Donald Trump

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Clinton was weak on terrorism and allowed it to grow,

He does a good job answering that a little into this interview. Right around the time the FOX interviewer begins to get incredibly squeamish, if I recall correctly.

Foxtrol

RobertKK wrote: »

Clinton was weak on terrorism and allowed it to grow, Hillary as secretary of state was against dictators who had kept terrorists in their boxes. She then complained when the Egyptian army had the coup against the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists that she supported.
Clintons have been an absolute disaster when it has come to terrorism and did and have made it far worse.

Obama/Hillary had a choice of going against the Dictators during the Arab Spring or stand by as they butchered those rising up/protesting. It was a no win situation. Like in many situations, the US is damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t.

Sure Trump would have given them all nukes, that would have sorted everything out.

N365

Billy86 wrote: »

Been pointed out to you already, why is it that you're trying to avoid engaging the text in the answer given?

Not avoiding anything. You have avoided answering the question I posed to you.Ill try again. Please note the punctuation marks. You made a statement that Trump said he "never met a Mexican that was a good person". In which article did he state that?

Billy86

N365 wrote: »

Not avoiding anything. You have avoided answering the question I posed to you.Ill try again. Please note the punctuation marks. You made a statement that Trump said he "never met a Mexican that was a good person". In which article did he state that?

You have already quoted the answer in your last post. You seem desperately eager to avoid the quote, so here it is again.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Now let me help you out a little here...

as·sume
əˈso͞om/Submit
verb
1.
suppose to be the case, without proof.

If he assumes some Mexicans are good people, it is because he has never met one. If he had met one, he would have no assuming to do.


Try not to avoid the text, and try to not add quotation marks where I never did (especially when I added the quote I am referring to in the very same sentence), cheers. It is both transparent and disingenous, and adds nothing to constructive argument.

What would you take "some, I assume, are good people" to mean? Why the need to assume?

N365

Billy86 wrote: »

You have already quoted the answer in your last post. You seem desperately eager to avoid the quote, so here it is again.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Now let me help you out a little here...

as·sume
əˈso͞om/Submit
verb
1.
suppose to be the case, without proof.

If he assumes some Mexicans are good people, it is because he has never met one. If he had met one, he would have no assuming to do.


Try not to avoid the text, and try to not add quotation marks where I never did (especially when I added the quote I am referring to in the very same sentence), cheers. It is both transparent and disingenous, and adds nothing to constructive argument.

What would you take "some, I assume, are good people" to mean? Why the need to assume?

Last time. Did Trump actually say the words "I have never met a Mexican that was a good person". (I am quoting what you said in earlier post in response)
Not your interpretation of it from some other random quote you posted(without source or context). Those actual words. Did he say them or not? Yes or No

N365

Billy86 wrote: »

Which all stems from Trump saying he has never met a Mexican that was a good person - hence, "some, I assume, are good people".

If he had ever met a single Mexican he deemed to be a good person, no 'assumptions' would have to be made.

Just to refresh your memory in which you say"Which all stems from Trump saying he has never met a Mexican that was a good person"

Where did he say that? He didn't did he?

Billy86

N365 wrote: »

Last time. Did Trump actually say the words "I have never met a Mexican that was a good person". (I am quoting what you said in earlier post in response)

You're not since you want to be pedantic, here is what I said earlier.

Trump saying he has never met a Mexican that was a good person - hence, "some, I assume, are good people".

Nowhere there did I say Trump's utterance was "I have never met a Mexican that was a good person" -- see how this childish game plays itself out?

The fact is I included the quote in the original post you quoted, and have done so again since. Yet you choose to completely ignore it, because dealing with the actual details of what is being said and proposed is, almost without fail, the bitter enemy of the Trump supporting and "I'm not supporting Trump but I'll defend everything about him" crowds alike.

Not your interpretation of it from some other random quote you posted(without source or context). Those actual words. Did he say them or not? Yes or No

Off on ignore you go, I've had enough of Trump fans and "not Trump fans" going out of their way to avoid actually discussing any policies, stances, or even what Trump says. You clearly do not want to engage his quote of having to "assume" some Mexicans are good people (which means he has no proof of this - which means he never met a good one, or by it's literal definition he would not need to 'assume' anything).

Do you assume your username is N365? You don't, you know it is. You have seen your screen name.
Do you assume my username is Billy86? You don't, you know it is. You have seen my screen name.
Do you assume I'm wearing socks? Probably, but whether you assume I am or am not, that is all you can do - assume. Because you don't have proof of it. You have not seen me today so you don't know.

Just like Trump is saying he can only assume some Mexicans are good people - the only reason he would have to assume is because he has no proof and has not seen one.

The fact you need a source for probably the most infamous quote of Trump's entire campaign is gas, by the way - but not unexpected, such is the standard tactic of Trump fans and "I'm not a fan of Trump but he tells it like it is and is the best candidate!" types alike.

Here you go, because otherwise you would claim it was a made up quote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/

Carry on pretending that saying he has never met a Mexican who was a good person is not racist, or that a person is unable to do their job on the basis of their race, but I won't be viewing it. So as a parting gift I will recommend you of the English language, again, as I have had to do so often with Trump fans and "I'm not a Trump fan but holy crap I'm willing to defend him to the hilt" fans alike.

as·sume
əˈso͞om/Submit
verb
1.
suppose to be the case, without proof.

BalcombeSt4

Sanders and Stein were the only hope for the world.
Trump and Clinton are very different to each other but both are equally dangerous and unhelpful to peace any where.

LorMal

RobertKK wrote: »

It is all true.

Remember the WTC was bombed during the presidency of Clinton in 1993. All the terrorist attacks in Africa and the Middle East on US interests from attacks on a US warship, to attacks on US embassies to an attack on a US barracks.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/218683/facts-about-clinton-and-terrorism-byron-york


Clinton was weak on terrorism and allowed it to grow, Hillary as secretary of state was against dictators who had kept terrorists in their boxes. She then complained when the Egyptian army had the coup against the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists that she supported.
Clintons have been an absolute disaster when it has come to terrorism and did and have made it far worse.

Now that's a case of damned if they do, damned if they don't. You are criticising Bill for being a lamb, and Hillary for being a hawk

LorMal

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Sanders and Stein were the only hope for the world.
Trump and Clinton are very different to each other but both are equally dangerous and unhelpful to peace any where.

Using that disgusting user name, why are you interested in peace anywhere?

RobertKK

Foxtrol wrote: »

Obama/Hillary had a choice of going against the Dictators during the Arab Spring or stand by as they butchered those rising up/protesting. It was a no win situation. Like in many situations, the US is damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t.

Sure Trump would have given them all nukes, that would have sorted everything out.

It was on liveleak that Benghazi was not this innocent place before any coalition attacked Libya, as there was video coming out of Benghazi of AQ terrorists beheading a black man who they claimed was a Gaddafi mercenary.
It was not straightforward that Benghazi needed saving from Gaddafi, when terrorists were indeed there as Gaddafi had said.

Hillary Clinton was prepared to stand by the Muslim Brotherhood who despite being elected by the people were and are terrorists.
She made statements against the army coup, who did bring stability to Egypt. Yet she says she was against the removal of Mubarak.
Her policy towards governments have no consistency. She supported a coup against the government of Honduras which was democratically elected.
I wish the US would just say what a lot of people think, some countries need dictators as the alternative is not democracy, and even with the democracy Egypt did temporarily get, it was a government who had members who encouraged attacks against Egyptian Christians, and were getting too cosy with other terrorists groups which led to the army coup.
She didn't have the courage when Mubarak was being disposed.

Trump if he is friends with Putin might lead to a more grown up situation between the two countries which might help bring some stability, not like the stupid Hillary Clinton policy where she wanted to bomb Assad out of power, which led to Russia putting a stop to her nonsense.
She would have really helped ISIS with what she wanted, then she has the cheek to claim Trump would be good for ISIS, when it was under her and Obama's watch that this group rose to prominence, due to a very poor foreign policy, arming people in Libya including terrorists.
Afraid to call out on their supposed allies who armed terrorists.
4 more years of Hillary with power will be a huge disaster.

RobertKK

LorMal wrote: »

Now that's a case of damned if they do, damned if they don't. You are criticising Bill for being a lamb, and Hillary for being a hawk

The Clintons sleep on the job and Bill would come to Ireland when under political pressure so the idiots here would be waving flags, which looked good back home.

N365

Billy86 wrote: »

You're not since you want to be pedantic, here is what I said earlier.



Nowhere there did I say Trump's utterance was "I have never met a Mexican that was a good person" -- see how this childish game plays itself out?

The fact is I included the quote in the original post you quoted, and have done so again since. Yet you choose to completely ignore it, because dealing with the actual details of what is being said and proposed is, almost without fail, the bitter enemy of the Trump supporting and "I'm not supporting Trump but I'll defend everything about him" crowds alike.

Off on ignore you go, I've had enough of Trump fans and "not Trump fans" going out of their way to avoid actually discussing any policies, stances, or even what Trump says. You clearly do not want to engage his quote of having to "assume" some Mexicans are good people (which means he has no proof of this - which means he never met a good one, or by it's literal definition he would not need to 'assume' anything).

Do you assume your username is N365? You don't, you know it is. You have seen your screen name.
Do you assume my username is Billy86? You don't, you know it is. You have seen my screen name.
Do you assume I'm wearing socks? Probably, but whether you assume I am or am not, that is all you can do - assume. Because you don't have proof of it. You have not seen me today so you don't know.

Just like Trump is saying he can only assume some Mexicans are good people - the only reason he would have to assume is because he has no proof and has not seen one.

The fact you need a source for probably the most infamous quote of Trump's entire campaign is gas, by the way - but not unexpected, such is the standard tactic of Trump fans and "I'm not a fan of Trump but he tells it like it is and is the best candidate!" types alike.

Here you go, because otherwise you would claim it was a made up quote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/

Carry on pretending that saying he has never met a Mexican who was a good person is not racist, or that a person is unable to do their job on the basis of their race, but I won't be viewing it. So as a parting gift I will recommend you of the English language, again, as I have had to do so often with Trump fans and "I'm not a Trump fan but holy crap I'm willing to defend him to the hilt" fans alike.

as·sume
əˈso͞om/Submit
verb
1.
suppose to be the case, without proof.

You keep saying the same thing over and over. I cant be bothered with your straw man arguments and to be honest I couldn't even finish what you were saying since you never bother to read what I say. I scrolled down and found this little gem:

"So as a parting gift I will recommend you of the English language, again, as I have had to do so often with Trump fans and "I'm not a Trump fan but holy crap I'm willing to defend him to the hilt" fans alike."

You will recommend of me of the English language? Huh??

Have a good weekend

InTheTrees

beach_walker wrote: »

Just playing devil's advocate here, but how much foreign policy experience had Obama before becoming President?

The difference was that Obama didnt propose (dangerous) lunatic fantasies as his future foreign policy.

Obama was a senator.

Obama was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Billy86

N365 wrote: »

You keep saying the same thing over and over. I cant be bothered with your straw man arguments and to be honest I couldn't even finish what you were saying

Thanks for proving my point that Trump (and "I'm not a Trump fan, but...") fans treat engaging the actual policies, stances and comments made - the substance of an election - as the absolute enemy. God forbid you would have to read something, think of a response to it, formulate an idea in your head, and come up with your own thought out response on it. I wholly apologise (though you may never know, because there are a good 60-70 words before it!)

The English class was because you are struggling with the meaning of words, by the way. The word assume, to be exact. You appear to have it mixed up with the world know.

InTheTrees

RobertKK wrote: »

The Clintons sleep on the job and Bill would come to Ireland when under political pressure so the idiots here would be waving flags, which looked good back home.

Um. Not sure where to begin with that.

Clinton ranks as one of the most popular US presidents ever. The deficit shrank, there was the phenomena of "over employment". Polls said he would have won a third term in a landslide.

Foxtrol

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary Clinton was prepared to stand by the Muslim Brotherhood who despite being elected by the people were and are terrorists.
She made statements against the army coup, who did bring stability to Egypt. Yet she says she was against the removal of Mubarak.
Her policy towards governments have no consistency. She supported a coup against the government of Honduras which was democratically elected.
I wish the US would just say what a lot of people think, some countries need dictators as the alternative is not democracy, and even with the democracy Egypt did temporarily get, it was a government who had members who encouraged attacks against Egyptian Christians, and were getting too cosy with other terrorists groups which led to the army coup.
She didn't have the courage when Mubarak was being disposed.

Trump if he is friends with Putin might lead to a more grown up situation between the two countries which might help bring some stability, not like the stupid Hillary Clinton policy where she wanted to bomb Assad out of power, which led to Russia putting a stop to her nonsense.
She would have really helped ISIS with what she wanted, then she has the cheek to claim Trump would be good for ISIS, when it was under her and Obama's watch that this group rose to prominence, due to a very poor foreign policy, arming people in Libya including terrorists.
Afraid to call out on their supposed allies who armed terrorists.
4 more years of Hillary with power will be a huge disaster.

“Some countries need dictators”, you’re just as consistent as she is! The world isn’t black and white, you can’t be consistent when it comes to foreign policy, it's not playschool and being fair.

Trump isn’t friends with Putin, even if he is he wont be the first time they disagree. Having two wannabe strongmen in power would be a disaster.

Again, they were in a lose/lose position. They either had blood on their hands while the Libyan protestors were butchered by Gaddafi or they intervene and get blamed for what results. How can you claim Trump isn’t good for ISIS? Constantly putting down Islam and wanting to ban everyone of that religion, targeting the families of terrorists. None of that could possible fuels their cause at all... :rolleyes:

Oh, I presume you mean the Saudi’s when you talk about allies arming terrorists, sure Trump wants them to have a nuke. That’ll end well too!

LorMal

InTheTrees wrote: »

Um. Not sure where to begin with that.

Clinton ranks as one of the most popular US presidents ever. The deficit shrank, there was the phenomena of "over employment". Polls said he would have won a third term in a landslide.

Exactly. A great President (if lacking in some personal judgment)

InTheTrees

I think there's a chance Trump will drop out before the convention. Now that the party primaries are as good as over and it turns into a presidential election race Trump is looking way out of his depth. He's floundered over the last week and he's done nothing to heal the damage he's done with the Hispanic voters. If he wants to win he has to improve on Mitt Romneys numbers and that means increasing his Hispanic support. Not maintaining it but increasing it.

I dont think he stands a chance at this point and there's still a month until the convention.

Canis Lupus

stefanovich wrote: »

And you made that assessment by not watching it? Or did you watch a little and just presume he was lying? Very easy to bolster up your dislike for an individual if you dream up how you imagine they are thinking rather than listening to them.

A 20 minute video with a nice soft piano tune playing in the background doesn't erase all the shyte he has said during this election. It's doesn't suddenly make him the man for the job and frankly if you actually expected me/people to take it seriously then......

InTheTrees

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think there's a chance Trump will drop out before the convention. Now that the party primaries are as good as over and it turns into a presidential election race Trump is looking way out of his depth. He's floundered over the last week and he's done nothing to heal the damage he's done with the Hispanic voters. If he wants to win he has to improve on Mitt Romneys numbers and that means increasing his Hispanic support. Not maintaining it but increasing it.

I dont think he stands a chance at this point and there's still a month until the convention.

There is zero chance of him dropping out.. Unless you mean 0.0000000001% as "a chance". I think he's doing Ok overall, the same BS as usual. It's Hillary that is taking an absolute trouncing these last couple of weeks.

gormdubhgorm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Huh? What are you trying to say?

"After all the hype"? Thats a simplistic way of dismissing something you dont understand isnt it?

Obamacare was a massive achievement.

What do you mean "Light stuff by our standards"?

Would you go away out of that I do understand. By you saying that Obamacare was a huge achievement you got caught up in the hype. Any change towards a more egalitarian America is viewed as socialist over there. Middle America wold even claim he is a "commie".

All Obama got were watered down versions of what he dreamt of in both Gun Control and health care. They are baby steps at most.

As for our standards I mean that our system is far more egalitarian in comparison to the American system.
Also Obama said himself that 10-15% of Americans do not have health insurance. America is supposed to be one of the world superpowers yet they have a massive gap between rich and poor.

stefanovich

Canis Lupus wrote: »

A 20 minute video with a nice soft piano tune playing in the background doesn't erase all the shyte he has said during this election. It's doesn't suddenly make him the man for the job and frankly if you actually expected me/people to take it seriously then......

So you didn't watch it. Good job.

Canis Lupus

stefanovich wrote: »

So you didn't watch it. Good job.

Good reply.

InTheTrees

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Would you go away out of that I do understand. By you saying that Obamacare was a huge achievement you got caught up in the hype. Any change towards a more egalitarian America is viewed as socialist over there. Middle America wold even claim he is a "commie".

Well that goes both ways doesnt it? I could just as easily say if you think its a failure then you've been caught up in the unrelenting republican obstruction of anything Obama tried to do.

Luckily he got the ACA through in his first term while the Dems had the senate.

InTheTrees

Deleted User wrote: »

I think he's doing Ok overall, the same BS as usual.

He will have to double his support among hispanics.

And also increase his support from women.

RobertKK

Foxtrol wrote: »

“Some countries need dictators”, you’re just as consistent as she is! The world isn’t black and white, you can’t be consistent when it comes to foreign policy, it's not playschool and being fair.

Trump isn’t friends with Putin, even if he is he wont be the first time they disagree. Having two wannabe strongmen in power would be a disaster.

Again, they were in a lose/lose position. They either had blood on their hands while the Libyan protestors were butchered by Gaddafi or they intervene and get blamed for what results. How can you claim Trump isn’t good for ISIS? Constantly putting down Islam and wanting to ban everyone of that religion, targeting the families of terrorists. None of that could possible fuels their cause at all... :rolleyes:

Oh, I presume you mean the Saudi’s when you talk about allies arming terrorists, sure Trump wants them to have a nuke. That’ll end well too!

Maybe if Hillary didn't talk out of the side of her mouth, publicly all for democracy, and supporting terrorist Muslim Brotherhood government.
The whole Benghazi thing was overblown, it was a terrorist haven and from the intervention thousands of civilians died and now the whole country is a terrorist haven.
Gaddafi had said it was terrorism in Benghazi, sure Hillary was happy to have Gaddafi's son over to Washington for a meeting a couple of years before she flipped.

A government official in Saudi said earlier this year that they have nuclear weapons, apparently their friends in Pakistan helped out.
This is a BBC article from 2013
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24823846

Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will, a variety of sources have told BBC Newsnight.
While the kingdom's quest has often been set in the context of countering Iran's atomic programme, it is now possible that the Saudis might be able to deploy such devices more quickly than the Islamic republic.
Earlier this year, a senior Nato decision maker told me that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.

Here is a very interesting interview/article about/with Obama
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/10/barack-obama-interview-middle-east-drone-strikes-atlantic
Given Hillary wanted to bomb Assad, Obama said he is "very proud" that the US pulled back from attacking Assad.
No problem with the drone strikes which kill a lot of civilians.
Interesting he is unhappy with the UK and France and blame them for the "$hit-show" in Libya, these are the countries that are supposed to have convinced Hillary Clinton that Libya should be attacked, something Obama was against till Hillary changed his mind.

Having publicly drawn, a year before, what he called a “red line” for Assad on chemical weapons, and previously demanding he leave office, Obama had appeared to do little to stop the war escalating. Aides say now that the president miscalculated, expecting Assad to be ousted by his own people in the way Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak was earlier in the Arab Spring.
But when Assad crossed Obama’s “red line”, his senior colleagues such as Kerry and then-United Nations ambassador Susan Rice, and Republican leaders assumed he would command missile strikes from US Navy vessels standing by.
So, enthusiastically, did British, French, Saudi and several other allied Middle East leaders, it is reported.
But Obama shocked and enraged them all with a volte-face, explaining in the new interview that the risk of Assad merely being shaken and coming back stronger was a central factor.
The decision represents his landmark break with what he now refers to as “the overwhelming weight of conventional wisdom and the machinery of our national-security apparatus”.
Despite the catastrophe in Syria and the resulting refugee crisis, Obama concluded about his momentous decision: “I’m very proud of this moment.”
But after Obama’s U-turn, Hillary Clinton said privately: “If you say you’re going to strike, you have to strike. There’s no choice.”
Meanwhile, the US, with some western allies, did choose to strike against the forces of Col Muammar Gaddafi when they threatened to obliterate Benghazi, resulting in the Libyan leader being lynched by his people in 2011.
But since then, Libya has become such a mess that Obama privately calls it a “**** show” – and he partly blames those allies.

Obama calls the UK and France "free riders"

It is interesting that Obama did what Trump also said needed to be done - their partners must spend more on their military.

He reveals he further warned David Cameron that unless the UK committed at least 2% of its gross domestic product to military spending it would not longer be able to claim a special relationship with the US.

Renegade Mechanic

List of people who died around the Clintons/ their Administration in the attachment.

List of organisations she's spoken to and the prices paid. While she goes on about struggling and unfair wage gaps...
https://theintercept.com/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/01/Screen-Shot-2016-01-08-at-12.09.55-PM.png
And that's just banks, there are plenty more institutions besides.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/08/Bill%20Clinton%20Speeches%202013-2015_1.jpg
26 million from 2013 - 15.

Now lets look at the donors to her "foundation".
http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Foreign-Country-Donations-To-The-Clinton-Foundation.jpg
Hundreds of millions raised - pocket change - from some of the worst human rights violators on the planet.

Just recently it was all but proven you "pay to play" on the Clinton Administration.
http://archive.is/zL8dO
Major donator placed in intelligence...


Ignoring the deaths and the scandals, the donors alone and their hatred of Trump is enough to make me like him. I don't care if he offends you or me - we don't matter. These billionaires however, they do...

Then we have the scandals/"hiccups" in no particular order.

The cattle futures fiddling.

Whitewater. - Throwing partners under the bus to save your skin 101. Granted they deserve it, but she should have followed them...

"Travelgate". - Staff fired to make way for cronies.

"Pardongate" - over 450 presidential pardons, one of whom had been convicted of racketeering and evading almost 50 million in taxes.

She was fired from the Watergate investigation over her dishonesty and ethics.

Her deputy chiefs ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.



"Filegate" - Accessing fbi files on known and "perceived" GOP enemies.

The Clinton Administrations use of the IRS to target everyone but liberal public policy organisations.

Being told to return almost 200,000 worth of **** they took from the Whitehouse - I mean that's just arrogantly disrespectful.


The tapes from her time as a lawyer.

"sniper fire"

"jogging around the wtc on 9/11"

"what difference at this point does it make"

Her and Obamas use of NATO to topple Libya.

There are plenty more...

Nixon erased what, 9 minutes of data? And had to resign as president. Hillary erased 30,000 emails and is running for it...


But yeah, Trump is by a massive margin the worse of the two. Definitely. Without a shadow of a doubt. Way more dangerous.

InTheTrees

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

List of people who died around the Clintons/ their Administration in the attachment.

The problem for the right wing is that all they have on clinton is these hackneyed old supermarket tabloid conspiracy theories.

There's six months left until the election. The primaries are now over and Trump is going to have to start getting specific on policies now.

B_Wayne

450 presidential pardons aren't particularly insane, plenty of presidents prior to him had far higher numbers.