Editor’s note: I began this post at the beginning of June, not long after the verdict of came out following the conclusion of the State of New York vs. Donald J. Trump, and let it sit while I was working on news items of local import. I have since expanded my thoughts to include the debate from June 27. This unintentionally turned into what might have been better as FOUR posts instead of one, but I feel these are currently connected themes and need to be discussed together. -KtE
The Jury’s Decision
Here we are, another historical moment in time created by the former president due to actions he may or may not have taken, depending on which news source you believe is the faithful truth on the subject.
Whatever you believe, a jury in Manhattan courts agreed with the prosecution instead of the testimony and arguments provided by the “defense,” so the decision is out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the court system.
The whole thing in my mind raises an interesting question: how long will the GOP continue to go along with the idea that former President Donald J. Trump is infallible in all things?
Will they allow another round of presidential elections to be surrounded by this cultist narrative, or will they decide that “enough is enough” and finally give into the inevitable conclusion of this story? Either they will allow a man who has been found by a jury of 12 to be a convicted felon to enter the White House, or they will lose another election cycle to the Democrats.
History will not be kind to the Republican Party on the national level many years down the road due to all of this nonsense and how it played out, how it impacted the trajectory of our nation. Everyone will get an asterisk of some kind, a bad mark against them for an era where we allowed divisiveness to take hold. Democrats, Republicans, even your neighbor Ricky Bobby not paying attention to anything down the road. Everyone has a part in this, and we all deserve a historical hand smack for the roles we played in the melodrama of the first decades of the 21st Century.
The former President’s reaction to the verdict and some of the radicalized followers have certainly been provocative. The liberal response could be best summarized as not appearing to gloat but secretly humming the famous chorus of “Battle Hymn of the Republic” behind their hands. The rest of us out here in the real world expected this, so have no real response since it lacked any surprise.
Who, after all deep down in the cockles of their hearts, didn’t foresee the outcome of a MANHATTAN JURY taking on the State v. Donald Trump? REALLY?
The only thing that surprised me was they took the second day to finish deliberating on all the charges. I’ll note one legal commentator – I believe on Fox News – noted that he didn’t believe the jury would take more than Friday to decide since they would want to go home with a clean slate for the weekend.
Reading online threats of violence against the jury who heard the case makes me sick to think about, but all this has been allowed to get this far thanks to a system that has essentially done its best to give the former President a pass at every turn.
Between the fumbling by state and federal prosecutors at every turn, it is almost as if they are trying to find “outs” against a honest to goodness effort to hold the former President accountable for any actions he might have taken that were illegal. Fanni Willis and her relationship with a contractor? Bad, bad move. Claims of the Manhattan DA’s use of the case for political motivations? How did the Democratic party allow this to go for so long…
Let’s add to that the slow-moving gears of the Justice Department and not wanting to be seen as “influencing the electorate” with prosecutions of politicians. As if anything the DOJ does after several fumbled attempts in the past years to investigate the former President and current actions aren’t going to make one side angry and another giddy at this point? Sides have been taken, lines have been drawn. Let’s not even get into the debacle of the 2016 campaign and how the DOJ and FBI handled that mess.
This whole episode is akin to Roman politics of old when rivals in the Senate used the Republic’s legal code to go after each other with lawsuits for taking actions they disagreed with during their terms in various positions.
The infamous moment where Gaius Julius Caesar “crossed the Rubicon” stemmed from the threat of suits he’d face if he wasn’t proclaimed a governor of Gaul for another term. Legally at the time, Caesar couldn’t be sued if he were an appointed official over a province based on Rome’s legal code. Since the Senate essentially challenged him to “do something about it,” he moved with a legion of his men from his Gallic conquests to take on the Senate and invade Rome, violating a longstanding rule between those in power that legions were not to cross the Rubicon River (Fiume Rubicone) with men under arms into Roma proper of the day.
When Caesar sought to keep his power and used his legion to march on the capital city of a soon-to-be empire, he went over a line and sparked yet another in a series of civil wars that dragged the populace into fights among the ruling classes.
(Note: this is an off-the–top-of-the-head explanation of the historical events of the time, not a thoroughly researched account of Caesar’s rise to power – events I hope we never repeat. There’s plenty out there for a deeper dive into Roman politics of the day. -KtE)
These are the kinds of times we live in now, where the struggle for control between the two political parties has reached a point where the fear one side or another might force a “crossing the Rubicon” moment in history is now an actual possibility for our future. It is all their fault we are here, in this time and place where things could go horribly wrong in the American experiment.
After decades of polarization within each party in the name of pet causes to raise fortunes for campaign ads and consultants to create a elitist national system is causing all of this to happen. The Citizen’s United decision just made the problem worse. Former President Trump promising to “drain the swamp” and his lack of compromise for four years – plus the handling of COVID-19 – made the systemic problems much more prominent than they were before. His supporters on January 6 invading the Capitol following the 2020 election, the various charges and cases the former President has faced, and the increasingly hostile rhetoric on both sides of the aisle has only heightened these fears more and more over the past four years.
One wrong decision or another made by someone upset about the present and without thought of the consequences for the future can turn the whole thing on its head.
The nation might have entered a vortex of chaos, a moment in time where things might go in the future, somewhere between logic and emotion that hangs in the air like a nasty dog fart. No one wants it around, but you can’t escape its reach.
This fart vortex might spit us out on the right side of history, or it might not. There’s still time to game this all out and not know where the rolls of the dice are boom or bust.
What did we all watch?
What the heck just happened?
Many a viewer asked this question as the nation tuned into CNN last week to hear from the two presidential candidates – two people that I think many would agree want to see replaced on the ticket on each side. Sure, there are people on EACH SIDE who want to keep former President Trump for the GOP ticket and President Biden for a new term on the Democratic ticket, but really we all secretly want some change and neither of these two are going to provide the change Americans WANT.
President Biden had a very, very bad night in Atlanta during the debate. I gave it 15 minutes to decide whether I wanted to waste an hour and a half of my life watching the full thing, and once President Biden began to stumble over his words and lose his train of thought, I gave up. The moment former President Trump began to speak I assumed he was going to take on the bully pulpit version of his campaign rhetoric and that was all I needed to know.
Substantive discussions on the issues weren’t on the table, were never going to be on the table, and neither actually has any real understanding of where things sit. Former President Trump seems bent on getting his way no matter what happens, and President Biden is… taking a very long shot that opinions will change over the coming months about his abilities as the Commander-in-Chief.
The morning after the debate, both men were back out on the campaign trail and everything seemed FINE… but a real debate has been sparked this weekend over whether the President should step down from the campaign. The two sides essentially are playing out this argument in public: supporters want President Biden to stay the course, while others (the New York Times Editorial Board, for instance) believe Democrats should pick a new ticket at the Convention. I’ve heard some pundits also say things like “We should have an emergency nationwide Democratic primary” to fix this.
(As an aside, the whole emergency primary idea begs this question: WHY AREN’T PRIMARIES HELD ON THE SAME DAY EVERYWHERE? TRADITION? Bah humbug to that. Iowa and New Hampshire aren’t exactly the model states to be deciding the future of the nation at this point, so why not let everyone vote at the same time like we do in November? It is just another holdover from past generations that has run its course but refuses to release its grip.)
The bigger problem is that the political parties in power want to RETAIN THEIR POWER and thus won’t give into the will of the people without serious persuasion. The Dem faithful have all basically lined up behind President Biden to say “We got your back, Joe” and claim that everything is FINE, that the President just had a bad night and don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain arguments that aren’t holding up to the light of day as they have in the past.
I think when the New York Times Editorial Board calls for President Biden to step down, and start running stories about “donors are freaking out” that you have a political bag of flaming poop on your doorstep. It is difficult to not step right into it in panic, and that is what we are seeing right now. The Democratic Party trying to put out their flaming bag of poop right on their nice doormat, and stepping right into it in the process.
Former President Trump couldn’t have asked for a better setup in the world for his campaign going forward, but there are still a lot of months ahead for him to also mess things up. Especially since the GOP convention is being held early this year, and he might very well be in a New York jail cell after the July 11 sentencing date. Who knows?
The real question that has been gaining traction over the weekend is whether President Biden is up for a second term in office or not. One that it seems the President has thus far attempted to avoid answering in the aftermath of a night where we all hoped to watch him smack down the former President, but instead found ourselves watching a well meaning grandpa try to explain to little Timmy the way the world works.
Challenges to the President’s campaign for his second term are a real possibility.
Despite some calling for the President to step down and let the people decide what will happen, I foresee any type of “emergency primary” being able to organize and vote on new candidates – especially between the aftermath of July 4 but before the convention later this summer for Democrats – being completely impractical from an organizing standpoint. A lot would need to happen immediately for such a plan to work, such as candidates declaring, the party getting with state election officials to organize a vote, and some kind of televised debate or town hall where potential presidential nominees could speak out before the vote.
All this before August 19 when the convention is supposed to kick off in Chicago? Probably not.
We are setting up for a situation like we had in 1968, where Chicago once again becomes a hotbed of political violence amid a possibly contested convention. If President Biden doesn’t step down and polling is going against him for November in a serious downturn, someone will attempt to challenge his nomination. Who that might be at the moment seems unknown, as the Democratic party’s leadership continues to have a stranglehold over those aspiring to climb the ranks.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a good example of this problem, where one can stay in the job for too long and thus their attempts to retain power over the party and system have real consequences for the future of the nation in leadership development. The GOP is just as awful on this front with guys like Sen. Mitch McConnell and Orin Hatch holding sway over the Republicans for generations, just as former President Trump does now.
The public will likely view a contested convention as a failure of the Democratic party to coalesce and put up a clear platform for what they want for the next four years for the nation if allowed to remain in charge. This will play right into the hands of the GOP, who will go into the fall in lockstep around one message: former President Trump has a plan for the future of the nation, and even behind bars would do a better job than President Biden (or a potential challenger who wins the delegate vote at the Convention.)
So here’s what happens with President Biden going forward: he stays in the race. The delegates vote his way on the first ballot in the convention. The party will not tolerate any deviation from their plans, and disloyalty will be punished is my best guess on how Democratic leadership will play this out with the rank and file delegates.
President Biden will somehow right the ship before the fall and this will be an ugly fight between the two parties to the finish of the election in the fall. Then it is my best guess who wins in November.
Honestly at this point… do you care who wins?
I firmly believe neither President Biden or former President Trump will have a successful presidency in the next four years no matter how the electorate decides this presidential vote in the coming months, as I have expressed before in previous items I wrote back in the spring. I still believe that to be 100% true, and wish the stars were aligning in such a way that we all prosper in the years ahead.
Yet we have too many unresolved issues between the parties, between the people and the government, and even between ourselves to really thrive in the way the nation needs to move ahead past these troubled times.
Who wants to gamble on the future?
Coaches in sports do it all the time, putting together elaborate plans and plays to win a contest and be crowned champions, ultimately determining the fate of the game on the skill and desire of individuals in the game.
War games are specifically designed to pit our soldiers against one another or allied nations to figure out how enemies will attack and how we should defend, and vice versa. Stock traders are all about gambling on the future – that a few percentage points of gain on a stock’s price on the market means millions in profit, or the downfall might be billions in losses.
One thing any of these people will tell you is the following: a plan is only as good as when it goes into action. Something always goes wrong. A wide receiver misses a pass from the quarterback during the title game; a unit isn’t in the right spot at the right time during a crucial offensive; a company missed a deadline, so didn’t make their quarterly earnings and they report a loss and suddenly shareholder value tanks as the company’s stock plummets. All valid examples of how things go awry in a hurry.
Every time you get behind the wheel of an automobile, or fly in a plane, or anything with some kind of inherent danger you are rolling the dice with life. Fate. Whatever you want to call it.
Gambling on something like the future of the nation is like gambling on whether you’ll miss the rocks with a supertanker full of crude oil. Not exactly the kind of position you want to guess or place in the hands of fate to determine, which is why you want experienced people at the helm and not novices who tend to lash out in response to various rocks and shoals that get in their way of forward progress.
Hence why the American experiment never moves too swiftly on anything big. Why don’t we have immigration reform? Lots of reasons, but it is key to note you can’t just start and stop various policies and expect something to work out. How about securing the future of the Social Security fund? Nah, we like printing new money instead.
If a casino in Las Vegas isn’t willing to bet the fortunes they make on players hitting jackpots, the American government isn’t going to bet the future of millions of people on making decisions too lightly.
This is why people get fed up with a lack of action on the part of Congress, the President or agencies which run the whole show. The flipside is when government or elected officials do take immediate action to current events, the whole system has such a drastic overreaction to what is happening that whatever decisions are made and executed cause greater problems to solve in the future.
One has to plan and game out situations to end with a decent outcome since chaos inevitably gets in the way of getting the perfect conclusion to a project, a battle, or a game plan of any kind.
I fear the idea of open rebellion in the nation more than anything else. A student of Civil War history in my younger years thanks to authors like Shelby Foote and a proximity to Chickamauga and Lookout Mountain, I was constantly reminded as a youth the real dangers of taking up arms against the nation.
Insurrection is such a gamble with the nation’s future, one that will be a losing hand for anyone who goes into it against the house. The current state of the United States government will not allow for such a thing to happen in a way described by Hollywood or in fantastical idealism of militia leaders.
The odds in the 1860s during the Civil War were about even for the first couple of years due to Yankee missteps, a misunderstanding of how to wage the war on both sides, and a lack of support from foreign powers who weren’t willing to get involved on American battlefields. The North was always destined to win due to manpower, resources and industrial capacity to commit to the war.
History books mostly gloss over this particular point, but many in the nation were against the war and did their part to try and bring it to a peaceful conclusion. There were sympathizers in the North toward the cause of the South, some even in government. The same goes for in the Confederacy.
The hundreds of thousands of battlefield casualties (alongside the dead due to disease and the hundreds of thousands wounded and maimed) took a variety of tolls on the nation during and after the conflict. The nation over time has found itself reversing course in many ways, and gaining in others, but always in baby steps in one direction or the next. Never a full blown ban on abortion, for instance, or in the other direction on firearm ownership. It’s always “let the state’s decide” or “we’re OK with banning machine guns and bump stocks” and allow the courts to settle the matter later.
The equality everyone is told is the foundation of national life is window dressing for systemic issues that continue to favor those with means and punishes those who are without opportunity to “pull themselves up by the bootstraps.” Privilege exists in many forms within the United States, and these conditions are only temporarily relieved by band aids when true crisis threatens to tear the system apart again.
Social Security? It was designed in a time when the system could sustain a life expectancy in the 60s and 70s, not 80s and 90s as average. Medicare? Easier to implement when employment includes an industrial base to fund it. Real reforms to governing remain pipedreams compared to the results of the past.
We can’t even begin to talk about “reforms of the present” since Congress can barely scrape together deals to keep funding itself, much less agree on real policy that will actually do something positive for their constituency. Getting something done on immigration? Good luck with that one, the GOP and the Dems both like raising campaign funds off of that issue.
Economic reforms? That’ll upset the donors from Wall Street. Culture issues? Someone in Hollywood on one side or the other isn’t going to like that, and influence their audience against it. Find a major issue, and someone will find a reason AGAINST making any substantive changes.
The point I’m making here is that our government is a SYSTEM, made up of many moving parts that don’t act independently of each other and thus keep the whole running “efficiently” for its purpose and ensure above all to remain a sense of stability among the populace under its control.
The government will do anything it can to maintain this stability, from invading the privacy of individuals by tracking them online secretly for years on the dark side, to providing relief to people when bad crap happens like loans for farmers whose crops suffered damage during tornadoes on the brighter side. This is the system we have designed: a very large piggy bank with a lot of administrators, extra hands in case of disaster, and doing a dang good job of carrying a big stick called the U.S. Armed Forces.
If anyone believes they can take on that without losing their heads in the process, well… good luck to you.
Contemporary insurgency
My mom and I talk politics whenever we spend more than a few minutes on the phone beyond discussions of everyday life. She’s asked me several times whether I think we are heading toward another “civil war.”
I asked her an interesting question I answered myself during one conversation the other day about it, following the Trump verdict and the latest hullabaloo of online threats that died down after the former President went back on the campaign trail proclaiming his innocence and that he’s akin to Nelson Mandela. During the debate, he also proclaimed to the world that “I never slept with a porn star.”
Well, that might be true to you, but the 12 jurors in Manhattan didn’t believe you. Maybe you cried wolf too many times, Mr. Trump.
Despite my longtime love of Civil War history, one thing I can certainly tell you is this: the lost cause is not going to return. We aren’t lining up with muskets Napoleonic War-style and facing each other down, men in blue and gray in open warfare against one another in epic marches in confined battlefields which “turn the tide of the war.”
The fantasy many have of locking and loading and driving their pickups with their AR-15 to teach them politicians in Washington a thing or two about how ‘Murica feels about them is also likely not in the cards either.
Unlikely as the future where Americans decide we need to take up arms against each other again is, this won’t be a conflict where states suddenly seize the military forces in their borders and load up on tanks to defend their turf, nor will they get control of nuclear weapons.
Despite the bluster of Texans about being able to go back to being a Republic, or Californians loving the fact they can boast being the “eighth largest economy in the world if we were our own nation,” etc., each can’t operate without the whole. Texas ain’t exactly great at growing a lot of wheat to feed the millions who live within their borders. California isn’t going to have a lot of oil leftover for their drivers on the 405 when the they split off on their own – especially in a state where gas is already prohibitively expensive. Explain to me how tiny Hawaii is going to fend off the U.S. Navy that basically owns the islands without the help of foreign powers to dislodge that force? Where will Massachusetts get the Patriot missiles it needs to keep their airspace clear of U.S. fighter jets in a state you could drive across in three hours (if traffic didn’t exist.)?
Here’s an example of why states can’t leave that I think will hit home the hardest to folks: who pays for social security and medicaid for retirees in Florida, or Arizona, or all across the country of the states leave? Who wants to leave Grandma without the means to feed herself or have a roof over their head?
The states are no longer in a real position to leave. Leadership might not be willing to admit that in places like Texas or Florida (or here in Northwest Georgia where Congresswoman Greene has called in the past for a national divorce…) because the purse strings that fund everything the states want to do are ultimately held tightly by the federal government. Elected officials can pay lip service to the idea and wag their finger in derision toward the Federal government all they like, but the sway over everything remains in the hands of agencies like the USDA or smaller departments where grant money is handed out like candy for all kinds of programs, and of course because of money given out to cities for various reasons and to states for their Medicaid programs, and the proliferation of defense contractors and military bases all across the 50 states make it near impossible for mounting any kind of takeover against Federal authority.
Just throw in this as well for consideration: a majority of major metropolitan areas across the country are more liberal leaning in their politics versus those in rural parts of the nation who are conservative. It isn’t perfect across the board in this example, but just think for a moment how a state like Georgia splits off from the nation when its own capital city and the large majority of the population would be against such a move? It was Metro Atlanta mainly responsible for the election of two Democratic U.S. Senators from Georgia (along with Augusta, Columbus, Macon, Savannah and South Georgia thrown in for good measure.) Everything in Georgia essentially depends on these major cities, and without them the rest of the state would be separated in major ways from deep water ports, from the world’s largest airport, and the central corridors of traffic leading in and out of the boundaries of the state.
And despite what folks in these parts might think of city folk, I suspect that they ain’t gonna give up their condo in Atlantic Station as easy as you think they will. This is the kind of fight that is unrealistic in today’s America.
This leaves uprisings of the people – insurgencies created from grassroots – who are the real threat to everyone at this stage in the increasingly more extreme polarization of society. Plenty of examples of this exist around the globe, and everyone likes to think that such insurgencies will create a Balkanization of the nation (what happened after Yugoslavia broke up following the fall of Communism and the awful Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts that occurred in the 1990s are what people mean here.) We ain’t talking jungles of Vietnam insurgency, or the Mullahs of Afghanistan with villagers taking on Soviet helicopters.
We’re talking about terror campaigns, pure and simple.
A homegrown insurgency is kind of hard to imagine happening in the United States since history on the primary school level never delves hard into the topic with exception of The Civil War and Reconstruction, but from Shay’s Rebellion to the KKK, insurgent warfare is deeply rooted into the culture in a variety of ways throughout the more than two centuries of national existence. We were born of rebellion, and so our nation continues to harbor feelings of independence over the crushing boot of the oppressive government deep within our DNA despite our more civilized nature to avoid grabbing our guns to join General Washington.
Insurgency in America’s past has been focused on warfare based on time and technology. Racist groups of the south focused on terror campaigns against particular groups took up tactics meant to oppress, while a short-lived campaign like Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts where residents were fed up with high taxes took up arms to resist collectors, you get a different style of fighting. Whereas in the 1980s and 1990s, individuals who participated in militias or fundamentalist religious groups (think Timothy McVeigh when he bombed the Oklahoma City federal building, or the compound in Waco,) you get cell-sized or small groups who are attempting to attack the government using unconventional and conventional means.
Tactics continue to change with time and technical means available. Now we have to worry about lone wolf mass shooters willing to take out hundreds of innocents to prove their insane ideals. The proliferation of assault-style weapons and ways of making them automatic without the government knowing about it continues to make individual shooters more deadly, and more difficult to stop as they attack schools, theaters, shopping centers, night clubs and more.
These are the likely ways that insurgencies will play out in a United States where the ability to get ahold of large stockpiles of deadly weaponry is easier than ever. Individual or small teams of mass shooters would take up attacks in an effort to disrupt daily life, attack government facilities with improvised explosives and the like. Standing armies make no sense when a few guys in an apartment could take out buildings with bombs made in kitchens.
The lessons of the battlefields in the Middle East, Afghanistan and more recently in Ukraine are also teaching everyone the deadly threat posed by drones of all kinds – whether they drop munitions from above, swarm in to attack you with a bomb strapped on to blow when it finds you, and even on the sea when small boats are loaded with explosives, a satellite link and the steering needed to pilot it alongside a larger vessel. Russian forces have suffered a lot of destroyed equipment and battlefield casualties over these kinds of attacks, which have held off what many considered a might foe who could take on everyone with their large military with one hand tied behind its back.
Drones are already being used in so many nefarious ways never foreseen by their designers. Ukraine and Russians alike are proving how effective these technologies are at creating havoc on battlefields, and those with an axe to grind can cause real damage and terror on the American home front. The amount of drone threats from air, sea and land that are being rapidly developed with Ukraine and Yemen as testing grounds (lets not forget what’s happening there either, for it is another model of how bad things can go.)
Speaking of critical infrastructure, this is the key area where insurgencies will cause true havoc. Hit the electric grid in certain key areas, and the whole system goes down for everyone. The lights go out, and we are all back in the stone age holding useless hunks of glass, plastic and silicon in our hands. Hit water pumping stations and there goes everything from showers to sweet tea. Maybe knock out a few cell towers and again, we’re all holding onto junk in our hands that won’t have a connection anytime soon. Cut some wires undersea in places off of the east and west coast, and now we are all disconnected from the rest of the world.
The damage insurgencies can do is truly terrifying once going down that rabbit hole, but it is necessary to understand that the course we find ourselves on at the moment toward these kinds of serious threats and attacks from within our own borders means we have a responsibility to ensure that we prevent this from being a potential future.
Beyond that we face threats to cyber infrastructure which we all utilize in our daily lives. We face real dangers when neighbors start facing off against each other in open warfare over what are cultural problems. Conflict based on issues such as abortion and gun control took center stage to distract the populace over the real issues that face us: great economic inequality throughout the nation, out of control debt and deficit spending in all facets of the national system, consolidation of Federal power on various fronts, and from greater technological capabilities on a global stage to enforce the will of a nation.
Insurgent action – whether organized or the actions of a lone person bent on their own individual vendettas – leads to more government overreaction, more authority taken by the state and a greater militarization of police forces as they seek to root out those they seek as threats.
The system under these circumstances turns to oppression veiled under the name of “security and safety” for the population as a whole. It becomes the result of such responses in the long run, ones that take gradual steps over time as one overreaction to current events spirals into another, and another. Authoritarianism comes in several ways, but usually begins with people going down that path with the promise of things being made “better” by the actions of individuals taking “leadership roles” within a nation to “save it from itself.” The people allow it to happen, and after a while they become complacent enough to believe that the system is the way it is for their own good via propaganda and the silencing of any other narratives than the ones being shouted by the authority.
All of this sound familiar? Russia-like maybe?
This is what we are facing down when we get right to it. Battles between people with homemade bombs strapped to FPV drones versus a system with drones that can shoot people from far enough away they never hear the shot coming.
No one wants this kind of disruption to our nation.
All of the above is pure speculation, ideas floating around in my mind about how horribly this could all go wrong should the missteps we’ve already taken cause us to get lost as we take up arms against one another. I don’t believe for a second the opportunity for political violence to break out in such a way that our nation begins to devolve into anarchy.
Yet it could. I have no crystal ball that says it won’t and you can put money down on the table at the casino on that bet. Time will tell what events transpire.
Comments