Democrat Debates and Trump

[burrrton]

ASF, 100% agree.

You can agree all you want, but some of us have both worked in the industry and studied it extensively.

Some just can't see how ridiculous the system in the US is until you step outside of it.

Until you step outside of it... and see your taxes go through the roof and you wave good-bye to any specialist you hoped to see before your next birthday.

It may be inevitable, but that's only because no child ever shot Santa Claus. Promising something for nothing is always a popular stance.

[I-5]

Until you step outside of it... and see your taxes go through the roof and you wave good-bye to any specialist you hoped to see before your next birthday.

I stepped outside, got WAY better care, and my taxes did not go through the roof. I can see a specialist with weeks not months based on the doctor I spoke with about my son's foot injury (which he didn't end up needing because it healed quickly).

[c_hawkbob]

LIFE EXPECTANCY DEPENDS ON A MILLION DIFFERENT FACTORS, WITH THE QUALITY OF HEALTHCARE YOU RECEIVE ALMOST NOT REGISTERING.

You can shout it all you want, doesn't make it an ounce more believable.

[Aseahawkfan]

I think if you ponder this for more than a moment, you'll realize how ridiculous a statement it is.

LIFE EXPECTANCY DEPENDS ON A MILLION DIFFERENT FACTORS, WITH THE QUALITY OF HEALTHCARE YOU RECEIVE ALMOST NOT REGISTERING.

It's like I'm back in 1998. Jesus.

Healthcare is a major factor for life expectancy and you keep leaving out general physical health. As in our health outcomes are not better than other socialized 1st world nations.

This idea that life expectancy is a million different factors is garbage. Once you account for 1st world nation factors like access to food and living conditions, you are looking at apples to apples. Healthcare is a major factor in extending life and general health outcomes. The United States for all it spends on healthcare is not having better health outcomes than Germany or Canada.

How do you want to rate healthcare if not by outcomes? That would be like me buying a car for five times as much, nearly the exact same car, then claiming the car is better because someone said so even when the car runs exactly the same as the other car.

Show me aggregate proof that healthcare in Canada or Germany is leading to worse health outcomes than healthcare in the United States. I want to see that data.

[Aseahawkfan]

I stepped outside, got WAY better care, and my taxes did not go through the roof. I can see a specialist with weeks not months based on the doctor I spoke with about my son's foot injury (which he didn't end up needing because it healed quickly).

That's another thing bothering me is Canadians and Germans. Their taxes aren't near as bad as I thought. We pay a lot of taxes in the United States for not much of a return unless you consider a big badass military a good return on investment.

[Aseahawkfan]

Here, I-5 - this literally took seconds, and represents merely the tip of the iceberg.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2011/09/ ... t-w-atlas/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... s-of-life/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4856058/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 103132.htm

I've read these before. I agree with them. Still doesn't change that we're paying way more for the same levels of healthcare including the infant mortality rate. If you're going to pay twice as much or more, your healthcare should be twice as good or more. Isn't that how it is generally supposed to work? The more you pay, the better the quality of the product? And if you pay twice or more as much, it should be way, way better? You wouldn't pay twice or more as much for a TV or computer that was only slightly better than your buddy, right?

[RiverDog]

ASF, 100% agree. At least Riv recognizes that at some point, we will need to go to single payer. Some just can't see how ridiculous the system in the US is until you step outside of it.

FYI I never said that we "need" to go to a single payer system. I just recognized the reality that our society seems to be heading in that direction. For the record, I do not feel that a single payer system is right for our country.

[burrrton]

I stepped outside, got WAY better care, and my taxes did not go through the roof. I can see a specialist with weeks not months based on the doctor I spoke with about my son's foot injury (which he didn't end up needing because it healed quickly).

You can try and present your anecdotal evidence all you want- the stats are available, and they don't support you.

[burrrton]

You can shout it all you want, doesn't make it an ounce more believable.

And you can plug your ears as hard as you want- doesn't make it any less real.

[burrrton]

This idea that life expectancy is a million different factors is garbage.

Asea, I'll say the same to you I said to I-5- I can't keep repeating myself.

If you don't get that there are far more factors that figure into a population's life expectancy than the competency of their doctors, I can't explain it to you.

Go read more or something.

[burrrton]

I've read these before. I agree with them.

So has the rest of the planet, among the thousands of others. Thanks.

[edit]

Look, I'm sorry, but this is a really droll argument to have- I'm not guessing about this, guys. I'm educated in it, and have been debating it for literally decades.

Believe what you want, but those educated in it are chuckling, and done trying to convince you goofballs the earth isn't flat. I hate to bail on an otherwise interesting thread, but I'm out.

[I-5]

Pay much more money with no proof of better quality of care. That’s IF you can get care. That’s the US system, and too many Americans don’t expect any better.

Speaking of anecdotal evidence, at least mine is first person, not what a friend told me. Where are these empirical stats that show the US having any advantage of either cost or quality of care? The data points the other way, even in the articles you posted.

[I-5]

Keep on chuckling, you’re on the losing end of a joke of a system. Everything you threaten me with in Canada has not come true for me, my wife, my in laws, my co-workers, my friends...but it’s all anecdotal to you

[I-5]

Also, the ‘million factors’ argument regarding overall health is just as silly as gun advocates blaming mental illness as the main culprit for gun violence...as if all the rest of the countries in the world (many who have much larger populations and more poverty than the US) don’t also have their share of mentally illl...but it’s only in the US that it somehow results in more gun-related deaths. That’s a lot of mental gymnastics.

As Goethe said, ‘the hardest thing to see is what’s in front of your eyes’.

[burrrton]

As Goethe said, ‘the hardest thing to see is what’s in front of your eyes’.

Tell me about it.

Ok, when's everyone/anyone going to a game this year- I'm buying beers wherever RD wants to meet (he seems to know the best gathering spots pre-game- I'm more a 'dive into FX for a bloody mary on the way' kinda guy)?

That includes you, I-5, even though you want my blood mary money for someone else's insurance payments.

[RiverDog]

I-5, I'm not trying to set you up or be a smart Alec, but being that you have actual experience with the Canadian system and seem to be an avid defender of it, I'd like to hear your comments on some of the information presented in this article from 2016:

TORONTO — When Sharon Shamblaw was diagnosed last summer with a form of blood cancer that could only be treated with a particular stem cell transplant, the search for a donor began. A Toronto hospital, 100 miles east of her home in St. Mary's, Ontario, and one of three facilities in the province that could provide the life-saving treatment, had an eight-month waiting list for transplants.

Four months after her diagnosis, Shamblaw headed to Buffalo, New York, for treatment. But it was too late. She died at the age of 46, leaving behind a husband and three children, as detailed by the Toronto Star.

Ontario, the country's most populous province, provides a good example. The three hospitals that use stem-cell therapy to treat patients with blood disorders and aggressive cancers like the one that Sharon Shamblaw battled are unable to keep up with the soaring demand. So patients are sent to medical facilities in Buffalo, Cleveland, Ohio, and Detroit, Michigan, for the potentially life-saving treatment.

The Fraser Institute, a Canadian public policy think tank, estimates that 52,513 Canadians received non-emergency medical treatment in the U.S. and other countries in 2014, a 25 percent jump from the roughly 41,838 who sought medical care abroad the previous year.

Canadians could expect to wait 9.8 weeks for medically necessary treatment after seeing a specialist in 2014, the researchers found, three weeks more than the time physicians considered to be clinically "reasonable."

That aligns with what many Canadians were telling me 10-15 years ago, that they had to wait months to see a specialist or to have a common procedure like an MRI or CAT scan. Is that true? Have you ever had to have one of those procedures done or see a specialist and if so, how long did it take you to get in?

Contrary to popular belief among Americans, health care is not entirely free for Canadians. Dental, ambulance and many other services as well as prescription medications must be paid for out of pocket or they're covered through a combination of public programs and private health insurance. About two-thirds of Canadians have such insurance.

Is this true? Do you have such insurance and if so, how much does it cost?

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countr ... ealth-care

I agree that it's just one POV, but it sure makes it sound like that one of the reasons Canada's health care system is "free" and that their "quality" is arguably better is that the vast majority of Canada's population resides within a few hundred miles of good ole Uncle Sam that is ready and waiting to cover their system's shortcomings.

If Americans had the same system and experienced the same problems, where would we turn?

[RiverDog]

Ok, when's everyone/anyone going to a game this year- I'm buying beers wherever RD wants to meet (he seems to know the best gathering spots pre-game- I'm more a 'dive into FX for a bloody mary on the way' kinda guy)?

That includes you, I-5, even though you want my blood mary money for someone else's insurance payments.

FYI As of last December, FX was still closed.

I already have tickets for the Ravens game on Oct. 20th and there's a possibility that I'll be going to the Tampa Bay game on Nov. 2nd. My road crew will be in attendance for the Shitsburg game on Sept. 15th. I plan on going to a lot of games this season as I'll be saving tons of money on my medical expenses and my 12% income tax rate!

[idhawkman]

If those benefits you pointed out were offered in the US, I'm sure parents would greatly appreciate it. That is a part of care that affects overall quality. We don't have to argue semantics, but I think we both agree it would be a good thing for the US to support parents that way. Could it ever happen?

Just an FYI - Ivanka has been championing those very policies yet the only thing you hear from the media is that she's having sex with her father and should be barred from working in the govt at all.

[idhawkman]

That's another thing bothering me is Canadians and Germans. Their taxes aren't near as bad as I thought. We pay a lot of taxes in the United States for not much of a return unless you consider a big badass military a good return on investment.

Its why Germans and Canadians don't have worse taxes....

[idhawkman]

I've read these before. I agree with them. Still doesn't change that we're paying way more for the same levels of healthcare including the infant mortality rate. If you're going to pay twice as much or more, your healthcare should be twice as good or more. Isn't that how it is generally supposed to work? The more you pay, the better the quality of the product? And if you pay twice or more as much, it should be way, way better? You wouldn't pay twice or more as much for a TV or computer that was only slightly better than your buddy, right?

Actually, no. The cost of delivering care in the US is much much higher than delivering care in those other areas you have mentioned. This is why I said the cost of US healthcare could be reduced drastically with Tort reform and insurance deregulation (e.g. make the insurance companies compete nationwide instead of state by state).

Regarding your TV scenario, it proves my case in that if the cost to sell that TV in this country is 2x as high based on shipping, tariffs, etc then you would expect to have to pay 2x what they pay in their country of origin, right?

[idhawkman]

FYI As of last December, FX was still closed.

I already have tickets for the Ravens game on Oct. 20th and there's a possibility that I'll be going to the Tampa Bay game on Nov. 2nd. My road crew will be in attendance for the Shitsburg game on Sept. 15th. I plan on going to a lot of games this season as I'll be saving tons of money on my medical expenses and my 12% income tax rate!

Great post River. Congrats on getting to more games. Do you still take your daughter to games with you?

[Aseahawkfan]

Actually, no. The cost of delivering care in the US is much much higher than delivering care in those other areas you have mentioned. This is why I said the cost of US healthcare could be reduced drastically with Tort reform and insurance deregulation (e.g. make the insurance companies compete nationwide instead of state by state).

Where else has it worked out like you illustrate here? Nowhere as far as I know. Healthcare based in income level is a losing proposition that would drag this nation into a deep hole of haves and have nots that would not sustain.

Though I do somewhat agree with you in that insurance companies created a price point for medical services that exceeds the ability of the consumer to afford medical services while at the same time being priced just right to force a citizen to have medical insurance to feel secure they can afford a health problem. Health insurance companies themselves compete against the consumer driving healthcare costs sky high. People will pay what they must to survive in this world, which is another reason why for profit healthcare is walking a moral line I'm starting to fall on the progressive side of. There some real scumbag behavior in for profit healthcare that I cannot overlook, especially considering what I already pointed out: the lack of substantially better outcomes for the price.

Regarding your TV scenario, it proves my case in that if the cost to sell that TV in this country is 2x as high based on shipping, tariffs, etc then you would expect to have to pay 2x what they pay in their country of origin, right?

It isn't that way. One country only allows the TV to be sold for $500 to support their people and the other is a free for all nation that allows severe price gouging for something far more essential than a TV. I encourage everyone to read up on what some of these drug companies are doing in the United States. It's quite obscene. Not to mention what our government does to protect Big Pharma in America.

We can do a better job. I'm going to leave it there since neither side seems to want to give up much. I remember when I was staunchly anti-socialized medicine using the same arguments until I started studying health outcomes, costs, taxes, and how socialized medical supports a capitalist society rather than seems to harm it removing the costs of medical from corporations and providing better health support for a nation. As has already been stated, if you have money you can still get better healthcare. I feel wealthy folk will still donate tons of money to healthcare advancement given wealth does not protect one from life threatening disease.

That's it for that discussion. We'll see who can come up with the best plan at some point.

[I-5]

Ok, when's everyone/anyone going to a game this year- I'm buying beers wherever RD wants to meet (he seems to know the best gathering spots pre-game- I'm more a 'dive into FX for a bloody mary on the way' kinda guy)?

That includes you, I-5, even though you want my blood mary money for someone else's insurance payments.

Haha, thanks burrrton, you're a good guy

[I-5]

I-5, I'm not trying to set you up or be a smart Alec, but being that you have actual experience with the Canadian system and seem to be an avid defender of it, I'd like to hear your comments on some of the information presented in this article from 2016:

TORONTO — When Sharon Shamblaw was diagnosed last summer with a form of blood cancer that could only be treated with a particular stem cell transplant, the search for a donor began. A Toronto hospital, 100 miles east of her home in St. Mary's, Ontario, and one of three facilities in the province that could provide the life-saving treatment, had an eight-month waiting list for transplants.

Four months after her diagnosis, Shamblaw headed to Buffalo, New York, for treatment. But it was too late. She died at the age of 46, leaving behind a husband and three children, as detailed by the Toronto Star.

Ontario, the country's most populous province, provides a good example. The three hospitals that use stem-cell therapy to treat patients with blood disorders and aggressive cancers like the one that Sharon Shamblaw battled are unable to keep up with the soaring demand. So patients are sent to medical facilities in Buffalo, Cleveland, Ohio, and Detroit, Michigan, for the potentially life-saving treatment.

The Fraser Institute, a Canadian public policy think tank, estimates that 52,513 Canadians received non-emergency medical treatment in the U.S. and other countries in 2014, a 25 percent jump from the roughly 41,838 who sought medical care abroad the previous year.

Canadians could expect to wait 9.8 weeks for medically necessary treatment after seeing a specialist in 2014, the researchers found, three weeks more than the time physicians considered to be clinically "reasonable."

That aligns with what many Canadians were telling me 10-15 years ago, that they had to wait months to see a specialist or to have a common procedure like an MRI or CAT scan. Is that true? Have you ever had to have one of those procedures done or see a specialist and if so, how long did it take you to get in?

Contrary to popular belief among Americans, health care is not entirely free for Canadians. Dental, ambulance and many other services as well as prescription medications must be paid for out of pocket or they're covered through a combination of public programs and private health insurance. About two-thirds of Canadians have such insurance.

Is this true? Do you have such insurance and if so, how much does it cost?

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countr ... ealth-care

I agree that it's just one POV, but it sure makes it sound like that one of the reasons Canada's health care system is "free" and that their "quality" is arguably better is that the vast majority of Canada's population resides within a few hundred miles of good ole Uncle Sam that is ready and waiting to cover their system's shortcomings.

If Americans had the same system and experienced the same problems, where would we turn?

I don't take it in a bad way at all, Riv. I simply don't know anyone who has gone through cancer treatment in Canada yet. I promise I will report back if/when, but I hope I never do find out if you know what I mean. No one is saying Canada is perfect, including myself...but I AM saying no one in Canada is going to go bankrupt due the hospital bills, while a lot of people in the US are losing any life savings they had, and still dying.

[RiverDog]

I don't take it in a bad way at all, Riv. I simply don't know anyone who has gone through cancer treatment in Canada yet. I promise I will report back if/when, but I hope I never do find out if you know what I mean. No one is saying Canada is perfect, including myself...but I AM saying no one in Canada is going to go bankrupt due the hospital bills, while a lot of people in the US are losing any life savings they had, and still dying.

I'm glad you didn't take my queries personal. I appreciate your participation.

What I was more interested in was the "supplemental" insurance that Canadians have to buy to cover things like ambulance service. If I have a heart attack and haven't bought the supplemental insurance, who pays for the ambulance ride if I can't afford it?

I'd also like to know what your experience is regarding seeing specialists or having common procedures like MRI's and CAT scans. That seems to be a common criticism of the Canadian system, one that friends of mine north of the border have related to me. Canada ranks pretty low on the timeliness of their medical care, and I would like to hear your opinion on that accusation.

Hopefully you understand my point regarding what my options as an American would be if we had Canada's health care system and I experienced unacceptable service or had to wait months for a procedure. Would Americans be able to go to Canada and find those services as Canadians appear to have been relying on the US for? Considering the population difference and how far away many of us live from the border, that doesn't sound like a viable option as it is with most Canadians.

[idhawkman]

Where else has it worked out like you illustrate here? Nowhere as far as I know. Healthcare based in income level is a losing proposition that would drag this nation into a deep hole of haves and have nots that would not sustain.

Tort reform is not based on income level. It is limiting damages (Like Canada does and other socialized countries) for malpractice. You can't get 10's of millions of dollars in those countries for making a mistake.

[idhawkman]

Ok, when's everyone/anyone going to a game this year- I'm buying beers wherever RD wants to meet (he seems to know the best gathering spots pre-game- I'm more a 'dive into FX for a bloody mary on the way' kinda guy)?

That includes you, I-5, even though you want my blood mary money for someone else's insurance payments.

Haha, thanks burrrton, you're a good guy

We may not all agree here in this forum but I believe we all agree about the Seahawks and are all fans. One of these days (I hope soon, too) I am going to be a suite for the season and invite all of you to join me in rooting for the Hawks. Its one of my bucket list items.

[I-5]

What I was more interested in was the "supplemental" insurance that Canadians have to buy to cover things like ambulance service. If I have a heart attack and haven't bought the supplemental insurance, who pays for the ambulance ride if I can't afford it?

I'd also like to know what your experience is regarding seeing specialists or having common procedures like MRI's and CAT scans. That seems to be a common criticism of the Canadian system, one that friends of mine north of the border have related to me. Canada ranks pretty low on the timeliness of their medical care, and I would like to hear your opinion on that accusation.

Hopefully you understand my point regarding what my options as an American would be if we had Canada's health care system and I experienced unacceptable service or had to wait months for a procedure. Would Americans be able to go to Canada and find those services as Canadians appear to have been relying on the US for? Considering the population difference and how far away many of us live from the border, that doesn't sound like a viable option as it is with most Canadians.

Regarding specialists, I've ever only requested one to get a heart test since my doctor told me to check for arrhythmia, so I scheduled an EKG with a specialist. I waited about 3 weeks for the test (it wasn't urgent, so I didn't request it sooner). Bill: $0. No supplemental insurance required. (Results were negative)

Regarding ambulances, the flat fee is $50 - ground or air (these are fees for BC residents. If you're a non-resident, there is a separate schedule)
http://www.bcehs.ca/about/billing/fees

I'm still learning, obviously.

[RiverDog]

FYI As of last December, FX was still closed.

I already have tickets for the Ravens game on Oct. 20th and there's a possibility that I'll be going to the Tampa Bay game on Nov. 2nd. My road crew will be in attendance for the Shitsburg game on Sept. 15th. I plan on going to a lot of games this season as I'll be saving tons of money on my medical expenses and my 12% income tax rate!

Great post River. Congrats on getting to more games. Do you still take your daughter to games with you?

Yes, once a season I've been treating her to a Hawks game, and in the past few years, I've included my son-in-law. It represents my Xmas present to them.

Thanks for asking!

[idhawkman]

Great post River. Congrats on getting to more games. Do you still take your daughter to games with you?

Yes, once a season I've been treating her to a Hawks game, and in the past few years, I've included my son-in-law. It represents my Xmas present to them.

Thanks for asking!

Good for you. I really enjoyed talking to you and her, IG and OBS that game we all met at the corner bar.

[I-5]

Speaking of the cost of healthcare in the US compared with ever other developed country on earth, listen to everyone’s favourite punch bag, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, grill the CEO of pharmaceutical company Gilead about the $1780 cost of the only FDA approved drug for HIV, Truvada, that is available for only $8 in Australia because it is generic everywhere else. He doesn’t deny it. More importantly, she points out that Truvada was developed in the US with 100% public funding, yet Gilead was able to privatize and monetize it. To add insult, those in the US who can’t afford the $1,780 monthly cost die, but not before costing the US healthcare system even more, so the US pays for it twice while Gilead laughs all the way to bank. To her credit, AOC doesn’t blame the Gilead CEO, because she correctly reasons that even if he resigned, the next CEO would make the exact same choice since that is how the US system is incentivized. We are the problem.

You can call her anything you like, except a corporate shill. At least we know who’s NOT paying her.

https://youtu.be/GRsZbGs24jY

[I-5]

Just an FYI - Ivanka has been championing those very policies yet the only thing you hear from the media is that she's having sex with her father and should be barred from working in the govt at all.

I hear you, ID, but to be fair, that's not what people have a problem with Ivanka; it's the nepotism that put her in a senior advisor position in the White House with exactly zero qualifications, and more recently her trying to act as the top diplomat (as much as I don't care for Pompeo, it's his job). I don't have a problem with her support for mothers at all. The sex jokes are not aimed at her but at her pervert dad.

[RiverDog]

Just an FYI - Ivanka has been championing those very policies yet the only thing you hear from the media is that she's having sex with her father and should be barred from working in the govt at all.

I hear you, ID, but to be fair, that's not what people have a problem with Ivanka; it's the nepotism that put her in a senior advisor position in the White House with exactly zero qualifications, and more recently her trying to act as the top diplomat (as much as I don't care for Pompeo, it's his job). I don't have a problem with her support for mothers at all. The sex jokes are not aimed at her but at her pervert dad.

I agree with I-5. It's no different than Bill Clinton appointing his old lady to a commission to formulate a new health care plan back in '93. She had zero qualifications outside of her sharing a bed with the POTUS.

And although it's way over the line for those jokes to have extended to Trump's family, it's inevitable that given his past porn star banging that some of that crap is going to spill over onto his loved ones. It's one of those "if you're gonna sleep with the dogs don't be surprised when you wake up with fleas" moments.

[idhawkman]

You are both wrong but what's new? Hilliary had no experience in health care and shouldn't have been put in charge for it. Ivanka has run businesses and has been empowering women in small business for a long time. Her advocating for equal pay and work improvements for women is very appropriate especially since she has the confidence of the President. He knows she doesn't have ulterior motives. Your hate for this president is skewing your views.

[I-5]

I don't have a problem with her lobbying for equal pay. The problem is that nepotism got her the job that she is not qualified for. It was wrong with Hillary, and it's wrong with Ivanka. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Period.

[idhawkman]

I don't have a problem with her lobbying for equal pay. The problem is that nepotism got her the job that she is not qualified for. It was wrong with Hillary, and it's wrong with Ivanka. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Period.

That's your opinion about the nepotism. What makes you say she in unqualified in her role?

[RiverDog]

I don't have a problem with her lobbying for equal pay. The problem is that nepotism got her the job that she is not qualified for. It was wrong with Hillary, and it's wrong with Ivanka. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Period.

That's your opinion about the nepotism. What makes you say she in unqualified in her role?

Not sure if that was a mistake or not, but you got it backwards. It is not I-5's opinion that Ivanka got the job due to nepotism, it's a fact. There is no way anyone else outside her immediate family would have selected her for that position. It's the textbook definition of nepotism.

It's I-5's opinion, of which I concur, that Ivanka is not qualified, or rather, there were many, many more with greater qualifications than she had.

[idhawkman]

That's your opinion about the nepotism. What makes you say she in unqualified in her role?

I don't have a problem with her lobbying for equal pay. The problem is that nepotism got her the job that she is not qualified for. It was wrong with Hillary, and it's wrong with Ivanka. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Period.

Not sure if that was a mistake or not, but you got it backwards. It is not I-5's opinion that Ivanka got the job due to nepotism, it's a fact. There is no way anyone else outside her immediate family would have selected her for that position. It's the textbook definition of nepotism.

It's I-5's opinion, of which I concur, that Ivanka is not qualified, or rather, there were many, many more with greater qualifications than she had.

Name them then. Do you even know how much Ivanka is making? Do you know what her job role is even called? What were the job requirements?

[idhawkman]

Looks like Tom Steyer isn't convinced with the current slate of Democrat candidates. He has now entered the 2020 race which should be interesting since he'll probably spend much of his own money to get the nomination.

[Aseahawkfan]

Am I the only here not surprised by Ivanka getting a job? Donald trusts his daughter absolutely. He always gives her some job. She's very professional and well spoken. She has a business degree and lots of experience in business.

Is it any different from Clinton giving his wife a job or Colin Powell's son heading up the FCC? Not really. You want people you trust around you. Trump obviously doesn't have many people he can trust in D.C. other than his kids and maybe a few close Republicans like Lindsey Graham.