A third possibility
During the campaign, there was a vigorous debate in the comment section of this blog. One side agreed with my claim that Trump was a clown and a buffoon, while the other insisted that I was being hysterical. Interestingly, I don’t recall anyone advocating a third view, that I was being far too generous in my characterization of Trump.
Update: Jonah Goldberg has an amusing take on “Mooch”, pointing out that the guy who wants to kill all the leakers actually confessed to a failed attempt at leaking White House info, but seems too dense to realize what he had done.
Think about this for a moment. Scaramucci suggests that he was betrayed by Lizza because he believed this conversation would be off the record or on background. That means he thought he was leaking to the press about the internal dynamics of the White House. Ergo, Scaramucci is a leaker (something we knew already, by the way).
Matt Yglesias suggests that the Mooch made his money the same way that Trump did, by bilking foolish investors:
At the same time, Mooch is a very Trumpy figure — and not just in his bridge-and-tunnel mannerisms. He’s a “hedge fund guy” but not a guy like George Soros, who made money with smart investments. He built his fortune on what amounts to a high-end swindle, successfully marketing a high-fee, low-performance investment vehicle. And he now stands to make even more money by selling the company while simultaneously serving at a high level in the American government — the kind of blatant, obvious conflict of interest that no other president would even consider tolerating in a senior White House official.
Both pieces are worth reading.
Tags:
29. July 2017 at 08:29
If you listen to the people who have been consistently wrong about Trump, things look terrible. If you listen to the people who have been consistently right about Trump, things look great.
29. July 2017 at 09:53
“Subscribe to read: Trump’s week staggers from bad to worse” – why should I subscribe to read political gossip? Trump will be defined by his foreign policy, the only area a president truly controls (I hope Sumner doesn’t think the president steers the economy, as some hopeless saps do). So far, Trump is making the right noise about North Korea (i.e., to nuke it if it can reach the USA with ICBMs) but I doubt he has the will or wherewithal to do it. Some friends of the Pentagon released a clearly planted IMO news story a few weeks ago about how Kim is under constant satellite surveillance and could be assassinated during a missile test, but I doubt the story is true (sounds like Colin Powell’s ‘we have evidence of WMD in Iraq’ story, complete with soundbite, which at the time I said was a made-up story, and it turns out it was untrue).
29. July 2017 at 13:10
I don’t recall anyone advocating a third view, that I was being far too generous.
That didn’t happen because you already pushed to the maximum by calling Trump a racist and so on. So no, you weren’t far too generous in your characterization of Trump. I also don’t see how the piece by the FT tops what you said about Trump. It simple doesn’t.
But their conclusion is funny: They predict Trump won’t change and that he might double down on the approach that got him into the White House in the first place. —> A 71-year-old who hasn’t change for 40 years won’t change now? Who would have thought so? Really impressive.
I kind of agree with Ray. Trump needs an international incident that distracts from his domestic failures. Preferably something like Reagan and Bush got, something like the fall of the Iron Curtain or 9-11. But I doubt that he gets so lucky. He could enforce an incident, like Bush did with Iraq, but that’s very risky business and usually fails miserably (see Iraq again).
I just make a bold prediction now: Trump will make the North Korean regime collapse in the next few years and hence do way more for freedom than everybody expected. That would be so counterfactual and ironic. There should be a betting opportunity for this, the odds must be great.
29. July 2017 at 14:36
Scott has had it about right with regard to Trump. I’ve thought for sometime that Trump is mentally I’ll, on top of serious character flaws, ignorance, and stupidity.
29. July 2017 at 19:12
Steve, What I find laugh out loud funny is when Trump “defenders” go on TV and cite evidence of his success using economic data points that are virtually identical to what occurred under the “terrible” Obama administration. 200,000 jobs a month! 1.9% RGDP growth in the first half! Stocks up! Nirvana is here!
Christian, You obviously pay no attention to this blog. Early on I conceded that he might implement some GOP supply-side ideas. I never imagined that 6 months in Obamacare would repeal would fail AND Trump would not even have a tax proposal.
Not even the outline of a proposal. Nothing. And while I knew he would be incompetent, even I couldn’t imagine that his awfulness would turn out to be as entertaining as “The Onion” newspaper.
Remember when we were debating his white nationalism, with both sides implicitly taking the view that Trump’s political views actually mattered? That seems so long ago, before everyone realized that Trump only cares about Trump.
29. July 2017 at 19:26
“That seems so long ago, before everyone realized that Trump only cares about Trump.”
Wait, you came to this realization later? For many, this has been obvious since the 1980s.
29. July 2017 at 19:40
Scott, TV tends to need to be avoided to find those who have a consistent track record regarding Trump.
29. July 2017 at 19:58
Sumner, you do realize it was John McCain that killed Obamacare repeal, not Trump?
Trump never portrayed himself as a White Nationalist. He has been a total c*ck while in office. Not a mile of the wall has been built, he hasn’t even ended DACA.
Nevertheless, he has ended aid to the Syrian rebels, appointed Gorsuch, and has taken the gloves off the people trying to fight ISIS. Adequate, I suppose, and better than anything we could reasonably expect under Hillary Clinton. If he signs those Russia sanctions passed almost unanimously by both Houses I will vote straight D, though. Why should I vote for a c*ck?
The GOP has had bigger screw-ups than Trump.
In retrospect, Trump’s biggest screw-ups on the campaign were failing to endorse Kelli Ward and Joe Miller. That would have led to at least some hope on healthcare.
The big risk under Trump is that the GOP might lose the House and fail to take down some key Trump state Senators due to Trump’s own incompetence.
30. July 2017 at 00:36
Trump is a lulu and Sumner called it.
That said, Trump is in favor of a low interest-rate monetary policy. What if Pence becomes president and advocates a much tighter monetary policy, ala GOP standard issue?
The thing is Trump and his crew of potty-mouths may actually be better than the establishment GOP in terms of policy.
30. July 2017 at 07:26
Turnover in the White House during the first 6 months:
1. National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, resigned over felony lack of disclosure of foreign lobbying
2. Chief of Staff Reince Prebus(resigned in humiliation)
3. Press Secretary Sean Spicer, (resigned in humiliation)
4. Office of Government Ethics Director Walter Schaub(resigned in disgust)
5. FBI Director James Comey (fired)
6. Marc Kasowitz, Trump Criminal Defense Attorney(fired/demoted)
7. Mark Corallo, Trump Defense Attorney(fired/demoted)
8. Derek Harvey National Security Council Middle East advisor (fired)
9. Michael Short Assistant press secretary (resigned)
10. Robert Iger Advisory council (resigned)
11. Mike Dubke Director of communications (resigned)
12. K.T. McFarland Deputy national security advisor (reassigned)
13. Katie Walsh Deputy White House chief of staff (resigned)
Also, Jeff Sessions may be on his way out soon, and though he denies it, there’s much speculation that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will also resign soon.
These are obviously not minor positions that are turning over. The average turnover at your local McDonald’s is lower. Does this mean Trump doesn’t know how to hire or lead people?He hasn’t even nominated candidates to fill most positions in the executive branch yet.
Any Trumpista want to defend this?
30. July 2017 at 08:25
Scott Freelander,
Trump has always operated like that. Trump insiders were predicting and explaining this aspect of his managerial strategy many months ago while Trump outsiders were (and are still) chasing a wild goose.
30. July 2017 at 08:37
Steve F.
Given Trump’s lack of success pursuing his agenda so far, the fact that he hired a paid foreign lobbyist to be his first National Security Advisor, and open PR warfare between members of his own administration, coupled with his many business failures and personal financial failures, the most straightforward explanation for what’s going on is that he isn’t competent.
Also, consider that he hasn’t even nominated people to fill most executive branch vacancies yet. Given the way he’s publicly treated some members of his administration, or allowed them to be treated, do you think he’ll attract many of the best and brightest to work for him?
30. July 2017 at 09:20
Scott Freelander,
I think Trump has had very high success so far. He has done a tremendous amount behind the scenes and unilaterally. Regarding the Congress stuff, Trump’s strategy is to exhaust the GOP and to set the stage for voters to punish the GOPe and Democrats in 2018. A lot of Trump insiders have been saying from the beginning that Trump will not be signing a healthcare law for quite a while, so then it’s funny to see Trump outsiders claim that he’s failing to sign a healthcare law. My favorite thing is that Trump told us from the beginning this was his plan, yet nobody on the outside listened. He’s repeated it several times since and has yet to be acknowledged from outsiders. He’s still somehow *failing* because he is ALWAYS failing in the minds of those who don’t like him.
30. July 2017 at 12:24
Steve F,
Great speculation. Now can you after my point about his hiring?
30. July 2017 at 12:48
What did Flynn do that’s illegal? If we take it at face value, he was fired for lying to Pence. The PR warfare is cheese in the maze, i.e., misdirection. The business failures are a tiny fraction of his total business ventures. And yes, you are correct that he looks incompetent. That’s the plan. He’s written about this stuff and insiders have discussed it too. It’s ignored by outsiders.
30. July 2017 at 14:07
“Why capitalism can’t survive without socialism”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/25/15998002/capitalism-socialism-peter-thiel-wall-street-eric-weinstein
30. July 2017 at 17:14
Steve F,
Flynn lied to the FBI about being a paid lobbyist for Turkey. That’s an obvious conflict of interest, and lying to the FBI about it is a felony. What part of that is hard to understand?
When it comes to Trump’s failures, you haven’t read Art of the Comeback, have you? Why do you feel you can comment in an informed way about someone when you missed his total effective bankruptcy described in that book? He didn’t officially declare bankruptcy, but got a “work out” from his creditors, Because they thought they’d recover more money that way. He was in total default.
30. July 2017 at 18:19
One of the most valuable lessons I’ve learned from the Trump situation is that it’s a good idea to consume things you disagree with, because they’ll tell you things you don’t already know.
30. July 2017 at 19:14
Looks like the Dems picked up another straight ticket voter, right E Harding?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/28/politics/white-house-russia-sanctions/index.html
And he’s white, go figure….
30. July 2017 at 19:28
The main lesson I’ve learned from reading this blog: economics is largely about unintended consequences, the study of effects of effects of effects of effects.
How most people view Trump: what’s on the surface?
30. July 2017 at 19:38
@Steve F: that’s because Trump is all surface. What you see is what you get, it’s one of the things that appeals about him to many of his supporters.
He’s a lying, narcissistic, venal New York huckster. That’s it. It’s not a pose.
30. July 2017 at 19:42
“He built his fortune on what amounts to a high-end swindle, successfully marketing a high-fee, low-performance investment vehicle.”
Wow, surely such public knowledge would have already been incorporated into the valuation price of the company, and we should be talking about a long ago bankrupted company.
“And he now stands to make even more money by selling the company”
WUT
31. July 2017 at 07:13
“I never imagined that 6 months in Obamacare would repeal would fail AND Trump would not even have a tax proposal.”
Your failure of imagination means you were wrong about Trump, so far anyway. And wrong in a way that wasn’t too hard to foresee.
31. July 2017 at 08:23
Major.Freedom,
Did Starbridge beat market rates of return? If not, they didn’t earn their money.
31. July 2017 at 08:31
Skybridge, not Starbridge
31. July 2017 at 08:35
In general, I’m hesitant to place much trust in Vox.com and Yglesias specifically. These are some of the few, yet unfortunate, ‘news’ sources which give teeth to the administration’s ‘fake news’ narrative.
31. July 2017 at 10:33
Maybe I have a 4th view. He’s mostly a harmless clown. I know America will be doing fairly well if two things happen during his term
1. Keeps the FED staffed with guys who roughly believe in NGDP targeting. I can put Yellen in that box. Atleast someone that doesn’t believe in hiking rates into a recession. (yellen has said she looks at the yield curve and the number one cause of a recession is an inverted yield curve)
2. Doesn’t get us into a nuclear war
If we avoid those two thing the natural progress of technology will lead to fairly good times.
31. July 2017 at 10:49
And the train wreck rolls on. The mooch is out.
Clearly his instincts for hiring the best people are unsurpassed.
31. July 2017 at 11:03
I think we are led by someone that makes decisions based on a magic 8ball
31. July 2017 at 11:16
@ScottSumner
I was being far too generous in my characterization of Trump. […] Early on I conceded that he might implement some GOP supply-side ideas. I never imagined that 6 months in Obamacare would repeal would fail AND Trump would not even have a tax proposal.
I thought you meant characterization in the narrow sense, his personal traits, his character. You analyzed his character correctly at times but like Brian Donohue (and yourself) are pointing out most of us (including you) did not foresee how his actions would play out, for example that he would win the election.
@Scott Freelander
Now can you after my point about his hiring?
What’s so hard to get, I really don’t understand. That’s how he rolls since forever.
This new piece by the NYT is just in:
“President Trump has decided to remove Anthony Scaramucci from his position as communications director.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/us/politics/anthony-scaramucci-white-house.html
@Student
I don’t think you get so far by using a magic 8-ball, unless of course the ball really is magical.
31. July 2017 at 11:26
@Christian,
I used to think that but now I am not so sure. Events seem to be suggestive of otherwise.
31. July 2017 at 12:39
Remember when Trump promised to get the best people into his administration?
31. July 2017 at 13:40
“In general, I’m hesitant to place much trust in Vox.com and Yglesias specifically. These are some of the few, yet unfortunate, ‘news’ sources which give teeth to the administration’s ‘fake news’ narrative.”
What was wrong in the article?
The issue with the “fake news” narrative is not that mainstream media doesn’t have an implicit liberal bias, in the context or how it frames things. There are arguments to be made there.
But instead, “fake news” is used in the way anti-vaxxers talk about scientists. It’s used to dismiss any and all possible information not fitting your notions, without any serious investigation.
In this case, it is true that Fund of Funds have double layers of fees. Warren Buffett made and won a bet that the funds would not beat index funds and all 5 with the bet indeed performed pretty poorly.
Yglesias didn’t mention Skybridge’s actual returns. It has in fact underperformed the S&P 500 since inception and every period except 10 year period. At least this Series G has underperformed since inception in 1/03 to 1/17 (6.2% annual return for the fund vs 9.21% for S&P 500).
http://www.skybridgecapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Series-G-for-Website-Feb-2017-mid-month.pdf
31. July 2017 at 18:57
Matthew Waters:
Who said anything was wrong with that specific article? I said that I n general I’m hesitant to place much trust in vox.com and Yglesis. This is based on prior experiences.
1. August 2017 at 09:15
nd,
Which specific pieces on Vox have been fake news?
1. August 2017 at 12:20
Scaramucci is a buffoon. That was my view of him long before he was associated with Trump. However, it’s a tremendous stretch to describe a fund-of-funds as a “swindle.” It’s not much less intellectually impressive than running a real fund, but it’s also a perfectly ethical business.
It’s also a huge stretch to say that it was unethical to sell his business to take a government job. Have we all forgotten that we all said that Trump was obligated to sell off his business because there was really no other way to avoid conflicts in office? That was an entirely fair criticism of Trump, and it’s frustrating to see Trump critics torch their credibility by criticizing Scaramucci for doing the opposite.
1. August 2017 at 12:24
I didn’t say they publish fake news. Reading comprehension is a problem in comment sections. I said that they “give teeth to the administration’s ‘fake news’ narrative”. It’s their extreme left slant (& the slant from Yglesias is second to few) and bias commentary which provide unneeded ammo to an administration keen on shooting without aiming.
1. August 2017 at 12:37
Scott, quick question:
Why do economists think that a central bank that decreases the nominal rate yields a decrease in the real rate assuming that inflation expectations don’t change with a lower bound of 0% nominal rate? Why does the logic not hold for negative nominal rates? As far as I can tell, if the inflation expectations assumption holds, the Fisher equation tells us that there isn’t a difference in real rate reduction when going from nominal rate of 0 to -2 with from 2 to 0. In short, I don’t understand why there is any lower bound. Why can’t central banks just keep going more and more negative in order to stimulate the economy?
1. August 2017 at 13:07
Unintended (or intented?) consequence: The more Trump is weakened domestically (or feels weakened), the more likely he will lash out militarily against rogue states like North Korea. He will really need such a conflict. There’s no other way to gain at least some support from the opinion leaders at this point.
@Steve F.
Your question might be answered here:
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31477
Most questions of this kind have been answered by Scott, just search his great blog.
1. August 2017 at 13:49
Christian, thanks.
I’m still confused. Is it that negative nominal rate causes negative bond yield?
1. August 2017 at 17:48
Looks like big stuff is coming out regarding Seth Rich, and this phony “Trump planted fake news” lawsuit/story is a diversion.
Today Cassandra Fairbanks published an audio recording of Seymour Hersh claiming the FBI found evidence that Seth Rich emailed samples of DNC emails to Wikileaks, along with setting up Dropbox folders with emails.
Seymour Hersh is one of the most respected liberal anti-deep state investigative reporters in the world.
Here is the recording:
https://twitter.com/stopglobalism1/status/892485126063497216?s=09
https://youtu.be/giuZdBAXVh0
Further evidence of Seymour Hersh involvement:
https://www.poynter.org/2017/fox-news-reporter-fabricated-quotes-for-seth-rich-conspiracy-story-lawsuit-alleges6/468908/
Edit: story has broke, confirmation
http://bigleaguepolitics.com/audio-seymour-hersh-states-seth-rich-wikileaks-source/
—————————————
Member when the usual yokels on this blog dismissed this as a conspiracy theory?
1. August 2017 at 17:49
Seth Rich leaked the DNC emails and was killed for it.
2. August 2017 at 01:54
“Earlier this year Hong Kong ranked as the world’s least affordable city to buy a home for the seventh year running, according to the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey. In the third quarter of last year, the city’s flats cost 18.1 times the gross annual median income. That figure was way higher than the one in second-placed Sydney, which was 12.2.”
—30—
So, what is the purpose of economic development and globalization, if it leads to unaffordable housing?
2. August 2017 at 03:41
I was already talking about the Seth Rich murder back when you all were watching the NFL playoffs. Summer as usual dismissed it as false, when in reality his own beliefs have been exposed as false.
I hope this is treated as a learning opportunity, a hard to take lesson, a means to self-reflect on one’s own willingness to be brainwashed by the MSM-CIA disinformation campaign motivated entirely by the mortal self-interest of the DNC. Hillary was quoted as saying “If that bastard wins we all hang from nooses!”
This could very well end the Democrat party. Don’t be so surprised, because political party deaths have happened before.
2. August 2017 at 04:04
The DNC under DWS/Clinton hired Pakistani ISI agents (not known at the time) to set up a country-wide donation rigging operation which tricked Bernie Sanders donors into believing they were donating to sanders but we’re in reality going to Clinton.
Seth Rich found out about this. He was murdered not only to be “an example to all leakers” (in the Podesta emails Rich sent to Wikilleaks, Podesta wrote he is in favor of making an example of leakers), but to facilitate the fake “Russians hacked the election” story. Couldn’t do that with Rich alive and able to speak about what he did.
The Awan brothers also sold US state secrets, and had all the communications to all members of Congress, which they also sold to foreign powers.
The DNC paid the Awan brothers to help them win the election through blackmail and murder.
This is going to be one of the biggest political scandals in history.
2. August 2017 at 06:23
Football starts tomorrow!
2. August 2017 at 06:57
@MF “This could very well end the Democrat party. ”
From an investment perspective, that’s likely a bad bet. I think you might be projecting.
2. August 2017 at 09:26
@Ben Cole: if the housing were unaffordable, it would be empty. It’s affordable to some, and not to others. Economic development and globalization -> rising wealth -> expensive things affordable to some but not all.
And there’s plenty of affordable housing, just in different places from the very expensive housing.
Don’t get all Marxist on us now…
2. August 2017 at 09:30
@Dude: you’re a (deep) statist sheep. You can call me names and say I’m “projecting” or whatever but I’m not brainwashed like Sumner and the rest of you. I see what’s happening.
Fasten your seatbelts, things are about to get very messy and dramatically different in this country as the truth goes viral.
2. August 2017 at 16:08
Steve F,
The issue is that cash always has 0% yield. And cash as in green pieces of paper. The green pieces of paper are technically bearer bonds with 0% interest, redeemable on demand at the Fed.
The “redemption” is a bit of a fiction. If you had an account at the Fed and presented a dollar for redemption, the Fed would either credit your account for 1$ or give you back a new dollar. The redemption had more meaning when it could be for gold.
Only banks have accounts at the Fed, but their account works like your bank account. Any bank can technically show up and ask for their entire balance in cash. Wires, checks, ACH are ultimately settled with debiting and crediting different Fed balances.
Outside the ZLB, these accounts would be small as possible. The Fed mandated that 10% of deposits had to be either vault cash or on their Fed account balance. The excess reserves earned zero and so they were invested in an interest-bearing instrument like Treasuries.
At the ZLB, banks start to have Fed deposits above required reserves. These deposits now have returns equalling short-term Treasuries. There is no reason that the Fed couldn’t penalize these excess reserves with a negative rate. The fear is that the banks, and ultimately their customers, will redeem them for cash to earn 0%.
There are various proposals to limit cash withdrawals or charge interest on cash. Should these proposals take effect, then negative rates could be used at the ZLB similar to reducing interest rates above the ZLB.
The ECB and SNB have small negative rates on excess reserves. The SNB in particular is testing the carrying cost of cash. These small negative rates are due to very low inflation expectations of Euro and Franc. If they truly could implement as negative rate as possible until inflation does increase, then ironically these negative rates would go away in the long term.
2. August 2017 at 17:09
Matthew Waters, thank you very much.
2. August 2017 at 21:26
@Steve F: I am having very serious issues with my self-image. See, I have a cognitive impairment that unfortunately has the effect of making me believe that by using identical syntactic structure in how I begin each of my posts here, which is the “at” symbol, name, then colon, for example “@Steve F”, that I actually believe I can convince people a lot smarter than me who is writing what.
I believe in the lord our God the state, to ensure the spice flows to the unproductive at gunpoint. I believe it is A OK for the DNC to have hired foriegn spies to help them rig the primaries against Sanders by setting up fake websites that tricked people into donating for Clinton, coupled with massive election fraud. I feel good that after Seth Rich found about it, and leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks, that he was murdered for both this and to allow the pushing of one of the biggest disinformation campaigns ever in political history to go for far longer than it otherwise would have, to lie to the public that it was someone other than THEY who were colluding with foreign governments to affect the election.
That is all much better than mean tweets.
2. August 2017 at 21:49
msgkings I know that was you imitating me at time stamp “2. August 2017 at 09:30.”
Imitation as they say is the sincerest form of flattery, so thank you, I am touched.
Small recommendation:
If you intend to continue lying to your fellow blog posters here, and if you intend to continue denigrating and insulting this blog even further, but at the same time actually hope people will fall prey to your deceit, then next time don’t preface your posts with the twitterish “at” symbol, then name, then colon, as you always do as “msgkings”.
Bwahahaha
2. August 2017 at 22:34
JULIAN ASSANGE: I investigated both presidential candidates — Hillary was the only one with corrupt ties to Russia pic.twitter.com/dXlJcvbEcG
Assange has never been wrong in what he reports.
Suck it deep state loving sheep.
3. August 2017 at 07:55
msgkings Cute, I expose your sad lies and you double down.
If you are going to keep up this insulting charade, I don’t use boldface either.
We’ll see who has the last laugh as your precious deep state is exposed.
3. August 2017 at 08:23
“And while I knew he would be incompetent, even I couldn’t imagine that his awfulness would turn out to be as entertaining as “The Onion” newspaper.”
And in some cases, more entertaining. I thought the transcript of the call “The Mooch” made to CNN was a level above anything the Onion could do. If The Onion had written something that had Trump’s Communications Director saying “as they say in Italy, the fish rots from the head down, and I can tell you two fish that don’t stink, me and Trump” (quoting from memory, not exact, but the gist I think), I don’t think it would have worked so well, been kind of a head-scratcher, but as a true quote it’s comic genius. I think we can all riff off that one for the rest of our lives.
3. August 2017 at 08:33
“We’ll see who has the last laugh as your precious deep state is exposed.”
Not bad, but not “The Mooch” level either. Keep trying!
3. August 2017 at 10:00
@Scott Freelander: you wrote that if Skybridge doesn’t meet the overall market rate, then did not earn their money. That claim ignores the fact that expected rates of return are not the only consideration for investors. It is important yes, but it is wrong to believe that because a guaranteed bank draft only fetched 1%, that the issuer failed their imvestors. It is why we don’t see every investor piling into only those projects with the highest expected return. There are other factors that are so obvious that I doubt you understand. It seems you rely too heavily pedagogical tools that do not accurately or even remotely describe the world.
You also asked what specific fake news Vox has reported. That is easily found using Google.
3. August 2017 at 10:12
The “Mooch” was only brought in temporarily to rat out the leakers, take the shitstorm, drop a few dog whistles of what’s coming, and then go back to his life.
Wait what? Oh no you cannot criticize this theory because folks here are already speculating on the background of events they do not have accurate information about, only what he heard that repeats like his bias.
What doesn’t surprise me is that this blog is predominantly visited by self-loathing closeted progressives and democrat stools.
3. August 2017 at 11:27
Since impersonating is the name of the game here now, I would simply say that the world view of all of you statists here is about to take a severe beating. Buckle up, sheep.