morgan, maybe before you make a comment about how hard working they are you should try living around them for awhile. In the 70’s I would’ve agreed with you. I’ve worked side by side with them. But by the 80’s & 90’s a new type of illegal started showing up. The ones that had absolutely no desire to work. They were here for one reason and that was to game the system.
I’ve helped them as best as I could and in return they tried to kill me.
So until you live around them( move into “their” neighborhood) and see how welcome you really are gringa you shouldn’t defend something you know nothing about.
Most of them are now here to wipe the “whites” out of America. Oh and by the way they really want to get rid of all the useless blacks( their words not mine).

I've tried to keep an open mind about this president. I truly have. I believe that people can change, and that there is a positive side to almost everyone. Those positions are not only strained to the breaking point in his case, but in many instances have been broken, stomped on and had acid poured on the remains.
To start with, let's talk about the 'Russia thing'. The special counsel has now issued sixteen indictments of Russian operatives, laying out specifics that are hard to deny. His National Security Advisor (privy to the highest levels of intelligence) has said that the information and results of the indictments are 'incontrovertable.' The president didn't deny the facts presented, but attempted to point our attention to "those bright shiny objects over there." From his tweet:
"General McMaster forgot to say that the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the Russians and that the only Collusion was between Russia and Crooked H, the DNC and the Dems. Remember the Dirty Dossier, Uranium, Speeches, Emails and the Podesta Company!"
Item 1: Whether or not the election results were affected by the Russians was not addressed in the indictments. It is still an unknown.
Item 2: Likewise, the indictments said nothing about the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
Item 3: There is no allegation nor proof of collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Russians.
Item 4: Collusion between the DNC and the Russians has not be alleged (other than by the president) nor has any proof been offered.
Item 5: The 'Dirty Dossier' is the result of some hard=nosed intelligence work, and has been verified in many aspects as to its accuracy.
Item 6: 'Uranium' has been debunked so many times that it is hardly worth noting.
Item 7: What speeches?
Item 8: I assume that he's referring to the Clinton server/email controversy, for which Hillary has admitted was a wrong decision, but there is no evidence to prove any loss of classified data.
Item 9: The Podesta Company I guess is referring to the campaign chairman's company, but in what respect and for what reason I can't recall.
As to the idea of collusion, it can take many forms. I doubt that there is any 'smoking gun' that can be pointed to as definitive legal proof of collusion. I'll be the first to say that. There will be no proof.
But all the collateral evidence points to at least tacit approval of the help in molding American public opinion in Russia's favor.

Point: The Russians wanted sanctions relief, and the Trump Tower meeting was all about that.
Point: Immediately after the election, the administration tried to start the lifting process on those sanctions, but was prevented from doing so by Congress.
Point: The president has yet (after over a year in office and a year on the campaign trail) to say a single bad thing about Russia or Vladimir Putin.
Point: The White House routinely refuses to inform the press and public about the numerous phone calls and meetings with Putin. The public usually finds out from the Russian press outlets.
Point: The administration has resisted implementing new sanctions on Russia and has not given a rational explanation as to why it is defying Congress.
All this adds up to significant weight in favor of the theory that the Russians/Putin have some incriminating evidence that they are using as leverage against the President. If you can come up with a better theory, please have at it. I'd love to hear any rational theory that explains this phenomenon.
The president has shown no restraint in trashing both foe and friend alike (both personal and national) and provoking nasty reactions from many. Yet he won't take even the slightest swipe at the Russian government or Putin. There has to be a reason.
Couple this with the fact that more than fifty of his advisors and staff in the West Wing cannot get permanent security clearances but have access to the most highly classified intelligence data. That would imply to me that there are serious security concerns when it comes to possible leaks of that data to Russian operatives. Have any of these people been compromised? Has the President? The President himself gave the Russians some highly classified information when the Russian Foriegn Minister and Ambassador visited the Oval Office for the first time in decades. Oh, and by the way, we had no knowledge of this meeting except through the Russian media.
One of the top Air Force commanders was quoted as saying that the President could not pass the psychological review that all personnel with access to nuclear weapons have to complete successfully. What does this say? Those veterans out there surely would have to weigh in on the negative side of this situation.

But we're stuck with him for another three years. All we can do is try to keep the governmental train from wrecking totally, and rebuilding the whole thing with a new president. Impeachment is not an answer … we'd have an emptier 'suit' in the White House who actually knows how the levers of government are pulled. That would be a disaster of even greater magnitude.

I've tried to keep an open mind about this president. I truly have. I believe that people can change, and that there is a positive side to almost everyone. Those positions are not only strained to the breaking point in his case, but in many instances have been broken, stomped on and had acid poured on the remains.
To start with, let's talk about the 'Russia thing'. The special counsel has now issued sixteen indictments of Russian operatives, laying out specifics that are hard to deny. His National Security Advisor (privy to the highest levels of intelligence) has said that the information and results of the indictments are 'incontrovertable.' The president didn't deny the facts presented, but attempted to point our attention to "those bright shiny objects over there." From his tweet:
"General McMaster forgot to say that the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the Russians and that the only Collusion was between Russia and Crooked H, the DNC and the Dems. Remember the Dirty Dossier, Uranium, Speeches, Emails and the Podesta Company!"
Item 1: Whether or not the election results were affected by the Russians was not addressed in the indictments. It is still an unknown.
Item 2: Likewise, the indictments said nothing about the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
Item 3: There is no allegation nor proof of collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Russians.
Item 4: Collusion between the DNC and the Russians has not be alleged (other than by the president) nor has any proof been offered.
Item 5: The 'Dirty Dossier' is the result of some hard=nosed intelligence work, and has been verified in many aspects as to its accuracy.
Item 6: 'Uranium' has been debunked so many times that it is hardly worth noting.
Item 7: What speeches?
Item 8: I assume that he's referring to the Clinton server/email controversy, for which Hillary has admitted was a wrong decision, but there is no evidence to prove any loss of classified data.
Item 9: The Podesta Company I guess is referring to the campaign chairman's company, but in what respect and for what reason I can't recall.
As to the idea of collusion, it can take many forms. I doubt that there is any 'smoking gun' that can be pointed to as definitive legal proof of collusion. I'll be the first to say that. There will be no proof.
But all the collateral evidence points to at least tacit approval of the help in molding American public opinion in Russia's favor.

Point: The Russians wanted sanctions relief, and the Trump Tower meeting was all about that.
Point: Immediately after the election, the administration tried to start the lifting process on those sanctions, but was prevented from doing so by Congress.
Point: The president has yet (after over a year in office and a year on the campaign trail) to say a single bad thing about Russia or Vladimir Putin.
Point: The White House routinely refuses to inform the press and public about the numerous phone calls and meetings with Putin. The public usually finds out from the Russian press outlets.
Point: The administration has resisted implementing new sanctions on Russia and has not given a rational explanation as to why it is defying Congress.
All this adds up to significant weight in favor of the theory that the Russians/Putin have some incriminating evidence that they are using as leverage against the President. If you can come up with a better theory, please have at it. I'd love to hear any rational theory that explains this phenomenon.
The president has shown no restraint in trashing both foe and friend alike (both personal and national) and provoking nasty reactions from many. Yet he won't take even the slightest swipe at the Russian government or Putin. There has to be a reason.
Couple this with the fact that more than fifty of his advisors and staff in the West Wing cannot get permanent security clearances but have access to the most highly classified intelligence data. That would imply to me that there are serious security concerns when it comes to possible leaks of that data to Russian operatives. Have any of these people been compromised? Has the President? The President himself gave the Russians some highly classified information when the Russian Foriegn Minister and Ambassador visited the Oval Office for the first time in decades. Oh, and by the way, we had no knowledge of this meeting except through the Russian media.
One of the top Air Force commanders was quoted as saying that the President could not pass the psychological review that all personnel with access to nuclear weapons have to complete successfully. What does this say? Those veterans out there surely would have to weigh in on the negative side of this situation.

But we're stuck with him for another three years. All we can do is try to keep the governmental train from wrecking totally, and rebuilding the whole thing with a new president. Impeachment is not an answer … we'd have an emptier 'suit' in the White House who actually knows how the levers of government are pulled. That would be a disaster of even greater magnitude.