Elephant Dung

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Well, personally, I think all evidence, charts, graphs, "facts", opinions, etc., need to be looked at at face value. I have no problem looking at each thing as it comes, and don't dismiss anything anyone (other than one or two people here) posts. My opinion is quite often incorrect or even innacurate, and some of what I post is very arguable. So, I don't paintbrush Wayne or anyone (except for one or two people here) and dismiss their posts.

In fact, it's often fun to go right at what is posted, and find logical arguments against it, learn why it was posted, where it came from, etc. I don't dismiss everything because of the messenger, or where it came from. But it helps to understand motivation by the poster, and where it came from.

I'm happy to discuss things. It's more fun to argue against things than defend things, usually... :tongue
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
this president`s approval rating is in the tank...he`s f`ed up everything he`s touched...so the only thing his gadfly`s can do is "blame bush"?...

it`s sort of pathetic..you don`t see past presidents being so rude and disrespectful...it`s who the guy is...it`s what he has to do...he`s a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest...

he refuses to let louisiana clean up the oil spill...can`t sell the people on the healthcare debacle(and rightly so)....has completely thrown most of our allies under the bus in favor of despots....and is in the process of dismantling our military....



and if you`re comparing the debt when bush left with the debt now...and after healthcare takes effect...or when obama`s done in 4 years,you are a bigger buffoon/lackey than alter...and obviousluy don`t have the wherewithal to use google...

just look at the election trends since obama took office...couldn`t even hold teddy kennedy`s seat....:mj07:

every politician this poser campaigns for loses....just look at how much his big labor lackeys just threw down a rathole trying to oust blanche lincoln.....

epic fail...on every level...and why should that surprise?...it failed in europe....no wonder he`s blaming everyone else....

"president pass-the-buck"

it`s a clusterfuck...:142smilie ...but thankfully,it will be short lived....

c`mon november...:toast:

You know I don't like Obama but to think he has fucked things up more than usual is insane. He has not done a bad job in relation to our leadership over the past 50 years.
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
You guys ever wonder why DTB always puts the same graph up? C'mon DTB, at least give us some new graphs.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
I'm confused. Now we learn this chart was developed by The Heritage Foundation, and published in The Washington Post, using numbers from wherever they got them from and the CBO? And you post a comment (update) saying that that the wars were funded by something different than usual under Bush, but all the military expenditures on the war were counted in the deficit? Update from where, the Heritage Foundation? The Post? From Wayne's archives?

I've learned long ago to question authority. Let alone non-authorities. Apparently this chart had many helpers in it's creation, mainly helpers wearing ultra conservative hats and publishers that wear the same hats. Probably worth doing more research on sources, numbers, etc. But it is good to see you accepting CBO numbers now, though. I guess you also agree that the Healthcare Legislation, as shown by CBO numbers, will reduce our national debt in future years. That was pretty plainly shown when we were discussing these numbers previously.

If confused let me clear it up--but been in about 6 links to this same graph that is simple math--

The graph represents 3 sets of #'s
Those already established
--and 2 sets of projections --the white house #'s and CBO #'s

Which set of #'s do you feel is misrepresented--the actual #'s already determined --or the WH or CBO projections--???

--apparently its not the #'s-- it's the graph (that depicts them so obviously) your having a problem with--correct. :)
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
this president`s approval rating is in the tank...he`s f`ed up everything he`s touched...so the only thing his gadfly`s can do is "blame bush"?...

it`s sort of pathetic..you don`t see past presidents being so rude and disrespectful...it`s who the guy is...it`s what he has to do...he`s a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest...

he refuses to let louisiana clean up the oil spill...can`t sell the people on the healthcare debacle(and rightly so)....has completely thrown most of our allies under the bus in favor of despots....and is in the process of dismantling our military....



and if you`re comparing the debt when bush left with the debt now...and after healthcare takes effect...or when obama`s done in 4 years,you are a bigger buffoon/lackey than alter...and obviousluy don`t have the wherewithal to use google...

just look at the election trends since obama took office...couldn`t even hold teddy kennedy`s seat....:mj07:

every politician this poser campaigns for loses....just look at how much his big labor lackeys just threw down a rathole trying to oust blanche lincoln.....

epic fail...on every level...and why should that surprise?...it failed in europe....no wonder he`s blaming everyone else....

"president pass-the-buck"

it`s a clusterfuck...:142smilie ...but thankfully,it will be short lived....

c`mon november...:toast:
Poor Weezy's in full meltdown. :142smilie

Apparently, the pummeling Dubya took over the last 8 years left some deep scars on Weezy. But I think all this venting is good for you Weezy. You've obviously been hurt, so just let it all out... :0026

Uncle Trench is here for you.

Trench
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
this president`s approval rating is in the tank...he`s f`ed up everything he`s touched...so the only thing his gadfly`s can do is "blame bush"?...

His approval rating is about at the same level as the % of people who voted for him, and the election went pretty well for him. So, not sure I'd hang my hat on that. As for him fucking up everything he's touched, that's both wrong and simplistic, but nothing new...some might say "sort of pathetic." Which leads us on to...

it`s sort of pathetic..you don`t see past presidents being so rude and disrespectful...it`s who the guy is...it`s what he has to do...he`s a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest...

Yeah, sure, I can't remember past Presidents as far back as say, Dubbya Bush using Clinton as a crutch for everything that went wrong, and as a smokescreen for enacting an agenda that turned out not so great for the country by the time he was done... do I need to go on? Personally, I don't think so...

he refuses to let louisiana clean up the oil spill...can`t sell the people on the healthcare debacle(and rightly so)....has completely thrown most of our allies under the bus in favor of despots....and is in the process of dismantling our military....

While I don't think he's been CLOSE to being tough enough on BP in the oil spill, I honestly don't think he could win with this situation. If he came down like I think he should on BP, he'd be blasted for being anti-business, anti-oil companies, over-extending government into private interest, etc. If he sent in everything he could have to combat this scenario, what would BP and conservatives say? What would Rand Paul say, for Gawdsakes?!? If he superceded Louisiana and other states with a big plan to run things, I can only imagine what present and future Presidential hopeful Bobby Jindahl would have said and done. In what universe could you see Jindahl saying anything positive about anything Obama would have done, in any situation? His soon to be (if he gets his way) Presidential opponent in 2012? He's gonna accept anything Obama does in a positive way? Okay - you can't expect us to buy that, can you? For myself, I know Obama can't win that war... but go ahead and make it an issue.

And Obama has sold out all our allies for despots, huh? Another paintbrush comment, that can be easily argued for many threads. There was so much damage done from the previous administration - our allies and opposition included - that one year of trying to cool things down from someone who might actually have some respect and credit in the world in areas that are very much against the U.S. because of what has happened over the past few years really has to be given a tad more credit. Or not, as the agenda goes.

Dismantling our military? Are you serious? Are we all of a sudden not spending over twice as much on that as the rest of the world combined? Or are we not spending money on specific outdated or non-working programs that no longer fit the world in which we have to fight? Didn't Obama make Afghanistan a bigger focus and front on the war? Didn't he extend that, and continue the fight in Pakistan? Isn't he arguably keeping more soldiers in Iraq than most non neo-cons would be happy with? And you say he's dismantling our military? Wow, that's a priceless comment - more of the same blanket ridicule hoping nobody will notice what your complaining about. Sorry, I'm watching... next? :mj07:

and if you`re comparing the debt when bush left with the debt now...and after healthcare takes effect...or when obama`s done in 4 years,you are a bigger buffoon/lackey than alter...and obviousluy don`t have the wherewithal to use google...

You should stick with this one... it's your strongest argument. Liberals really should avoid debt talk, although I think it's laughable that conservatives are making it such a figurehead to their arguments these days, when they defended Bush before. There's no doubt Bush exploded the debt, and I can't remember too many of YOU guys having a problem with it then. THAT much I can surely argue. I personally am not going to defend what Obama and the dems are doing to the deficit, and it's going to cripple our country sooner than later, I agree. This has to be the focus of his administration in the next two years, and I will hold him to that. I will say, most conservative pundits and economists were unsure about the bailouts and what was happening with the economic companies, and most said we had to do something. Very few held the hard line against doing anything - and very few conservatives were absent back in their home districts when the money was being handed out - they mostly all took credit in front of their voters, but couldn't wait to rip Obama and the dems that gave them that money and that electoral currency in their next election. The right continues their fine form of hypocrisy, and that rarely changes...

just look at the election trends since obama took office...couldn`t even hold teddy kennedy`s seat....:mj07:

If you are counting the election trends that have returned more dems to office than Republicans in electable positions, then good luck with the next one... and had their been a candidate on the dem side in Kennedy's election that had a pulse and actually ran a campaign, things probably would have been different. Probably the worst candidate for a senate seat than I've seen since, well, Jesse Ventura. And I don't say that lightly... :nono:

every politician this poser campaigns for loses....just look at how much his big labor lackeys just threw down a rathole trying to oust blanche lincoln.....

epic fail...on every level...and why should that surprise?...it failed in europe....no wonder he`s blaming everyone else....

"president pass-the-buck"

it`s a clusterfuck...:142smilie ...but thankfully,it will be short lived....

c`mon november...:toast:

Now that we've had an actual Super Tuesday, not sure what you conservatives are gonna hang your hats on. Seems like most incumbents fared well, and many of the incumbent republicans are having some trouble with Tea-Partiers. Although many of those folks were voted down, too - the ones the party had hopes for. So, status quo seemed to do pretty well in the biggest election day since Barack's big day.

Interesting that no matter what happens, conservatives can seem to make it sound like things are great for them. I do know, that as long as nothing actually encroaches inside the gates of their home, or comes onto their lawn, they think life is ok... so, run with it Wease! :0074
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
If confused let me clear it up--but been in about 6 links to this same graph that is simple math--

The graph represents 3 sets of #'s
Those already established
--and 2 sets of projections --the white house #'s and CBO #'s

Which set of #'s do you feel is misrepresented--the actual #'s already determined --or the WH or CBO projections--???

--apparently its not the #'s-- it's the graph (that depicts them so obviously) your having a problem with--correct. :)

Let me ask you a simple question, regarding this chart. Do you think George Bush played any part in the 2009 numbers - the exploding debt year - and if so, should Obama be credited with bringing that outlandish number down, since he didn't have a role in creating that budget to begin with, and inherited a complete economic meltdown in the initial stages of his Presidency?

My question was - did this chart originate from the Heritage Foundation, then published in the Post, and are the numbers actually verified anywhere other than those? Do you have any other sources that can back up those numbers? I'm not saying it's not true, just asking. But please focus on my first paragraph - I know that' more difficult to answer... ;)
 

rusty

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 24, 2006
4,627
11
0
Under a mask.
Do we miss President Bush? Inspite of rethug love of the man on this forum, it might be time to go back to September, 2008 and shake the dust off the old memory bank.

Bush?s Legacy Of Squandering Taxpayer Money

President Bush announced his $700 billion plan to buy out troubled financial institutions. Demanding enormous faith in his administration?s stewardship, the plan ?would place no restrictions on the administration other than requiring semiannual reports to Congress, granting the Treasury secretary unprecedented power to buy and resell mortgage debt,? and to hire outside firms ?to help manage its purchases.? Further, the proposal provides no oversight mechanism:

Sec. 8. Review: Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Bush is demanding unprecedented control over billions of dollars ? with no oversight. His history of mismanaging taxpayer dollars should make Americans skeptical of his buyout plan:

IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION

-$142 million wasted on reconstruction projects that were either terminated or canceled. [Special Inspector General for Iraq, 7/28/08]

-?Significant? amount of U.S. funds for Iraq funneled to Sunni and Shiite militias. [GAO Comptroller, 3/11/08]

-$180 million payed to construction company Bechtel for projects it never finished. [Federal audit, 7/25/07]

-$5.1 billion in expenses for Iraq reconstruction charged without documentation. [Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction report, 3/19/07]

-$10 billion in spending on Iraq reconstruction was wasteful or poorly tracked. [GAO, 2/15/07]

-Halliburton overcharged the government $100 million for one day?s work in 2004. [Project on Government Oversight, 10/8/04]

KATRINA

-Millions wasted on four no-bid contracts, including paying $20 million for an unusable camp for evacuees. [Homeland Security Department Inspector General, 9/10/08]

-$2.4 billion in contracts doled out by FEMA that guaranteed profits for big companies. [Center for Public Integrity investigation, 6/25/07]

-An estimated $2 billion in fraud and waste ? nearly 11 percent of the $19 billion spent by FEMA on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita as of mid-June. [New York Times tally, 6/27/06]

-?Widespread? waste and mismanagement on millions for Katrina recovery, including at least $3 million for 4,000 beds that were never used. [GAO, 3/16/06]

DEFENSE CONTRACTS

-A $50 million Air Force contract awarded to a company with close ties to senior Air Force officers, in a process ?fraught with improper influence, irregular procedures, glaring conflicts of interest.? [Project on Government Oversight, 4/18/08]

-$1.7 billion in excessive fees and waste paid by the Pentagon to the Interior Department to manage federal lands. [Defense Department and Interior Department Inspectors General audit, 12/25/06]

-$1 trillion unaccounted for by the Pentagon, including 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units. [GAO, 5/18/03]

Given Bush?s history of gross fiscal mismanagement ? including an unprecedented number of no-bid contracts and Bush?s resistance to closing fraud loopholes or increasing oversight of contracts ? why should Americans trust another $700 billion to his care?

Some around here are tired of the "blame game. The fact remains, there were mountains of elephant dung to clean up from the Bush, Cheney and his cronies.

Jonathan Alter, Newsweek, writes:

The BP oil spill is the perfect metaphor for Barack Obama's presidency so far. His first 500 days in office have been?with the significant exception of health-care reform?consumed in cleaning up the messes left by his predecessors in the financial sector, the auto business, Afghanistan, and now the oil and gas industry, where "regulators" in the Denver office of the Minerals Management Service under President Bush were literally sleeping with the industry reps they were supposed to be licensing. Obama's fate is to head up what Donald Regan (Ronald Reagan's chief of staff) called "the shovel brigade"?the crew cleaning up the dung when the elephants leave the circus.

Think your off base in blaming Bush for the Oil rig explosion.Prior to that one incident BP had a 100 percent accident rating.

It's plain to see that BP should take full responsibility.They cut corners to save money and there profits.A enormous disaster could of been avoided if BP followed safety guidelines .

BP should be held accountable .Not Bush,Obama or the rigging company that was contracted.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above.
Please provide the link for this.

Thanks/Trench
 

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2001
9,601
1,571
113
Kansas City area for who knows how long....
I've noted before on this forum two big facts many read--but evidently filter out of memory real fast:

1 - OMB projects Obama debt to be very high (over 70% GDP) even during time (according to Obama Whitehouse) of peace and growth and no crisis (or money left owed from previous crises or wars). That has never happened before in US history. We have always brought debt down in peaceful good years. Well under 60% since WWII. Obama's future debt is different in kind, not degree, from all previous ones the last 225+ years of US history.

2 - Most of ballooning Obama deficit spending in these out years are on entitlement programs, not short-term crisis like financial problems and wars. It is thus not temporary, but permanent. And if history is any guide, 95% chance these gov't entitlement programs will cost more than they figger, grow like crazy, and can't be reversed.


here's some of my last post on some of this:

Obama: Spend, Spend, Blame and Blame (and soon: TAX TAX)

Pres. Obama always talks of having "inherited" a $1 trillion deficit. He campaigned against the free-spending ways of the last administration, promising a new era of responsibility.

How did he and his fellow Democrats in Congress respond once they took the reigns of power? But doubling down and immediately bloating the deficit to twice it's previous high.

I can understand folks making the argument that a significant economic/financial crisis requires a significant outlay of money to combat it. Tho I disagree with that, no economist or finance expert disagrees with the fact that the only responsible way to respond with "necessary" deficits in crisis years is to try and balance the budget once the economy is back on track in the good years.

Yet even the Obama Whitehouse is projecting large debts in the years after they say the economy will recover. And large as those projected debts, it's based on assuming the Obama Whitehouse's laughable strong growth projections come true, and their military spending will sharply decline due to less wars and nicer guys out there.

The independent Congressional Budget Office has put out a bit more realistic projections, charting the Obama debt vs GDP data, for the years when any responsible administration should be trying to balance the budget. It is very sobering:

debt-to-gdp-ChartH-TAbigailHaddad.jpg


These sort of facts Pres. Obama can't possibly defend, so he trashes his opponents: "I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them." (I should note here that "annual deficit" Obama speaks of is the yearly gap between Federal Gov't spending out and taxes coming in. The "debt" is all the borrowing they have to do caused by all these past deficits).

All this massive spending and debt, the greatest growth of government since that fine Texan Lyndon Johnson, will start to occur before many baby boomers retire (adding their vast off-balance-sheet liabilities in the Medicare and Social Security systems)

US debt was 41% of GDP in 1988, when Reagan left--the same as 2008 when Bush left. If those guys made mistakes, how does it make sense to bloat it all out to the 80% debt-to-GDP level projected when Obama leaves office after all his spending? Years after he sez the current financial crisis and wars (and costs for them) will be gone and paid off?

I can just envision the taxes coming! Bernanke has ruled out inflating the debt away, but Obama may replace him when his term expires.....

..........

incidentally, I didn't like any of the bailouts by Bush or Obama. For the banking crisis we should have done something similar to the S+L crisis.

I've posted here before what I think is the main cause of our recent Great Recession.. And recent scary monetary manipulations by the Fed are increasing the chance of a "double dip" recession. Tho I still don't think it will happen...
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Let me ask you a simple question, regarding this chart. Do you think George Bush played any part in the 2009 numbers - the exploding debt year - and if so, should Obama be credited with bringing that outlandish number down, since he didn't have a role in creating that budget to begin with, and inherited a complete economic meltdown in the initial stages of his Presidency?

My question was - did this chart originate from the Heritage Foundation, then published in the Post, and are the numbers actually verified anywhere other than those? Do you have any other sources that can back up those numbers? I'm not saying it's not true, just asking. But please focus on my first paragraph - I know that' more difficult to answer... ;)

I certainly do -same as GW taking over dot.com recession--which had carry overs like enron-worldcom collapse.

The diff is what they did about it. Find Me article where "W" played blame game like "H'

--"W" let both companies go under--"H" bails out auto co with taxpayor money then proceeds to give it to his cronies- the unions--who's fault it was in 1st place.

Then he passes HUGE stimulus ( of which 1/3 was welfare) in middle of night behind close doors saying if we do it to keep unemployment under 8%

--then passes schips giving free healthcare to kids with families earning up to $80,000
Then extends unemployment --and pays 66% of cobra--

Then passes healthcare reform against nations wishes--

You note all of these are entitlement programs of which "W" had 0 responsibilty.

Explain how these have inpack on jobs when you give folks insentive not to work.

As I said --you've had control of congress since 06--you had Gumby in charge with congress where they can and have passed anything --behind closed doors-in secret with only a bribe or 2 for almost 2 years now--

At what point to you all take responsibity?????
At what point do you admit that worst econ since great depression was not when we had 5% unemployment and 14,000 dow--but now:0corn
 
Last edited:

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
I certainly do -same as GW taking over dot.com recession--which had carry overs like enron-worldcom collapse.

The diff is what they did about it. Find Me article where "W" played blame game like "H'

--"W" let both companies go under--"H" bails out auto co with taxpayor money then proceeds to give it to his cronies- the unions--who's fault it was in 1st place.

Then he passes HUGE stimulus ( of which 1/3 was welfare) in middle of night behind close doors saying if we do it to keep unemployment under 8%

--then passes schips giving free healthcare to kids with families earning up to $80,000
Then extends unemployment --and pays 66% of cobra--

Then passes healthcare reform against nations wishes--

You note all of these are entitlement programs of which "W" had 0 responsibilty.

Explain how these have inpack on jobs when you give folks insentive not to work.

As I said --you've had control of congress since 06--you had Gumby in charge with congress where they can and have passed anything --behind closed doors-in secret with only a bribe or 2 for almost 2 years now--

At what point to you all take responsibity?????
At what point do you admit that worst econ since great depression was not when we had 5% unemployment and 14,000 dow--but now:0corn
DTB's in full meltdown too. :142smilie

Your entire post says one thing: It's ALL Obama's fault!

Bush was in office for 8 years. Obama's been if office for less than 17 months. Get back to us in 6 1/2 years and we'll compare notes.

You poor righties need to slow down and learn to pace yourselves. Your constant hyperventilating over Obama just isn't healthy.

Trench
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI

rusty

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 24, 2006
4,627
11
0
Under a mask.

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
I certainly do -same as GW taking over dot.com recession--which had carry overs like enron-worldcom collapse.

The diff is what they did about it. Find Me article where "W" played blame game like "H'

--"W" let both companies go under--"H" bails out auto co with taxpayor money then proceeds to give it to his cronies- the unions--who's fault it was in 1st place.

Then he passes HUGE stimulus ( of which 1/3 was welfare) in middle of night behind close doors saying if we do it to keep unemployment under 8%

--then passes schips giving free healthcare to kids with families earning up to $80,000
Then extends unemployment --and pays 66% of cobra--

Then passes healthcare reform against nations wishes--

You note all of these are entitlement programs of which "W" had 0 responsibilty.

Explain how these have inpack on jobs when you give folks insentive not to work.

As I said --you've had control of congress since 06--you had Gumby in charge with congress where they can and have passed anything --behind closed doors-in secret with only a bribe or 2 for almost 2 years now--

At what point to you all take responsibity?????
At what point do you admit that worst econ since great depression was not when we had 5% unemployment and 14,000 dow--but now:0corn

inpack jobs?

You should never be allowed to post again.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Wayne (and Terryray), don't get me wrong. I actually agree with much of your post as far as blame for the exploding deficit and Obama. I don't take responsibility necessarily, but have to absorb some of it since I voted for him. As I think you know, I much preferred Hillary, and definitely still do. No way I would have voted for the McCain/Palin ticket, however, as I consider Palin to be a dolt, and to think of her being President is incredibly frightening to me.

In my defense, I certainly did not vote for Obama for his economic outlook, nor did I expect anything much to be different about expected economics. I was hopeful he could change the course of some things in this country, and I think he has, some for the better. I don't think much of the economic outlook is good, and I find much of the spending to be very elective, and responsibility has to go squarely on Obama and congress. And I've said here repeatedly, if they don't do something to stop spending and get things back in order, I will hold them accountable for it. It's definitely out of control, and both of you have every right to rip them for it. I do want to see how things pan out, but feel it's time for more responsible economic policy - NOW.

My point essentially was to show what I think is hypocritical indignity on some issues, and selective responsibility outlooks. I think I've made my points on this things, but do accept the negatives in the person I voted for. Not all of them - as I don't think it's all been negative, unlike some here. And I do think he was dealt an extremely shitty hand, much worse than the previous administration, who definitely helped cause the start of this.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top