The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Blitz24]

So they are bringing up the 25th Amendment again to remove Trump. Seriously they have better things to do... If they put as much effort into "trying to fix America" as they do trying to remove Trump. We'd probably be doing pretty good right now.

If Trump were only acting upon what he promised in his campaign, he'd be fine. The problems are that he tweets/speaks things in an uncivilized fashion and he doesn't seem to care about the well-being of all Americans. Has he actually bothered to condemn the domestic terror cell caught trying to kidnap Whitmer?

 

[Danoff]

And how much tax money do you think they'll waste on this just for him to lose in November. Besides it's not like it'd pass or he'd actually be removed if it did. It's a waste of time and tax money just like the last "impeachment".

Tax money is less concerning than people like yourself calling for the violent takeover and elimination of the country, freedoms, democracy, and everything that the nation has ever stood for. I couldn't give two shakes about tax money when it comes to what you're talking about.

 

[TheCracker]

If Trump were only acting upon what he promised in his campaign, he'd be fine. The problems are that he tweets/speaks things in an uncivilized fashion and he doesn't seem to care about the well-being of all Americans. Has he actually bothered to condemn the domestic terror cell caught trying to kidnap Whitmer?

I get the impression that if he didn't tweet at all, another 4 years would have been plain sailing.

He's astute in that the use of social media is a good way of getting your comments across without the media bias but still getting the media coverage. But his style is childish, brash and uncouth and often utterly incohesive so he just comes across as an idiot to an increasingly larger portion of the population.

 

[Tornado]

So they are bringing up the 25th Amendment again to remove Trump. Seriously they have better things to do.

Do they? As part of the actual lunacy Trump has been spewing over the past few days under the side effects of the drugs he won't admit to taking, he basically told the House to pound salt and that he won't negotiate with them on anything regarding Covid relief efforts until after he wins reelection (without warning is own party); then changed his mind and demanded Congress pass targeted relief bills that the GOP had already blocked. He did all that over the course of a few hours, during which he also did things like demand that his Attorney General indict Obama and Biden for... something, called the vice presidential nominee a Communist monster, essentially blamed the Governor of Michigan for having domestic terrorists attempt a kidnapping plot, and directed an official White House memo calling the Debates Commission swamp creatures.



What exactly are members of the House supposed to be working on if they can't be sure if Trump can even remember the things he said earlier in the day?

 

[Blitz24]

Do they? As part of the actual lunacy Trump has been spewing over the past few days under the side effects of the drugs he won't admit to taking, he basically told the House to pound salt and that he won't negotiate with them on anything regarding Covid relief efforts until after he wins reelection (without warning is own party); then changed his mind and demanded Congress pass targeted relief bills that the GOP had already blocked. He did all that over the course of a few hours, during which he also did things like demand that his Attorney General indict Obama and Biden for... something, called the vice presidential nominee a Communist monster, essentially blamed the Governor of Michigan for having domestic terrorists attempt a kidnapping plot, and directed an official White House memo calling the Debates Commission swamp creatures.



What exactly are members of the House supposed to be working on if they can't be sure if Trump can even remember the things he said earlier in the day?

Apparently to follow his orders blindly without question, even if they are illogical and/or contradictory. Then he can accurately claim that the members of the House have no idea what they are doing, aside from following the orders.

 

[ryzno]

What exactly are members of the House supposed to be working on if they can't be sure if Trump can even remember the things he said earlier in the day?

Fixing the systemic racism in America? They don't need him for everything... They can start with their own States. Something most politicians forget about when they make it to DC.

 

[McLaren]

Fixing the systemic racism in America? They don't need him for everything... They can start with their own States. Something most politicians forget about when they make it to DC.

Yeah, and the moment they do, he starts lashing out at them because it's something he doesn't think should be done.

Has he actually bothered to condemn the domestic terror cell caught trying to kidnap Whitmer?

Barely if you consider the bold condemning. He basically took the news as another excuse to attack her.

Governor Whitmer of Michigan has done a terrible job. She locked down her state for everyone, except her husband’s boating activities. The Federal Government provided tremendous help to the Great People of Michigan. My Justice Department and Federal Law Enforcement announced today that they foiled a dangerous plot against the Governor of Michigan. Rather than say thank you, she calls me a White Supremacist—while Biden and Democrats refuse to condemn Antifa, Anarchists, Looters and Mobs that burn down Democrat run cities I do not tolerate ANY extreme violence. Defending ALL Americans, even those who oppose and attack me, is what I will always do as your President! Governor Whitmer—open up your state, open up your schools, and open up your churches!

 

[Danoff]

Fixing the systemic racism in America? They don't need him for everything... They can start with their own States. Something most politicians forget about when they make it to DC.

...that's not how congress works. You are aware that states have their own governments. I know you think those governments are not legitimate and that their leaders should be kidnapped and murdered, because you said so, so you should be aware that they exist.

 

[Tornado]

Fixing the systemic racism in America?

You mean the thing that Trump actively says doesn't exist, and has directly targeted and attacked places that have done anything to try and combat it? It feels like a lifetime, but it was in fact only a month ago where Trump was adding a notch to his bedpost for banning diversity training it government agencies. It was only a couple weeks ago where he had major metropolitan areas that cut police funding branded as anarchist zones by the DoJ. I can't even remember when he threatened school funding over that 1619 thing.

If Congress, instead of raising questions about if the person acting like he's on a bad drug trip is actually fit for office, started working on legislation to work on fixing race relations in America, Trump would immediately come down on it like a ton of bricks for them wasting their time trying to make America look bad and when they should be trying to help the American people by passing Covid relief; and state loudly and from the heavens that he will veto any such bill that came across his desk for trying to make America look like anything but the best He would do this completely ignoring that he is to blame for their not being any talks on Covid relief in Congress, and there are people who regularly post in this thread who would fall over themselves to laud him for it (just like they did a month ago and a couple weeks ago).






So again, what exactly are members of the House supposed to be working on if they can't be sure if Trump can even remember the things he said earlier in the day?

 

[Jezza819]

If they put as much effort into "trying to fix America" as they do trying to remove Trump.

Doing the latter would take care of the former.

 

[ryzno]

Doing the latter would take care of the former.

No it wouldn't. We have someone who's been in office for 47 years, tell me what he's actually done or what he'll fix that he never attempted to fix in his 47 years.
The American people and BLM are so stupid they are voting for 2 people that signed the crime bill. The same DA who's state has 3 strikes you're out. The same DA handing down the charges. Every election they claim to help the black community that they adimitly lock up at the end of the day.

 

[Danoff]

No it wouldn't. We have someone who's been in office for 47 years, tell me what he's actually done or what he'll fix that he never attempted to fix in his 47 years.

The things Trump has done in the last 4 years. I already explained this to you as well.

 

[Biggles]

It's not even about politics anymore. This is about the institution of government itself. What is the standard for "good president" right now? If someone is willing to subscribe to the notion of an election and a peaceful transfer of power, I think that might be where the bar is at the moment.

I really don't see this election as political at all.



That is the best and first response to "fix" anything in the US right now - remove Trump.

OK. I remember asking you (& others) a few months ago whether you would vote for Biden in order to ensure that Trump didn't get re-elected. At that time I believe you re-iterated the (Libertarian) party line that voting for the "lesser evil" is pointless. This is not an argument that has ever made any sense to me.

As Bismarck put it: “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”

You're not trying to elect someone who will precisely reflect your own goals & ideals - that's just not realistic - you're trying to push the political system in the direction you think is best, under the circumstances. The circumstances right now present a pretty stark choice: an erratic, chaotic, self-obsessed, divisive, authoritarian "outsider" intent on remaking America into his own image ... or a flawed, but predictable, life-time politician who will presumably return the United States to something more resembling the previous status quo. The "lesser evil" may make a lot of sense based on how evil the greater evil is.

 

[Biggles]

No it wouldn't. We have someone who's been in office for 47 years, tell me what he's actually done or what he'll fix that he never attempted to fix in his 47 years.
The American people and BLM are so stupid they are voting for 2 people that signed the crime bill. The same DA who's state has 3 strikes you're out. The same DA handing down the charges. Every election they claim to help the black community that they adimitly lock up at the end of the day.

That argument is a bit meaningless IMO. OK, Biden has been in politics for a long time. So have a lot of other politicians. It's not realistic to expect any single political leader to "fix" everything, especially when they are not President. What does "fixing" even mean? Perhaps you should take a look at the details of the "crime bill' more closely & appreciate what it was trying to address & the political landscape at the time.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-joe-biden-helped-write-explained/ar-BB19xrKq

It's a pretty good example of how, in politics, "fixing" things is always fraught with problems.

What we do know is that Trump, in 4 short years, has led the US down the path to chaos, division & conflict in a way that hasn't existed since the Vietnam War/Civil Rights era. Gos knows what another 4 years under Trump would bring.

 

[ryzno]

What we do know is that Trump, in 4 short years, has led the US down the path to chaos, division & conflict in a way that hasn't existed since the Vietnam War/Civil Rights era.

Y'all keep saying that. It looks the same to me as 12 years ago when I voted for Obama. At least he(Trump)put rocket man in his place...

Edit:
And you're right it takes more than 1 man to make a change. Y'all conveniently ignored how I pointed out the 2 Democratic favorites voted for the crime bill that made black/poor people the main target. She was the damn DA in California! The same state that locks you up for life thanks to 3 strikes your out. She's the same person who was handing down unfair sentences while people protest police brutality and an unfair judicial system.

I mean talk about stupid, voting for the same person you protest.

Y'all go on ahead and vote for the "lesser of two evils".

 

[McLaren]

Y'all keep saying that. It looks the same to me as 12 years ago when I voted for Obama. At least he(Trump)put rocket man in his place...

Repeating a talking point that seems to forget after a promising meeting, our relationship with them only deteriorated back down. So, we've gained absolutely no ground with North Korea by this point.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Y'all keep saying that. It looks the same to me as 12 years ago when I voted for Obama. At least he(Trump)put rocket man in his place...

Edit:
And you're right it takes more than 1 man to make a change. Y'all conveniently ignored how I pointed out the 2 Democratic favorites voted for the crime bill that made black/poor people the main target. She was the damn DA in California! The same state that locks you up for life thanks to 3 strikes your out. She's the same person who was handing down unfair sentences while people protest police brutality and an unfair judicial system.

I mean talk about stupid, voting for the same person you protest.

Y'all go on ahead and vote for the "lesser of two evils".

I'm curious.

What made you vote for Obama? Did you vote for Obama in 2012? If not, why not?

What made you vote for Trump?

 

[Blitz24]

Repeating a talking point that seems to forget after a promising meeting, our relationship with them only deteriorated back down. So, we've gained absolutely no ground with North Korea by this point.

Trump MIGHT have helped with the peace accords between Israel and the UAE. But he also tore up the Iran deal so it could be viewed as a net gain of zero.

 

[ryzno]

Repeating a talking point that seems to forget after a promising meeting, our relationship with them only deteriorated back down. So, we've gained absolutely no ground with North Korea by this point.

There was no promising meeting. Un never even tried to stop testing nukes. Now he has. Relationship shmashionship...

 

[ryzno]

I'm curious.

What made you vote for Obama? Did you vote for Obama in 2012? If not, why not?

What made you vote for Trump?

The same thing that made me vote for Trump, I liked what he was saying. I voted for him the second time cause I thought the ACA would be a good idea for my family till I got the bill...

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The same thing that made me vote for Trump, I liked what he was saying. I voted for him the second time cause I thought the ACA would be a good idea for my family till I got the bill...

Can you elaborate a little bit? I'm genuinely curious. What was Obama saying that you liked?

What was "the bill?" Can you explain a bit?

 

[McLaren]

There was no promising meeting. Un never even tried to stop testing nukes. Now he has. Relationship shmashionship...

Oh boy, your memory on this topic is showing again.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has said he is ending the suspension of nuclear and long-range missile tests put in place during talks with the US.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50962768

That was January. This was in June.

North Korea said Friday that it was dropping all efforts to pursue a diplomatic relationship with the United States, saying all hope for peace along the Korean peninsula had "faded away into a dark nightmare."

On June 12, 2020, the two-year anniversary of the Singapore summit, the North Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs released a press statement that the Trump administration efforts in the past two years were for political achievements without returns for North Korea and "Nothing is more hypocritical than an empty promise."

Of which you fed on such bait. Trump didn't put anyone in place, he just met with Un to give such an appearance. Now North Korea is back to their regularly scheduled program.

 

[Danoff]

OK. I remember asking you (& others) a few months ago whether you would vote for Biden in order to ensure that Trump didn't get re-elected. At that time I believe you re-iterated the (Libertarian) party line that voting for the "lesser evil" is pointless.

Things have been changing:

March, July

I think I told you way back when that it did depend on how close the two evils are. And the two are now in such sharp contrast, that I'm pretty much a single-issue voter at this point. The issue being "will you actually acquiesce to a peaceful transfer of power when your term is over". I think almost nothing else matters at this point. All "politics" is pretty much pointless if we don't have the absolute basics in place.

This is not an argument that has ever made any sense to me.

I think you never understood how far I was from the main two candidates. To the point where the differences between the two were not important to me.

You're not trying to elect someone who will precisely reflect your own goals & ideals - that's just not realistic - you're trying to push the political system in the direction you think is best, under the circumstances.

You're speaking. You're communicating. The point with the vote is to communicate clearly.

 

[Biggles]

Edit:
And you're right it takes more than 1 man to make a change. Y'all conveniently ignored how I pointed out the 2 Democratic favorites voted for the crime bill that made black/poor people the main target. She was the damn DA in California! The same state that locks you up for life thanks to 3 strikes your out. She's the same person who was handing down unfair sentences while people protest police brutality and an unfair judicial system.

I mean talk about stupid, voting for the same person you protest.

Did you read the article I linked to? There are nuances to most political positions. The crime bill attempted to fix some problems in the justice system, but created other ones. The policies that Democrats including Biden & Harris helped put in place were objected to by many Democrats, then & now. I am pretty sure that there will be changes made to those those policies under a Biden/Harris administration.

Things have been changing:

March, July

I think I told you way back when that it did depend on how close the two evils are. And the two are now in such sharp contrast, that I'm pretty much a single-issue voter at this point. The issue being "will you actually acquiesce to a peaceful transfer of power when your term is over". I think almost nothing else matters at this point. All "politics" is pretty much pointless if we don't have the absolute basics in place.

Fair enough. I agree - it's an emergency. Just wondering if you have finally come to see it that way. Your vote might (conceivably) effect the outcome of the election. Joey's - not so much.

In principle, I agree that you should make your point with your vote. Unfortunately, the US system is strikingly unsympathetic to "3rd party" voting. I have wondered if the arrival of Trumpism - & what I expect to be its resounding rejection in the the upcoming election - will open the door to a fragmentation of the "conservative" vote into rival parties ... & possibly a similar thing to the "progressive" vote if - as I expect - a Biden/Harris administration fails to meet the expectations of the left.

 

[Joey D]

Just wondering if you have finally come to see it that way. Your vote might (conceivably) effect the outcome of the election. Joey's - not so much

Eh, I live in Utah, my vote doesn't matter anyway. The only way Trump would lose Utah is if he actively killed one of the LDS prophets and even then, all he'd have to say is he's anti-abortion and he'd win all the support back. If we had another candidate like Evan McMullin running, then I'd say sure, who I voted for would matter. Biden will more than likely win Salt Lake County, but past that he doesn't stand a chance. If I'm wrong though, then I'll certainly be eating my words.

 

[Biggles]

I've got to say that one of the most alarming aspects of the way politics has been playing out in America is the winner-take-all, scorched-earth approach. Trump did not have any kind of clear "mandate" to pursue his more extreme Trumpian policies. The inherently undemocratic aspects of the electoral system ought to give any President (or governor) pause before doubling down on unpopular polices. If you win a sweeping majority - fair enough. If you eke out an electoral college victory, it would be sensible to proceed with caution ... obviously something Trump has no interest in.

I have seen how in Canada, over the last few decades, Canadian administrations, both Conservative & Liberal have governed based on how strong their public mandate has been. This seems like a sensible way to minimize polarization & distrust. It's also a reflection of the fact that Canada has (effectively) a 4 party system. Countries with proportional representation show this ability - necessity really - to compromise even more.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I've got to say that one of the most alarming aspects of the way politics has been playing out in America is the winner-take-all, scorched-earth approach. Trump did not have any kind of clear "mandate" to pursue his more extreme Trumpian policies. The inherently undemocratic aspects of the electoral system ought to give any President (or governor) pause before doubling down on unpopular polices. If you win a sweeping majority - fair enough. If you eke out an electoral college victory, it would be sensible to proceed with caution ... obviously something Trump has no interest in.

I have seen how in Canada, over the last few decades, Canadian administrations, both Conservative & Liberal have governed based on how strong their public mandate has been. This seems like a sensible way to minimize polarization & distrust. It's also a reflection of the fact that Canada has (effectively) a 4 party system. Countries with proportional representation show this ability - necessity really - to compromise even more.

I cant help but feel a prime minister system is more stable and less prone to authoritarianism & disenfranchisement than a presidential, winner take all system. Of course the latter is all I've ever known so it's hard to say. The US president is simply too unrepresentative of the people (or, can be) to wield the amount of power the office has.

 

[Biggles]

I cant help but feel a prime minister system is more stable and less prone to authoritarianism & disenfranchisement than a presidential, winner take all system. Of course the latter is all I've ever known so it's hard to say. The US president is simply too unrepresentative of the people (or, can be) to wield the amount of power the office has.

(Sorry - long response, because it's a complicated issue!)

I don't know about that. There are a number of variations in the "prime minister system". I can't claim to understand how they all work. In many countries there is a president as well as a prime minister & the power of each varies depending on how the system works. In some cases, like Israel or Germany, the president is a mostly ceremonial role & power is invested in the prime minister, in other cases, like, Russia, the president holds more power than the prime minister. In France, both the prime minster & president hold significant power.

The system I am most familiar with is in the UK, & in Canada (which is more or less the same as in the UK). The citizens don't vote directly for the prime minster - the prime minister is the leader of the party that wins the most seats in the parliamentary elections. If the party wins a clear majority of seats, the prime minister is in a strong position to wield total power, as he/she controls both the executive & legislative branches. However he/she must continue to keep the support of the members of parliament from his/her party. Periodically, when the prime minister loses popular support, the party may vote to remove him/her from the position of "prime" minister in order to try & regain popular support for the party. This is what happened to Margaret Thatcher in 1990 - she became personally unpopular in the country, lost the backing of the majority of Conservative MPs & was forced to resign.

Sometimes prime ministers have to form a government without majority support in parliament - this is called a minority government. It obliges the government to rule with the support of one (or more) of the other parties. That is currently the situation in Canada where the Trudeau government remains in power with the (conditional) support of the New Democratic Party. In countries with proportional representation, it is usual for the the prime minister to rule in minority governments - that is the situation in Germany, & most notably in Italy & Israel. The prime ministers in those countries often have an extremely tenuous grip on power, as they must keep a diverse group of parties satisfied in order to stay in power.

The US system is carefully designed to balance the different functions of government. However, as we have discussed, the undemocratic nature of the senate (& the electoral college) makes the system unbalanced in other important ways (IMO). Also, it seems that, for a variety of reasons, the presidency has been taking on more power over the last few decades & Donald Trump, with the acquiescence of the Republican senate, seems to have taken that to a whole new level.

I have noted that (IMO) the system works well in Canada. This is partly an accident of history & circumstances. Unlike the UK, Canada is a federal system with power shared between the federal & provincial governments. Very frequently, changes at the federal level lead to a counter-balancing change at the provincial level. I have observed this happen many times over the last 40 years. Also, Canada has had (at least) 4 major political parties at the federal level. The shifts in voter sentiment can be expressed in a more complex realignment of parliamentary seats & therefore political power, than seems to take place in the UK. In the last 40 years the two major parties: the Conservatives & Liberals, have each been eviscerated at the polls a couple of times & have been forced to re-evaluate & rebuild.

Aside from that, the general tone of political debate is far less adversarial & divisive in Canada & I think there is a much stronger sense of "shared values" than in the US. There is a sense that the parliamentary government should govern by "consent", rather than with the exercise of raw political power. I think that comes partly from the understanding that "the system" itself is not perfect. In contrast, I get the sense that in the US people are so convinced that the system itself is perfect - a product of unequalled brilliance on the part of the Founding Fathers - that it's permissible to game the system for whatever is possible ... which is how we've got to the present state of affairs (IMO).

 

[McLaren]

Texas Governor Greg Abbot (R) has ordered the removal of most mail-in voting drop-off locations, limits drop-off locations to one per county. He has also allowed the presence of poll watchers at each location.

Keep in mind that Texas is the 2nd most populous state in the US, has (according to the BBC article) the 2nd highest amount of rural area in the US, and has voted Republican in every election since the mid-70s. A state that shouldn't be a worry for the Republicans is being subject to actual voter supression.

I'm both curious and frightened to see what crap DeSantis pulls here.

Judge shot down Abbott's order.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

(Sorry - long response, because it's a complicated issue!)

I don't know about that. There are a number of variations in the "prime minister system". I can't claim to understand how they all work. In many countries there is a president as well as a prime minister & the power of each varies depending on how the system works. In some cases, like Israel or Germany, the president is a mostly ceremonial role & power is invested in the prime minister, in other cases, like, Russia, the president holds more power than the prime minister. In France, both the prime minster & president hold significant power.

The system I am most familiar with is in the UK, & in Canada (which is more or less the same as in the UK). The citizens don't vote directly for the prime minster - the prime minister is the leader of the party that wins the most seats in the parliamentary elections. If the party wins a clear majority of seats, the prime minister is in a strong position to wield total power, as he/she controls both the executive & legislative branches. However he/she must continue to keep the support of the members of parliament from his/her party. Periodically, when the prime minister loses popular support, the party may vote to remove him/her from the position of "prime" minister in order to try & regain popular support for the party. This is what happened to Margaret Thatcher in 1990 - she became personally unpopular in the country, lost the backing of the majority of Conservative MPs & was forced to resign.

Sometimes prime ministers have to form a government without majority support in parliament - this is called a minority government. It obliges the government to rule with the support of one (or more) of the other parties. That is currently the situation in Canada where the Trudeau government remains in power with the (conditional) support of the New Democratic Party. In countries with proportional representation, it is usual for the the prime minister to rule in minority governments - that is the situation in Germany, & most notably in Italy & Israel. The prime ministers in those countries often have an extremely tenuous grip on power, as they must keep a diverse group of parties satisfied in order to stay in power.

The US system is carefully designed to balance the different functions of government. However, as we have discussed, the undemocratic nature of the senate (& the electoral college) makes the system unbalanced in other important ways (IMO). Also, it seems that, for a variety of reasons, the presidency has been taking on more power over the last few decades & Donald Trump, with the acquiescence of the Republican senate, seems to have taken that to a whole new level.

I have noted that (IMO) the system works well in Canada. This is partly an accident of history & circumstances. Unlike the UK, Canada is a federal system with power shared between the federal & provincial governments. Very frequently, changes at the federal level lead to a counter-balancing change at the provincial level. I have observed this happen many times over the last 40 years. Also, Canada has had (at least) 4 major political parties at the federal level. The shifts in voter sentiment can be expressed in a more complex realignment of parliamentary seats & therefore political power, than seems to take place in the UK. In the last 40 years the two major parties: the Conservatives & Liberals, have each been eviscerated at the polls a couple of times & have been forced to re-evaluate & rebuild.

Aside from that, the general tone of political debate is far less adversarial & divisive in Canada & I think there is a much stronger sense of "shared values" than in the US. There is a sense that the parliamentary government should govern by "consent", rather than with the exercise of raw political power. I think that comes partly from the understanding that "the system" itself is not perfect. In contrast, I get the sense that in the US people are so convinced that the system itself is perfect - a product of unequalled brilliance on the part of the Founding Fathers - that it's permissible to game the system for whatever is possible ... which is how we've got to the present state of affairs (IMO).

You've nearly convinced me to move to Canada. Seriously, I feel like everything you describe is a better system. It naturally fosters ideas like uhh...ideas, consent, dialogue, compromise, accountability. Not only that, but minority parties actually have real political power unlike our entrenched god-awful 2 party system. The USA will never move away from it's rigid framework but it's not hard to see its limitations. If "US versus THEM" is the mantra that precedes a slide into some form of authoritarianism, it shouldn't have been hard to see it coming a long way back.

Now, seriously, Trump needs to sell the west coast to Canada. I really like where I am, physically. What do you think @ryzno, you wouldn't miss California if we peaced out, would you?