The Republican Party is literally destroying the country.

1. 86

   Valeantposted 8 years ago

   
   The amount of false propaganda emerging from that network is literally tearing this country apart.  Their viewers are so misinformed that it becomes impossible to have reasonable conversations with them. 
   
   Example, the environment is a huge issue and yet every single Republican candidate for president denies the science stating that we need to take action.  And their followers are blindly following along.
   
   The economy?  Yeah, on the verge of a collapse under Bush.  Jobs created under Obama, Dow at record highs.  Kansas under a Republican governor - let's cut taxes.  The state is a fire sale.
   
   Supreme Court?  Obama is doing his job.  Republican Senate - not so much. 
   
   The level of obstructionism is ridiculous.  Shutting down the government, costing the country huge amounts of money.  Refusing to confirm judges.
   
   Help the poor?  No, thanks.  Let's go buy a few more tanks.
   
   Women?  Minorities?  Not interested.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      My sentiments exactly, Valeant, nice a hear a voice of reason every now and then.
      
      The Right, as usual, lies and distorts the truth so that it may be more easily correlated with its loathsome agenda.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Valeantposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Today's beautiful headline to back up the point further....
         
         http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sen … c918090bb?

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks for the article, yes, they even obstruct themselves. With all the comments, there seems to be lacking one that can reasonably explain the extent of obstruction experienced by the current President to that experienced by his 42 predecessors.
            
            Ken, how is it that no new  jobs were created under Obama, yet we approached full employment under the Bush administration? Why a differing yardstick whenever Obama is involved? It is amazing that the President was able to accomplish anything during his terms at all.
            
            To hold up allowing the President to do his job, appointing a replacement for Scalia, just because of blatant ideological bias is the trash the GOP is made of....
            
            I try, I really do, but I have to work hard to find any redeeming characteristic regarding the GOP of today. But,  I hope that the battle between Cruz and Trump tears the party apart.

            replyreport
   2. 77

      Ken Burgessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, sorry no jobs have been created under Obama, we are well below the full living wage job number that we had in 2006.  I'm not blaming him for it, but that's a fact.  Unemployment numbers are down because they stop counting the unemployed when they go off benefits and stop reporting that they are looking for work.
      But whatever, you have your mind made up, Republicans are bad, the reality is the Democrats are just as bad, they play one race against another, one religion against another, both sides do it... and then they go about doing the work of the corporations, foreign interests, and anyone else who is lining their pockets and pulling their strings.
      In the last 20+ years they have passed NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO and TPP do some research on those, and that will tell you why jobs are leaving our country and wages are going down.  And its going to get worse.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Valeantposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         I will agree to disagree that the economy is always in better hands under a democratic leader.
         
         As for the rest of your statement, I think that it's also an accurate assessment of things that need to be improved.  We need someone rich, like trump, but not so damned crazy to shake the system up.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            RJ Schwartzposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I'm going to support Ken for the most part on this topic but would like to add that both parties are overly beholden to behind the scenes financial backers who are attempting to steer the nation in ways that suit them personally.  Professional politicians are entrenched with these backers and would literally sell their souls to stay in office.  I think term limits and some other rules are necessary to bring our government back in check.  A true representative of the people, not just half of the people as the current system dictates, would be a breath of fresh air and could help do more to mend the fences between neighbors than anything we've seen in a long time.

            replyreport
         2. 77

            Ken Burgessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think he is crazy... I think he is savvy, I think he is wily, he reminds me a bit of Theodore Roosevelt who was very full of himself, very self assured, a big personality with a lot of bluster.
            I also think he is not a polished politician, nor does he want to be.  I think he is in it only in part because he has a big ego... I think the bigger reason is he believes he can fix these major issues that he focuses on in his speeches, and I think he would be good for the country, for four years anyways, IF he made good on his efforts to change the Trade agreements, our inferior position to China, and get Mexico to build the wall.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Valeantposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               The fact he believes he can get Mexico to build a wall is, in itself, crazy.  Definitely a false promise, and likely the root of the fallacy that is in the article everyone wants released.  That he doesn't even believe he can actually get that accomplished.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  The true mark of a demogogue, does not need to explain the how or why, it will happen on the sheer force of his will. Just trust him, he will make it happen. There have been more than a few Spanish expletives used in response to Trump's proposal by movers and shakers with the Mexican Government. In one article, Trump seemed to imply some saber rattling as a threat to Mexico. Do we prepare to repeat a conflict that occurred some 170 years ago?
                  
                  People make the mistake of not understanding that Donald Trump is only going to do what is best for Donald Trump. While Cruz is a beast, at least he is a consistent conservative type and is offering a pure form of that to his followers. Trump  will feed you a 'line' assuming that people are too stupid to read the fine print before they buy, and they are.  The man is a consummate salesman.

                  replyreport
               2. 77

                  Ken Burgessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  It's not crazy at all that he knows he can make Mexico pay for the building of the wall.  It is simple economics.  They have a 58 Billion dollar a year trade deficit.  Trump can do a variety of things to them to put economic pressure on them to make them pay for it... and he should.
                  That's just it, all this PC, be nice to the other nation, let them do whatever they want, its destroying our country, its taking away millions of jobs, its allowing millions of illegal immigrants to come in from all over... heck we are shipping Syrian refugees here that are going on killing sprees here in America and its being hushed up by the media.
                  Trump is simply pointing these things out and saying, this stuff isn't going to be allowed if I'm President.  And unlike a Politician, who I know is blowing smoke up my A__, I think he means it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     Valeantposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        I prefer your graphics over Colorfulone's

                        replyreport
                  2. 77

                     colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     +1
                     

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        Valeantposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                           Couldn't help but to notice that. If there is one thing that I cannot abide, it is a 'chicken hawk'!

                           replyreport
   3. 70

      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I assume you are talking about the Fox Snooze as the culprit in the false and misleading propaganda coming out and I agree. But CNN is just as bad. I hear so many times newscasters on that network tell us "let us tell you what all this means" as a byline.
      
      Obama's job record is misleading as many have given up on looking for a job or settled for much lower paying options. [1]
      
      
      "The US has lowered interest rates to the point where it is actually more profitable for many companies to borrow money and use the proceeds to buy back their own shares, thus eliminating the need to pay dividends on those shares." [2] This is a phony economy and is based on a phony market.
      
      I agree the level of obstructionism seems to be unprecedented at least in my recollection but is Obama or the GOP to blame? It is all our fault for not being good citizens and attending to our government. Many of us are too greedy to understand that paying taxes and contributing to the country is a civic duty. What we condemn we have created.
      
      
      [1] http://dailysignal.com/2012/09/06/fact- … der-obama/
      [2] http://dollarcollapse.com/stock-prices/ … ck-market/

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Valeantposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         This article will help explain a little bit about participation rates.  Baby boomers are retiring, so I put less stock into those not looking for work or leaving the workforce as it's a naturally occurring phenomenon called retirement.
         
         http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/a … -workforce

         replyreport
         1. 70

            rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Not all of those that you claim are retiring are from age. Read this. It explains how more and more are  claiming SS on disability rather than just retiring.
            
            http://www.heritage.org/research/report … e-recovery
            
            You also have not considered while the jobless rate has gone down the under employed has gone up. The quality of jobs is a losing trend and the young people with debt from college are under employed as well. If you go from a job such as a construction worker to flipping burgers you are steadily losing the battle. Jobs are not just jobs if you cannot clothe or feed yourself paying the rent. There is no rosy picture here.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

               This problem may well defy any solution. It has been creeping ever closer over the last 25 years. How much fraud, waste and abuse is associated with misuse of the SS Disability program? So it is not just 'welfare queens', is it?
               
               How does the American labor market compete with Vietnamese labor at $0.65 an hour? This will work until the Vietnamese demand more for their labor, then the capitalists will find a new region of the world for low cost labor.
               Since the conservatives have a ideological issue with the 'minimum wage', jobs (that are not jobs) but reminiscent of the  tenement house sweat shops of the late 19th century, jobs are jobs in title only.
               
               The resentful right would rather blame the poor and those with more economic problems relative to them then to at least acknowledge that the 'blame' could well belong to another source.
               
               Germany manages to train and pay its workers 1st world wages in the face of the global realities, how do they manage?

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  RJ Schwartzposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Germany has high employment, but the high wage part is a myth - there is no minimum wage in Germany, they are overly reliant on export, they basically have a two tied labor market and yes, the upper one pays great wages, but the lower tier which is growing rapidly is terrible.

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     On the contrary per this article from the BBC, looks like the German minimum wage is roughly $10.00 an hour
                     
                     http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28140594
                     
                     Funny that the same excuses  conservatives offer as resistance to this virtually global concept , sounds identical to the whining that conservatives do here to endlessly resist. And yet, still, the Germans'  'lower tier' is higher than ours, when their society already protects its residents better with more of that socialism that have people screaming like banshees , here in the states.

                     replyreport
               2. 70

                  rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Nothing is static in this new world global economy. If Viet Nam ever could get past the communists control over their economy and government the greedy bastards would go to Zimbabwe or any other totalitarian society that would have them.
                  
                  The idea that we are controlled by our very own government by big money is an affront to the very notion that we espouse as a free society. The conservatives complain about the regulations and taxes as if they can divorce this from a responsible society towards its own workers and environment. It is a ruse to offer the reasoning that if you don't let the common folk know that they are being marginalized through their lack of living wages they will buy any other theory if you repeat it long and loud enough. When ever I hear someone tell me the merits of trickle down economics I ask them how it works. One person (a staunch conservative) told me that we have to allow the tax breaks on good faith and we will see the returns. GOOD FAITH! It is a lie every bit as erroneous as the propaganda from the Nazis in WWII Germany.
                  
                  A mans measure is only as good as the effort he puts towards his life. If that is compromised by the society that surrounds him he is that much less free.

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     "One person (a staunch conservative) told me that we have to allow the tax breaks on good faith and we will see the returns. GOOD FAITH'
                     
                     Yes, I have heard this before, and it is infuriating that I am to trust the greedy bastards on sheer faith. How many times does Charlie Brown continue to trust Lucy to hold the football and not pull it back at the critical moment? Just, how dumb do you get?

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        I am a small, I should restate that, a small businessman and I come into contact with many in my same position. When I hear these others talk about trickle down as if it is the answer to all our problems I ask them what they would do with their tax money if they never had to pay it? Will you hire some more workers? Will you invest in a new business? How about buying some more improved equipment? Invariably they say they will put it in savings. Just like most everybody else does.
                        
                        It was proven in Kansas by Brownback. Need we continue in this folly?

                        replyreport
            2. 86

               Valeantposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               The Heritage Foundation has come under recent scrutiny for the methodology of their reports and have recently been criticize for their political agendas.  So I put about as much faith in their findings as I do in the news coming out of Fox News.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Then it must be the rosy picture you painted.

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     Valeantposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     Rosier than all the false gloom and doom being portrayed by the conservative media sources right now.

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        Thank you for continuing the partisan bickering. I guess that makes you right?

                        replyreport
                        1. 86

                           Valeantposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                           Here is the point.  Republican policies are bad for the country.
                           Some examples - Obama is doing his job, nominating judges.  The Republicans in Congress are not.  Obama is using actual science to make the environment better for the next generations.  The Republicans are ignoring that science and going to make life worse for the next generation of people.  Tax cuts without spending cuts will crush any economy.  It's why Bush failed, why Kansas has failed.  All the deregulation under Clinton and then Bush nearly bankrupted the US.  War spending is not supporting veterans.  There is a big difference there that people should truly understand.  When Mitch McConnell can attach a writer to a bill that supports veterans and that passes 97-0, which cause that bill to then fail 45-41, that is a huge issue.

                           replyreport
                           1. 70

                              rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                              Look I voted for the guy twice but it wasn't because he was especially efficient but that the opposition was so bad. His reluctance to fulfill the closing of Gitmo, the escallation of troops in Afghanistan before we left a permanent presence there, the non prosecution of the Wall Street criminals who crashed the economy and his ever hard headed pursuit of the TPP and other agreements that will effectively kill what manufacturing we have left. I agree that he has had unprecedented opposition but he is so weak on these very important issues. The Obama care that if not affordable for private citizens has the tab picked up by the taxpayer is a direction of a ponzi scheme as we run out of money to back it is another colossal failure. I feel that I was sold hope and have received a phony success.

                              replyreport
                              1. 86

                                 Valeantposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                 If red states supported Obamacare, I feel the budgetary side would have worked.  Again, Republicans working against America. 
                                 
                                 I agree with you that we're weak on trade and manufacturing policies need to change to hammer corporations that put profit ahead of supporting American workers.  He is soft on crime too, no arguments there.  Definitely areas for improvement.  He's definitely not close to perfect, but there could have been so much more success if he got any kind of cooperation.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 70

                                    rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                    No doubt that he was saddled with obstructionist from pretty much the start. But had he been more engaged in some of the shannanigans he might have been able to direct the outcome more.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 78

                                       Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       The President't first mistake was not learning soon enough that he was too conciliatory with the opposition. The American people made clear their choice in 2008 amd 2012. GOP had no intention of ever working with him, and even the President needs cooperative support to get anything done. He just should have simply defied them early and rammed stuff down their throats which they accuse him of anyway.
                                       
                                       My biggest complaint about him was the TPP thing and foot dragging on Guantanamo, but I got more from Obama then I would have ever hope to accomplish with either McCain or Romney.

                                       report
                                       1. 90

                                          GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                          Hey there bud,
                                          
                                          "The American people made clear their choice in 2008 amd 2012."
                                          
                                          Don't forget the people's voice of 2010.
                                          
                                          "He just should have simply defied them early and rammed stuff down their throats..."
                                          
                                          Ha! Wasn't that what he did with Obamacare? Wasn't that what the 2008 - 2010 Congress was all about? Wasn't that the tactic of the 2013 Democrat Senate that changed the rules - the Nuclear option?
                                          
                                          GA

                                          report
                                       2. 70

                                          rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                          "but I got more from Obama then I would have ever hope to accomplish with either McCain or Romney."
                                          
                                          On this we agree. One wanted perpetual war and the other wanted to sell us out completely to the corporate whores. Where would the TPP be under a Romney administration now. Law!

                                          report
                                    2. 90

                                       GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       Hey, rhamson,
                                       
                                       His party controlled Congress for the first two years of his presidency. How is does that equate to obstructionism  "pretty much from the start?"
                                       
                                       GA

                                       report
                                       1. 70

                                          rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                          That's why I did not say from the start. The last four years have been a real struggle for him and the Dems.

                                          report
                                 2. 90

                                    GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                    Greetings Valeant,
                                    
                                    "If red states supported Obamacare, I feel the budgetary side would have worked.  ..."
                                    
                                    I am not an ACA, (Obamacare) fan, and believe I can supply credible refutation to most pro-Obamacare arguments, but I am curious as to what difference you think Red State support would have made? Budgetary wise, as you say.
                                    
                                    And as for more success if he had more support... what about his first two years when his party had control of the presidency and Congress? And why, after two years of complete control did his party lose control of Congress?
                                    
                                    GA

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 86

                                       Valeantposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       Greetings GA and thanks for the post.
                                       
                                       I'll address the first two years of congress first.  If you remember, Bush left the US economy in shambles and had us engaged in his fabricated Iraq war.  President Obama had some work to do to clean up both of those messes and couldn't really get to his agenda for some time.
                                       
                                       In terms of Congress, although the Republicans won 55 percent of the House seats, they received less than half of the votes for members of the House of Representatives. Indeed, more than half-a-million more Americans voted for Democratic House candidates than for Republicans House candidates. How could this be?
                                       
                                       This answer lies in the 2010 election, in which Republicans won control of a substantial majority of state governments. They then used that power to re-draw congressional district lines in such a way as to maximize the Republican outcome in the 2012 House election.  So, the answer, Gerrymandering.
                                       
                                       In terms of Obamacare, the more young people that sign up, the less the plans will be as young people tend not to result in large hits to insurers.  With so many Republican governors resisting setting up exchanges in their states, it dramatically reduced the amount of people signing up.  That slow growth has had a negative monetary impact.

                                       report
                                       1. 90

                                          GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                          Objectively speaking, the ACA exchanges question might be the easiest to address.
                                          
                                          While it is true that it was democrat governors that most supported Obamacare by setting up state exchanges, (only 14 states, plus 3 more federally supported - 17 out of 50 states), I am not sure that would impact citizen participation as you suggest. What difference does it make if a citizen signed-up through a state or federal exchange? How would the owner of the exchange affect who and how many joined?
                                          
                                          Of course that is relative to paid healthcare coverage, which is the point of this discussion. The state participation does make a difference if you want to include free Medicaid healthcare coverage. It was primarily Red states that declined to expand their Medicaid coverage in line with Obamacare parameters, but that is a different discussion - not related to your contention that it was Republican obstructionism, (in refusing to set-up state exchanges), that has harmed Obamacare's financial stability, (ie. more younger folks signing up).
                                          
                                          And speaking of ACA exchanges, in the process of forming a response, I did see a lot of news/speculation about failing exchanges. Failing for a variety of reasons, but almost all of them financial. Red and Blue state alike. Here is a quick Google search you might be interested in.
                                          
                                          As you can see, I don't agree with the relevance of your explanation regarding exchange ownership.
                                          
                                          But to the two-year honeymoon, and why it ended, there is a lot more to chew on.
                                          
                                          He did have a full plate with war and recession, but that did not stop him from pushing through Obamacare and several other controversial and/or unpopular initiatives. One Brookings.edu article noted substantial accomplishments during those two years, so why did the Dems do so badly in the 2010 elections? It was not the gerrymandering that you want to blame, the Repubs got their 55% before they had the state clout to gerrymander any districts. Also, the last blow, the loss of the Senate, later on, had nothing to do with gerrymandering.
                                          
                                          You should check out that Brookings' link. Here is one of the author's thoughts on what happened in 2010:
                                          "The White House and congressional leaders pursued an agenda that the people mostly rejected while overlooking measures that might well have improved the economy more, and almost certainly would have been more popular, than what they did instead.  In short, while Obama was dealt a bad hand, he proceeded to misplay it, making the political backlash even worse than it had to be."
                                          
                                          ps. Maybe Mary Landrieu'sNew Louisiana Purchase, ($300-$600 million in additional state aid - that she bragged about getting), that changed her "No" vote to an Obamacare "Yes" vote was one of those things people did not like. (It stunk to high heaven to me - the need to buy votes tells a tale in itself)
                                          
                                          GA

                                          report
                                    2. 78

                                       Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       GA, it is a strange coincidence, I was going to use that excellent Brookings Institution article reference to better explain my position.

                                       report
                                       1. 90

                                          GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                          Hey Credence2,
                                          
                                          I think it was a good article too. Subjective of course, as all opinion pieces must be, but I did see both pro and con explanations from the same author. Which is a good thing. I especially liked his coverage of what he sees as four possible explanations for what happened to Congress in 2010. Alas, we probably will disagree on which of the four is the correct explanation.
                                          
                                          ps. It seems that frequently your responses are not tagged to the comment you are referencing. Are you viewing the threads in Chronological order? I have found that to be much more helpful in following a conversation. Just sayin'
                                          
                                          GA

                                          report
                                    3. 86

                                       Valeantposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       The Brookings article was a good one.  Left a lot of avenues open to let the reader do some critical thinking.  This has been a good discussion among people with differing opinions.

                                       report
                                       1. 90

                                          GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                          But wait... we are just getting started. Once the party talking points and opposition rhetoric has been dispensed with, there is some very fertile ground for discussions relative to just what did happen in those two frequently ignored years; 2009 - 2010.
                                          
                                          For starters, if Republican shenanigans can be discounted as the cause for the 2010 Congressional changes, then it seems a fair explanation might be it was an expression of the will of the people. What does that say about the democrat's progressive agenda, other than it can only be supported with the logic that they know what is good for us better than we do?
                                          
                                          Could the post-2010 Republican obstructionism, (yes, I admit it was real), be an early forerunner of today's Trump phenomenon? I think there is a very real, and very important message for Democrats in both.
                                          
                                          GA

                                          report
                                    4. 86

                                       Valeantposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       I think Trump's rise is more from people's discontent with the Republican Congress' inactivity, than their disagreement with Obama.  They are tired of the establishment and this is the result.  Especially considering Obama's approval rating is at a three-year high right now.

                                       report
                                    5. 86

                                       Valeantposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       As for policy, you just have to look at Kansas or Louisiana to see bad policy with regards to taxation.  Policy that most of the presidential nominees on the Republican side are still promoting.  Decisions in Michigan pertaining to the environment won't help anything either.

                                       report
                                    6. 78

                                       Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       GA, unfortunately, the 'reply' feature is unavailable to me usually after many replies have been made on ongoing threads. Is there a feature that would allow me to override this?
                                       
                                       BTW
                                       
                                       The White House and congressional leaders pursued an agenda that the people mostly rejected while overlooking measures that might well have improved the economy more, and almost certainly would have been more popular, than what they did instead.  In short, while Obama was dealt a bad hand, he proceeded to misplay it, making the political backlash even worse than it had to be."
                                       
                                       This statement found in the Brookings is well balanced and upon honest analysis reflects my point of view.

                                       report
   4. 86

      Valeantposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Pretty good Hub related to my own thoughts here:  http://hubpages.com/politics/21-TruthsT … Everything

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Hello, Valeant, that was powerful article that Jeff wrote, and he used plenty of authoritative links to support his argument.
         
         I had almost forgotten how good and appropriate that article was.

         replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

   If real reason was the path to knowledge here , one would realize that the rhetoric of blame isn't only due republicans as they are always for smaller , more responsible government ! The opposing ideologies ,right to left is growing quite sickening of late , especially here .  To blame just republicans for the state of affairs in America is Naïve and juvenile ,    Utopia  cannot ever materialize out of the agenda of  divisiveness  of  THIS administration !
   
   Obama's political religion  IS divisiveness ,  period !    Only neutral truth and knowledge is the answer , seek it out , it awaits you ! Stop playing blame games.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      
      Obama told Border Patrol Officers to stand down.
      Dedicated BPO's are speaking out against this insanity.
      Hey, they support Trump's wall!

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Ken Burgessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         What is worse... if you are an illegal immigrant caught fishing without a license or fishing endangered species, you will be released.  If you are an American, you will be ticketed or arrested.

         replyreport