Hey Democrats...

[AU9377 4,979]

54 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

What the ACA accomplished was to create a very expensive wealth redistribution network that made health insurance more expensive across the board and thinly disguised it with taxpayer subsidies.  Health insurance costs more and pays out less than it did before the ACA.  For everyone.  It's just that the middle class is now forced to pay for their artificially inflated and relatively worthless health insurance as well as the artificially inflated health insurance costs of the lower class.

It really isn't an effort.  It's little more than a corrupt scam.  And it's obvious.  It was obvious before it was even passed.  As I said earlier, the ACA doesn't even work theoretically.  Where were all you guys when John Gruber was confessing?

Basic health care?  People are going bankrupt over basic health care?

Again, this is the "health care is a right" nonsense.

It's not a right and people are not entitled to it.  It's a service provided by others.  Nothing is a right that has to be produced by other people's labor.

 

Do you believe that Americans, regardless of their financial position, should be denied health care?  Since WWII, public policy in this country has been to provide care to anyone that needs care.  That is why hospitals cannot turn away someone based on their ability to pay, provided that the person presents thru the ER.  That being the policy, would it not make much more sense to provide that care by way of universal coverage?  Every other similarly situated country on the globe has come to the conclusion that universal coverage is the most efficient method by which to do this.  The only reason we have not done so is that special interest groups and lobbyists have worked hard to keep the flow of money to their clients.  We have a system with bloated administrative costs and bloated charges, prescription drug prices are the highest in the world and what should be the cheapest thing to deliver, preventive care, isn't available to the poor.

It is incredibly hard to gauge how well the ACA works when so many states have refused to participate in the plan.  It gets good reviews in Kentucky due to Kentucky participating from the start, as an example.  The other option remains to go back to the way things were.  That will not happen.  More likely is a reform that includes universal coverage.  That is what we will move to when people stop being so damn stubborn and actually try to learn from the way others have handled the problem successfully.

One more thing.. Chief Justice Roberts did not declare that the ACA was a tax.  He concluded that the power to tax would give the Federal govt the authority to implement the law.

Edited October 15, 2021 by AU9377

[jj3jordan 2,056]

25 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I really don't think the number of gender dysphoria surgeries are part of the problem, but I have no objection to them being elective.  Honestly, to even bring them up just wreaks of Fox News.

Pretty dumb comment.  What does Fox news have to do with this discussion?  The point is the ACA made policies include all kinds of surgeries that were not related to health at all.  Sex change operations are elective not necessary and should not be covered. Hysterectomies for a mans policy.  Vasectomies for females. Addadicktome and addadtittome have no business being covered in an insurance policy. To do so is purely advancing a leftist liberal agenda.  Political not medical.

Edited October 15, 2021 by jj3jordan

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Do you believe that Americans, regardless of their financial position, should be denied health care? 

The fact that this is nonsense accounts for how twisted up you just got trying to word it in a way so as to elicit sympathy.

Here's what it comes down to.  Actual legitimate rights are negative.  A negative right is the right to not have something done to you.  To be left alone with regard to something, in other words.  All the rights in the constitution are negative rights with the exception of the right to a jury trial, which I similarly do not believe is a legitimate right b/c it involuntarily conscripts others in order to provide it.  It's a positive "right."

A positive right is a right that requires others' labor to fulfill the "right." Which invalidates it as a right IMO.

Liberals confuse needs with rights.

It's true that all humans have the basic biological need for health care.  Liberals conclude that that means that health care is a right.

But humans also all have the basic biological need for sex.  Does that mean that sex is a right?  Should the government provide sex for all citizens to ensure that no one goes without?  To use your phrasing above, should Americans, regardless of their physical attractiveness, be denied sex?

Don't laugh.  The subculture that calls themselves Incels believes they have a right to sex, regardless of the fact that it requires other people to fulfill that "right" for them just like you guys assert that people have a right to health care, and why not?  It's the same reasoning.  They just took the reasoning and applied it to another biological need.

The way it really works is that we should be free and left alone to pursue needs.  That's the part that is a right.

And I really don't care what other countries do.  Other countries don't have nearly the handle on the proper balance between individual citizen's rights and government that we (at least used to) have.  Other countries also depend on the US keeping health care as a for-profit industry b/c we provide the vast majority of medical R&D for the whole world.  So a lot of the reason that other countries can structure health care the way they do is because our health care is structured the way it is.  They draft off our R&D.

Not to mention, some of those international houses of cards may come down at some point.  Japan's economy, for example, is in uncharted waters with regard to government spending relative to GDP, in large part due to their health care expenditures.  No one knows what will happen with it; it's literally greater than anyone has experience with.  Looks to me like an economic tsunami brewing.

As for the artificial bloating, yes, that's what happens when government regulates an industry.  The more regulation, the bigger the artificial inflation.  I'm not saying that health care shouldn't be regulated at all—I don't have the much libertarian in me—but it's worth noting that government regulation is what causes artificial inflation and unintended consequences.  It's highly unlikely that we will solve the problems you speak of by increasing government involvement and regulation.  They are what caused the vast majority of them in the first place.

Liberals always forget that lobbyists only have influence to the exact degree that government can be influenced to intervene in a situation.  Lobbyists have no power to the exact degree that government does not get involved.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

2 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

The fact that this is nonsense accounts for how twisted up you just got trying to word it in a way so as to elicit sympathy.

Here's what it comes down to.  Actual legitimate rights are negative.  A negative right is the right to not have something done to you.  To be left alone with regard to something, in other words.  All the rights in the constitution are negative rights with the exception of the right to a jury trial, which I similarly do not believe is a legitimate right b/c it involuntarily conscripts others in order to provide it.  It's a positive "right."

A positive right is a right that requires others' labor to fulfill the "right." Which invalidates it as a right IMO.

Liberals confuse needs with rights.

It's true that all humans have the basic biological need for health care.  Liberals conclude that that means that health care is a right.

But humans also all have the basic biological need for sex.  Does that mean that sex is a right?  Should the government provide sex for all citizens to ensure that no one goes without?  To use your phrasing above, should Americans, regardless of their physical attractiveness, be denied sex?

Don't laugh.  The subculture that calls themselves Incels believes they have a right to sex, regardless of the fact that it requires other people to fulfill that "right" for them just like you guys assert that people have a right to health care, and why not?  It's the same reasoning.  They just took the reasoning and applied it to another biological need.

The way it really works is that we should be free and left alone to pursue needs.  That's the part that is a right.

And I really don't care what other countries do.  Other countries don't have nearly the handle on the proper balance between individual citizen's rights and government that we (at least used to) have.  Other countries also depend on the US keeping health care as a for-profit industry b/c we provide the vast majority of medical R&D for the whole world.  So a lot of the reason that other countries can structure health care the way they do is because our health care is structured the way it is.  They draft off our R&D.

Not to mention, some of those international houses of cards may come down at some point.  Japan's economy, for example, is in uncharted waters with regard to government spending relative to GDP, in large part due to their health care expenditures.  No one knows what will happen with it; it's literally greater than anyone has experience with.  Looks to me like an economic tsunami brewing.

As for the artificial bloating, yes, that's what happens when government regulates an industry.  The more regulation, the bigger the artificial inflation.  I'm not saying that health care shouldn't be regulated at all—I don't have the much libertarian in me—but it's worth noting that government regulation is what causes artificial inflation and unintended consequences.  It's highly unlikely that we will solve the problems you speak of by increasing government involvement and regulation.  They are what caused the vast majority of them in the first place.

Liberals always forget that lobbyists only have influence to the exact degree that government can be influenced to intervene in a situation.  Lobbyists have no power to the exact degree that government does not get involved.

In a state of nature health care isn’t a “right.” Each society determines what those are. Healthy societies have no trouble distinguishing between the “need” for healthcare and the “need” for sex and determining which one they deem as a “right.” The absence of one can kill you and the absence of the other won’t. And if you are concerned about those western style democracies that provide healthcare collapsing, you’re going to be really surprised with which country implodes first. But you probably won’t have to wait more than three years to find out.

[creed 1,641]

I'm a republican and anyone who thinks a single payer national health care system is not a good thing isn't thinking clearly.

Edit: I was republican, now I'm independent. 

Edited October 15, 2021 by creed

[TexasTiger 12,964]

7 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Do you believe that Americans, regardless of their financial position, should be denied health care?  Since WWII, public policy in this country has been to provide care to anyone that needs care.  That is why hospitals cannot turn away someone based on their ability to pay, provided that the person presents thru the ER.  That being the policy, would it not make much more sense to provide that care by way of universal coverage?  Every other similarly situated country on the globe has come to the conclusion that universal coverage is the most efficient method by which to do this.  The only reason we have not done so is that special interest groups and lobbyists have worked hard to keep the flow of money to their clients.  We have a system with bloated administrative costs and bloated charges, prescription drug prices are the highest in the world and what should be the cheapest thing to deliver, preventive care, isn't available to the poor.

It is incredibly hard to gauge how well the ACA works when so many states have refused to participate in the plan.  It gets good reviews in Kentucky due to Kentucky participating from the start, as an example.  The other option remains to go back to the way things were.  That will not happen.  More likely is a reform that includes universal coverage.  That is what we will move to when people stop being so damn stubborn and actually try to learn from the way others have handled the problem successfully.

One more thing.. Chief Justice Roberts did not declare that the ACA was a tax.  He concluded that the power to tax would give the Federal govt the authority to implement the law.

Actually, if the Republicans control the House, Senate and White House in 2025, and it’s looking increasingly likely, they will almost certainly repeal the ACA and replace it with nothing or next to nothing.
 

We have real problems in America and in the “West” and Republicans show zero interest in even discussing solutions. The absence of a functioning center in our destructive two party system leaves us incapable of solving anything.

Most folks don’t even realize how much they benefit from ACA— coverage for preexisting conditions, no lifetime caps on benefits. Most folks think if they’re not on an exchange plan, ACA doesn’t effect them. They will likely find out otherwise when tragedy strikes. And as confident as he is now, I suspect if Stoney’s Pony Boy were to face such a tragedy, if he’s not independently wealthy, he’d change his mind, too.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

33 minutes ago, creed said:

I'm a republican and anyone who thinks a single payer national health care system is not a good thing isn't thinking clearly.

Edit: I was republican, now I'm independent. 

A "single payer national health care system" would be the worst thing possible. 

Mainly because it still relies on government "insurance."  

We've got to get out of that thought box.  An "insurance" system of any sort is the worst type possible and one with no competition would be the absolute worst system possible.

Any time one entity receives a service, one entity provides it, and a 3rd entity pays for it, you have a recipe for disaster.  Costs will continue to go up, over-utilization will still exist, and coverage will still be denied for legitimate services.  Anyone who thinks they would like a "single payer national health care system" needs to come to where I work and be responsible for dealing with Medicare claims.  You'd change your mind in a month or less.

Again, the politicians have done an excellent job of convincing people that "health care" and 'health insurance' are the same thing.  People with full Medicare benefits routinely don't get the legitimate care they need b/c of some bureaucratic BS or other.

Which is why a cash-for-routine-care HSA system would be the best model possible b/c it minimizes the role of health insurance (and involves it as actual insurance instead of something each person is guaranteed to use).  A nationalized system such as I described  would be better than an "insurance" model, but it would doubtless involve a great deal of bureaucratic BS too, though not nearly as much as with an "insurance" model.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

19 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

And as confident as he is now, I suspect if Stoney’s Pony Boy were to face such a tragedy, if he’s not independently wealthy, he’d change his mind, too.

You'd change your mind if you came to work with me for a month is what I think.

There are ways to deal with coverage caps and pre-existing conditions that don't involve screwing up the entire system like Obamacare did.

And what makes you think I haven't dealt with expensive medical situations?  I have, a small handful of times.  Two of them before Obamacare.  And no, I am not independently wealthy.  And I was a lot less wealthy than I am now back then.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

In a state of nature health care isn’t a “right.” Each society determines what those are. Healthy societies have no trouble distinguishing between the “need” for healthcare and the “need” for sex and determining which one they deem as a “right.” The absence of one can kill you and the absence of the other won’t. And if you are concerned about those western style democracies that provide healthcare collapsing, you’re going to be really surprised with which country implodes first. But you probably won’t have to wait more than three years to find out.

Again, that distinction only prioritizes needs.  It doesn't turn needs into rights.  (Incidentally, living without sex raises the risk of cardiovascular disease.)

As I have said before, I don't really have a problem with deciding to structure public mechanisms to provide health care.  I have a problem with people demanding it as though it's owed.  I have a problem with not doing it intelligently and doing it wastefully, and any "insurance" model is wasteful and not an intelligent mechanism.  I have a problem with the government both actively and passively facilitating poor health among the population while simultaneously taking my money to pay for health problems.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

25 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

You'd change your mind if you came to work with me for a month is what I think.

There are ways to deal with coverage caps and pre-existing conditions that don't involve screwing up the entire system like Obamacare did.

And what makes you think I haven't dealt with expensive medical situations?  I have, a small handful of times.  Two of them before Obamacare.  And no, I am not independently wealthy.  And I was a lot less wealthy than I am now back then.

I wasn’t merely referring to expensive situations— people or their kids getting cancer can bankrupt reasonably well to do people and prior to ACA folks could hit lifetime caps in months— catastrophic coverage before ACA still capped out pretty quickly.

[creed 1,641]

45 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

A "single payer national health care system" would be the worst thing possible. 

Mainly because it still relies on government "insurance."  

We've got to get out of that thought box.  An "insurance" system of any sort is the worst type possible and one with no competition would be the absolute worst system possible.

Any time one entity receives a service, one entity provides it, and a 3rd entity pays for it, you have a recipe for disaster.  Costs will continue to go up, over-utilization will still exist, and coverage will still be denied for legitimate services.  Anyone who thinks they would like a "single payer national health care system" needs to come to where I work and be responsible for dealing with Medicare claims.  You'd change your mind in a month or less.

Again, the politicians have done an excellent job of convincing people that "health care" and 'health insurance' are the same thing.  People with full Medicare benefits routinely don't get the legitimate care they need b/c of some bureaucratic BS or other.

Which is why a cash-for-routine-care HSA system would be the best model possible b/c it minimizes the role of health insurance (and involves it as actual insurance instead of something each person is guaranteed to use).  A nationalized system such as I described  would be better than an "insurance" model, but it would doubtless involve a great deal of bureaucratic BS too, though not nearly as much as with an "insurance" model.

Okay, so eliminate insurance, eliminate government and go with a cash-for-routine-care HSA. 

How is an individual's HSA system funded to ensure all citizens are covered for all routine procedures?

How are non routine cases handled/paid?

How do all citizens get equal health care that I think is one the cornerstone of our country's identity in providing for the health, safety and welfare of our legal citizens.

 

[TexasTiger 12,964]

40 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Again, that distinction only prioritizes needs.  It doesn't turn needs into rights.  (Incidentally, living without sex raises the risk of cardiovascular disease.)

As I have said before, I don't really have a problem with deciding to structure public mechanisms to provide health care.  I have a problem with people demanding it as though it's owed.  I have a problem with not doing it intelligently and doing it wastefully, and any "insurance" model is wasteful and not an intelligent mechanism.  I have a problem with the government both actively and passively facilitating poor health among the population while simultaneously taking my money to pay for health problems.

Rights are determined by each society. You cite our Constitution in your argument.

[alexava 6,973]

On 10/12/2021 at 10:08 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

what planks in the current Democratic platform do you support, and why?

I asked myself this question about 16 months ago.....then decided I’m not a democrat. Better later than never. 
 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, creed said:

Okay, so eliminate insurance, eliminate government and go with a cash-for-routine-care HSA. 

How is an individual's HSA system funded to ensure all citizens are covered for all routine procedures?

How are non routine cases handled/paid?

How do all citizens get equal health care that I think is one the cornerstone of our country's identity in providing for the health, safety and welfare of our legal citizens.

 

Every question you asked is answered in the long post above.  Read.

EDIT:  Actually, it's on page 2.  

Edited October 15, 2021 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Rights are determined by each society. You cite our Constitution in your argument.

O.k., but I made a logical case for what I consider a right.  What's your case for considering this one a right?

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

59 minutes ago, alexava said:

I asked myself this question about 16 months ago.....then decided I’m not a democrat. Better later than never. 
 

This is why I asked the question.  I think many people who vote Democrat don't know or even want to know, because if they did they might have to conclude what you did.

[AU9377 4,979]

10 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Pretty dumb comment.  What does Fox news have to do with this discussion?  The point is the ACA made policies include all kinds of surgeries that were not related to health at all.  Sex change operations are elective not necessary and should not be covered. Hysterectomies for a mans policy.  Vasectomies for females. Addadicktome and addadtittome have no business being covered in an insurance policy. To do so is purely advancing a leftist liberal agenda.  Political not medical.

The point, and why it is anything but dumb, is that the inclusion of that topic in this discussion is done only for dramatic value.  It is not part of the overall problems with cost and access to health care.  It has shock value and that it is about it.

[alexava 6,973]

27 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

This is why I asked the question.  I think many people who vote Democrat don't know or even want to know, because if they did they might have to conclude what you did.

Everything I used to be a democrat for…. Is not there anymore. For years I think people have been supporting democrats just because they are democrats. U.S. labor…. No. Healthcare… not really. They have no principles. They hijack truths. They politicize, falsify and control thoughts on science. And don’t even get me started on criminal investigations between partisan politicians. All democrats seem interested in doing is pushing racism, sexism, transphobia bullsheyt to keep certain people feeling victimized so they can be the savior. They seem to hate the country and everything it was founded on. To the point many people are now quiet about politics from shame and disgust. That’s all National politics. Alabama state politics is just as bad with either party. So politics as a whole really sucks, republicans too. They just don’t seem he’ll bent on destroying the country from within. 

[kevon67 2,368]

5 minutes ago, alexava said:

Everything I used to be a democrat for…. Is not there anymore. For years I think people have been supporting democrats just because they are democrats. U.S. labor…. No. Healthcare… not really. They have no principles. They hijack truths. They politicize, falsify and control thoughts on science. And don’t even get me started on criminal investigations between partisan politicians. All democrats seem interested in doing is pushing racism, sexism, transphobia bullsheyt to keep certain people feeling victimized so they can be the savior. They seem to hate the country and everything it was founded on. To the point many people are now quiet about politics from shame and disgust. That’s all National politics. Alabama state politics is just as bad with either party. So politics as a whole really sucks, republicans too. They just don’t seem he’ll bent on destroying the country from within. 

Post of the day❤

[AU9377 4,979]

6 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

The fact that this is nonsense accounts for how twisted up you just got trying to word it in a way so as to elicit sympathy.

Here's what it comes down to.  Actual legitimate rights are negative.  A negative right is the right to not have something done to you.  To be left alone with regard to something, in other words.  All the rights in the constitution are negative rights with the exception of the right to a jury trial, which I similarly do not believe is a legitimate right b/c it involuntarily conscripts others in order to provide it.  It's a positive "right."

A positive right is a right that requires others' labor to fulfill the "right." Which invalidates it as a right IMO.

Liberals confuse needs with rights.

It's true that all humans have the basic biological need for health care.  Liberals conclude that that means that health care is a right.

But humans also all have the basic biological need for sex.  Does that mean that sex is a right?  Should the government provide sex for all citizens to ensure that no one goes without?  To use your phrasing above, should Americans, regardless of their physical attractiveness, be denied sex?

Don't laugh.  The subculture that calls themselves Incels believes they have a right to sex, regardless of the fact that it requires other people to fulfill that "right" for them just like you guys assert that people have a right to health care, and why not?  It's the same reasoning.  They just took the reasoning and applied it to another biological need.

The way it really works is that we should be free and left alone to pursue needs.  That's the part that is a right.

And I really don't care what other countries do.  Other countries don't have nearly the handle on the proper balance between individual citizen's rights and government that we (at least used to) have.  Other countries also depend on the US keeping health care as a for-profit industry b/c we provide the vast majority of medical R&D for the whole world.  So a lot of the reason that other countries can structure health care the way they do is because our health care is structured the way it is.  They draft off our R&D.

Not to mention, some of those international houses of cards may come down at some point.  Japan's economy, for example, is in uncharted waters with regard to government spending relative to GDP, in large part due to their health care expenditures.  No one knows what will happen with it; it's literally greater than anyone has experience with.  Looks to me like an economic tsunami brewing.

As for the artificial bloating, yes, that's what happens when government regulates an industry.  The more regulation, the bigger the artificial inflation.  I'm not saying that health care shouldn't be regulated at all—I don't have the much libertarian in me—but it's worth noting that government regulation is what causes artificial inflation and unintended consequences.  It's highly unlikely that we will solve the problems you speak of by increasing government involvement and regulation.  They are what caused the vast majority of them in the first place.

Liberals always forget that lobbyists only have influence to the exact degree that government can be influenced to intervene in a situation.  Lobbyists have no power to the exact degree that government does not get involved.

.......and I am the one using words to elicit something?  Right.  This is very simple.  As a society, we have decided that when someone is sick, they should be cared for regardless of their financial status/ability to pay.  In adherence to that public policy, what is the most efficient and cost effective way to deliver this service?  It isn't how we did it 15 years ago and it isn't how we are doing it now.  However, how we are doing it now is better than how we were doing it 15 years ago.

It never ceases to amaze me that people shroud themselves in their religious righteousness when it comes to topics like abortion, yet completely ignore the same Christian bible when it comes to caring for their fellow man.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

.......and I am the one using words to elicit something?  Right.  This is very simple.  As a society, we have decided that when someone is sick, they should be cared for regardless of their financial status/ability to pay.  In adherence to that public policy, what is the most efficient and cost effective way to deliver this service?  It isn't how we did it 15 years ago and it isn't how we are doing it now.  However, how we are doing it now is better than how we were doing it 15 years ago.

It never ceases to amaze me that people shroud themselves in their religious righteousness when it comes to topics like abortion, yet completely ignore the same Christian bible when it comes to caring for their fellow man.

Yet again, I'm assuming you are talking about someone else here, as I have posted the exact contrary to what you are claiming here at least 3-4 times now.

Not to mention, you have no idea whether I am religious or not.

Maybe one day we can have a discussion about what I actually have said.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

The point, and why it is anything but dumb, is that the inclusion of that topic in this discussion is done only for dramatic value.  It is not part of the overall problems with cost and access to health care.  It has shock value and that it is about it.

The truth is that policies that cover any and all procedures however useless to the customer or how elective they should be does in fact make the policy cost MORE! That’s why they cost so much more because they are required by the ACA to cover all that stuff.  So yeah, it IS part of the overall problem. You seriously don’t see that? It is not stated for shock value just factual reasoning for increased costs. Can you even have a serious discussion without trying to denigrate a news source you apparently hate which has absolutely nothing to do with any part of the debate?  When a liberal does that…it means they got nothin’. 

[TexasTiger 12,964]

7 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

O.k., but I made a logical case for what I consider a right.  What's your case for considering this one a right?

Again, each democratic society arrives at a set of “rights” the citizenry have. Many have included some measure of healthcare.

[TexasTiger 12,964]

6 hours ago, alexava said:

Everything I used to be a democrat for…. Is not there anymore. For years I think people have been supporting democrats just because they are democrats. U.S. labor…. No. Healthcare… not really. They have no principles. They hijack truths. They politicize, falsify and control thoughts on science. And don’t even get me started on criminal investigations between partisan politicians. All democrats seem interested in doing is pushing racism, sexism, transphobia bullsheyt to keep certain people feeling victimized so they can be the savior. They seem to hate the country and everything it was founded on. To the point many people are now quiet about politics from shame and disgust. That’s all National politics. Alabama state politics is just as bad with either party. So politics as a whole really sucks, republicans too. They just don’t seem he’ll bent on destroying the country from within. 

Democrats are flawed and a bit inept. Trumplicans are hellbent on destroying the country from within and plan to complete the job in 2024.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Democrats are flawed and a bit inept. Trumplicans are hellbent on destroying the country from within and plan to complete the job in 2024.

Literally 180 degrees out.