Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
Former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Chief of Staff Miles Taylor claimed in a podcast earlier this week that President Donald Trump told administration officials he wanted to “maim” and “shoot” migrants at the southern border.
Taylor, who served as chief of staff to former DHS Kirstjen Nielsen before departing the agency with her in April 2019, made the remarks Monday on an episode of “The New Abnormal” podcast from The Daily Beast.
Taylor said he could not get through a meeting without Trump “doing 20 tangents, becoming irascible, turning red in the face, demanding a diet Coke, spewing spit.”
“Literally out of goddamn nowhere, he’d be like, ‘You know who’s just my favorite guy? The MyPillow guy. Do any of you have those pillows?'” Taylor said, referencing his first in-person interaction with the president, at a meeting about the construction of a wall on the southern border with Mexico.
“Donald Trump hates it when people take notes,” Taylor recalled, reasoning it had something to do with the content of those meetings.
“He says, ‘We got to do this, this, this and this,’ all of which are probably impossible, illegal unethical,” Taylor said, echoing allegations from a number of former senior staffers such as former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former National Security Adviser John Bolton.
As he was writing down Trump’s ideas while the president spoke, Taylor said, “He looks over me and he goes, ‘You fu*king taking notes?'”
“I’ve actually seen him do that so many times in meetings,” Taylor said. “‘Why the hell are you taking notes?'”
When discussing border security, Taylor said, Trump would concoct “sickening” schemes “to pierce the flesh” of migrants at the southern border, “maim” and gas them.
“He wanted to maim them, and tear gas them and shoot them,” Taylor said. “And I’m not even being hyperbolic.”
I mean, I don’t believe 100% of any of these kind of leaks singularly, there are probably details slightly embellished or recollected in an exaggerated sense after cumulative frustration.
There are about 437 similar accounts so broad brushes, absolutely believe this.
Not the aspirations of his base, or some tenuous connection to personally held ideology (that Trump doesn’t have), Trump as a singular human is a demonstrable monster.
Of course he behaves like this, what makes him an outlier is both that he does it openly and also that it’s tolerated by a significant chunk of people.
On August 29 2020 04:59 IgnE wrote: Jacob Blake is alive. He is currently paralyzed. We will hear more from him.
He's also handcuffed to his bed by police (despite you know, the paralysis), who refuse to say why and say they aren't trying to arrest him, according to his dad. Weird situation.
On August 29 2020 02:43 farvacola wrote: The notion that Biden will shoulder what is occurring while Trump is in office is very much in dispute, how voters attribute the events of the past few months remains to be seen.
Yeah this is just boggling my mind. They're blaming Biden for everything bad happening under Trump's presidency. I guess I should be used to this by now but the brazenness and shamelessness of it still shocks me sometimes. Every good thing is because of Trump (including what Obama was responsible for, like the stable economy), and every bad thing is someone else's fault. I feel livid that he's made not a single attempt to address the grievances of the people who are protesting.
I think the logic is that the worst aspects of the response to George Floyd etc would become associated with the democratic party. The mayors involved are all democratic and basically fighting with trump. Trump is trying to capitalize on the situation with tweets like this:
And this is Wisconsin we're talking about, an important swing state (although nevuk's point about relocations is interesting).
Another point is that a lot of democrats have expressed sympathy and basically total support for what is happening, as if to excuse or even endorse the destruction. But I think everyone is now realizing that they need to pump the brakes.
In about 4-5 more years the transition will be complete, but 2016 was really the worst possible timing - the old core of the party, white union democrats, were still angry about NAFTA and racist appeals have also always worked on a large percentage of white people.
Have that at the same time that minority populations are booming in several states, but not yet an outright majority in any state (outside of California, where they're super concentrated) and there's a situation where Hillary could lead by 3% nationally but still lose key states. GA/TX were both closer than IA, which would've been absurd as little as 3-4 years before.
The same thing is true for this election, but not to as great an extent - Biden probably needs to be up 3.5-4% in popular vote to win - Trump still has an electoral college advantage, but not as much as before.
In 2018 GA/TX went from being 5/9% GOP to 2-3% GOP, and the question is basically if the demographic change there is rapid enough to change votes by a couple more percentage points in 2020. In 2024 I think they will be, but 2020 is a total toss-up as to whether it will be easier for a democrat to win the sunbelt or the rustbelt.
The only state I'd totally give up on is WI. It's got too many structural advantages for GOP voting - if the GOP loses there, it's because they've lost every other swing state, and they have gone in HARD on voter suppression there.
Sidenote - I'm planning on doing either early voting or directly depositing my ballot to the board of elections. I frankly don't trust Ohio not to try and fuck with mail-in votes, given how diehard some of the GOP here can be (though it's nowhere near as bad as Wisconsin - I don't expect the state GOP here to try, just some fringe lunatics in the post office).
Interesting analysis, of course demographics are an important factor but how’s it looking outside of that?
A lot of interesting variables in the mix. People voting in 2016 were voting for Trump the candidate, hows that match up with Trump the President?
Despite personally not putting much truck in it as something a President can personally influence hugely and not thinking the stock market actually matters much to mere mortals and to pardon the pun, one of his trump cards was overall economic performance. Well that’s down the shitter now and of course Covid is an exceptional circumstance that hey the President can’t really be blamed for. Except he’s done a pretty terrible job around Covid too
Of course there are negatives for Biden too. He’s not radical enough on police issues for many folks, but too radical for others.
On August 29 2020 06:15 farvacola wrote: Nice name Wombat, you lose a bet?
No, I was drunk and recalled a moment like 5 years ago where a singular user thought I was Dutch due to the sans-serif I/l confusion nature of my previous name and thought I’d request a change.
Still getting used to it, feels like I’m posting under someone else’s identity.
Norn Iron is perhaps a too parochial suffix for me, an ostensible man of the world
I think the big issue for many people is the following:
Jacob blake is alive if he acted exactly the same but was white 90% of the time.
Again a wild guess on the percentage and maybe i am wrong with this completely and it wouldnt have made a difference at all,but this i think is how many people do see it and i can understand why they see it like this. Its not only about each case specifically and if the police went way out of line (though that is important as well off course). For the blm movement it now is also and maybe even more so about the difference in aproach in general, shooting/not shooting, based on a person beeing black or white.
How to solve this i wouldnt know,i have thought about it and made a long post about it with all sorts of ideas which i ended up not posting. I dont think there is an easy solution let alone a fast one. I also dont know what could satisfy the protestors,tbh i dont think there is anything that could at this moment. They will keep protesting and then sooner or later there is another shooting or something else (which is almost inevitable in the usa) which refuels everything.
The world is going crazy,its like all the tension in society that has build up for over a decade is starting to unwind in an explosive fasion triggered by the epidemic. Not only when it comes to racism btw,you also see it in other areas. In the netherlands we also had (mild) riots (which are extremely rare here except for new years eve which is our national riot night) that had no other objective then to riot.
I find it very difficult to say anything about the whole issue tbh. Not because i feel intimidated or bullied,but because i have become increasingly aware that i dont want to contribute to any suffering and only want to say things if they could actually make the situation better and make people understand eachoter better,if only slightly. I do not want to say anything that could make the situation escelate or worse and the risk for that is quiet large since i have trouble explaining myself and often get misunderstood.
Like i try (and not always succeed because i can also be emotional and i also get triggered at times) look at things from an outside almost phylosophical perspective,but when a situation is so tensed and emotional that often is not the perspective that people (from either side) are wanting to hear and i can understand that. The outside and phylosophical perspective doesnt add all that much for the people who are directly involved. It becomes a situation where people are forced to make a very binary choice,which is something many people dont like doing and try to avoid (and even though the right choice can be pretty obvious,there is always more sides to a certain issue specially if you look at it from a distance without a direct stake). People,specially those in the middle or on the outside, then tend to walk away from those issues in which they have no direct stake and where they feel forced to make a binary choice between increasingly extreme positions. This i think is one of the biggest risks for the protestors and the movement.
Its much easier to talk about simple things,like economics or physics or commenting on political campaign strategy and trying to predict the outcome of the election.
What is truthout.org? I've never heard of it.Sounds like a conspiracy site to me.
From mediabiasfactcheck.com ;
Overall, we rate Truthout strongly Left Biased based on story selection and political positions that favor the left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to publishing a false story as well as promoting anti-GMO propaganda.
Overall, we rate Truthout strongly Left Biased based on story selection and political positions that favor the left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to publishing a false story as well as promoting anti-GMO propaganda.
The guy was interviewed on PBS news hour last week and made the same claims. Question his credibility if you want but I don't think there's any conspiracy to this particular story.
What is truthout.org? I've never heard of it.Sounds like a conspiracy site to me.
From mediabiasfactcheck.com ;
Overall, we rate Truthout strongly Left Biased based on story selection and political positions that favor the left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to publishing a false story as well as promoting anti-GMO propaganda.
The guy was interviewed on PBS news hour last week and made the same claims. Question his credibility if you want but I don't think there's any conspiracy to this particular story.
On August 29 2020 04:59 IgnE wrote: Jacob Blake is alive. He is currently paralyzed. We will hear more from him.
He's also handcuffed to his bed by police (despite you know, the paralysis), who refuse to say why and say they aren't trying to arrest him, according to his dad. Weird situation.
On August 29 2020 03:39 Doodsmack wrote:
On August 29 2020 03:13 Starlightsun wrote:
On August 29 2020 02:43 farvacola wrote: The notion that Biden will shoulder what is occurring while Trump is in office is very much in dispute, how voters attribute the events of the past few months remains to be seen.
Yeah this is just boggling my mind. They're blaming Biden for everything bad happening under Trump's presidency. I guess I should be used to this by now but the brazenness and shamelessness of it still shocks me sometimes. Every good thing is because of Trump (including what Obama was responsible for, like the stable economy), and every bad thing is someone else's fault. I feel livid that he's made not a single attempt to address the grievances of the people who are protesting.
I think the logic is that the worst aspects of the response to George Floyd etc would become associated with the democratic party. The mayors involved are all democratic and basically fighting with trump. Trump is trying to capitalize on the situation with tweets like this:
And this is Wisconsin we're talking about, an important swing state (although nevuk's point about relocations is interesting).
Another point is that a lot of democrats have expressed sympathy and basically total support for what is happening, as if to excuse or even endorse the destruction. But I think everyone is now realizing that they need to pump the brakes.
In about 4-5 more years the transition will be complete, but 2016 was really the worst possible timing - the old core of the party, white union democrats, were still angry about NAFTA and racist appeals have also always worked on a large percentage of white people.
Have that at the same time that minority populations are booming in several states, but not yet an outright majority in any state (outside of California, where they're super concentrated) and there's a situation where Hillary could lead by 3% nationally but still lose key states. GA/TX were both closer than IA, which would've been absurd as little as 3-4 years before.
The same thing is true for this election, but not to as great an extent - Biden probably needs to be up 3.5-4% in popular vote to win - Trump still has an electoral college advantage, but not as much as before.
In 2018 GA/TX went from being 5/9% GOP to 2-3% GOP, and the question is basically if the demographic change there is rapid enough to change votes by a couple more percentage points in 2020. In 2024 I think they will be, but 2020 is a total toss-up as to whether it will be easier for a democrat to win the sunbelt or the rustbelt.
The only state I'd totally give up on is WI. It's got too many structural advantages for GOP voting - if the GOP loses there, it's because they've lost every other swing state, and they have gone in HARD on voter suppression there.
Sidenote - I'm planning on doing either early voting or directly depositing my ballot to the board of elections. I frankly don't trust Ohio not to try and fuck with mail-in votes, given how diehard some of the GOP here can be (though it's nowhere near as bad as Wisconsin - I don't expect the state GOP here to try, just some fringe lunatics in the post office).
Interesting analysis, of course demographics are an important factor but how’s it looking outside of that?
A lot of interesting variables in the mix. People voting in 2016 were voting for Trump the candidate, hows that match up with Trump the President?
Despite personally not putting much truck in it as something a President can personally influence hugely and not thinking the stock market actually matters much to mere mortals and to pardon the pun, one of his trump cards was overall economic performance. Well that’s down the shitter now and of course Covid is an exceptional circumstance that hey the President can’t really be blamed for. Except he’s done a pretty terrible job around Covid too
Of course there are negatives for Biden too. He’s not radical enough on police issues for many folks, but too radical for others.
Trump the president has more diehard support from his base and business republicans (ie Chamber of Commerce) but shrinking support from moderates and women than in 2016. Some people didn't vote for him because they didn't think him conservative enough, which is now not a concern.
So racists/evangelicals, anti-free trade people (this is smaller than last time - Bill Clinton signing NAFTA lost Hillary the 2016 election), the rich/business owners, diehard conservatives.
This isn't all of his voters, but it's where he's going to get volunteers and funding. He has stronger support from the CoC types due to CoVID, which is the only upside of it for him. They are basically lawful evil, in the dnd sense : they'll do anything legal to increase business wealth in the next two quarters, and they do not care about anything else (not even their own health, apparently). They know that democrats are much more likely to put in sane covid restrictions, stop them from working people to death in meat packing plants, that sort of thing.
However, Trump has lost moderate white suburban women (in the sense that they'll vote for someone who does racist policies, but not someone who IS a racist) and with the loss of KAC he isn't getting them back. He about maxed out the turnout the GOP could get in the 2018 election with the whole caravan nonsense, but that's a double edged sword - it also turned out those moderate women against him.
Does that add up to 50% of the US? No, but it adds up to enough of the voting populace for him to have a chance, especially given that many of those groups of people are situated in swing states while the largest concentrations of the democratic parties core are in deep red (African Americans in the deep south) or deep blue states.
Trump isn't going to be trying to get Biden's pool of potential voters to vote for him. He's going to try to get them not to vote at all by pointing out all of Biden's flaws, as that is what worked last time. If he can convince 4-5% of Biden's voters in PA/MI/OH/GA/TX to stay home or vote 3rd party then he can win with only ~45% of the vote, as long as Biden doesn't go past 50%. I don't think this strategy will work, but I'm not able to understand the mindset of any of the people he's able to convince anyways.
If conditions stay abut the same now until election day (8-9 points Biden lead nationally) then Biden is basically a lock - the issue is that we can't really predict that they will, and with mail-in voting being such a large portion of the vote we won't know the result for a couple of weeks unless it's a blowout for Biden based off early+day of voting (even a blowout Trump win won't be decisive because so many democrats are doing mail in votes).
I do think Biden is in a much, much better spot than Hillary ever was purely because he has >50% of the voters so far in polls. It's really hard to beat that.
With the hindsight of 2016, there's one critical factor that Biden has on his side unlike Hillary: Biden has a notably higher net favourability against Trump than Hillary had against Trump. It may be lukewarm favourability for Biden that aggregates out to neutral, (45-46 now) but Hillary had double digits of disapproval (-10 on Aug 28, 2016, 42-54 by the end of the election) with decades of baggage and weighed down by her email scandal, while Trump hasn't exactly gained in favourability during his presidency (41-55 now).
I expect there to be fewer people looking for any reason to stay home or vote third party as a protest against two detested candidates when there's really only one disliked choice on the ballot this time and a minimal third party presence. In the event of a potential October surprise along the lines of the DoJ announcing an investigation into something that impacts Biden, I think it won't resonate as potently compared to Comey's surprise because Biden has that favourability cushion. I don't think Trump's attacks on Biden have stuck as well compared to Hillary either.
Remember that Trump won by a razor thin margin of 77,000 votes across Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and likely can't afford to bleed support or face a meaningful rise in Democratic turnout in swing states. The midterms and primaries showed that Democrats and their moderate allies are amped up to vote, even in the midst of a pandemic during the primaries. Biden recovering those abstainers and third party voters and maintaining the same level of support from Hillary in those three states could be enough to squeeze by for a slim EC victory, as long as he doesn't lose a state Hillary won, which doesn't seem too likely.
This person does a good job of analyzing how Biden is performing with the demographics that have the highest potential to shift the election, like the independents and moderates, suburbanites, white women and elderly voters. Check from the B1 section for the figures. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1294629426999767040.html
The most noteworthy of these is that Biden has essentially TIED Trump with white voters. No Dem's won this group since LBJ in '64. Only others to get within 5% were Carter 76, Clinton 92/96, and Obama 08, the last three Dems to win the presidency. All others lost by 10-20%+.
Reflective of this, he's also doing much better with white college graduates, a group that’s been a key swing demographic since 1988. More importantly, he’s doing 18% (!!!) better with white voters who didn't go to college, a group that turned out BIG for Trump in 2016.
Biden is absolutely OWNING the political middle, doing 14% better with independents than Clinton, and 18% (!!!) better with moderates, and matching conservatives. This also helps Biden, based on a recent Gallup poll showing a substantial break toward the left.
Two demographics where Biden has a slight weakness is Hispanic and Black voters: Trump’s ~5% stronger than 2016 with both groups, and a large number of undecideds still remain. Work to do, though polls show selection of Harris as VP might help.
In May, The Hill noted voters who dislike both break HARD for Biden: NBC nat’l (60-10%), Civiqs nat’l (60-2%), OH Predictive Insights AZ (63-6), and Civiqs GA (60-2)
Trump won them by 10% in '16, but they didn’t break for him until OCTOBER!
Though I will admit this is about two weeks old now, is from a person who leans pro-Biden and I've seen newer polls and analysis suggesting that the lead in battleground states and white elderly voters has shrunk to toss-up levels. We also need to see how the events in Wisconsin affect Biden's appeal. Though this writer at 538 suggests that a rise in disapproval for BLM hasn't translated into lost support for Biden, and therefore even the Blake shooting may not resonate as expected.
It's weird thinking back to 2016 and what people were saying about the certainty Hillary would win and far less skeptical of her policy. Now Democrats are skeptical Biden can win and most frequently describe his campaign as intentionally elusive and it centers on being "not Trump"
It's much better for Biden to not go in thinking he's far and away the favorite, and to campaign heavily in the swing states Trump carried on low margins. When his internal polling showed he was falling in the battleground states, he started to give several live statements condemning the violence. But he would've done better to show he recognizes the challenges with China's posture and ethnic cleansing of the Uyghurs. The "not Trump" line just isn't good enough. He's also in a weird place blaming Trump's America for the violence, while having served in the administration that had Ferguson, Baltimore, Dallas.
Overall, we rate Truthout strongly Left Biased based on story selection and political positions that favor the left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to publishing a false story as well as promoting anti-GMO propaganda.
Except for the fact that the story is about something that was recorded on video. At least read it before you comment.
But i'll concede, truthout is a biased source, so you can search for the story on google and choose your preferred source and then maybe comment on something relevant about it?
On August 29 2020 11:19 Wegandi wrote: Polls are meaningless this far out. Let's see how Biden does in the debates then you can maybe argue for some relevance.
You're not wrong on both counts, but as far as warning signs and indicators learned from Hillary goes, I think there's something of merit to learn.
On August 29 2020 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote: It's weird thinking back to 2016 and what people were saying about the certainty Hillary would win and far less skeptical of her policy. Now Democrats are skeptical Biden can win and most frequently describe his campaign as intentionally elusive and it centers on being "not Trump"
I suppose everyone still has trauma from Trump's unexpected victory and there's an aura around Trump that he will always manage to eek out a win. I read in a Politico feature that Biden was never much of a policy wonk and believes the Democratic Party leaned too far into policy and not the matters of character and bridge-building. It's natural to expect that Biden isn't campaigning on better realized policy and is striking from a matter of ethos, casting himself as not-Trump because he is more competent, can empathize with the country's wounds and heal divides. There's some value to the strategy; Trump has never really left the limelight, is deeply polarizing and overall disliked, has largely shaped the GOP platform around him and is rather scant on policy too. I'm sure there is a number of voters who weren't too impressed by his presidential temperament and have changed their minds or are wobbly due to Biden's perceived decency over Trump.
But not-Trump has reached its ceiling I feel. There's many more voters who acknowledge Trump is a terrible person, but ultimately prefer him over Biden, usually over the economy or their conservative beliefs. I think Biden could have a solid argument for his presidency by presenting his plans for economic and COVID recovery full-front and arguing his experience during the recession and swine flu lends him more credibility, but hey, I'm just an armchair campaigner here.
An Energy Department worker was forced to resign in January after admitting she gave a woman running for Congress a tour of a federal waste treatment plant so the candidate could show her expertise to potential voters.
Another civil servant began a 120-day suspension without pay from the Food and Drug Administration in July after creating a Facebook page with his name and photograph to solicit political donations and then co-hosting a fundraiser.
These were some of the recent consequences for federal workers who illegally mixed government employment with partisan politics in violation of the Hatch Act, the anti-corruption law Congress passed in 1939.
.....
To some agency employees, the scrutiny can feel retaliatory.
Michael Knowles, 65, an asylum officer at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, was already on his bosses’ radar last year after he denounced the Trump administration’s refugee asylum policies to Congress. The union local he leads, Local 1924 of the American Federation of Government Employees, asked a federal court to end the policies.
Then in March he emailed his members some words at the office about a beloved former manager who died of brain cancer. The catch: Knowles included an op-ed the man had written for the Baltimore Sun that criticized Trump’s policies.
Within a few days, he got a call from a lawyer at the Office of Special Counsel. The lawyer asked questions. Knowles said he is waiting for a resolution.
“The point is that we are held to an extremely high standard of ‘Thou shalt not cross this line,’ ” Knowles said, “and the Trump people are not.”
.....
The New Deal-era law applies, on paper at least, to civil servants and political appointees alike. But the top Trump administration officials showcased in prime-time appearances and speaking slots at the Republican National Convention this week serve as a reminder that when it comes to flouting the separation between governing and politicking, there appears to be a two-tiered system of consequences.
President of law and order they said. Yet apparently they do not know that law and order entails that all have to follow it.
And then you have windbags like Chief of Staff Meadows that just brush it off.@msn/dailybeast
Remember that Trump won by a razor thin margin of 77,000 votes across Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and likely can't afford to bleed support or face a meaningful rise in Democratic turnout in swing states. The midterms and primaries showed that Democrats and their moderate allies are amped up to vote, even in the midst of a pandemic during the primaries. Biden recovering those abstainers and third party voters and maintaining the same level of support from Hillary in those three states could be enough to squeeze by for a slim EC victory, as long as he doesn't lose a state Hillary won, which doesn't seem too likely.
I mean, you can believe that if you want but I believe Trump can lose MI, PA and WI and still have enough if he wins MN?....Which Clinton won last time.
Most recent two MN polls (The only two for this month) Trafalgar Tie and Emerson Biden +3.Just had 6 Democrat mayor's in northern MN back Trump.Doesn't seem likely? C'mon man!
"one of his trump cards was overall economic performance. Well that’s down the shitter now"
He can still use it as an argument,and he also did so during his acceptence speech. The economy was doing well before (though not all americans did benefit equally from the growth) and the epidemic isnt his fault. I also dont think the situation with the epidemic would have been any better with a democrat as president. It also does come down to the individual states and some things are pretty much out of control.
So trump says he can get the economy out of the slump faster and better then the biden once the epidemic starts getting less bad. And seeing the 3 years before i think this is a somewhat credible argument that people are willing to believe. This way he can turn the economic crisis into his advantage,or at least lessen the damage. I dont think the economic crisis will have that much of a direct effect on the election after all. It would have been easier for trump if everything was still doing well but since the cause is pretty much an outside factor beyond anyones control i doubt it will hurt him all that much.
Biden isn't running on policy because voters don't care about policy. If they did care they wouldn't have voted for Trump when his policies consisted of MAGA and bringing coal back.
On August 29 2020 12:50 Danglars wrote: It's much better for Biden to not go in thinking he's far and away the favorite, and to campaign heavily in the swing states Trump carried on low margins. When his internal polling showed he was falling in the battleground states, he started to give several live statements condemning the violence. But he would've done better to show he recognizes the challenges with China's posture and ethnic cleansing of the Uyghurs. The "not Trump" line just isn't good enough. He's also in a weird place blaming Trump's America for the violence, while having served in the administration that had Ferguson, Baltimore, Dallas.
Would he? I mean that’s something to be condemned sure, is it that impactful electorally? Would not be a fan of the Uighur situation myself at all but is that an issue that particularly resonates?
EPT
