Jump to content
DMC

US Politics: Shutbound & Down

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Mexal said:

This is a big deal.

 

Is it though?  I'm guessing the reason you're suggesting it's a big deal is because it's a serious smoking gun on obstruction, and it is.  But do we not already have plenty of stuff that makes an obstruction case a slam dunk?  Point being, if there was a recorded phone call of Trump promising directly to Putin that he fired Comey at Putin's direction and that he lied at every turn is would that change anything?  I sure hope so, but I also think we're at a place where revelations like this are maybe just more of the same.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, just watching this on CNN right now and it is a big thing. Directing a person to lie to Congress is a criminal offense. And the story says that some WH lawyers helped prepare Cohen for his testimony, so they may be looking at felony charges as well.

eta: And, of course, obstruction of justice.

eta2: And the lawyers being interviewed are saying that even using the narrowest definition of Obstruction of Justice possible, it’s clearly Obstruction of Justice. 

Edited by Fragile Bird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sure hope that you guys are right.  But so much already big deal stuff has proven not to be in our new abnormal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I'm already tired of this. I don't feel like playing today, sincere apologies. 

Suffice to say that the first thing I did when I got my new job title was start putting some of my generous raise away for donation after the primaries.

But if it's O'Roruke then I'm taking a trip to Rome.

Imma goin' to Spain. NOT for work but for -- yay (If I remain lucky which is unlike most of travel in my life, of which there has been and continues to be a huge amount--) VACATION!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Imma goin' to Spain. NOT for work but for -- yay (If I remain lucky which is unlike most of travel in my life, of which there has been and continues to be a huge amount--) VACATION!

That's dope! Spain is on my very very long list of places to visit.

I wish to walk the ground of Hamilcar and his vengeful brood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump will claim that he was simply interested in protecting his business dealings and it had nothing to do with potus related work. Lawyers will get hosed, Trump won't be touched. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mexal said:

This is a big deal.

Certainly looks like justification for a valid article of impeachment.  Will it affect his approval?  We might never really know considering it'll be grouped in with the shutdown.  That being said, don't think it will much for now though.

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You have yet to offer a rational reason why losing one election automatically means you cannot win a Presidential election.

Well, it certainly doesn't "automatically" mean anything.  But Lincoln is a pretty damn old example.  Anyway I'm bored and it's an interesting question, so let's try to look at it empirically.  Here's the losers in the presidential election going back to WWII (omitting presidents that lose reelection) with the last time they lost an election:

  • Hillary Clinton (2016) - lost presidential primary 2008
  • Mitt Romney (2012) - lost presidential primary 2008
  • John McCain (2008) - lost presidential primary 2000
  • John Kerry (2004) - lost US House general 1972
  • Al Gore (2000) - he literally has never lost an election
  • Bob Dole (1996) - lost presidential primary 1988
  • Michael Dukakis (1988) - refused gubernatorial renomination 1978
  • Walter Mondale (1984) - lost general election as VP 1980
  • Gerald Ford (1976) - never lost
  • George McGovern (1972) - lost presidential primary 1968
  • Hubert Humphrey (1968) - lost presidential primary 1960
  • Barry Goldwater (1964) - never lost
  • Richard Nixon (1960) - never had lost (really was kind of a boy wonder)
  • Adlai Stevenson (1956) - lost presidential election 1952
  • Adlai Stevenson (1952) - never had lost
  • Thomas Dewey (1948) - lost presidential election 1944

There's a lot of recent losers there - I count 9 out of 16 that lost either a presidential general or primary within eight years of when they lost again.  Granted, Beto's loss is at the Senate level, but it was a pretty high profile election, and it was really recent (unlike Kerry's or even Dukakis').  Only 5 of 16, or a third, of losing nominees since WWII had never lost before.  In contrast, let's look at the last time the winners have lost (again omitting reelection):

  • Donald Trump (2016) - never ran*
  • Barack Obama (2008) - lost US House primary 2000
  • George W. Bush (2000) - lost US House general 1978
  • Bill Clinton (1992) - lost gubernatorial general 1980
  • George H. W. Bush (1988) - lost presidential primary 1980
  • Ronald Reagan (1980) - lost presidential primary 1976
  • Jimmy Carter (1976) - lost gubernatorial primary 1966
  • Richard Nixon (1968) - lost gubernatorial general 1962
  • Lyndon Johnson (1964) - lost presidential primary 1960
  • John Kennedy (1960) - never lost
  • Dwight Eisenhower (1952) - never ran
  • Harry Truman (1948) - never lost

So Bush I, Reagan, and Johnson had recently lost presidential primaries.  And Nixon lost twice in a row in 1960-2.  That's a third.  All the other losses were either low salience, long before they won, or both.  That accounts for the second third.  And then the last third either never ran or never lost.

Based on this sample of 28, seems pretty clear it's not good for a Democrat to have lost recently - the only example being LBJ, which obviously was kind of a special circumstance.  Meanwhile, the Republicans clearly like (liked) their retreads - as they did with the losing nominees above.  Does losing a down-ballot election mean you'll never be president?  Certainly not.  But there does seem to be a significant correlation between not losing recently and winning the general election.

*Albeit Trump formed an exploratory committee with the Reform Party in 2000 and was really close plenty of other times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Trump will claim that he was simply interested in protecting his business dealings and it had nothing to do with potus related work. Lawyers will get hosed, Trump won't be touched. 

 

yeah Trump is untouchable, nothing will stick, nothing will have any permanent legal impact against him. The system is designed from the ground up to make people like Trump automatically, always, already immune from any negative legal consequences for their actions. This is another big nothing.

Trump's whipping boys will probably suffer a fair amount though, someone must be punished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Yes, just watching this on CNN right now and it is a big thing. Directing a person to lie to Congress is a criminal offense. And the story says that some WH lawyers helped prepare Cohen for his testimony, so they may be looking at felony charges as well.

eta: And, of course, obstruction of justice.

eta2: And the lawyers being interviewed are saying that even using the narrowest definition of Obstruction of Justice possible, it’s clearly Obstruction of Justice. 

When the President obstructs it, it’s not justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Triskele said:

I sure hope that you guys are right.  But so much already big deal stuff has proven not to be in our new abnormal.  

Ok, Republicans are apparently already saying (because there were rumors of this) that unless there’s a tape of Trump saying it, they will support the President. The evidence that Buzzfeed has reported are internal e-mails from the Trump organization, and if they are merely e-mails saying ‘this is what Trump said’, that’s hearsay and they won’t accept that as evidence.

One of the CNN panel said there were Republicans who heard Nixon on tape say he could get the money to pay the Watergate people who said they wanted proof that Nixon got the money and paid it before they would impeach. And that Nixon would have finished his second term if the tapes hadn’t existed. So

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Ok, Republicans are apparently already saying (because there were rumors of this) that unless there’s a tape of Trump saying it, they will support the President. The evidence that Buzzfeed has reported are internal e-mails from the Trump organization, and if they are merely e-mails saying ‘this is what Trump said’, that’s hearsay and they won’t accept that as evidence.

One of the CNN panel said there were Republicans who heard Nixon on tape say he could get the money to pay the Watergate people who said they wanted proof that Nixon got the money and paid it before they would impeach. And that Nixon would have finished his second term if the tapes hadn’t existed. So

But Cohn’s statements are not heresay, it’s direct witness testimony, and the emails are corroboration. Besides, I think they might meet the exception standards for heresay on their own, but as corroboration there shouldn't be a problem, as I understand it.

Moreover I doubt Cohn will be alone in terms of witness testimony. But I think what we’re going to see is a floating bar, which will be constantly set just above wherever the evidence might be.

Edited by James Arryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

But Cohn’s statements are not heresay, it’s direct witness testimony, and the emails are corroboration. Besides, I think they might meet the exception standards for heresay on their own, but as corroboration there shouldn't be a problem, as I understand it.

Moreover I doubt Cohn will be alone in terms of witness testimony. But I think what we’re going to see is a floating bar, which will be constantly set just above wherever the evidence might be.

You're missing the point. 

It doesn't matter. None of it matters. If they had a video in which Donald is holding that days fucking newspaper as he told the camera he was firing Comey to cover up his crimes on behalf of Vladimir 'Daddy' Putin they'd say it was fake or a joke or he was tricked by Sasha Baren Cohen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

One of the CNN panel said there were Republicans who heard Nixon on tape say he could get the money to pay the Watergate people who said they wanted proof that Nixon got the money and paid it before they would impeach.

The Nixon tapes are now publicly available to everybody, not just Republicans on CNN.  And they are quite damning, including Nixon ordering aides to break in and rob the Brookings Institution.  This thing with Trump isn't nearly the same - at least that we know of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

You're missing the point. 

It doesn't matter. None of it matters. If they had a video in which Donald is holding that days fucking newspaper as he told the camera he was firing Comey to cover up his crimes on behalf of Vladimir 'Daddy' Putin they'd say it was fake or a joke or he was tricked by Sasha Baren Cohen.

Yeah, that’s what I said. (Floating bar.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like AOC pushing the "Overton Window" to the left and I think she raises a lot of important issues.
The days of a liberal being somebody that won't take their own side in an argument need to be over.
That said, I'm not the hugest fan of Modern Monetary Theory. I think MMT theorist have made several key insights (or perhaps made them more well known), like money primarily gets its value because it because it can be used to pay taxes. And, obviously, I have the same Keynesian heritage.

Like MMT theorist, I do not believe that full employment or full employment  of resources is a given. The unemployment during Great Depression was not the result of a spontaneous vacation. And the unemployment during the GFC was simply due to lack of aggregate demand, and all the other reasons, like "the skills gap", or "ACA did it", or "Obama's Job Killing Regulation" are all a bunch of horseshit, and I'd hope the people that spewed that garbage would see the errors of their conservative ways.


I believe that a key insight of the General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money is that the heart of economic trouble is the demand for liquid financial assets, in particular money, which governments can create.  One could imagine, I think, an institutional arrangement, where governments did not issue bonds and there were no central banks. Under this arrangement, both fiscal authority and money creation authority would be vested in one institution, and theoretically I think it could work, which I think MMT theorist are basically saying. Though as a practical matter I think it would be unwise to give both fiscal authority and money creation authority to the same institution.


Assuming full employment, which is often a political choice, resources do bind. And when resources do bind choices have to be made. The point here is that I don't agree with the MMT theorist that as a practical matter that debt or deficits never matter.

Do I agree that there had often been too much debt/deficit hysteria. Sure. According to the CBO, the debt / GDP ratio is supposed to be something like 145%. That number to me isn't really all that scary. What is more scary is that r > g, which means the debt is not on a path to converge at some level.

Another issue I have with MMT is that it makes it too easy to ignore supply side issues, and not in the sense that Republicans usually talk about (ie cut taxes). For instance, there is something very wrong with US healthcare system, given that it is about the most expensive in the world, and reforms need to be made to fix it, like say taking a look at some of intellectual property laws and so forth. Education is another issue where the supply side of the market needs to be looked at, as the real price of a college education has grown a whole bunch since the 1970s. MMT isn't the answer to the problem of expensive housing in urban areas. I believe in universal healthcare and I believe we need to make educational opportunities cheaper and more available. I just don't think MMT is the answer to these issues.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-01-17/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-s-big-ideas-for-taxes-and-medicare

 

Quote

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might not have seen eye to eye with Joseph Overton, the late free-market advocate. But she has a firm grasp of the concept for which he is best known: the Overton Window. The term refers to the range of ideas that are at any given time considered worthy of public discussion. Thanks largely to her, the Overton Window on tax rates has just been moved significantly to the left.

 

Quote

She adheres to a doctrine called Modern Monetary Theory that’s catching on among young, left-leaning politicians and older policymakers alike. Its counterintuitive core idea is that deficits don’t matter if you borrow in your own currency, just as long as they don’t cause inflation. Unless the economy is at risk of overheating, MMTers say, paying for a new government program doesn’t require cutting another or raising taxes.

 

Quote

Norquist now says he remains confident that tax rates won’t rise to 70 percent, because “it’s such a bad idea.” In fact, he says he thinks Democrats are hurting only themselves by entertaining it. Ocasio-Cortez, he says, is a “pied piper” leading her party to its demise.

Of course no post would be complete without taking the opportunity to say, "Screw Norquist, the 'libertarian' clown."

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Because someone who forced republicans to invest massively in defending their most valuable electoral state (and where republicans only barely succeed because of the biggest republican midterm turnout of all time in that state) and someone who is so broadly successful and popular as to earn the biggest vote totals of any democrat in the entire history of texas in midterm or presidential races, for any office, must not be allowed to move forward, too dangerous to too many in his party's ambitions who are probably "more deserving" or have "paid their dues" etc etc.

This sounds as if you're implying that the anti-O'Rourke sentiment comes exclusively from party insiders, which given that it's in response to Jace, is pretty amusing.

O'Rourke may be a good candidate or a bad one. But it's allowed to be sceptical of him at this point. He is largely untested, after all. You don't need to don the tinfoil hat to explain away any opposition. 

8 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You have yet to offer a rational reason why losing one election automatically means you cannot win a Presidential election.

Well, for one thing, I understand it has long been received wisdom that Presidential candidates should be able to carry their home state. If O'Rourke couldn't carry Texas as a gubernatorial candidate against Ted Cruz, why would anyone believe he could carry it as a Presidential candidate against Trump? 

That doesn't automatically rule him out, of course. But it's a point against him. 

7 hours ago, Altherion said:

Have you been to the UK Politics thread recently? I think that even despite this shutdown, they still take the cake. Trump's presidency has turned out to be pretty tame whereas Brexit is the gift that keeps on giving.

Privilege is a hell of a drug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Altherion said:

Have you been to the UK Politics thread recently? I think that even despite this shutdown, they still take the cake. Trump's presidency has turned out to be pretty tame whereas Brexit is the gift that keeps on giving.

Yes, and no.

It's just the first far right project that is losing its battle with an observable reality. And there the political class had the disadvantage of a timer, when that whole thing was set to blow up in their faces. Let's wait with final verdict until the Mueller report is finally out.

Or maybe we have simply grown accustomed to a greater amount of insanity and dysfunctionality in US politics over the years - although we have reached unprecedented (or as a famous philosopher said unpresidented) levels.

Edited by A Horse Named Stranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mormont said:

This sounds as if you're implying that the anti-O'Rourke sentiment comes exclusively from party insiders, which given that it's in response to Jace, is pretty amusing.

 

:kiss:

Now that my BAC is not dangerously low, Mr. @Ser Scot A Ellison , I think I may tackle this question in detail myself. A nice Star Wars rant has got my blood up, so let's see if I can't Encyclopedia Brown this bitch for you.

1) There's no real reason it's in numbered list format.

2) Just enjoy the ride.

1A) The guy lost. HE LOST! I'm going to keep coming back to that, @DMC 's terrific examination upthread aside, I feel like it can't be stated enough that HE'S A FUCKING LOSER!!!

2A) "But he almost won in Texas!" That's cool. "But he almost WON!!!" But he didn't. "He could carry Texas!" But he can't. Because he couldn't beat Ted Cruz during a 'blue wave'. Ted Cruz is fucking reviled. I used to live in Texas, I know some peeps in that massive mistate (eh? pretty good huh?) and even the most proud klansmen detest the motherfucker. So he lost to this dude. In a midterm year. With unbelievable amounts of capital assistance from outside the former territory of Mexico. And I'm gonna break some news to you, Donnie 2 Scoops has a bit of a cult following in those parts. So whatever the fuck highwire of hope you who is reading this may or may not be traversing thinking Texas is about to turn blue, I strongly caution the use of a net.

3) "They'll have to spend money to defend Texas from going blue!" Sounds great. Until you stop for half a brain cell and think about the fact that putting Texas into play means putting Texas into play. This is some basic shit. I'm not exactly throwing Sun Tzu at you here, but try to keep up. If one Beto O'Rourke intends to make his home state a competitor (which I assume is a massive part of his draw, as has been described to me) then he will always be fighting an uphill battle to overcome what we can very generously call a 2.5% disadvantage while Trump's very presence not only doesn't require massive financial expenditure, but actually gains him money. Democrats have worked themselves into believing Texas can become some kind of liquidity trap for Republicans by expressly ignoring how much a trap can, y'know, fucking TRAP YOU! You start spending a little money here and there, "hey it's the candidate's home state! He needs to try!" and those polls can almost look promising if you squint the right way and start making leaps about the margins of error. So a little money becomes a lot of money. And the polls don't look worse, so maybe a few visits! A few visits right? It's his home state, of course he's going to visit! And Trump is having to visit too! But Trump's deranged speeches get shown on every network in every house in the country and they don't give a fuck where he's talking from as long as he's talking against them. And Beto is trying to manage his time with plenty of visits to his home district and to prop up downballot candidates, and all those minority candidates who think they finally have a shot with this charismatic young fella at the top of the ticket who seems within striking distance in the polls!

And before you know it, the Democratic candidate for President of the United States of America has spent let's say... 12? maybe 15? per cent time of his campaign appealing to a state that could possibly maybe hopefully just if only turn blue?

4) Time is a resource. One that must be managed carefully. And allowing a federal candidate even the opportunity to get weighed down in a fight for his historically overwhelmingly red home state is an advantage to his opposition. Republican POTUS candidates don't seriously campaign in California or New York besides supporting House candidates. And there's a reason. You don't want to waste your precious time on a lost cause. It's the same reason Democrats don't campaign seriously in Alabama, Kentucky, or FUCKING TEXAS. Every second Beto O'Rourke spends in that god forsaken hellhole, every cent the DNC flushes down the drain, every idiotic PAC that finances the very local television channels that support fascism 15 seconds at a time, is one less that the Republicans have to counter in the real field where votes that matter can be won or lost. Places like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Y'know, the places where HRC LOST THE FUCKING RACE????????????

5) Hope is a poison. Florida is lost, all but irredeemable at this point. Ohio is a fucking wasteland. Democratic delusions to the contrary, these now need to be considered active holdings of the opposition and treated as such. Democrats need to have a straightline path to 270 picked out and not goddamn deviate from it like HRC. Playing defense in the West, in Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado where bleedover and logistically minimalist attempts to court Arizona are feasible is of primary concern to prevent regression from our designated course to victory. With these places secured, liberation of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are ALL THAT IS REQUIRED. End of story. Keep what we have in the West, whether Arizona flips or not, and get those three back and it's curtains. 65% of Democratic resources needs to be spent between the six (and maybe 7th) states I have listed. You start sinking time and money into lost causes like Texas? That's like cutting your foot off before climbing a mountain. Florida and Ohio are far better potential salvage jobs than Texas, and you're already running low on how to budget resources before we've even mentioned reinforcing coastal holdings. There is not path to victory that isn't undermined by committing vast resources to a state that could suck everything you have to give and still deliver defeat. At least a Northern Midwest strategy has proven capable of working.

6) He's not even that progressive, in fact he's GASP almost like a Texas Blue Dog Democrat!!! Who could have imagined such a thing? And if you're not drinking the James Comey piss tea concoction that states LIBRULS IS TOO DANGRUS RADCLES he's not all that great a standard bearer for people who believe in human decency. He's not actively antithetical to liberal idealists, but that's a description that worked really well for HRC when turning out her base in states that mattered isn't it? Oh? Oh! Oh? A shitload of people stayed home because they didn't like her and/or didn't think she was liberal enough??? I'm sure they wouldn't have changed the out-- Less than 80,000 votes? Across like 3 different states? Oh shit... I think that might have mattered... OH WELL!!!

7) OH WELL!!!! Let's just call the true believers a bunch of manbaby crytards again! I'm sure that'll get us more wins! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center! Gotta pivot to that center!

8) Oh... that's what insanity looks like... Maybe we should try something different...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×