TRUMP for Prez

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I sortof agree -- there really isn't a neutral cable news channel anymore. Maybe BBC, but I'm too cheap to pay for that. CSPAN does a pretty good job, but it's also hella boring.

Doesn't mean that there aren't kernels of truth in each partisan perspective.

By the same token, the fact that there is consensus on an issue doesn't mean that we need an alternative voice to be fair and balanced. We don't need a flat earth society, we don't need a purple sky party, we don't need someone saying gravity is false. These things are objectively wrong.

The fact that everyone agrees that the sky is blue is not a liberal conspiracy.

Exactly. There are mountains and molehills, and then there's Delta standing next to one claiming it's the other (or maybe actually believing it due to camera tricks).

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I sortof agree -- there really isn't a neutral cable news channel anymore. Maybe BBC, but I'm too cheap to pay for that. CSPAN does a pretty good job, but it's also hella boring.

Doesn't mean that there aren't kernels of truth in each partisan perspective.

By the same token, the fact that there is consensus on an issue doesn't mean that we need an alternative voice to be fair and balanced. We don't need a flat earth society, we don't need a purple sky party, we don't need someone saying gravity is false. These things are objectively wrong.

The fact that everyone agrees that the sky is blue is not a liberal conspiracy.

Not sure what you are even saying with your second sentence, however you have half the population and around 3/4 of the land mass (which to me equals actual different cultures) see things one way and then you have the other half (represented by very few cultures in a few select cities) sees things the other way. What we have though is maybe a 95% view point held up by the one culture on the airwaves. So I reject that everyone agrees the sky is blue. Not sure you even have a worthwhile metaphor, but we clearly do not agree. You have a 50% of the population attacking the other 50% with 95% of the resources.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

So I reject that everyone agrees the sky is blue.

That’s your prerogative. I will dismiss your quackery out of hand, as will most. The 1st amendment protects your right to repeat nonsense. It does not however require anyone to give validity to nonsense.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

That’s your prerogative. I will dismiss your quackery out of hand, as will most. The 1st amendment protects your right to repeat nonsense. It does not however require anyone to give validity to nonsense.

I see that you don't even subscribe to your own metaphors and act just like the democrat media.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

That’s your prerogative. I will dismiss your quackery out of hand, as will most. The 1st amendment protects your right to repeat nonsense. It does not however require anyone to give validity to nonsense.

Delta has had to turn to hypocrisy and walking around with his head crammed deep up his own ass ever since Trump was nominated. It's so comical to see him criticize people's lack of morals out of one side of his mouth, and then defend Trump''s lack of morals out of the other side.

Originally Posted by ord27

I'm thinking that busing the immigrants to the sanctuary cities is a great idea. Seems a bit hypocritical for the dems to say otherwise

Of course you do. You also think that a wall is going to slow illegal immigration. You do know that there are no fences or anything else to keep those illegal immigrants contained in these sanctuary cities? What's to stop them from buying a bus ticket, catching a ride, or walking out of a sanctuary city and into a non-sanctuary city?

Seems an even better plan is to bus immigrants to employers who took the advantage of low pay and no bene's hire them. So, first bus load over to the grifters golf courses, next over to his hotels and we need to get a few busses heading down to Mar A Lago. lol.

I know it’s meant as a threat (“ooooh I’m gonna drop all these scary immigrants on YOU, San Francisco!”), but I kinda think that the sanctuary city thing would work out fine. Cities are where immigrants usually go anyhow. They have the best services, best public transit, etc.

Every single large American city is immigrant dense.

Agree, They would be dropped off and then contact relatives and make plans for the next bus ride toward family.

I would second guess sending them to Blue states,
1st if sent to san fran, they would have to live in the **** infested, needle infested area, get sick and then we would have to pay for there additional health risks
2. Keep them out of the brain washed area, and give them a chance to become moral hard working people
3. Get them to see the reality of the left socialist and get them to become voters for prosperity, not freebees
4. Teach them our language
5. keep them from crossing back and forth over the boarder smuggling smack, further away the better
6. Get them to a location where they can be monitored, ankle bracelets would be an easy fix, until they go to court.
7. have them in an area that they can be monitored until legally vetted

we can play this many ways. If they just came legally, then, none of this would matter.

Why are they not moving to Canada, free health care, very liberal, very PC, much lower population, all the things we don't have. should be a slam dunk

Who’s excited about tomorrow?

Dougr

why are they not moving to Canada?

LOL LOL LOL LOL
Because like most Democrats they want to spend YOUR money not Theirs. If each of these people that touted sanctuary city’s would take in one family, feed them give them clothes, educate them, then both sides could get what they want.
https://youtu.be/Py1NZT5_NlA

Originally Posted by wake77

Delta has had to turn to hypocrisy and walking around with his head crammed deep up his own ass ever since Trump was nominated. It's so comical to see him criticize people's lack of morals out of one side of his mouth, and then defend Trump''s lack of morals out of the other side.

You obviously are not getting enough sleep or started a drug habit if you think that comment was about morals. It was about his horrible metaphor.

Originally Posted by wake77

Of course you do. You also think that a wall is going to slow illegal immigration. You do know that there are no fences or anything else to keep those illegal immigrants contained in these sanctuary cities? What's to stop them from buying a bus ticket, catching a ride, or walking out of a sanctuary city and into a non-sanctuary city?

The same thing that keeps the 20,000 homeless in San Francisco there. They get hand outs and the cops are ordered not to hassle them. Plenty of money floating around to gather because they are usually the richest of the rich living there.

Point is, if the democrats are trying to stop the boarder patrol from holding them or rejecting them, then the next logical conclusion is to move them to democrat areas.

How hard is it to spell border correctly?

Originally Posted by fly135

How hard is it to spell border correctly?

dag gone it. I did it again. Been pretty good for a while

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You obviously are not getting enough sleep or started a drug habit if you think that comment was about morals. It was about his horrible metaphor.

No, Delta, it goes much, much deeper than one post.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

The same thing that keeps the 20,000 homeless in San Francisco there. They get hand outs and the cops are ordered not to hassle them. Plenty of money floating around to gather because they are usually the richest of the rich living there.

Point is, if the democrats are trying to stop the boarder patrol from holding them or rejecting them, then the next logical conclusion is to move them to democrat areas.

Why do you equate being opposed to a border wall to allowing people to walk back and forth into the country? "Democrat areas"? Who knew you had to state your political affiliation in order to move into a new residence???

Ah yes. Love me some liberal cities. Especially when you go there as I did a couple years ago to pull a building permit at city hall and had to hold my nose because the smell was so bad right outside. If you want to know where liberalism takes you, just go to the cities that are the most liberal and see what you get. Case in point:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-franc...ng-reports-say

I challenge all of you libs to go on YouTube and watch “Seattle is dying.” Hopefully, it’ll open your eyes to the folly that is liberalism.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw

Originally Posted by markj

I challenge all of you libs to go on YouTube and watch “Seattle is dying.” Hopefully, it’ll open your eyes to the folly that is liberalism.

I challenge you to go to YouTube and watch "Mark is a dumbass". It is clear that in Mark's feeble brain, homelessness is a "liberal creation", even though poverty and homelessness has been a problem for millennia. Not every homeless person is addicted to drugs and/or violent. What's your solution, Mark? Lock up people for being homeless? A return to debtor's prison? Explain a sensible "conservative" solution to homelessness.

Originally Posted by wake77

I challenge you to go to YouTube and watch "Mark is a dumbass". It is clear that in Mark's feeble brain, homelessness is a "liberal creation", even though poverty and homelessness has been a problem for millennia. Not every homeless person is addicted to drugs and/or violent. What's your solution, Mark? Lock up people for being homeless? A return to debtor's prison? Explain a sensible "conservative" solution to homelessness.

God you are just a pathetic miserable dip****, I feel sorry for your mother

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

God you are just a pathetic miserable dip****, I feel sorry for your mother

Dumbat is killing us with irony.

Originally Posted by wake77

No, Delta, it goes much, much deeper than one post.

Interesting perspective you have.

I am for the US first and equal rights (not special rights).

You:

For the world
Special rights (color, who is blowing based right, so on)
No limits on murdering babies
corporate give aways in the name of healthcare
Destruction of Christians
Don't know which bathroom to use (the symbols are a little rough on the eyes I suppose got to ban them)


Shall we go on.

Of course, you say that you are not for these things, you just vote for a party that does. Why? Because you believe Christians have ruined your poor little life. Oh no! Not the Christians. Why they did....... Not sure what they did to you?

Originally Posted by wake77

Why do you equate being opposed to a border wall to allowing people to walk back and forth into the country? "Democrat areas"? Who knew you had to state your political affiliation in order to move into a new residence???

First why are you opposed to wall and security funding? News flash there is already wall over much of the border. Why are you democrats opposed to fixing, making it more secure adding additional?

You may see the fight as just a border wall. It is much bigger. You do realize that you are also on the side of actual states sponsoring illegals to cross the border as part of a greater political strategy right? California has pretty much blocked any means of documenting and tracking illegals in the state. You can not even ask if someone is a citizen for employment purposes. This whole thing is just not as simple as a wall.

Around the cities in california, put a Republican sticker on your car and see what happens to it.

Originally Posted by wake77

I challenge you to go to YouTube and watch "Mark is a dumbass". It is clear that in Mark's feeble brain, homelessness is a "liberal creation", even though poverty and homelessness has been a problem for millennia. Not every homeless person is addicted to drugs and/or violent. What's your solution, Mark? Lock up people for being homeless? A return to debtor's prison? Explain a sensible "conservative" solution to homelessness.

I will help answer this.

Actually much of the homelessness is because of drugs. These people medicate with drugs to escape mental disorders. Many people literally can not even stand to be in a shelter. I can not remember the movie. It is based on a true story. It stars Jamie Foxx. He plays this musician. Unfortunately you can not force these people to medicate and you can not institutionalize them. It is this whole rights thing.

As far as the growing population of homeless. Even people at Google live in their cars because they can not afford housing.

Another article:
https://nypost.com/2017/11/07/silico...-to-the-brink/
Silicon Valley’s ‘car people’ push homeless crisis to the brink

You should see the tent cities under the overpasses in the city. Most of it is the cities will not build housing yet pack in high density jobs. Most of these jobs now or days are cube farm work over there. They have the low growth initiatives yet they grow the business population.

Non of this is helped because it costs so much to even break ground for housing. The regulation costs to do any single thing in the state prevents people from even gaining access to the most basic parts of the economy. We had a old car we wanted to sell for basically nothing but could not. Why? It had a sensor out that threw a check engine light. The car actually ran great. Because of that light, we could not smog the car. No smog, no change of ownership. We had to donate it to a parts company where they are going to make a killing off the spare parts. More of the environmental scams.

Electric and Gas? Carbon taxes. Pulling billions out of the PG&E. They cut budgets else where like to I don't know. Cut trees by power lines? They have a couple fires blamed on brush and power lines. A city burns to the ground among other fires. Of course the state says they can be sued. PG&E claims bankruptcy if they can not raise prices. Price hikes on the way. Soon, it you don't have solar panels they will raise your electric rates to make up for the ones that do.. More hits to the poor.

Water? People only use 10% of the water. Yet when we were in the drought. They force reduction. Guess what, right on que the water companies could not afford to stay open due to the reduced usage. They get to raise the rates. One year later rains like crazy, everyone can go back to using their normal water. bills higher.

Shall I go on. The regulations are designed to force money out of the middle classes hands. It always does. That is why we don't want this for the rest of the US because the policies the people like the Obama's wanted is designed to pull the money out of the US workers hands to the third world. That is why I am so hostile to you democrats. At this point it can not be any more transparent and the fact you go along with it means you must be intentionally be an enemy to the average US citizen and worker.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Enjoy.

So, I havnt read all of this but just the first few pages...Russia and Putin are not our friend. They started this in 2014, way before the grifter was even considered a candidate. What are we doing to stop this in future elections mr president?
The way that AG Barr summarized the findings was not quite the way im reading this report. He flat out lied to the American people. Re Volume II, Mueller wrote this report to turn over to congress to make decisions. He did not intend for barr to declare no obstruction no collusion. Im sure he will make that clear in front of congress soon. Un-redacted report should have more non public reported info.
Anyone else read much of it?

Originally Posted by 95sn

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
Enjoy.

So, I havnt read all of this but just the first few pages...Russia and Putin are not our friend. They started this in 2014, way before the grifter was even considered a candidate. What are we doing to stop this in future elections mr president?
The way that AG Barr summarized the findings was not quite the way im reading this report. He flat out lied to the American people. Re Volume II, Mueller wrote this report to turn over to congress to make decisions. He did not intend for barr to declare no obstruction no collusion. Im sure he will make that clear in front of congress soon. Un-redacted report should have more non public reported info.
Anyone else read much of it?

You've been wrong on everything thus far, you'll be wrong about Mueller's testimony too, if he even agrees to testify.

Help me out. Please point out where "You've been wrong on everything thus far," Really, take your time, find all those times.....I can wait for your list.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

God you are just a pathetic miserable dip****, I feel sorry for your mother

Yeah, I feel the same way for that stand-up daughter of yours.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Interesting perspective you have.

I am for the US first and equal rights (not special rights).

You:

For the world
Special rights (color, who is blowing based right, so on)
No limits on murdering babies
corporate give aways in the name of healthcare
Destruction of Christians
Don't know which bathroom to use (the symbols are a little rough on the eyes I suppose got to ban them)


Shall we go on.

Of course, you say that you are not for these things, you just vote for a party that does. Why? Because you believe Christians have ruined your poor little life. Oh no! Not the Christians. Why they did....... Not sure what they did to you?

Dude, I fought for this country. WTF have you done except blame all of your woes on a political party? My life is far from "ruined", and even if it was close to "ruined", it certainly wouldn't be because of some archaic fairy tales. You are the one that sounds miserable. About how awful California is and how the Mexicans are taking away your freedoms.

Nothing that you posted on you little list is remotely true. But if you think you are "protecting babies" because you are Pro-Life, then you are even a bigger dumbass than I could even imagine. Think about them innocent children every time you start your war-chants about Muslim countries.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

First why are you opposed to wall and security funding? News flash there is already wall over much of the border. Why are you democrats opposed to fixing, making it more secure adding additional?

You may see the fight as just a border wall. It is much bigger. You do realize that you are also on the side of actual states sponsoring illegals to cross the border as part of a greater political strategy right? California has pretty much blocked any means of documenting and tracking illegals in the state. You can not even ask if someone is a citizen for employment purposes. This whole thing is just not as simple as a wall.

Around the cities in california, put a Republican sticker on your car and see what happens to it.

A campaign slogan to incense dumbasses does not make a wall any "bigger". You fell for that BS, not me.

And there you go again. You are seriously a dishonest snake (now lecture me some more about Christianity while you constantly lie through your keyboard). I just said that "being opposed to a border wall doesn't make you anti-border security", but again, you have to try to rewrite the narrative because you cannot intellectually debate someone that is anti-wall, but pro-border security. Maybe you should just stick to conversing with Grant, Mark, and Father STD.

Originally Posted by wake77

Yeah, I feel the same way for that stand-up daughter of yours.

Much like your politics, you're stuck on repeat, find something new. Again, I feel sorry for your mother. She clearly a married a derelict that raised a low intelligence dip**** for a son.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

I will help answer this.

Actually much of the homelessness is because of drugs. These people medicate with drugs to escape mental disorders. Many people literally can not even stand to be in a shelter. I can not remember the movie. It is based on a true story. It stars Jamie Foxx. He plays this musician. Unfortunately you can not force these people to medicate and you can not institutionalize them. It is this whole rights thing.

As far as the growing population of homeless. Even people at Google live in their cars because they can not afford housing.

Another article:
https://nypost.com/2017/11/07/silico...-to-the-brink/
Silicon Valley’s ‘car people’ push homeless crisis to the brink

You should see the tent cities under the overpasses in the city. Most of it is the cities will not build housing yet pack in high density jobs. Most of these jobs now or days are cube farm work over there. They have the low growth initiatives yet they grow the business population.

Non of this is helped because it costs so much to even break ground for housing. The regulation costs to do any single thing in the state prevents people from even gaining access to the most basic parts of the economy. We had a old car we wanted to sell for basically nothing but could not. Why? It had a sensor out that threw a check engine light. The car actually ran great. Because of that light, we could not smog the car. No smog, no change of ownership. We had to donate it to a parts company where they are going to make a killing off the spare parts. More of the environmental scams.

Electric and Gas? Carbon taxes. Pulling billions out of the PG&E. They cut budgets else where like to I don't know. Cut trees by power lines? They have a couple fires blamed on brush and power lines. A city burns to the ground among other fires. Of course the state says they can be sued. PG&E claims bankruptcy if they can not raise prices. Price hikes on the way. Soon, it you don't have solar panels they will raise your electric rates to make up for the ones that do.. More hits to the poor.

Water? People only use 10% of the water. Yet when we were in the drought. They force reduction. Guess what, right on que the water companies could not afford to stay open due to the reduced usage. They get to raise the rates. One year later rains like crazy, everyone can go back to using their normal water. bills higher.

Shall I go on. The regulations are designed to force money out of the middle classes hands. It always does. That is why we don't want this for the rest of the US because the policies the people like the Obama's wanted is designed to pull the money out of the US workers hands to the third world. That is why I am so hostile to you democrats. At this point it can not be any more transparent and the fact you go along with it means you must be intentionally be an enemy to the average US citizen and worker.

So only democrats use drugs? Thanks for your opinion on the matter, but I fail to see how homelessness is only the fault of the democrats?

All of your other rambling is courteous of both parties over the years.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

Much like your politics, you're stuck on repeat, find something new. Again, I feel sorry for your mother. She clearly a married a derelict that raised a low intelligence dip**** for a son.

At least I have enough "intelligence" to not solicit advice from complete strangers on ways to keep my daughter from going around town, spreading her legs. Maybe you should worry more about your parenting and less about how my mother feels.

Now hurry up and get back to work. I'm sure cars at the drive-thru window are starting to back-up.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Help me out. Please point out where "You've been wrong on everything thus far," Really, take your time, find all those times.....I can wait for your list.

Dude's too worried about me being an embarrassment to my mother. This will be like the time he was wrong about a SC ruling and it took about three pages before he would admit he was wrong.

Originally Posted by wake77

At least I have enough "intelligence" to not solicit advice from complete strangers on ways to keep my daughter from going around town, spreading her legs. Maybe you should worry more about your parenting and less about how my mother feels.

Now hurry up and get back to work. I'm sure cars at the drive-thru window are starting to back-up.

You amuse me, without the media telling you what to say & do you're so low on thought process you can't come up with anything better so you just keep repeating it. Perhaps if you shot a quick message over to the CNN they can hold your hand & help your thought process much like they do with your daily life & you get a half way decent. Stooge. Run along, think it through, eventually something new will pop in that parroting only brain of yours.

You amuse me, without the media telling you what to say & do you're so low on thought process you can't come up with anything better so you just keep repeating it

Exactly why I am reading the report, zero outside bias either side. You should too so that you can have an educated and informed opinion.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Exactly why I am reading the report, zero outside bias either side. You should too so that you can have an educated and informed opinion.

One that wasn't directed at you, at all. Two, I've been reading through it. It may leave the obstruction up to congress, but it's moot because no crime was committed to obstruct & it states over & over there wasn't any intent to obstruct, just Trump voicing his displeasure. His asking assistants & such to terminate the investigation is not illegal & thankfully for the Cheeto others had better sense than him. The House may continue to take up the obstruction, they'll continue to go after taxes but neither will be nothing more than trying to run the clock out & they are all well aware their request for tax returns will be shot down by the courts & they don't have the votes to impeach. My spidy senses say the dems are going to pay a heavy price in 2020 including losing the house & more seats in the senate. Also with-in the report if you've gotten to certain sections, it paints a clear pathway for Barr to continue investigating the investigators & clears most of the key players the FBI lied about to obtain FISA.

So what your saying is that the POTUS tried over and over and over again to obstruct the investigation by instructing subordinates to lie, conceal and destroy evidence, including firing mueller but the people around him like Don McGahn refused to do what he said to do so trump didnt obstruct. Yeah, I see that too.


https://oversight.house.gov/news/pre...uellers-report

Originally Posted by 95sn

So what your saying is that the POTUS tried over and over and over again to obstruct the investigation by instructing subordinates to lie, conceal and destroy evidence, including firing mueller but the people around him like Don McGahn refused to do what he said to do so trump didnt obstruct. Yeah, I see that too.


https://oversight.house.gov/news/pre...uellers-report

Well you don't or you'd understand why they didn't charge him.

I fully understand why they didnt charge him. According to Justice Dept office of legal council , they have an opinion that a sitting us pres cannot be indicted. Trump could have murdered 6 muslims and half a dozen beheadings and he cant be charged. Mueller lived within the constraints of this OLC rule. There is nothing the pres could be indicted for so in no way does that mean he didnt do something. The good news is he can be indicted after leaving office or even impeached but I doubt dems will impeach. Easy in the House but the senate forgot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGjf1OvdBzU

and graham

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ9hpQoWIrQ

Originally Posted by wake77

A campaign slogan to incense dumbasses does not make a wall any "bigger". You fell for that BS, not me.

And there you go again. You are seriously a dishonest snake (now lecture me some more about Christianity while you constantly lie through your keyboard). I just said that "being opposed to a border wall doesn't make you anti-border security", but again, you have to try to rewrite the narrative because you cannot intellectually debate someone that is anti-wall, but pro-border security. Maybe you should just stick to conversing with Grant, Mark, and Father STD.

I have been talking about border security for 20 years. It has zero to do with a political campaign slogan. The narrative is the narrative. We are talking about the democrat party and what they stand for. You may be for border security but all the people you support and frankly most democrats are for open borders. Even the governor of california is for it as well as past governors were for it. Point is, you seem to not be the person I am talking about but you certainly pull the lever for the ones who do. Your position reminds me of the person who wants to buy a car. Wants it loaded with power everything and big v8. Finally finds it even in the right color then sees that they don't like shift knob so they settle for a little 4 banger with hand crank windows because the shift knob looks nicer..

Originally Posted by wake77

So only democrats use drugs? Thanks for your opinion on the matter, but I fail to see how homelessness is only the fault of the democrats?

All of your other rambling is courteous of both parties over the years.

The policies of regulation push the very minimum bar of getting housing, food, energy and transportation to such a high level that poor people can not even participate.

Drugs. Not a democrat problem though they certainly do support plenty of illegals to help with moving drugs over the borders. Other than that, drugs and mental illness are not a political party issue. Though liberalism is a mental disorder, however it is a choice.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Exactly why I am reading the report, zero outside bias either side. You should too so that you can have an educated and informed opinion.

Uh... You are the definition of bias when it comes to this topic.

Ouch. How about chewing on this:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opini...ngs/index.html
Mueller's report looks bad for Obama

The Mueller report flatly states that Russia began interfering in American democracy in 2014. Over the next couple of years, the effort blossomed into a robust attempt to interfere in our 2016 presidential election. The Obama administration knew this was going on and yet did nothing. In 2016, Obama's National Security Adviser Susan Rice told her staff to "stand down" and "knock it off" as they drew up plans to "strike back" against the Russians, according to an account from Michael Isikoff and David Corn in their book "Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump".

If you consider Russian election interference a crisis for our democracy, then you cannot read the Mueller report, adding it to the available public evidence, and conclude anything other than Barack Obama spectacularly failed America. Subsequent investigations of this matter should explore how and why Obama's White House failed, and whether they invented the collusion narrative to cover up those failures.

Delta, if Obama "failed" to act quick enough to satisfy you, how do you feel about the grifters reaction to Russians attacking our democracy?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Ouch. How about chewing on this:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opini...ngs/index.html
Mueller's report looks bad for Obama

The Mueller report flatly states that Russia began interfering in American democracy in 2014. Over the next couple of years, the effort blossomed into a robust attempt to interfere in our 2016 presidential election. The Obama administration knew this was going on and yet did nothing. In 2016, Obama's National Security Adviser Susan Rice told her staff to "stand down" and "knock it off" as they drew up plans to "strike back" against the Russians, according to an account from Michael Isikoff and David Corn in their book "Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump".

If you consider Russian election interference a crisis for our democracy, then you cannot read the Mueller report, adding it to the available public evidence, and conclude anything other than Barack Obama spectacularly failed America. Subsequent investigations of this matter should explore how and why Obama's White House failed, and whether they invented the collusion narrative to cover up those failures.

Here's the difference, Delta. Obama told the Russians to knock it off or they would face consequences. Trump was encouraging the Russians to release Hillary's emails and having his campaign team arrange meetings.

Yet, par for the course, you blame Obama. Instead of wasting time trying to restate Trump's words in your own, you should just post links to his Twitter account. It's the only thing you ever post.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

The policies of regulation push the very minimum bar of getting housing, food, energy and transportation to such a high level that poor people can not even participate.

Drugs. Not a democrat problem though they certainly do support plenty of illegals to help with moving drugs over the borders. Other than that, drugs and mental illness are not a political party issue. Though liberalism is a mental disorder, however it is a choice.

Almost all of the illegal drugs that enter this country come through ports of entry. Immigrants aren't smuggling these drugs in backpacks. But nice strawman.

So poverty and homelessness didn't exist prior to these "policies of regulation" of which you speak?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

I have been talking about border security for 20 years. It has zero to do with a political campaign slogan. The narrative is the narrative. We are talking about the democrat party and what they stand for. You may be for border security but all the people you support and frankly most democrats are for open borders. Even the governor of california is for it as well as past governors were for it. Point is, you seem to not be the person I am talking about but you certainly pull the lever for the ones who do. Your position reminds me of the person who wants to buy a car. Wants it loaded with power everything and big v8. Finally finds it even in the right color then sees that they don't like shift knob so they settle for a little 4 banger with hand crank windows because the shift knob looks nicer..

Why do you think that I support every stance that the democrats support? You are the prime example of why the two-party system is a crock of ****. I would love the opportunity to look at other parties to support. I have never been loyal to a political party, never. I have voted republican numerous times. I even volunteered for Weston Wamp's campaign when he ran for Congress in 2014, not because he was a republican, but because I felt he would be the best candidate to represent this region. I would never support a person solely on the basis of their political party.

Most democrats are not for open borders, regardless of how often you try to say it.

"My position"? You don't even know what my position is, because you spend all of your time trying to generalize my position.

Again, being anti-wall does not make a person anti-border security.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

Well you don't or you'd understand why they didn't charge him.

The report says there is a precedent concerning sitting presidents. I guess you just overlooked that part.

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

You amuse me, without the media telling you what to say & do you're so low on thought process you can't come up with anything better so you just keep repeating it. Perhaps if you shot a quick message over to the CNN they can hold your hand & help your thought process much like they do with your daily life & you get a half way decent. Stooge. Run along, think it through, eventually something new will pop in that parroting only brain of yours.

Oh really? Who was the person boasting about a SC court ruling that never happened? Oh right, that was you. Talk about "low on thought process". You have to invent news. And then will people call you on your BS, you still tried to talk your way out of it.

Just admit you are a dumbass and move on. It's apparent you are incapable of having an adult conversation. You have to resort to the standard Trumpster replies: "You are a snowflake", "You are being lied to by CNN and the mainstream media", blah, blah, blah. You are the one waiting for Trump and his cronies to tell "you what to say & do". It's obvious that you just repeat his punchlines. Maybe I am a "Stooge", but at least I am original.

A gleaming example of the honesty of the GOP (I can now see why Delta supports their stance of immigration):

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...5T6?li=BBnbfcL

this thread is cancer

Originally Posted by stevo8290

this thread is cancer

only if you read it for validation of truth. If you want to see (even even potentially understand) what the other side is thinking, this thread is great.

Originally Posted by wake77

Here's the difference, Delta. Obama told the Russians to knock it off or they would face consequences. Trump was encouraging the Russians to release Hillary's emails and having his campaign team arrange meetings.

Yet, par for the course, you blame Obama. Instead of wasting time trying to restate Trump's words in your own, you should just post links to his Twitter account. It's the only thing you ever post.

Not according to the CNN article I referenced. Not my words. Those were posted on CNN.

Originally Posted by wake77

Why do you think that I support every stance that the democrats support? You are the prime example of why the two-party system is a crock of ****. I would love the opportunity to look at other parties to support. I have never been loyal to a political party, never. I have voted republican numerous times. I even volunteered for Weston Wamp's campaign when he ran for Congress in 2014, not because he was a republican, but because I felt he would be the best candidate to represent this region. I would never support a person solely on the basis of their political party.

Most democrats are not for open borders, regardless of how often you try to say it.

"My position"? You don't even know what my position is, because you spend all of your time trying to generalize my position.

Again, being anti-wall does not make a person anti-border security.

Now we are getting some common ground. You guys seem to think I support every Republican position. I support most, however I see a middle ground on worker vs employer rights. I even sway more to employee rights than employer rights. The reason I ties you and the other democrats to democrat things is well...... You are democrats. I know for a fact the democrat party has left middle America. That is why I am on here yelling it from the rooftops.

As far as being open borders. You may not be, however your party certainly is.

Originally Posted by wake77

Almost all of the illegal drugs that enter this country come through ports of entry. Immigrants aren't smuggling these drugs in backpacks. But nice strawman.

So poverty and homelessness didn't exist prior to these "policies of regulation" of which you speak?

Most drugs do not come through ports of entry. is that why they bust drug tunnels all the time? Or they would run drugs all the time in airplanes and boats to drop off locations? I don't buy the ports of entry argument.

poverty and homelessness did exist, however it has changed by orders of magnitude in the last 20 years. Even in the last few years. The placed where my wife would park for work are not homeless camps.

Delta, you seemed pissed that Obama "Spectacularly failed America". He did kick Russians out of the usa and confiscated their mansions, in addition he sanctioned them.
What has been the grifters spectacular attack on these Russians? Every single intelligence and security force in the USA has 100% determined Russia did it. The only thing I see evidence of him doing is firing the head of our cyber security and not replacing him. Pleas explain the thinking on this.

https://nationalcybersecurity.com/do...rted-building/

Russia already got the grifter into office once...Is trump inviting more election assistance from the kremlin? Make America great by making us weak?

The mueller report confirmed the mainstream media was right and the grifter and fox was the whiney snowflake all along. His crying fake news was just that.

In order to protect the country one has to hide the fact they are trying from putins puppet.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald...tell-president

did he replace head of Homeland security yet? No? Hard to believe he remembers the oath. Such a patriot. lol

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Most drugs do not come through ports of entry. is that why they bust drug tunnels all the time? Or they would run drugs all the time in airplanes and boats to drop off locations? I don't buy the ports of entry argument.

poverty and homelessness did exist, however it has changed by orders of magnitude in the last 20 years. Even in the last few years. The placed where my wife would park for work are not homeless camps.

Mike Pence and US boarder and customs protection service disagrees with you

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ll/2591279002/

Originally Posted by ralph

Mike Pence and US boarder and customs protection service disagrees with you

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ll/2591279002/

You realize that is Seized drugs right? The point to be made is if you put the wall up, you force the drugs through the ports of entry where .....wait for it...... you have the resources to actually catch more of the drugs entering the country. Other than that, democrats lovers like you guys should understand how crime works considering majority of those in jail are democrats.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Delta, you seemed pissed that Obama "Spectacularly failed America". He did kick Russians out of the usa and confiscated their mansions, in addition he sanctioned them.
What has been the grifters spectacular attack on these Russians? Every single intelligence and security force in the USA has 100% determined Russia did it. The only thing I see evidence of him doing is firing the head of our cyber security and not replacing him. Pleas explain the thinking on this.

https://nationalcybersecurity.com/do...rted-building/

Russia already got the grifter into office once...Is trump inviting more election assistance from the kremlin? Make America great by making us weak?

The mueller report confirmed the mainstream media was right and the grifter and fox was the whiney snowflake all along. His crying fake news was just that.

I'm not pissed at all. You are the one running around like a kid with their head on fire talking about collusion for 2 years. YOU were proven wrong in spectacular fashion. Then near the end you tried to change the narrative that you were just worried about collusion in general and people helping the Russians. Well, I just posted an article FROM CNN talking about how Obama new about it and in fact that his people were trying to stop it and OBAMA ORDERED THEM TO NOT STOP THE RUSSIANS. I thought a nice well thought out non biased person such as yourself would want to know such information? I mean this after all was all about keeping the Russians from playing a part in our politics right? Now that you have the goods, lets see your unbiased self pull on that string where a sitting US president let it happen on purpose.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Delta, you seemed pissed that Obama "Spectacularly failed America". He did kick Russians out of the usa and confiscated their mansions, in addition he sanctioned them.
What has been the grifters spectacular attack on these Russians? Every single intelligence and security force in the USA has 100% determined Russia did it. The only thing I see evidence of him doing is firing the head of our cyber security and not replacing him. Pleas explain the thinking on this.

https://nationalcybersecurity.com/do...rted-building/

Russia already got the grifter into office once...Is trump inviting more election assistance from the kremlin? Make America great by making us weak?

The mueller report confirmed the mainstream media was right and the grifter and fox was the whiney snowflake all along. His crying fake news was just that.

You also realize the article I posted from CNN points out that the actions from Obama came after the election right? Now go gettem tiger!!!

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

YOU were proven wrong in spectacular fashion.

Fox News:

"When former FBI Director James Comey informed Mueller that he believed Trump fired him because he had declined Trump's order to shut down the investigation of Trump's campaign and of his former national security advisor, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Mueller began to investigate whether the president had unlawfully attempted to obstruct those investigations. We now know why Trump was so anxious for the FBI to leave Flynn alone."

"The Constitution prescribes treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors as the sole bases for impeachment. We know that obstruction of justice constitutes an impeachable offense under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" rubric because both presidents in the modern era who were subject to impeachment proceedings -- Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton -- were charged with obstructing justice.

Obstruction is a rare crime that is rarely completed. Stated differently, the obstructer need not succeed in order to be charged with obstruction. That's because the statute itself prohibits attempting to impede or interfere with any government proceeding for a corrupt or self-serving purpose."

"Thus, if my neighbor tackles me on my way into a courthouse in order to impede a jury from hearing my testimony, and, though delayed, I still make it to the courthouse and testify, then the neighbor is guilty of obstruction because he attempted to impede the work of the jury that was waiting to hear me.

Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump -- from asking former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter about the reason for Flynn's chat with Kislyak, to asking Corey Lewandowski and then-former White House Counse lDon McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn to lie about it, to firing Comey to impede the FBI's investigations, to dangling a pardon in front of Michael Cohen to stay silent, to ordering his aides to hide and delete records."

"Mueller knew that Barr would block an indictment of Trump because Barr has a personal view of obstruction at odds with the statute itself. Barr's view requires that the obstructer has done his obstructing in order to impede the investigation or prosecution of a crime that the obstructer himself has committed. Thus, in this narrow view, because Trump did not commit the crime of conspiracy with the Russians, it was legally impossible for Trump to have obstructed the FBI investigation of that crime.

The nearly universal view of law enforcement, however, is that the obstruction statute prohibits all attempted self-serving interference with government investigations or proceedings. Thus, as Georgetown Professor Neal Katyal recently pointed out, former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was convicted of obstruction for interfering with an investigation of his extramarital affair, even though the affair was lawful.

Famously, Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of an investigation into her alleged insider trading, even though the insider trading charges against her had been dismissed. And a federal appeals court recently upheld the obstruction conviction of a defendant who suborned perjury in order to impede the prosecution of the sister of a childhood friend."

"The president's job is to enforce federal law. If he had ordered its violation to save innocent life or preserve human freedom, he would have a moral defense. But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable."


https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judg...struct-justice

Originally Posted by pesos

Fox News:

"When former FBI Director James Comey informed Mueller that he believed Trump fired him because he had declined Trump's order to shut down the investigation of Trump's campaign and of his former national security advisor, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Mueller began to investigate whether the president had unlawfully attempted to obstruct those investigations. We now know why Trump was so anxious for the FBI to leave Flynn alone."

"The Constitution prescribes treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors as the sole bases for impeachment. We know that obstruction of justice constitutes an impeachable offense under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" rubric because both presidents in the modern era who were subject to impeachment proceedings -- Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton -- were charged with obstructing justice.

Obstruction is a rare crime that is rarely completed. Stated differently, the obstructer need not succeed in order to be charged with obstruction. That's because the statute itself prohibits attempting to impede or interfere with any government proceeding for a corrupt or self-serving purpose."

"Thus, if my neighbor tackles me on my way into a courthouse in order to impede a jury from hearing my testimony, and, though delayed, I still make it to the courthouse and testify, then the neighbor is guilty of obstruction because he attempted to impede the work of the jury that was waiting to hear me.

Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump -- from asking former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter about the reason for Flynn's chat with Kislyak, to asking Corey Lewandowski and then-former White House Counse lDon McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn to lie about it, to firing Comey to impede the FBI's investigations, to dangling a pardon in front of Michael Cohen to stay silent, to ordering his aides to hide and delete records."

"Mueller knew that Barr would block an indictment of Trump because Barr has a personal view of obstruction at odds with the statute itself. Barr's view requires that the obstructer has done his obstructing in order to impede the investigation or prosecution of a crime that the obstructer himself has committed. Thus, in this narrow view, because Trump did not commit the crime of conspiracy with the Russians, it was legally impossible for Trump to have obstructed the FBI investigation of that crime.

The nearly universal view of law enforcement, however, is that the obstruction statute prohibits all attempted self-serving interference with government investigations or proceedings. Thus, as Georgetown Professor Neal Katyal recently pointed out, former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was convicted of obstruction for interfering with an investigation of his extramarital affair, even though the affair was lawful.

Famously, Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of an investigation into her alleged insider trading, even though the insider trading charges against her had been dismissed. And a federal appeals court recently upheld the obstruction conviction of a defendant who suborned perjury in order to impede the prosecution of the sister of a childhood friend."

"The president's job is to enforce federal law. If he had ordered its violation to save innocent life or preserve human freedom, he would have a moral defense. But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable."


https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judg...struct-justice

Was this 2 years about collusion or obstruction. asking for a friend? Good news. Trump will not be charged for obstruction so there is that. It is peoples opinions if any of it is obstruction. By definition Trump could have fired every single one of them as he is there boss. Still would not have been obstruction. Congress can not indict a president either so all of this is just as it always was and that is just a political show. Never seen a group of people so angry that a president did not collude with a foreign government in all my life. That tells me how treasonous you democrats are.

Originally Posted by pesos

Fox News:

"When former FBI Director James Comey informed Mueller that he believed Trump fired him because he had declined Trump's order to shut down the investigation of Trump's campaign and of his former national security advisor, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Mueller began to investigate whether the president had unlawfully attempted to obstruct those investigations. We now know why Trump was so anxious for the FBI to leave Flynn alone."

"The Constitution prescribes treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors as the sole bases for impeachment. We know that obstruction of justice constitutes an impeachable offense under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" rubric because both presidents in the modern era who were subject to impeachment proceedings -- Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton -- were charged with obstructing justice.

Obstruction is a rare crime that is rarely completed. Stated differently, the obstructer need not succeed in order to be charged with obstruction. That's because the statute itself prohibits attempting to impede or interfere with any government proceeding for a corrupt or self-serving purpose."

"Thus, if my neighbor tackles me on my way into a courthouse in order to impede a jury from hearing my testimony, and, though delayed, I still make it to the courthouse and testify, then the neighbor is guilty of obstruction because he attempted to impede the work of the jury that was waiting to hear me.

Mueller laid out at least a half-dozen crimes of obstruction committed by Trump -- from asking former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter about the reason for Flynn's chat with Kislyak, to asking Corey Lewandowski and then-former White House Counse lDon McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn to lie about it, to firing Comey to impede the FBI's investigations, to dangling a pardon in front of Michael Cohen to stay silent, to ordering his aides to hide and delete records."

"Mueller knew that Barr would block an indictment of Trump because Barr has a personal view of obstruction at odds with the statute itself. Barr's view requires that the obstructer has done his obstructing in order to impede the investigation or prosecution of a crime that the obstructer himself has committed. Thus, in this narrow view, because Trump did not commit the crime of conspiracy with the Russians, it was legally impossible for Trump to have obstructed the FBI investigation of that crime.

The nearly universal view of law enforcement, however, is that the obstruction statute prohibits all attempted self-serving interference with government investigations or proceedings. Thus, as Georgetown Professor Neal Katyal recently pointed out, former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was convicted of obstruction for interfering with an investigation of his extramarital affair, even though the affair was lawful.

Famously, Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of an investigation into her alleged insider trading, even though the insider trading charges against her had been dismissed. And a federal appeals court recently upheld the obstruction conviction of a defendant who suborned perjury in order to impede the prosecution of the sister of a childhood friend."

"The president's job is to enforce federal law. If he had ordered its violation to save innocent life or preserve human freedom, he would have a moral defense. But ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable."


https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judg...struct-justice

Are you saying that destroying 32 cell phones when under investigation is obstruction of justice?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Are you saying that destroying 32 cell phones when under investigation is obstruction of justice?

“I did not say anything. This is from your friends Fox News” rofl

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You realize that is Seized drugs right? The point to be made is if you put the wall up, you force the drugs through the ports of entry where .....wait for it...... you have the resources to actually catch more of the drugs entering the country. Other than that, democrats lovers like you guys should understand how crime works considering majority of those in jail are democrats.

You realize that issue is addressed in the article and the border security services and Pence himself both say that the majority of drugs come via the boarder because its easier and cheaper to move large quantities of drugs via the boarder rather than over open ground, even if a percentage of it is caught? Too much reading for you? Want me to draw a diagram for you? Your just like your hero Trump, doesn't like to read briefings, would rather continue to believe nonsense because reading is hard, and besides he knows he is the smartest guy in the room. LOL.

Originally Posted by pesos

“I did not say anything. This is from your friends Fox News” rofl

Then it sounds like your friends at Fox News thinks Hillary is very guilty because that is exactly what she did.

Originally Posted by ralph

You realize that issue is addressed in the article and the border security services and Pence himself both say that the majority of drugs come via the boarder because its easier and cheaper to move large quantities of drugs via the boarder rather than over open ground, even if a percentage of it is caught? Too much reading for you? Want me to draw a diagram for you? Your just like your hero Trump, doesn't like to read briefings, would rather continue to believe nonsense because reading is hard, and besides he knows he is the smartest guy in the room. LOL.

Let me ask you this. How would they know how much they did not catch if they did not catch it? Reading is not hard, however bull**** is easy enough to see.

Originally Posted by ralph

You realize that issue is addressed in the article and the border security services and Pence himself both say that the majority of drugs come via the boarder because its easier and cheaper to move large quantities of drugs via the boarder rather than over open ground, even if a percentage of it is caught? Too much reading for you? Want me to draw a diagram for you? Your just like your hero Trump, doesn't like to read briefings, would rather continue to believe nonsense because reading is hard, and besides he knows he is the smartest guy in the room. LOL.

Besides, I am more worried about illegals and their children influencing our elections and pulling billions of tax dollars from the workers. Do these people sneak through the points of entry like the drugs or do they come over land through other areas? California democrats pretty much made drugs legal in the state so why does it matter? Police can not even arrest you for shooting up in front of them.

Originally Posted by ralph

You realize that issue is addressed in the article and the border security services and Pence himself both say that the majority of drugs come via the boarder because its easier and cheaper to move large quantities of drugs via the boarder rather than over open ground, even if a percentage of it is caught? Too much reading for you? Want me to draw a diagram for you? Your just like your hero Trump, doesn't like to read briefings, would rather continue to believe nonsense because reading is hard, and besides he knows he is the smartest guy in the room. LOL.

By the way from your article that you did not read:

While those numbers deal only with drugs that are caught, border experts say the data accurately reflect the way drug cartels successfully smuggle narcotics into the country.

Who are these un-named experts?

You also realize the article I posted from CNN points out that the actions from Obama came after the election right? Now go gettem tiger!!!

I'm not pissed at all. You are the one running around like a kid with their head on fire talking about collusion for 2 years. YOU were proven wrong in spectacular fashion. Then near the end you tried to change the narrative that you were just worried about collusion in general and people helping the Russians. Well, I just posted an article FROM CNN talking about how Obama new about it and in fact that his people were trying to stop it and OBAMA ORDERED THEM TO NOT STOP THE RUSSIANS. I thought a nice well thought out non biased person such as yourself would want to know such information? I mean this after all was all about keeping the Russians from playing a part in our politics right? Now that you have the goods, lets see your unbiased self pull on that string where a sitting US president let it happen on purpose.

I was wrong? That mueller did not charge does not make me wrong. There is a boatload of evidence and it is a very difficult charge to prove. It takes several elements to prove Conspiracy. In each of muellers examples he would have 3 of the 4 requirements yet not all 4. It makes it next to impossible when the target of the investigation refuses to cooperate and answer questions. He directed his associates to lie to the special council, hide and destroy evidence and obstruct. Did he learn that from hillary? So you are excited the grifter got off on conspiracy by way of technicalities? Thats how low your bar is?
I did read your opinion piece from cnn, written by Mitch McConnels campaign advisor. Its just his opinion.
The russian investigation started when? mid 2016? When did they know for sure? In less than 6 months obama kicked out russias diplomats, confiscated two mansions AND sanctioned them. Trump immediatly began reducing those sanctions. It has been over 2 years now, What else has the grifter done to stop Russians from attacking our american voting rights? He seems to know he needs their help or he has no chance.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/andre...b081706966eb7f

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...ller-proved-it

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Besides, I am more worried about illegals and their children influencing our elections and pulling billions of tax dollars from the workers. Do these people sneak through the points of entry like the drugs or do they come over land through other areas? California democrats pretty much made drugs legal in the state so why does it matter? Police can not even arrest you for shooting up in front of them.

Well, actually more illegal immigrants are overstaying Visas as opposed to illegally crossing the border. But that is probably not the answer you were expecting, nor will you choose to believe it.

You are wrong about how drugs are entering this country, so you just need to stop trying to justify your lie.

This article pretty much sums everything up as far as where we are right now.

https://news.yahoo.com/why-trump-win...112700761.html

or, its just a Fluff piece. Even your Fluff lies just like Barr...he is hiding from congress right now because he lied. Trump refusing to cooperate with all the subpoenas hitting him. Ordering WH staff not to cooperate with subpoenas, refusing subpoenas on his tax returns, his biz financials, suing his banks so they wont cooperate... His obstruction and lying is ratcheting up, he must be panicking. The picture of transparancy. LOL.

Originally Posted by wake77

Well, actually more illegal immigrants are overstaying Visas as opposed to illegally crossing the border. But that is probably not the answer you were expecting, nor will you choose to believe it.

You are wrong about how drugs are entering this country, so you just need to stop trying to justify your lie.

Again, how do you know? The only reason you know about the Visa overstays is well.....They were documented. Illegals are not documented and the state of California stopped collecting information on them on purpose.