Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 106: Miner Threat

(+) Yeah! (+)

Dark Young Link posted...

Well the issue is that I strongly don't believe the bolded to be true.

All this tells me is that Republican's fearmongering works.
---

I'm not a "leftist".


Also FUCK everyone who didn't vote(Or put in a joke vote).
---

It was looking at the actions of the Lion that made me suspect it, not the Leopard's propaganda.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

I'm not a "leftist".


Also FUCK everyone who didn't vote(Or put in a joke vote).

Are you centrist? Are you right-wing?

Because left is left. Right is right. It's a fairly open spectrum. If I want to call you a specific point on the spectrum, I use a word that is not literally binary.

If you want to decide "leftist" is the new "liberal", I guess that's on you.
---

It's good to question the actions and words of the Democrats. Politicians are never to be taken at their word, even the ones you end up putting your support in.

The issue is putting 2016 Democrats on the same level as 2016 Republicans. One needs to be met with caution and skepticism. The other had a flaming neon sign saying "WHO WANTS TO FUCK UP THE COUNTRY" on it. That is not a situation where equating the two as being on the same level is the smart thing to do.
---

SupremeZero posted...

Are you centrist? Are you right-wing?

*shrug*

In reality I don't really know where the majority of my political thoughts lie. I don't really consider myself left or right, but perhaps I'm in denial.

I think it's the spectrum thing that really gets to me. There's so many lines, I wouldn't know exactly where to place myself. And I'm not really the type to group myself with a group of people just because.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

I'm not sure I see what rhetoric he's using?

Unless I'm mistaken, he's merely trying to say that to him, if both sides are going to eat your face, anyway, it's better to try and get a different option instead of just hoping one side won't eat your face quite as badly.

I think the problem, in this case, is that one side promised to eat your face, and not only did the other side not promise to eat your face, but there was evidence supporting the fact that they wouldn't eat your face and were opposed to eating people's faces period.

So equating the two of them is disingenuous, especially since voting for a third side helped the side that promised to eat your face eat your face.

This has literally crossed into the dumbest analogy ever at this point.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

I don't see how me presenting an argument is "opposing progress" but okay I guess?


And yes I can't magically change things by not approving of both sides, but I don't see much point in joining a side for the sake of convenience. One side proposes too many things I consider a waste of time/money or just completely awful(Like those Bathroom laws they tried to pull). And the other side is too scattered/refuses to show up. There's not much of an option for me there I see.


Thus here I am on the fence. That's slowly burning down. >_>

Gotta watch out, bud. If you are not on the left in these topics, you generally are villified or shouted down.
---

Where do you stand on police accountability? Gay rights? Tax policy? The energy sector? Business regulations? Wages? Healthcare?

Yes, the Dems have their problems and they always need to be pushed forwards, but equating them to the GOP actively opposing equal human rights and protecting rich company execs is insane. And guess what? If people actually started consistently voting for Dems, the GOP would be forced to evolve into a more marketable party. That's how change happens, the democratic and republican parties weren't on the same sides as they were in early American history.

Imagine a world where this is the Republicans: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDMomaCUMAAOHZG.jpg
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

Where do you stand on police accountability? Gay rights? Tax policy? The energy sector? Business regulations? Wages? Healthcare?

Yes, the Dems have their problems and they always need to be pushed forwards, but equating them to the GOP actively opposing equal human rights and protecting rich company execs is insane. And guess what? If people actually started consistently voting for Dems, the GOP would be forced to evolve into a more marketable party. That's how change happens, the democratic and republican parties weren't on the same sides as they were in early American history.

Imagine a world where this is the Republicans: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDMomaCUMAAOHZG.jpg

You know that just as many people make arguments the opposite way and that just because you said it does not make you right, right?
---

Incidentally, I walked through my hometown in NH 2 nights ago and walked past 2 US senators' offices and a house rep's office within 15 minutes. I've seen maybe 1 congressperson's office in like 6 years of living in California. Swing states are great.
---

I'm not stopping you from listing off areas you think Republicans have better policies, Corrik. Hell I'll even throw in a couple that might resonate with some people (although not me): Gun rights? Immigration?

Feel free to add to the list of policies for DYL to consider.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

I'm not stopping you from listing off areas you think Republicans have better policies, Corrik. Hell I'll even throw in a couple that might resonate with some people (although not me): Gun rights? Immigration?

Feel free to add to the list of policies for DYL to consider.

I do not think you have better policies on stuff you listed.
---

Corrik posted...

GuessMyUserName posted...

I'm not stopping you from listing off areas you think Republicans have better policies, Corrik. Hell I'll even throw in a couple that might resonate with some people (although not me): Gun rights? Immigration?

Feel free to add to the list of policies for DYL to consider.

I do not think you have better policies on stuff you listed.

... That's why I didn't mention the actual positions of the policies. I asked the question for DYL to answer.
---

I basically presented this argument when I was trying to go "Bernie can't win at this point. Wanting more debates and attacking Hillary is bad news and only hurting things"

And I got told I was holding back progress and that you can't change things without trying, probably because nobody believed she'd actually lose

And then she did, and now we have this argument

The party basically cannibalized itself and still is
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

Corrik posted...

GuessMyUserName posted...

I'm not stopping you from listing off areas you think Republicans have better policies, Corrik. Hell I'll even throw in a couple that might resonate with some people (although not me): Gun rights? Immigration?

Feel free to add to the list of policies for DYL to consider.

I do not think you have better policies on stuff you listed.

... That's why I didn't mention the actual positions of the policies. I asked the question for DYL to answer.

I mean, it kind of reads that you feel that way, and I was supposed to just list ones I felt GOP was better on.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I basically presented this argument when I was trying to go "Bernie can't win at this point. Wanting more debates and attacking Hillary is bad news and only hurting things"

And I got told I was holding back progress and that you can't change things without trying, probably because nobody believed she'd actually lose

And then she did, and now we have this argument

The party basically cannibalized itself and still is

For the record I was always opposed to the heavily negative campaign tactics of the Democratic primaries, and their destructive continuation post/during-convention.
---

Corrik posted...

GuessMyUserName posted...

Corrik posted...

GuessMyUserName posted...

I'm not stopping you from listing off areas you think Republicans have better policies, Corrik. Hell I'll even throw in a couple that might resonate with some people (although not me): Gun rights? Immigration?

Feel free to add to the list of policies for DYL to consider.

I do not think you have better policies on stuff you listed.

... That's why I didn't mention the actual positions of the policies. I asked the question for DYL to answer.

I mean, it kind of reads that you feel that way, and I was supposed to just list ones I felt GOP was better on.

Of course I make it clear I think Dems are better on these policies, that's my own position. So? Like I said feel free to argue your cases nobody's stopping you.
---

Actually, attacking Hillary during the primary maybe could have helped. Could have gotten all the bad press out early so it could die down into the regular election. The problem with her is that she continually kept getting new bad press because she was a terrible candidate.
---

Divisiveness isn't the problem with the Democrats. They have actual policy differences, with very different outlooks for the future. That wouldn't change even if Bernie and Hillary only said nice things about each other.
---

I have no interest in sinking that amount of time into it at the moment.

GOP controls the House, the Senate, The Presidency, The governorships, and possibly the Supreme Court before long.

I feel quite confident in saying the the people seem to like the message of the GOP and that it is marketable and that it is not some crazy message.
---

Corrik posted...

Actually, attacking Hillary during the primary maybe could have helped. Could have gotten all the bad press out early so it could die down into the regular election. The problem with her is that she continually kept getting new bad press because she was a terrible candidate.

She actually didn't get much new bad press. Her bad press was the same couple of issues over and over again: emails, leaks, "DNC rigged the primary."

Meanwhile, Trump had a new scandal ever few days, and the media's bias towards attacking both candidates equally caused them to keep bringing up emails etc again and again and again, whereas Trump's scandals rarely came up again after a new one had surfaced. I actually highly suspect that this hurt Hillary more than Trump despite the volume of scandals, since Hillary's had a chance to fester.
---

I guess maybe the difference is that Hillary tried to quiet down the scandal talk/sweep it under the rug, while Trump just denied everything. The former looks a lot more guilty.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

Where do you stand on police accountability? Gay rights? Tax policy? The energy sector? Business regulations? Wages? Healthcare?

Hrm... let's see.

Police accountability: The whole "Blue Shield" crap needs to stop first off. Anyone protecting a corrupt cop should receive a similar punishment the protected cop receives. Anyone who first answer to a perceived problem is "Shoot first, ask questions later" and is unable think of a way to deescalate a situation before it gets out of hand should be released from the force. Police officers shouldn't get off easy for breaking the law, they should received a harsher punishment. They're supposed to uphold the law, and they essentially hold the lives of those they protect in their hands. There is no room for the skittish, or people who would abuse their power.

Pay them more if they're legit though because holy shit.


Gay rights: Sexuality shouldn't have a say in what rights you do or don't have. If you want to marry, it shouldn't matter what way you swing.

And... honesty I'm not too versed when it comes to the other subjects. Taxes? Cut it in military(I don't think it'll make a difference in terms of our power) put that money in education and healthcare. Wages? Have all jobs give a living wage for one person. That way people who are in school don't have to starve half to death working a min wage job, and people who want to raise a family, get more stuff in life, etc have a reason to pursue more difficult jobs. I fully admit I don't know enough about economics to present a realistic plan regarding how this will work

Healthcare? Universal. Though again this is another subject I don't know too too much about.
---

And I agree that harsher attacks on Hillary from her own party would likely have helped her. It would have made voters feel the Democrats were listening to them. Then, the lesser of 2 evils argument may have been more persuasive. If only one side is listening, we never get as far as a lesser of 2 evils comparison.
---

Corrik posted...

GOP controls the House

First, while Republicans, as of this writing, received a plurality of votes cast for Congress nationwide this year—49.9 percent, again according data from the Cook Political Report—they received a greater share, 55.2 percent, of the seats. Democrats, as a result, won a smaller share of seats than they did votes: 44.8 percent of seats as compared to 47.3 percent of the votes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/22/gop-seats-bonus-in-congress/
(they did, but it's exaggerated)

Corrik posted...

the Senate

In results that are still preliminary, 45.2 million Americans cast a vote for a Democratic Senate candidate, while 39.3 million Americans voted for a Republican.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/10/democrats-won-popular-vote-senate-too/93598998/

Corrik posted...

The Presidency

Clinton with 64,654,483 votes, or 48.2 percent, compared to Trump's 62,418,820 votes, or 46.5 percent
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/clinton_vs_trump_popular_vote_1.html

Corrik posted...

The governorships

Fine

Corrik posted...

Supreme Court

The people don't vote for justices, the court shouldn't be thought of being controlled by one party or another, and let's not get into what happened with Gorsuch

Corrik posted...

I feel quite confident in saying the the people seem to like the message of the GOP

thats 100% it
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

Yes, the Dems have their problems and they always need to be pushed forwards, but equating them to the GOP actively opposing equal human rights and protecting rich company execs is insane. And guess what? If people actually started consistently voting for Dems, the GOP would be forced to evolve into a more marketable party. That's how change happens, the democratic and republican parties weren't on the same sides as they were in early American history.

Imagine a world where this is the Republicans: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDMomaCUMAAOHZG.jpg

I agree with this somewhat. Dems lost because they were all over the place. They didn't show up. They weren't united. But even if they didn't, isn't that still ultimately "us vs them"? I just don't like the idea of "Voting Dem because they're Dem"... even if the alternative seems much worse. Perhaps I'm being stubborn and not seeing that sometimes it's necessary?
---

Dark Young Link posted...

GuessMyUserName posted...

Yes, the Dems have their problems and they always need to be pushed forwards, but equating them to the GOP actively opposing equal human rights and protecting rich company execs is insane. And guess what? If people actually started consistently voting for Dems, the GOP would be forced to evolve into a more marketable party. That's how change happens, the democratic and republican parties weren't on the same sides as they were in early American history.

Imagine a world where this is the Republicans: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDMomaCUMAAOHZG.jpg

I agree with this somewhat. Dems lost because they were all over the place. They didn't show up. They weren't united. But even if they didn't, isn't that still ultimately "us vs them"? I just don't like the idea of "Voting Dem because they're Dem"... even if the alternative seems much worse. Perhaps I'm being stubborn and not seeing that sometimes it's necessary?

You're not really voting dem because they're dem as much as you're voting dem because they aren't republican, while actually capable of winning the office.

Like, the idea here is the similar solidarity of the Republican party, who a large number of vote Republican simply because they aren't Dem.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

SupremeZero posted...

I think it's dumb. You're not getting laughed at for taking a third option, but because you're taking a completely meaningless third option which is untenable in the current system. And it's one of the lines of thinking that forces us to be stuck with the current system, because "They'll never vote so they don't matter".

So basically "It's hard so don't bother?" Because what we're currently doing about it(Fuck all) it's not going to change. We'll be dead and gone and our great great great grandchildren will be in the same shitpile we are(Though it'll probably be bigger). If we just sit on our thumbs and wait for something to change, nothing will.


People have the power, they just need to stop willingly throwing it away.

When was the last time a vote for a third party candidate had a noticeable impact on the world?

Like, shit, I dunno, the Green party. Name a single Green representative or senator. Hell, name a single Green state representative or senator. Name a single Green elected official.

And when you struggle to do that, I hope you will understand why if you want a system where you can vote for a Green candidate (or any other third party!) and not be effectively burning your ballot for all the good it'll do you need to change the system itself, rather than just vote for your preferred manic pixie dream candidate and see absolutely nothing accomplished because of it.
---

SupremeZero posted...

Dark Young Link posted...

GuessMyUserName posted...

Yes, the Dems have their problems and they always need to be pushed forwards, but equating them to the GOP actively opposing equal human rights and protecting rich company execs is insane. And guess what? If people actually started consistently voting for Dems, the GOP would be forced to evolve into a more marketable party. That's how change happens, the democratic and republican parties weren't on the same sides as they were in early American history.

Imagine a world where this is the Republicans: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDMomaCUMAAOHZG.jpg

I agree with this somewhat. Dems lost because they were all over the place. They didn't show up. They weren't united. But even if they didn't, isn't that still ultimately "us vs them"? I just don't like the idea of "Voting Dem because they're Dem"... even if the alternative seems much worse. Perhaps I'm being stubborn and not seeing that sometimes it's necessary?

You're not really voting dem because they're dem as much as you're voting dem because they aren't republican, while actually capable of winning the office.

Like, the idea here is the similar solidarity of the Republican party, who a large number of vote Republican simply because they aren't Dem.

Nie ma wolnosci bez Solidarnosci!

how the hell does this site work with other languages without fucking support accents?
---

woodman posted...

SupremeZero posted...

Dark Young Link posted...

GuessMyUserName posted...

Yes, the Dems have their problems and they always need to be pushed forwards, but equating them to the GOP actively opposing equal human rights and protecting rich company execs is insane. And guess what? If people actually started consistently voting for Dems, the GOP would be forced to evolve into a more marketable party. That's how change happens, the democratic and republican parties weren't on the same sides as they were in early American history.

Imagine a world where this is the Republicans: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDMomaCUMAAOHZG.jpg

I agree with this somewhat. Dems lost because they were all over the place. They didn't show up. They weren't united. But even if they didn't, isn't that still ultimately "us vs them"? I just don't like the idea of "Voting Dem because they're Dem"... even if the alternative seems much worse. Perhaps I'm being stubborn and not seeing that sometimes it's necessary?

You're not really voting dem because they're dem as much as you're voting dem because they aren't republican, while actually capable of winning the office.

Like, the idea here is the similar solidarity of the Republican party, who a large number of vote Republican simply because they aren't Dem.

Nie ma wolnosci bez Solidarnosci

how the hell does this site work with other languages without fucking support accents?

It doesn't.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

GuessMyUserName posted...

Where do you stand on police accountability? Gay rights? Tax policy? The energy sector? Business regulations? Wages? Healthcare?

Hrm... let's see.

Police accountability: The whole "Blue Shield" crap needs to stop first off. Anyone protecting a corrupt cop should receive a similar punishment the protected cop receives. Anyone who first answer to a perceived problem is "Shoot first, ask questions later" and is unable think of a way to deescalate a situation before it gets out of hand should be released from the force. Police officers shouldn't get off easy for breaking the law, they should received a harsher punishment. They're supposed to uphold the law, and they essentially hold the lives of those they protect in their hands. There is no room for the skittish, or people who would abuse their power.

Pay them more if they're legit though because holy shit.


Gay rights: Sexuality shouldn't have a say in what rights you do or don't have. If you want to marry, it shouldn't matter what way you swing.

And... honesty I'm not too versed when it comes to the other subjects. Taxes? Cut it in military(I don't think it'll make a difference in terms of our power) put that money in education and healthcare. Wages? Have all jobs give a living wage for one person. That way people who are in school don't have to starve half to death working a min wage job, and people who want to raise a family, get more stuff in life, etc have a reason to pursue more difficult jobs. I fully admit I don't know enough about economics to present a realistic plan regarding how this will work

Healthcare? Universal. Though again this is another subject I don't know too too much about.

You are a liberal most likely.
---

woodman posted...

Corrik posted...

GOP controls the House

First, while Republicans, as of this writing, received a plurality of votes cast for Congress nationwide this year—49.9 percent, again according data from the Cook Political Report—they received a greater share, 55.2 percent, of the seats. Democrats, as a result, won a smaller share of seats than they did votes: 44.8 percent of seats as compared to 47.3 percent of the votes.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/22/gop-seats-bonus-in-congress/
(they did, but it's exaggerated)

Corrik posted...

the Senate

In results that are still preliminary, 45.2 million Americans cast a vote for a Democratic Senate candidate, while 39.3 million Americans voted for a Republican.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/10/democrats-won-popular-vote-senate-too/93598998/

Corrik posted...

The Presidency

Clinton with 64,654,483 votes, or 48.2 percent, compared to Trump's 62,418,820 votes, or 46.5 percent
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/clinton_vs_trump_popular_vote_1.html

Corrik posted...

The governorships

Fine

Corrik posted...

Supreme Court

The people don't vote for justices, the court shouldn't be thought of being controlled by one party or another, and let's not get into what happened with Gorsuch

Corrik posted...

I feel quite confident in saying the the people seem to like the message of the GOP

thats 100% it

So what is your point? That you lost? Who cares how you try to spin it. The victors are the victors. Democrats control nothing. You can throw any numbers you want out that you want. It doesn't change the result.
---

Corrik posted...

So what is your point? That you lost? Who cares how you try to spin it. The victors are the victors. Democrats control nothing. You can throw any numbers you want out that you want. It doesn't change the result.

His point is to refute your claim that the Republicans are the party with the message that resonates more with voters
---

Yes, we lost. We lost fair and square according to the laws of the nation. My point was an objection to your point that the GOP has the most widely appreciated and accepted philosophy, or at least your implication of that.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

GuessMyUserName posted...

Yes, the Dems have their problems and they always need to be pushed forwards, but equating them to the GOP actively opposing equal human rights and protecting rich company execs is insane. And guess what? If people actually started consistently voting for Dems, the GOP would be forced to evolve into a more marketable party. That's how change happens, the democratic and republican parties weren't on the same sides as they were in early American history.

Imagine a world where this is the Republicans: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDMomaCUMAAOHZG.jpg

I agree with this somewhat. Dems lost because they were all over the place. They didn't show up. They weren't united. But even if they didn't, isn't that still ultimately "us vs them"? I just don't like the idea of "Voting Dem because they're Dem"... even if the alternative seems much worse. Perhaps I'm being stubborn and not seeing that sometimes it's necessary?

This together with your previous post says you wouldn't be voting Dem "because they're Dem". You'd be voting Dem because you clearly align with their policies. That doesn't mean they're perfect, good lord no, and you don't even have to identify yourself as a "Democrat". Bernie Sanders doesn't even identify as a "Democrat". But in an election they're the only choice you have to push forward a progressive platform as well as protecting already standing policies (ie. LGBT protections).

The way things are, Republicans know they can survive together because progressives are never satisfied and start eating each other. Republicans don't have to evolve, they just need the left to fight each other.
---

Just gonna throw this out there: People who sacrifice values in the name of principles have neither.
---

Even Trump knows all about this which is why he's consistently been out "defending" Bernie against Corrupt Hillary, even though Bernie's principles are diametrically opposed to Trump's - its an incredibly easy way to get Trump's critics fighting each other while he holds their purse.
---

Maybe that's it. I can be a bit of a perfectionist at times. If it's not done absolutely right, I try to start over again. Accepting something flawed is difficult, even if life itself is flawed. Even if voting Dem to start the process I need is what I need to do, a huge part of me just sees that as "settling" and rejects it.


But yes there's always some distraction out there. It's why I tend to be absolutely opposed to any bill or law passed when the nation is afraid. It's all too easy to pull some shit when people are too afraid to read the fine print.
---

Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
---

Corrik posted...

So what is your point? That you lost? Who cares how you try to spin it. The victors are the victors. Democrats control nothing. You can throw any numbers you want out that you want. It doesn't change the result.

lmfao

"The people love Rublican policies."
"...no they don't"
"well who cares we won anyway suck it nerd"

You could just say what you mean from the start instead of attempting this tedious bullshit.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

SupremeZero posted...

Are you centrist? Are you right-wing?

*shrug*

In reality I don't really know where the majority of my political thoughts lie.

Hey at least you have something in common with the President
---

Kenri posted...

Corrik posted...

So what is your point? That you lost? Who cares how you try to spin it. The victors are the victors. Democrats control nothing. You can throw any numbers you want out that you want. It doesn't change the result.

lmfao

"The people love Rublican policies."
"...no they don't"
"well who cares we won anyway suck it nerd"

You could just say what you mean from the start instead of attempting this tedious bullshit.

Literally not what I said nor what he even posited (I hope).

I said that the victories mean people like the message. He said yeah you won victories but we have slightly more votes for ours due to controlling high population districts. (Which doesn't matter). If 49.9% of America is voting Democrat and 49.7% of America is voting Republican it does not change that basically half of American voters is voting for the Republican message. It is not crazy. And it is marketable. Just because you are Democrat and do not agree with it does not make it a viable message.
---

Corrik posted...

I feel quite confident in saying the the people seem to like the message of the GOP and that it is marketable and that it is not some crazy message.

What is the message of the GOP?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

What is the message of the GOP?

"Fuck liberals"


No seriously
---

woodman posted...

Yes, we lost. We lost fair and square according to the laws of the nation. My point was an objection to your point that the GOP has the most widely appreciated and accepted philosophy, or at least your implication of that.

My post clearly stated that the message is marketable and not crazy. Nothing to do with being the most widely accepted or not or etc. It has to do with the message works. It has won large swathes of America and has attributed to control of almost every single political unit in the federal branches.

The argument that the message is crazy and not marketable and must adapt insinuates that the Republicans cannot garner support and are losing elections and can't conceivably recover. The truth does not support that.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

I feel quite confident in saying the the people seem to like the message of the GOP and that it is marketable and that it is not some crazy message.

What is the message of the GOP?

Google it if you are unsure.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Dark Young Link posted...

SupremeZero posted...

Are you centrist? Are you right-wing?

*shrug*

In reality I don't really know where the majority of my political thoughts lie.

Hey at least you have something in common with the President

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/office-worker-hanging-himself-with-noose-picture-id535278615?s=170667a
---

I did! Here it is

https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf

Literally the first proclamation "We believe in American exceptionalism" made me nauseous.

I don't doubt that something similar is in the Democratic platform though.

EDIT: Okay looks like the straight PDF link doesn't work. Thanks, Obama.

https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/
---

Bro (corrick) you kind of sound like you either don't know the message or are embarrassed to admit what it is
---