Hunter Biden on trial

[crazed_hoosier2]

Yeah, he really bent the cost curve on that one.

There's a case to be made that Obamacare flattened the cost increases in healthcare. Personally, I don't think it tells the whole story (it's based on the assumption that we consume healthcare the same as we did before). But, leaving that aside, there's an argument to be made.

And I have a slew of issues with the pre-existing conditions provision. I think it's one of those things where the impression is that public policy made a bugaboo for all of us go away by putting the screws to the insurers and providers who had been putting the screws to all of us. The reality is, there are no solutions...there are only tradeoffs. And the coverage of pre-existing conditions is pretty obviously a cost item that insurers simply have to account for, which they pass along to all of us.

I don't necessarily have a problem with them requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions. But the entire thing should be transparent as to how those costs are incurred and distributed. Because (a) they are, and (b) most people skip over that part

 

[TyWebbIU]

In addition to pulling us out of a time economic time and healthcare benefits his rhetoric during the inane woke messaging was spot on. I like Obama

I know you do. It’s why I don’t always trust your intentions. Or judgment.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I know you do. It’s why I don’t always trust your intentions. Or judgment.

My intentions. Wholesome. My judgment. Unassailable.

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

I'm more appreciative that Joe didn't give a f about the potential PR reaction, which is an attitude and mindset that I'd like to see Dems move more towards.

Jon Stewart did a good job making this strategic point which is basically Dems constantly step on their dicks because they are more overly concerned about ettique and their misplaced importance on historical political norms, whereas Republicans might like it, but don't really give a f about it so it doesn't get in their way of driving their government intentions.

Dems are focused and burdened by the long standing rules while Republicans will strategically focus on loopholes around those rules and don't give a f if it upsets anyone.

Ultimately you are judged by the results of your actions, not because you violated long standing historical norm.

Garland was an example of that difference. McConnell created a loophole around a long standing agreement and morm that made the Dems whine 'he's violating a longstanding agreement' to which he basically answered, 'I don't give a f#$k'.

Then when Ginsburg died he overroad his previous stated logic and the Dems cried again on how it was ethically dirty political hardball, to which McConnell again said 'I don't give a f#$k' and he got exactly what he wanted.

But also look at Obama's response. There were some suggesting to Obama to find and create a loophole around the standard norm, base it on a derelict of duty stance and have Garland force confirmed.

Obama wouldn't do that because he was too afraid of upsetting long standing historical political norms (I bet he didn't think Hillary would lose and was scared of his legacy if he overrode the process).

At the end of the day, it confirmed the loss of the justice seat. Repubs win again, Dems lose again.

So yeah, I'm actually kindof glad he likely doesn't give a f#$k what people think or if it will hurt his legacy. Again ultimately you are judged by the actual results generated from the actions taken, just like McConnell is seen as a very shrewd political strategic force, especially by the base that he's most concerned about.

Rules and norms. Give me a break. Which party was going to blow up the filibuster if they took the senate? Funny we don’t hear that talked about anymore. What precipitated McConnell blocking Garland?

Democrat’s love flipping over the board and then complaining the game has been ruined.

You are a partisan.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

IRS whistleblowers say they were banned from investigating Joe Biden

Gary Shapley And Joseph Ziegler sat down for an interview where they claimed the IRS looks the other way when it comes to the country's powerful elite

www.dailymail.co.uk

No chance. I would bet anything Joe is the big guy. Guy is just a lying scumbag. Kid with gun charges he’s absolving. Had classified docs in his garage. Yet not prosecuted despite a clear case. Lied nonstop as president. Did you see how sweeping the language of that pardon is. I know you have zero ability to be objective so I’m pissing in the wind but Biden is bad news. Swamp filth

Yeah, Occam and his razor would like a word.

If "the big guy" wasn't POTUS, then who exactly was it? And why did this person need his share of the loot held in somebody else's name? None of the other shareholders were doing that. On top of that, why would Hunter be the placeholder that this other "big guy" chose to have his share held by? If I was some other "big guy" who wasn't Joe Biden, there's no way on earth I'd be trusting my money to a drug addict.

Also, @Ohio Guy, there's a pretty big difference between something being denied, or even unproven, and something being discredited. To discredit something, you have to produce evidence showing that it isn't true. You can't point to somebody saying "Well, nobody ever proved that" and say "See, it's been discredited."

That would be convenient for a lot of people. But it isn't how allegations and proof work.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Yeah, Occam and his razor would like a word.

If "the big guy" wasn't POTUS, then who exactly was it? And why did this person need his share of the loot held in somebody else's name? None of the other shareholders were doing that. On top of that, why would Hunter be the placeholder that this other "big guy" chose to have his share held by? If I was some other "big guy" who wasn't Joe Biden, there's no way on earth I'd be trusting my money to a drug addict.

Also, @Ohio Guy, there's a pretty big difference between something being denied, or even unproven, and something being discredited. To discredit something, you have to produce evidence showing that it isn't true. You can't point to somebody saying "Well, nobody ever proved that" and say "See, it's been discredited."

That would be convenient for a lot of people. But it isn't how allegations and proof work.

Exactly

 

[Baller23Boogie]

Look, the reasons this is reverberating as it is (and why the Kushner rebuttal is so flat) are these:

1) Biden not only made a liar out of himself when he personally denied that he would ever pardon Hunter, he made liars out of his aides and supporters when they comfortably repeated the claim.

2) The sanctimony that he and his party were the vanguards of democracy, institutional integrity, etc. Say what you will about Trump (and there's plenty to say about him, of course)...he's never held himself out to be that. Rather, he's the one who has been calling bullshit on all of that -- and Biden just demonstrated it for everybody to see.

3) The blanket nature of the pardon -- including for any and every criminal act that Hunter might have committed going back 10+ years, whether it's been investigated, charged, tried or not.


Given the nature of the arguments Dems (and many Repubs) have always made against Trump -- that he would corrupt the system, doesn't recognize norms, crosses lines other presidents won't cross -- I think it's kind of telling that the primary defense being made of Biden here is "Well, Trump does it too."

Do people saying this realize that they're submarining their own arguments against Trump when they resort to this?

Do I think Biden should have done it, no I don't.

Do I think the people falling over themselves because he did it when nothing was said about who Trump pardoned is being hypocritical, absolutely.

Be consistent is my whole thing.

 

[hookyIU1990]

There's a case to be made that Obamacare flattened the cost increases in healthcare. Personally, I don't think it tells the whole story (it's based on the assumption that we consume healthcare the same as we did before). But, leaving that aside, there's an argument to be made.

And I have a slew of issues with the pre-existing conditions provision. I think it's one of those things where the impression is that public policy made a bugaboo for all of us go away by putting the screws to the insurers and providers who had been putting the screws to all of us. The reality is, there are no solutions...there are only tradeoffs. And the coverage of pre-existing conditions is pretty obviously a cost item that insurers simply have to account for, which they pass along to all of us.

I don't necessarily have a problem with them requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions. But the entire thing should be transparent as to how those costs are incurred and distributed. Because (a) they are, and (b) most people skip over that part

Plenty of studies out there, and depending on their POV, there are mixed conclusions.

My way of thinking is that the out-of-pocket premium costs of some were basically pushed out to those with private health care and to the taxpayer via subsidy. As someone who doesn't consume much healthcare and tries to be preventative in my habits, I haven't seen costs go down when everything is included. Have the costs of actual care gone down? I don't think the cost of insurance has in real terms.

The ACA hasn't changed how our healthcare is delivered or the costs, just how insurance works. I think we're generally in agreement.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Yeah, Occam and his razor would like a word.

If "the big guy" wasn't POTUS, then who exactly was it? And why did this person need his share of the loot held in somebody else's name? None of the other shareholders were doing that. On top of that, why would Hunter be the placeholder that this other "big guy" chose to have his share held by? If I was some other "big guy" who wasn't Joe Biden, there's no way on earth I'd be trusting my money to a drug addict.

Also, @Ohio Guy, there's a pretty big difference between something being denied, or even unproven, and something being discredited. To discredit something, you have to produce evidence showing that it isn't true. You can't point to somebody saying "Well, nobody ever proved that" and say "See, it's been discredited."

That would be convenient for a lot of people. But it isn't how allegations and proof work.

Didn't a lot of the Burisma/Biden stuff hinge on Lev Parnas' word? He most certainly was discredited.

I feel like we've been over this before. In any event, I'd think we'll find out soon enough because if there are legitimate crimes, don't you think the post January 20, 2025 DOJ will prosecute them?

 

[hookyIU1990]

Do I think Biden should have done it, no I don't.

Do I think the people falling over themselves because he did it when nothing was said about who Trump pardoned is being hypocritical, absolutely.

Be consistent is my whole thing.

My whole thing about the pearl-clutching is that we knew it was a joke when Joe said he wasn't going to pardon him. How can it be surprising that the guy is doing this to keep his only living son out of jail?

He thought he had it all worked out with the plea deal that would have essentially done the same thing. When the deal got tossed, there were certainly other plans to get it done. It was such a shit show that it eventually came down to this action at the very end of the list of ways to keep him out of jail.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Jon Stewart did a good job making this strategic point which is basically Dems constantly step on their dicks because they are more overly concerned about ettique and their misplaced importance on historical political norms, whereas Republicans might like it, but don't really give a f about it so it doesn't get in their way of driving their government intentions.

They really aren't, though. It's all a ruse. And it's always been a ruse.

And I'm not just throwing that mud at Democrats. I think it's always been a bipartisan ruse. And the marks of this ruse are all the people who believe as you do: that politicians were on the up and up...until Trump came along, anyway.

Lord knows I have all kinds of objections to Donald Trump. I am not defending him in the least when I say this.

I'm just saying that the political establishment has long enjoyed the many spoils of their positions...which is among the reasons those positions are so coveted. They bring influence, the ability to do favors that can legally be paid for, and they bring protection from "friends" in the corridors of power.

Remember Evan Bayh and all the money he made from Apollo after he left the Senate? One of his last acts in office was helping to thwart an attempted closing of the carried interest loophole. First it was learned that Apollo paid him some $35 million in the 6 years between him leaving office and running for the Senate again. Then it was learned he'd been meeting with Leon Black while he was still in office.

All legal, apparently. And within the bounds of ethics. Thankfully, Indiana voters were rightly aghast at it.

 

[Baller23Boogie]

My whole thing about the pearl-clutching is that we knew it was a joke when Joe said he wasn't going to pardon him. How can it be surprising that the guy is doing this to keep his only living son out of jail?

He thought he had it all worked out with the plea deal that would have essentially done the same thing. When the deal got tossed, there were certainly other plans to get it done. It was such a shit show that it eventually came down to this action at the very end of the list of ways to keep him out of jail.

I've been treating Biden like people do Trump... I don't trust a word either said because who knows when we're suppose to take them seriously.

 

[hookyIU1990]

I've been treating Biden like people do Trump... I don't trust a word either said because who knows when we're suppose to take them seriously.

Amen

My trust in anything coming out of Washington, in general, has never been lower.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Didn't a lot of the Burisma/Biden stuff hinge on Lev Parnas word? He most certainly was discredited.

"The 10% held by H for the Big Guy" thing was lifted from emails found on Hunter's laptop...and referred to a joint venture with CEFC China Energy which was going to net Hunter's group about $5m.

James Gilliar is the partner who said that Hunter was referring to his father. And, as I recall, Hunter said in a deposition that any such gain would only redound to his father after he was out of office and politics -- which may explain the placeholder aspect of it.

But, really, isn't this just a common sense thing? Who the hell else would they have been referring to? You know, supporting a politician doesn't necessarily mean always having to defend them. In fact, it's far better when supporters don't just defend them at any turn.

If we can start doing that, maybe we can get this thing back on track.

 

[Ohio Guy]

I've been treating Biden like people do Trump... I don't trust a word either said because who knows when we're suppose to take them seriously.

I think that's fair. Realistically I don't think a ton of people put Biden on a perch. If there was a 'there' there with regard to criminal activity, I think most people would have turned on him. If there was irrefutable evidence that Biden was using his son as a bag man, I don't think the wagons would have been circled for him.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Here’s the problem with your logic as I see it. If you don’t make an example of these no good, corrupt asshats that actually have broken the law, they will do all this shit again when they are back in office. There will be no grace given to anyone in the Trump administration. Dems will continue to make shit up to try to jail their opponents. Dems are the worst. Rules for the but not for me people. Anyone that has broken the law should be prosecuted to the fullest. F@ck the give some grace bs. Bury them!

Total hypocrite.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Do I think Biden should have done it, no I don't.

Do I think the people falling over themselves because he did it when nothing was said about who Trump pardoned is being hypocritical, absolutely.

Be consistent is my whole thing.

What you're saying here is that Biden shouldn't be subject to any bar that Trump isn't also subject to. And I do get that. Precedent is how we do a lot of things.

But here's the issue: how can one do this...while simultaneously holding themselves out as the protector of sacred institutions?

Because you can't have this both ways. A choice has to be made. And, in reality, a choice was made. If you want to cast yourself as an exemplar of civic virtue, then be that. But don't assume that mantle and then say "Well, Trump pardoned Charles Kushner!"

That's my issue here.

I'm fine with the pardon, BTW...I'd have done it, too...I'm just tired of the bullshit.

 

[TyWebbIU]

Gotta love the media!

 

[mcmurtry66]

I think that's fair. Realistically I don't think a ton of people put Biden on a perch. If there was a 'there' there with regard to criminal activity, I think most people would have turned on him. If there was irrefutable evidence that Biden was using his son as a bag man, I don't think the wagons would have been circled for him.

Common sense. He was the big guy.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I am patiently waiting for AlohaHoosier to reply to this Hunter Pardon. It is cold as shit outside today and I am locked inside ... should be a good forum day.

Why? I expected the President to pardon his son at any time after the election. No honest person here would be surprised if President Trump had done the same thing if one of his sons was convicted. He has a pardon track record as well.

 

[TyWebbIU]

My intentions. Wholesome. My judgment. Unassailable.

You may be the Lisa Murkowski of the Dream Team, but probably closer to John Cornyn. Not a good look.

 

[TyWebbIU]

Total hypocrite.

I agree. Biden is absolutely a hypocrite. I hope all is well with you and your family brother.

 

[mcmurtry66]

You may be the Lisa Murkowski of the Dream team. No a good look.

I think for myself and am not impressionable. Neither apply to you. You’re one of the board’s dumbest posters. Not a good look. I trust you have a limited education at best. Stay in your lane. You’re poking people far brighter than you. I’ll start picking apart every one of your stupid Fing posts

 

[Baller23Boogie]

What you're saying here is that Biden shouldn't be subject to any bar that Trump isn't also subject to. And I do get that. Precedent is how we do a lot of things.

But here's the issue: how can one do this...while simultaneously holding themselves out as the protector of sacred institutions?

Because you can't have this both ways. A choice has to be made. And, in reality, a choice was made. If you want to cast yourself as an exemplar of civic virtue, then be that. But don't assume that mantle and then say "Well, Trump pardoned Charles Kushner!"

That's my issue here.

I'm fine with the pardon, BTW...I'd have done it, too...I'm just tired of the bullshit.

No, what I'm saying is be consistent.

I'm on record as saying I don't agree with what Biden did, but let's not act like what Biden did was some off the cuff thing when he's a politician, who lies, just like the rest of them.

I'm an equal opportunity hater, you can say.

 

[Ohio Guy]

You know, supporting a politician doesn't necessarily mean always having to defend them. In fact, it's far better when supporters don't just defend them at any turn.

You'll not get any argument fro me on this point. I'm not holding you responsible for having read all - or any - of my posts here, but I've been critical of a fair amount of Joe Biden's policies, decisions and acts as president. There are things he did as president that I strongly disagree with. I don't think he'll carry much of a legacy 10 years from now, much less 100.

 

[TyWebbIU]

I think for myself and am not impressionable. Neither apply to you. You’re one of the board’s dumbest posters. Not a good look. I trust you have a limited education at best. Stay in your lane. You’re poking people far brighter than you

Possible. But you’re also someone that lacks the ability to control his emotions. That gives me the upper hand with your Obama loving ass.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Why? I expected the President to pardon his son at any time after the election. No honest person here would be surprised if President Trump had done the same thing if one of his sons was convicted. He has a pardon track record as well.

Yeah, I really don't have too much issue with the idea of Joe pardoning Hunter.

But (a) he should never have said he wasn't going to, (b) the fact he said he wouldn't and did it anyway makes Trump's case on the indictment of "the swamp" better than Trump himself could ever make it, and (c) I'm really not that keen on the blanket nature of it.

That last part has been unusual, at the very least, since Nixon. Will it become less unusual now?

 

[toastedbread]

There's a case to be made that Obamacare flattened the cost increases in healthcare. Personally, I don't think it tells the whole story (it's based on the assumption that we consume healthcare the same as we did before). But, leaving that aside, there's an argument to be made.

And I have a slew of issues with the pre-existing conditions provision. I think it's one of those things where the impression is that public policy made a bugaboo for all of us go away by putting the screws to the insurers and providers who had been putting the screws to all of us. The reality is, there are no solutions...there are only tradeoffs. And the coverage of pre-existing conditions is pretty obviously a cost item that insurers simply have to account for, which they pass along to all of us.

I don't necessarily have a problem with them requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions. But the entire thing should be transparent as to how those costs are incurred and distributed. Because (a) they are, and (b) most people skip over that part

I'm jumping in a bit late here but I think the key question is do we want to live in a society where people are financially or otherwise ruined due to a condition that is no fault of their own.

Now something like obesity or smoking I would take a much closer look at. I would also look to incentivize healthy behavior which we don't do enough of.

With respect to the pardons, I think we have seen a complete moral breakdown of society. People will defend the most immoral and corrupt behavior as long as the person is on their team. There has been a breakdown of the social contract in our society. Probably it started before I was alive. Maybe when the breakdown of loyalty between employers/employees occured. I have no idea. All I know is that it's quite evident that the worse you behave in America the greater the spoils. No corrupt or dirty deed goes unrewarded. The sleazier and salesier you are the more successful you are.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

No, what I'm saying is be consistent.

I'm on record as saying I don't agree with what Biden did, but let's not act like what Biden did was some off the cuff thing when he's a politician, who lies, just like the rest of them.

I'm an equal opportunity hater, you can say.

I don't think I changed the meaning of what you're saying ("be consistent") by changing the wording of it (Biden and Trump should both be measured by the same bar).

And I get that you think he shouldn't have done it. What I'm trying to get out of you is some kind of commentary about the fact that he did it...while having long maintained that Trump was a unique threat to our institutions and Biden was the protector of them.

Don't you think this whole episode belies that entire argument? Because I do. And I say it as somebody who really has no issue with the pardon itself. To me, the problem is the pretense. It's a huge, huge problem with our politics, with the news media that covers our politics, etc.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I don't think I changed the meaning of what you're saying ("be consistent") by changing the wording of it (Biden and Trump should both be measured by the same bar).

And I get that you think he shouldn't have done it. What I'm trying to get out of you is some kind of commentary about the fact that he did it...while having long maintained that Trump was a unique threat to our institutions and Biden was the protector of them.

Don't you think this whole episode belies that entire argument? Because I do. And I say it as somebody who really has no issue with the pardon itself. To me, the problem is the pretense. It's a huge, huge problem with our politics, with the news media that covers our politics, etc.

I would pardon my son too. The pretense is a problem but so too is the breadth of the pardon. That raises suspicions or validates same

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

We get it. No need to keep pounding the message.

Especially without any examples of what made him the worst. Should be easy to provide them if he was actually the worst.

 

[Baller23Boogie]

I don't think I changed the meaning of what you're saying ("be consistent") by changing the wording of it (Biden and Trump should both be measured by the same bar).

And I get that you think he shouldn't have done it. What I'm trying to get out of you is some kind of commentary about the fact that he did it...while having long maintained that Trump was a unique threat to our institutions and Biden was the protector of them.

Don't you think this whole episode belies that entire argument? Because I do. And I say it as somebody who really has no issue with the pardon itself. To me, the problem is the pretense. It's a huge, huge problem with our politics, with the news media that covers our politics, etc.

I hope you don't think I'm someone that thinks Trump is some threat to our democracy, because I'd challenge you to find me stating such.

I was worried about his S.C. picks last term, but for the most part, they have been fair (in my eyes). I trust our checks and balances will work if he tries to get out of line.

So to some, sure that argument can be made, but I'm not one of them.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I'm jumping in a bit late here but I think the key question is do we want to live in a society where people are financially or otherwise ruined due to a condition that is no fault of their own.

It's a perfectly fair argument to make. Absolutely.

My gripe is not with that argument. My gripe is with the rhetorical sleight of hand -- and it's hardly unique to the issue of pre-existing conditions. In fact, it's the very same sleight of hand that has been used to defend "forgiving" student loans.

And here's what it is: the arguments in favor of these things completely ignore the other side of the ledger. They are deliberately made without any kind of sense as to what doing it costs anybody. In fact, I'd say it's even worse than that: I think a clear message is that there is no cost...it's all benefit. At best, its cost is presented as being shouldered by somebody else.

A loan cannot be forgiven. A loan can either be paid back, along with its accumulated burden, or it can be assumed, in whole or in part, by its lender. But the people who promote "forgiving" student loans not only leave out the part that taxpayers have to assume the debts, I've literally seen people argue that it won't cost taxpayers a dime.

Similarly, insurance can be made to cover pre-existing conditions. But what does that cost -- and who bears that cost?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I hope you don't think I'm someone that thinks Trump is some threat to our democracy, because I'd challenge you to find me stating such.

I was worried about his S.C. picks last term, but for the most part, they have been fair (in my eyes). I trust our checks and balances will work if he tries to get out of line.

So to some, sure that argument can be made, but I'm not one of them.

I'm not saying you made that argument.

I'm saying Biden did. Many, many others did too. But Biden making that argument is the issue here: because his action isn't consistent with that.

 

[toastedbread]

It's a perfectly fair argument to make. Absolutely.

My gripe is not with that argument. My gripe is with the rhetorical sleight of hand -- and it's hardly unique to the issue of pre-existing conditions. In fact, it's the very same sleight of hand that has been used to defend "forgiving" student loans.

And here's what it is: the arguments in favor of these things completely ignore the other side of the ledger. They are deliberately made without any kind of sense as to what doing it costs anybody. In fact, I'd say it's even worse than that: I think a clear message is that there is no cost...it's all benefit. At best, its cost is presented as being shouldered by somebody else.

A loan cannot be forgiven. A loan can either be paid back, along with its accumulated burden, or it can be assumed, in whole or in part, by its lender. But the people who promote "forgiving" student loans not only leave out the part that taxpayers have to assume the debts, I've literally seen people argue that it won't cost taxpayers a dime.

Similarly, insurance can be made to cover pre-existing conditions. But what does that cost -- and who bears that cost?

Everything has a cost. It's no different than the SVB bailout and market assets up to par value above their current fair market value.

I view the pre-existing condition similar to an unemployment insurance.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I agree. Biden is absolutely a hypocrite. I hope all is well with you and your family brother.

I know you know that you’re the hypocrite.

 

[TyWebbIU]

I know you know that you’re the hypocrite.

Oh, you meant me? Didn’t catch that. How is everything brother?

 

[snarlcakes]

I'm shocked. The media said Democrats are the party of law and order and that the GOP is the facist party led by Hitler. Does this mean Democracy is ending?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Everything has a cost. It's no different than the SVB bailout and market assets up to par value above their current fair market value.

I view the pre-existing condition similar to an unemployment insurance.

Well, yeah. But that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that these kinds of policies are advertised, promoted, and defended without much, if any, regard to the cost. It's been done here on this thread. Maybe it was done with a mind to the exclusion being worth the cost. But it certainly wasn't presented as a worthwhile tradeoff.

Do we get an annual update anywhere of how much the pre-existing coverage requirement costs, how those costs are distributed, and who bears their burden? I can't remember seeing one.

IMO, this aspect of our political dialogue is among the biggest reasons we're entering a fiscal death spiral. Nobody thinks much about how we pay for things -- we just pass much of it to the black hole, with the implicit assumption that the black hole is essentially bottomless. Meanwhile, our current tax receipts are only covering about 2 of every 3 dollars the feds spend. And there doesn't seem to be much urgency to do anything about that.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I'm shocked. The media said Democrats are the party of law and order and that the GOP is the facist party led by Hitler. Does this mean Democracy is ending?

It means msm is largely worthless. Not a good thing