My United States Navy has a new recruiting slogan: Forged By The Sea which I think is superior to the short-lived, ground-pounder recruiting slogan: Army Of One.
I’m enjoying watching the Navy’s Faces of the Fleet series as well.
I agree with Jonah Goldberg. There are problems with NATO. The core concept, however, is solid and vital, and NATO exists for one reason and one reason only: to keep the Russian bear caged.
Goldberg, writing in A New World Disorder for The G-File, muses:
If you’re getting a little sick of all the metaphors and abstractions, let me get to a more concrete point. People are losing their minds.
Look, I get that NATO has its problems. For years, we’ve been subsidizing European welfare states by picking up a chunk of their defense costs. Arguably worse, European elites have acted as if the peace and prosperity that they’ve enjoyed over the last 70 years were invented around fancy conference tables in Geneva and Paris. I remember in 2002 reading a quote from Karl Kaiser, of the German Society for Foreign Affairs. “Europeans have done something that no one has ever done before: create a zone of peace where war is ruled out, absolutely out,” Kaiser wrote. “Europeans are convinced that this model is valid for other parts of the world.”
It’s not that Kaiser was entirely wrong; it’s that he left out the fact that this miracle would have been impossible without NATO and, by extension, the protection of the United States of America. Europe was allowed to cultivate its garden because we kept the totality of nature at bay. NATO was effectively a wall, and Uncle Sam was Colonel Jessup. The Europeans needed us on that wall.
And they still do. But here’s the thing: We need that wall, too.
We need that wall, Goldberg continues, because:
The point of NATO is twofold: to remove uncertainty about what would happen if someone attacked one of our allies and to raise the expected price of screwing with us to something unbearable. Weaken the first, and you lower the second.
Containment was first a 19th century British idea but in the wake of a Europe devastated by war, President Harry S Truman, inspired by the writings of George Frost Kennan, made containment the central idea of his foreign policy.
To landlubbers, both policies would appear to be about containing the vast and crushing Russian army. Soldiers, however, were not the real problem, sailors were. The Russian navy has never enjoyed the reach and power of the 19th century British Navy or the present-day American Navy because it has always lacked what they had: all weather ports.
Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin couldn’t care less about Crimea. The port of Sevastopol, home of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, however, is very much on his mind. Like Russia’s other all-weather port—Vladivostok—however, ships passing in and out must pass through choke points not controlled by Russia.
Which brings us to the tiny country of Montenegro with its two ports on the Adriatic Sea—Bar and Risan. While they’re still not blue-water ports like Portsmouth in England or Norfolk in the United States, they do offer superior access to the Mediterranean Sea and the soft underbelly of Europe and, most strategically, possible control of the Suez Canal.
That’s why when tiny Montenegro joined NATO last year, Putin was not happy. Yes, Russian forces would have to cross around 2,000 kilometers and pass through Ukraine, Moldova, Serbia and Romania, to take Montenegro, but that was not a real problem as long as NATO wasn’t directly involved.
That’s why Montenegro, and NATO, matter. Goldberg continues:
I think letting Montenegro into NATO was a good idea. The fact that the Russians worked so hard to prevent it — they almost toppled the government in a coup d’état to stop the country’s accession to the NATO — suggests that they understood the stakes better than many Americans. Among other things, it goes a long way toward denying Russian access to the Mediterranean—at very low cost to us. As John Podhoretz notes on the Commentary podcast, if it is in our strategic interest to block Russian ambitions in that direction, including Montenegro in NATO is a lot cheaper than positioning U.S. aircraft carriers and troops in the region.
You often hear the argument that Montenegro only has a couple thousand troops, as if the idea were to rely on the “very aggressive” Montenegrins to defend us. That misses the point entirely. Think of it this way. When a Mafia family enlists some penny-ante crew on the outskirts of its turf, the revenue from the crew is relatively inconsequential. The main advantage from the arrangement is that it prevents a rival family from encroaching on its territory. And in exchange, the Corleones agree to make the crew’s enemies the Corleones’ enemies.
There are reasonable arguments against including Montenegro in NATO. There are literally no reasonable arguments for even hinting that we might not hold up our end of the bargain once they’re already in NATO. This is why Vito Corleone chewed out Sonny for hinting to Sollozzo that he might be hot for the drug deal: “I think your brain is going soft.”
Such softness, is a very real danger, as Goldberg concludes:
There is this bizarre unstated assumption in so much of this nationalism talk that these U.S.-founded international institutions haven’t served our interests. That’s dangerous nonsense. Could they have served our interests better? Sure. There’s always room for better. But were we suckers for creating them? Of course not. To paraphrase the president, a prosperous and peaceful Europe is a good thing, not a bad thing.
There is zero evidence that wiping away these institutions would be a step forward to some utopian New World Order. It would more likely be a return to Old World Disorder of wars, protectionism, and the logic of a global prison yard.
I’m not saying that everyone rushing to come up with arguments to defend Trump’s cavalier blather about these issues is a utopian or a nihilist. Nor am I saying that every critic of NATO is wrong in every regard. I am saying this is a serious conversation that should be conducted seriously, because even having such conversations is dangerous. And if we’re not careful, this will get out of hand, and we’ll have an enormous amount of relearning to do.
Letting the bear out of the cage is never a good idea.
A friend of mine once told me a story about the early 20th century in Cleveland when the Van Sweringen brothers—Oris and Mantis—had their offices in Cleveland’s Terminal Tower. The story goes this way. The brothers hired one of the very early practitioners of what we now call public relations and the young man set about his work for his new masters but after several months had little success. When he was summoned to the brothers’ opulent suite in the Terminal Tower he was sure that he was about to be fired.
Instead, he was given a raise for his excellent work. Confused he was about to ask for clarification, but was stopped when one of the brothers expanded on their praise by saying that they had not read a single item about them since the young man was hired. Clearly, Elena Poniatowska was cut from the same cloth.
STEPHEN KURTZ: The pronoun I doesn’t appear in your work, yet the most compelling of your nonfiction books have the quality of novels. And, despite the absence of I, you yourself are everywhere in these books, in your very decision to cover these events, in what you ask, and in what you choose to include or omit. But your personal reactions aren’t stated—one might say that they are present and felt, but not declared.
ELENA PONIATOWSKA: That isn’t the result so much of an ideological position. It’s more my personality and, I imagine, my upbringing. I do not like to put myself forward. It’s not that I wish to be an enigma to others, which is also a way of calling attention to oneself. I am simply more at ease in a role that does not put me in the foreground. There is also my family’s sense of propriety in that. According to the way I was raised, one’s name should appear in the papers only at birth, marriage, and death. People whose names appeared regularly were thought to be trying to sell something, which was seen as a kind of vulgarity.
Clearly, Poniatowska would never have made a living as a YouTuber.
I have hesitated before to say that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation in to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign had reached a tipping point. I’m no longer hesitating.
The Guardian, repeating a Reuters story in Trump-Russia: FBI releases Carter Page wiretap documents: Papers show bureau stating that Trump campaign adviser was conspiring with Russian government, reports:
The FBI has released documents related to the surveillance of former Trump presidential campaign adviser Carter Page as part of a probe into whether he conspired with the Russian government to undermine the 2016 US election.
The 412 pages, mostly heavily redacted and made public by the Federal Bureau of Investigation late on Saturday, included surveillance applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and warrants surrounding the investigation into Page.
“The FBI believes that Page has been collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government,” says the surveillance application filed in October 2016 said. The documents released include applications and renewal warrants filed in 2017 after Trump took office. Page has denied being an agent of the Russian government and has not been charged with any crime.
Earlier Saturday on the New York Times reported it received a copy from the Justice Department after it and other news organisations filed suit.
The documents released said “the FBI believes that the Russian government’s efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with” Trump’s campaign. It added Page “has established relationships with Russian government officials, including Russian intelligence officers.”
Beneath all that redaction lie the details. I expect two responses to follow very quickly. First, cries of no collusion! and Page acted on his own, the President had no idea what he was doing.
Both, of course, are lies.
One of the joys of reading The Art of Fiction interviews in The Paris Review is that I discover writers that I have never read, or even heard of. Elena Poniatowska is one such writer.
STEPHEN KURTZ:How did you arrive at your style of being a journalist?
ELENA PONIATOWSKA:…[I]t must be said, style, as I see it, is not an adornment added to a work. It is more, as Buffon said, that “le style c’est l’homme même”—style is the man himself. Let me find my copy of his Discours. Here. That famous line is actually the conclusion of a longer thought—“Writing well consists of thinking, feeling and expressing well, of clarity of mind, soul and taste.” In my own words, I would say that style is a manifestation of the writer’s being, which, of course, changes over time but retains something essential of who he is. I can look back at things I wrote years ago and still recognize myself in them, in the way sentences are constructed, the vocabulary, all of that and more. One does not develop a style. One develops oneself. Or, perhaps more accurately, one is born with a certain character and life shapes it. And then, if you write or paint or sculpt, you do those things with the person you have become. And that is style.
That is well said. I can imitate another writer’s style. There are even contests based on writing bad Hemingway or Bulwer-Lytton, but my own style, my voice, developed over the years, organically, and I have no idea where it came from. Your style is no more a choice than your parents.
Twatter is definitely my new favorite word.
I’ve written a bit about David French of late because he challenges me. Reading his piece this afternoon challenges me even more.
French, writing in The Sliming of Ben Shapiro for National Review, has some questions for his progressive readers:
When you think of Colin Kaepernick, do you define him by his quiet kneeling and many thoughtful interviews? Or do you define him by the socks he wore once, dehumanizing cops as pigs?
When you think of writer Ta-Nehisi Coates, do you define him by his hundreds of thousands of eloquent and meticulously researched words? Or do you define him by his call for violence in Baltimore, or his dehumanizing statements about the heroic cops and firefighters who rushed into the World Trade Center on 9/11?
Is Samantha Bee defined by the time she accused a cancer patient of having “Nazi hair”? Or when she used a vile epithet to describe Ivanka Trump?
I can do this all day. (Joy Reid, anyone?) Because recently I’ve been led to believe—repeatedly, in fact—that online mobbing most definitely does not reflect intolerance towards conservatives but instead is wholly targeted at the people who are really bad. And how do we know that they’re really bad?
A tweet or two. Five minutes of a podcast. Those things, not a life’s work, tell the true tale of a man.
This is, of course, a nuanced, sophisticated version of recent calls from conservatives for civility. Our president is infamous for his rule that: When someone attacks me, I always attack back…except 100x more. How different—and New Yorkish?—is President Donald John Trump’s position compared to that of South African President Nelson Mandela as described by President Barack Hussein Obama in his lecture during the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of Mandela’s birth. Obama said:
Do you remember that feeling? It seemed as if the forces of progress were on the march, that they were inexorable. Each step he took, you felt this is the moment when the old structures of violence and repression and ancient hatreds that had so long stunted people’s lives and confined the human spirit–that all that was crumbling before our eyes. And then as Madiba guided this nation through negotiation painstakingly, reconciliation, its first fair and free elections; as we all witnessed the grace and the generosity with which he embraced former enemies, the wisdom for him to step away from power once he felt his job was complete, we understood that it was not just the subjugated, the oppressed who were being freed from the shackles of the past. The subjugator was being offered a gift, being given a chance to see in a new way, being given a chance to participate in the work of building a better world.
And when Mandela took the reins of power, he held to his vision. Obama continued:
He could have been president for life. Am I wrong? Who was going to run against him? I mean, Ramaphosa was popular, but come on. Plus he was a young–he was too young. Had he chose, Madiba could have governed by executive fiat, unconstrained by check and balances. But instead he helped guide South Africa through the drafting of a new Constitution, drawing from all the institutional practices and democratic ideals that had proven to be most sturdy, mindful of the fact that no single individual possesses a monopoly on wisdom. No individual–not Mandela, not Obama–are entirely immune to the corrupting influences of absolute power, if you can do whatever you want and everyone’s too afraid to tell you when you’re making a mistake. No one is immune from the dangers of that.
Mandela understood this. He said, “Democracy is based on the majority principle. This is especially true in a country such as ours where the vast majority have been systematically denied their rights. At the same time, democracy also requires the rights of political and other minorities be safeguarded.” He understood it’s not just about who has the most votes. It’s also about the civic culture that we build that makes democracy work.
So, what was the lack of civility that set French off?
I bring this up of course because of the latest Two Minutes Hate, this time—oddly enough—directed at actor Mark Duplass. He had the audacity to tweet:
Fellow liberals: If you are interested at all in ‘crossing the aisle’ you should consider following @benshapiro I don’t agree with him on much but he’s a genuine person who once helped me for no other reason than to be nice. He doesn’t bend the truth. His intentions are good.
The pile-on was so swift and overwhelming that Duplass not only deleted his tweet but apologized thoroughly and abjectly, in a tweet that condemned Ben in no uncertain terms.
I’m sorry, but this is pitiful. Truly pitiful. And it was accompanied, as it always is, by progressives assuring us that, no, we do want to hear from conservatives, just not that conservative. We don’t want to hear from the awful Ben Shapiro.
Are you beginning to detect a pattern here? The online mob picks through a writer’s past, finds the specific idea or tweet it finds most offensive, focuses on that idea, and then assures us that while it’s truly open to debate and dialogue, this guy (or girl) is beyond the pale.
The problem is that the pattern French detects isn’t a bug, it’s a feature; of Twitter. Online mobs live to outrage and Twitter—along with Facebook—make outrage easy, and safe. I dumped Twitter (and Facebook) after a three-month, or so, trial because I found them both to be worthless time sucks. I’ll confess that I have no idea who Ben Shapiro or Mark Duplass might be, but I suspect that they’re both famous for being famous and that’s not sufficient to raise my interest.
Discussions ought to be need to be face-to-face.
Conversation creates community. The impossibility of engaging in a conversation with anyone unwilling to step into the light should be plain. Mobs, online or in the real world, thrive in the dark.
I found this video after watching Billy Crystal’s eulogy for Muhammad Ali.
And the hits just keep rolling in…
City of Clayton, Mo., Apologizes to 10 Black Students Wrongly Accused of Dining and Dashing
Illinois Cops Smash Car Window, Break Hand and Tase Passengers in Video of Traffic Stop
#FlagrantFreddy: White Man Calls Police After Hard Foul in Pickup Basketball Game
Police Falsely Accuse Black Students of Dining-and-Dashing at Clayton, Mo., IHOP [Updated]
The vast majority of people really aren’t very creative and would rather resort to appropriation that do the hard work of producing something original, or at least marginally derivative. By the time an idea moves into the mainstream all originality has been stripped away and what may have been a powerful idea is rendered weak tea.
The appropriation of Black Lives Matter is one such shameful act. Originally conceived as a hashtag—#blacklivesmatter—in response to the murder of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman (a crime for which Zimmerman was never punished), the phrase “lives matter” has spun around the world, culminating in this image at the top of a piece in The Guardian.
In my mind this is akin to the pseudo patriotic yabos who think that American-flag themed durags or bikinis are a legitimate way of showing their fervent love of their country.
Note to everyone: protect your creations and trademark your ideas.
More than three billion people have died during my lifetime and I, all of use actually, can be forgiven for knowing the names of only the most inconsequential portion of that staggering number. Occasionally a name comes to my attention that reminds of how little I actually know. An email alert from Ralph Nader this morning provided just such a reminder.
Nader, eulogizing in Warner Slack—Doctor for the People Forever, writes:
Warner Slack was a humble, multi-faceted great American physician at Harvard Medical School’s affiliated hospitals. Yet after he passed away last month at age 85, Dr. Slack did not receive the news coverage accorded numerous late entertainers, athletes, writers and scoundrels. In fact, his life was ignored by the Boston Globe, New York Times and the Washington Post.
Dr. Slack, in his pioneering, brilliant humane work, always focused on the lives of the American people whom he served in the millions, directly and indirectly.
It has been said that in a celebrity culture, we honor whom we value. Along the way the most important human beings who give us the blessings of liberty, justice, health, safety, knowledge and overall well-being mostly are missed or slighted by the priorities of a commercially driven culture. These people lift up our society Continue Reading »
President Barack Hussein Obama is our President James Earl Carter for the 21st Century…
[Update on 19 July at 1701: Trevor Celebrates Nelson Mandela’s 100th Birthday and Trevor Responds to Criticism from the French Ambassador.]
And the hits just keep rolling in…
Black Woman Kicked Off Delta-SkyWest Flight Over Airplane-Mode Dispute Still Seeking Answers
After Spray Painting Slurs, Swastikas on Neighbor’s House
#CampaigningWhileBlack: Police Called on Black Students Canvassing for Congressional Candidate
Florida Police Chief Told Cops to Pin Crimes on Black Teens, Adults to Boost Crime Stats: Report
We’re all a buzz with events yesterday in Helsinki (see below), but long before President Donald John Trump cozied up to President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, Glenn Greenwald sat down with New York magazine writer Simon van Zuylen-Wood for
Does This Man Know More Than Robert Mueller? Glenn Greenwald’s war on the Russia investigation. After breezy magazine opening, Zuylen-Wood gets to his buried lede:
For the better part of two years, Greenwald has resisted the nagging bipartisan suspicion that Trumpworld is in one way or another compromised by a meddling foreign power. If there’s a conspiracy, he suspects, it’s one against the president; where others see collusion, he sees “McCarthyism.” Greenwald is predisposed to righteous posturing and contrarian eye-poking — and reflexively more skeptical of the U.S. intelligence community than of those it tells us to see as “enemies.”
And even if claims about Russian meddling are corroborated by Robert Mueller’s investigation, Greenwald’s not sure it adds up to much — some hacked emails changing hands, none all that damaging in their content, maybe some malevolent Twitter bots. In his eyes, the Russia-Trump story is a shiny red herring—one that distracts from the failures, corruption, and malice of the very Establishment so invested in promoting it.
Greenwald told Zuylen-Wood:
When Trump becomes the starting point and ending point for how we talk about American politics, [we] don’t end up talking about the fundamental ways the American political and economic and cultural system are completely fucked for huge numbers of Americans who voted for Trump for that reason. We don’t talk about all the ways the Democratic Party is a complete fucking disaster and a corrupt, sleazy sewer, and not an adequate alternative to this far-right movement that’s taking over American politics.
I don’t think Greenwald is wrong. Zuylen-Wood continues:
Greenwald’s been yelling about this, quite heatedly, since before the election. In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast As Putin Plots, reads the headline of an Intercept piece published in October 2016. The Increasingly Unhinged Russia Rhetoric Comes From a Long-Standing U.S. Playbook, reads another, from February 2017. As Mueller’s investigation widened, no fallen domino—not the guilty plea of former Trump national-security adviser Michael Flynn, not the indictment of former campaign chairman Paul Manafort—chastened Greenwald. When it was recently reported that Steve Bannon had lobbed a “treason” charge in the direction of Donald Trump Jr.—precipitating his break with the president—Greenwald rolled his eyes. Bannon’s “motives are pure & pristine and he is simply trying to inform the public about the truth,” Greenwald tweeted sarcastically.
These views have gotten, in Zuylen-Wood’s words, Greenwald excommunicated from the liberal salons that celebrated him in the Snowden era. Greenwald said, “I used to be really good friends with Rachel Maddow. And I’ve seen her devolution from this really interesting, really smart, independent thinker into this utterly scripted, intellectually dishonest, partisan hack.”
Greenwald’s views have resulted in an O-Henryesque twist in the Trumpverse:
His view of the liberal online media is equally charitable. “Think about one interesting, creative, like, intellectually novel thing that [Vox’s] Matt Yglesias or Ezra Klein have said in like ten years,” he says. “In general, they’re just churning out Democratic Party agitprop every single day of the most superficial type.” (Reached for comment, none of these people would respond to Greenwald.)
All this has led to one of the less-anticipated developments of the Donald Trump presidency: Glenn Greenwald, Fox News darling. For his sins, Greenwald has been embraced by opportunistic #MAGA partisans seeking to discredit the Trump-Russia story. When alt-right ringleader Mike Cernovich sat for a 60 Minutes interview last year, he praised only one journalist: Greenwald. “My opinion of Glenn ten or 15 years ago was entirely negative,” says Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, who now heralds him as one of the “clearest thinkers” in media. (A parallel phenomenon involves the rehabilitation by the Resistance of an armada of neoconservative zombies—David Frum, Max Boot, Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol—and the lionization, at least temporarily, of Trump-skeptical Republican politicians like John McCain, Jeff Flake, and Lindsey Graham.)
I think that an observation made by Greenwald at the top of the interview is telling. He said:
I really believe that if I still lived in New York, the vast majority of my friends would be New York and Washington media people and I would kind of be implicitly co-opted. It just gives me this huge buffer. You’ve seen how I live, right? When I leave my computer, that world disappears.
That remove gives Greenwald the ability to see the forest. I’m thankful for that.
How serious a problem is there when David French, a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, publishes three essays in four days that I, a progressive writer, agree with? Is the problem me or with him. Or, is there no problem and French is just an intelligent writer with a point of view?
This evening French posted In International Diplomacy, Words Matter to the National Review’s The Corner.
I agree with French, and not just in matters of international diplomacy, words always matter. French begins:
There’s a meme circulating through Trumpist Twitter today, and it echoes a consistent theme in Trump apologetics—that what Trump says is less important than what Trump does, and there is a clear distinction between those two things:
There’s a kernel of truth in the defense. While Trump’s rhetoric has been abysmal throughout the campaign and throughout his presidency, he has provided lethal aide to Ukraine, American forces fought a battle with Russian mercenaries in Syria, and our military bombed Syria, Russia’s ally. Moreover, Trump has pushed NATO to increase defense spending, a move decidedly not in Russia’s interests. So, today’s press conference was no big deal, correct? Everyone should just chill out, right?
Wrong. Today’s press conference was a problem. Trump’s rhetoric is a problem.
Like a lot of other progressives, I’m uncomfortable defending our intelligence community because, from where I write, their track record is not so good and the whole the enemy of my enemy is my friend idea has never set well with me, but French thinks our president crossed a line in this exchange with the Associated Press’ Jonathan Lemire:
LEMIRE: Just now President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016. Every US intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did. My first question for you, sir, is who do you believe?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven’t they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the democratic national committee? I’ve been wondering that. I’ve been asking that for months and months and I’ve been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server and what is the server saying? With that being said, all I can do is ask the question. My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others and said they think it’s Russia.
I have President Putin. He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this. I don’t see any reason why it would be, [Emphasis mine, JH] but I really do want to see the server. But I have confidence in both parties. I really believe that this will probably go on for a while, but I don’t think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server. What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the DNC? Where are those servers? They’re missing. Where are they? What happened to Hillary Clinton’s emails? 33,000 emails gone—just gone. I think in Russia they wouldn’t be gone so easily. I think it’s a disgrace that we can’t get Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 emails. So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that president Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. And what he did is an incredible offer. He offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators, with respect to the 12 people. I think that’s an incredible offer. Okay thank you.
French continues:
[Trump] didn’t rally Americans against Russia, he rallied Americans against each other—in part by publicly trafficking in rank speculation and feeding conspiracy theories. Moreover, when given the opportunity to publicly hold Russia accountable for “anything in particular,” he says he holds “both countries responsible,” says “the United States has been foolish,” and that “we’re all to blame.”
So now Trump apologists are promoting idiocy like the idea that this is an example of keeping your friends close but your enemies closer. No, he’s been alienating America’s friends and flattering America’s enemies. Trump’s words are the product of an ego so fragile that he simply can’t handle any insinuation that his electoral triumph is tainted in any way Russian actions—so he has defend his victory at every opportunity, no matter how inappropriate the setting. In other words, Trump’s press conference wasn’t about advancing America’s interests, it was about defending Trump’s accomplishments.
My immediate response to that would be, well duh, but that would be counterproductive. I want the Americans to see that the president is buck naked here. None of this will touch the trumpies here, but maybe enough of the electorate who really voted against Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016 will see that while that was probably the right action, they probably should have gone with a third choice, or never put themselves in that dichotomy in the first place.
Powered by Wordpress | Design by Ash Haque
XHTML Strict | RSS Entries
