Differences - Democrats & Republicans in US

What do you get that hogwash from.   With 40% of the US voters supporting socialist policies the DP can never be a rightwing party,   Whenever a party move to the left they tend to lose the support of the centrists and the Democra tic Socialists of Bernie Sanders are basically on par with the Socialists and neo communists in Europe.    The fact that in Europe they are comparable to a rightwing party is just pure and simply utter BS not based on any scientific research,    

They used to be extremely conservative - especially when nurturing the KKK, but after WW2 they started to a centrist position and was still fairly conservative,   In the alst 30 years they move to the left and is now on par with the Social Democrats in Germany, the Labour Party in England and the Socialists and Communist Party in France,   That is where the main support base are,  

Beside that the USA citizens are  basically proud of the USA  and mourning the death of Soleimani is not their cup of tea,   Please accept  my sincere sympathy for that big hero loss of yours, I ever supported Zuma and lies would not help you to prove otherwise,                   

How about explaining a universe from nothing. You have had plenty of chances rooibozo. ??

The unbounded ignorance of rooibozo on full display. 

The demonrats are now far left socislists/communists. Widely called the Democrat socialist party. 

Everyone talks of their slide to the radical left. 

Don't try and tell us that you are not actually a far left radical loon rooitwit after all your consistent support for demonrats.

Ou rooibozo likes family values. Eg LGBT. 

Sorry Rooi nobody believes you, at least no sane person. 

Hahahahaha what a funny fellow you are! 

@Stav,

"Can you link me to information on this criminalization of gender miss pronunciation. Sounds too unbelievable to true frankly."

Not using transgender pronouns could get you fined

You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use

"What BS restrictions did the EU enforce on the UK?. You said they banned dredging in a post recently. They didn't. Anything else you heard about it but possible didn't fact check to see if it was true?"

Britain's flooding crisis 'made worse by the EU': Green Brussels bureaucrats have 'banned' river dredging that allows water to drain faster, say farmers

Controversial rules on dredging rivers imposed by the European Union have contributed to the flooding which has wrought devastation across the UK, it was claimed last night.

Brussels bureaucrats, driven by green ideology, have effectively banned dredging which might have prevented rivers bursting their banks, say critics.

Dredging, which took place for centuries on Britain’s waterways, removes silt that builds up at the bottom of rivers and deepens the channel – allowing water to drain away more efficiently.

ut anti-EU campaigners and farmers have complained that the European Water Framework Directive, passed into law by Tony Blair’s government in 2000, has outlawed such activity. The directive’s aim is to restore rivers as close as possible to ‘undisturbed natural conditions’. 

"Like the UK getting rid of all its free trade agreements and starting from scratch?. No one is predicting the UK economy is going to do better after Brexit than it was before."

That is where the obfu scation is coming in again. It is simply not true that "no one is predicting the UK is going to do better......". There are many who are predicting that will do better. There are also many who have predicted that there would ba absolute mayhem, immediately following a leave referendum result. The exact opposite happened. In addition, you do know that the largest part of a free trade agreement has already been negotiated behind closed doors. Many trade deals are so-called roll over agreements.

Brexit: What trade deals has the UK done so far?

There is a lot to take in in the above article. A few excerpts:

"How many deals have been rolled over?

So far, the UK has signed 20 "continuity" deals covering 50 countries or territories:

Kosovo (signed 4 December 2019)

Jordan (14 November)

Morocco (26 October)

Georgia (21 October)

Southern African nations (9 October)

Tunisia (4 October)

Lebanon (19 September)

South Korea (22 August)

Central America (18 July)

Andean countries (15 May)

Norway and Iceland (2 April)

Caribbean countries (22 March)

Pacific Islands (14 March)

Liechtenstein (28 February)

Israel (18 February)

Palestinian Authority (18 February)

Switzerland (11 February)

The Faroe Islands (1 February)

Eastern and Southern Africa (31 January)

Chile (30 January)

Which deals won't be rolled over?

The UK government has previously said some deals are unlikely to be rolled over by exit day. San Marino, Andorra and Turkey won't be ready because these countries are already in a customs union with the EU. A deal with Japan - which is worth just over 2% of total UK trade - also won't be ready."

"The 20 trade agreements the UK has reached represent just over 8% of total UK trade. That means the UK has so far rolled over about three-quarters of the EU's trade deals, based on the 2018 trade figures.

Kosovo

The agreement with Kosovo is the smallest trade deal to be rolled over. UK-Kosovo trade was just £8m in 2018.

Jordan

The agreement with Jordan was reached on 14 November. Total trade between the UK and Jordan was worth £448m in 2018.

Morocco

The UK's deal with Morocco was signed on 26 October. Trade between the two countries was worth £2.5bn in 2018.

Georgia

The UK signed an agreement with Georgia on 21 October. Trade between the two countries was worth £123m in 2018.

Southern Africa customs union and Mozambique

The UK signed a continuity deal with six African nations - South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) and Mozambique - on 9 October.

Trade between the UK and these six countries was worth £10.2bn in 2018.

Tunisia

Signed on 4 October, the government says UK consumers will continue to benefit from from lower textile and clothing prices following the agreement.

Trade between the UK and Tunisia was worth £542m in 2018.

Lebanon

The deal with Lebanon was signed on 19 September. Total trade between the UK and Lebanon was worth £762m in 2018.

South Korea

Signed on 22 August, the South Korea agreement is the first to be struck in Asia.

Total trade between the UK and South Korea was worth £14.8bn in 2018.

Central America

Six Central American countries (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama) signed the UK-Central America Association Agreement on 18 July.

The government says the deal means UK consumers will continue to benefit from lower prices on goods such as prawns and fruit.

Total trade between the UK and Central America was worth £1.1bn in 2018.

Andean countries

Colombia, Ecuador and Peru are the countries covered by the Andean agreement, signed on 15 May.

Total trade between the UK and the Andean countries was worth £3.4bn in 2018.

Norway and Iceland

The agreement, signed on 2 April, maintains the same level of tariffs on goods traded between the UK, Iceland and Norway.

The government says UK businesses will continue to benefit from lower import prices, such as aluminium and some fuel and oil products.

Total trade between the UK and Norway-Iceland was £30.6bn in 2018.

Caribbean countries

The deal with the Caribbean states (known as the Cariforum) covers 12 countries, including Barbados and Jamaica, and was signed on 22 March.

A further two countries, the Bahamas and the Republic of Suriname, have agreed to the deal in principle and are "expected to sign shortly".

Exporters of rum, bananas and sugar cane are all expected to benefit from the arrangement.

Total trade between the UK and the region was worth around £3.7bn in 2018."

The US and Aus trade deals won't take a lifetime and neither will one with Canada. Remember that both Canada and AUS are Commonwealth countries. 

That was one of the other issues around the EU and the UK. There are many Brits who still felt that the UK was "forced to abandon" their Commonwealth nations to gain EU membership. 

I was virtually born a British subject, having been born in SA before SA independence in 1966, and I had no advantage of that in coming to the UK. I had to fall in line and had to conform to much much stricter vetting than someone from, for instance, previous Eastern European countries. Before the UK became an EU member it was much easier for people from earlier UK colonies and territories to settle in the UK.

SB

I never was a NP member and when I did vote it was for other parties,  I had a serious break with De Klerk when he was Minister of Home Affairs and they put me on pension at the age of 42 - so what you write above is your normal dribble.

There is a law in SA to guard against monopolies and maybe the USA should have one too.   They control monopolies and that have an impact of prices of goods and services.   Unfortunately it does not apply to that epitome of corruption Eskom,

In essence such a  law should be promulgated  - but how do one get it through Congress.  The DP is entirely depended on funding by the monopolies and as their House and Senate members are normally corrupt  (and so are some of the Republicans as well) - it will need a super-strong President to force it through the house and Senate.       

@ceradyne

Can you link to a source on the gender mispronunciation claim.

On the dredging issue. That article you quoted is simply wrong. Like a huge number of other anti EU claims, it twists the truth to server an agenda. 

The EU requires that before you dredge a river to prevent flooding the parties involved undertake a study to see if any other alternatives to dredging exist to prevent habitat loss that can occur from dredging and ensure the flooding isn't simply moved further down river. If no viable alternatives exist then dredging is permitted. The EU simply want all options investigated before dredging is done because dredging can cause those two aforementioned problems. All perfectly reasonable.

I'll have to address the rest of your post on trade deals a bit later.

“ Posted by: sharkbok (10492 posts)

As a former National Party member, Clevermike is used to very far-right policies.”

You are totally missing the boat right there. The NP was centre to right of centre, depending on what time period you looking at. The right was parties like the HNP, etc. In the latter years you had the NP in the centre, almost leaning left IMO, and the the CP to their left, followed by the FF. The HNP didn’t exist anymore IIRC. The AWB was the far right. 

Stav

It will take more than a year to have the alternatives investigated and would cost a small fortune.   That is why I say regulations are deadly,    The EU has way too many theories they try to implement.    Th theory is good - the implementation horrible.    No responsible Government institution would not have impact studies done before dredging is considered, but that apparently is not enough to meet the EU requirements,          

Oh I see. I have to provide links and then they are simply dismissed as BS without any substantiation. 

Never -  said Zuma was quite friendly - but never to be trusted  So the answer to you is NO  

Only an unworldly, indoctrinated and rather simple-minded fool would describe the N ationalist Party as centre or even close to centre. They were a right wing party by anyone's standards. The Herstigte Nasionale Party (and later Conservative Party under Treurnicht) were far right wing while the AWB was somewhere between the ultra far right and loony right wingers like Baboon-ou.

The Progressive Party of Helen Suzman was a centre-left party and remained so when they first became the Progressive Federal Party before they became the DP and evolved into the modern day centrist DA.

@ceradyne

LOL. Yes that's the way debating work. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if you want it to mean something you will want to back it up with some credible facts and source.

I'm willing to accept I can be wrong and if you can provide links to the laws or even articles that link to the laws I'll stand corrected. I've looked and I can't find anything about the gender pronunciation claim?

The dredging thing I had already fact checked before. In fairness the same claim was made by a politician over here in Ireland as well.

Here is the EU's official response to the claim its laws made flooding in Britain worse.

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/suggesting-that-the-eu-is-to-blame-for-floods-is-completely-without-foundation/

Its like the claims the EU was banning bananas because that where too bent. They did not they just wanted bananas to be classified into three categories depending on their curvature. I don't know why the EU wanted that but they never threatened to ban bent bananas. This suddenly morphs into this we didn't win two world wars only for the Germans to tell us what size of eggs we can eat. (I swear to god a Brexiteer said that to me in a pub recently)

Johnson claimed that EU laws prevent smoked kippers from being posted by mail during the Tory party leadership contest. They didn't it was a UK law.

Another claim make by a Brexiteer when she called into LBC radio. The EU banned the serving of fish and chips served in newspaper wrappings. Turns out this was done on health and safety grounds, ink was coming off the newspaper and mxing with the food. Perfectly reasonable regulation on health grounds. Also not a EU law but a UK law.

Johnson also claimed the EU blocked legislation to increase safety for cyclists. Again a lie. It was a EU legislation that was actually blocked by the UK.

There is literally 100's more little white lies made up about the EU by the UK media that over years has given the perception that the EU is this meddling busy body entity constantly interfering in UK life.

If you want me to link to sources that prove those claims where false I can.

If you know of any other supposed EU regulations that are adversely affecting the UK, fire away. If they are true I'll stand corrected.

So I'm not dismissing you out of hand, I'm actually fact checking you before replying and your free to fact check me as well. On the gender thing I'm genuinely asking for a source on this cause I can't find one?

One of the reasons I actually post here, is because the people on here hold different views to most people I interact with on a daily basis and I think its important not to be stuck in an echo chamber and to get other points of view. But what I'm mostly finding is that some of the posters here are basically pointing at the first media article they can find that supports their own world view and just believe in it because they want to believe it and never go and check if its true.

You're a liar ou Maaik. You used those exact words . . . you said he was a gentleman and you said he had integrity. You know it and I know it. You can keep up this facade for other people's benefit if it makes you feel better about yourself but you're lying and you know it.

Not surprised you're denying it now but in future if you find me saying anti-Trump stuff much like I used to say anti Zuma things and you find you have this urge to correct me or educate me, just remember what you said about Zuma and how much egg you have dripping off your fat face before you presume to lecture me or anyone else about politics.

Oh and when I call you someone who used to work for the Nationalist Party and then jumped ship when it suited you and joined the ANC (and gushed about Zuma), don't make me out to be a liar because it's 100% true.

So why did you believe this Stav. I'm curious, you were so sure you had a few bites of the cherry. Why were you so confident the Iranians were competent?

Baby Bok

203 posts

Find the statement then about Zuma confirming your misrepresentations.   What has this to do about my comments on socialism and politics, anyway?

@mozart

I instinctively don't lean towards believing what sound like conspiracy theories, which people on this forum I've noticed tend to promote. Any time there is any major incidents, people every where rush to conclusions (not just on this forum). I prefer to wait a few days. People where sorting of implying that Iranians shot it down out of revenge or just because they are Muslim and therefore are evil barbarians who kill just for the sake of killing. I hadn't at that point heard the American intelligence reports or seen the footage of the AA missile strike. Even before seeing the footage the American intelligence reports had me leaning towards an accidental strike.

I wasn't really thinking about whether Iran is competent or not militarily speaking. I don't know much about them other to know they have the 14 biggest army in the world and they use proxies militias in various countries and they engage in whats called irregular warfare.

Even major military powers can mistakes under pressure, the Americans shot d own an Iranian passenger plane in the 80's I believe and the Soviets did the same to a Korean plane. Hell wasn't the Vietnam war kicked off by an attack that didn't actually occur?

What previous message board Rooinek?  Because you were caught out writing BS  on site  om a subject you know zero about and neither understand anything about, you talk about judgement,

I am not lying and has not lied about this issue an the fact that the only things you quote about politics come from liars are really the funniest thing I have ever seen on site,   One could accept your ideas  about the 2016 US election - I was also surprised buy the results,   While you wen t on the rampage about the famous Russian Hoax story I studied what really happened and why the outcome was so different from what was widely expected.

What came out was clear and indisputable,  namely -

*   total disregard of the interests of working class Americans through trade deals entered into by successive Democratic and Republican administrations after Reagan went out;

*   the lack of trust developing in the period 2012 to 2016 and a widespread belief that the Administration was dishonest in what for decades was known as a corrupt Washington Swamp and that Clinton in particular was the epitome of corruption in Government; and 

*   that whereas 53% of urban dwellers thought American governance was on the wrong track,  the numbers increased to 62% of suburban voters and 71% of rural voters - and according to exit polls of those disgruntled voters in rural areas 73% voted for Trump and 24% for Clinton; while even in the suburban areas the split was 55-45 and in urban voters 50-50,

In an interview in 2019 Clinton said that if Fox News existed in 1992 Bill Clinton would never have been elected as President,    Ever since his presidency his reputation was in serious decline and having him around in the Whitehouse was repugnant to a large percentage of voters,   Clinton represented the so-called Washington political establishment and Trump did not and the people who voted for him favoured blowing it up.

The media was in the main against Trump, but distrust of the media was a substantial factor by 2016 already and by now only 8% of the people believe that the media can be trusted to report honestly on political issues,   Support by the media of certain candidates in 2016 was rather negative - whomsoever the media support at present has been given the kiss of death by them,   

Another factor relates to opinion polls,   They are run by the major media houses and is slanted in favour of preferred candidates and has become totally unreliable.

The above was factors that influenced the 2016 election and the situation at present for the Democrats is even worse.   Impeachment moves started in 2016 already and the present impeachment effort has nothing to do with something wrong done by Trump and everything to do with getting rid of Trump as a candidate on 2020.   Unfortunately it would not work and it is bound to backfire on them.   

The USA is a deeply divided society at present and unlike what you may believe, Trump read the situation perfectly and is using it to his advantage,     

Please read the above carefully and find whether it is right or wrong.   Personal BS willonly show poor judgement and lack of integrity on your part

@mozart

I was inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. The initial reports of the incident that I heard from RTE (Irelands main TV/New's channel) and BBC implied that cause was unknown. When I heard it was mostly Iranians killed I thought well why would Iran target their own civilians.

Not an aviation enthusiast, I wasn't aware of the 737's safety record. The fact that it was a 737 passed me by completely. I did hear the plane underwent maintenance recently and thought that might have been a factor.

When their was strong evidence shown that it was an accidental Iranian missile strike then sure I'm happy to say that's what happened.

As for the Iraq war, many do hold the view that Bush didn't care if there was WMD or not, he just had a score to settle with Saddam for trying to wack his dad and it was unfinished business from the Gulf War.

The whole search for WMD dragged on for years not weeks. I recall American supporters of the Iraq War saying on more than one occasion that they had found the WMD, many months if not years later. In fairness they found remnants of Saddam's old WMD stockpile from the first Gulf War but not what was advertised.

Your the first person I've ever heard put blame or at least partial blame on to Iran for the Iraq war. Bit baffled on that one, a post ago you where calling Iran incompetent but you also think they are capable of manipulating the USA into war? Or I'm not following you hear?

I also recall the Iraqi's repeatedly saying they didn't have any WMD.

On the Trump collusion thing, I don't think he did colluded with Russia but I do believe that Russia was trying to influence the election in his favor independently, believing he would have a more favorable relations towards Russia than Clinton would. How effective they where at actually influencing is another question.

Same thing on Brexit, there again was attempted Russian interference to push in favor of Brexit but how effective it was remains up for debate. It was again Russia acting on its own pursuing its agenda of weakening the EU and European co-operation in general.

SB

Working for the Government does not imply that you must be a supporter of the governing party at all,   It is and always has been until 1995 legally forbidden for Public Servants to be politically active and the only thing they were legally entitled tp was to vote,  I worked on that principle and was on the end so disliked by the NP that my phone was tapped by the police and after special legislation to get rid of undesirables in the Public Service I was the first public servant to be pensioned off in terms of that legislation in 1984.   Am still drawing that pension and as been on pension now for 35 years,   

In 1986 I started working for what was the Ballito Municipality and worked for hem until I was 70 years old.  It was while working for them that I became known as Mr Municipality widely throughout SA.     

So leave personal BS out of your deductions please.               

Sorry Stav, my bad, that should have read the 'wiles of Iraqi exiles'. This from the NY Times:

A 2006 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that “false information” from sources affiliated with the Iraqi National Congress “was used to support key intelligence community assessments on Iraq and was widely distributed in intelligence products prior to the war.” It found that the group “attempted to influence United States policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorists.”

Stav

I read up the water plan of he EU that was in contention here and it was an amazing prescription  of Green Ideals through the establishment of natural green areas and marshlands natural drainage will occur and water will not flow into rivers thus causing floods.

There is really nothing there relating to dredging that I could find, but the broader ideals may give the impression that drainage should be limited by applying the norms they prescribe to be used.   A thousand years ago there were extensive marshy areas in Europe where water flow into rivers were limited and what the EU wants to see is that the natural environment of the time should be returned to.   

Whether it is possible to return to that situation after years of farming expansion and urban development is indeed questionable.  The cost would be massive - how could areas that used to be marshlands be re-instated as such without buying up the land and even moving major parts of towns and cities to allow for re-establishment of marshlands?   How will it work in for instance the Netherlands with its Dykes and channelization of rivers  the latter issue not being confined only to the channeling issue as well, 

The laying out of cities like London over the centuries did not provide for stormwater drainage and he same applies to other major cities in Europe.   It resulted in serious problems in cities that has never been really solved.   The financial impact would be massive and beyond affordability.  Interesting enough there was some ideas as to solving that problem by some leaders -  Napoleon had numerous channels constructed in Paris to serve that purpose and the emporer Franz Joseph did the same in rebuilding of major parts of Vienna, Prague and Budapest.  For the rest very little was done,

My problem in reading what the EU require is an ideal natural environment situation that cannot even remotely being possible on the scale that would prevent flooding,   In essence that is what my problem is with rules and regulations.   People come up with mythical ideals to be achieved and in public service think they would solve real or even imaginary problems and instead of doing that creates an endless regulations that do not solve the problems, but even create new problem areas.   

EU on alert: Protests break out in Germany and Ireland amid anger at Brussels regulations

PROTESTS have erupted in Germany and Ireland in the last 48 hours amid fury at restrictive EU regulations on the environment and agriculture - prompting farmers to blockade main roads with tractors in both EU member-states.

Are the regulations of the EU similar to the campaign in the USA to ban cattle farming because farting cattle cause air pollution and consequently global warming????  

@ceradyne

I still intend to reply to your post on the trade deals and actually I want to bring up the video you linked to in the past about the former boss of Dover port who was saying the disruption at Dover wasn't going to that as bad as many where saying. Just a little strapped for time at the moment.

They are actually pretty valid points and the ex Dover port boss was quite credible.

Just briefly on your last point, you need to take anything the Daily Express says with a massive grain of salt, they are one of the most anti EU newspapers in existence. They throw up around half a dozen anti EU articles every single day. Just look over the site, just attack after attack with no sense of balance. In fairness the articles aren't quite as bad as the article headlines but they twist everything.

The Irish protests where not aimed at the EU but at the Irish government polices. The German protests where protests against German laws introduced to protect the environment albeit the German government had to introduced them or the EU was going to fine them. For all the criticism the Germans get for having too much power in the EU at times, the EU treats them the same on environmental issues as any other nation. What the Express didn't mention was there was also counter protests in Germany at same time calling out the German government for not doing enough to protect the environment and EU agri-sector money spent on pesticides should be spent on protecting the environment instead.

An interesting stat here. The largest tax fraud countries have the highest GDP per capita

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Comparisons of national wealth are frequently made on the basis of nominal GDP and savings (not just income), which do not reflect differences in the cost of living in different countries (see List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita); hence, using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing generalized differences in living standards between nations because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of the countries, rather than using only exchange rates, which may distort the real differences in income. This is why GDP (PPP) per capita is often considered one of the indicators of a country's standard of living,[2][3] although this can be problematic because GDP per capita is not a measure of personal income. 

Note that the Irish GDP data below is subject to material distortion by the tax planning activities of foreign multinationals in Ireland. 2015 Irish GDP was over 150% of 2015 Irish gross national income (GNI). To address this, in 2017 the Central Bank of Ireland created "modified GNI" (or GNI*) as a more appropriate statistic, and the OECD and IMF have adopted it for Ireland. 2015 Irish GDP is 143% of 2015 Irish GNI*.

“ I realise your religion will have lots of conspiracies against the EU- so you will have a major bias here. As if the Devils master plan to create the EU.”

I was going to show you some stats and info from the IMF and the World Bank, but since you have once again decided to bring in the petulant religion angle, I decided to just give it a miss. 

I thought you were being petulant, by repeatedly asking why- then just refuting as a hunch.  I do find that the religious have many conspiracies which impact on political, economic and scientific objectivity. 

Nope.....Europe is being dragged down by Germany, a machine shop economy that looks increasingly vulnerable with the switch to battery cars and by  a disastrous energy policy. This from the Wall Street Journal:

• PRINT
• TEXT
• 39

FRANKFURT—Germany’s economic growth slumped to a six-year low in 2019 as the export powerhouse faced challenges in its flagship car industry, persistently slowing Chinese growth and global trade conflicts, a slowdown that weighs on Europe’s outlook.

Germany, Europe’s largest economy, is the first major country to report full-year growth figures for 2019 after the World Bank last week estimated that the global economy expanded by just 2.4% last year, the weakest rate since the global financial crisis. The bank also lowered its global growth forecast, pointing to a sluggish recovery in trade and investment.

• U.S., China to Sign Deal Easing Trade Tensions (Jan. 15, 2020)
• New EU Trade Chief Tries to Avert Trade War With U.S. (Jan. 14, 2020)
• ECB Launches Major Stimulus Package(Sept. 12, 2019)
• For Europe, There’s an Upside to Germany’s Slowdown (July 7, 2019)

With gross domestic product growth of 0.6% last year, Germany’s economy expanded at its slowest rate since 2013—the height of the eurozone’s debt crisis—dragged down by a manufacturing contraction of 3.6%. Despite a resolution to Britain’s exit from the European Union and an initial U.S.-China trade deal signed on Wednesday, economists predict Germany’s economy will barely grow this year.