Does this tape reveal the real Trump?

Harding directed me to a tape of a conversation between Trump and Wilbur Ross, which has received a great deal of media play.  Salon focused on the wrong issues, as you’d expect. They made a big deal out of the fact that Trump doesn’t care about food safety, unless it can be used as a protectionist weapon.  But the media seems to be missing the big story here.

For the past year there’s been a debate about whether the buffoon we see in public is the real Trump, or if it’s an act put on by an evil genius who was trying to demagogue his way to power.  (I’m told that Scott Adams is championing the second view.)

If the tape is accurate (and I have no idea if it is), then that debate is definitively settled.  In the conversation, Trump comes across as exactly the sort of buffoon that we see in public.  At one point he suggests that a 10% tariff could eliminate the budget deficit.  And he really seems to believe this stuff, as he thought that he was in a private conversation with Ross.  My favorite part, however, is when he explains how Japanese import barriers on food explain the difference in economic performance between the US (which has a per capita GDP of $57,294) and Japan (which has a per capita GDP of $38,894.)

You might be thinking, “OK, it doesn’t explain the entire difference, but certainly it helps explain the difference in economic performance, as those food import barriers prop up a very inefficient Japanese agricultural sector.”  That’s true, but the idiocy of Trump goes far beyond what you or I can imagine.  You see Trump believes that Japan is actually doing better than the US, and that barriers to farm imports help explain why.  It’s like Trump’s most recent information on Japan came from watching the anti-Japanese film Rising Sun back in 1993, which was the last time Japan was doing pretty well.

PS.  Last night Trump said he believed in free trade, and then in the next sentence pointed out that President Lincoln opposed free trade.  And then he said Lincoln was right.

I heard they used multiple speechwriters.  It showed.

PPS.  Last May I warned my alt-right commenters that Trump would stab them in the back on immigration.  Of course they didn’t believe me.  And now we have this:

The remarks came after Trump told reporters earlier in the day that the president would consider a compromise on immigration.

“If we are guided by the well-being of American citizens then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades,” Trump said.

The positive overture from Trump on an immigration bill sparked immediate skepticism from Democrats on Capitol Hill, some openness from pro-reform Republicans and consternation from conservatives who have adamantly opposed overhaul efforts in the past.

Consternation?

The administration disclosed few details, but CNN reported that while Trump would oppose a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million in the country illegally, they could obtain some sort of legal status that would allow them to stay. One exception to the citizenship stance could be the so-called Dreamers who came here illegally as children — a population of immigrants to which Trump has taken a particular liking.

I have to say that even I didn’t expect this to happen so fast, even before the wall was built.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican member of the bipartisan Senate Gang of Eight that crafted a comprehensive immigration bill four years ago, said he would “potentially” be interested in getting involved again in reform efforts . . .

People greatly exaggerate the impact of Presidents.  I predict little change in our policy on immigration, or almost anything else.


Tags:

 
 
 

42 Responses to “Does this tape reveal the real Trump?”

  1. Gravatar of Adam Adam
    1. March 2017 at 08:40

    I don’t think there’s any debate. He’s a buffoon.

  2. Gravatar of HW HW
    1. March 2017 at 10:01

    Trump appears a lot more bothered with running a trade deficit with Japan and Mexico than with Germany.

  3. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    1. March 2017 at 10:11

    You have to be in a really elitist circle to not know some Boomers that are like Trump, at least politically. The readiness to believe lies on immigrants, minorities, free trade, Obamacare, Common Core, TPP, whatever is something I don’t get. But it’s very, very common.

  4. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    1. March 2017 at 10:12

    BTW, the “you” was a general you, not addressed to Scott. Rereading my post, it sounds like the tone could come across much worse than I meant it.

  5. Gravatar of dwb dwb
    1. March 2017 at 10:26

    People greatly exaggerate the impact of Presidents. I predict little change in our policy on immigration, or almost anything else.

    A prediction squarely, directly, contradicted by the equity and credit markets.

    I have to say, Wal-Mart and Target are both down sharply, and the S&P500 retail index is flat. The retail sector has strongly underperformed since 11/7. Strong indicators that 1-the retailers are losing the battle on the so-called border tax; and 2-wont be bad for growth either way.

    If it comes down to believing a random economist, or the credit and equity markets, I almost always trust the markets.

    The markets are saying: economists are mostly wrong about Trump and his policies over the next (at least) 4 years.

  6. Gravatar of Pierre Menard Pierre Menard
    1. March 2017 at 10:57

    The statistics you cite on USA vs Japan are misleading — actually, Japan is doing as well as the US. The GDP per capita comparison obscures different demographics between the two countries. If you instead compute GDP per working age adult, Japan comes out slightly ahead, see e.g.,

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/02/enduring-mystery-japans-economy

  7. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    1. March 2017 at 11:05

    @Adam: yeah even Trump supporters know this. They just preferred the buffoon to Clinton, for various reasons. Only Scott Adams seems to still be sticking with his “Trump is a genius” schtick. I think it’s because Adams is a smart guy and can’t believe the president is an idiot, and was elected by mostly other idiots.

  8. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    1. March 2017 at 11:07

    @dwb: were you equally impressed with the markets’ happiness with Obama and his policies?

  9. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    1. March 2017 at 11:18

    Scott,

    Trump said, “That’s why they’re doing well.”

    Unless you were listening to a different tape, I don’t think he said, “They’re doing better than the U.S. on economic growth” or even “They’re doing well on economic growth.”

    In the context of the conversation, I would read the comment as Japan is doing well on their trade policy.

    And BTW, while I don’t agree on the 10% tariff, I’m thrilled that the President and his Commerce Secretary are talking about retaliating in kind for the massive cheating that our trade partners have been engaged in for the 50 years. It’s about time… and it’s pathetic that our trade policy has heretofore been managed by actual buffoons.

  10. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    1. March 2017 at 11:54

    HW, Trump often likes to talk about his superior German blood, so he seems to like Germans more than Asians and Hispanics.

    dwb, If the markets expected protectionism then stocks would not be rising.

    Pierre, If you are going to do that then you have to subtract all the Japanese GDP produced by workers over the age of 65, which is a lot. Japanese worker productivity is much lower than American worker productivity.

    dtoh, You said:

    “In the context of the conversation, I would read the comment as Japan is doing well on their trade policy.”

    That makes no sense. He said “They are doing well on their trade policy because they are doing protectionist trade policy”? What does that even mean? I’m pretty sure he meant the Japanese economy was doing well as a consequence of their trade policy, your interpretation makes no sense.

    I doubt our trading partners are “cheating” any more than we are. Have you looked at how we treat Canada on trade issues? When they point out that we are violating NAFTA we basically respond, “Yeah, what are you going to do about it?”

    How about all the government “Buy America” policies? Those violate trade deals. And didn’t Bernanke try to “manipulate” the dollar lower with QE?

  11. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    1. March 2017 at 11:55

    And Scott,

    Could you let us hapless readers know what Trump said about immigration that he is not being sincere about? Exact quote and source would be helpful.

  12. Gravatar of Helmut Schmidt Helmut Schmidt
    1. March 2017 at 11:57

    You continually don’t understand how the world is transitioning away from USD hegemony to a UN mediated exchange rate system. The tariffs and reducing the deficit are about managing this transition. Even immigration is about this, as IMF exchange rate calculations take into account population growth. Illegal immigration makes such population projections inaccurate.

    This doesn’t make sense to people who believe sovereign governments like the US “borrow” money and who don’t think twice about how exchange rates work, and know nothing about balance of payments between countries.

    In any event, Trump is indeed a buffoon. But that’s what we need right now because Congress has dropped the ball on this for 10 years. There is a good chance the necessary reforms won’t be made, and he’s the perfect fall guy.

    That’s all presidents are really.

  13. Gravatar of Cameron Cameron
    1. March 2017 at 12:14

    dwb,

    “The markets are saying: economists are mostly wrong about Trump and his policies over the next (at least) 4 years.”

    But which policies? It could all be about infrastructure spending, or tax reform, or the border tax. Without knowing counterfactual’s of market performance under Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, or Marco Rubio we can’t know. It’s not clear the markets like Trump, perhaps they are just slowly realizing he won’t accomplish anything of substance.

    I would be more sympathetic if we saw instant market reactions to parts of a Trump speech.

    PS: It just occurred to me to compare foreign stocks (currency hedged and not) to US, they have delivered similar returns since mid November…

  14. Gravatar of Jeff G. Jeff G.
    1. March 2017 at 12:21

    The biggest problem is that many people agree with his reasoning. I would go far as to say the majority of Americans agree. “Fair trade” isn’t something that Trump invented, it’s just something he realized he can use to make himself more popular. Trump may be a buffoon but he is the People’s Buffoon.

  15. Gravatar of Lorenzo from Oz Lorenzo from Oz
    1. March 2017 at 12:23

    The Donald fails policy wonkery. But we knew that, surely. The question is, how important is policy wonkery in the President?. On your wider argument, not very much apparently.

  16. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    1. March 2017 at 12:58

    “The markets are saying: economists are mostly wrong about Trump and his policies over the next (at least) 4 years.”

    Nearly all of the gain in the market comes down to:

    – Lower cap gains taxes.
    – Less bank regulation.

    If we repeal Dodd-Frank or at least eviscerate the administrative rules, TBTF banks can privatize gains and probably socialize losses. If TBTF banks are actually TBTF, then leverage will cost them the risk-free rate. Going from capital of 10% to 5% can double the return on equity.

    In a sense, Trump CAN take “credit” for these gains. These policies need a President to sign off on them. But these gains rely on either:

    – More regressive policy with capital gains tax cuts. You can debate whether policy should be more regressive, but capital gains tax cuts are not unambiguously good because the stock market does well.
    – A very dangerous return to pre-2008 regulation for banks. This is also not an unambiguously good thing.

  17. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    1. March 2017 at 13:17

    @ssumner: what if the markets expect a little protectionism but a lot of tax cuts and deregulation?

  18. Gravatar of LK Beland LK Beland
    1. March 2017 at 13:42

    The stock market did not react to Trump’s victory. It reacted to his victory combined to a GOP victory in the Senate and House.

  19. Gravatar of Bob Murphy Bob Murphy
    1. March 2017 at 14:16

    Scott wrote:

    In the conversation, Trump comes across as exactly the sort of buffoon that we see in public. At one point he suggests that a 10% tariff could eliminate the budget deficit.

    The December 2016 level of imports was $192.6 billion, working out to $2.3 trillion annual. So 10% of that (putting aside supply side effects) is $230 billion.

    In context, it’s clear Trump is bringing up an idea he’s had for a while. The deficit lately has been a lot higher (as share of GDP and a foriori in absolute dollars) than it was for most of post WW2.

    Again, my point isn’t to say, “Trump is a genius especially in economic theory,” but Scott I think you are exaggerating how bad he is by misframing his claim.

  20. Gravatar of Bob Murphy Bob Murphy
    1. March 2017 at 14:19

    Also, it’s conceivable that he was talking about the trade deficit, not the budget deficit, though hard to be sure. (And I definitely agree that if he thought a 10% tariff would eliminate the trade deficit, that that’s more evidence of policy ignorance than a comparable claim about the federal budget deficit.)

  21. Gravatar of Dtoh Dtoh
    1. March 2017 at 14:41

    Scott
    If your trade policy is to gain free market access for your exporters while protecting your manufacturing and ag sectors and at the same time restricting foreign ownership in many key sectors, then Japan has done fantastically well.

    And yes, Japan has cheated on a massive scale.

  22. Gravatar of dwb dwb
    1. March 2017 at 15:44

    Cameron,
    But which policies? It could all be about infrastructure spending, or tax reform, or the border tax. Without knowing counterfactual’s of market performance under Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, or Marco Rubio we can’t know. It’s not clear the markets like Trump, perhaps they are just slowly realizing he won’t accomplish anything of substance.

    If you don’t know what Trump will accomplish, you are not paying attention. Infrastructure will most likely be a bunch of tax credits, not direct govt spending (except maybe the border wall). Tax cuts, repeal/replace Obamacare (itself a tax cut), plus regulatory reform.

    Expectations have already become self fulfilling. At this point, no one will want to be responsible for the crash if nothing gets through congress.

    As for the border tax, I put a 75% chance it happens in some form. Trump is letting people come around to the idea on their own. But if they don’t, he will present an unpalatable alternative like tariffs to scare people (that is his style). The wailing and gnashing of teeth about it is grossly overwrought.

    People who are claiming he won’t get anything done, or that the markets are hoping so, are the same people who did not think he would get elected either.

  23. Gravatar of d d
    1. March 2017 at 16:32

    markets if they think at all, are expecting that for the short term that he will make it easier to make a profit, not that jobs will come back, or that it will the US in any way,
    just that it will be easier to make a profit, as in they dont really to have compete (maybe a little protection here and there) or that they have to defraud their customers (consider what if that big mess at Wells Fargo had come up when MR T was in charge, think there would have been penalty for WF?? not a chance), or that the next time a police officer shoots and kills a 5 year old child, will there be any investigation? no, it will be the sound of crickets from the Feds. might be the sound of cities burning but not much else (almost looks like a repeat of the 60s) . but markets are very short term views. and even then they are far from perfect. as just about any prediction more than a few hours or days out is iffy at best

  24. Gravatar of Patrick R. Sullivan Patrick R. Sullivan
    1. March 2017 at 16:52

    ‘The Donald fails policy wonkery. But we knew that, surely. The question is, how important is policy wonkery in the President?.’

    And to whom is it important.

  25. Gravatar of Cameron Cameron
    1. March 2017 at 17:17

    dwb,

    That still doesn’t answer the question of which policies are actually responsible for the rise in stocks. Tariffs are probably still a net negative but over overcome by other policies. The idea that tax cuts and regulatory reform are favored by the stock market is no surprise to anyone on this blog.

    We need instant market reactions or else we are just guessing. Not to mention the performance of US stocks recently isn’t much better than that of international stockS (10% vs 6% since 11/9/2016). Performance under Obama was obviously much more impressive.

  26. Gravatar of aram aram
    1. March 2017 at 18:36

    Maybe Trump will sell out on immigration in the future, but his recent talk of reform was what is now known as a “misdirection play”:

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/trump-invents-new-word-lying-misdirection-play

  27. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    1. March 2017 at 19:25

    “Scott
    If your trade policy is to gain free market access for your exporters while protecting your manufacturing and ag sectors and at the same time restricting foreign ownership in many key sectors, then Japan has done fantastically well.

    And yes, Japan has cheated on a massive scale.”

    If this was the goal, then it was the wrong one. Japan has lower income than the US. Along with GDP, Japan has lower average and median wages. The “cheating” ultimately hurts them.

    Also if asymmetric trade barriers are the issue, then TPP shoukd be signed, rigbt?

  28. Gravatar of Lorenzo from Oz Lorenzo from Oz
    1. March 2017 at 21:12

    And who wants to take economic policy advice from a country which is
    (1) systematically poorer than you
    (2) lost the equivalent of one year’s UK GDP on its foreign investments
    (3) engaged in one of the largest peacetime wealth transfers in history away from itself (mainly to the US, but Australia and some other places managed some nice windfalls)
    (4) has by far the largest debt-to-GDP ratio in the Western world
    (5) has disastrous demographics
    (6) is the preferred residence of Richard Koo, the man who has made a career recycling half of Fisher’s Debt-Deflation theory, but only half, and uses said country as proof of his theory?

    Really, “those clever macro policy Japanese” was always a bit wonky, given this was the country who decided to “solve” not winning its war in China by attacking the only Great Power not a war: a Great Power with over twice its population and an economy proportionately even larger. After their bubble economy and follow up efforts, it should have been well retired.

    Operationally, Japan can be really clever. Strategically, not so much.

  29. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    1. March 2017 at 21:54

    Matthew Waters

    Yes it was the wrong goal in some if not many respects.

    I favor TPP, but not because it addresses asymetric trade issues effectively, but rather because it benefits a lot of countries at little cost to the U.S.

  30. Gravatar of Major-Freedom Major-Freedom
    1. March 2017 at 23:57

    Sumner just wants to keep the market monetarist narrative of Japan going, so he distorts what Trump said about Japan.

    Pierre, dtoh and Murphy debunked this post.

    Japan is to Sumner, as Russia is to the Democrats.

  31. Gravatar of Major-Freedom Major-Freedom
    2. March 2017 at 00:07

    “I warned my alt-right commenters that Trump would stab them in the back on immigration”

    There are no alt-right commenters on this blog. Do you even know what alt-right means? Obviously not. The overwhelming majority of Trump supporters and voters are conservatives, libertarians, and democrats who are disillusioned with what the left has become.

    Legalizing peaceful and productive illegal immigrants, while strengthening the border and if need be blocking immigrants from certain countries with poor vetting mechanisms, is not at all stabbing the backs of Trump’s base.

    And why are you pointing this out anyway? Did you want Trump to start deporting EVERY illegal immigrant? You are not on any moral high ground by appealing to alt-right ideology like that. It would be like telling the KKK, “see? I told you folks that Trump would stab you in the backs!”

    What, is advising morally unscrupulous people your M.O.? First the Fed, now racists?

  32. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    2. March 2017 at 02:02

    Lorenzo,

    Yes but Tokyo is by far the nicest big city in the world in which to live so they didn’t do everything wrong.

  33. Gravatar of dwb dwb
    2. March 2017 at 07:21

    Cameron,

    That still doesn’t answer the question of which policies are actually responsible for the rise in stocks.

    A very narrow, myopic way of looking at events.

    How about: all of them. Or maybe none, since nothing has passed yet?

    Markets don’t weigh which policies, they weigh the probability of a spectrum of policies. Is the market going up because of a 10% chance of a 1 trillion infrastructure plan, or a 100% chance of a $100 billion in tax credits that facilitate private infrastructure? Is it going up due to a $250 billion tax cut, or a 25% chance of a $1 trillion tax cut? Does it even matter?

    And: the fact that some market segments like banks and energy are outperforming retail (like Wal-Mart and Target) should also provide you insight. Yes, the border tax will hurt retail, and those equities (including Amazon) are under-performing significantly.

    It does not matter what the market might have done under Clinton or Bush, they are not President.

  34. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    2. March 2017 at 07:59

    dtoh, This:

    (TRUMP) . . . these (illegal aliens) can be some great people– but, you either have laws or you don’t have laws. I would get them back, I would get them back where they are, and I would try to work out a process where they can come in legally. But, they have to come in legally, it’s about laws, it’s about borders. If we don’t have a border, we don’t have a country. So, I get them out, and if they were really outstanding, because some of these people have been here for a long period of time, I’d let them back legally. They have to come through a legal system, and I’d make that system much faster, much quicker. I want people to come into the country. I love the fact that people come into the country, but they have to come in legally. Not only them, other people. We welcome people, I mean, my parents and my grandparents, they came from different parts of the world, too. We all sort of did when you get right down to it. . . .

    I would expedite [the process], because some of these people (illegal aliens) are fantastic people. I’ve been to the border, I was there a few days ago. I met some people, these are fantastic people and they have great reputations within the community. So what I’d do is that I would expedite it. You have to have laws. If you don’t have laws, you don’t have a country. I would get them out, and I would try, the good ones — the bad ones, they’re gone, they never come back. They’ll never get back into this country. But, the good ones, of which there are many, I want to expedite it so they can come back in legally.

    dwb, You said:

    “The markets are saying: economists are mostly wrong about Trump and his policies over the next (at least) 4 years.”

    Let’s see, can we assume you also believe the markets showed that the GOP was wrong in their criticism of Obama?

    I thought so.

    Lorenzo. Yes, not very important, but then he also fails at every single other attribute we’d like to have in a leader. If the Dems had a Trump like figure heading their party, the GOP would be mocking him relentlessly. I call it is I see it, regardless of party. (Unlike many Republicans) I don’t cover up the shameful incompetence of people in “my tribe”.

    Matthew, You said:

    “Nearly all of the gain in the market comes down to:

    – Lower cap gains taxes.
    – Less bank regulation.”

    And what explains the gains in foreign markets? How about the US market under Obama?

    Bob, Not sure your point. You are saying he would have been correct when the deficit was much smaller? I can’t argue with that. And heh, who knew the US has a big budget deficit in 2017? Who knew that health care was so complicated? Who knew tax reform was so complicated? Who knew we can’t just torture people or assassinate innocent women and children? Who knew we can’t just send 11 million illegals back home? Who knew that Chicago’s crime problem is complicated? Who knew that Flynn was a lunatic?

    dtoh, You said:

    “If your trade policy is to gain free market access for your exporters while protecting your manufacturing and ag sectors and at the same time restricting foreign ownership in many key sectors, then Japan has done fantastically well.”

    I’m feeling generous today so I’ll assume that Trump is not that dumb. If that’s what he was thinking, his comment to Ross would have made no sense at all.

    dwb, I predict that they will do almost nothing substantive, and then claim victory. The border tax idea is red meat to his blue collar voters, without actually doing anything for them.

    aram, Is that the new term for “lie”?

  35. Gravatar of dwb dwb
    2. March 2017 at 11:04

    can we assume you also believe the markets showed that the GOP was wrong in their criticism of Obama?

    You certainly can assume a can opener if it makes you feel better. Although this sounds more like a straw man to me.

  36. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    2. March 2017 at 12:57

    “And what explains the gains in foreign markets? How about the US market under Obama?”

    Vanguard’s foreign stock fund is up 6.8% since the election, compared with 14% for the S&P. Goldman Sachs is up 43%.

    I don’t know if capital gains cuts extends to the increase in foreign stock. Or how much is banks that operate in the US. Deutsche Bank is up 41%, while HSBC and UBS only gained about 10%.

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at. The divergence between banking stocks and the general stock market (43% vs. 14%) makes it pretty clear that less bank regulation is a big factor. Since the 14% includes financials, the difference between banking and non-banking stocks is even greater.

    Obama’s boom was due to increased AD expectations and lower interest rates. Also, I will argue the market was not efficient in the 2009 low, due to lack of liquidity or whatever. I don’t see how gains in AD and lower interest rates could explain increase since 11/8.

  37. Gravatar of Jeff G. Jeff G.
    2. March 2017 at 13:37

    On the topic of turning on his supporters, let’s not forget all those who voted for Trump because he was an outsider that “tells it like it is.” Fast forward to Tuesday, when Trump received the best reviews from the media to date because he toned down the rhetoric and acted like a normal politician. I suspect the real Trump is loved this and we have seen the last of campaign Trump. And it took less than 6 weeks months!

  38. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    2. March 2017 at 20:28

    dwb, That’s the answer I expected.

  39. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    3. March 2017 at 01:32

    Scott,
    Trump said illegal immigrants have to leave the country and then will be processed and issued a visa for lawful immigration.

    How is this is insincere and how is he stabbing his supporters in the back. Is this a change. Had he earlier proposed and maintained a position for any substantial period or time that there would be no pathway to lawful residence in the U.S. for all the people currently in the U.S.?

    Sorry I really am perplexed. Could you clarify what argument you are making?

  40. Gravatar of Lorenzo from Oz Lorenzo from Oz
    3. March 2017 at 14:42

    dtoh: “Yes but Tokyo is by far the nicest big city in the world in which to live so they didn’t do everything wrong.”

    I would call that an operational success :)

    Scott: “Yes, not very important, but then he also fails at every single other attribute we’d like to have in a leader.” Making him like many a Latin American President perhaps. So, should he be thought of as a mark of the ongoing Latin Americanisation of the US? I mean, having a Presidential election be between the wife of a former President and a blowhard demagogue — how Latin American can you get?

  41. Gravatar of Cameron Cameron
    3. March 2017 at 16:40

    dwb,

    In other words, as I already said, we can’t conclude much about market reactions without seeing instant reactions to perceived changes in policies. Or are you saying every individual policy in a set of policies which increases stock prices should all be mindlessly favored? Without real market reactions, let’s be reasonable enough to support Trump’s good policies (corporate tax reform) and oppose Trump’s bad policies (Mexican tariffs, infrastructure spending).

  42. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    4. March 2017 at 14:42

    dtoh, Let’s just wait and see how it plays out.

    Lorenzo, Good point about Latin Americanism.

Leave a Reply