A 70 percent marginal tax rate might not be realistic—but that doesn’t matter. Just proposing a 70 percent marginal tax rate has restructured a debate over taxes. January 31, 2019 Shadi Hamid THE ATLANTIC PRINTER FRIENDLY Twitter Facebook Mail
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, credit: Caitlin Ochs / Reuters // The Atlantic Most Americans—myself included—probably don’t have a well-thought-out position on whether a 70 percent marginal tax rate is a good idea. But it probably doesn’t matter whether it is, or whether it would “work.” To argue that “workability” is secondary might sound odd to many Democrats, particularly party leaders and experts who have long prided themselves on being a party of pragmatic problem-solvers. This, though, could be the most important contribution so far of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the new crop of progressive politicians—the realization that the technical merits of a particular policy aren’t the most relevant consideration. For these new Democrats, the purpose of politics (and elections) is quite different.
Commentators often note that, when it comes to policy, the differences between the Democratic Party’s left-wing and center-left are minimal. Referring to young progressives like Ocasio-Cortez who challenged establishment politicians, David Freedlander writes, “The policy differences … are microscopically small. Nearly all Democrats favor tackling income inequality, raising taxes on the wealthy and the minimum wage, and reforming the criminal justice system.”
This misses the point in a rather fundamental way. Few people actually vote based on policy. As I recently argued in American Affairs, even the better educated don’t primarily vote based on policy. In fact, higher levels of education can increase polarization. (In other contexts, such as the Middle East, the advent of universal education and higher college attendance fueled ideological divides.) As the political scientist Lilliana Mason notes, “Political knowledge tends to increase the effects of identity as more knowledgeable people have more informational ammunition to counter argue any stories they don’t like.”
[Derek Thompson: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has the better tax argument]
People’s politics tend to determine their policy preferences, and not the other way around. In one example from the 1960s, as Christopher Achens and Larry Bartels write in Democracy for Realists, even southerners who supported racial integration left the Democratic Party. Once they became Republican, they then adjusted their views on race and affirmative action to fit more comfortably with their new partisan identity. Put another way, if a person with no prior partisan attachments decides to become a Republican, he is likely to become pro-life. If that same person, with the same genetics and life experience, decides to become a Democrat, he is likely to become pro-choice.
Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives appear to understand instinctually what this growing body of research on voter preferences suggests. And its implications are potentially far-reaching. Once you accept that voters are rationally irrational, you can’t help but change how you understand political competition. Incidentally, this is one reason that right-wing populists across Europe (and India and the Philippines and many other places) have been surprisingly—or unsurprisingly—successful: They seem to have relatively little interest in what works. Instead they are concerned with altering the political and ideological imagination of ordinary voters and elites alike, to make what once seemed impossible, possible. In their case, it often involves normalizing Islamophobia and other forms of bigotry. They have managed to drag the center-right further rightward on issues such as immigration and how to integrate (or not integrate) Muslim minorities. But this same approach can be used by left-wing and center-left parties for more constructive ends.
This focus on shifting the contours of the national debate is sometimes referred to as expanding the “Overton window.” It is altogether possible that Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t think that a 70 percent marginal tax rate is realistic in our lifetime—she might not even think it’s the best option from a narrow, technocratic perspective of economic performance—but it doesn’t need to be. As the Open Markets Institute’s Matt Stoller notes, “One thing that [Ocasio-Cortez] has shown is that political leadership matters. Just proposing a 70 percent marginal tax rate has restructured a debate over taxes. Obama’s presidency was defined by self-imposed limits.”
[Read: How Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s plain black jacket became a controversy] Today, in a way that hasn’t been true for decades, more Americans are at least aware of something that might otherwise have been ignored as either overly wonky or, well, crazy. The 70 percent figure proposed by Ocasio-Cortez was a subject of debate—and derision—at Davos. But by joking about it, billionaires and aspiring billionaires, in effect, helped legitimate it. After all, if the richest people in the world are worried about it, it might just be a good idea. (And Dell CEO Michael Dell unintentionally helped remind the audience that the United States had a 70 percent marginal rate as recently as the 1970s). The economist William Gale, my Brookings colleague, wrote a piece responding to Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal, taking issue with the 70 percent figure but agreeing with the underlying principle: “Ultimately, if we want more revenue from the rich, we should broaden the base and boost rates. Raising taxes on the rich is an idea whose time has come, receiving consistent support in polls over the last few decades.”
This new style of Democratic politics is a far cry from the technocratic “what works-ism” that has dominated in center-left parties since the 1990s. The incrementalist approach, by its very nature, preemptively accepts policy and ideological concessions in the name of prudence. It prioritizes being sensible and serious. But why is being sensible an end in itself? As Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, the 32-year-old Saikat Chakrabarti, said regarding another seemingly unrealistic idea, the Green New Deal: “If it’s really not possible, then we can revisit. The idea is to set the most ambitious thing we can do and then make a plan for it. Why not try?”
I don’t feel strongly about a 70 percent marginal tax rate, but I don’t need to. I might even conclude that it simply “feels” too high. But that just means that if and when a Democratic candidate for president proposes a 50 percent tax rate on income that’s more than $10 million, I’ll be impressed with how “moderate,” reasonable, and sensible it sounds.
The Federation of Indian Associations of New York, New Jerse… Saikat Chakrabarti: The techie behind Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
By Bhargavi Kulkarni
Dec 16, 2018
Saikat Chakrabarti: The techie behind Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Saikat Chakrabarti, on the phone, has been appointed chief of staff to newly-elected New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Seen here are Chakrabarti and Ocasio-Cortez after she posed for the 116th Congress members-elect group photo on the East Front Plaza of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC on November 14, 2018. (/Getty Images
Saikat Chakrabarti, chief of staff to newly-elected New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been named among Politico’s “Power List,” of people to watch in 2019. The list, Politico says, “highlights politicians, activists and operatives across the country who are positioned to play a critical role in the political landscape leading up to 2020.”
The Fort Worth Texas native and a Harvard graduate spent nearly eight years in Silicon Valley before shifting gears. Post Harvard, after a brief stint on Wall Street, Chakrabarti went to California, where he co-founded Mockingbird, a web design tool, and then built up the product team at the payment processor Stripe.
But in 2015, he left the tech space and went to work for Bernie Sanders. After graduation, Chakrabarti wanted to start his own company, Politico says, but he was slowing getting disillusioned by the industry. “You have to decide to create the society you want to create,” he told Politico, “and that’s done through politics.”
On his decision to join Sanders’ campaign, Chakrabarti told Rolling Stone that while he wasn’t “entirely sure he [Sanders] had all the right solutions,” he knew “he was talking about the right problems.” It was at Sander’s campaign that Chakrabarti met Alexandra Rojas and Corbin Trent. All three ended up on the campaign’s “Distributed Organizing Team.” Chakrabarti told Rolling Stone that the team’s responsibilities included “harnessing any and all of the volunteer energy that existed beyond the early primary states.” They traveled around the country canvassing and leading phone-banks.
After Sander’s campaign, Chakrabarti, along with Rojas and Trent, cofounded the progressive political action committee Justice Democrats, and served as its executive director. Justice Democrats joined hands with Brand New Congress, also cofounded by Chakrabarti. Together, they aimed to recruit 400 candidates by asking people to nominate individuals from their own communities. According DC Beat, “party affiliation didn’t matter; candidates had to want health care for all, a living wage, and to want money not to rule all in politics.” They ended up with 12,000 applications, out of which 12 ran for primaries, and one won a seat in Congress: Ocasio-Cortez.
Chakrabarti told Rolling Stone that caring too much about a win ratio is part of the reason he believes the Democratic Party would never have recruited Ocasio-Cortez. “We’re OK losing 90 percent of our races, if it means that the ones we win cause the kind of shift in thinking about what’s possible — like Alexandria’s race honestly did,” Chakrabarti told the magazine. “So that’s a different way of measuring success.”
He has big policy dreams, like a “Green New Deal,” which, Politico says would tackle everything from mitigating climate change to transforming the American economy, and criminal justice reform. He wants to lay the groundwork now to make them realities. “Another thing to really do over the next two years is to basically show the American people what will be possible if the Democrats win the House, the Senate and the presidency in 2020, and that means putting our best foot forward,” Chakrabarti told Politico.“It means putting the most ambitious, the boldest, the biggest things we can, and then just build a movement around that.”
might sound odd to many Democrats, particularly party leaders and experts who have long prided themselves on being a party of pragmatic problem-solvers.
might sound odd to many Democrats, particularly party leaders and experts who have long prided themselves on being a party of pragmatic problem-solvers.
I stopped.
The ACA is literally the Republican healthcare solution offered to Clinton. The excerpt is not stating that Democrats are like that, just that they perceive themselves like that. You sure you disagree with that?
'Green New Deal' lands in the Capitol The climate and economic plan backed by progressives and several Democratic presidential hopefuls calls for "massive" government action "on a scale not seen since World War II."
By ZACK COLMAN and ANTHONY ADRAGNA 02/07/2019 06:18 AM EST Updated 02/07/2019 03:13 PM EST Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) released a blueprint for a Green New Deal on Thursday, urging a "10-year national mobilization" for a speedy shift away from fossil fuels and calling for national health care coverage and job guarantees in a sweeping bid to remake the U.S. economy.
The burgeoning left-wing faction within the Democratic Party quickly persuaded several 2020 White House contenders to sign onto the Green New Deal’s tenets in a bid to push climate change and the broad economic platform up the ladder of party priorities.
Story Continued Below
Declared candidates Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) are all co-sponsoring the resolution, as are likely contenders Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), according to their offices. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is also on board, saying in a tweet that she is "proud to join" the "fight for our planet and our kids’ futures."
The 14-page, non-binding resolution from Ocasio-Cortez and Markey is an attempt to add substance to the proposals that have fired up a wave of new activists who are planning to barnstorm lawmakers' offices in the Capitol in the coming days — and to set an agenda for the Democrats in the 2020 election.
“[A] new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal era is a historic opportunity ... to create millions of good, high-wage jobs in the United States; to provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States; and to counteract systemic injustices," the resolution states.
Morning Energy newsletter The source for energy and environment news — weekday mornings, in your inbox.
Email Your email… Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
However, the resolution is not likely to go before the House for a vote, according to a Democratic aide, although parts of the plan could ultimately be turned into legislation to address climate change.
Ocasio-Cortez presented the resolution, which was introduced with 60 co-sponsors in the House, as a "first step" to put climate change at the top of Democrats' agenda. "Incremental" legislation would not be enough to address the problem, she said. ADVERTISING
“We can save ourselves and we can save the rest of the world with us," she said at a press conference outside the Capitol.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi welcomed the resolution's introduction Thursday, a day after she told POLITICO it would be one of multiple ideas Democrats consider.
“It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” Pelosi said in the interview. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?”
Story Continued Below
Reps. Raúl Grijalva and Peter DeFazio, who lead the Natural Resources and Transportation committees, are backing the resolution and plan to raise its issues in legislation that moves through their panels.
But Rep. Frank Pallone, who heads the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee, was noncommittal. “There’s a lot of good ideas and we’ll have to take a look at it. We’ll consider it.” Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), chair of the newly established House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, also did not give the Green New Deal her explicit endorsement, though she would consider it as she develops "a detailed policy framework."
As POLITICO previously reported, the plan seeks to transition the U.S. to a 100 percent clean energy system without specifically calling for an end to fossil fuels, stating that it aims for "net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers." It also calls for creating "millions of good, high-wage jobs" and pledges "to promote justice and equity" across all communities within 10 years.
Nancy Pelosi CONGRESS
Pelosi announces Dems for new climate panel By ANTHONY ADRAGNA and SARAH FERRIS Those targets reflect the message from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report last fall that warned governments must cut global greenhouse gas emissions 45 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 to achieve "net-zero" emissions by mid-century to avoid 1.5-degree Celsius global temperature rise.
Republicans were quick to denounce the resolution.
"It’s a socialist manifesto that lays out a laundry list of government giveaways, including guaranteed food, housing, college, and economic security even for those who refuse to work," Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement. "As Democrats take a hard left turn, this radical proposal would take our growing economy off the cliff and our nation into bankruptcy. It’s the first step down a dark path to socialism."
The Sunrise Movement, the youth-led climate group at the heart of the Green New Deal push, is planning hundreds of Senate and House office visits Feb. 11 and 12 to prod lawmakers into signing onto the resolution by Feb. 26. Ocasio-Cortez's office said in a press release that the freshman lawmaker would soon begin to "fully flesh out the projects involved in the Green New Deal" and work with colleagues to identify legislation that could fit into a "comprehensive plan."
Story Continued Below
The resolution advocates for eliminating fossil fuels pollution and greenhouse gas emissions "as much as technologically feasible" in agriculture and transportation, two of the major sources of climate change gases.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi CONGRESS
‘Too hot to handle’: Pelosi predicts GOP won’t trigger another shutdown By HEATHER CAYGLE, SARAH FERRIS and JOHN BRESNAHAN Under the plan, the electricity system would run entirely on "clean, renewable, and zero-emission sources," the resolution states. It envisions newinvestments in public transportation, improving building energy efficiency, clean manufacturing and green infrastructure. Investments would prioritize communities that "may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries" while also ensuring room for "high-paying union jobs" that include prevailing wages and protect collective bargaining rights. It also pushes to "stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas."
Achieving many of the goals would depend on a "massive investment program" from the federal government, according to Ocasio-Cortez's office, though it did not call for a carbon tax. Several environmental groups as well as center-right organizations and economists have advocated for such a tax, and Ocasio-Cortez's office said the "door is not closed for market-based incentives."
"We will finance the investments for the Green New Deal the same way we paid for the original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and decades of war — with public money appropriated by Congress," the release said. "Further, government can take an equity stake in Green New Deal projects so the public gets a return on its investment."
Critics have hammered the massive spending called for by the plan in recent weeks. Potential presidential candidate and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has backed the idea of a Green New Deal, said recently that some of the plan's promises are "pie in the sky," while Republicans have slammed the concept as unworkable.
Story Continued Below
At a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) criticized what he saw as the youthful folly of new members proposing unrealistic plans in the new Congress with the support of more senior lawmakers. "I guess I can understand if someone who has not a lot of life experience and they’re proposing something that’s extremely unrealistic — well, impossible. Impossible. But what I don’t understand is adults, grown-ups who are older and more mature are also advocating something that is impossible, and I see that in some of the presidential contenders,” he said.
But some of those Democratic contenders cheered as the resolution neared its release.
"Excited that @SenMarkey, my former colleague, & @AOC are starting a conversation in Congress on #GreenNewDeal and thrilled this movement (and groups like @sunrisemvmt) has forced climate action onto the agenda," Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), who has pledged to make climate change central to his White House bid, tweeted Wednesday.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar 2020 ELECTIONS
2020 Dems see danger in the Mueller probe By DARREN SAMUELSOHN A staffer for Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), who is expected to join the race and has advocated for action on climate change, said he is reviewing the resolution in detail.
The resolution includes key changes from the first proposal that Ocasio-Cortez presented in November when she and dozens of activists stormed Pelosi’s Capitol Hill office. Those changes appear designed to make the Green New Deal more palatable to moderates and labor unions that are key Democratic backers.
Chiefly, the resolution calls for relying on “clean, renewable, zero-emission sources" — language that allows possible room for nuclear power and is a departure from Ocasio-Cortez’s initial call for 100 percent renewable sources such as wind and solar. The change reflects concerns from labor groups, including those that have members who work in the nuclear energy industry. Ocasio-Cortez's office also didn't rule out carbon capture and storage technology as a means of enabling the continued use of fossil fuels, though they would prefer steps like reforestation and said that carbon capture technology "to date has not proven effective."
The wording reflects that many communities revolve around fossil fuel economies and will need more time to adjust to a transition, a concern that Democratic lawmakers in the Congressional Progressive Caucus had previously raised. Provisions in the resolution such as the need to obtain consent from indigenous peoples on all decisions that affect their land — similar to First Nations in Canada — are also designed to be bulwarks against extraction.
Story Continued Below
Those assurances, however, are unlikely to please everyone.
“Our climate crisis requires that we stand up to the fossil fuel industry and ramp down our fossil fuel production, not allow it to continue its planned expansion,” David Turnbull, a spokesperson with Oil Change International, said in a statement.
If anything, I appreciate her effort. Dunno if it will fly, but something has to be done. And yes, we can absolutely create a crap ton of jobs by going green.
Any chance the Dems have to win in 2020 revolve around M4A and a Green New Deal.
However we can't allow oil barons to become renewable resources barons. The energy harvested by the GND need to be a public commodity and nowhere close to being privatized.
That’s the issue though. Unless the oil tycoons get their paws in it, then they will fight against this with everything they have. The Koch brothers, even with their support for national healthcare, will drop a billion for whoever is running on the GOP side if they don’t see a way to profit off of going green, especially if the Dems attempt to run interference.
Even a Fox News poll showed that people support raising taxes on wealthy, and support M4A as long as private insurance doesn’t go away. But this still has to be sold properly or it stands no chance.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Agreed. It's a shame that AOC isn't a little older or that Bernie isn't a bit younger. They are of the few Democrats who I could trust into not turning this into another Ponzi scheme for the rich like ACA. Hopefully by the time of the primaries the discussion about private insurance will change
It has to. Even the countries with national healthcare still have private insurance options readily accessible. So the primary candidates have to make sure not to demonize that.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
It has to. Even the countries with national healthcare still have private insurance options readily accessible. So the primary candidates have to make sure not to demonize that.
I understand the need for familiarity, especially as something as unstable as medical services, but we cannot allow medicine to become even more stratified by money. Also, at one point 10, 20 years down the line, we're going to need to publicize the entire healthcare industry. Doing things like keeping private insurance not only hurts M4A in the short term, but also the long term.
Netflix pays $10 mil for distribution rights to a documentary about AOC and other progressive congresspeople. It's the most expensive documentary to be bought at Sundance.
I disagree. The rallying cry today is "medicare for all". Medicare pays 80% of major medical and leaves you with co-pays and deductibles. At the very least, private insurance would need to be available to fill those gaps and other elective surgeries should people so choose.
Now if the Dems don't actually mean "medicare for all" they need to make things more clear. The message some of them are sending now makes it look like they have no clue how medicare actually works.
Medicare would be a bottom tier, minimum coverage for all allowing citizens the right to purchase additional coverage should they so choose.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
The bill would change Medicare into a universal healthcare plan, instead of a safety net for elders who are out of work. There should not be any copays or deductibles (insurance concepts that come from the auto industry and not healthcare) under M4A. It is different from Medicaid and Medicare and would require zero private insurance companies to help fund.
To me that's unrealistic. Even in Canada and other parts of the world with universal healthcare private insurance for some things are used.
This idea will never sell if you believe the average American will support their tax dollars going to fund cosmetic surgeries, transgender surgeries and many other elective surgeries.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Elective surgeries, especially sex realignment are not covered by private insurance already. Most of that stuff is paid out by the person having a surgery. I've had many friends who have paid or had someone pay for their boob jobs or nose jobs.
I think the best thing about M4A, that sets it apart from other unh plans, is that it offers dental and vision insurance as well.
But things like deductibles and copays are auto insurance concepts so people don't damage their car just get a new one. The concepts are so out of place in the medical field.
This plan will never get the support of the American people. Even Canada does not follow such a model.
Once you cover everything 100% you're entering a territory that's not sustainable.
Canada also developed their model near 40 years ago. The world wide web is newer than Canada's health insurance model. Who cares that they don't cover dental and vision? Do you think private dental and vision is why Canada's healthcare system stays afloat? How do you think private insurance operates in places with Universal Healthcare? Do you think that fracturing insurance pools lead to lower costs?
There is a reason why that the Libertarian Think Tank said that the plan would cost 32 trillion dollars while saying that without the plan, the US would pay 35 trillion dollars over the same decade. Insurance sees the highest margins when they have a large pool of donors, which is why they constantly fight for marketshare.
You don't have to sell me on the evils of trusting and doing business with health insurance companies and big pharma. But this is a message for both you and those who feel that medicare doesn't work when they speak of the evils of "socialized medicine".
Medicare works very well. They also have a system in place where private insurance can be purchased to cover deductibles and co-pays. The cost of the supplemental plans are reasonably priced and everyone I've talked to seems content with that system. It's been proven to work and I see no factual based reason to move away from a well working model.
People talk about allowing the government controlling their healthcare but yet those very same people seem to have no problem with private insurance companies fighting against paying for procedures and approving their medications now. They face the exact same things with private insurance companies they claim they fear from the government. Quite ironic.
We're pretty much on the same page with slight differences. One thing we certainly agree on is that Americans pay the brunt of the cost of developing drugs with tax dollars then in return pay higher drug costs than anywhere else in the world. The private sector is eating the apple from both sides and something drastic needs to be done to change the current system.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Medicare works very well. They also have a system in place where private insurance can be purchased to cover deductibles and co-pays. The cost of the supplemental plans are reasonably priced and everyone I've talked to seems content with that system. It's been proven to work and I see no factual based reason to move away from a well working model.
I would go so far as to say the price is cheap. I know now others will want to come down on my head for something else lol
Quote:
We're pretty much on the same page with slight differences. One thing we certainly agree on is that Americans pay the brunt of the cost of developing drugs with tax dollars then in return pay higher drug costs than anywhere else in the world. The private sector is eating the apple from both sides and something drastic needs to be done to change the current system.
However we can't allow oil barons to become renewable resources barons. The energy harvested by the GND need to be a public commodity and nowhere close to being privatized.
This I agree with. If it's a renewable resource, then costs, once the infrastructure is in place should just be maintenance and upkeep. Which if properly done and controlled by the public, would be easily managed as well as keeping the consumer costs down in the long run.
While I am all for private companies existing and doing business for profit, certain things that are pretty much a life necessity in the modern age (utilities), should not be for profit.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
I wonder where the cons are who were whining about AOC advocating for paying people unwilling to work?
Something tells me they won’t admit they got played.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
She's so refreshing even if you don't agree 100% with her takes.
It'll be interesting to see her on Desus and Mero's new show, who make a hysterical comedy duo. I probably won't be able to post a link once the episode airs due to language, but I would suggest everyone on this forum who enjoys comedy, watch the show.
J\C The Cons. think she would make a great president ….. for VENEZUALA, or Russia lol
I think you mean Trump, who, like Maduro is a wannabe strongman full of gaffes, and like Juan Guaido, doesn't have the people's support. Of course Trump envisions himself as a Putin like leader.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)