While I love some of his ideas (like Congressional term limits), it's his stance on education aligned with how elections went in Indiana that scares the hell out of me.
Holcomb won governor and was Pence's underling. Pence notoriously undermined the super of education in Indiana. She was in turn beaten by a former district super who said all the right things but was backed by Chartel House, a charter school behind the A-F school grading scandal a few years ago.

The attack on public education in Indiana seems destined to continue as money gets filtered away to charters, who have mixed reviews, at best, here.

Trump wants to slash public school funding to support school choice. School choice in and of itself doesn't scare me. I'm the principal of a school that just won a National Blue Ribbon Award, but it's the funding that leaves my Title I school (nearly 70% free/reduced lunch) to go to allow people to attend private schools, charters, etc. that worries me.

Sadly, my Title I aides backed Trump. If current predictions hold, and Title budgets are slashed by as much as 1/3, then I may be forced into letting those same ladies go when the cuts hit.

Sounds like tort and malpractice reform would be needed?

No, I just think Trump might either do something to get himself in hot water or get tired of the whole thing. It's not his bag.

Trump may preserve a couple ACA items

President-elect Trump willing to keep parts of ObamaCare | Fox News

TPP is toast, possibly NAFTA. I like more scrutiny on foreign acquisitions of US companies.

Trump will quit TPP in first days - POLITICO

I'd be very surprised if the China stuff happens. Every candidate speaks tough on China and then backs off when they get the job and see the potential damage of a cold war with the Chinese.

And the Republicans can resort to reconciliation to get around the filibuster, if they don't just nuke it entirely.

We haven't seen a bill yet, but let's not pretend that privatizing Medicare is so onerous that the only way a Republican Congress can make it happen is by getting 8+ Democrats on board.


"Moderate" Republicans don't really exist as a going concern at this point. Most of them either got primaried out by Tea Party candidates the last 6 years or so, or else moved to the right to block out a primary challenge.

The same is true on the other side of the aisle - the Blue Dog Democrats aren't as prevalent as they used to be because a lot of those Tea Party districts decided that a freshman Tea Party Republican > incumbent conservative Democrats.

So what you have is a Congress that is fairly polarized. That's always been true in the House, but more so especially these days. The Senate is trending that way, also.

The China thing would have been worth doing years ago when they were devaluing their currency. Not sure there is a point in doing it now that they aren't.

And I'm all for being a little tougher on China in regards to some of their policies that hurt us. But I hope he brings in some economic minds that are aware it's not 2010 anymore.

Still haven't figured out how we managed -- as a nation -- to screw up the meaning of "insurance" by turning it from a gamble against major / serious health problems/costs versus "oh it's supposed to pay for everything".

Wasn't like that in my childhood (circa 70s) so exactly when did it get stood on its head? I've never been much on running to doctors so I honestly don't know that I saw the transition take place in person.

Probably whenever "everything" got into the "serious" price range.

(Wife got imaging done last month when she had kidney stones. That by itself was like $500. And I think that was required both before and after surgery.)

But which came first? I mean, did prices rise & drive it there, or did insurance become more & more a "anything & everything" and drive prices up.

And, just to be clear, I'm legit asking. I grew up in an era when, say, your standard office visit stuff never involved insurance. You showed up, paid your bill (even if that meant making multiple payments). I know it shifted obviously but I don't actually remember when/how that happened.

A trade war would be disastrous. Like 2nd Great Recession disastrous. So hopefully he doesn't go that far.

The rapid advances in technology, drugs, and treatment are a big part of how we got here. Not saying that's 100% of the reason, but I'd say it contributes 'bigly'.

I think there are a lot of reasons why prices went up. One I'd argue is technology. We screen for a number of diseases now that we didn't in the past. So colonoscopies, mammograms, blood test, and so on are now up. We have vaccines for diseases that we didn't decades ago. Drugs to help with things like diabetes, high cholesterol and so on. MRIs, CAT scans, etc that didn't exist 50 years ago. Our life expectancy has gone up over the decades as well as quality of life so it's tough to argue against these advancements in my opinion.

Then you have the AMA limiting the amount of doctors which causes prices to go up. Drug companies creating monopolies in a closed market which increases prices (you can't price shop from other countries). Doctors buying their own equipment (X-Ray, CAT scan, etc) and overusing it to make money. Lawyers abusing the system by suing for everything. And people who are taking their kids in each time they come down with the sniffles. I think it's a bunch of things all balled into one.

To your complaint, perhaps we should have different tiers for insurance. One tier is strictly for major medical issues. Things that are deemed to be life threatening if untreated. So if you have a heart attack, you're covered. An infection, you're covered. But if you tear your ACL, it doesn't cover the reconstruction surgery. That'd be on you since you can live with a torn ACL, it's just a quality of life issue. This insurance would be much cheaper I'd imagine.

I still say it's too complicated and would prefer a Medicare for all with some major reforms to Medicare.

The left is certainly screwed if that happens I guess. Perhaps GOP has been playing 4-D chess all along.

Doesn't malpractice insurance fit somewhere into the rising costs?

Something needs to be done to blunt China. I thought TPP was a good step but I'm open to any other ideas that Trump has. Unfortunately, I'm sure there will be consequences and adverse effects

Not an expert by any means, but I've read some on this for some other reasons. There are no definitive answers, but medical malpractice claims and payouts have actually decreased since 2000.

Med Mal insurance premiums are a mixed bag, and doctors in more rural areas seem to be hit more (which makes sense...less competition). The prevailing theory is that malpractice seems to generate indirect costs (doctors practicing more defensive medicine and ordering an extra test or something), but these costs are tough to measure or allocate directly to malpractice issues.

???
Single payer was never ever proposed by Obama.
Single payer was never on the table.

Obamacare was based on the Republican proposal (RomneyCare) to try to get some Republican support.

The cost of medical school has risen at an astronomical rate, as well.

Here is a 4-year old article with a table that demonstrates well: https://www.aamc.org/download/296002...bvol12_no2.pdf

Blunt China in what way?

Single payer was never proposed, but the public option was. It would've bypassed the states (and thus avoided the Medicaid gap that screwed so many people), while still retaining employer based and private coverage. In the end, they didn't have enough votes to get it through and had to drop it from the final bill.

No, it was not.
It was traded away from the get go to get industry support.
Obama lied about it as long as he could, but he traded it away from the start.


NY Times Reporter Confirms Obama Made Deal to Kill Public Option | The Huffington Post


It took so long to pass Obamacare because all the Demecrats saw how bad it was and did not want to be tied to it.

This shows that Lieberman opposed to public option from the beginning. Without Lieberman, they never had the 60 votes to break a filibuster.

Lieberman: I'll block vote on Reid plan - POLITICO

And this article calls into question the findings of yours...

Obama never secretly killed the public option. It’s a myth. - The Washington Post

Obamacare passed with 51 votes via resention.
Lieberman's vote did not mater.

Of course ther was only a only confirmed that there was a deal on cost with the hospitals.
And what was that deal and how would it be enforced?

Not initially. It first passed 60-39 and then came back from the House with some changes limited to financing that could be passed by a 51 vote reconciliation. Most of the initial language, though, was dependent on the first 60 vote passage.

Please show me any evidance of this: passed 60-39
Truly, it would change my opinion.

U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote

Is that it?

That's it. There was first a 60-39 vote to break the filibuster, then the exact same margin to pass the bill. After that it went to the House and there were some funding changes, so it came back to the Senate. Because the changes were limited, it was then passed through reconciliation, which eliminated the possibility of a filibuster.

I honestly don't either - I went about 15 years starting with college where I probably went to the doctor about 3 times. Didn't pay too much attention to childbirth and kid checkup prices.

Could you acctualy point to anything relevant?
Having lived through it I know ther is no "there": "There".

A lot of it came with insurance companies realizing it was cheaper to pay for preventive care rather than wait for people to get sick. Annual office visits and urgent care clinics and the like are cost saving compared to other options. There are also a number of laws from state to state, and federally that mandated care, but a lot of it was driven by insurance companies and employers looking to save money. Half of healthcare costs are run up by 5% of the population.

I'm not sure what you're asking for. That was the roll call for the initial passage of the Affordable Care Act in the Senate.

From Marine Le Pen:


And I remember when saying Trump had turned the GOP into a white nationalist party like Le Pen's was considered outrageous.

Only budget items can be passed through reconciliation. Since ACA had more than budget items, they needed 60 votes to pass it. So they dropped the public option to get the 60 votes. The house passed their version which had differences in the financing provisions.

Once Scott Brown won the Mass election, the Dems no longer had 60 votes to even pass an amended version of the ACA, much less a public option. They either had to let the ACA die or approve the House changes, which they were able to do via reconciliation.

It would be funny if Trump just said "fuck it, lets do universal healthcare". He was a big fan of it back in the day. I mean Dems would be on board and his supporters don't care what his policies are.

So... you said something false (which you've said before, mind and been shown false). It was argued to be false. You asked for proof. Proof was given. Then you refuse to acknowledge the proof? Is that it, then?

Why should we ever listen to you again (I mean I know to take you with a massive grain of salt the first time we had this discussion on how the ACA was passed)?

You are completely right that the TPP was partially done to isolate China economically. Which makes it funny that we have someone who is adamantly against TPP, but then complains about China's economic games. The TPP was probably the best way to get China to knock it off and come to the table.

Chief of staff seems to be between insider Priebus vs outsider Bannon. The logical choice is Priebus but who knows.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/12/politi...aff/index.html

Here's hoping he has another plan.

For me, if I were just elected, I;d look at some moderate democrats who are very competent and could help out, and consider them for my Cabinet, like Senator Joe Manchin from WV, as a good example, of an outsider who came to DC to change it and was very, very frustrated at the lack of working across the aisle. I don't know if he'd say yes due to Trump being Trump, but Jim Webb also attracts me for Defense, since he was Under-Secretary of the Navy for Reagan. I do like Christie for Attorney General, rather than Giulai, and that guy is bulldog, which is what you want from eh AG. Carson for SG or maybe HHS Secretary makes sense as well. Sessions is fine. But I think Newt is a bad call for the Cabinet. He helped to shut down the government, has a huge distrust and disdainment for the bureaucracy, and is definitely a Washington Insider. I don't want him running a Department. For me that would be a non-starter.


EDIT - I think Manchin would do it for sure. He's a patriot who believes there are certain things you do because that's you role. For example, he just called out Reid for going against Trump and Trump supporters recently, now theat the election is over: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ry-reid-absol/ Manchin is a "You respect the office, the institutions, etc" kind of guy. He'd serve.

Several problems there in practice though.
First, unless Trump wants to find a movement forming against him from within before he even takes office, don't pick a (D) for anything except being far far away.

The next to last thing you'd wanna do is remove a (relatively?) moderate (D) from Congress. Same reason I dislike picks like Sessions, it's already a cesspool of uselessness, why remove anything that has a redeeming quality at all?


And in the case of Newt, who I don't have much (any) faith in after some of his moderate repositionings in recent years, I'm thinking he might be about right for the job anyway. After years of empty suits in the role, it needs a genuine S.O.B. for a while, and on that score he certainly qualifies.

Preibus appears to be Chief Of Staff.

Probably the logical choice

Not so fast. Bannon named "Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor" and apparently will have equal power.

Preibus being used as a front? "Look we're going to be a reasonable Administration Bannon will have co-equal power pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

And my guess is Bannon has no interest in managing the day to day BS of the job.

Or as the social secretary.

If he removes Manchin, the Republicans have a guaranteed pick up in 2018.

I wouldnt put anybody from the opposite party in any position of power. It does no good and in the case of James Comey it can do a lot of damage.

Pretty much.

And the Democrats are already facing pretty steep midterm headwinds in the Senate given all the seats for which they're going to have to play defense. 23 Democratic incumbents are up for re-election (assuming no retirements), while just 8 Republicans face the same. Manchin is popular enough in WV to hold that seat, but if he isn't in the Senate, an otherwise "safe" seat is likely to flip. Republicans 53, everybody else 47.

Democrats are up for re-election in Montana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. All states Trump won.

In particular, Wisconsin re-elected a guy this year who ran on "don't pay attention to the last six years, I'm actually the outsider and Feingold is the incumbent #draintheswamp." That's how little he's accomplished in six years - he had no record to run on, so he ran against the record of a guy who hasn't been in the Senate for six years. If he can pull that off in a Presidential year, which is normally when Democratic voters show up, I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for Baldwin's prospects.

So, I mean, even without Manchin's seat, Republicans can get to 60 by flipping the eight states I listed above. West Virginia is low-hanging fruit if Trump can convince Manchin to come aboard, and then they have margin for error with the other states.

If Jon really thinks President-elect Trump's agenda is what the country needs, wants to minimize the ability of Democrats to run "Operation: Obstruct EVERYTHING" from the Republicans' recent playbook, and thinks Manchin in the Senate holds only "some" redeeming value, he should be welcoming a Manchin appointment with open arms. Removing him from the chessboard sets Republicans up to go balls to the wall in 2019 and 2020.

I'd be thrilled to see Manchin leave the Senate. A GOP Senator wouldn't cause nearly as much damage as Manchin giving bipartisan cover to the Trump/Ryan agenda.

They are on the same page for trade and such. Manchin famously ran an ad in WV where he shot the Cap and Trade law with his own gun.


EDIT, I still love that ad, it's hilarious.


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

He also refused to commit to staying Dem if the Senate was 50-50 and Clinton won. My guess is he digs his own grave by joining with the GOP for Medicare and Social Security privatization. He'll find out pretty quickly that his constituents like their entitlements, thank you very much. Then he'll have to get by on a multi-million dollar lobbying job.

As much as I hate to, I have to introduce just a moment of negativity into this thread.

I get that the "not taking my salary" thing is good p.r. & all, nice gesture. But ...

Latest net worth estimate is $3.7B.
Salary is $400k.

That's 0.01% (if I put the right number of zeroes in 3.7B)

For the average Georgian, that's the equivalent of foregoing an annual salary of ... $4.87

The part that bugs me most though? That it's a good p.r. move because most people are too dumb to work out the math.

Not only a drop in the bucket for him, but a drop in the bucket in the federal budget.

(Though certainly enough that it could keep me on my contract for a couple of years...)

Yep, 0.01%.

I'll be booing this idiot in Arrowhead next weekend.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/sport/...ick/index.html

Given how Trump funneled campaign cash to his businesses, I'd bet he'll find ways to make plenty of money.

Not sure if anyone caught his interview on 60 minutes (it might be in about 5 different threads at this point)

Highlights or lowlights for some people (my personal opinion in parentheses):

- He's going to review Clinton. (no shock there. He isn't going to do a thing to her. I would be surprised if Obama didn't issue a blanket pardon locking this fact into place before he leaves office)

- He's going to work on the illegals who commit crimes before looking at the wall or any other immigration policy. (I'm sure he's been told that it wouldn't be as easy as he thought, already backing down even though he did say he wanted the wall later)

- No desire to change same sex marriage laws already into play.

- Abortion. He wants to return it to the states (scary, scary, scary)

- Term limits: he wants to get laws passed for this. (horrible idea IMHO)

- He wants to ditch the electoral college. He said that winning doesn't mean he changes his opinion on it. He wants a simple vote.

- To anyone committing racist acts "stop it, I say it to the cameras, stop it" (wish he would have followed his own advice)

He said he didn't want to address same sex marriages because the Supreme Court had ruled on it, and it was settled law. He then said he would look for judges that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Which the Supreme Court ruled on, and has been considered settled law since the 1973 ruling.

Pretty much.

Didn't bother (honestly, hard for me to belief 60 Mins is still on the air) but it mostly just confirms what I knew going in: he's going to be largely useless.

Term limit foolishness & the electoral college mistake should be able to be halted by Congress so I'm not worried about any long term damage yet.

But at least I've gotten some fun out of watching the lunatic fringe heads blow up for a few days.

Also, he won't be able to control what SCOTUS does once his Justices are on the court. And it's doubtul he's going to find (or even look for) anti-Roe, pro-gay marriage justices, so in his quest to overturn Roe, gay marriage will be a casualty along the way.

A Ken Blackwell (Trump transition team member) quote from WSJ:

"Bannon is going to be keeper of the image of Trump as a fighter against the status quo, and Reince is going to utilize his personal connections with the speaker and others, to make the trains run on time."

I doubt either gets overturned. If we get close to that tipping point, we'll see, but I'm not convinced at all it will ever happen.

Horrible quote. Really horrible quote.

problems though:

1 - Mussilini never had to deal with a system of government which had checks and balances.

2 Mussilini didn't have to deal with free press.

3 - Which is exactly why "the trains ran on time" is such a historical quote. The reality is the trains didn't run on time and were actually fairly horrible.

I know he won't be, but anyone making that type of quote should lose their jobs. It's stupid.

Speaking of empty gestures...

Probably what Thiel is there for.

Term limits would require a Constitutional amendment, same as it did for POTUS after Roosevelt. Ditto ditching the Electoral College.

So while they can just ignore those pronouncements, and go to court if he goes 'hey I bet an Executive Order will take care of those,' if those two elements resonate strongly enough with the general public, a Constitutional convention can make them happen.

Elect a demagogue at your peril.

Well, remember, he wants to open up the libel laws so he can sue the press and make lots of money.

So he probably doesn't think he's going to have to deal with a free press, either.

Well, we're two justices away from that tipping point on both cases. The replacement to Scalia won't change the numbers, but the next justice could flip both decisions.

But my main point was to show why his "settled law" comment shouldn't be comforting to the LGBT community, because he's definitely shown an interest in overturning other settled law and the judges will likely come as a package. If he really does have no interest in overturning marriage equality (which I doubt), then I still think he'll do it accidentally while he fights to overturn Roe.

One way around the electoral college is if enough states agree (to equal 270 or more electors) to give their electors to the popular vote winner.

You couldn't get a new Constitutional convention (assuming it's delegates are along existing Congressional splits) to agree on puppies, rainbows, and kittens.

Term limits aren't in the best interest of an existing Congress,so that ain't getting through them. And I believe that enough people (though probably just barely enough) understand the critical nature of the EC to have that be an eventual fizzle.

The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 - Page 60 - Front Office Football Central

I remembered this discussion from a while back where we argued whether birthers were worth talking about. Now a birther is President.

I just had a college friend tell me:


And she knows damn well the composition of my family. I guess it's good that I at least know her true feelings about me and my daughter.

Nominally true, and 165 EV worth of states have already passed this. Get NY and a few others interested, and the math gets pretty interesting quickly.

National Popular Vote

Now... what really happens if this passes and goes into effect is unknown. On paper, you'd have state laws that oblige electors to vote with the popular vote... but is that enforceable? Look at what we saw in micro level this year with a rogue elector from WA - and it turns out there was something like a $1,000 fine at stake if he betrayed his party when casting the actual vote.

Anyway... there's a theoretical avenue that's a ton simpler than amending the constitution.

Missing the point, Jon. There are two paths to Constitutional amendments, and only one requires Congress to assent.

If 34 states submit a petition to Congress for a Constitutional convention on the subject of term limits, Congress is required to convene one. And beyond that, we don't know what would happen. We don't know how delegates would be selected, how many each state would get, how long they would have to conduct their business, how limited the scope of their tinkering would be, how many state delegations would have to assent in order to send the amendments in question to state legislatures for ratification, etc.

The Founders didn't specify those things in Article V. Congress has no clear Constitutional authority to limit the work of such a convention, nor any Constitutional justification to refuse to call such a convention, if the requisite 34 states request one.

Because of that - and especially the bit about limiting the scope of their tinkering - there's no guarantee that any particular amendment proposal would fizzle at the convention. I can see a fair bit of "you vote for mine and I'll vote for yours" horse trading resulting in a plethora of amendments being sent to the states for ratification.

Yes, 3/4 of the state legislatures (or state conventions, if Congress were to choose conventions over legislatures for approval, but that's only happened once) would still have to ratify, and that's a high bar to clear. But all politics being local, if the voters demand Congressional term limits loudly enough, it's unlikely that state legislatures would refuse to ratify.

As for the Electoral College, how many states between the coasts do you think resent the electoral power of New York, Texas, and California? Do you think you could find 38 state legislatures which might go "hmm, if the Electoral College goes bye-bye, Presidential candidates will have to pay more attention to my state during the general election"?

Isn't there a court ruling (or two?) that have upheld at least the general principle?

I could almost swear I saw something along those lines in the past week or so (related to the couple of stray delegates now allocated by congressional district or whatever it is).

Granted, precedent can be overturned & what not, but I think at the moment at least they're enforceable (unless I misread something).

Probably at least as enforceable as current "faithless elector" laws are, really. The larger question to me is how electors would be selected under the NPV Compact.

Currently, the popular vote in each state actually elects the slate proposed by whatever Presidential candidate, and so the idea of faithless electors has been largely academic. Would that continue to hold true under the NPV? Trump (or a Republican) wins the popular vote, so California sends the Trump elector slate to the Electoral College? Or would it be a more generic slate legally bound to the winner of the popular vote?

I don't mean to cast doubt on its legality.

Rather, the electors are humans, and they are the weak link. Eventually, you'd have something weird happen... like a replay of 2016 or 2000, in whatever direction. Then, you'd be counting on human beings from states who voted for the candidate of their party to cross the party line and cast the deciding votes for the other candidate, and give him or her the win. How does that actually work? The constitution still grants the elector the power to cast that ballot... so what state law/penalty/etc would really stand up to that pressure? You going to put the person in jail for 30 years if she breaks the state law? (Obviously no fine would be relevant here, you'd have countless stand-ins willing to pay the fin on someone's behalf)

That's all I mean - it's legally on the up-and-up, but put into practice and suddenly that poor stiff from Oregon/Mississippi might have second thoughts.

Kinda. SCOTUS precedent holds that the states can require fealty pledges from their prospective electors (and presumably thus that penalties for breaking that pledge are legal) but it's still up to Congress whether to accept the ballot of the elector.

Which is to say, there might be a fine involved if an elector were to switch, but the real enforcement mechanism would be Congress saying (as it almost assuredly would) "No, we're not going to accept the ballot from the WI elector who wishes to vote for Hillary Clinton, instead."

I wonder what penalty you even COULD impose without violating the Eighth Amendment there. 30 years in the poke for voting for the "other" candidate would seem like a pretty good candidate for "cruel and unusual punishment" to me.

(Which isn't a poke at you; just general commentary that not only would states have the difficulty of finding a penalty that can stand up to that pressure, but the penalty in question would have to straddle the line between being able to herd the cats AND not running afoul of the Constitution.)

I don't think that's how it would happen. Article 1, Section 2 says:


So if Wisconsin has joined this popular vote agreement, they wouldn't be sending Trump's electors and telling them to vote for Hillary, they would be sending Hillary's electors.

LOL

Pence pushes for email privacy - POLITICO

Let us all hope that there aren't that many voters THAT stupid.

(yeah, I realize that pinning my hopes on collective wisdom is a fool's errand at best)

And this is related to using a private email server to email classified documents how exactly?

Is there any evidence that Pence was using his email incorrectly?

If there was evidence he was using private servers or sending classified data, the FBI should investigate, go through every email and release them all. They should also prosecute him.

If not, then this is something for the court system to determine. (I hope Pence loses the motion to hide the email, but I see nothing inconsistent with his positions in both situations)

"could" flip and "will" flip are two different things.

As for his settled law comment, I'm not taking any solace in it. I don't base my opinions it won't flip because of it either.

We'll see what happens.

I laughed not because of the state department e-mails, but because of the Podesta e-mails. Two different issues and the latter was a private account that did not involve classified information.

lol

Counterpoint: "President Trump."

Got it. That makes a lot more sense and is laugh out loud worthy.

Random post-election thoughts:

(1) I was way way wrong.

(2) I think that people are too quick to assume that a national popular vote would help Democrats. Both parties (correctly) focused on turning out the last possible voter in Florida/Pennsylvania/etc. Who knows what would change if instead they focused on going into New York, Texas, California, etc. and tried to drum up votes there.

(3) I've been happy staying off social media since the election, especially because I wasted SO MUCH TIME before the election thinking about it.

(4) When I have peeked in on facebook, I've seen my friends all sharing anti-Trump stuff like we are still in election mode. "Can you believe that he wants to give BANNON a position of power?!?!?!?" Um. Yes. Yes I can.

(5) When I've peeked at Twitter, I've seen the liberal writers I follow all producing think pieces that won't be read by anyone who does not follow them.

(6) The smartest thing I read was a writer who tweeted "Time to get back to work producing analysis that will be algorithmically delivered only to people who already agree with it."

(7) I tried to escape into football, but the Saints lost on a fucking blocked extra point returned for 2 points.

That play was awesome! :D

BEN CARSON WILL NOT ACCEPT CABINET POSITION IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION


And this guy ran for president?

He just wanted to sell books.

And sometimes people run not expecting to win they just want to get their ideas heard. Forbes did that with his flat tax plan years ago.