If people aren’t panicked, they wouldn’t elect panic-pandering politicians, so there must always be a panic — crime, drugs, commies, libruls, etc.
If people aren’t panicked, they wouldn’t elect panic-pandering politicians, so there must always be a panic — crime, drugs, commies, libruls, etc.
Exactly what I said. That the data is thin.
If I don’t, does that invalidate my point? Does the cited data become more reliable somehow?