The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Because they imply that he believes refugees should return to their countries to help rebuild them...while at the same time, he's been a refugee going on 60 years.

(I assume that yes, he'd like to go back, but he has reasons for taking his time -- as might some other refugees.)

He said "ultimately" and I read that as when they can.

[Thomkal]

the worst part of my evacuation "vacation"? Staying in a house where I did not have access to the internet, and the homeowners were very much Republicans/Trump Lovers. Thankfully they did not watch Fox News, but when the big news of Manafort getting a plea deal (I think?), I had no one I could talk to about or get more info on.

[JPhillips]

That's why God gave WIFI to McDonalds.

[Thomkal]

Heh JP. So where does the Mueller investigation stand with Manafort flipping? I have to say I was looking forward to the second Manafort trial. Seemed like it was the "juicier" of the two with a potential for lots of info on Trump. Do we know how much time he will serve now with the plea? Any other big Trump news I missed this week I was away?

[JPhillips]

Manafort flipping was like two years ago, right?

With all that's happened in the past 24 hours it's hard to remember!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Heh JP. So where does the Mueller investigation stand with Manafort flipping? I have to say I was looking forward to the second Manafort trial. Seemed like it was the "juicier" of the two with a potential for lots of info on Trump. Do we know how much time he will serve now with the plea? Any other big Trump news I missed this week I was away?

I think the prosecutors will request less than 10 years.

While the focus seems on Trump, I actually think the Manafort flip is more about Russian organized crime and breaking up some of that.

Never made sense that he was loyal to Trump. Manafort is a conman and grifter, there is no loyalty in his body. Always made more sense that he was afraid of the Russian mob.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Manafort flipping was like two years ago, right?

With all that's happened in the past 24 hours it's hard to remember!

What else happened in the last 24 hours? I see some Kavanaugh stuff but meh, he's getting confirmed, so that's whatever. I haven't paid the closest attention though.

[JPhillips]

Kavanaugh.

The continued, Maria didn't kill anybody tweets.

The flooding from the hurricane.

News just moves really really fast these days.

[AENeuman]

I enjoy Ocasio-Cortez. She allows me to show my government class how extreme left thinking is also flawed and dangerous. I would actively campaign with the Tea party if she were running for president.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defends $40 trillion price tag for progressive proposals - CNNPolitics


https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/polit...ntv/index.html

[NobodyHere]

I think the standard liberal argument is that medicare-for-all would give Americans bigger bang for their buck. We may have to raise $32 trillion in taxes in order to pay for it but we'll save that and more by not having to pay for insurance and some other private health care spending.

[molson]

Even if someone likes Ocasio-Cortez, what separates her from some say, random redditor who spouts similar far-left political opinions? I think there's a risk in these younger liberals coming to prominence based on words instead of deeds. Why should voters believe she'd actually be effective?

We have a Dem governor candidate in Idaho who won her primary over the establishment candidate in a similar way, but she seems to be a real trainwreck. Her staff are constantly resigning and singing NDAs, fellow dem legislators say she's impossible to work for and has to be managed, and she has no particular track record of accomplishing anything. But she's gotten that "exciting new liberal!" label and that's enough in 2018 to get some momentum.

I can see the same old cycle continuing - a "blue wave" of sorts based on optimism rooted in candidates' stated views rather that track record of accomplishments, winning some seats, disappointment in the results when the words can't be backed up, apathy next election cycle, seats lost, rinse repeat.

[jeff061]

Not knowing anything about her(other than her age and that she's a real socialist, as opposed to the more common boogeyman variety), I'm going to assume like any other politician, Charisma.

I think there's a risk in these younger liberals coming to prominence based on words instead of deeds.

I question why you think this only afflicts younger liberals or why you think it's even a new phenomenon. It's politics.

Any blue wave would be sparked for the same reason Trump got elected, knee jerk reaction to a perception of "the enemy" gaining traction. The libs had to listen to the idiots on the right say how Trump was elected because of all the whiny holier than thou triggering libs. Now the right has to listen to idiots on the left say the same, swapping in hate/racism/whatever.

And we continue to spiral down the drain.

[molson]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Not knowing anything about her(other than her age and that she's a real socialist, as opposed to the more common boogeyman variety), I'm going to assume like any other politician, Charisma.

I question why you think this only afflicts younger liberals or why you think it's even a new phenomenon. It's politics.

Any blue wave would be sparked for the same reason Trump got elected, knee jerk reaction to a perception of "the enemy" gaining traction. The libs had to listen to the idiots on the right say how Trump was elected because of all the whiny holier than thou triggering libs. Now the right has to listen to idiots on the left say the same, swapping in hate/racism/whatever.

And we continue to spiral down the drain.

True, maybe "new" is more accurate than "young", and that's always been a thing in politics.

Despite exceptions like Trump, do Republicans generally elect more experienced candidates who built up their careers within the party and through local, state, and national offices? That might explain why the Republican party seems to be more effective politically. I guess just because of the more conservative nature of their platform, you don't have as many random new candidates coming out of nowhere and gaining traction based on just charisma and saying the right things.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

True, maybe "new" is more accurate than "young", and that's always been a thing in politics.

Despite exceptions like Trump, do Republicans generally elect more experienced candidates who built up their careers within the party and through local, state, and national offices? That might explain why the Republican party seems to be more effective politically. I guess just because of the more conservative nature of their platform, you don't have as many random new candidates coming out of nowhere and gaining traction based on just charisma and saying the right things.

You mean like the President? And that's what's being lost here. Ocasio-Cortez isn't coming out of a vacuum, she exists (as a future Congressperson) as a result of a Trump world. Prior to Trump's election, there was no way that someone like Ocasio-Cortez was going to upset a center-left multiple term Congressman. It's just now no one cares about experience anymore.

Then again, the House of Representatives is generally not the place for experienced pols. It's where a lot of national politicians start off.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by molson

Even if someone likes Ocasio-Cortez, what separates her from some say, random redditor who spouts similar far-left political opinions? I think there's a risk in these younger liberals coming to prominence based on words instead of deeds. Why should voters believe she'd actually be effective?

That'd be a terrible change from what we have now where a rube like Paul Ryan is considered a serious policy wonk.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I enjoy Ocasio-Cortez. She allows me to show my government class how extreme left thinking is also flawed and dangerous. I would actively campaign with the Tea party if she were running for president.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defends $40 trillion price tag for progressive proposals - CNNPolitics

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/polit...ntv/index.html

Sorry but this is a dumb article. You're shifting the expense from it being taken out of your paycheck and given to an insurance company to it being taken out of your paycheck as a tax.

You're already paying $300-$1500 a month for health insurance if you're on an employee plan. The employer covered portion is a pass-through cost you don't see.

So if Medicare for All was implemented, you'd be taking home $300-$1500 more a month in your paycheck. Yes some of that would have to go toward a higher Medicare tax, but you'd still be up in the end.

Overall the country would be paying less for health care. Administrative costs go down and the government has an enormous bargaining position with pharmaceutical companies. It also removes a burden on poorer individuals who can't get it through work which will lower the amount we spend on food stamps, public housing, and other government programs.

Every other developed country in the world does this and pays a fraction of what we do for health care and gets better results. This isn't some crazy idea.

[RainMaker]

The math isn't complicated. You get to make between $4,000 and $30,000 more a year. But you pay 7.5% for Medicare instead of the current 2.9%.

[RainMaker]

Also all the people who cheered the tax cuts that drove our deficit to over a trillion a year suddenly care about spending.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Also all the people who cheered the tax cuts that drove our deficit to over a trillion a year suddenly care about spending.

Exactly. Tax cuts for the richest of the rich are more important than adequate healthcare for the rest of us.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Sorry but this is a dumb article. You're shifting the expense from it being taken out of your paycheck and given to an insurance company to it being taken out of your paycheck as a tax.
You're already paying $300-$1500 a month for health insurance if you're on an employee plan. The employer covered portion is a pass-through cost you don't see.

So if Medicare for All was implemented, you'd be taking home $300-$1500 more a month in your paycheck. Yes some of that would have to go toward a higher Medicare tax, but you'd still be up in the end.

Overall the country would be paying less for health care. Administrative costs go down and the government has an enormous bargaining position with pharmaceutical companies. It also removes a burden on poorer individuals who can't get it through work which will lower the amount we spend on food stamps, public housing, and other government programs.

Every other developed country in the world does this and pays a fraction of what we do for health care and gets better results. This isn't some crazy idea.

Well you have certainly articulated much better than she did in the interview. However, I suspect the reason she didn't say like you just did is the numbers don't add up. Saying, "some of that would have to go toward a higher Medicare tax, but you'd still be up in the end." is so wildly vague, yet often repeated, I think it is dogma more than reasoning.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

removes a burden on poorer individuals who can't get it through work which will lower the amount we spend on food stamps, public housing, and other government programs.

Many poor now qualify for medicaid. How large is the gap of working adults who don't qualify and don't get employee insurance? Especially adults over 25. It seems it would have to be enormous given the cost to cover them all in the way you want to.

I guess I'm also enchanted with your optimism. I don't see how the institution that runs the VA is capable of running a larger health care system, better, cheaper and on the cutting edge.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by molson

Despite exceptions like Trump, do Republicans generally elect more experienced candidates who built up their careers within the party and through local, state, and national offices?

Tea Party movement. It will be interesting if the blue wave will be more like a new normal or the Dem's Freedom Caucus.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Well you have certainly articulated much better than she did in the interview. However, I suspect the reason she didn't say like you just did is the numbers don't add up. Saying, "some of that would have to go toward a higher Medicare tax, but you'd still be up in the end." is so wildly vague, yet often repeated, I think it is dogma more than reasoning.

Every other developed nation does it and gets better results. This idea that it can't be done or is a far out idea relies on ignoring what the rest of the world is doing.

The numbers aren't vague either. We know the median cost for a family of fours employer sponsored health care package is over $28,000 a year. We know that most other countries spend half what we spend. Heck the Koch Brothers sponsored a study that showed that Medicare for All would be cheaper in the long run.

Cutting out the middleman and increasing your purchasing power are simple business principles to lowering costs.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I guess I'm also enchanted with your optimism. I don't see how the institution that runs the VA is capable of running a larger health care system, better, cheaper and on the cutting edge.

Medicare actually works quite well considering the obstacles of caring for the elderly. Issues with it are resolved quickly because of the massive voting base that relies on it.

Veterans on the other hand (especially those who have to use the VA for health care) don't have that voting power. Most of the public doesn't give a shit about them either.

The issue with Medicare has been cost. And most of that is self-inflicted such as not using it's massive purchasing power to negotiate better drug prices. But we've also seen Medicare has great buying power and can negotiate better prices than private health insurers when they want to.

So yes, it would also require electing officials who are not completely sucking off every Pharma exec who walks past them. But a system perhaps that sets the Medicare tax rate at a variable amount would provide enormous incentive for politicians to provide a better service.

[RainMaker]

Also, Ocasio-Cortez isn't far-left. Her policies are basically Canada.

[NobodyHere]

Does Canadia guarantee a job to everyone?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Heck the Koch Brothers sponsored a study that showed that Medicare for All would be cheaper in the long run.

That's kind of cherry picking the results of the study and ignoring many of the stated caveats.

Did conservative study show big savings for Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All plan? | PolitiFact

[cartman]

Kavanaugh committee vote has been postponed.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Every other developed nation does it and gets better results. This idea that it can't be done or is a far out idea relies on ignoring what the rest of the world is doing.

Every country does what exactly? A healthcare system in Canada, UK, Germany and Japan are vastly different from each other. Also,a healthcare systems of 36 million, 63 million, 82 million and a homogeneous 120 million still wouldn’t equal the us population or diversity.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The numbers aren't vague either. We know the median cost for a family of fours employer sponsored health care package is over $28,000 a year. We know that most other countries spend half what we spend. Heck the Koch Brothers sponsored a study that showed that Medicare for All would be cheaper in the long run.

Lots of problems there, how do account for the increasing tax burden that would placed a decreasing working adult population? ie, see Japan. Also, same Koch study also says it can go up 3 trillion if cost don’t get controlled (see military and public education as examples).

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Cutting out the middleman and increasing your purchasing power are simple business principles to lowering costs.

. That’s not true in education and textbooks.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Veterans on the other hand (especially those who have to use the VA for health care) don't have that voting power. Most of the public doesn't give a shit about them either.

So... having a government run everything, for the everyone is the answer? Again, look at the difference in public schools to see how well off and poor can still be screwed under the same system.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The issue with Medicare has been cost. And most of that is self-inflicted such as not using it's massive purchasing power to negotiate better drug prices. But we've also seen Medicare has great buying power and can negotiate better prices than private health insurers when they want to.

So yes, it would also require electing officials who are not completely sucking off every Pharma exec who walks past them. But a system perhaps that sets the Medicare tax rate at a variable amount would provide enormous incentive for politicians to provide a better service.

You seem to suggest the pharma is a magic savings pill. Aren’t most expensive drugs used by the old, poor and very sick. Isn’t there already extra old people pill help?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Every country does what exactly? A healthcare system in Canada, UK, Germany and Japan are vastly different from each other. Also,a healthcare systems of 36 million, 63 million, 82 million and a homogeneous 120 million still wouldn’t equal the us population or diversity.

Has a national health care system. Yes they are different but the overall goal is the same. They all provide services at a fraction of the cost that we do in America.

Enough with the America is too unique to do what the rest of the world does. There are big, small, urban-centric, and rural countries doing this. We already do this with Medicare on a grand scale.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Lots of problems there, how do account for the increasing tax burden that would placed a decreasing working adult population? ie, see Japan. Also, same Koch study also says it can go up 3 trillion if cost don’t get controlled (see military and public education as examples).

We have Medicare in place already so that burden is coming regardless. Under a national health care system most people would be saving money on their health care.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

So... having a government run everything, for the everyone is the answer? Again, look at the difference in public schools to see how well off and poor can still be screwed under the same system.

Of course not. But health care is not something a free market can handle. It's why we have Medicare. Why we have Medicaid. Why we have all the regulations in place so that hospitals can't turn away sick people and insurers can't discriminate based on your past.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

You seem to suggest the pharma is a magic savings pill. Aren’t most expensive drugs used by the old, poor and very sick. Isn’t there already extra old people pill help?

No, I'm suggesting Pharma is one example of savings. Buying power matters. There's no reason we should be paying 4 to 50 times the price other countries pay for basic procedures.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Has a national health care system. Yes they are different the overall goal is the same. They all provide services at a fraction of the cost that we do in America.

Germany, next best economy is not a NHS, it’s a successful obamacare model. Which, I think is a much more realistic.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Enough with the America is too unique to do what the rest of the world does. There are big, small, urban-centric, and rural countries doing this. We already do this with Medicare on a grand scale.

I find quickly dismissing the uniqueness of the largest by far economy and the third largest population and the most diverse, naive and dangerous. Asking to completely up end a broken system without proper recognition of the problems, is Bernie type of bernie dogma I can’t stand...imho

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Under a national health care system most people would be saving money on their health care.

Again, massive gamble to be so certain. Are there other large scale examples of a government taking over an massive institution and costs went way down?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Germany, next best economy is not a NHS, it’s a successful obamacare model. Which, I think is a much more realistic.

Realistic? In a world where Republicans exist?

Heh.

[Thomkal]

I really am just tired of tired of talking about all the corruption in this administration:


FEMA head under investigation for improper use of vehicles.
Sec of Commerce has stuff about his role in the Census citizenship question redacted and revealed in a lawsuit
Trump wants the FISA information about Carter Page and Bruce Ohr totally redacted and revealed- ordered the DOJ and FBI to do so.



And it goes on and on...

[Edward64]

Re: universal or single-payer healthcare in the US

I'm all for it but I do think the US has unique challenges that needs to be acknowledged and addressed somehow.


1) I think the US subsidizes the ROW (rest-of-world) drug prices and hence their lower costs of healthcare. The other countries can provide drugs at lower cost because the pharma's that can charge higher in the US can therefore charge lower in ROW. Would reducing drug prices in the US cause increases in the other countries?

2) Similar vein of thought, the US produces the most new drugs and therefore those pharma companies pass those costs down to the US consumer. Will the reduction in incentive due to lower profits cause less drug research?

3) With socialized medicine, there are bound to be greater "limits" to what can be done for a consumer. I know many countries offer private insurance which is what I would also want for the US model but for those without private insurance, there will be limits on drugs and treatment.

I'm personally okay with this. There was a study that showed a great % of costs was attributed to the last X weeks of a patients life. I've told my wife that I don't want extraordinary treatment or drugs, just make me comfortable and pain free (e.g. opiods!).

Is the US mindset too much into -- do what needs to be done to prolong life for X months? Will the US mindset accept these limitation?

4) Will the reduced profits to Providers (e.g. doctors, nurses etc.) mean there will be less of them? Maybe, but TBH, reform our immigration laws and we can get a bunch of doctors (India) and nurses (Philippines) elsewhere who may (admittedly) be less qualified but probably 80-90% there.


5) An option (or in addition to I guess) to single-payer is true transparency to medical and drug prices. I've heard some say that the info is out there but I don't think it is. Like the stock market, let there be an efficient flow of information.

About 2 months ago, I was asking around for quotes to a medical procedure at 3 different providers. Each of them went something like this ...

Me: "So how much will it cost?"
Them: "Oh, you just pay your co-pay"
Me: "I understand, my co-pay is 20%. But if I don't know the total cost of the procedure, I don't really know what my out-of-pocket cost is?"
Them: "Oh, we don't know how much it'll cost until you come in for the procedure. Your insurance will take care of it, you'll only be responsible for your max."

What I want is a menu of how much baseline procedures will cost, how much the drugs will cost, how many doctor visits to expect and those costs all with the reasonable understanding it could go up if something else is found or happens. But they can't (actually won't because their competitors won't either) even give the initial baseline prices.

Once they do, I want ratings/ranking of doctors and hospitals for medical procedures and their success rate. I want complaints (or kudos) to be available etc.

IMO, only with this true transparency will we be able to address the issue of outrageous costs from Pharma, Payer and Provider.


So to summarize - I want a baseline single-payer healthcare system and supported Obama but that fell short. However, if it happens, I do believe there will be constraints from what many enjoy today.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cartman

Kavanaugh committee vote has been postponed.

The accuser had said there was Kavanaugh and another male. The other male denied the story but I didn't read any analysis to see if the other male had credibility or not.

It happened a long time ago and admittedly they were inebriated. I think its good to delay and see what else comes out in the next several weeks but don't think he should be eliminated because of a single accusation. If there is a pattern and others pop up then ...

[NobodyHere]

So how does one defend oneself against a 30 year old rape accusation?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So how does one defend oneself against a 30 year old rape accusation?

History would suggest it’s quite easy.

[PilotMan]

I'm still waiting for trump to declassify his tax returns.

[Kodos]

The man is being audited! He can't release while he's being audited!

[PilotMan]

There's some trashy gossip about trump out this morning, and for a split second, I was like, "do we really need to know or talk about this? I mean c'mon." But then I was like, it's this mfer and he deserves every bit of malice coming his way. The bully always deserves all of it, without remorse.

[bronconick]

Sure, but Mario Kart didn't deserve this

[spleen1015]

I don't think I will play Mario Kart ever again.

[JPhillips]

I understand the argument that there isn't enough evidence to remove Kavanaugh, but the growing number of conservatives saying attempted rape when you're 17 is no big deal is revolting.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Germany, next best economy is not a NHS, it’s a successful obamacare model. Which, I think is a much more realistic.

With a MASSIVE public option.

Healthcare in Germany - Wikipedia

Regular salaried employees must have public health insurance. Only public officers, self-employed people and employees with a large income, above c. €50,000.00 per year (adjusted yearly), may join the private system.

Health insurance is compulsory for the whole population in Germany. Salaried workers and employees below the relatively high income threshold of almost 60,000 Euros per year are automatically enrolled into one of currently around 130 public non-profit "sickness funds" at common rates for all members, and is paid for with joint employer-employee contributions. Provider payment is negotiated in complex corporatist social bargaining among specified self-governed bodies (e.g. physicians' associations) at the level of federal states (Länder). The sickness funds are mandated to provide a unique and broad benefit package and cannot refuse membership or otherwise discriminate on an actuarial basis. Social welfare beneficiaries are also enrolled in statutory health insurance, and municipalities pay contributions on behalf of them.

[Logan]

I'm sure Don Jr already accomplished his mission in getting the lemmings to believe this was just more fake news that needed to be shared, but good to see Cooper show the full story.

Anderson Cooper 360° on Twitter: ""The idea I am kneeling in water to make it look deep is idiotic."

@AndersonCooper debunks the lies being spread by Donald Trump Jr., and others who falsely claimed he and his team exaggerated the severity of Hurricane Florence. #KeepingThemHonest https://t.co/j2HptrYpe0… https://t.co/QpdxlEfHwW"

[Thomkal]

Trump is expected to visit Myrtle Beach on Wed, where the least damage is. I'll be sure to get some paper towels for everyone

[Lathum]

China has openly stated that they are actively trying to impact and change our election by attacking our farmers, ranchers and industrial workers because of their loyalty to me. What China does not understand is that these people are great patriots and fully understand that.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 18, 2018

His use of the word Loyalty is frightening.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I don't think I will play Mario Kart ever again.

These aren't normal times.

But they are fun.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

These aren't normal times.

But they are fun.

Honestly, not trying to start a beef, but there is nothing fun or funny about it. The complete joke we have become on the world stage is bad enough.We should all be afraid of what the future holds for us and our kids.

I, like many other here, have worked hard to put myself in a position to be financially well off, stable, look forward to retirement, etc...and set my kids up for success. All of that is likely going to be undone because of a bunch of mouth breathing baby boomers who want to be openly racist and xenophobic.

We have an establishment that isn't even 2 years into what could very likely be an 8 year regime, and it is already lunacy.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Lathum

China has openly stated that they are actively trying to impact and change our election by attacking our farmers, ranchers and industrial workers because of their loyalty to me. What China does not understand is that these people are great patriots and fully understand that.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 18, 2018

His use of the word Loyalty is frightening.

In terms of farmers, I'd estimate that he's maybe lost 15-20% of his support due to the tariffs. But I also don't get the impression they regret voting for him over Hillary.

The other 80% are convinced that even though they are suffering right now due to tariffs, that Trump's master negotiation skills will lead to a great deal with China because China needs us more than we need them. (Never mind the fact that you can't even get a bid to sell soybeans in the Pacific Northwest).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Germany, next best economy is not a NHS, it’s a successful obamacare model. Which, I think is a much more realistic.

The government covers most of the costs and the market is heavily regulated. Obamacare is really far from it.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I find quickly dismissing the uniqueness of the largest by far economy and the third largest population and the most diverse, naive and dangerous. Asking to completely up end a broken system without proper recognition of the problems, is Bernie type of bernie dogma I can’t stand...imho

No, you're dismissing something that works all over the world (and even in this very own country) because of some vague exceptionalism argument. It's a lazy non-argument that people trot out when they can't provide actual reasons why it won't work.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Again, massive gamble to be so certain. Are there other large scale examples of a government taking over an massive institution and costs went way down?

Medicare

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Honestly, not trying to start a beef, but there is nothing fun or funny about it. The complete joke we have become on the world stage is bad enough.We should all be afraid of what the future holds for us and our kids.

I, like many other here, have worked hard to put myself in a position to be financially well off, stable, look forward to retirement, etc...and set my kids up for success. All of that is likely going to be undone because of a bunch of mouth breathing baby boomers who want to be openly racist and xenophobic.

We have an establishment that isn't even 2 years into what could very likely be an 8 year regime, and it is already lunacy.

Thank you. The past two years have been scary AF, not "fun" in any way, shape, or form.