The Trump Presidency – 2016

[cuervo72]

Read on a Fox News FB post on how Trump as a Kentucky coal-mining town "on the road to recovery" -

You can't explain anything to the bleeding heart, crybaby, liberals!!! They don't understand WORK!!! They understand crayons and Kool-Aid!!!

No, not condescending at all.

Obama would rather see this man on welfare. As a community organizer that is what he did, that is what he expected, that is what he wanted.

To many young people in this country don't know what it's like to work hard. All they want to do is play on their phones and collect a paycheck on Friday.

Yeah, but the day a liberal parasite gets back into office, every single job will be eliminated. Maybe they can spend another 10 billion on 'fake jobs' where they play bingo all day like the shovel ready jobs Oscumbag promised!

TYPICAL LEFT WING ANSWER. SEPERATE AND DIVIDE POPULOUS WHERE NO ONE AGREES EXCEPT TO BOW TO THE ANGRY AND MEAN SPIRITED LEFT . THEY DESERVE NO FREEDOMS NOR LIBERTY. IF THEY HAD THEIR WAY WE WOULD BE RUBBING STICKS TOGETHER TO MAKE FIRE. BUT THEN THEY WOULD BAN BURNING WOOD ALSO. CANNOT TALK TO EVIL. ....GOD BLESS DONALD TRUMP AND FAMILY

It's the American worker who will benefit under Trump...if you've been getting things for free, you're going to hate being held accountable to building your own life.

the liberals are getting more desperate by the day, they thought the media and the hollywood herd could take Trump out, and they failed. They thought the economy would crash, and it didn't. For every success he has they get more and more hateful and stupid.

And Trump did it fast, too. I cried when I heard about the plight of these people. That is awful what the evil Obama did to them. Well, KY, the God of Heaven and Earth heard your cry for help and sent assistance. God be praised. So thankful to have God's man in the White House restoring our country to greatness.

Yep, lots of respect coming from that side of the aisle.

[cuervo72]

Ah, shouldn't have stopped before getting to this one:

This is Great!!!! Even the "Left Wingnut Libtards cant stop this. Don't know why the DEMOCRAPS want to destroy the country, but they do.

edit: or this. Screw me because I work at a desk and not in a coal mine:

And there you have it Snowflakes. In real life, bottom line, you want a good job to provide a good life for your family. Not a paper pushing government (another form of welfare) job, not a part time job flipping burgers. A full time and good paying job doing an honest days work.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Read on a Fox News FB post on how Trump as a Kentucky coal-mining town "on the road to recovery" -

No, not condescending at all.

Yep, lots of respect coming from that side of the aisle.

So again, if Dems are so perfect and superior, how the hell did you lose to Trump?

And why is every response to this a comparison to Republicans? Why can't Dems stand for anything in their own right?

It's a weird combination of arrogance and an inferiority complex.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But that's been a problem since at least Roosevelt and somehow others have managed to square that circle. This is also the time to lay out guiding principles, as defeat makes people willing to compromise in ways they wouldn't after a victory.

The problem is, who is the voice that could credibly articulate these principles? I don't think anybody can alone, but I hope Perez and Ellison are working on ideas that can get the Sanders folks and the moderates to walk hand in hand. And it has to be more than opposition to Trump.

I largely agree with you, but also have to acknowledge that what we're really talking about is that in order to succeed, we need to counter the GOP cult of personality with our own. I suppose that's what surprised me most about the election. I had largely thought of the GOP as a party that canonized their Reagans after the fact and the Dems as the party that needed a charismatic personality to get the college kids fired up enough to vote by selling them a vision of participatory change.

It's like we're stuck in this loop that if we can just re-create Kennedy and keep him away from Dallas this time, it'll all turn out okay.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I wouldn't call the Republican party dead by any means, but their stance on many social issues is still the minority and not trending in their direction despite election results. If 110,000 votes or so are moved around people would have been discussing the death of the party or the need to adapt for at least the next 4 years.

I would agree with that, which makes the loss to Trump (and all the Republicans wins in governor and legislative races) so stunning. But then it starts to make sense when you see how many Dems refuse to acknowledge any of their own faults that led to those results.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by molson

And why is every response to this a comparison to Republicans?

Your own post was a comparison of Democrats and Republicans.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Your own post was a comparison of Democrats and Republicans.

Not in my first post on the topic, but sure, I'll concede, Republicans are worse. Great. That doesn't make Dems perfect or above criticism. They lost to Donald Trump and that still pisses me off because I think it was avoidable. I think that will go down as one of the great political failures of all time and too many Dems were, and are, in such denial and still talk like they're so darn perfect and above criticism. After losing to Trump!! No member of a party that loses to Trump should be bragging about their party, they should be trying to figure out what the fuck went wrong and making big changes. JPhillips is the only liberal here who ever acknowledges that the Dems may have fucked up in some areas and may have some identity issues. I just go a little further and think that their arrogance and hostility/inability to understand and respect those with different values is a part of the problem. (That's from my perspective as a mostly liberal guy in a very, very red state.) And yes, Republicans are bad at that too, worse even. I want Dems to be better than "Republicans do it too" or even "Republicans are worse." It's so off-putting when people just refuse to acknowledge that they, or their party, or their views, might not be perfect and might not be the only valid way to look at the world.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Alas... the chance of that debate really happening in a meaningful way is awfully slim. But might be nice to wave as it flashes by.

So... about that.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by molson

So again, if Dems are so perfect and superior, how the hell did you lose to Trump?

Judging by my Facebook feed, it was by underestimating the answer to the question "Surely you can't be serious?"

During the last few months, I've been amazed at simple things like a dude lashing out at Meryl Streep and saying entertainers need to just shut their pie holes and entertain...followed five minutes later by a celebrity quote supporting their position. Not a political celebrity, but another actor.

Or, Fight the Encroachment of Sharia Law Because it Violates our Constitution! Followed by a post about the Bible being a higher authority than the constitution.

I used to think it was just trolling...or incoherency. I couldn't take it seriously as an expression of extreme nationalism -- though it's not really that, it's more like culturalism -- because you could literally just switch the white hats with the black hats (Christians vs. Muslims, Blue Lives vs Black Lives, etc.) and just be saying the exact same thing with different nouns. It just seemed baffling because the parallels were so obvious, I couldn't take it seriously as honest expressions of the will to dominate those who thought/looked/behaved differently. And, I mean, I grew up in churches in the Midwest, so the driving need to take back the culture at all costs and repel the pagans should have been obvious to me.

This is why, as much as I disagree with Jon, I respect the hell out of him. Because if I can count on anything, it's that he's going to be logically consistent. He knows his bedrock principles, and he's going to argue the hell out of them...and he's not going to contradict himself just to score culture war points in an imaginary internet game.

A guy like Jon demands that you bring your A game if you want to oppose him, because you know he's dead serious about ending your way of life and the things you value. He's not going to play go-along-and-get-along to avoid conflict while trying to figure out a way to fuck you over. He's going to look you in the eye and embrace conflict so that when you're defeated, you know that he was the one who defeated you.

So, yeah, I think it was social media and cognitive dissonance that primarily contributed to Trump's victory. Democrats heard the voice of the people and simply couldn't make sense of it as a real thing because it seemed so outrageously illogical.

As odd as it sounds, if the voice of the people had sounded more like Jon, I think Trump would have lost in a landslide because more people would have understood the threat and realized that they needed to actively combat it.

ETA: Plus, Jon never posts links to chicksontheright.com and pretends like it's a news source.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Legislative intent is a valid and important judicial inquiry(though it should never approach what the law actually says in importance), because it directly concerns what the law is and means. Executive intent absolutely is not; it has no bearing on the law itself. Applying it also has the perverse affect of encouraging the executive branch to lie about what it is trying to do, but that's a side issue.

I can buy this when we're talking about "execution" decisions. I think that's why we have executive immunity to protect officials when carrying out their duties. I'd argue though there's a difference when you venture into the realm of executive orders which carry pseudo legislative effect. (As a side note, if the criticism is valid that the judiciary is legislating from the bench, shouldn't we hold the executive accountable for the same? I realize this is a fine line to walk and you can argue that the president is simply implementing policy pursuant to power granted to him under a broad grant from Congress. I also think this is a fair criticism of Obama and really the last 3-4 presidents.) But, in this case if you grant my point that we have a new crafting of rules and regulations, I think it is ok to look to the intent (I take your argument on importance) and also to review them judicially.

Taking the Hawaii case, when Judge Derrick Watson wrote that the argument regarding the six countries being blocked for national security reasons is not convincing, I'm inclined to agree with him. More importantly though, it's none of his business! He's not the commander-in-chief. It's not his job to make the decision on what national security-related steps to take. That job belongs to the president. Similarly, the implication that the ban would be more legally acceptable if Trump had not made anti-Muslim statements during the campaign is simply absurd ... I can't objectively put it any kinder. It's also clear from what he wrote that if Trump had added random countries without Muslim-majority populations to the list, it would be easier for his order to survive. The sheer machinations going on here are just really beyond my vocabulary to effectively describe.

There's a lot to think through here, and I'm not sure I've got it all right now. I think it may be a fair criticism of the court to say they applied the wrong standard of review here. In judicial review terms, they've applied strict scrutiny and I think the real argument is that rational basis should have applied. I know very generally how the judges get to strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause, and I think there's a fair argument they've done so incorrectly. But if we get to that point that we're using strict scrutiny, then I think there's ample precedent for delving into motive and right to do so. If we don't allow for that sort of review in cases where there is a real right involved, it's difficult to hold the executive accountable in any way.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by molson

Not in my first post on the topic, but sure, I'll concede, Republicans are worse. Great. That doesn't make Dems perfect or above criticism. They lost to Donald Trump and that still pisses me off because I think it was avoidable. I think that will go down as one of the great political failures of all time and too many Dems were, and are, in such denial and still talk like they're so darn perfect and above criticism. After losing to Trump!! No member of a party that loses to Trump should be bragging about their party, they should be trying to figure out what the fuck went wrong and making big changes.

Not sure I follow. Are you saying that 2016 was one of the greatest political failures of all time only because it was Donald Trump? If it were any other Republican it would not have been a colossal failure?

In historical context, a party winning three terms seems to be the most unlikely outcome. The fact that they massively won the popular vote I think underscores the near impossibility of a three term presidency.

Obviously the messaging of the Dem's was their greatest failure. However, the most effective and successful message in all of presidential history has always been "change". How then does one counter that?

[Kodos]

Running a candidate that Fox News had spent over 2 decades villifying was certainly a mistake by the Democrats. And forgetting about the lower-class white people because they thought that demographic shifts towards minorities would carry the Dems to victory was a mistake. Democrats need to be the party that fights for the little guy. We need to fight for the preserving the environment and for holding businesses in line with regulations. We need to be the renewable energy party. We need to stick up for minorities. We should probably not be so quick to label others as racists and mysogynists. Political correctness has gone too far. Only take on the most egregious acts. Forget about microagressions and that kind of crap.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Drake

Plus, Jon never posts links to chicksontheright.com and pretends like it's a news source.

fwiw, I actively try to discourage those who are ostensibly in my camp from using some of the absurd bullshit fake/spam/bloggy crap as evidence of anything. Not as a sole source at least. The biggest use of those damned sites is to pad the hit counts for their owners, at the expense of credibility for the lazy/gullible suckers who post/share them.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Political correctness has gone too far. Only take on the most egregious acts. Forget about microagressions and that kind of crap.

And I would argue that the exact wrong lessons to take. You don't sell out your black base because they've become expedient in chasing white union voters. That's the infamous circular firing squad right there. You try to appeal to both groups of your base (maybe get the white union voters to watch "Get Out" when they complain about microaggressions or something like that ).

[Kodos]

Yeah. I wasn't saying ignore minorities. I was just saying that you can't ignore poor white people because they are becoming less demographically important. Uniting them both against rich white guys and businesses would be ideal.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Yeah. I wasn't saying ignore minorities. I was just saying that you can't ignore poor white people because they are becoming less demographically important. Uniting them both against rich white guys and businesses would be ideal.

Yeah, but acknowledging microagressions is something you gotta do or else some of the bigger names in the African-American movement are just going to assume the Democratic Party is taking them for granted and will say lets take our energy and passion elsewhere.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, but acknowledging microagressions is something you gotta do or else some of the bigger names in the African-American movement are just going to assume the Democratic Party is taking them for granted and will say lets take our energy and passion elsewhere.

And you can't say shit like "stop being a pussy" when they bring up microaggressions or you'll lose the women, too.

Being a Dem guy is complicated shit, yo.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by digamma

(As a side note, if the criticism is valid that the judiciary is legislating from the bench, shouldn't we hold the executive accountable for the same? I realize this is a fine line to walk and you can argue that the president is simply implementing policy pursuant to power granted to him under a broad grant from Congress. I also think this is a fair criticism of Obama and really the last 3-4 presidents.)

Absolutely agree. I think it goes back at least as far as Nixon, particularly in terms 'executive priviledge'. Clinton's 'executive protection priviledge' is probably my favorite all-time. It's become very routine for presidents to use EOs on things that they just don't(or shouldn't) have the authority to do.

Originally Posted by digamma

in this case if you grant my point that we have a new crafting of rules and regulations, I think it is ok to look to the intent (I take your argument on importance) and also to review them judicially.

Yes and no. The point of examining intent is to establish what the law means, as mentioned. The question here though is not about what Trump means. There's universal agreement on that as far as I can tell; he wants to temporarily block immigration from six countries. So while examining intent can be useful in some situations, that's not how it's been used here and it really has no purpose in this specific case, because it's been used assess his motives. Imagine if the courts started examining the records of all legislators involved in passing some law to find reasons why they might have been guided by some impermissible motivation, and used those to strike the law done irrespective of what the law itself actually says. That's what we are talking about here.

if we get to that point that we're using strict scrutiny, then I think there's ample precedent for delving into motive and right to do so. If we don't allow for that sort of review in cases where there is a real right involved, it's difficult to hold the executive accountable in any way.

We're definitely going to disagree here, esp. on the final sentence. I just don't see how that follows at all and it doesn't make any sense to me. Consider a hypothetical which is absurd on purpose; Trump signs an executive order declaring that all Americans age 24-25 who are less than 5-4 shall be imprisoned for a week. I don't think we'd have any disagreement that this would be an illegal order that should rightfully be immediately blocked for multiple reasons. I wouldn't care why he signed it, wouldn't see that as the slightest bit relevant, and almost any case I can imagine in which the executive oversteps would fit into this general pattern. They sign an order for something they don't have the authority to do; it's blocked based on what the order contains, not why.

[Thomkal]

Making friends everywhere he goes...

Germany rejects Trump claim it owes Nato and US 'vast sums' for defence | World news | The Guardian

[PilotMan]

Seems like a formal apology to Obama and his administration should be expected from the Trump at this point.

[Brian Swartz]

At a minimum. I doubt it happens though.

[Easy Mac]

Well, he apologized so profusely for the whole birther thing.


Also, Ivanka gets an office and security clearance in the West Wing because...

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Seems like a formal apology to Obama and his administration should be expected from the Trump at this point.

You mean as an alternative to Trump tweeting a heavy implication to start a new theory? ... Trump can't admit he's wrong, its one of his defining characteristics ...

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

You mean as an alternative to Trump tweeting a heavy implication to start a new theory? ... Trump can't admit he's wrong, its one of his defining characteristics ...

I think that's the whole point, Marc. He can't admit it, but he needs to be pressured to do, for the sake of the office, and the legitimacy of the position. Unless he'd rather keep going down that other road he's been on.

[stevew]

The irony of some dude holding a drain the swamp sign behind Trump at his Trump Youth rally. Like obviously that sign holder hasn't been paying attention.

[kingfc22]

Trump is like the addict gambler that doubles down after every consecutive loss to one-day get lucky and get back to break even. Only to start the losing process all over again.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Nobody should apologized to the previous demonspawn from hell for anything until he apologizes for 8 embarrassing years of trying to destroy a nation from the top down.

That he had help does not absolve him of responsibility.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I think that's the whole point, Marc. He can't admit it, but he needs to be pressured to do, for the sake of the office, and the legitimacy of the position. Unless he'd rather keep going down that other road he's been on.

Trump will be driving out to the Hamptons to see Snoopy and Prickly Pete sooner than he issues any apology.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

Trump is like the addict gambler that doubles down after every consecutive loss to one-day get lucky and get back to break even. Only to start the losing process all over again.

Trump better sticking to something else. if Trump lose that many Tweets in a row. Being President might not be his game.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

Trump is like the addict gambler that doubles down after every consecutive loss to one-day get lucky and get back to break even. Only to start the losing process all over again.

Trump = JB Magic!

[Easy Mac]

I think Trump is more HornsManiac.

[Kodos]

I just meant the whole if you lose, double your bet theory.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Jbmaniac? Hornsmagic?

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I think Trump is more HornsManiac.

He's the wrong shade of orange to be a Horns guy.

[bhlloy]

Here's what I don't understand about the new laptop ban (and this isn't meant to be an OMG racist! post). They've banned it from 9 destinations and airlines, if ISIS has the technology and the desire to do this, what on earth is stopping them hopping across a border and taking a flight to the us from somewhere else?

To the uninformed cynic this sounds like they are hedging on not making the ban global because it's too disruptive and might even be disruptive to the revenues of airlines that we like, so we will slap it on the most obvious ones and hope that's good enough.

[SirFozzie]

Yeah, some folks are casting this to be a way to get back at certain airlines that get a ton of foreign government assistance (mostly the Middle Eastern ones like Qatar Airlines, etcetera). After all, who takes their flights? Business folks mostly. And not being able to work or use your laptop during a long flight is a major factor in choosing travel. So under this theory, it's protectionism masquerading as public safety.

Trump won’t allow you to use iPads or laptops on certain airlines. Here’s why. - The Washington Post

[digamma]

I can't find a non-pay link, but the WSJ blistered Trump in its editorial over truth telling and credibility. It's one thing for the NYT or WaPo to do that, but while not necessarily being Trump fans, the WSJ editorial board had been toeing the line a bit.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by digamma

I can't find a non-pay link, but the WSJ blistered Trump in its editorial over truth telling and credibility. It's one thing for the NYT or WaPo to do that, but while not necessarily being Trump fans, the WSJ editorial board had been toeing the line a bit.

Who cares, he's not the black guy who tried to destroy Murca. At least he'll stand for the anthem if he's busy grabbing a woman's vagina... or some other The_Donald/Red_Pill talking point.

[Logan]

AP Exclusive: Manafort had plan to benefit Putin government

[Kodos]

This administration does not have ties to Russia! Everyone knows that.

[JPhillips]

The emerging line from the White House isn't comforting. Trump didn't know his staff had Russian connections because he's too careless to vet the people he works with, doesn't make this any better.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The emerging line from the White House isn't comforting. Trump didn't know his staff had Russian connections because he's too careless to vet the people he works with, doesn't make this any better.

Conway is claiming he doesn't even know who Carter Page is.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Who cares, he's not the black guy who tried to destroy Murca. At least he'll stand for the anthem if he's busy grabbing a woman's vagina... or some other The_Donald/Red_Pill talking point.

Demonspawn is the reference, I think.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Logan

Conway is claiming he doesn't even know who Carter Page is.

And why would he know the guy that managed his campaign for 4+ months?

[miked]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Yeah, some folks are casting this to be a way to get back at certain airlines that get a ton of foreign government assistance (mostly the Middle Eastern ones like Qatar Airlines, etcetera). After all, who takes their flights? Business folks mostly. And not being able to work or use your laptop during a long flight is a major factor in choosing travel. So under this theory, it's protectionism masquerading as public safety.

Trump won’t allow you to use iPads or laptops on certain airlines. Here’s why. - The Washington Post

I know quite a few people in the travel industry who would applaud this. Many US airlines have had to cancel their routes to the middle east because these countries subsidize their airline operations such that they can offer tickets at 20-30% discounts, driving US carriers out. It's sort of bogus and I think justifies a response.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Here's what I don't understand about the new laptop ban (and this isn't meant to be an OMG racist! post). They've banned it from 9 destinations and airlines, if ISIS has the technology and the desire to do this, what on earth is stopping them hopping across a border and taking a flight to the us from somewhere else?

To the uninformed cynic this sounds like they are hedging on not making the ban global because it's too disruptive and might even be disruptive to the revenues of airlines that we like, so we will slap it on the most obvious ones and hope that's good enough.

According to DHS, it's the result of information regarding specific threats that are faced. There are no simple answers when it comes to a security situation or risk. The simplest answer seems to be that there are no threats from those other locations that make it likely that there would be a significant threat there. Does that mean that it's not possible? Certainly not, but if the risk worldwide is .003% and the risk from these airports closes in on 1%, while still being a low threat, it's greater enough to warrant action (I totally made up those numbers to emphasize a point).

I'm not saying that's what the case is here. Because I have no idea what exactly went into consideration, but the fact that it happened quickly seems to be that it's in response to known information, like the liquids ban that went into effect years ago.

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Yeah, some folks are casting this to be a way to get back at certain airlines that get a ton of foreign government assistance (mostly the Middle Eastern ones like Qatar Airlines, etcetera). After all, who takes their flights? Business folks mostly. And not being able to work or use your laptop during a long flight is a major factor in choosing travel. So under this theory, it's protectionism masquerading as public safety.

Trump won’t allow you to use iPads or laptops on certain airlines. Here’s why. - The Washington Post

I'm gonna call bullshit on this theory. US airlines have been pushing for a very specific kind of response to the middle east airlines. A restriction like this seems like a very round about way to address something that the administration could do very directly.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by miked

I know quite a few people in the travel industry who would applaud this. Many US airlines have had to cancel their routes to the middle east because these countries subsidize their airline operations such that they can offer tickets at 20-30% discounts, driving US carriers out. It's sort of bogus and I think justifies a response.

You mean like awarding JetBlue government contracts to fly to Dubai from DC? Because the US is required, by law, to award that flying to a US company. In this case though, we all know JB doesn't fly to Dubai. Instead it's a code share arrangement with Emirates to get around the rules.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

You mean like awarding JetBlue government contracts to fly to Dubai from DC? Because the US is required, by law, to award that flying to a US company. In this case though, we all know JB doesn't fly to Dubai. Instead it's a code share arrangement with Emirates to get around the rules.

Isn't the scale is different? There is more foreign government subsidies to their airlines.

Been recently to China and encountered problems with using google and its/other apps. There are pretty much domestic Chinese apps that mimics the popular US apps. I'm not saying its wrong (e.g. they need to incubate their emerging companies) but lets be aware its happening and the US should not stand idly by.

(BTW - I agree with you calling BS on the theory)

[JPhillips]

Most of the Chinese apps are less about copyright and more about government censorship and control of content.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

According to DHS, it's the result of information regarding specific threats that are faced. There are no simple answers when it comes to a security situation or risk. The simplest answer seems to be that there are no threats from those other locations that make it likely that there would be a significant threat there. Does that mean that it's not possible? Certainly not, but if the risk worldwide is .003% and the risk from these airports closes in on 1%, while still being a low threat, it's greater enough to warrant action (I totally made up those numbers to emphasize a point).

I'm not saying that's what the case is here. Because I have no idea what exactly went into consideration, but the fact that it happened quickly seems to be that it's in response to known information, like the liquids ban that went into effect years.

Sure, but by very publically announcing we are only blocking flights from very specific locations (and in many cases not locations right next door) surely we've just allowed that 1% risk to migrate somewhere else? If I've been planning this out of Tunis, I'm not just going to do it out of Algiers instead?