The American Two Party system

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(03-10-2023, 01:07 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL and wasn't the lead juror the cousin of the coup leader? There was some blood relation in there.

I think ALL charges were dismissed, weren't they?

And the court had to return their "property," the STOLEN automatic weapons. 
So hard for the jury to figure out whether THEY were the threat or the FBI with its raid on private homes.

All this is less puzzling when you remember how hard it was to convict white people of racial
crimes like lynching during this period. Juries often just let them go. 

Also, despite the voluminous FBI files on the case, it was largely forgotten by FBI and historians
as the threat of COMMUNISM loomed so large after '48.

I think all charges were dismissed b/c the presiding judge died halfway through the trial.  That was one of the major deciding factors to dismiss b/c another judge would almost have to start the trial over.  The judge allowed all the defendants to be tried together, one would not show up for something like a dentist appt, and then the trial would be delayed over a month.  Each defendant had their own attorney and the court was flooded with defense motion after motion.  And, yes I do believe the judge allowed a relative of one of the coup plotters to be on the jury and they poisoned the pool.  

So, if we have this again our Federal judges will not allow 50+ defendants to be on trial with each other; they would be separate.  A judge wouldn't allow a relative to be on the jury panel, and they would not allow their courtroom to be a complete circus.   

[grampahol]

(03-05-2023, 11:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, here is the issue. In a winner-take-all, first-past-the-post system, we will only ever have two viable parties. There is no chance for a third-party to form and gain traction enough to make a splash on the national scene. Typically, the only third-party candidates or independents that do well in general elections do so because they made their name as a Democrat of Republican and gained the recognition.

I think one of the things that needs to be considered in this discussion, though, is that our parties do not operate the same way European countries do. In Europe, a politician's positions are much more in step with their party. The way it has been here for the 20th century the political party's sole purpose was to win elections. That's it. In the 19th century it was more about single-issue topics. Parties coalesced over one issue and they were very ad-hoc. In the 20th they became these behemoths that just bankrolled candidates who were not at all beholden to the platform of their party. It evolved into a system where the platform doesn't matter at all, it's all about gaining power. This is evidenced by the GOP not even adopting a platform in 2020 at their meeting and McConnell saying as much: they only care about winning. Then, when they are in office, the lobbyists are writing the legislation.

There has been a brain drain in Washington. 40-50 years ago, the halls of Congress were filled with staffers that were subject matter experts working on legislation for elected officials. They knew their topics and would hammer out details, advising their bosses on the issues. However, we have seen a continual decline of staffers of DC and officials sending more staffers to their district and state offices to work on constituent services. This sounds great, right!? They are listening to their people more, right!? Nope. What is happening is that the lack of subject matter experts on staff created a vacuum filled by lobbyists for special interests. Industries are writing the legislation intended to be oversight for their own industry. CRS reports go unread or misunderstood.

In addition, we have the same number of Representatives as was set in 1911. Our population has increased by 259% since that time. We have more than three times our population but the same number of Representatives. So how effectively can our Representatives truly represent our interests when they have to cover so many people? For comparison's sake:

Germany - 83.2 million people, 736 in Bundestag, 113,043.5 people per representative (to be fair, this is the largest directly-elected legislative body out there).
Austria (choosing this for Hollo's sake) - 9 million people, 183 in National Council, 49,180.3 people per representative.
UK - 67.3 million people, 650 in the House of Commons, 103,538.5 people per representative.
Canada - 38.3 million people, 338 in the House of Commons, 113,313.6 people per representative.

Now, the US - 331.9 million people, 435 in House of Representatives, 762,988.5 people per representative.

The more people a representative represents, the less democratic the system is. It means that the voice of the citizen is diluted further and the representative has no chance of truly speaking for their constituents.

Tl;dr: Our system is broken and there are a lot of things beyond just the two-party system that needs fixing.

If you think the house of reprehensible's is broken try the Senate. Wyoming has two senators as does California or Texas or New York, Vermont. In the Senate they typically last long enough to die of old age before their last vote or vote based on whatever whackadoodle ideas come with dementia..
Then there's our illustrious military industrial complex where nearly everything made for bombers, and everything else the military uses is made in nearly every district in the country so nobody votes against military spending. Funny thing though..I'm not actually opposed to having the greatest funded military in the history of civilization, but..It's definitely not the most efficient way of running a military.
Still, throughout our history we've had no shortage of utter lunatics in office and currently the Republican party seems to be in a death match to see who can outdo the Jim Jones cult..

[Dill]

(03-08-2023, 05:27 AM)hollodero Wrote: Dill Wrote:[url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-The-American-Two-Party-system?pid=1337236#pid1337236][/url]The last time we went over this ground, I reminded you that over the last 20 years, the liberal democracies which went authoritarian were not two party systems. Given this evidence, why can't one properly infer that multiparty systems pose at least an equal, if not greater, threat than two party?
...
Well, for one I would say there isn't nearly enough sample size to reach any conclusion on that. The countries you refer to were young democracies, a generation old, and were never stable to begin with. I have no convincing reason to believe that had they only implemented a two-party system, that development could have been avoided in these countries like Hungary. I rather think CPAC hero Orban would just have pulled the same stunts. Last hungarian election, the other parties formed a coalition and ran as some kind of singular opposition party and still lost.
The other issue is that I don't really know of any other country than the US that employs such a strict, irreplacable two-party system. The closest might be GB, and while not authoritarian they are not exactly on a great path. But the main point to me is this, if one would name the western democracy with the most evident authoritarian tendencies, it would have to be the US and it's not close. When there are election deniers and capitol stormers around, I find it a tough position to claim the two-party system suppresses that exact tendencies. It most clearly did not recently.

And yet, with the same "sample size" you are ready to conclude that the two-party system is more conducive to authoritarian outcomes, even though you have no example of that actually resulting in an effective dictatorship, and only ONE of an actually existing two party system. 

And remember that my claim is not that Hungary or Russia or whomever could have avoided an authoritarian turn had they had a two-party system. My claim is only that you have not supplied sufficient evidence of a cause/effect nexus in U.S. politics between the GOP's authoritarian turn and the two party system.  Seems you are presenting a "hunch" and running with that. 

Saying the the U.S. is the most authoritarian liberal democracy right now could be right, but it has not yet become Hungary, right? Not yet an example of fallen democracy, so something was "suppressed" though the fight is still going on. (And we might want to delve into some other teetering democracies like Poland before we decide who is winning the authoritarian derby.)

Your point (ignored by Lenin) about the absence of a liberal civil culture and schooling in the countries that have reverted, like Russia and Hungary, I totally agree with. Without that in place, some form of authoritarian government is likely to return anywhere. Resistance has to come from an informed population. 

You probably agree that understanding whether or why not current U.S. voters may not be up to the task would be very helpful. But just saying "it's the two party system" explains so much less than understanding the incremental process whereby a once fringe and conspiracy-grounded right-wing politics was mainstreamed and captured the White House, and than noticing qualitatively different types of bad behavior.  We get better answers when look to changes in communications technology and the laws regulating them, as well as some unwise exclusions from k-12 and university curricula in favor of vocational training, along with the "fit" of our domestic policies in the context of world political changes, like the fall of the Soviet Union, 9/11 and the recession of 2008.  

We also get better answers if we started clearly defining and identifying authoritarian behavior. E.g., only one sides leaders have INTENTIONALLY misinformed millions to de-legitimate a legitimate election and the press which accurately reported it, resulting in a stormed capital, "voter integrity" laws, and new tactics for disputing and gumming up legitimate elections. Only one side has an effective paramilitary aching to serve a dear leader if millions of voters can return him to power--many of them in jail waiting for the pardon which will come if the dear leader wins.

So I am just mystified as to where the urge comes from to say things like "Well, the Dem side has its biased voters and politicians too" so they share responsibility for this illiberal turn. That seems to totally miss the scale of the problem; a misrecognition of the real problem misrecognized as "avoiding partisanship."

[Dill]

(03-08-2023, 05:27 AM)Dill Wrote: Wrote: Why can't some 3rd or 4th party become that nasty core which draws authoritarians in numbers and concentrates their power, and augments or even doubles it by aligning with the nearest right wing party?
....
Well, that sure is possible. I would argue it's somewhat more unlikely, for the nearest conservative party might just not want to align with them, and even if they do and try to tame the tiger, they are not tied to them and could always back out. Unlike in the US, where maybe 20% of devout backers brought Trump the presidency, aided by the conservatives that could not vote any other way. These loyalties that make it unthinkable that any of the US parties could ever fall under 45% total support, no matter what, is imho a strong evidence that the two-party system does not exactly reign in authoritarian - or any other unwanted - tendencies. It's the US that elected a person like Trump, something that could hardly be imagined in Germany or any other western democracy. Where a Trump party would be stuck at 20% and be ostracized like most extreme right-wing parties are.

Alignment with "conservative" parties is not only "possible"; it is exactly what happened in every country where fascism succeeded during the interwar years. The first Italian fascists only got .04 percent of the national vote. Then the Nationalist Bloc took them, thinking they could manage them. Same with Hitler and Franco. The rest is 20th century history. And regarding your next door neighbor, it was the even farther right Jobbik which initially gave Fidesz its initial ruling majority, wasn't it? Your argument here seems to be that if MAGA were a 20% party they would be safely isolated there, maybe like the AfD in Germany--making noise but in no danger of ruling. The other 80% would not be "forced" to support their policies. But because of the two party system, all those good folks had no choice but to vote for the misogynist daily sending up authoritarian red flags. 

Back to the interwar examples--the conservative and nationalist parties did sometimes un-align themselves with fascist parties, and in most countries with fascist parties, the fascists were successfully opposed by leftists, liberals, and even other conservatives (e.g. even in France, the country which birthed fascism as political movement).  But the BIG DIFFERENCE in the countries where fascism succeeded was that in EACH CASE the party had strong press organs and journalists which could compete with or shout down the press organs of other parties.

And this brings us to another big difference in our assessment of the dynamic in current U.S. politics. The GOP has become a regime party tacitly obeying a Fuehrerprinzip, a party with its own special and massively influential press organs, tasked with defending its politicians and policies against the national interest with "alternative facts." 

If the U.S. is indeed, as you say, the current liberal democracy farthest down the authoritarian track, it is more because of the this tie between party and news organization than anything else. It's what explains the continued support of Trump in the face of "actual facts" regarding his unfitness for leadership. And just as importantly, it explains why so many "conservatives" and others on the right cannot bring themselves to vote for Democrats who are "destroying the nation" with their health care and infrastructure proposals. That paralysis is a goal, an intended effect; and it's why voters no longer can shift in mass from one party to another, to produce "landslides," as they did between '52 and 2008--in a two-party system.  It's why Democrats aren't just a little less worse with some people who also want their biases confirmed. It's because GOP-Fox is altogether new entity in U.S. politics, not some mirror image of "the left," just a bit louder. It has become a massive machine for illiberal politics, anti-democratic.

[hollodero]

(03-10-2023, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: And yet, with the same "sample size" you are ready to conclude that the two-party system is more conducive to authoritarian outcomes, even though you have no example of that actually resulting in an effective dictatorship, and only ONE of an actually existing two party system. 

Yes, that is true. I do not have conclusive evidence. I see a system I deem unhealthy on many fronts and laid out what these signs of unhealthyness are to me and what that leads me to believe, that is indeed all I have. If the great rebuttal is the lack of proof, then yeah I could shut up, but we also probably best turn off this whole board, because it's always mostly speculation and thoughts and interpretations. No one has conclusive evidence how the Bengals will perform next year or if a draft prospect will develop nicely and so on. There's certain indicators that's all.

(03-10-2023, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: And remember that my claim is not that Hungary or Russia or whomever could have avoided an authoritarian turn had they had a two-party system.

Well you asked me, in bold font, quote "given this evidence, why can't one properly infer that multiparty systems pose at least an equal, if not greater, threat than two party?" It was you that claimed to have actual evidence leading to a certain conclusion. I never did. I just have a take that's all.

(03-10-2023, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: My claim is only that you have not supplied sufficient evidence of a cause/effect nexus in U.S. politics between the GOP's authoritarian turn and the two party system.  Seems you are presenting a "hunch" and running with that. 

To me it is more than just a hunch. It's not like I did not lay out several reasons (not undisputable evidence, sure) that make me think that way. Seems like you claim I am not entitled to debate any of that.

(03-10-2023, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: Saying the the U.S. is the most authoritarian liberal democracy right now could be right, but it has not yet become Hungary, right?

Nope, and I hope it never does, even though that would give me evidence. It is a sad fact that it's usually too late then. Let me throw in an inappropriate Hitler comparison for once, folks that warned of Hitler's rise could very well have been told "oh you have no proof" and "there's no example of someone like Hitler actually taking over a democratic country" as well, and this lack of hard evidence could have been brought up just until the end.

(03-10-2023, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: You probably agree that understanding whether or why not current U.S. voters may not be up to the task would be very helpful. But just saying "it's the two party system" explains so much less than understanding the incremental process whereby a once fringe and conspiracy-grounded right-wing politics was mainstreamed and captured the White House, and than noticing qualitatively different types of bad behavior. 

Oh I agree, just saying "it's the two party system" is not a wholesome analysis. But neither is "oh it's the right wing", whích seems to be your sole focus.
I claim that the two-party system is a big contributor for the strict ideological rift and the absurd loyalties folks display to their side. The only one, certainly not. I acknowledge fully that the system worked better in former times than it does now, and sure that has to do with social media and with a wave of right-wing extremism and lots of other things. Imho also including the two-party system that gives people only two choices.

(03-10-2023, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: So I am just mystified as to where the urge comes from to say things like "Well, the Dem side has its biased voters and politicians too"

I say things like that because imho they are true. I am equally mystified with you having such an enormous problem with that, time and again. If I had said that to make a case for republicans, then ok I understand the response. Or if I said MSNBC is biased and therefore I only watch FOX. But taking exception with someone claiming that MSNBC is biased? Well, they are. And time and again your stance seems to be that saying things like this is some kind of taboo.

(03-10-2023, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: so they share responsibility for this illiberal turn. That seems to totally miss the scale of the problem; a misrecognition of the real problem misrecognized as "avoiding partisanship."

I'm not avoiding taking a stance. As American, I would have no choice but to vote for the Democrats, if that is partisan enough for you. But I don't feel the need to then be also completely uncritical of their side and scold everyone who has a different take. Indeed, most of your stance reads like "don't you dare saying anything but good things about the good guys that are the only opposition to republicans" and "if you do so, you employ a false sense of equivalency".

(03-10-2023, 05:33 PM)Dill Wrote: And this brings us to another big difference in our assessment of the dynamic in current U.S. politics. The GOP has become a regime party tacitly obeying a Fuehrerprinzip, a party with its own special and massively influential press organs, tasked with defending its politicians and policies against the national interest with "alternative facts."

Yeah. And I assume that besides other aspects, this development is aided by a two-party system that gives most conservative people no other choice but to begrudgingly go along with that. Others feel inclined to even celebrate it, because there is only one other side and most people - indeed on both sides - have learned that the other side is mentally deranged or evil. Extremes that a more pluralistic political landscape seems to somewhat prohibit. But I can not conclusively prove that, so I might as well just shut up.

[hollodero]

I want to get back to the two party topic a little. I did not yet bring up how unsatisfactory this system appears to me. Usually voting for one team a whole life long - and I assume many people just choose between one party and third party/not voting - that is such a narrow path to go. And even that only makes sense if you happen to live in an area that is somewhat purple. So many are not from the start and there's no point. Really, why do people in California even bother to vote for president, I honestly wonder. It's just for bragging rights over the irrelevant popular vote. Else, it's pointless. The whole state can safely be colored blue before election night starts. Or you live in a red state, you can vote blue until you get blue in your face, your whole life your vote would count for the other option nonetheless, your whole voting history was moot and your voice always was recognized as a republican one. Well, sure, you got primaries, you can choose who will lose, if that is an adequate substitute. But just thinking about this whole two party idea without experiencing it, this appears so utterly frustrating. Someone tell me how it's not.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-10-2023, 10:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: I want to get back to the two party topic a little. I did not yet bring up how unsatisfactory this system appears to me. Usually voting for one team a whole life long - and I assume many people just choose between one party and third party/not voting - that is such a narrow path to go. And even that only makes sense if you happen to live in an area that is somewhat purple. So many are not from the start and there's no point. Really, why do people in California even bother to vote for president, I honestly wonder. It's just for bragging rights over the irrelevant popular vote. Else, it's pointless. The whole state can safely be colored blue before election night starts. Or you live in a red state, you can vote blue until you get blue in your face, your whole life your vote would count for the other option nonetheless, your whole voting history was moot and your voice always was recognized as a republican one. Well, sure, you got primaries, you can choose who will lose, if that is an adequate substitute. But just thinking about this whole two party idea without experiencing it, this appears so utterly frustrating. Someone tell me how it's not.

Well Hollo, I'm sorry that our political system causes you so much disappointment.  A growing percentage of us here are fairly disenchanted with the state of things, as well.

[hollodero]

(03-10-2023, 10:18 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: A growing percentage of us here are fairly disenchanted with the state of things, as well.

That much is obvious. What would you say are the major issues, and specifically would you say that a certain part of the problem is the two-party system.

[NATI BENGALS]

I should be able to vote for a candidate from each party in primaries to compete for every position. That is about the only way I would ever be satisfied with our two party system.

But in Ohio right now if I'm an independent during a primary I don't even get a vote on candidates.

[GMDino]

(03-11-2023, 05:35 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I should be able to vote for a candidate from each party in primaries to compete for every position. That is about the only way I would ever be satisfied with our two party system.

But in Ohio right now if I'm an independent during a primary I don't even get a vote on candidates.

Same in PA.  PLUS the vast majority cross-register.  We have republicans running as Democrats also in the same primary.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-10-2023, 10:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: That much is obvious. What would you say are the major issues, and specifically would you say that a certain part of the problem is the two-party system.

My opinion leans towards the sheer volume of control and leverage that the RNC and DNC have over election funding and controlling the debates as a major problem.  It creates an atmosphere where the two parties are the only ones who get a "seat at the table" so to speak. 

[Dill]

(03-10-2023, 07:48 PM)hollodero Wrote: Dill Wrote:[url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-The-American-Two-Party-system?pid=1337976#pid1337976][/url]So I am just mystified as to where the urge comes from to say things like "Well, the Dem side has its biased voters and politicians too"
......
I say things like that because imho they are true. I am equally mystified with you having such an enormous problem with that, time and again. If I had said that to make a case for republicans, then ok I understand the response. Or if I said MSNBC is biased and therefore I only watch FOX. But taking exception with someone claiming that MSNBC is biased? Well, they are. And time and again your stance seems to be that saying things like this is some kind of taboo.

In what follows I am trying to make sure that our arguments and counter arguments actually meet on the same ground. I don’t think they are if you feel the need to say “Dems bias too” because “it’s true.”

I can imagine situations in which “Dems do it too” would be a quite appropriate response. E.g., if were making a categorical claim “All Repubs are biased,” as if only one side were, that would be sort of like claiming “all and only GOP swans are black” and then you’d show me a dozen black Dem swans and some white GOP swans. The category suddenly has no clear boundaries: argument refuted and category useless for description/analysis.
 
Politicians on both sides have always “lied” and taken bribes and been caught in sex scandals or been “biased.” It would be trivial to claim only one side does it; making such hopelessly GENERAL and TRIVIAL claims would teach us nothing about the present moment—nor would “refuting” them.
 
That’s why my claim is not simply or only that Repubs are “biased,” nor is it general. I am trying to understand the current disruption in our politics and the very destructive divergence from previous norms and precedents. To understand that disruption means to understand its causes. So I am looking for what is unique to this political moment; it is not that one side is “biased” and the other is not. It is that one side swiftly absorbed what seemed at patent lie to a majority of voters, which led to a coordinated coup attempt, and in its aftermath, an enraged party went to work on “voter integrity” laws and Congressional investigations into supposedly “weaponized” government, generally working to disrupt any potential accountability for their followers’ illegal behavior—after already protecting their dear leader from a Russian investigation and two impeachments. And now millions want that leader back in office. So my guiding question is not “Which side is (more) ‘biased’?” but rather “which side is coup-inclined, and why?” 
 
I think the current division is a serious problem, an assault on the rule of law and democracy which still has a chance of success. Or if not success then surely more potential disruption and violence as an angry, confused and disillusioned Fox audience doubles down on its primary source of “truth” in the aftermath of the Dominion suit, and a MAGA core sets about “accelerating” the breakdown of governance and civil order. That effort may create its own counterbalance even within the GOP, but that is hardly certain.
 
I can begin to explain some of this when I understand how it has followed from social changes (civil rights, feminism, immigration) and changes in technology as well as politics, law and education—and the picture gets much clearer when I look at how Fox and the rest of the RW media environment have diverged from previous journalistic norms and standards in specific and identifiable ways, and how the Republican party leaders have embraced autocratic leaders, uncivil norms and rejected compromise. The political history of authoritarianism can shed much light on what is going on here, but “Dems are biased too!” Doesn’t clarify much. Or worse, it enables water-muddying false equivalence.  Why don't Dems coup too? 

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-11-2023, 03:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: My opinion leans towards the sheer volume of control and leverage that the RNC and DNC have over election funding and controlling the debates as a major problem.  It creates an atmosphere where the two parties are the only ones who get a "seat at the table" so to speak. 

This.....they stack the deck. When they took over control of the debates with their "nonpartisan" Debate Commission (there are ONLY Dems and Repubs on the committee, lmao) from the League of Women Voters, it's been downhill ever since.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-11-2023, 05:35 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I should be able to vote for a candidate from each party in primaries to compete for every position. That is about the only way I would ever be satisfied with our two party system.

But in Ohio right now if I'm an independent during a primary I don't even get a vote on candidates.

Same here....been registered independent from day one, and can't vote in the primary. What are they afraid of?

[masonbengals fan]

(03-13-2023, 11:05 AM)Wyche Wrote: Same here....been registered independent from day one, and can't vote in the primary. What are they afraid of?

Same here

[Belsnickel]

(03-13-2023, 11:05 AM)WychesWarrior Wrote: Same here....been registered independent from day one, and can't vote in the primary. What are they afraid of?

(03-13-2023, 12:14 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Same here

This is why I like Virginia. You don't register as any party. You can vote in any primary (but only one, so if you vote in the Democratic primary you are excluded from the Republican one, and vice versa). Of course, both parties try to make you sign this pledge to vote for the winner and I just tell them to shove it.

[*Nately120*]

(03-13-2023, 12:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is why I like Virginia. You don't register as any party. You can vote in any primary (but only one, so if you vote in the Democratic primary you are excluded from the Republican one, and vice versa). Of course, both parties try to make you sign this pledge to vote for the winner and I just tell them to shove it.

Did you ever try to vote twice "just to test it?"

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-13-2023, 12:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is why I like Virginia. You don't register as any party. You can vote in any primary (but only one, so if you vote in the Democratic primary you are excluded from the Republican one, and vice versa). Of course, both parties try to make you sign this pledge to vote for the winner and I just tell them to shove it.

I can dig that.... should be that way everywhere.

[masonbengals fan]

(03-13-2023, 12:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is why I like Virginia. You don't register as any party. You can vote in any primary (but only one, so if you vote in the Democratic primary you are excluded from the Republican one, and vice versa). Of course, both parties try to make you sign this pledge to vote for the winner and I just tell them to shove it.

That makes sense. 

[hollodero]

(03-12-2023, 03:02 PM)Dill Wrote: In what follows I am trying to make sure that our arguments and counter arguments actually meet on the same ground. I don’t think they are if you feel the need to say “Dems bias too” because “it’s true.”

Well, in this case you asked me a question a la 'why did you feel the urge to say that' and I answered it. And I still think it's true. Not everything you infer from that about me and my motivation is. I wanted to talk two party system here, not who's more severely biased or shares more blame.
I will leave the rest out, because it seems to be yet another dire injunction to solely focus on the republican sins. Stuff that was discussed a lot and that I don't disagree with anyways.