Millennials

Almost Everything Paul Krugman Says in This Awful Column About Gary Johnson Is Wrong

Economist, heal thyself

|

Krugman
PANTELIS SAITAS/EPA/Newscom

Fellow millennials, Paul Krugman isn't mad at us. He's just, well, a little disappointed—disappointed that so many are shirking their obligation to fall in line behind the Democratic Party candidate, thus imperiling the future of this great nation.

In his latest screed, Krugman—a one-dimensional partisan operative still somehow masquerading as the in-house economist for The New York Times' op-ed pages—excoriates young voters as not merely reckless, but actively dangerous, given their penchant for supporting third-party candidates Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. Especially Gary Johnson.

Taking note of Johnson's impressive poll numbers among millennials, Krugman rejects the idea that these voters could possibly like Johnson because they agree with his views, or consider him the most honest and forthright option. According to Krugman, Johnson's young supporters are probably clueless idiots who don't know that all libertarians want to return society to the age of robber-barons. And if their goal is register a protest vote again Clinton, they are acting immaturely by helping to elect Donald Trump.

"Your vote matters, and you should act accordingly — which means thinking seriously about what you want to see happen to America," writes Krugman.

In other words, millennials should think seriously about what Paul Krugman wants to see happen to America: the election of Hillary Clinton as its president.

Unsurprisingly, Krugman's column makes some unfair and likely incorrect logical leaps. He begins by asserting that Johnson and Stein's high favorability among young people hurts Clinton. But, as Bleeding Heart Libertarians blogger Jacob T. Levy explains, Johnson's overall base is pulling slightly more voters from the Trump camp than the Clinton camp. It's Stein who draws almost entirely from Clinton. Levy writes:

On current evidence, the Libertarian ticket is having a largely neutral but slightly pro-Clinton effect on the race as a whole, and this fact is being widely misreported because people are improperly lumping together the effects of Johnson and Stein, then attributing that effect to the Libertarians along in a classic fallacy of division.

It's simply not the case that Johnson's candidacy is, on the whole, hurting Clinton. The evidence suggests the opposite.

Krugman, to be fair, is talking specifically about young people. He just doesn't understand how they could possibly support the nominee of the Libertarian Party—the party that wants to "eliminate environmental regulation, abolish the income tax, do away with public schools, and dismantle Social Security and Medicare."

Of course, those are generic libertarian policy positions, not Johnson's positions. For example, Johnson doesn't want to "dismantle" Social Security and Medicare—he told CBS News explicitly that he wants to reform these programs, rather than eliminate them.

Krugman has mischaracterized Johnson's views on a host of issues. But the issues Krugman ignores are even more telling. The average millennial isn't just going to vote for the candidate offering the most robust welfare state. They care about things like reforming drug laws and staying out of pointless wars, too. And on these issues, even Krugman would likely have to admit that Johnson is clearly more palatable. That's why he omits these issues from his calculus on why millennials who support Johnson are making a huge mistake.

Lastly, Krugman demonstrates impressively un-economic thinking when he asserts—actual math be damned—that each voter must treat his or her vote as if it's the deciding one. In reality, an individual voter has effectively zero chance of influencing the outcome of a national election, so everybody might as well vote for the candidate they like best, if they vote at all. For an impressive number of millennials—who do not feel bound to obey the two-party duopoly that produces horribly flawed candidates year after year—that person is Johnson.

If Krugman were capable of looking beyond his extremely strong partisan biases, he might better understand the appeal of a non-Trump, non-Clinton candidate.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

113 responses to “Almost Everything Paul Krugman Says in This Awful Column About Gary Johnson Is Wrong

  1. Almost Everything Paul Krugman Says … Is Wrong

    too easy

    1. Paul Krugman’s work is quite useful here, but stay away from anything recent. That man stopped being a serious economist the day he got his column in the Times.

      – My undergrad thesis adviser, c.2003. Death, taxes, and Paul Krugman being patently unserious.

      1. Paul Krugman the NYT Columnist makes his money by contradicting everything Paul Krugman the Nobel Memorial Prize Winning Economist says.

        1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

          ——————>>> http://www.highpay90.com

      2. Anybody can earn 450$+ daily… You can earn from 9000-14000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail… http://goo.gl/jPtLqx

    2. This fucker exists only to say whatever the Democratic party wants him to say.

    3. Waaaaay too easy

    4. Start working from home! Great job for students. stay-at-home moms or anyone who needs an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection.. Make $90 hourly and up to $14000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week..Go to the website and click to tech tab and start your work…. this website…. http://goo.gl/C6c5YF

    5. Start working at home with GOOGLE!YAHOO. ABCNEWS AND MORE GLOBAL SITES.. It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Monday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6475 this 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $98 per hour. I work through this web, Read more this web… http://goo.gl/401aiZ

  2. a one-dimensional partisan operative still somehow masquerading as the in-house economist for The New York Times’ op-ed pages

    Beautiful.

    1. Robby may get a lot of grief from the commentariat, but he’s a good kid.

      1. And yet..where’s the PM Links?!? *removes belt*

        1. *removes belt*

          Go on…

      2. As long as he keeps his ass off of my grass, he’s a good kid, that is!!!

    2. Robby stopped being a journalist when he was rejected by Columbia.

      (Because Robby needs to be kept in his place)

    3. Yup. Good sentence.

  3. It’s simply not the case that Johnson’s candidacy is, on the whole, hurting Clinton. The evidence suggests the opposite.

    I said this a long time ago and you people laughed at me. But who’s laughing now?

    1. That’s not why people are laughing at you, Eugene.

  4. What Paul Giamatti Looks Like Now Is Jaw-Dropping!

  5. You’d best listen up, Robby. Paul Krugman has a NOBEL FREAKING PRIZE! Do you have a Nobel freaking prize? Huh, well???

    1. Are we still counting Peace Prizes? Because I’m pretty sure I’ve been a bigger promoter of peace than guys like Arafat and Obama.

  6. In other words, millennials should think seriously about what Paul Krugman wants to see happen to America: the election of Hillary Clinton as its president.

    Be serious, people. SERIOUS. Krugman ain’t kiddin’ around this time.

    1. Paul Krugman is a Very Serious Person.

  7. Those kinda look like three glasses of Irish stout in front of him.

    I really want a beer.

    1. Those are the bottles of rhino testosterone that he has to inject into his glans in order to get it up. The picture is cropped above the waist for a reason.

      1. You’re both wrong. Those are the conductive contacts for Krugman’s Electro-Stim? automatic stimulation engine. The two rods on the ends are for his hands.

    2. Are they little itty-bitty glasses of stout?

      http://tinyurl.com/z5tporb

  8. I think it’s irresponsible to critique Krugman without giving readers the appropriate introduction to his philosophy. Otherwise they are prone to misunderstand or misinterpert his pronouncements.

    Shame on you Robby for not linking to Conscience of a Liberal! (Trigger warning: when this was first published, Episiarch felt that this was the best thing he read all day)

    1. Matt nudged Ezra’s side with his foot. Ezra toppled over, a thin river of blood, shit and semen dribbling out of his gaping asshole.

      Good fucking God. It’s been a while since I read SugarFree’s writings. I had forgotten exactly how vile they were.

      And to think: Ron White thought his Mamie Eisenhower joke was too vile. He’s obviously never read SugarFree.

    2. I’d read tales of Sugarfree’s writings while lurking about on these boards the past few years, but I’d never actually read them till now.

      This is some messed up surreal stuff right here. As brilliant as it is repulsive.

  9. Krugman should just save everyone’s time by once a week writing a column that says “I like Democrats! Democrats are great! Everybody should vote for Democrats! Because everyone else, especially Republicans, are bad!” Every single thing I’ve ever read from Krugman boils down to that.

    1. Sounds like an accurate description of reality to me.

  10. Best line of the piece:
    And if parents don’t want their children educated, or want them indoctrinated in a cult, or put them to work in a sweatshop instead of learning to read? Not [the Libertarians’] problem.

    Paul Krugman apparently lives in a cartoon world where everyone lives two blocks from a sweatshop they were just dying to send their children to but for that pesky school system!

    1. And if parents don’t want their children educated, or want them indoctrinated in a cult

      Unless it happens to be the social justice cult of public education?

    2. if parents don’t want their children educated, or want them indoctrinated in a cult, or put them to work in a sweatshop instead of learning to read? Not [the Libertarians’] problem.

      DOWN GOES THE STRAWMAN! DOWN GOES THE STRAWMAN!!1!!!!!!!

  11. Of course, those are generic libertarian policy positions, not Johnson’s positions.

    Look, Krugman has time to research his opponents positions beyond the crude one-dimensional strawman, or write a column under deadline, not both.

    1. He’s made it clear before that he’s not going to waste his time reading conservative or libertarian sites.

      1. Isn’t he worried that misrepresenting easily verified information in pursuit of a political agenda will cost him his job at the NYT?

        1. BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!11!!!!!!!!!!

          Good one!

        2. Wow. Days late but +1 Supersarc!!

    2. I thought his wife wrote his articles.

      1. No his cats do

  12. Krugman chooses to go after Johnson instead of Stein despite the fact that the latter, not the former, is Hillary’s spoiler because, at this point, he basically agrees with Stein on most issues. This is not something for an economist to be proud of.

    1. Krugman was happy to go after Sanders even though he had previously written columns in support of Sanders’ positions.

      1. True, but with the rate at which he’s moving leftward it’s possible by now he thinks Hillary is right wing and can only barely stomach her because of the hope he might get a cabinet position..

  13. “…or want them indoctrinated in a cult,…’ Um, that is already happening now at most universities and colleges – indoctrinating them into the cult of the state.

  14. “abolish the income tax, do away with public schools, and dismantle Social Security and Medicare.”

    Those are the concerns of the kids these days, right? Income taxes, schools, and Social Security. They care about them just as much as old folks, don’t they?

  15. Fellow millennials, Paul Krugman isn’t mad at us. He’s just, well, a little disappointed

    Way to discriminate. Is Gen X not welcome here?

    1. Gen X does not exist.

      1. I think people conflate “not counting” with “not existing”.

        1. We never really got whining down to a fine art.

          This. The millennials have mastered the art.

          1. Holy shit:

            “Downward mobility is a hallmark of this generation. I just feel like we’re not going to pull ourselves out of the hole. But what can you do? You have to be grown up about it.”

            Maybe those who ignore Generation X are missing something important: a new model of maturity, of a sort, in the face of a scary world.

            You know how far you’ve fallen when the coffee-shop generation are the adults in the room.

            1. Hey. I hate Starbucks.

              1. Gen X works in the “indy” shop where they cop attitude and move at glacial speeds.

            2. The generation that waited till they were over thirty to conclude that reality was, like, y’know, really real…is way smarter than the Millennials?? That’s gotta sting.

              It’s exactly like the movie “Idiocracy”, but with the minor difference that 90% of the idiots go to Sam’s Choice Ivy League University/Pizza/Espresso on the government dime.*

              *-degrees in [Your Race, Gender, Faith or Culture here] Studies, Grievance Acquisition, and Social Justice, which can lead to remunerative professorships in [Your Race, Gender, Faith or Culture here] Studies, Grievance Acquisition, and Social Justice. By such industriousness doth the economy grow, eh?

  16. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton has staked out the most progressive policy positions ever advocated by a presidential candidate. There’s no reason to believe that these positions are insincere,

    Right, Hillary is a model of sincerity.

    1. Hillary Clinton: more progressive than Jill Stein, apparently. And Teddy Roosevelt and Eugene Debs.

    2. Trendy Manhattan cocktail party invite approved for: MR. P. KRUGMAN

    3. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton has staked out the most progressive policy positions ever advocated by a presidential candidate.

      So has Trump.

      1. Well, of course, one of them is No 1 and the other No 2?

        Which would you rather, to be pissed on or shit on?

    4. Did Krugman write that? He’s boasting that she’s the leftistest candidate ever to appeal to libertarians? That can’t be right.

  17. Johnson’s young supporters are probably clueless idiots who don’t know that all libertarians want to return society to the age of robber-barons.

    Krugman may be one of the greatest Robber barons this nation has ever seen.

  18. If Krugman were capable of looking beyond his extremely strong partisan biases, he might better understand the appeal of a non-Trump, non-Clinton candidate[.]

    If only.

    You have to realize that all partisan hacks are worried, especially those who shill for HillRod. The candidate is not only awful, her characterization of half of El Trumpo’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” was politically dumb and clumsy. It is way up there with El Trumpo’s clumsy characterization of more than half of Mexican immigrants as rapists and drug dealers (which he made implicit the moment he added “and some, I assume, are good people.”) They will search for anybody who resembles a convenient scapegoat and right now the shills are pointing their creepy, bony fingers at Johnson and Stein.

  19. all libertarians want to return society to the age of robber-barons

    All goodthinkfull people know this to be true!

    IT IS KNOWN.

    1. “the age of robber-barons”

      Whenever I hear “progressives” telling horror stories about how “limited government” led to the age of evil robber barons, I like to ask, “what, you mean a period in which the standard of living skyrocketed for pretty much everyone, rich or poor?”

      I know the pre-industrial era has a certain romanticism about it, but life fucking sucked back then. That’s WHY so many people flocked to the cities to work in factories.

      1. Akira,

        Also, the industrial rise and the rush to the cities was a time when people in this country improved their economic stations. This is one of the times when word spread through out the world, especially Europe, that a person could obtain more wealth in America than in their present country. That is one of the reasons why immigration was so high during this point in our country’s history, ie. economic freedom. That was the appeal of the United States from about 1865 to about 1920. Mercifully, the progressive movement kicked in and stopped all this free market, capitalist excess. One wonders openly how they did it without the confiscatory policies of The State, a million bureaucrats micromanaging their lives and a huge government to feed.

    2. Robber barons is a step in the right direction from “benevolent” totalitarians.

  20. Contra Krugman: Paul Krugman’s New York Times column refuted, week after week!

  21. Does anyone listen to the podcast Contra Krugman? It’s made by Tom Woods and Bob Murphy. They do a pretty good job of dismantling Krugman’s bullshit week after week.

    I’ve noticed a pattern: Krugman alternates between saying “the economy sucks and it’s the Republicans’ fault” and “the economy is wonderful and it’s all thanks to Obama”. He can never make up his mind about whether the economy is good or bad, or whether the Republican Congress or Democratic president really influence the economy.

    The only constants are that everything is the fault of Republicans (or occasionally libertarians) and nothing is ever Obama’s fault.

    1. It’s never been mentioned before.

    2. I like how Obama saved the economy by driving down energy costs, while saving the climate by driving up energy costs.

  22. They care about things like reforming drug laws and staying out of pointless wars, too. And on these issues, even Krugman would likely have to admit that Johnson is clearly more palatable.

    Maybe more palatable to them. But certainly not to him. Pointless wars are, in Krugman’s stated estimation, manna from heaven for stimulating economic growth. The only possible downside is if a Republican is in office and might be able to take any credit for the war’s successful prosecution. But, if it helps a Democrat, so much the better.

  23. Does the Democrat party let Krugman out on weekends?

  24. Why do we care? Krugman is a propagandist, nothing more. The Democrats could argue the sky is pink with purple polka dots and Krugman would offer up some pile of shit opinion piece stating why you’re an idiot for not seeing it. Not relevant to the real world.

  25. Krugnuts is consistently awful.

    1. Well, he actually used to write some fairly free market stuff, but at some point, he decided to become a political shill and began spouting Democrat party platitudes with a sprinkling of economics buzzwords to make it sound legit.

  26. RE: Almost Everything Paul Krugman Says in This Awful Column About Gary Johnson Is Wrong

    This is not true.
    Herr Krugman has won a Pulitzer Prize for his ability to fertilize the media with his written feces. That should not be taken lightly. It is Keynesians like him who preach the gospel of over-spending, high taxes, more government and taking all the excess capital the lowly plebian class earns, and his writings have been proven correct by such wonderful, judicious and benevolent people like Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al. We would all be wise to incorporat Herr Krugman’s sagacious advice and implement his top-down economic policies at once. This way, the ruling elitist turds enslaving us all will further enrich themselves (and their toadies) with even more of our ill-gotten gains and live happily ever after. As for us little people, we will be able to live in State housing projects, be thrown leftover scraps, be well indoctrinated in the State monopoly public schools, and rejoice for what The State gives us and our children. This is the brave new world Herr Krugman wants for us all, and let’s face it, it’s what we all want as well.

    1. Say what you will about Paul Krugman, at least he had the sense to keep quiet about Hugo Chavez … unlike his fellow Nobel laureate Stiglitz.

  27. Judging by that picture, years of carrying water can really wear an economist down.

  28. Well struck, Robby, about 370 yards in the middle of the fairway. PK to millenials, “Your vote matters, and you should act accordingly ? which means thinking seriously about what you want to see happen to America”.

    I was born about half way into the 1900’s, so Krugman will have given up on me long ago. I did once think that my vote mattered in the big picture of things. Wiser now, I recognize it does not — due to how our two dominant parties determine via primaries/polls whom to foist upon us, because I live in city and state where the outcome (within a few decimal points) is assured long before my vote registers, and because I don’t have mega-dollars to spend toward influencing the positions of whatever dolts cross their respective election finish lines first.

    Krugman unknowingly DOES speak a truth re: my vote matters but he is thinking “matters to the outcome of this coming election”, which is a huge lie because it has no material effect there (as you point out). It matters only to ME. The only way I can feel good about voting is by sending a message to both parties: “I am not even close to being attracted to or even slightly impressed by either of you.” If I and many others send that signal, and back it up with tangible actions, the next time around perhaps an enlightened and qualified candidate will feel slightly better about running a serious Independent campaign on principle — outside the two-party oligopoly — in some future election.

  29. “Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton has staked out the most progressive policy positions ever advocated by a presidential candidate. There’s no reason to believe that these positions are insincere, that she would revert to 1990s policies in office: What some are now calling the “new liberal economics” has sunk deep roots in the Democratic Party, and dominates the ranks of Mrs. Clinton’s advisers.”

    So there’s no indication Mrs. Clinton would return to the policies of the Clinton Era? Because Hillary would never betray her supporters?

    I *wish* she’d go back to the policies of the 1990s in most respects, because those policies are sure better than the “new liberal economics.”

  30. The only “clueless idiot” is Krugman. I know he got the Nobel price but that was not for writing stuff that would make a partisan hack wince.

    1. To his credit once they bought him with the prize from the Swedish central bank he stayed bought!

      1. How bad is Krugman?

        Well, IMHO, he is so bad that he makes James Carville seem like an intellectually honest Democrat commentator.

        1. But he cannot make him seem like a humanoid.

  31. Just remember, kids: your vote is simultaneously so important that if you don’t vote for Clinton, then Trump will win (or vice versa), yet so meaningless that if you vote your conscience instead of voting for Clinton or Trump, then there’s no chance whatsoever that your candidate will win.

  32. The effect Johnson has on the presidential race varies by state. It may very well be the case that Johnson siphons votes off from Trump in states where Trump is leading, but in other states – such as Colorado – he’s clearly taking votes away from Hillary.

    So vote for Johnson if you want to elect Trump.

    1. That is such a pile of dung – Vote for Johnson if that is where your conscience takes you.

  33. But, as Bleeding Heart Libertarians blogger Jacob T. Levy explains, Johnson’s overall base is pulling slightly more voters from the Trump camp than the Clinton camp.

    Only if you consider the entire GOP to be the Trump camp, which is hard to swallow. A lot of those Republicans would just not vote if Johnson weren’t available.

  34. Hayek foresaw Krugman in his Nobel Banquet speech on the occasion of his acceptance of the prize.

    …the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.

    This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence.

    But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally.

    There is no reason why a man who has made a distinctive contribution to economic science should be omnicompetent on all problems of society ? as the press tends to treat him till in the end he may himself be persuaded to believe.

    One is even made to feel it a public duty to pronounce on problems to which one may not have devoted special attention.

    I am not sure that it is desirable to strengthen the influence of a few individual economists by such a ceremonial and eye-catching recognition of achievements, perhaps of the distant past.

    1. Good find

    2. Excellent.

  35. What kills me is how fucking lazy he is. He only lays out the most superficial cliches. Didn’t mention Ayn Rand once.

  36. What difference, at this point… Oh, never mind.

  37. What difference, at this point… Oh, never mind.

  38. Krugman is well……dumb

    First of all, the one sure fire thing he will stay away from is scrutiny of the FED. The highest ranked culprit for the US economic demise is the federal reserve. Krugman is a Keynesian moron so of course, that subject shant come up.

    2nd: “eliminate environmental regulation, abolish the income tax, do away with public schools, and dismantle Social Security and Medicare.” – good things all.

    and C: I like how the term Robber-Baron is an accepted term. Just think about how stupid that is. I suppose Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and Ford, etc.. stole all of there riches. No where is it discussed how they employed thousands and brought them from starving and toiling in the fields. Again Krugman= idiot.

  39. Krugman says that millennials should just shut up and support HRC.

    If they don’t, they will make a huge mess by electing someone else.

    Stupid young people, either shut up and vote as told or stay home and get lost.

    Paul Krugman is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

    I tried to post a comment but they closed that option before I could do it.

    HRC is now telling millennials, I need your vote.

    Moron. Of course, you need our vote. You never considered us before and now that you are desperate
    you are pandering, dragging Bernie out to campaign for the con job who knifed him in the back.

    Way to inspire confidence. Not.

  40. This, the latest ramblings of an imbecile, is why the NYT decided to remove the comments section from their Op-Ed pieces. There are so many things that they want to be able to just lie about now instead of their readers being exposed to the counter points and often truth over fiction.

  41. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  42. I’ve noticed a significant number of these “vote for 3rd party is a vote for Trump” screeds in recent days. It seems the Democratic party machine is in full gear, spreading this unnourishing bovine feces throughout the mediasphere.

    1. Same thing was screeched by Rs also, “voting for GJ is voting for HRC”, but now that the pols are narrowing the device is useful for either party. Let us hope people are bold enough to vote their conscience rather than fear the greater evil.

  43. BTW, I made the mistake of reading some of the comments on the Krugman piece. What a bunch of pretentious statists.

  44. Johnson is leading among the young because of how they get their news. Same with the active duty military.

  45. He may be a first-rate economist, but he’s a third-rate pundit.

  46. “What’s Aleppo?”
    DISQUALIFIED.

  47. “What’s Aleppo?”
    DISQUALIFIED.

    1. I didn’t mean to post twice, nor do I know how this happened.
      It’s funny, though. Your man Gary said that twice.

  48. Krugman is a hypocrite who pretended to be anti war when Bush was in office but changed his tune when Obama took over.

  49. BOYCOTT RIGGED DEBATES!

  50. so while professional economists, in a poll, thought that krugman was the best economist of his generation, everyone here thinks that he is an idiot.

    now i would love to stop medicare and social security yesterday, and thus i disagree for moral reasons with krugman.

    But i understand that someone who is considered the leading member of his profession by the rest of his profession might know a bit more about economics than I do. No one here thinks that; I find that interesting.

    https://econjwatch.org/

    articles/economics-professors-

    favorite-economic-thinkers-journals-

    and-blogs-along-with-party-and-policy-views

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.