|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 26 2016 05:30 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 05:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 26 2016 05:25 WhiteDog wrote:On July 26 2016 05:23 Doodsmack wrote:
Hillary supporters aren't status quo lovers, they are danger avoiders. Brilliantly said actually, it's exactly that. The people that actually want the statu quo nowadays are a very thin minority. One could argue Trump is a lifelong status quo lover, considering the amount of money he has donated to crooked career politicians in order to prop up the status quo for his benefit. Ending all trade agreement and talking about leaving the WTO is not being for the statu quo really ...
But see, this is where the language begins to break down; as has been described in this thread already, one should assume that there is an oftentimes significant gap between what Trump says he'll do and the eventual, actual reality of his candidacy. While he has recently seized upon some pretty anti-trade agreement rhetoric, pretty much his entire professional life suggests a positive attitude towards international trade cooperation. This is why so many people are using the dice roll analogy, as poor as it may be.
|
On July 26 2016 05:28 VayneAuthority wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 05:27 zlefin wrote:On July 26 2016 05:24 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 26 2016 05:18 zlefin wrote:On July 26 2016 05:14 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 26 2016 05:12 zlefin wrote:On July 26 2016 04:58 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 26 2016 04:56 zlefin wrote:On July 26 2016 04:51 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 26 2016 04:50 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
he didn't get screwed over by the entire party; only be some parts of it. and it's not like he HIMSELF is a long-time democrat. I think you just aren't grasping the full situation well. No this is just why I can't take this election seriously, everyone is either far left or far right, very few moderates like myself left. Talking to anyone is like talking to a brick wall. haven't seen a good post since Kwark's. uhhh; I'm a moderate, and there's plent yof other moderates around. I'm not so sure you're a moderate, you don't really talk like one. But people can self-identify as whatever they like I guess. In fact the bulk of voters are independents adn moderates; if talking to everyone is like talking to a brick wall, have you considered that maybe the problem is something in your perception? that's more common really. Your sense of moderate vs extreme doesn't seem to matchup with how people typically use the term. You're going to tell me some one like Plansix can be spoken to rationally and he isn't the problem? If so you aren't a moderate. He can be rather rough; but there's plenty of worse in the thread; and your sense of who's moderate and who isn't is simply terrible, and he did answer your question clearly. I am a moderate, you're simply wrong; not sure why, but you seem to be missing some basic details on how things work. and your definition of extremist is basically nonsense. If you can't calmly and objectively see both sides like Kwark's post earlier ( i know he's leftist but as a result not extremist) then you are extremist in my book. Full on left/right nut huggers are unbearable to me. I can see both sides; so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Also, that's not about extremism, but capacity for empathy and understanding. I'm not full on left/right at all. You're simply failing to classify people well, or understand the points they're making. That's your opinion, im not saying you have to take on my definition but being condescending doesn't help your case of endearing yourself to me lol. You have a different view of it and that's fine. I take the literal meaning of it as in far from the centre. If you only can see from either left or right, you are "extreme" in my books. as I said i've dropped it, you guys are too smart and better opinions then me hehe xd the problem is you're applying that label to a lot of people who can see the other side. I wasn't trying to endear myself to you; it's one of the known limits on my capabilities. So what exactly makes you think im not a moderate when ive posted nothing pro left or pro right, I was curious why you said that
because you don't act very moderate. Admittedly, I'm not sure whether you're left, right, or some sort of radical centrist. I'm using moderate as opposed to extremist; not just on the left/right axis. It's more about discussion/understanding/listening. It's also an impression formed based on a fairly limited amount of information, so it is subject to considerable error.
It's sometimes the case that someone comes in with an agenda, but it's not clear for awhile what that agenda is.
|
On July 26 2016 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 05:31 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 26 2016 05:24 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 26 2016 05:18 zlefin wrote:On July 26 2016 05:14 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 26 2016 05:12 zlefin wrote:On July 26 2016 04:58 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 26 2016 04:56 zlefin wrote:On July 26 2016 04:51 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 26 2016 04:50 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
he didn't get screwed over by the entire party; only be some parts of it. and it's not like he HIMSELF is a long-time democrat. I think you just aren't grasping the full situation well. No this is just why I can't take this election seriously, everyone is either far left or far right, very few moderates like myself left. Talking to anyone is like talking to a brick wall. haven't seen a good post since Kwark's. uhhh; I'm a moderate, and there's plent yof other moderates around. I'm not so sure you're a moderate, you don't really talk like one. But people can self-identify as whatever they like I guess. In fact the bulk of voters are independents adn moderates; if talking to everyone is like talking to a brick wall, have you considered that maybe the problem is something in your perception? that's more common really. Your sense of moderate vs extreme doesn't seem to matchup with how people typically use the term. You're going to tell me some one like Plansix can be spoken to rationally and he isn't the problem? If so you aren't a moderate. He can be rather rough; but there's plenty of worse in the thread; and your sense of who's moderate and who isn't is simply terrible, and he did answer your question clearly. I am a moderate, you're simply wrong; not sure why, but you seem to be missing some basic details on how things work. and your definition of extremist is basically nonsense. If you can't calmly and objectively see both sides like Kwark's post earlier ( i know he's leftist but as a result not extremist) then you are extremist in my book. Full on left/right nut huggers are unbearable to me. I can see both sides; so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Also, that's not about extremism, but capacity for empathy and understanding. I'm not full on left/right at all. You're simply failing to classify people well, or understand the points they're making. That's your opinion, im not saying you have to take on my definition but being condescending doesn't help your case of endearing yourself to me lol. You have a different view of it and that's fine. I take the literal meaning of it as in far from the centre. If you only can see from either left or right, you are "extreme" in my books. as I said i've dropped it, you guys are too smart and better opinions then me hehe xd You're new to this thread. It's an interesting place, though posting quality has declined somewhat of late. Okay, it's declined a lot. Anyways, I would recommend getting the lay of the land before making any judgement or whatever. Conservatism thinking, always saying every used to be better ...
As other posters have pointed out, it was this garbage last election. Personally, I think we have our highs and lows. I remember there was a good day were we all discussed police training that that was cool.
|
On July 26 2016 05:30 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 05:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 26 2016 05:25 WhiteDog wrote:On July 26 2016 05:23 Doodsmack wrote:
Hillary supporters aren't status quo lovers, they are danger avoiders. Brilliantly said actually, it's exactly that. The people that actually want the statu quo nowadays are a very thin minority. One could argue Trump is a lifelong status quo lover, considering the amount of money he has donated to crooked career politicians in order to prop up the status quo for his benefit. Ending all trade agreement and talking about leaving the WTO is not being for the statu quo really ...
Yes Trump's platform is highly incongruous with his lifelong actions. Lifelong donations to crooked career politicians are not consistent with his platform. So I'm not sure where the analysis goes from here. Perhaps he's just seeking power by some viable method, one of which is targeting the tea party wing with anti-immigration rhetoric (let's be honest, immigration is his main source of support through the primaries).
|
Is this the first day of DNC? Have not been able to follow it much.
|
On July 26 2016 05:34 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 05:28 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 26 2016 05:27 zlefin wrote:On July 26 2016 05:24 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 26 2016 05:18 zlefin wrote:On July 26 2016 05:14 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 26 2016 05:12 zlefin wrote:On July 26 2016 04:58 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 26 2016 04:56 zlefin wrote:On July 26 2016 04:51 VayneAuthority wrote:
[quote]
No this is just why I can't take this election seriously, everyone is either far left or far right, very few moderates like myself left. Talking to anyone is like talking to a brick wall. haven't seen a good post since Kwark's. uhhh; I'm a moderate, and there's plent yof other moderates around. I'm not so sure you're a moderate, you don't really talk like one. But people can self-identify as whatever they like I guess. In fact the bulk of voters are independents adn moderates; if talking to everyone is like talking to a brick wall, have you considered that maybe the problem is something in your perception? that's more common really. Your sense of moderate vs extreme doesn't seem to matchup with how people typically use the term. You're going to tell me some one like Plansix can be spoken to rationally and he isn't the problem? If so you aren't a moderate. He can be rather rough; but there's plenty of worse in the thread; and your sense of who's moderate and who isn't is simply terrible, and he did answer your question clearly. I am a moderate, you're simply wrong; not sure why, but you seem to be missing some basic details on how things work. and your definition of extremist is basically nonsense. If you can't calmly and objectively see both sides like Kwark's post earlier ( i know he's leftist but as a result not extremist) then you are extremist in my book. Full on left/right nut huggers are unbearable to me. I can see both sides; so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Also, that's not about extremism, but capacity for empathy and understanding. I'm not full on left/right at all. You're simply failing to classify people well, or understand the points they're making. That's your opinion, im not saying you have to take on my definition but being condescending doesn't help your case of endearing yourself to me lol. You have a different view of it and that's fine. I take the literal meaning of it as in far from the centre. If you only can see from either left or right, you are "extreme" in my books. as I said i've dropped it, you guys are too smart and better opinions then me hehe xd the problem is you're applying that label to a lot of people who can see the other side. I wasn't trying to endear myself to you; it's one of the known limits on my capabilities. So what exactly makes you think im not a moderate when ive posted nothing pro left or pro right, I was curious why you said that because you don't act very moderate. Admittedly, I'm not sure whether you're left, right, or some sort of radical centrist. I'm using moderate as opposed to extremist; not just on the left/right axis. It's more about discussion/understanding/listening. It's also an impression formed based on a fairly limited amount of information, so it is subject to considerable error. It's sometimes the case that someone comes in with an agenda, but it's not clear for awhile what that agenda is.
shrug thats just my internet demeanor. I have a very extensive ban count on this site I tend to rile people up for whatever reason, when im pretty much the most laid back person ever irl. As far as the issues/voting I've voted for both parties in the past on the local/national level and have a live and let live approach to the world but think capitalism is king. I'm pretty moderate...
|
On July 26 2016 05:36 Reaps wrote:Is this the first DNC? Have not been able to follow it much.
Yes, it's the first day
|
Twitchchat spam 'rigged' at this guy talking about the quality of the contest lol
|
On July 26 2016 05:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 05:17 Nevuk wrote:On July 26 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2016 05:08 Nevuk wrote:On July 26 2016 05:07 xDaunt wrote:On July 26 2016 05:01 Nevuk wrote:
To me this thread is far right land. I think it's just a matter of perspective This is hilarious. This place is anything but. For perspective, I'm fairly sure I'm by far the furthest left person in this thread, that one political quiz in the thread a few days ago had me at -8.8, -8.7 You could be right about being the biggest leftist in the thread, but, overall, this thread is way left of standard American politics. Oh, that's definitely true. My job I work with a bunch of 70+ year old white men, now that's some really conservative stuff. However, as far as online political discussion places go, this is one of the more conservative places to have discussion outside of sites devoted to the conservative side. It's also been decent for not being a total echo chamber, which has been a problem for reddit or sites like it. On July 26 2016 05:10 Plansix wrote:
You are not the most left until you are challenging others to prove they are pure enough to call themselves progressive. You need 200% more gate keeping. I'm so confused by this term, it was first used by Roosevelt and as far as I can tell it mostly referred to making national parks, or at least that's where I first heard the term in 2004. Every time I hear it I picture someone shouting about stuffed animals or smokey the bear. Really though, progressive doesn't really seem that far left to me, it's mostly just used to refer to the liberal wing of the democratic party. And I've given up on anything I ever support actually happening, so I mostly am just an observer nowadays. I think Sanders is a good enough politician to control his supporters unless the DNC keeps somehow shooting themselves, which isn't really his fault. Progressive is the new term in the US for people who want to be farther left than a liberal. It is also the shitty, no compromise wing of the Democratic party. I was mocking internet progressives who are in the collective performance art of proving who is the most progressive and pure. I use it myself out of habit. But I should switch back to just saying I lean liberal on social issues.
Yeah, I remember Sanders and Clinton arguing about who was the real progressive in a debate. That was an utterly bizarre moment.
On July 26 2016 05:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 05:17 Nevuk wrote:On July 26 2016 05:10 Plansix wrote:
You are not the most left until you are challenging others to prove they are pure enough to call themselves progressive. You need 200% more gate keeping. I'm so confused by this term, it was first used by Roosevelt and as far as I can tell it mostly referred to making national parks, or at least that's where I first heard the term in 2004. Every time I hear it I picture someone shouting about stuffed animals or smokey the bear. Really though, progressive doesn't really seem that far left to me, it's mostly just used to refer to the liberal wing of the democratic party. And I've given up on anything I ever support actually happening, so I mostly am just an observer nowadays. I think Sanders is a good enough politician to control his supporters unless the DNC keeps somehow shooting themselves, which isn't really his fault. It was a reference to the tendency of the extreme left to devolve into factions which all claim to be the only real incarnation of the ideals they all share and all insist the others are perversions who have deviated from true ideological purity. This was brilliantly satirized in Monty Python's Life of Brian with the Jewish nationalist groups in which they all constantly deride each other as splitters, have increasingly long and absurd names for themselves, are all completely indistinguishable and when called upon to unite against the common enemy collectively turn upon the most universally hated of their own, not the Roman establishment. If you have yet to lose sight of the establishment as the enemy then there are still people to the left of you.
Politically I identify as a post-anarchist (which is short for the mouthful post-structural-anarchist). Maybe I'm guilty of that? But considering it's more of a belief about the difficulty of structuring opposition and the inevitable flaws of revolution and about seeking ways to avoid them, it's pretty self-aware of the problem. It's pretty much something I moved towards after long examination of communism, socialism, and anarchism. Anyways, considering it's as much a linguistic issue as anything else it's not something I try to argue about anymore
|
On July 26 2016 05:19 VayneAuthority wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 05:17 CobaltBlu wrote:
Rather I think the problem is that when people have their opinion challenged they resort to calling people their favorite buzzword instead of engaging in discourse. Note VayneAuthority has failed to explain how personal career advancement is the same as campaigning for a political platform. because its a stupid side-tangent that's completely irrelevant to my point, im not engaging in what the hilary/trump debates are going to be. It was basically a bunch of ring side trolls chiming in the thread at that point and im done with it.
Ok so your questions should be answered even if people find them to be fundamentally flawed, but you see no reason to answer them.
Its very easy to perch yourself on imaginary throne called moderate, pass judgement on peoples opinions and their posting quality, while pretending to be balanced by throwing the Kwark bone, All the while basically just responding to posts that fulfill your need for a circle jerk vis a vis xDaunt and Legalord.
Thats basically what I can summarise the last few pages as. Nothing that could be argued to foster critical thinking and discourse.
|
On July 26 2016 05:33 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 05:30 WhiteDog wrote:On July 26 2016 05:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 26 2016 05:25 WhiteDog wrote:On July 26 2016 05:23 Doodsmack wrote:
Hillary supporters aren't status quo lovers, they are danger avoiders. Brilliantly said actually, it's exactly that. The people that actually want the statu quo nowadays are a very thin minority. One could argue Trump is a lifelong status quo lover, considering the amount of money he has donated to crooked career politicians in order to prop up the status quo for his benefit. Ending all trade agreement and talking about leaving the WTO is not being for the statu quo really ... But see, this is where the language begins to break down; as has been described in this thread already, one should assume that there is an oftentimes significant gap between what Trump says he'll do and the eventual reality of his candidacy. While he has recently seized upon some pretty anti-trade agreement rhetoric, pretty much his entire professional life suggests a positive attitude towards international trade cooperation. This is why so many people are using the dice roll analogy, as poor as it may be.
I agree with you entirely but it's all a conjecture, the same argument can be said about Clinton or any other candidate. I think it's better to actually discuss what is being proposed, even if we all know that in the end, the president (whoever it is) will not entirely respect its promises (which is actually a good thing, giving all the power to one person is quite frightening).
Also, I was not at all saying that Trump is right in any way, as an anti free trade myself I am not entirely nuts and still want to envision a positive way out of the current economic globalization rather than the destruction of global trading through a unilateral withdrawal of the one major player. I think Trump is weak enough to be criticized on what he propose rather than arguing that he might not respect his own policies.
|
Shots at the lack of diversity in the RNC
|
On July 26 2016 05:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Shots at the lack of diversity in the RNC
Not enough men ?
|
Are those boos I hear for Berney Frank? This is going to be a rowdy convention
|
On July 26 2016 05:42 Nevuk wrote:
Are those boos I hear for Berney Frank? This is going to be a rowdy convention
Why did they boo him?
|
On July 26 2016 05:43 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 05:42 Nevuk wrote:
Are those boos I hear for Berney Frank? This is going to be a rowdy convention Why did they boo him?
He was going to present the rules committee report, and when he got to the mic he said "Thank you... or not, as the case may be" so I don't think I misheard
|
On July 26 2016 05:43 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 05:42 Nevuk wrote:
Are those boos I hear for Berney Frank? This is going to be a rowdy convention Why did they boo him?
at this point its probably because they are salty at Dodd Frank for not doing enough ?
|
On July 26 2016 05:38 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 05:33 farvacola wrote:On July 26 2016 05:30 WhiteDog wrote:On July 26 2016 05:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 26 2016 05:25 WhiteDog wrote:On July 26 2016 05:23 Doodsmack wrote:
Hillary supporters aren't status quo lovers, they are danger avoiders. Brilliantly said actually, it's exactly that. The people that actually want the statu quo nowadays are a very thin minority. One could argue Trump is a lifelong status quo lover, considering the amount of money he has donated to crooked career politicians in order to prop up the status quo for his benefit. Ending all trade agreement and talking about leaving the WTO is not being for the statu quo really ... But see, this is where the language begins to break down; as has been described in this thread already, one should assume that there is an oftentimes significant gap between what Trump says he'll do and the eventual reality of his candidacy. While he has recently seized upon some pretty anti-trade agreement rhetoric, pretty much his entire professional life suggests a positive attitude towards international trade cooperation. This is why so many people are using the dice roll analogy, as poor as it may be. I agree with you entirely but it's all a conjecture, the same argument can be said about Clinton or any other candidate. I think it's better to actually discuss what is being proposed, even if we all know that in the end, the president (whoever it is) will not entirely respect its promises (which is actually a good thing, giving all the power to one person is quite frightening). Also, I was not at all saying that Trump is right in any way, as an anti free trade myself I am not entirely nuts and still want to envision a positive way out of the current economic globalization rather than the destruction of global trading through a unilateral withdrawal of the one major player. I think Trump is weak enough to be criticized on what he propose rather than arguing that he might not respect his own policies.
As someone who has repeatedly criticized Trump primarily for his poorly thought out tax and entitlement program policies, I agree with you for the most part. There are plenty of good, substantive things to pin on Trump and criticize accordingly. However, the gap between Trump's rhetoric and the actual, likely character of his policies allows some Trump fans play a never ending game of "no true scotsman" as they pick up and discard Trump's positions at will. In that way, Trump is rather unlike Clinton. With the latter, what you see is what you get, for the most part, while with the former, anything with a temporarily distasteful whiff about it can be immediately tossed because, "Trump didn't actually mean it, he's just pandering."
On July 26 2016 05:44 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 05:43 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 26 2016 05:42 Nevuk wrote:
Are those boos I hear for Berney Frank? This is going to be a rowdy convention Why did they boo him? at this point its probably because they are salty at Dodd Frank for not doing enough ?
You overestimate the political fluency of the crowd, my friend 
|
On July 26 2016 05:44 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 05:43 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 26 2016 05:42 Nevuk wrote:
Are those boos I hear for Berney Frank? This is going to be a rowdy convention Why did they boo him? at this point its probably because they are salty at Dodd Frank for not doing enough ?
On July 26 2016 05:44 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 05:43 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 26 2016 05:42 Nevuk wrote:
Are those boos I hear for Berney Frank? This is going to be a rowdy convention Why did they boo him? He was going to present the rules committee report, and when he got to the mic he said "Thank you... or not, as the case may be" so I don't think I misheard
Thats the joke you use to break the ice... seriously..
America right now...
![[image loading]](https://media.giphy.com/media/l0K4b4XpfmcaxN3Mc/giphy.gif)
User was warned for this post
|
On July 26 2016 05:37 VayneAuthority wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2016 05:34 zlefin wrote:On July 26 2016 05:28 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 26 2016 05:27 zlefin wrote:On July 26 2016 05:24 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 26 2016 05:18 zlefin wrote:On July 26 2016 05:14 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 26 2016 05:12 zlefin wrote:On July 26 2016 04:58 VayneAuthority wrote:On July 26 2016 04:56 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
uhhh; I'm a moderate, and there's plent yof other moderates around. I'm not so sure you're a moderate, you don't really talk like one. But people can self-identify as whatever they like I guess. In fact the bulk of voters are independents adn moderates; if talking to everyone is like talking to a brick wall, have you considered that maybe the problem is something in your perception? that's more common really.
Your sense of moderate vs extreme doesn't seem to matchup with how people typically use the term. You're going to tell me some one like Plansix can be spoken to rationally and he isn't the problem? If so you aren't a moderate. He can be rather rough; but there's plenty of worse in the thread; and your sense of who's moderate and who isn't is simply terrible, and he did answer your question clearly. I am a moderate, you're simply wrong; not sure why, but you seem to be missing some basic details on how things work. and your definition of extremist is basically nonsense. If you can't calmly and objectively see both sides like Kwark's post earlier ( i know he's leftist but as a result not extremist) then you are extremist in my book. Full on left/right nut huggers are unbearable to me. I can see both sides; so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Also, that's not about extremism, but capacity for empathy and understanding. I'm not full on left/right at all. You're simply failing to classify people well, or understand the points they're making. That's your opinion, im not saying you have to take on my definition but being condescending doesn't help your case of endearing yourself to me lol. You have a different view of it and that's fine. I take the literal meaning of it as in far from the centre. If you only can see from either left or right, you are "extreme" in my books. as I said i've dropped it, you guys are too smart and better opinions then me hehe xd the problem is you're applying that label to a lot of people who can see the other side. I wasn't trying to endear myself to you; it's one of the known limits on my capabilities. So what exactly makes you think im not a moderate when ive posted nothing pro left or pro right, I was curious why you said that because you don't act very moderate. Admittedly, I'm not sure whether you're left, right, or some sort of radical centrist. I'm using moderate as opposed to extremist; not just on the left/right axis. It's more about discussion/understanding/listening. It's also an impression formed based on a fairly limited amount of information, so it is subject to considerable error. It's sometimes the case that someone comes in with an agenda, but it's not clear for awhile what that agenda is. shrug thats just my internet demeanor. I have a very extensive ban count on this site I tend to rile people up for whatever reason, when im pretty much the most laid back person ever irl. As far as the issues/voting I've voted for both parties in the past on the local/national level and have a live and let live approach to the world but think capitalism is king. I'm pretty moderate...
I see. That makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
