|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 09 2018 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 01:13 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 01:03 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 00:56 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 00:52 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 00:46 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 00:40 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 00:34 brian wrote:
woof, highest turn out in a half century and we barely took a majority. not a good look. Honestly, only if for people who don't know anything about politics, goverment and institutional power. I understand that Trump and the news have tried to turn elections into pro-wrestling, but it is still just politics. Trump didn't sweep either. He barely won and his part lost seats in his election. People looking for instant gratification and overwhelming victories will always be disappointed by politics. well i’ll challenge that. historically low turn out favors republicans. in a year with a republican president, as has been shown by many others, a flip in the house isn’t an exception, it’s the rule. in a mid term so impossibly publicized with so much good reason to get out some votes, that the dems only eeked out a win is more than fairly disappointing. and with record turn out for fifty plus years, that we had so much less record winning, should be a cause for concern. If you call flipping the house, a number of governors seats and getting democrats elected in places where they haven’t held office in 30 years “eeking out a victory,” I might call into question your expectations. Politics means victory by attrition, not bombast. again, flipping the house is the rule here, not exceptional. correct me if i’m wrong there. if that’s not eking out a victory i don’t know what is. we won literally the bare minimum to follow cyclical trends. when do we account for the record turnout, blue wave, and repudiating trumps agenda in a win that simply follows trend? The house was the only thing in play and the most accurate indicator of the population’s intent. The Senate is harder to move BY DESIGN. This is how our government was designed to function. I really don’t know what you wanted to see. The chances of them taking the senate were almost non-existent. They were defending more seats than they were trying to take. for a record turnout i think it’s pretty fair to expect more than just the usual, no? that is where this conversation started. i had no expectations of gaining a single senate seat. i had expectations of controlling more than 51% of the house. because i’ll pose to you again, when do we account for the record turnout and blue wave and repudiating trumps agenda in a win that is no more than typical? though i’ll concede i am looking at just the house and not the state races. understanding those governorships will set the stage for future elections is great, but we won’t have the record turnout and blue wave and repudiation of trumps agenda in these hypothetical future elections (well christ at least i hope, on that last part.) i’m not saying that the win isn’t a win, i’m just saying that we had a record breaking election that could’ve been any other election as far as results in the house go, and i’m asking why that isn’t concerning. Because of the way elections are structured. It doesn't matter if Democrats win District A by 1 vote or 1 million. The result is the same. A lot of extra Democrats turning up in a deep blue state does nothing, its still blue. A lot of extra Democrats turning up in a deep red state does nothing, its still red. You can have a record turnout but those extra votes don't mean jack shit because every vote past 50.00000001% vanishes into oblivion.
i get what you’re saying. we have a joke where i work that everything ‘works as designed.’ but when the design was to shoot yourself in the foot, telling me how it’s designed really misses the point.
|
On November 09 2018 01:13 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 01:03 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 00:56 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 00:52 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 00:46 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 00:40 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 00:34 brian wrote:
woof, highest turn out in a half century and we barely took a majority. not a good look. Honestly, only if for people who don't know anything about politics, goverment and institutional power. I understand that Trump and the news have tried to turn elections into pro-wrestling, but it is still just politics. Trump didn't sweep either. He barely won and his part lost seats in his election. People looking for instant gratification and overwhelming victories will always be disappointed by politics. well i’ll challenge that. historically low turn out favors republicans. in a year with a republican president, as has been shown by many others, a flip in the house isn’t an exception, it’s the rule. in a mid term so impossibly publicized with so much good reason to get out some votes, that the dems only eeked out a win is more than fairly disappointing. and with record turn out for fifty plus years, that we had so much less record winning, should be a cause for concern. If you call flipping the house, a number of governors seats and getting democrats elected in places where they haven’t held office in 30 years “eeking out a victory,” I might call into question your expectations. Politics means victory by attrition, not bombast. again, flipping the house is the rule here, not exceptional. correct me if i’m wrong there. if that’s not eking out a victory i don’t know what is. we won literally the bare minimum to follow cyclical trends. when do we account for the record turnout, blue wave, and repudiating trumps agenda in a win that simply follows trend? The house was the only thing in play and the most accurate indicator of the population’s intent. The Senate is harder to move BY DESIGN. This is how our government was designed to function. I really don’t know what you wanted to see. The chances of them taking the senate were almost non-existent. They were defending more seats than they were trying to take.
for a record turnout i think it’s pretty fair to expect more than just the usual, no? that is where this conversation started. i had no expectations of gaining a single senate seat. i had expectations of controlling more than 51% of the house.
Record turnout doesn’t mean that Republicans stayed home. It means that Democrats finally started to match the Republican turn out. Republicans have done better in the midterms since the 1990s. 50% is enough for the next two years. There is not reason to think that Democrats can't get more seats next election.
because i’ll pose to you again, when do we account for the record turnout and blue wave and repudiating trumps agenda in a win that is no more than typical?
There is nothing typical about flipping the House. This is the only 4th time it has happened in 20 years. But before that it was controlled by Democrats for 40 years. Changing the vector of democracy requires effort.
|
On November 09 2018 01:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 01:13 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 01:03 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 00:56 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 00:52 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 00:46 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 00:40 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 00:34 brian wrote:
woof, highest turn out in a half century and we barely took a majority. not a good look. Honestly, only if for people who don't know anything about politics, goverment and institutional power. I understand that Trump and the news have tried to turn elections into pro-wrestling, but it is still just politics. Trump didn't sweep either. He barely won and his part lost seats in his election. People looking for instant gratification and overwhelming victories will always be disappointed by politics. well i’ll challenge that. historically low turn out favors republicans. in a year with a republican president, as has been shown by many others, a flip in the house isn’t an exception, it’s the rule. in a mid term so impossibly publicized with so much good reason to get out some votes, that the dems only eeked out a win is more than fairly disappointing. and with record turn out for fifty plus years, that we had so much less record winning, should be a cause for concern. If you call flipping the house, a number of governors seats and getting democrats elected in places where they haven’t held office in 30 years “eeking out a victory,” I might call into question your expectations. Politics means victory by attrition, not bombast. again, flipping the house is the rule here, not exceptional. correct me if i’m wrong there. if that’s not eking out a victory i don’t know what is. we won literally the bare minimum to follow cyclical trends. when do we account for the record turnout, blue wave, and repudiating trumps agenda in a win that simply follows trend? The house was the only thing in play and the most accurate indicator of the population’s intent. The Senate is harder to move BY DESIGN. This is how our government was designed to function. I really don’t know what you wanted to see. The chances of them taking the senate were almost non-existent. They were defending more seats than they were trying to take. Show nested quote +for a record turnout i think it’s pretty fair to expect more than just the usual, no? that is where this conversation started. i had no expectations of gaining a single senate seat. i had expectations of controlling more than 51% of the house. Record turnout doesn’t mean that Republicans stayed home. It means that Democrats finally started to match the Republican turn out. Republicans have done better in the midterms since the 1990s. 50% is enough for the next two years. There is not reason to think that Democrats can't get more seats next election. Show nested quote +because i’ll pose to you again, when do we account for the record turnout and blue wave and repudiating trumps agenda in a win that is no more than typical? There is nothing typical about flipping the House. This is the only 4th time it has happened in 20 years. But before that it was controlled by Democrats for 40 years. Changing the vector of democracy requires effort.
‘4th time in 20 years,’ so again, when the president has a mid term election and an opposing congress, it happens. and you’re claiming that’s not typical? i guess we indeed have very different expectations of what this election should’ve been.
and to the point of record turnout, not that i want to prolong this conversation too far, if we agree that unusually high turnout in a mid term election favors dems, your point rings fairly hollow.
|
On November 09 2018 01:29 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 01:26 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 01:13 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 01:03 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 00:56 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 00:52 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 00:46 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 00:40 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 00:34 brian wrote:
woof, highest turn out in a half century and we barely took a majority. not a good look. Honestly, only if for people who don't know anything about politics, goverment and institutional power. I understand that Trump and the news have tried to turn elections into pro-wrestling, but it is still just politics. Trump didn't sweep either. He barely won and his part lost seats in his election. People looking for instant gratification and overwhelming victories will always be disappointed by politics. well i’ll challenge that. historically low turn out favors republicans. in a year with a republican president, as has been shown by many others, a flip in the house isn’t an exception, it’s the rule. in a mid term so impossibly publicized with so much good reason to get out some votes, that the dems only eeked out a win is more than fairly disappointing. and with record turn out for fifty plus years, that we had so much less record winning, should be a cause for concern. If you call flipping the house, a number of governors seats and getting democrats elected in places where they haven’t held office in 30 years “eeking out a victory,” I might call into question your expectations. Politics means victory by attrition, not bombast. again, flipping the house is the rule here, not exceptional. correct me if i’m wrong there. if that’s not eking out a victory i don’t know what is. we won literally the bare minimum to follow cyclical trends. when do we account for the record turnout, blue wave, and repudiating trumps agenda in a win that simply follows trend? The house was the only thing in play and the most accurate indicator of the population’s intent. The Senate is harder to move BY DESIGN. This is how our government was designed to function. I really don’t know what you wanted to see. The chances of them taking the senate were almost non-existent. They were defending more seats than they were trying to take. for a record turnout i think it’s pretty fair to expect more than just the usual, no? that is where this conversation started. i had no expectations of gaining a single senate seat. i had expectations of controlling more than 51% of the house. Record turnout doesn’t mean that Republicans stayed home. It means that Democrats finally started to match the Republican turn out. Republicans have done better in the midterms since the 1990s. 50% is enough for the next two years. There is not reason to think that Democrats can't get more seats next election. because i’ll pose to you again, when do we account for the record turnout and blue wave and repudiating trumps agenda in a win that is no more than typical? There is nothing typical about flipping the House. This is the only 4th time it has happened in 20 years. But before that it was controlled by Democrats for 40 years. Changing the vector of democracy requires effort. ‘4th time in 20 years,’ so again, when the president has a mid term election and an opposing congress, it happens. and you’re claiming that’s not typical? i guess we indeed have very different expectations of what this election should’ve been. it fell absurdly flat for me. laughably.
There have been 10 elections in that period. Every one of those times they did not take the Senate. The senate came later.
I really don’t know what to tell you. You had unreasonable expectations. Politics is not there for people seeking validation of their world views. It won’t comfort us or validate us. It is the slow grind of change, good or bad. Sometimes it is the slow grind of progress. But just as often it is just people’s optimism being ground into dust. Do don't put to much of your hope into it, because it will pulverize whatever you put in.
|
On November 09 2018 01:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 01:29 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 01:26 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 01:13 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 01:03 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 00:56 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 00:52 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 00:46 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 00:40 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 00:34 brian wrote:
woof, highest turn out in a half century and we barely took a majority. not a good look. Honestly, only if for people who don't know anything about politics, goverment and institutional power. I understand that Trump and the news have tried to turn elections into pro-wrestling, but it is still just politics. Trump didn't sweep either. He barely won and his part lost seats in his election. People looking for instant gratification and overwhelming victories will always be disappointed by politics. well i’ll challenge that. historically low turn out favors republicans. in a year with a republican president, as has been shown by many others, a flip in the house isn’t an exception, it’s the rule. in a mid term so impossibly publicized with so much good reason to get out some votes, that the dems only eeked out a win is more than fairly disappointing. and with record turn out for fifty plus years, that we had so much less record winning, should be a cause for concern. If you call flipping the house, a number of governors seats and getting democrats elected in places where they haven’t held office in 30 years “eeking out a victory,” I might call into question your expectations. Politics means victory by attrition, not bombast. again, flipping the house is the rule here, not exceptional. correct me if i’m wrong there. if that’s not eking out a victory i don’t know what is. we won literally the bare minimum to follow cyclical trends. when do we account for the record turnout, blue wave, and repudiating trumps agenda in a win that simply follows trend? The house was the only thing in play and the most accurate indicator of the population’s intent. The Senate is harder to move BY DESIGN. This is how our government was designed to function. I really don’t know what you wanted to see. The chances of them taking the senate were almost non-existent. They were defending more seats than they were trying to take. for a record turnout i think it’s pretty fair to expect more than just the usual, no? that is where this conversation started. i had no expectations of gaining a single senate seat. i had expectations of controlling more than 51% of the house. Record turnout doesn’t mean that Republicans stayed home. It means that Democrats finally started to match the Republican turn out. Republicans have done better in the midterms since the 1990s. 50% is enough for the next two years. There is not reason to think that Democrats can't get more seats next election. because i’ll pose to you again, when do we account for the record turnout and blue wave and repudiating trumps agenda in a win that is no more than typical? There is nothing typical about flipping the House. This is the only 4th time it has happened in 20 years. But before that it was controlled by Democrats for 40 years. Changing the vector of democracy requires effort. ‘4th time in 20 years,’ so again, when the president has a mid term election and an opposing congress, it happens. and you’re claiming that’s not typical? i guess we indeed have very different expectations of what this election should’ve been. it fell absurdly flat for me. laughably. There have been 10 elections in that period. Every one of those times they did not take the Senate. The senate came later. I really don’t know what to tell you. You had unreasonable expectations. Politics is not there for people seeking validation of their world views. It won’t comfort us or validate us. It is the slow grind of change, good or bad. Sometimes it is the slow grind of progress. But just as often it is just people’s optimism being ground into dust. Do don't put to much of your hope into it, because it will pulverize whatever you put in.
we did 1/3rd as well as the 2010 GOP in house seats this election. you’re either far too complacent or your expectations should be higher. historic is was not, but should’ve been.
|
I think you guys are mostly arguing different points. Given the insane structural hurdles at play, Dems did really well, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be hugely pissed that those structural hurdles continue to exist. Remaining pissed even after Dems do well is important anyway.
|
Of course. There is no reason not to be pissed off about the state of the Senate or the Supreme Court. Of course the Democrats should have done better, but the districts were created in such a way really limited their gains.
|
Pretty bad news about RBG, hopefully the fall doesn't turn into something more serious while she's at the hospital
|
On November 09 2018 02:11 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 01:38 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 01:29 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 01:26 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 01:13 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 01:03 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 00:56 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 00:52 Plansix wrote:On November 09 2018 00:46 brian wrote:On November 09 2018 00:40 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Honestly, only if for people who don't know anything about politics, goverment and institutional power. I understand that Trump and the news have tried to turn elections into pro-wrestling, but it is still just politics. Trump didn't sweep either. He barely won and his part lost seats in his election. People looking for instant gratification and overwhelming victories will always be disappointed by politics. well i’ll challenge that. historically low turn out favors republicans. in a year with a republican president, as has been shown by many others, a flip in the house isn’t an exception, it’s the rule. in a mid term so impossibly publicized with so much good reason to get out some votes, that the dems only eeked out a win is more than fairly disappointing. and with record turn out for fifty plus years, that we had so much less record winning, should be a cause for concern. If you call flipping the house, a number of governors seats and getting democrats elected in places where they haven’t held office in 30 years “eeking out a victory,” I might call into question your expectations. Politics means victory by attrition, not bombast. again, flipping the house is the rule here, not exceptional. correct me if i’m wrong there. if that’s not eking out a victory i don’t know what is. we won literally the bare minimum to follow cyclical trends. when do we account for the record turnout, blue wave, and repudiating trumps agenda in a win that simply follows trend? The house was the only thing in play and the most accurate indicator of the population’s intent. The Senate is harder to move BY DESIGN. This is how our government was designed to function. I really don’t know what you wanted to see. The chances of them taking the senate were almost non-existent. They were defending more seats than they were trying to take. for a record turnout i think it’s pretty fair to expect more than just the usual, no? that is where this conversation started. i had no expectations of gaining a single senate seat. i had expectations of controlling more than 51% of the house. Record turnout doesn’t mean that Republicans stayed home. It means that Democrats finally started to match the Republican turn out. Republicans have done better in the midterms since the 1990s. 50% is enough for the next two years. There is not reason to think that Democrats can't get more seats next election. because i’ll pose to you again, when do we account for the record turnout and blue wave and repudiating trumps agenda in a win that is no more than typical? There is nothing typical about flipping the House. This is the only 4th time it has happened in 20 years. But before that it was controlled by Democrats for 40 years. Changing the vector of democracy requires effort. ‘4th time in 20 years,’ so again, when the president has a mid term election and an opposing congress, it happens. and you’re claiming that’s not typical? i guess we indeed have very different expectations of what this election should’ve been. it fell absurdly flat for me. laughably. There have been 10 elections in that period. Every one of those times they did not take the Senate. The senate came later. I really don’t know what to tell you. You had unreasonable expectations. Politics is not there for people seeking validation of their world views. It won’t comfort us or validate us. It is the slow grind of change, good or bad. Sometimes it is the slow grind of progress. But just as often it is just people’s optimism being ground into dust. Do don't put to much of your hope into it, because it will pulverize whatever you put in. we did 1/3rd as well as the 2010 GOP in house seats this election. you’re either far too complacent or your expectations should be higher. historic is was not, but should’ve been.
Had the districts been fairly drawn then house gains would have been far higher.
As for Senate 2010 had a decent map for Rs to make gains but that map wasn't there this time.
|
In Brian’s defense, in 2006 and 2008 the actual vote margin was larger (9-10) vs this year (7-8) which really shows how motivated the left was those elections. Will need to keep the momentum even stronger for 2020
|
2006 was the year the Iraq war was going completely off the rails, the economy was showing signs of weirdness and the House was under siege by scandal for a number of House representatives, mostly GOP. Bush was completely off the radar that year due to being so unpopular, which meant congress got the full spotlight of the press.
The one thing Trump has done is suck up so much bandwidth that assholes like Duncan Hunter and David Nunes still got elected even as he is being investigated by the FBI(Hunter) or just being an general clown(Nunes). And just fabricating the caravan story to drive voters to the polls. That part of this election was disturbingly effective and I hope it leads to some really fun investigations.
On November 09 2018 02:45 plasmidghost wrote:
Pretty bad news about RBG, hopefully the fall doesn't turn into something more serious while she's at the hospital
I can only hope that the reason she fell was just because she tripped and nothing more serious. I want to believe she can survive the era of Trump. Or at least long enough for the Democrats to have a shot at the senate.
|
On November 09 2018 02:54 KOFgokuon wrote:
In Brian’s defense, in 2006 and 2008 the actual vote margin was larger (9-10) vs this year (7-8) which really shows how motivated the left was those elections. Will need to keep the momentum even stronger for 2020
At least the midterm swing margins are pretty constant (7.1% R in 1994, 7.2% R in 2010, 7.0% D in 2012). The exception is 2002 thanks more or less to 9/11.
But yeah, the net seat gains have a lot to do with the swing from the previous election. From 2008 to 2010, it went from +10.6 D to + 7.2 R. 2016 to 2018 was +5.3 1.1 R to +7.0 D (though we still don't have everything counted, especially in California, so it might go up or down). That's just how savagely the Dems stomped in 2008, so it made the 2010 margin look way better-you'd better hope an 18 point shift in the House popular vote results in more seats changing hands than an 8 point shift!
Plus the Dem margin in the house mostly just had potential to shake up the Speaker position more or less once it passed majority, it's not like any legislation is going to be passed people might defect for that an additional 5 or 10 seats might impact and incumbency advantage ain't what it used to be.
|
What is the caravan story that was fabricated? Must have missed that.
|
As far as i understand, it was less "fabricated" and more "totally absurdly exaggerated"
Basically, there was (and probably still is?) a caravan of about 7000 refugees moving through central america in the rough direction of the USA with the goal of gaining asylum. US right-wing media described them similar to a marauding horde of orcs bent on invading.
|
In particular, right before the election Trump tweeted a bizarre campaign ad that linked the lawful asylum seekers with an illegal immigrant murderer in the United States, saying the Democrats would make more of this happen. This ad got pulled from multiple networks (I think even Fox might have stopped running it? not sure).
|
United States43584 Posts
On November 09 2018 03:04 Plansix wrote:
2006 was the year the Iraq war was going completely off the rails, the economy was showing signs of weirdness.
Oddly enough I would argue the 2002 economy was far worse for Bush than 2006. In 2006 we had the housing boom that would never end, everyone was living it up. Whereas in 2002 the Dotcom bubble was still a thing and Bush was (and still should be) deeply associated with Enron (because his only defence was “I only took the money, I didn’t know where it came from”).
|
On November 09 2018 03:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 03:04 Plansix wrote:
2006 was the year the Iraq war was going completely off the rails, the economy was showing signs of weirdness. Oddly enough I would argue the 2002 economy was far worse for Bush than 2006. In 2006 we had the housing boom that would never end, everyone was living it up. Whereas in 2002 the Dotcom bubble was still a thing and Bush was (and still should be) deeply associated with Enron (because his only defence was “I only took the money, I didn’t know where it came from”).
Bush would have been a one term president if it wasn’t for 9/11. He and his goons were a dumpster fire of corruption and idiots and people were catching on. But 9/11 changed the landscape of the country and allowed him and Chaney to fabricate a war to keep the public from looking at their shady dealings. This country still has not recovered from the lies they told post 9/11.
|
On November 09 2018 03:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2018 03:47 KwarK wrote:On November 09 2018 03:04 Plansix wrote:
2006 was the year the Iraq war was going completely off the rails, the economy was showing signs of weirdness. Oddly enough I would argue the 2002 economy was far worse for Bush than 2006. In 2006 we had the housing boom that would never end, everyone was living it up. Whereas in 2002 the Dotcom bubble was still a thing and Bush was (and still should be) deeply associated with Enron (because his only defence was “I only took the money, I didn’t know where it came from”). Bush would have been a one term president if it wasn’t for 9/11. He and his goons were a dumpster fire of corruption and idiots and people were catching on. But 9/11 changed the landscape of the country and allowed him and Chaney to fabricate a war to keep the public from looking at their shady dealings. This country still has not recovered from the lies they told post 9/11.
I don't think Trump's blunt force trauma approach to deceit is going to help in that regard. He's practically killed the concept of truth.
|
Norway28740 Posts
On November 09 2018 01:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 01:55 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think people don't like her because people don't like her
edit:
I mean, it's more that she represents this calculating politician type of politician which is very much out of style these days. Now, a genuine person who makes occasional missteps is much preferable. She doesn't come off as genuine, even to her base. It strikes me that those “career politicians not to be trusted” happen to be mostly women. Sounds like a Hillary bis to me.
Hm I think there's reasonable gender parity here.. Rubio took a hard hit in the republican primary for appearing like a rehearsed career politician, Cruz's two most known attributes are his unlikability and his untrustworthiness, people like mcconnell, schumer, paul ryan, all of these get some or much of the same criticism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
