Donald Trump and US politics
" Ah yes, Peter Navarro. AKA just about the only economist in Trump's camp, and an advisor to the campaign. I think the Washington Post put it nicely with their headline, "Trump economic plan is the best and everybody should love it, Trump adviser says." The fact that Trump could find someone to support his claims is not surprising; he could do the same if he claimed that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Now here's a question - does Navarro's analysis hold up to scrutiny? It looks to me an awful lot like your typical Paul Ryan "magic asterisk" plan, wherein absurdly large increases in overall productivity (increases which outpace even the capacity of the country at the moment) are claimed to make up for the massive tax cuts. It directly contradicts the analysis by both Moody's and the Tax Policy Foundation, both of which are considerably more credentialed than Navarro. The Peterson Institute for International Economics has a pretty decent critique here, as does Steven Wallis here - although to be fair, Wallis does not have a Ph.D in economics. Matthew Yglesias calls the core of this paper "a very silly mistake". Menzie Chinn, a professor of public affairs and economics at University of Wisconsin Madison, also has a fairly scathing critique of it. One gets the impression Navarro's analysis is something of an outlier. And kind of nonsense. " Let's be clear on what, exactly, Moody's predicted. They predicted that certain Trump policies would lead to significant economic downturn. Things like his planned tariffs on Chinese and Mexican goods. Remember those? It feels like nobody wants to bring up how he hadn't followed up on that. My guess would be because his supporters don't care that much and his opponents are just glad we dodged a bullet on that one, because holy shit what a stupid fucking idea. But it's hardly fair to say that a prediction made which is contingent on certain policies being enacted failed if those policies were not enacted. Let's see about impact, say, a few months after he actually enacts the proposals. Or, you know, we can continue hoping that he doesn't. " We're talking past each other and I'm starting to think it's me. I still don't quite get what you mean by this. That the democrats obstructing Trump's horribly unqualified, extremist picks is losing them votes? I'm still rather at a loss as to how you came to that conclusion, but okay. Luna's Blackguards - a guild of bronies - is now recruiting! If you're a fan of our favourite chromatic marshmallow equines, hit me up with an add or whisper, and I'll invite you! IGN: HopeYouAreFireProof Last edited by Budget_player_cadet#3296 on Mar 12, 2017, 4:00:00 PM
|
|
" Statement by economists concerned by Hillary Clinton's economic agenda The outcome of this year's presidential election will influence the U.S. economy for years to come. Should Hillary Clinton win that election, her outdated policy prescriptions won't return our economy to the faster growth rates it once enjoyed. And without more economic growth, her agenda won't result in more jobs or a higher national standard of living. Hillary Clinton's economic agenda is wrong for America. The U.S. economy is underperforming. Misguided federal policies have produced one of the slowest recoveries on record. Since early 2009, the economy has grown at an average annual rate of 2 percent. It could and should be growing 3 to 4 percent. Hillary Clinton promises to repeat almost all of Obama's policy mistakes. She wants yet another massive debt-financed public works program; she wants to raise tax rates on investment and incomes to nearly 50 percent; she wants to raise the federal minimum wage to at least $12 an hour and supports state and local efforts to hike theirs; she wants to stall America's development of fossil fuels; she wants to continue the Obama administration's regulatory assault on business and entrepreneurship; and she wants to double down on ObamaCare. What America needs, and what Americans deserve, is an agenda of economic freedom: limited but effective government, policies that rely on and strengthen markets, pro-growth tax reform, sensible federal spending restraint, regulatory relief, sound money, and freedom to trade. These things are necessary if we are to revive American prosperity. For these reasons and more, the undersigned urge everyone concerned about threats to American prosperity to reject Hillary Clinton's ill-advised economic agenda. Signed (affiliations listed for identification purposes only), Burton A. Abrams, University of Delaware Zoltan Acs, George Mason University Douglas Adie, Ohio University Lee C. Adkins, Oklahoma State University Richard Agnello, University of Delaware William Albrecht, University of Iowa Gordon Alexander, University of Minnesota John W. Allen, Texas A&M University William Allen, University of California, Los Angeles Dom Armentano, University of Hartford Nathan Ashby, University of Texas at El Paso Howard Baetjer, Towson University Department of Economics Charles Baird, California State University, East Bay Marjorie Baldwin, Arizona State University Ray Ball, University of Chicago Christopher C. Barnekov, Ph.D., Fort Wayne, Indiana Bill Barnett, Loyola University New Orleans James Barth, Auburn University Robert Battalio, University of Notre Dame Stacie Beck, University of Delaware Daniel K. Benjamin, Clemson University James T. Bennett, George Mason University Michael Bennett, Curry College Bill Beranek, University of Georgia Dianne Betts, Raymond James & Associates Sanjai Bhagat, University of Colorado Michael Bond, University of Arizona Michael J. Boskin, Stanford University Samuel Bostaph, University of Dallas Fred Bounds, Georgia State University John Boyd, University of Minnesota Michael Bradley, Duke University Charles Breeden, Marquette University Wayne Brough, FreedomWorks Lawrence Brunner, Central Michigan University Phillip Bryson, Brigham Young University Van Bullock, New Mexico State University Richard Burkhauser, Cornell University David Burnett, Whitworth University and Gonzaga University Edwin T. Burton, University of Virginia William Butos, Trinity College Charles Calomiris, Columbia University Oral Capps Jr., Texas A&M University Tom Cargill, University of Nevada Carmen Carro, AEA Member James Carter, former Chief Economist, U.S. Senate Budget Committee Ava Gail Cas, The Catholic University of America Richard J. Cebula, Jacksonville University Dustin Chambers, Salisbury University Don Chance, Louisiana State University Semoon Chang, Gulf Coast Center for Impact Studies K. C. Chen, California State University, Fresno Gregory C. Chow, Princeton University Susan Christoffersen, Philadelphia University Lawrence Cima, John Carroll University Lloyd Cohen, George Mason University Scalia Law School John Coleman, Duke University Ben Collier, Northwest Missouri State University Boyd Collier, Tarleton State University Robert Collinge, University of Texas at San Antonio Michael Cosgrove, University of Dallas T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana James Cover, University of Alabama Eleanor Craig, University of Delaware W. Mark Crain, Lafayette College Nicole Crain, Lafayette College John R. Crooker, University of Central Missouri K. Cundiff, Park University Ward Curran, Trinity College Carl Dahlman, US Department of Defense and RAND Corporation, retired Michael Daniels, Columbus State University Larry Dann, University of Oregon Lawrence S. Davidson, Indiana University Joseph DeSalvo, University of South Florida, Tampa Allan DeSerpa, Arizona State University Bob DeYoung, University of Kansas School of Business Gregg Dimkoff , Grand Valley State University Floyd H. Duncan, Virginia Military Institute James Dunlevy, Miami University Gerald Dwyer, Dwyer Economics John Eckalbar, California State University, Chico John Egger, Towson University Jeffrey Eisenach, George Mason University Scalia Law School Richard Ericson, East Carolina University Molly Espey, Clemson University Mel Evans, Hopkinsville Community College Dorla Evans, University of Alabama, Huntsville Eugene Fama, University of Chicago W. Ken Farr, Georgia College and State University Michael Faulkender, University of Maryland Susan Feigenbaum, University of Missouri, St. Louis Garry Fleming, Roanoke College Christopher Flinn, New York University Harold Flint, Montclair State University, retired Ralph Frasca, University of Dayton Gary French, Nathan Associates Inc. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research Dave Garthoff, The University of Akron Robert Genetski, Classicalprinciples.com Moheb Ghali, Western Washington University Joseph Giacalone, St. John’s University Adam Gifford Jr., California State University David Gillette, Truman State University Otis W. Gilley, Louisiana Tech University William Glade, University of Texas at Austin Rodolfo A. Gonzalez, San Jose State University Lawrence Goodman, Bergen County, NJ Daniel Graham, Duke University J. Edward Graham, University of North Carolina, Wilmington Phil Gramm, former U.S. Senator, Texas Wendy Gramm, Mercatus Center, retired Richard Grant, Lipscomb University Anthony Greco, University of Louisiana, Lafayette Kenneth Greene, Binghamton University Thomas Gresik, University of Notre Dame Earl Grinols, Baylor University Noreen Haas-Lephardt, Marquette University R. W. Hafer, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Simon Hakim, Temple University Thomas Hall, Miami University Gerald A. Hanweck, George Mason University Stephen Happel, Arizona State University Scott Harrington, University of Pennsylvania Lydia Harris, Goucher College William R. Hart, Miami University Joseph Haslag, University of Missouri John Haslem, University of Maryland Janice A. Hauge, University of North Texas Arthur Havenner, University of California, Davis Daniel Heath, Georgetown University Law Center Scott Hein, Texas Tech University John Helmuth, University of Michigan, Flint James Henderson, Baylor University Jesse Hill, Tarrant County College John Hoehn, Michigan State University Gregory Hoelscher, Blue Stripe Investors, LLC Arlene Holen, former Associate Director, Congressional Budget Office Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former Director, Congressional Budget Office Charles L. Hooper, Objective Insights, Inc. William Hosek, California State University, Northridge Forrest Huffman, Temple University Ed Ireland, Texas Christian University Thomas R. Ireland, University of Missouri at St. Louis Austin Jaffe, Pennsylvania State University Mark Jamison, University of Florida Shane Johnson, Texas A&M University Dennis Johnson, University of South Dakota Richard Just, University of Maryland Alexander Katkov, Johnson & Wales University Michael S. Kaylen, University of Missouri Barry Keating, University of Notre Dame David Kendall, University of Virginia Richard Kilmer, University of Florida Charles Knoeber, North Carolina State University Don Koch, former Senior Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Larry Kudlow Arthur B. Laffer, Laffer Associates William Laird, Florida State University Deepak Lal, UCLA Nicholas Lash, Loyola University Chicago Don Leet, California State University, Fresno Norman Lefton, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville Kenneth Lehn, University of Pittsburgh Jim Leiby, University of Maine David Leonard, Miami University of Ohio Stan Liebowitz, University of Texas, Dallas Dean R. Lillard, Ohio State University Christopher Lingle, Ph.D. in economics, University of Georgia Jody Lipford, Presbyterian College Luis Locay, University of Miami Dennis E. Logue, Tuck School at Dartmouth College John R. Lott Jr., Crime Prevention Research Center Timothy Loughran, University of Notre Dame Donald L. Luskin, TrendMacro R. Ashley Lyman, University of Idaho Billy Lynn, St. Ambrose University, Davenport, IA Glenn MacDonald, Washington University in St. Louis Maurice MacDonald, Kansas State University Keith Malone, University of North Alabama David Malpass, Encima Global Yuri Maltsev, Carthage College Michael L. Marlow, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo Noralyn Marshall, Risk Management Advisors Paul Mason, McMurry University Timothy Mathews, Kennesaw State University John Matsusaka, University of Southern California Thomas Mayor, University of Houston John McArthur, Wofford College W. Douglas McMillin, Louisiana State University William L. Megginson, University of Oklahoma Roger Meiners, University of Texas at Arlington John Merrifield, University of Texas, San Antonio Steven C. Michael, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign J. Edgar Mihelic, Community Support Services James Miller III, former Director, Office of Management and Budget James D. Miller, Smith College Chandra Mishra, Florida Atlantic University Ron Moomaw, Oklahoma State University Steve Moore, FreedomWorks John C. Moorhouse, Wake Forest University Barry Morris, University of North Alabama Frank Murray, University of Minnesota Robert J. Newman, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge Lilian Ng, Schulich School of Business, York University Robert D. Niehaus, Robert D. Niehaus, Inc. Edd Noell, Westmont College David J. Nye, University of Florida Jim O'Neill, University of Delaware June O'Neill, former Director, Congressional Budget Office Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University Dale Osborne, University of Texas Donald Oswald, California State University, Bakersfield Walton Padelford, Union University Richard Palfin, Economic Analysis Charles Parekh, Duff & Phelps Stephen Parente, University of Minnesota Randall Parker, East Carolina University Douglas Patterson, Virginia Tech Judd Patton, Bellevue University G. Michael Phillips, California State University, Northridge Ivan Pongracic, Hillsdale College Arturo Porzecanski, American University Barry Poulson, University of Colorado Boulder James Prieger, Pepperdine University R. L. Promboin, University of Maryland University College Gary Quinlivan, Saint Vincent College Richard W. Rahn, Institute for Global Economic Growth David Ranson, H. C. Wainwright & Co. Economics Inc. Eric Rasmusen, Indiana University James Refalo, California State University, Los Angeles Jon Reisman, University of Maine at Machias Mark William Rider, Georgia State University Christine Ries, Georgia Institute of Technology Mario Rizzo, New York University Nancy Roberts, Arizona State University M. Christopher Roebuck, RxEconomics LLC Philip Romero, University of Oregon Steven S. Rosefielde, UNC, Chapel Hill Larry Ross, University of Alaska Anchorage Timothy Roth, University of Texas at El Paso Jack Rowe, University of South Florida Paul Rubin, Emory University Roy J. Ruffin, University of Houston Tony Rufolo, Portland State University John Ruggiero, University of Dayton Philip Jay Rushing, University of Illinois Don Sabbarese, Kennesaw State University Joseph Salerno, Pace University Anthony Sanders, George Mason University Jonathan Sandy, University of San Diego Robert Sauer, University of Bristol Thomas Saving, Texas A&M University Paul Schultz, University of Notre Dame John Seater, North Carolina State University Barry Seldon, Florida State University Sherrill Shaffer, University of Wyoming Dennis Sheehan, Penn State University, Smeal College of Business Judy Shelton, Atlas Economic Research Foundation Ann Sherman, DePaul University Stephen Shmanske, California State University, East Bay Don Siegel, University at Albany, SUNY Evangelos Otto Simos, University of New Hampshire Timothy F. Slaper, Indiana Business Research Center Richard L. Smith, University of California, Riverside Ted Snyder, Yale School of Management Donald Snyder, Utah State University Lawrence Southwick, University at Buffalo Frank Spreng, McKendree University Brad Stamm, Cornerstone University Robert Stauffer, Roanoke College Thomas Stoker, MIT Bernell Stone, Brigham Young University Joe Stone, University of Oregon Michael Sullivan, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Richard Sweeney, Georgetown University Robert Tamura, Clemson University T. Craig Tapley, University of Florida Jason Taylor, Central Michigan University Timothy Terrell, Wofford College Rebecca Thacker, Ohio University Clifford Thies, Shenandoah University Henry Thompson, Auburn University David G. Tuerck, Suffolk University David Tufte, Southern Utah University Carl J. Ullrich, James Madison University Richard Vedder, Ohio University Hrishikesh Vinod, Fordham University Donald Walker, Indiana University of PA Sherri Wall, University of Alaska Fairbanks Alan Rufus Waters, California State University, Fresno Andrew Weintraub, Temple University Robert Whaples, Wake Forest University J. Gregg Whittaker, William Jewell College Elliott Willman, New Mexico State University Lonny Wilson, William Penn University Michael Wohlgenant, North Carolina State University Arthur Woolf, University of Vermont Gene Wunder, Washburn University Sheng Xiao, Westminster College Bill Yang, Georgia Southern University Nancy Bord Yonge, Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institution and MicroCapital Institute Frank Zahn, University of Nebraska at Omaha Mokhlis Y. Zaki, Northern Michigan University, retired John Zdanowicz, Florida International University Jerry Zimmerman, Univeristy of Rochester Joseph Zoric, Franciscan University of Steubenville Never underestimate what the mod community can do for PoE if you sell an offline client.
|
|
" Lol, of course we're talking past each other. There's about 200 pages of that in this thread. But alright, let me try to rewind a little bit just on the offhand chance we can reconcile this nonsense. Again, it's not to say what I think is absolutely correct or incorrect. The problem isn't about a singular instance of obstruction against the cabinet lot. If, as you say, Devos is absolutely unacceptable then I would expect a party to throw a fit and stand their ground to say no, no way, this can't happen. I think most people would be fine with that. In a singular instance or two. The problem is they didn't stand their ground against one candidate. Or Two. They threw a fit for nearly every position pick. Nearly every EO. Every tweet there's a fit. Nationwide protests against him. Supreme Court is another fit. His daughter's clothing line incurs a fit. A person sitting on a couch incurs a fit ffs. Talks of impeachment find their way into national televised debate. Parsing of words during confirmation hearings. People no longer allowed to speak on Universities to the point of violence. On and on and on. To the middle of the road American the DNC needs to actually win elections of consequence (which they haven't done in many years), this is a poor strategy IMO to go all in, all the time. At the end of the day, even if all his picks are as deplorable as you claim, most people inherently give an incoming administration wide latitude in choosing the team. To the middle of the road American that maybe tunes in to politics for a 30 min nightly show a few days a week, this constant bitching by the other side is not a good look. It's been 50 days. Not 2 years. 50 days. And it started day one, hour one. In the end, this is not what Democrats are really about IMO. Rather, it's about a poisonous progressive ideology that stands for nothing other than self-righteousness led by their grandstanding leaders (Warren, Pelosi, Sanders, etc.). Unfortunately for the DNC, said ideology has a choke hold over party leadership at the moment. It's one reason folks didn't want Pelosi to retain her position. In responding to Deathflower, I'm saying that Democrats are not really into this "resistance" bullshit. It's the loud ass vocal minority of progressives. And they've proven nothing. They didn't prevent anything, and they have no power of real consequence for the foreseeable future. And IMO they're ruining the party. That's it. That's the larger point, the larger risk, that extends beyond a singular instance of obstruction. It's a shit strategy. |
|
|
Just curious, Laurium. Are you actually saying most or all of the cabinet nominations were indeed good nominees?
Are you saying that? Casually casual.
|
|
|
I haven't given an opinion on the quality of any of the cabinet picks. It's not relevant.
|
|
" It kinda is. I was amazed at the cabinet picks, I totally expected the obstruction I saw. In fact, I was surprised at how many dems actually did vote for some and that for the most part it seemed republicans voted for nominees they knew were terrible for no other reason than party lines. Casually casual.
|
|
" Please note three things: 1. A lot of these people are the same people who have been wrong about pretty much everything since 2007. Folks who thought austerity was the way out of a liquidity trap, that Bernanke was "debasing the dollar", and that out-of-control inflation was right around the corner. I am not an economist, but even with my casual following of the field, I recognize some of these names. 2. This is not "economists for Trump". At no point do they endorse Trump, his policies, or his agendas. 3. " Bolding mine. Hmm. Yes, freedom to trade, that does sound a lot like Trump, specifically the plan Navarro lauded so much for its extreme trade freedom. Luna's Blackguards - a guild of bronies - is now recruiting! If you're a fan of our favourite chromatic marshmallow equines, hit me up with an add or whisper, and I'll invite you!
IGN: HopeYouAreFireProof |
|
" Okay, a few points here. First off, have you turned on FOX News at any point in the last 8 years? How about talk radio? "Constant bitching by the other side" is a fairly apt description. Republicans have spent the last 8 years capitalizing on or manufacturing one "scandal" after another. And it worked. It didn't convince too many democrats, but it didn't have to. For the base, it rallied the troops and made them more likely to be more active; for the moderates, it either led to thoughts like "where there's smoke, there's fire" or thoughts like "What a shitshow, time to tune out". Constant, non-stop outrage was what won Republicans the house of representatives in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. You may personally find the tone shrill, but if you want to tell me that it's "not a good look", then I need something more than just your say-so. Secondly, that aforementioned strategy worked even though most of the hay being made was bullshit. Remember how much was made about "Death Panels"? Yeah, it was a lie, but it was an effective lie. Remember "you have to pass the bill to find out what's in it"? It was taken out of context. Pelosi didn't mean what republicans said she meant, but even now, years later, Republicans are using it as a rhetorical cudgel - there's a reason the republican healthcare plan's website is called "readthebill.com". By contrast, the complaints about Trump are overwhelmingly things that are worth getting pissed about. You think it's odd that we protest almost every cabinet nominee, but almost every cabinet nominee is on the level of Michael D. Brown*, if not worse. I'm not sure why using the same strategy as the republicans, except also not being lying shitbags about it, would be a losing move. Thirdly, this is not a normal administration. Trump lost the popular vote by a staggering amount after an incredibly contentious campaign, and remains one of the most unpopular presidents ever immediately after taking office. This is not simply business as usual, for a number of reasons, and acting like it is ignores the reality on the ground. People are pissed, and every day, Trump adds new fuel to the fire. This kind of rage is what led to the Tea Party essentially taking over Washington. Why should we moderate ourselves, police our tones, and act like the adults in the room? Why not take advantage of this anger, and keep on reminding people of just how fucking awful this administration is? "They go low, we go high" is a lovely sentiment, and it's one Obama and his colleagues in the DNC have followed to an admirable degree. It also keeps losing. It lost to Donald "Grab 'em by the pussy" Trump. You say this will keep the democrats from winning. I have to ask: why do you think that? You haven't justified it at all. *He was head of FEMA during Hurricane Katrina. I think we remember how that ended. " "Nothing other than self-righteousness"? Wat. I'm sorry, I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to Sanders or Warren. I don't think you have any real understanding of the relationship between people like Sanders and Warren and the DNC (did we already forget that the DNC screwed Sanders over?). I know a lot of dems who are pissed that the DNC went with the more moderate, neoconservative wing of the party, represented by Clinton. This whole issue just seems so bizarrely out of right field. I think you're projecting your own, personal beliefs about various issues onto democrats as a whole. But democrats as a whole don't think like you. There are a lot of people who are very serious about this "resistance bullshit". Because they care about things like science and the environment and people's rights and police abuse and their country not going to shit. I'm just not sure who you purport to be speaking for, or on what basis. I really don't even know what the bit about "self-righteousness" is supposed to mean. When Sanders stands up for a $15 minimum wage because he thinks it would help people in low-wage jobs as well as help the economy, is that just self-righteousness? I am really confused as to what self-righteousness is even supposed to mean in that context. Luna's Blackguards - a guild of bronies - is now recruiting! If you're a fan of our favourite chromatic marshmallow equines, hit me up with an add or whisper, and I'll invite you!
IGN: HopeYouAreFireProof |
|
" Because there's no power. There's no leverage. What do you think the DNC will be taking advantage of? How? By reminding people how awful things are you're making a BIG fundamental assumption that people agree with you, that things are worse every single day. Friday certainly didn't count, what with those 200k jobs. That stock market's rising. Working people probably not pissed about that. You're banking everything on huge assumption and in so doing taking a risk, all the while the DNC has no power. " They've not won in many years. Why should anything be different tomorrow when we double down on losing strategies? The DNC lost 85% of counties in the last election! Democratic change since 2010: -35% governors, -20% house/legislature, and -10% senate. Lowest representation since 1920s. Do numbers mean something differently where you're from, Germany is it? What position of strength are you arguing from? " You'd better be absolutely stone cold positive about that, because we're fixing to lose more Senate seats in 2 years. You know democrats that think the way you do. We're 300 million people here bro, there's plenty of alternate thought to go around. I'm sure liberals in Germany are very left of rural Democrats here. It's probably very true we're listening to two different camps (I seem to remember you said you were from Germany. Might be confusing that with someone else. Nevertheless, plenty of thought among hundreds of millions). The difference is in what's been occurring the last 6 years. Again, you could be right. No doubt. But you better be damned sure that Warren, Pelosi, and Sanders can lead the DNC in the next few years against all evidence of the prior 6. Otherwise, the "resistance" is a big piss-ant paper tiger that does nothing but line up grandstanding Warren's political coffers. Anyway, we're just going to have to again agree to disagree on the pathway forward for the party. It is what it is. Last edited by Laurium#0077 on Mar 12, 2017, 6:03:11 PM
|
|
"Basically, elements within the Left are the boys who cried wolf. The townsfolk come down to see what all the fuss is over, and when they arrive they see nothing that offends them. It might offend the criers, but the townsfolk don't feel the same way; they figure most of the criers are just unbelievably thin-skinned and alarmist, and a handful may be lying. In any case, the experience of checking out this ruckus over and over and over again has conditioned the townsfolk, on a Pavlovian level, to associate the sound of liberal tears with mere trivialities. All of this doomsaying from the likes of Olbermann and Moore, et al, the whole #Resist thing, is shooting the Dems in the foot. Normalizing the Trump presidency isn't a matter of principle, but a practical matter of tactics based on psychology; failure to accept it is strategically wrong. If the Left cannot accept that, if they keep the volume on everything turned to maximum, then not only will the Center ignore them during midterms, but if Trump does do anything truly wolfish, the Center will treat the initial cries — and the ones after those, and the ones after those — with more than a little skepticism. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
|
