would the experiment reveal about male and female communication styles, and the differing standards by which we unconsciously judge them?

..
.
.
.


Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.
.
.
.
.
.

Based on the conversations after the performances, it sounded like audience members had their beliefs rattled in a similar way. What were some themes that emerged from their responses?

We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Remember how Trump used to claim that on the first day in office he will repeal Obama care, the fact is, he still has no plan of his own, but now he has shamelessly accepted a useless Republican establishment’s plan, yeah, the same politicians he used to repeatedly criticize during his campaign, remember his bogus mantra, “drain the swamp”.



Republicans’ Obamacare Replacement Just Got A Powerful Enemy

AARP announces its opposition to the bill.

By Daniel Marans, Laura Barron-Lopez

WASHINGTON ― Provisions in the House Republicans’ Obamacare replacement bill that would raise insurance costs for older Americans are drawing resistance from the influential seniors’ lobby.

The American Health Care Act, as Republicans are calling it, would allow insurers to make premiums for older Americans five times what they charge younger workers ― provided that a state’s regulations allow for it. Obamacare had capped this ratio, known as an “age rating,” at 3 to 1.

The measure was chief among the reasons AARP, the nation’s largest organization for older Americans, cited in explaining its opposition to the House bill on Tuesday evening.

“Older Americans need affordable health care services and prescriptions,” AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond said in a statement. “This plan goes in the opposite direction, increasing insurance premiums for older Americans and not doing anything to lower drug costs.”

AARP, which has nearly 38 million members ages 50 and older, is also firmly opposed to a pair of major changes to Medicaid that the House bill includes. One is a rollback of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, which made the program available to millions of low-income adults, many of them seniors, who had no insurance before. The other is a new Medicaid funding formula that could leave states on the hook for more and more money, a report from the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concluded Tuesday. That might force states to make cuts that hurt seniors, many of whom rely on Medicaid for nursing home care and other health services.

“Medicaid cuts could impact people of all ages and put at risk the health and safety of 17.4 million children and adults with disabilities and seniors by eliminating much needed services that allow individuals to live independently in their homes and communities,” LeaMond said. “This harmful legislation would make health care less secure and less affordable.”

AARP used its considerable political power to help pass Obamacare in 2010, despite the opposition of many members ― about 400,000 left the organization in protest. AARP’s objection to key elements of the Republican bill to replace the landmark law could prove just as influential.

“[AARP] backed it and paid the price for backing it, so why not support it against repeal?” said Fred Lynch, a professor at Claremont McKenna College and author of “One Nation Under AARP.” “The Congress is genuinely afraid of age power, and they’d just as soon let the sleeping giant go on sleeping.”

“The only possible leader right now is AARP, so it’s sort of in their hands,” he said.

The mammoth organization has already registered its opposition to the two measures in letters to Congress in late January and early February.

AARP premiered a new video advertisement for the campaign on Monday, suggesting it was ramping up its efforts to kill the provision.

In the tongue-in-cheek ad that runs for just over a minute, a man chopping wood alongside a squirrel named Charlie expresses his anger at the “age tax.”

https://twitter.com/x/status/838847647033274369

“You know, Charlie and I were watching the news this morning, and they said that Congress has just introduced a new age-rating bill,” the wood-chopping narrator says. “And I was like, ‘What the heck is age rating?’ Then Charlie explained that it’s Washington politician-speak for overcharging older Americans for their health insurance while lining the insurance companies’ pockets.”

The ad is part of an advocacy campaign AARP launched Feb. 15 to specifically combat a rise in the “age rating,” which it is calling an “age tax.” At the time, the organization encouraged its members to call those in Congress who were active in drafting the health care legislation to oppose the rating provision. Read more




American Medical Association Opposes GOP Health Care Plan
by MAGGIE FOX

The American Medical Association, which represents about 200,000 physicians and medical students, rejected the Republican plan to replace the Affordable Care Act Wednesday.

"While the ACA is imperfect, the current version of the [American Health Care Act] is not legislation we can support," Dr. Andrew Gurman, president of the AMA, said in a statement posted to the association's website. "The replacement bill, as written, would reverse the coverage gains achieved under the ACA, causing many Americans to lose the health care coverage they have come to depend upon." Read more

 

[RabzonKhan]

As I said in one of my previous post that AG Jeff Sessions lied under oath, should resign, and Congress should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate potential ties between Trump and Russia,(Link)majority of American voters agree. In a new Quinnipiac poll:

52 – 40% say that Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions lied under oath during his confirmation hearings.

51 – 42% say that he should resign.

66 – 30% support an independent commission investigating potential links between some of Trump’s campaign advisors and the Russian government. Link




Authorities looked into Manafort protégé

An associate of an ex-Trump campaign chairman is suspected of connections to Russian intelligence.

By KENNETH P. VOGEL and DAVID STERN 03/08/17

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. Read more

 

[ptldM3]

View attachment 382798

As I said in one of my previous post that AG Jeff Sessions lied under oath, should resign, and Congress should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate potential ties between Trump and Russia,(Link)majority of American voters agree. In a new Quinnipiac poll:

52 – 40% say that Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions lied under oath during his confirmation hearings.

51 – 42% say that he should resign.

66 – 30% support an independent commission investigating potential links between some of Trump’s campaign advisors and the Russian government. Link




Authorities looked into Manafort protégé

An associate of an ex-Trump campaign chairman is suspected of connections to Russian intelligence.

By KENNETH P. VOGEL and DAVID STERN 03/08/17

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. Read more

Your liberal fake news never ends. How did Sessions lie when he said he did not have contacts with Russian officials while associated with the Trump campaign. Give us an explanation how that is a lie. You might want to go listen to what Franklen asked and how Sessions responded before making a fool out of yourself.

This is an attempt by the democrats to cause social unrest via hordes of brain dead liberal zombies.


Give the Trump Russia conspiracy a rest. The FBI has already concluded that Trump has no links to Russia. Liberals lost the election and power through all branches of government because of the lies and fake news. Keep it...


Here are the 3 democrat idiots that keep pushing the Russian conspiracy. We should trust these people because well they say Russia invaded Korea, Bush is still president and non of them met Russian embassadors.

Al Franklen the ex failed SNL comedian making an idiot of himself both in congress and as a failed comedian:



More proof democrats are nasty perverts:

This is what democrats have experienced after losing:

Typical conspiracy nut:

Pelosi apparently "never met with Kislyak". Also bush is still president according to this dementia patient.

This idiot think "Russia invaded Korea". She also got prank called by Russian pranksters exposing just how dumb she is:

 

[T-72M1]

As I said in one of my previous post that AG Jeff Sessions lied under oath, should resign, and Congress should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate potential ties between Trump and Russia,(Link)majority of American voters agree. In a new Quinnipiac poll:

52 – 40% say that Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions lied under oath during his confirmation hearings.

51 – 42% say that he should resign.

66 – 30% support...

I find your undying faith in polls disturbing.

 

[LA se Karachi]

Graham ready to subpoena for Trump wiretap information

By Manu Raju and Tom LoBianco, CNN


Washington (CNN) - Sen. Lindsey Graham said Wednesday he is ready to subpoena the intelligence agencies for evidence that would prove President Donald Trump's claims that he was wiretapped last year by then-President Barack Obama.

Asked by CNN if he would subpoena for any evidence, the South Carolina Republican said, "Yes."
"All I can say is that the country needs an answer to this. The current President has accused the former President of basically wiretapping his campaign," Graham said, one day after he joined Trump for a one-on-one lunch at the White House.

Graham and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, sent a letter to FBI Director James Comey and the acting deputy attorney general Wednesday, requesting any information regarding Trump's claims.

"We request that the Department of Justice provide us copies of any warrant applications and court orders — redacted as necessary to protect intelligence sources and methods that may be compromised by disclosure, and to protect any ongoing investigations — related to wiretaps of President Trump, the Trump Campaign, or Trump Tower," Graham and Whitehouse wrote.

The Trump administration has declined to provide any information about Trump's allegations since the President tweeted them last Saturday. Obama's former aides have completely denied Trump's claims, and sources told CNN Obama himself was exasperated after learning of the accusations.

Ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner, was among four senators who met with the CIA to see "raw intel" related to Russia' meddling in the US election.

"In many ways we've got even more questions now," the Virginia Democrat told reporters. "We've got more information we've got to get access to."

Asked about whether he'd seen evidence related to Trump's claims, Warner responded, "Of course we'll follow the information, we're going to follow the truth but what we have right now is ... an accusal with absolutely ... no basis in fact that anyone from the Intel community or even anybody in the staff in the White House has laid out."

Republican leaders in the Capitol, meanwhile, have largely distanced themselves from the accusations as they attempt to focus on their own internal rifts that have hobbled the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. But Trump's accusations only added to a swirl of questions about Russia's meddling in the 2016 elections already being investigated by House and Senate lawmakers.

Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican and member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, left the door open to requesting Trump's tax returns as part of their investigation -- something that could detail or dispel pervasive rumors of Trump's business ties in Russia.

"I don't know yet. It's too early to say," Collins told CNN. "What I do think that it would be helpful for us to do on the intelligence committee is to have a public hearing, where we can hear from some Russian experts."

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, who is leading a separate investigation into Russia's efforts, said Monday that he did not want to subpoena Trump's tax returns. But the top Democrat on that panel, Rep. Adam Schiff, said Democrats may seek the returns.

House investigators have set an aggressive timeline for their investigation, requesting a slew of documents from the FBI, CIA and Justice Department by March 17 and asking top current and former intelligence officials to testify in public at a March 20 hearing.

Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, meanwhile, have been trekking to CIA headquarters to review raw intelligence.

Nunes said he wants to know why top intelligence officials changed their assessment of Russia's influence between December and January.

"What we're trying to get to the bottom of, is how did the assessment on December 5 that they gave us, how did it radically change -- with the major change being that specifically that the Russians were trying to get Donald Trump elected, and that's what we're trying to get to the bottom of," Nunes told CNN Wednesday. "It's just a major shift we need to understand and we're the oversight body."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/graham-wiretap-russia-subpoena/

 

[T-72M1]

LOL

 

[RabzonKhan]

Thank goodness that Flynn guy is gone, that man was a total disaster.

Flynn Attended Intel Briefings While Taking Money To Lobby for Turkey

by KEN DILANIAN 3/11/2017

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was attending secret intelligence briefings with then-candidate Donald Trump while he was being paid more than half a million dollars to lobby on behalf of the Turkish government, federal records show.

Flynn stopped lobbying after he became national security advisor, but he then played a role in formulating policy toward Turkey, working for a president who has promised to curb the role of lobbyists in Washington.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer on Friday defended the Trump administration's handling of the matter, even as he acknowledged to reporters that the White House was aware of the potential that Flynn might need to register as a foreign agent.

When his firm was hired by a Turkish businessman last year, Flynn did not register as a foreign lobbyist, and only did so a few days ago under pressure from the Justice Department, the businessman told The Associated Press this week.

Attempts by NBC News to reach the Turkish businessman, Ekim Alptekin, were unsuccessful Friday.

Price Floyd, a spokesman for Flynn, said the retired general would have no comment.

Flynn was fired last month after it was determined he misled Vice President Mike Pence about Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States. His security clearance was suspended. Read more

 

[RabzonKhan]

Your liberal fake news never ends. How did Sessions lie when he said he did not have contacts with Russian officials while associated with the Trump campaign. Give us an explanation how that is a lie. You might want to go listen to what Franklen asked and how Sessions responded before making a fool out of yourself.

Actually, it’s the other way around, you are the one who is making fake claims.

Give the Trump Russia conspiracy a rest. The FBI has already concluded that Trump has no links to Russia.

Just shows how little you know about the issue. Don’t make false claim, the fact is, that there are several investigation pursuing this issue:

FBI is pursuing at least three separate probes. Link

The US Congress is pursuing at least five separate investigation into Russian interference in the US election and contacts between Trump campaign and Russians:

1. The Senate Intelligence Committee, with jurisdiction over 17 intelligence agencies, is in the early stages of a probe launched in January. Initially focused on Russian hacking and misinformation efforts during the election, it has since been broadened to cover what committee members have described as contacts between Russian officials and the U.S. political campaigns.

2. The Senate Judiciary Committee, with oversight over the Department of Justice and the FBI, is carrying out its own investigation and has asked the Department of Justice for a briefing and documents related to circumstances leading up to Flynn's resignation.

3. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, chaired by Russia hawk Lindsey Graham, announced in early February plans to investigate Russian meddling. The panel has jurisdiction over the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, as well as the FBI.

4. The House Intelligence Committee, charged with oversight of 17 intelligence agencies, is investigating "intelligence or counter-intelligence issues" involving Russia and the election.

5. The House Judiciary Committee, with oversight over the Department of Justice, is conducting its own investigation, with Republican members planning to write a letter to Attorney General Sessions requesting his cooperation with the Russia probe. Link

CIA providing raw intelligence as Trump-Russia probes heat up
Congress has entered a new phase in its investigation.

Lawmakers are trekking to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, to review classified evidence on Russia’s involvement in the presidential election. The House has scheduled its first public hearing on the issue. And the Senate is preparing to interview witnesses.

The congressional investigations into ties between President Donald Trump's campaign and Russian officials are in full swing. Link

 

[ptldM3]

Actually, it’s the other way around, you are the one who is making fake claims.

What is funny is you posting a wall of rubbish in which you haven't got a clue about what you are talking about.

FBI is pursuing at least three separate probes. Link

Read your own sources. The FBI is looking into:

1. The people behind the DNC breaches.

2. The Identity of Guciffer2 (Believed to have posted Padestas emails.)

3. Russian contacts and companies with possible links to Trump associates.



In your liberal mind this equates to Trump having contacts with Russia and since when was it illegal to do business in Russia? Hillary and Bill Clinton made a lot of money from Russia, 500k for one speach but that's okay, it's only wrong if Trump or his business partners do it.



Meanwhile:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html


The FBI already investigating Trump/Russia and found nothing. Meanwhile Hillary raised over 600 million from the presidential campaign some of which came from gulf states that armed Isis and have Isis ideology themselves which includes beheading gays, adulterers, people that leave Islam, subjigating Christians and banning churches and allowing virtually no rights to women.

But hey, its the Russians that are evil, let's ignore Clinton's taking money from terrorist sponsors and ignor countries such as Israel and many others which are spying on the US and stealing US secrets but let's go after evil Russia.

The US Congress is pursuing at least five separate investigation into Russian interference in the US election and contacts between Trump campaign and Russians:

1. The Senate Intelligence Committee, with jurisdiction over 17 intelligence agencies, is in the early stages of a probe launched in January. Initially focused on Russian hacking and misinformation efforts during the election, it has since been broadened to cover what committee members have described as contacts between Russian officials and the U.S. political campaigns.

2. The Senate Judiciary Committee, with oversight over the Department of Justice and the FBI, is carrying out its own investigation and has asked the Department of Justice for a briefing and documents related to circumstances leading up to Flynn's resignation.

3. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, chaired by Russia hawk Lindsey Graham, announced in early February plans to investigate Russian meddling. The panel has jurisdiction over the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, as well as the FBI.

4. The House Intelligence Committee, charged with oversight of 17 intelligence agencies, is investigating "intelligence or counter-intelligence issues" involving Russia and the election.

5. The House Judiciary Committee, with oversight over the Department of Justice, is conducting its own investigation, with Republican members planning to write a letter to Attorney General Sessions requesting his cooperation with the Russia probe. Link

CIA providing raw intelligence as Trump-Russia probes heat up
Congress has entered a new phase in its investigation.

Lawmakers are trekking to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, to review classified evidence on Russia’s involvement in the presidential election. The House has scheduled its first public hearing on the issue. And the Senate is preparing to interview witnesses.

The congressional investigations into ties between President Donald Trump's campaign and Russian officials are in full swing. Link

Blah.. blah..blah. Mostly a bunch of disgruntled political hack Democrats and a handful of Rupblicans that openly hate Russians are kicking up dirt. They can launch as many inquiries as they want, the FBI has already concluded Trump had no connection to Russia. That is a hard pill to swallow for libs.

The same morons that are pushing for these investigations are the same morons that claimed Russia invaded North Korea. they can launch an inquiry into Putin being a shape shifting reptilian for all I care.


Meanwhile the latest weki links prove once again the CIA is gustapo and Obama a thug. We already knew the US had interfered in dozens of election around the world, wire tapped US journalists and went through their phones, as well as spied on allies such Merkel but now we know the US under
Obama infiltrated French elections as well. oh and the CIA stole Russian malware. The CIA can commit cyber attacks and then blame Russia, which the CIAs job has always been to hurt Russia and deceive.