(07-14-2017 01:47 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Now pay attention righties. I made a claim and here now is a link proving my point. Not an opinion. Actual facts on how it was done.

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/06/488876597/...to-ukraine

Denman is a long time GOP activist from Texas. When she presented her proposal during a platform subcommittee meeting last month, "two gentleman," whom Denman said were part of the Trump campaign, came over, looked at the language, and asked that it be set aside for further review.



"She says after further discussion the pair "had to make some calls and clear it." She says they found the language was still too strong.

The Trump campaign convinced the platform committee to change Denman's proposal. It went from calling on the U.S. to provide Ukraine "lethal defensive weapons" to the more benign phrase "appropriate assistance.""

#1 its not really a huge difference
#2 Denman doesn't name the two "gentlemen." Makes it significantly less convincing. <my article actually does name one>
#3 The platform wasn't changed. Denman's change wasn't accepted. That is a significant difference from "weakening the platform." In fact, the platform was strengthened, just not as much as Denman wanted.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-...le/2617802

"...As it turns out, a look at the original draft of the platform — which has never been released publicly — shows that it always had tough language on Russian aggression in Ukraine. And not only did that language stay in the final platform — nothing was taken out — it was actually strengthened, not weakened, as a result of events at the convention...." <actual language is included in the article-for brevity here, you can read the link>

"So how did the Trump-gutted-the-GOP-platform narrative get started?
It appears it was unwittingly set in motion by a single Republican delegate, a Texas woman long active in GOP politics named Diana Denman, who proposed to add a couple of paragraphs to the original platform's position on Ukraine...."



"But they approved her statement of support for maintaining, and possibly increasing, sanctions against Russia, and, in the place of lethal aid, substituted a pledge to provide "appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine" and to work more closely with NATO. Here again is the final language that was added to the platform as a result of Denman's amendment:
We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning.
There was never a subcommittee vote on the change. People in the room, speaking anonymously, estimate that perhaps a handful of delegates supported Denman, another small group opposed, and a larger number were neutral, and happy with the compromise. There was no revolt.
"The platform ended up tougher than it started, compared from the beginning to the end," Denman told me, although she added she still believes her lethal aid provision should have been included in the final document."