2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[flere-imsaho]

Guaranteed minimum income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[flere-imsaho]

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Guaranteed minimum income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've always though that something like that would be a lot cheaper for the government to run than the mess of programs we have (that's another obnoxious moderate opinion - let's save money by broadening but simplifying government programs and making them more uniform.)

There's still this part though, "and either availability for the labour market or a willingness to perform community services." That's impossible to effectively enforce, as we see with disability leeches now.

I think it might be cheaper to have a single, no-strings-attached, guaranteed very minimum income that everybody gets, from the poorest person to the richest person. And then work earns you more on top of that. So the lower-paid workers aren't working most of the year just to get what they'd get on welfare or disability anyway.

Edit: And as a bonus, a portion of that minimum income would be available to be taken back or withheld for criminal fines or restitution. I saw them do that in Alaska with the permanent dividend fund when I did a summer legal job up there.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

No argument was ever won by moralizing one way or the other who is allowed to be poor and who isn't. The fact is that we have poor, who live like shit, even if they live on government money. I'm perfectly ok with money going to support some shitty quality of life for someone that's better than living in the street. Some people look lazy, but have real problems that were never addressed.

I know I've mentioned my oldest son, who is disabled, and on Medicaid. Without us pushing and pushing and pushing he never would have even graduated high school. With the disability he was have no possibility of even considering independent living. If we had been shittier parents he would have been out a long time ago, and more likely that not, living on the street. He was very high risk. He was just disabled enough that if you looked you could see it, but at first glance you'd never give it a though. Many, many homeless are in the exact same boat.

There isn't any charitable aid organization in the world that can support people like the government can. The common good is important. It can't just be a world of self righteous, self serving, individuals with blinders on. I'm much more concerned with the millions and billions being lifted in white collar crime, than I am about the thousands that are spent allowing people to live basic, not quite so shitty, lives.

I don't think it's fair to label people as self-righteous, self-serving, and with blinders on when we can see through our own experiences others being self-righteous and self-serving by taking advantage of the good-will programs. To suggest it's not happening is walking around with blinders on.

We should not strive for people on welfare to be comfortable to the point where they become as docile as domesticated cows. We are institutionalizing people into worthlessness when so many could do so much more. But if they never feel pressure to improve, how will they, if they don't know any other way (sans 'survivors' that just get it and move forward). By voting in more benefits and services...yes, it's good for some, but for many, it can have damaging long term effects.

[lungs]

About six years ago a former farm worker of my dad's stopped by asking if he could pitch a tent on our property because he lost his job and apartment. The guy at the time was mid 50's (60 years old now). Worked in low level farm and factory jobs his whole life. He's probably on the borderline just above being considered mentally handicapped. No family, no kids, few friends.

Instead of pitching a tent, we put him up in an old shed that had some living quarters built into it that we weren't using. Original plan was until he got on his feet. In exchange for the accommodations he keeps the lawns mowed on our properties during the summer. Until he gets on his feet has now turned into six years.

I did get on his case after about four years in which he didn't really attempt to look for a job. His biggest anxiety was getting to and from work because he had no vehicle. So I arranged a vehicle for him and he got a temporary job in factory. But with his age, he just couldn't keep up in the factory and they didn't bring him on permanently. He has no skills and is socially awkward (mentally he's probably 10 years old).

But he's not a bad guy. No serious criminal record, not an alcoholic or junkie.

What do you do with people like that? The only assistance he receives is food stamps. I or my dad will give him a few bucks here and there so he can afford chewing tobacco and a few beers (four tall cans of Natty Ice!). Otherwise he's got nothing.

[AENeuman]

I wish we were more angry about developing a $22.5 billion destroyer no one seems to want or the majority $20 billion in farm subsides going to corporations and waste, than some lazy people getting (farm subsidized) food they don't deserve.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I wish we were more angry about developing a $22.5 billion destroyer no one seems to want or the majority $20 billion in farm subsides going to corporations and waste, than some lazy people getting (farm subsidized) food they don't deserve.

I guess I get to be that guy here, the one who says what a lot of people think but aren't comfortable forming words around:

There is at least some value in the destroyer, however unwanted.
There is at least some value in the subsidies, however fractional.
The lazy folks? {scratches head} Finding value there is a lot tougher.

Yeah yeah, "all God's children" etc etc ... but perhaps this is one place where we'd benefit from more people sticking to the whole separation of church/state concept. Whatever those people are, they really shouldn't be the taxpayers problem to the extent they've become.

And before anyone even tries some sort of faux outrage about this bit of candor, it's really just an extension of something I've said numerous times in recent years: we have an excess of population,supply that exceeds demand.

[bob]

Originally Posted by molson

I think it might be cheaper to have a single, no-strings-attached, guaranteed very minimum income that everybody gets, from the poorest person to the richest person.

Does anyone have an idea of how much we currently spend on welfare, food stamps, WIC, etc? I'm curious what that would amount to per person today if we only paid out to adults and did not include healthcare in the equation.

[Kodos]

It would be nice to have a system in place where physically-able people who refuse to work live with less than people who are willing to work at low-level jobs.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I guess I get to be that guy here, the one who says what a lot of people think but aren't comfortable forming words around:

There is at least some value in the destroyer, however unwanted.
There is at least some value in the subsidies, however fractional.
The lazy folks? {scratches head} Finding value there is a lot tougher.

Yeah yeah, "all God's children" etc etc ... but perhaps this is one place where we'd benefit from more people sticking to the whole separation of church/state concept. Whatever those people are, they really shouldn't be the taxpayers problem to the extent they've become.

And before anyone even tries some sort of faux outrage about this bit of candor, it's really just an extension of something I've said numerous times in recent years: we have an excess of population,supply that exceeds demand.

This is exactly what confuses me. Why do you come up short in not seeing the value in the poor?

The food stamp program directly benefits farm and retail corporations.

The prison, police, emergency rooms and public school unions directly benefit from poor and miserable.

Heck, I get free checking because my bank can make money off fees and penalties from the poor and miserable. My school district got $5.8 million from lotto funds from poor people pipe dreams.

Our social welfare institutions are the backbones of most communities. Without the poor and miserable there would be a lot of unemployed, college educated voters. (the same is true about many military contracts)

My point is, the poor and miserable may be getting what they want, but it's not because they are a voting block to be reckoned with. It is clearly the powerful corporations and middle and upper classes voting blocks that are benefiting from "those" people. The poor and miserable are perhaps the most valuable group politicians have to appease their voters/donors.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

This is exactly what confuses me. Why do you come up short in not seeing the value in the poor?

Not one single thing you mentioned benefits me as a taxpayer.
I resent every dime of it.

but it's not because they are a voting block to be reckoned with.

We disagree on that point entirely & completely. Our entire political system is built on buying those votes. Directly. And it's been working pretty damned well for the last little while.

[RainMaker]

I guess technically you could argue that farm subsidies are part of national security. If your country doesn't have its own food supply you can get starved out in a war. More of an issue about reforming them instead of eliminating it though.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In large part because in spite of the reservations that some (many?) of his supporters have, he's still not only the best alternative in the race but he's also the only remaining alternative in the race.

He's all the party has that's bringing potential meaningful value at this point, sad situation that might be.

He brings ZERO value but the sheep can't open their eyes and see that. They just follow their cult leader.

[RainMaker]

Also I do think disability is being abused. There are a lot of people joining for mental issues who are not necessarily incapable of doing work. I know of two people who are on it for "social anxiety". Their "social anxiety" doesn't prevent them from playing video games online though and pickup basketball with me and some friends.

I know of one person who collects something to take care of her elderly Mother who doesn't really need around the clock care. I also neighbor who hurt his back years ago and claims he can't work but is always working on his house and playing catch with his kids.

[RainMaker]

I also feel like we should have some program in place that if you are an able-bodied person who needs assistance, we put you to work instead of just a handout. I can find a million jobs that would help my city look nicer on a daily basis. Picking up trash, sweeping up the alleys, cleaning graffiti, painting fences, etc.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not one single thing you mentioned benefits me as a taxpayer.
I resent every dime of it.

Sure it does, it's your choice to see it or not. You seem like to our capitalist system of winners and losers, while at the same wishing the losers were exterminated. This system requires losers (to be taken advantage of).

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We disagree on that point entirely & completely. Our entire political system is built on buying those votes. Directly. And it's been working pretty damned well for the last little while.

Any proof that the poor who vote less than 50% have had more impact than the more well off groups voting and donating at over 70%? I'm arguing that the 70% join the poor and miserable because it benefits them, personally.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I guess technically you could argue that farm subsidies are part of national security. If your country doesn't have its own food supply you can get starved out in a war.

Not relevant for the United States, though, and not likely to be so for decades at best.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I know of two people who are on it for "social anxiety". Their "social anxiety" doesn't prevent them from playing video games online though and pickup basketball with me and some friends.

I have no idea if the people you're talking about should be on disability or not, but this is a seriously ignorant statement.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Any proof that the poor who vote less than 50% have had more impact than the more well off groups voting and donating at over 70%? I'm arguing that the 70% join the poor and miserable because it benefits them, personally.

Seriously. Our politicians know how to sell their votes. They aren't going to do that for a group of a people who vote at the lowest percentages in the country. They'd rather sell their votes for people who vote are very, very high percentages (which is why old white people get so much stuff)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Radii

I have no idea if the people you're talking about should be on disability or not, but this is a seriously ignorant statement.

These two are not disabled. One just has wealthy parents and hates working (always quits jobs). The other was fired a few years ago, got addicted to online gaming (his wife left him and he had a relationship with some woman through one of these games) and just doesn't want to work.

[digamma]

Sorry, baby, gotta get rid of this bath water.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Oooooo: This simple calculator tells you how each presidential candidate's tax plan affects you - Vox

Both Trump & Cruz cut my taxes a little over half (Cruz cuts it more), there's pretty much no change for me under Clinton, and Sanders more than doubles my annual tax bill.

Well, I'm totally voting for Cruz now.

This calculator is so dishonest it's just an ad for Clinton. Vox is embarrassing.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by digamma

Sorry, baby, gotta get rid of this bath water.

Or just police it better to eliminate abuse. I like how the answer to some kind of reform is always "so you want to get rid of disability for everyone!".

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I wish we were more angry about developing a $22.5 billion destroyer no one seems to want or the majority $20 billion in farm subsides going to corporations and waste, than some lazy people getting (farm subsidized) food they don't deserve.

To be fair, we don't take $22 billion dollars and *poof* a destroyer appears. There are lots of highly skilled workers that must be paid, dock workers, iron workers...parts need to be manufactured, produced and paid for...creating a lot of jobs.

If we cut that program, it cuts jobs, the need for workers of all skill levels. The benefits are pretty clear in our military functioning abroad to keep the bad guys (and yes, bad guys do exist) busy elsewhere and not here.

Take that same $22 billion and put it in to welfare and yes, it still has a positive impact on the economy but now we aren't producing anything....but now it's a forced upkeep of $22B with no jobs, no outputs....although I'm sure cigarette and alcohol manufacturers won't mind it.

Not defending bloat, everything needs to be looked at and reformed.

I'm still of the mindset that the $6T we give the government (yes, the self-righteous taxpayers with blinders on donate $6T a year to the US and State governments) is enough to stay strong and vibrant (both at home and abroad) if we used the money as it should be used and stop throwing money at problem areas where there is no clear goal on how to make it better.

Nobody in government, particularly the clowns we are voting for, don't seem to care and are more than happy to sit back and watch us bicker over it.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Or just police it better to eliminate abuse. I like how the answer to some kind of reform is always "so you want to get rid of disability for everyone!".

I'd be fine looking at enhanced enforcement. It's not a police job though. It also comes with a cost. With any enterprise you factor in some abuse, loss or waste. You're obviously never going to catch everyone. As long as the loss/waste is within reasonable limits as compared to the stated goals and overall return, I can accept that too.

[Solecismic]

I see three issues where I think there's an objective answer, but they are controversial.

1) Should the government provide a safety net to those who need it? I think it should, but more effort should be made to determine if the person can work, and no one should ever be penalized financially for taking work as they are today.

2) Does permanent welfare actually do harm, and does it actually increase the gap between those with privilege and those without? I think it does. We've had 50 years of the Great Society, and the gaps keep growing larger.

3) Can we keep borrowing money? The nice thing about being a Democrat is that you never have to say no. You propose a program, and only the coldest of hearts would say it's not worth while - if you have the money. There are some countries that are based on this concept of socialism or Democratic Socialism if you want to make it clear that you're not advocating government control over all business. They range from Venezuela, which is in complete failure, to Greece, which is doing rather poorly, to the Scandinavian countries, which once topped the leader boards but have dropped considerably since implementing these policies (they're also smaller and much more homogeneous). We could raise taxes, but that doesn't necessarily mean more revenue. France recently flirted with a 75% marginal tax rate for the wealthy and had to remove it fairly quickly. But if we continue to carry a $20 trillion debt and act as if reducing it isn't even on the table, our children and grandchildren will have very different lives than we do.

Tough issues. And in an increasingly divisive political arena, there isn't much hope of solution. Four of the five remaining candidates are so extreme (and in Trump's case, I don't even have a clue what he wants to do after he argues with Mexico over building this wall and starts a trade war with China) that I have no confidence they could get a single proposal through Congress. And the fifth doesn't have any ability to build momentum.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

To be fair, we don't take $22 billion dollars and *poof* a destroyer appears. There are lots of highly skilled workers that must be paid, dock workers, iron workers...parts need to be manufactured, produced and paid for...creating a lot of jobs.

--

Take that same $22 billion and put it in to welfare and yes, it still has a positive impact on the economy but now we aren't producing anything....but now it's a forced upkeep of $22B with no jobs, no outputs....although I'm sure cigarette and alcohol manufacturers won't mind it.

I'm not entirely sure how you can post these two things and not realize the obvious contradiction here.

[PilotMan]

I think you've easily got 3 different threads worth of material right there. Number 2 is much deeper than you've really gone with it, the Great Society programs have been overwhelmingly successful. They were never designed as a way to keep incomes level. So your point really doesn't hold. Like I said, 3 different threads worth of material.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We've had 50 years of the Great Society, and the gaps keep growing larger.

The Great Society ended in the 1980s (The central portions of the War on Poverty were gutted by the Nixon and Ford Administrations and then killed in the Reagan Administration), if not earlier. A few portions were not completely eliminated and carry on (Medicare, Medicaid) and without those I'm convinced the gap would be incredibly enormous (besides, it was the aforementioned War on Poverty that was directly created to deal with that gap).

Can we keep borrowing money? The nice thing about being a Democrat is that you never have to say no.

A bit rich considering the largest percentage increase in the deficit happened under a Republican President.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

2) Does permanent welfare actually do harm, and does it actually increase the gap between those with privilege and those without? I think it does. We've had 50 years of the Great Society, and the gaps keep growing larger.

The poverty rate pre-Great Society and post argues the exact opposite. What evidence do you have that it caused harm?

3) Can we keep borrowing money? The nice thing about being a Democrat is that you never have to say no. You propose a program, and only the coldest of hearts would say it's not worth while - if you have the money. There are some countries that are based on this concept of socialism or Democratic Socialism if you want to make it clear that you're not advocating government control over all business. They range from Venezuela, which is in complete failure, to Greece, which is doing rather poorly, to the Scandinavian countries, which once topped the leader boards but have dropped considerably since implementing these policies (they're also smaller and much more homogeneous). We could raise taxes, but that doesn't necessarily mean more revenue. France recently flirted with a 75% marginal tax rate for the wealthy and had to remove it fairly quickly. But if we continue to carry a $20 trillion debt and act as if reducing it isn't even on the table, our children and grandchildren will have very different lives than we do.

Sucks that there's nothing in between our current average effective tax rate of around 25% and 75%.

.

[ISiddiqui]

Did Trump just say we need some form of punishment for women who have an abortion? God, he's just playing into Hillary Clinton's wheelhouse, isn't he?

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Did Trump just say we need some form of punishment for women who have an abortion? God, he's just playing into Hillary Clinton's wheelhouse, isn't he?

There have been many times during the campaign where we could have said, 'Here is where Trump has put his foot in his mouth / made a fatal mistake and his campaign will not recover.' Of course, we would have been wrong in all cases so far.

But this - this I think will signal the beginning of the end.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

But this - this I think will signal the beginning of the end.

I thought it was the end when he bashed McCain for getting captured in war. I don't know what could possibly be the end.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I thought it was the end when he bashed McCain for getting captured in war. I don't know what could possibly be the end.

I hope it continues forever - I love the spectacle.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Did Trump just say we need some form of punishment for women who have an abortion? God, he's just playing into Hillary Clinton's wheelhouse, isn't he?

A quick Google provides context ... according to the headlines I'm seeing the punishment remark was in the context of if the U.S. banned the procedure

I'm pro-choice, hell approaching pro-abortion even, but he's spot-on correct on the philosophical approach.

Rules without consequence for failure to comply are comically silly.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

A quick Google provides context ... according to the headlines I'm seeing the punishment remark was in the context of if the U.S. banned the procedure

I'm pro-choice, hell approaching pro-abortion even, but he's spot-on correct on the philosophical approach.

Rules without consequence for failure to comply are comically silly.

Well, shit, that's completely different....fucking media.

[ISiddiqui]

Even those who favor banning abortion (Rubio and Cruz and maybe Trump... depending on the day) have stated that the punishment should apply to the doctors who perform it. They are intelligent to realize that punishing the women is not the smartest political answer to give.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

according to the headlines I'm seeing the punishment remark was in the context of if the U.S. banned the procedure

That's pretty mealy mouthed, considering Trump was advocating for an abortion ban. So its in the context of HIS OWN PROPOSED BAN.

Watch the video:
Trump Advocates Abortion Ban, 'Some Form of Punishment' for Women - NBC News

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That's pretty mealy mouthed, considering Trump was advocating for an abortion ban. So its in the context of HIS OWN PROPOSED BAN.

Watch the video:
Trump Advocates Abortion Ban, 'Some Form of Punishment' for Women - NBC News

I had also thought similarly to JiMGa until reading that he favors a ban on abortion. So putting the 2 together is significant. In Trump's defense though I doubt he's made the connection between his two statements and what that means.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

In Trump's defense though I doubt he's made the connection between his two statements and what that means.

[Dutch]

But, I'm not sure why we are discussing this here....the Establishment is gonna win. Points at the boring and neglected DNC thread.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Even those who favor banning abortion (Rubio and Cruz and maybe Trump... depending on the day) have stated that the punishment should apply to the doctors who perform it. They are intelligent to realize that punishing the women is not the smartest political answer to give.

Then those laws aren't against having abortions, they're against performing them.

Depends on how the hypothetical law is worded afaic.

If having an abortion is illegal then common sense dictates violation of the law carry a penalty for the woman.

If only performing an abortion is illegal then, duh, the person performing it gets the punishment.

Frankly, if you're looking to ban the procedure then penalties should apply to both. Otherwise, you're only dealing with half the supply/demand chain.

(That's also a very consistent approach for me, I advocate penalties for both drug users & dealers, seems only rational that this hypothetical should get the same approach)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That's pretty mealy mouthed, considering Trump was advocating for an abortion ban. So its in the context of HIS OWN PROPOSED BAN.

Watch the video:
Trump Advocates Abortion Ban, 'Some Form of Punishment' for Women - NBC News

Yeah. He says, "We have to ban it."

But this won't hurt him in the primary, and he already had 73% of all women seeing him unfavorably, so it probably doesn't matter in terms of votes.

[nol]

Originally Posted by digamma

I'd be fine looking at enhanced enforcement. It's not a police job though. It also comes with a cost. With any enterprise you factor in some abuse, loss or waste. You're obviously never going to catch everyone. As long as the loss/waste is within reasonable limits as compared to the stated goals and overall return, I can accept that too.

And there are enough red states that have gone forward with making welfare benefits contingent upon drug testing to make me pretty sure that if a program had been remotely cost-effective in terms of catching potential leeches, at least one of the candidates would be trumpeting its success and pushing for it to be implemented nationwide.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Frankly, if you're looking to ban the procedure then penalties should apply to both. Otherwise, you're only dealing with half the supply/demand chain.

Many are advocating for the opposite re: prostitution; rather than legalization, decriminalization where johns could be prosecuted but not prostitutes. Different situation of course, and the rationale is to protect women who might be coerced/abused/etc.

In this case though, I think it's pretty obvious that pro-lifers don't want women to seek abortions. So if they are...? I mean, it's not as if pregnant women are having doctors jump out at them from the bushes. It seems a little hypocritical for them to demonize women for considering abortion and then to go "whoa, whoa - no, we don't want to punish them!"

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Many are advocating for the opposite re: prostitution; rather than legalization, decriminalization where johns could be prosecuted but not prostitutes. Different situation of course, and the rationale is to protect women who might be coerced/abused/etc.

I'd say that's an equally silly approach doomed to fail frankly. Half-measures generally speaking, seem to waste a lot of time & energy to accomplish damned little.

In this case though, I think it's pretty obvious that pro-lifers don't want women to seek abortions. So if they are...? I mean, it's not as if pregnant women are having doctors jump out at them from the bushes. It seems a little hypocritical for them to demonize women for considering abortion and then to go "whoa, whoa - no, we don't want to punish them!"

Any that say that (I haven't seen it come up that way, not something I pay a ton of attention to frankly) I'd call ... well, I'd probably call 'em idiots for that specific combination of stances. Either you take issue with it or you don't, so take a stand or don't.

And before anybody gets their knickers knotted, I'm not calling out anybody who has an objection to abortion with that comment. I'd argue that you're wrong about the position but that's not the idiotic part to me, I'm strictly calling out the "that's awful ... but don't punish them" sub-set.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

... well, I'd probably call 'em idiots for that specific combination of stances. Either you take issue with it or you don't, so take a stand or don't.

It's illogical at best.

Trump’s Call To Punish Women Who Have Abortions Is Way Outside The Mainstream | FiveThirtyEight

He may have changed his position after realizing that his earlier stance put him outside Republican candidate norms. In 2007, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a forceful opponent of abortion, said he wouldn’t penalize a woman who sought an abortion because he considered her “a victim, not a criminal.” In 2011, another anti-abortion advocate, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, said that doctors should face criminal penalties, adding that he’s “never supported criminalization of abortion for mothers.”

I mean...if someone really considers it murder, isn't that like saying it's criminal to be a hitman, but not to hire one?

edit: I guess it goes with this whole line of thinking where the claim is that they're not against women, they're trying to protect them. Which I think the majority of women will call bullshit. They're just hedging to attempt to not piss off a huge portion of the electorate.

[larrymcg421]

Trump responding to a question from Good Morning America on who he'd appoint to the Supreme Court:

Well, I’d probably appoint people that would look very seriously at her email disaster because it’s a criminal activity, and I would appoint people that would look very seriously at that to start off with.

The man doesn't even understand the basics of how the Supreme Court works.

[EagleFan]

He is not fit to be president and that is obvious to anyone with a brain.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The man doesn't even understand the basics of how our government works.

fixed