All Episodes
Previous Next
June 13, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:22
June 13, 2013, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, Views Expressed by the host on this program, documented to be almost always right 99.7% of the time.
This is EIB.
It's an airborne phenomenon spread by casual contact.
When you get it, you are cured.
You don't need an antidote because it is the antidote.
Great to have you back, folks.
Telephone number 800 282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address L Rushboard EIB net.com yesterday, Foxboro, Massachusetts at Gillette Stadium, the owner of the New England Patriots, Robert Kraft spoke with reporters about the signing of quarterback Tim Tebow.
Personally having Tim Tebow on this team.
He's someone who believes in spirituality, he's very competitive and works hard and has a great attitude and you know is a winner.
And whenever you can get, you know, a competitive first grade person to join your team, you know, you never know what happens.
That is amazing.
And should engender a little hope for people who think that such things are taboo in uh in professional sports.
I mean, Tebow's spirituality is the reason the media hates him.
Tebow's spirituality is the reason he's made fun of by the media.
Tebow's spirituality is the reason people are so afraid of what he might bring to a locker room.
And yet the owner of the Patriots says that's the stuff of winners.
And we're happy to have him.
And by the way, he doesn't have any guaranteed money.
He's got to perform.
Two-year deal, league minimum, and he's a quarterback.
And everybody knows that Tom Brady is the quarterback of that team.
So it's impossible to have a quarterback controversy like existed in New York with the Jets.
The fans are never going to be screaming for Tebow.
They don't want Brady to come off the field.
So they'll find other uses for Tebow.
So it could be actually an ideal situation for him.
But Kraft said something else there that is true about Tebow.
And it's an intangible.
He's a winner.
But he's not conventional.
So it's interesting.
It's a it's a it's a heartwarming thing.
I want to return to Michael in Westfield, New York.
Michael, if my memory serves right, your class was uh what was it, rhetoric and criticism?
Is that what the name of your class?
I remember that right?
Yes.
Uh would you we have a little bit more time here?
Would your review for people uh when when you called the program to originally tell me about this back in April, you already were up to speed.
I mean, you were clearly uh a person who got me and got this program, yet you still had some questions.
Just what what were a couple of questions that you asked me?
Well, my my main thing was I wanted to run by you uh if you thought what what I had assessed about your show was correct.
And I uh I I thought I told you I thought that uh that the success of your show in terms of content was a lot of it had to do with the fact that you brought high energy top 4D radio to politics and also the fact that even now still among conservative radio talk show hosts, your your satirical humor uh really sets you apart, and it brings a lot of people to the program and a lot of people.
I'll tell you what intrigued me about about you.
Um it's very few people, and including Michael in the radio business, very few people who understand why this program is a success.
I eschewed all of the so-called uh trails that you're supposed to follow.
I didn't network, I didn't get to know people.
I I didn't know who the powers at B were in ownership or management.
I didn't do any of that.
All I wanted to do was be on the radio and do a show the way I always wanted to do it.
I'd never really been allowed to do that up until 1984 when I went to Sacramento, California.
And what you got was that there were inherent requirements for the broadcasting business, in addition to the content that were necess necessary for success.
And I can't tell you how perceptive you are because there most of the people, consultants, management in a radio business still don't understand it.
They chalk it up to the conservative content or they chalk it up to playing music during breaks, bumpers going into commercial, but but the the actual skill set every business has one that's unique to it.
And broadcasting has its own skill set.
And you you picked up on that you but when when you observed that uh I brought the the uh well the characteristics of top forty radio to the talk format which are discipline in any number of areas.
I just I I really was amazed by that.
So anyway now back to you.
Back to your I just I wanted to make the audience bring them back up to speed as to as to who you are and what you're doing.
So you put together your term paper on me.
Now it's time to present it to the class you have a PowerPoint presentation you show up you get a 100 plus from your from your uh professor on the paper itself but the second half of it is presentation to class.
You're doing that.
You start out with your PowerPoint presentation, much like the prism slides were.
And you start getting reactions from the students.
Would you detail, if you could, their transformation from scowls to smile?
Well, the transformation tied in with the progress of my PowerPoint and simply put the more that they were exposed to you in a fair way.
in a way that I don't think uh really any of them had been before and through talking about your show and I even uh uh during my presentation I even played a long clip from the last time I talked to you and you were talking about the the business requirements of radio and you were being very straightforward and honest about that and that really resonated with my classmates as well.
And so, again, when I pulled up the very first slide, there were many hostile faces around the room.
But as my presentation continued, their faces softened.
And you could tell that a lot of them were intrigued by you.
And, you know, I talked about your story and how you overcame numerous firings and setbacks.
And I think a lot of them were inspired and impressed by your resilience.
And the fact that, really, you rebel against the establishment, not only politically, but, as you said, the conventional way of conducting a radio program.
And also, your humor was a big hit as well.
And so, but, again, the whole thing I find interesting is that, you know, it's thought that, you know, rebels are always a hit with young people.
But the way the media and even a lot of politicians portray you, you're kind of this rebel who...
who who points out the fallacies p uh of their arguments politically and you have a good time and you use humor and really a lot of my classmates did not know that they just thought you were some evil mean guy and they just had this caricatured idea of you and I think my so my blame 'em if they had never taken the time to listen.
Right, and that's why the my presentation was was low information outreach directly and I it was it was it was successful.
So you ended up getting a hundred on both sides of it?
Yeah I got I got a one hundred on the on the paper and I got an A as well on the presentation.
Well congratulations.
Well thank you it was uh due uh in no small part to all the help you gave me well obviously but you started out ahead of the game you were amazingly perceptive when you called here in what you already understood um all I did was give you examples of what you instinctively already understood.
That was that was uh pleasing well how many people were in the class oh it had to be uh uh roughly thirty I would say no less than thirty and the other thing Rosh is that there there are a lot it's uh a lot of women in that classroom they're not you know they're not twenty four year old women because it's undergrad but I would say twenty to twenty one was the was the age range of of this class.
And you even turned them.
Yeah.
Stunning.
Absolutely stunning.
Yeah.
So where do you go from here?
Well, I am a political science and public relations double major, and I'm working this summer, but in this next this next year, my plan is to do two internships, one in TV and one in radio.
And in fact, the place I'm trying to get in to do my radio internship, uh the the one host there happens to be a big fan of yours, and uh I was gonna give him my the transcript of my previous conversation with you.
Well, I don't see how you can lose.
I don't see how you can lose doing that.
Well, Michael, uh thank you again for the uh for the the whole experience.
Uh I'm I'm really I'm really flattered that you uh endeavor to do this.
Uh you have you have engaged in the marketing of this program in ways that we haven't undertaken, and you've demonstrated how to do it that it that it can succeed.
Well, thanks.
I've been a 247 member since my junior year in high school, and I just want to say if I get audited because of this call or put into some enemy database, it was totally worth it.
Speaking of which, we have an executive from a telephone company, telecommunications industry executive on the phone waiting to detail for us how exactly Obama can detect and learn all kinds of stuff about us with the programs that are in place.
Anyway, uh Michael again, thanks much.
I appreciate it, and all the best and and stay in touch, will you?
I will think thank you so much again.
You bet.
That's Michael of Westfield, New York, and we will take a break, come back with that telecommunications industry, exec right after this.
Okay, back to the phones as promised.
This is Matt from Miami and says you are an exec in the telecommunications industry, right?
Yes, that's right, Russ.
Thank you so much.
It's been uh fifteen years listening to you, and I'm thrilled that my expertise and your expertise may actually i uh uh intersect and allow me to make you look good.
Well, thanks very much.
Uh that is the purpose of a caller, and I hope you can do it.
Well, um first off, I think it's important to think about motivations.
Um our president, uh, like all the uh the democratic presidents would love to be Bill Clinton after he leaves office.
And to do that, you need to have uh power, and you need to be a kingmaker.
And uh a database can do that.
I left a multi-billion dollar phone company to start a smaller company, and our core product is a uh uh a product that looks up phone numbers instantly when people make or receive phone calls, and uses that information to populate details on the screen for people to use in selling or or or supporting customers,
like their name, their address, uh the value of their home, uh uh their marital status, uh approximate income, approximate assets, uh cards they have registered to it to the address that they live at, uh whether they're in foreclosure, um Facebook profiles, LinkedIn profiles, Twitter profiles associated with that with that number.
See the the advent of mobile phones has created a situation where a phone number equals a person.
So the phone number is a much better index for getting to everything you know about a person than something that's less easy and less public, like a social security number.
And so my company sells that information to companies so that they can know who's calling and route that call better and offer appropriate product.
Wait a second.
I want to be able to follow this.
You have a company that that sells databases based on phone numbers to other companies.
So that we've actually yeah.
When when they get a call from somebody, what happens?
When they get a call from somebody, we we dip that incoming or outgoing phone number into a database.
We pull up a record associated with that phone number.
Where?
Who's who's seeing this at the time the call comes in?
Where does this go?
The person you can display it on an iPad.
Uh display it on on a screen of a computer.
Any uh you know, any screen.
So just the phone number of somebody calling a business, for example.
Somebody calls reception number in a business.
Your software tells that receptionist whoever gets the call everything knowable about that number.
That's right.
That's right.
Anything that we can get from uh any public records databases, so that's you know, uh political registrations, uh party affiliation, uh whether you've donated to any to any organization that listed your name publicly.
Um what do you do on Twitter, what you do on Facebook, this kind of thing.
Exactly.
I pull up the last two or three things you put on Twitter or Facebook recently so I could use that to uh you know, to schmooth you as a client, say, hey, I I see you, you know, you're interested in fishing or whatever.
Um display once the numbers input to your software.
Uh it it just the information displays before the phone even rings.
Before the phone rings.
Okay, I want to put myself let's say that I am uh an executive somewhere to business and I've got a phone here on my desk.
Yep and I've got my computer terminal or my iPad or whatever.
And I'm gonna give a phone call.
The number originating that call, I what happens?
How do I how do I see this data even before I answer it, I know who it is on the other end of that number?
Yeah, here's what's happening, Rush.
There's a trigger that's either in your device or it could be in your uh in your in your telephone company's switch.
And this is your proprietary software.
This is your app, in other words.
That's right.
Okay.
That's right.
That trigger sends the phone number that you have just made or received a phone call to uh an application, and you've signed into that application uh uh with your you know you you know your email address and password.
And so that those two apps in a sense are linked.
One app telling the other app uh what phone number has has made or received a phone call to to uh you know, you know, to your device.
Uh your your IP phone or your smartphone or so while I, the executive, am on the phone talking to whoever calls, I can actually see on my display who they are.
Yep.
Yep, you can you can see what their FICO score is, you can see if they've ever had a foreclosure or bankruptcy uh against them, you can decide whether they're a good fit for you you mean to be talking to.
While I'm talking to them, I can help it.
I don't have to wait till I hang up and send somebody out to find this data, bring it back to me.
I can see it while I'm speaking to them.
Correct.
You can act on it during the call.
How widespread is this?
Well, uh that's what I'm working on.
I uh the app has been developed, the databases exist.
I'm these aren't my databases, I'm licensing databases from companies that are in the business.
Is anybody reluctant to take this?
I mean, what they I would think i if you were trying to pitch me on this, I'd say, well, how do you have all this information?
How are you using it?
And how do you expect I'm going to?
And then I guess your real point here is if you can if you can put all this together just based on a phone number, then government officials can certainly do this and more, right?
That's really what your point is.
Right.
I see I can go one further.
If I know that I have a uh a contributor to let's say the DNC, then I can look at who they made made calls to and see if those people they call are also contributors.
I could I can uh make the assumption that they might be fellow travelers, but maybe they're not currently donating or currently registering or currently voting.
I can target those people because they're friends of somebody that I'm using as sort of a uh you know, as a starting point.
And then I can micro-target uh marketing canvassing uh uh at at those other people.
Now I would assume that all this data that your app is collecting is public.
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, there's nothing nothing about our app that is going in, we're not hacking into databases, we're not we're not there's nothing shady about it.
This is all information that is you've you've made available through whatever relationships you have with uh credit card companies, uh credit reporting agencies, um marketing companies, uh people you subscribe to uh magazines with, that sort of thing.
You everybody in our in our database is and uh everybody's in it, uh has given their permission, and we don't have all the information on every single person.
Um we but we have all the basic information.
We have what uh you know, name, address.
So Walk what you really called about was to tell us what Obama is doing, what you think he's doing with all this data being collected.
They're telling us, don't worry, it's metadata, it's nothing.
You're telling us it is something, right?
Yeah.
I think he's creating a tool that will give him thirty years of significant significant wealth and influence.
Um because if I want to win a race in a scenario, I can go to Obama and I can kiss his ring, and he can help me target the people that will help me get over the top.
People that aren't currently donating, aren't currently voting or registered to vote, and he can tell me who they are, and he can help me go get them.
And he can even have an organization that actually goes and gets them for me, and that's even more of a complete service on his part.
So when you see that Obama is partnering with Eric Schmidt from Google, and that Google is investing in organizing for America, it's this kind of thing that they might be doing.
I think so, Russ.
This is the tool that businesses use to drive product sales and the the better data.
Well, look, I know what he looked just in on a supermarket shelf, just you taking a product off that shelf with one scan can tell the inventory person so much what they need to stock, how much of it they need to stock to uh to keep their inventory cost down.
It it is amazing what can be done and is being done with this data.
Well, this is fascinating.
Matt in Miami is who this is, and he's working on selling an app to people that does all of this.
And believe me, data and information about people that you're dealing with is gold.
And that's why all of this does matter.
Who has it and why?
You know, folks, you all you all know how uh how much I enjoy golf.
You know how much I used to talk about it.
Just to illustrate, I didn't even realize till last night that the U.S. Open started today.
I didn't even it I was shocked.
I don't even remember how I came across the news.
Um that's how focused on other things I've been.
Anyway, I've got it on here.
I'm watching it on my top monitor, and it's at Marion, which is uh a great club.
It's outside Philadelphia.
I've only played there one time of a friend, a couple of friends who are members, and it is tough.
It is you know, we played Olympic last year, a couple of weeks, three weeks before the open.
Uh I don't care.
It it's for people that don't play the game, it's it's really hard to convey, but any golf course where the U.S. Open is played, they change it and they do things to it to make it nearly impossible for the average hacker to even enjoy a round.
That's how tough it is.
It's it's an entirely different game.
And Marion, there's no question how difficult this golf course is, even with all the rain they've had.
But I'm watching, I remember I actually had a fairly decent round when I played there until somebody joined us the sixth or seventh hole, one of those guys who starts trying to help you, and totally distracted me, and my game fell apart, and I spent the last twelve holes ticked off like I am today.
Because I started out great, wasn't doing anything wrong.
When he's got trying to be helpful, you know, you might want to stand a little further away from why would you tell me this?
Everything's cool.
Hey, it was trying to be helpful.
But it's a great, great one of these old line way back turn of last century golf courses.
And I'm glad I remembered it was I can't believe I didn't know.
I can't believe that's that's how focused I am on other stuff.
Anyway, immigration, again, to refresh your memory.
What we mentioned at top of the program, in a remarkable turn of events, quote unquote, remarkable turn of events.
All eight gang members voted to table an amendment by Senator Grassley that would have control of the border for six months before the pathway to whatever kicks in.
The gang of eight and all of its supporters in the House and Senate are now claiming it's not amnesty and don't call it amnesty.
There's a pathway, There are requirements, there are fines, the things these people have to do before they become citizens.
It's going to take ten years.
Do not call this amnesty.
Anyway, Grassley, because he sensed what was happening here.
We were, folks, I think we've been played.
I hate thinking this.
I hate saying it.
It's one of the reasons I'm in a foul humor today.
Because I I don't know.
Sometimes I take things too personally.
But I w when I think that I'm being played, or if somebody's trying to insulting my intelligence, they're taking advantage of my goodwill.
It just it saddens me, it irritates me.
And here we are on the cusp of things, and essentially we're told that, you know, all this talk about securing the border first, it was just that.
It was just talk.
And I should have known, based on not my instincts, I mean, actual things have happened.
I should have known.
But I held out hope that what we were being told was actually the truth.
Anyway, Grassley offers his amendment that essentially says border control for six months, secure the border.
Now, by the way, one of the reasons the Grassley Amendment was rejected.
Well, it's gonna take years to secure the border.
I mean, we could never do this if we had to secure the border first.
It's gonna take six, eight, maybe ten years, said Senator Chucky Schumer.
We we this the border business, and then Harry Reid is saying, forget it, we're never gonna do it.
Now that we're on the cusp of the Senate passing the bill, we're never gonna have any borders.
What are you people talking about?
That was never part of the deal, says Dingy Harry.
Anyway, despite what everybody thought was the sponsors promising that enforcement would come first.
And despite polling data which shows that Americans want enforcement first by a four to one margin.
All gang of eight members voted to table the Grassley amendment.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
Michelle Bachman, who is retiring from Congress.
We mentioned yesterday that there are several in the House.
You know, we're told all along, and I I believe this too, folks, that the whole thing here was a campaign issue for Obama, that the strategic was have immigration pass the Senate.
The Democrats own the Senate.
It's gonna pass there no matter what the gang of eight does, and no matter what we're told, but it'll die in the House.
At Obama, the Democrats want it to die in the House because once again they want to be able to run for office in 2014 in the midterms.
The Democrats want the House and be able to campaign on the idea that Republicans are again racist, sexist, big and homophobes who hate Hispanics, who don't like Hispanics, who want to punish Hispanics, whatever.
All because the Republicans vote down immigration reform in the House.
Well, a prevailing theory is no, no, no.
We're gonna get immigration reform, comprehensive amnesty, whatever you want to call it.
The House is gonna end up voting for it, and the way it's gonna happen is well, here, let Michelle Bachman explain it.
We have um uh a couple of bites.
She was uh talking to correspondent Garth Kant on uh WorldNet Daily.com.
Don't count on the House stopping this bill.
This is what's going to happen.
The Senate is going to pass a very bad bill.
The House will pass what'll sound like a pretty good bill.
But I'm just here to tell you it's a Trojan horse.
Those bills will go to what's called conference committee.
The good guts of the Trojan horse bill will be pulled out.
The very bad amnesty provisions will be put in the bill, the bill will go to the House floor, and it won't be Republicans to pass it.
It'll be Nancy Pelosi leading all the House Democrats to vote for it.
Well, but they don't have enough Democrats in the House to secure victory.
They're gonna need some Republican votes for it to pass.
Now, what she's talking about is the Senate bill passes and goes to the House.
The House doesn't have to deal with that.
They can come up with their own bill, which they will.
And the House bill, under the theory will be a very conservative immigration reform bill that does not have amnesty in it.
So you have those two bills, amnesty versus no amnesty.
They go to conference.
Now, who goes to conference?
Well, the Senate leaders appoint their negotiators and the House leaders appoint theirs.
The theory is a House leadership will appoint conferees that are not conservative, they're not the Tea Party freshmen, and they'll get together with the Senate conferees and they'll strip out, Bachman was saying the Trojan horse, they'll strip out the conservative elements of the House bill and agree to the Democrat version of the bill.
That will become the one bill that both houses then vote on.
And in order for it to pass the House, there are going to have to be some Republicans that vote for it.
Even if every Democrat supports it, that's not enough to secure passage.
So the theory that's going around requires, and there is a fear that this will happen, depending on who in the House you talk to.
There's a theory going around that there are some quote unquote Rhino Republicans who will vote for essentially the Senate immigration bill.
And then voila, it passes, and it gets sent to Obama, and there you go.
Now, that's just it's a fear right now.
It's people raising red flags and warning.
It could be all wet.
The theory could be all wrong.
It could be based in fear and not have any basis in fact.
But I just want you to know there are people who think that's the plan.
And we had the soundbite yesterday of the speaker earlier in the week saying that there will be a bill passing the House by the end of the year, comprehensive immigration reform.
There will be.
So that, coupled with the other strategy, is leading people to believe that a fix might be in that essentially passes the Senate version of the bill in the House, and we get whatever we get.
Amnesty, or maybe we're not supposed to call it that.
Bachman had this to say in one more soundbite.
I think the master plan of the ruling class that runs Washington, D.C., is to ram this bill through before the American people know what's hit them and before members of Congress even know what has hit them.
I hate to tell people once again, you've got to rise up, but I'm just telling you, this is the most important bill that we're going to deal with in the next two years.
And so if people are going to weigh in at all, now is the time.
The republic's at stake.
*Sigh*
Okay, so what does that mean?
Republic is at stake.
This is ball game.
I remember people saying that about Obamacare.
Now they're saying it about immigration reform.
And they're both right, I think.
In the case of immigration reform, it effectively wipes out the Republican Party.
If here's what I think is going to happen.
We're told there's a 10-year waiting period for the people in the shadows to come out.
They have to be identified so we know who they are.
During that 10 years, they can't vote.
During that 10 years, they can't get access to Obamacare benefits.
They can't get any other benefits.
They've got to go through the process.
We're going to come out.
But we're not going to punish them.
We're not going to deport them.
We're not going to penalize them, but they are going to have to get in line and go through the process ten years.
I think probably within the first two days of the 10 years, I'm going to see Senator Schumer on television talking about how unfair having to wait 10 years is.
Since we've gone ahead now and essentially legalize them, it's just inhumane.
It's not who we are to make these people who have family and have been working here and have been paying taxes.
It's just not fair that they don't have a voice in this democracy or something like that.
And of course, others will readily agree because this will sound like it's compassion and love and sensitivity and all these wonderful chicken things that our cultures become, and voila.
There won't be a 10-year waiting period.
Might be able to vote in time for the 2016 election.
But regardless, whenever they get to vote, if it's 10 years, if it's two hours, if it's five years, if there are 11 12 million people here currently unable to vote, and they are Hispanic, and if they fit the profile that polling data gives us, a full 70% of them are going to vote Democrats.
So the numbers work out this way.
If you've got eleven or twelve million people here that can't vote right now.
Not legally, but it someday we'll be able to, and 70% of those people are going to vote Democrat.
How in the world does the Republican Party stay?
I hate using this word because it's used incorrectly, but viable.
How does the Republican Party stay viable?
When they get 30% of whatever that number of millions of new people is.
And here's the real question I have.
If I can figure this out, why can't the Republicans what what are you missing?
What what am I missing in this?
See, if I were a Republican in the House or the Senate, there is no way I would want to participate in something that is going to effectively negate my party.
And yet so many Republicans seem eager to do this.
And it doesn't make sense to me.
So I'm saying there has to be something I'm missing.
Are this many people Republicans this blind?
Or are there this many Republicans that know something we don't know about these people in the shadows and how they intend to vote?
I don't know, folks.
I'm just I've always been puzzled by the Republicans seemingly eager to accept all this assistance from the Democrats.
I just don't believe the Democrats want to help us get more votes.
I just don't and the Democrats come, you know, you guys are gonna have to change the way you are to make these Hispanics like you.
You're never gonna be a viable party unless you change your attitudes on Hispanics.
Really, the Democrats really want us to get some of their voters.
This is why I will never be qualified to be in a ruling class.
I'm just too stupid.
I just obviously some things I just don't get.
Somebody has got a theory on all of this.
Edward in Leesburg, Virginia.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Russ.
Thanks for having me and uh hi to your audience.
Uh Rush, uh, there has been something that's been troubling me for some time, and and I I just wanted to run this past you.
I mean, you've been talking about what is gonna happen.
What what are these Republicans up to?
And my I have a sense, and I I don't I don't like saying this, but I get the feeling that there might be a lot of Republicans that might be happy to see the immigration bill pass in hopes of breaking up the country class or the conservative coalition.
And that there would be they would probably be happy to switch uh sides to become Democrats, you know, like Arlon Specker Spector did in order to um find themselves a place in their in the new order.
Okay, now I can understand that there might be a few Republicans who would like to switch sides to be with the good guys, to not be hated, to be in the in crowd, to whatever.
But I and I understand there are Republicans that who want to bust up the conservative influence of the party.
I have but what are they gonna be left with after they do that in this case?
I I you know I the only thing I thought is that okay, maybe they want to switch parties.
Maybe, you know, Olympia Snow or something wants to jump on really democrat now.
Maybe there's a whole bunch of them that just want to just move and just uh say, you know, this is where the power is, this is where then just do that.
Why why go through all of this?
Um I I haven't that I I couldn't I couldn't explain.
Except the only thing I see is that so many of these Republicans in Washington DC, and you see them on the Sunday shows, etc, and they're always talking down this country.
I mean they are talking all the time and I just feel that there is an atomist that these people have against the people of this country.
I mean against the backbone, the foundation of this country and that people such as us are people who get in the way of them being who they really want to be.
I understand that I know that that's the case.
I I know that there are a bunch of non-conservative Republicans talked about it, didn't like Reagan.
But wiping out their own party to get rid of us still doesn't make sense to me.
Maybe folks maybe there's a just a a bunch of moderate to liberal Republicans who don't care about being winners.
They just want to be elected and be in power.
Whatever that means maybe they really don't care.
▲
Export Selection