So do you.
When you plead guilty to a felony in federal court you become a convicted felon. A felony goes on your record. You know that though. Why don't you stop arguing in bad faith and just come out and say the only thing you care about is if they are loyal to Trump or not.
Biden, Clinton, Comey....all criminal who haven't even been indicted.
Flynn, Stone, Manafort... all convicted felons - but the felonies they were found guilty of by a jury don't matter and the felonies they plead guilty to don't matter because a jury didn't find them guilty. Oh, and you aren't going to bother even looking into the actual crimes yourself. Much easier to just google "Michael Flynn is innocent" or which and paste the first 10 results to defend him. "So do you." What? What the fuck does that even mean? That doesn't even make any sense linguistically let along logically. It doesn't make sense because you removed the statement I was responding to.  No one found Trump guilty of anything, but that doesn't stop you from claiming he is guilty of some undocumented unnamed crimes for years now does it? There is plenty of documentation and evidence supporting the guilt of Biden, Clinton, and Comey.
Now you're getting it. Just because someone isn't found guilty of a crime doesn't mean they didn't commit any crimes. You don't need to keep repeating the fact that Trump hasn't been found guilty or charged with any crimes. I agree with you and that. You're right. I'll say it again to be clear - Trump hasn't been found guilty of anything. I have looked in to the "crimes", probably more than you have.
All of your sources are from the media. Just read the report. The whole thing. |
|
|
|
From " Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election" P. 66 So far I see a failed real estate licensing deal with no direct ties to the Kremlin or Putin, and Manafort previously doing some lobbying for USA allies, Ukraine. I don't see this claim supported anywhere: his campaign manager was working with russia to help get trump elected. he told them if trump won, they would have support from america on their invasion of ukraine. You're only on the first page of chapter IV "RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT LINKS TO AND CONTACTS WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN". I recommend reading the whole chapter, but if you want to skip ahead Section 8 is all about Manafort. If you if you see a name you don't recognize, make sure you ctrl+f the name to find an explanation of what that persons role is. The Russian names are confusing to keep track of - at least for me. Pro tip: The table of contents is clickable. |
|
|
|
Overall fatality rate of 0.4% CDC reportIf you 90 plus years old you have statically a 35.281% chance of dying this year. | Age | | Average Yearly Propability of Death | | Increased chance with COVID | | 0-9 | | 0.073% | | 0.002% | | 10-19 | | 0.033% | | 0.003% | | 20-29 | | 0.107% | | 0.01% | | 30-39 | | 0.16% | | 0.022% | | 40-49 | | 0.267% | | 0.042% | | 50-59 | | 0.614% | | 0.137% | | 60-69 | | 1.288% | | 0.486% | | 70-79 | | 3.028% | | 1.661% | | 80-89 | | 8.582% | | 5.789% | | 90+ | | 24.9% | | 10.337% |
You linked to the cdc pandemic planning scenarios using data from March 1 - March 31. The cdc doesn't have an overall fatality rate that I can see. Also, they spelled probability wrong - and it's not a typo. Ok, so you got it from this article: Horowitz: The CDC confirms remarkably low coronavirus death rate. Where is the media?https://www.conservativereview.com/news/horowitz-cdc-confirms-remarkably-low-coronavirus-death-rate-media/And he used this chart from the cdc report and added the red circle:  Now go look at what it says above the chart in the actual scenario report: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html The scenarios are intended to advance public health preparedness and planning. They are not predictions or estimates of the expected impact of COVID-19. It says that...right above the chart. And this guy writes an article about it with "The CDC confirms remarkably low coronavirus death rate." in the headline. Do you think he's lying or just stupid? You can't just look for a low number and then make up what it means and then run around telling people that's what the CDC meant. Even if all your theories are correct, if you make shit up you are no better than the people you're criticizing. |
|
|
|
Overall fatality rate of 0.4% CDC reportIf you 90 plus years old you have statically a 35.281% chance of dying this year. | Age | | Average Yearly Propability of Death | | Increased chance with COVID | | 0-9 | | 0.073% | | 0.002% | | 10-19 | | 0.033% | | 0.003% | | 20-29 | | 0.107% | | 0.01% | | 30-39 | | 0.16% | | 0.022% | | 40-49 | | 0.267% | | 0.042% | | 50-59 | | 0.614% | | 0.137% | | 60-69 | | 1.288% | | 0.486% | | 70-79 | | 3.028% | | 1.661% | | 80-89 | | 8.582% | | 5.789% | | 90+ | | 24.9% | | 10.337% |
You linked to the cdc pandemic planning scenarios using data from March 1 - March 31. The cdc doesn't have an overall fatality rate that I can see. Also, they spelled probability wrong - and it's not a typo. |
|
|
|
I don't think we have to set it up to the degree of -- potential to change the outcome of an election -- but I still do agree with the sentiment here. I doubt there are many cases that can be found of voter fraud to begin with, let along with the chance of changing the outcome of the election.
A vote that is illegal is a problem even if it doesn't change the outcome of the election -- effectively it cancels out the vote of someone who is legally allowed to vote. But yes, there should obviously be more attention given to the time where the outcome of the election was (or could've) been altered.
Absolutely, fraud is fraud and needs to be prosecuted regardless if it's successful or not. I'm just saying that this whole idea that Democrats (or Republicans) engage in election fraud on a massive scale is far from a "documented fact" and it doesn't really make much sense that a political party commits such massive fraud but it doesn't affect the outcome and they never get caught. BTW many types of election fraud are federal crimes even if committed in local elections. So the conspiracy theory that states are hiding something doesn't make much sense either. Trump could send the FBI (or the Space Force since he obviously doesn't trust the FBI) and blow this thing wide open. Oh yeah you're totally right when it comes to this. This is why I said that if Democrats are doing it then why aren't Republicans doing it -- the reason is that it isn't happening (at least on the scale that some are talking about). Lol on the Space Force thing, but yeah -- the Feds are the people that investigate this, so if Trump really thinks that he can back his claims he could form task forces and such to combat this. Could literally just sign an executive order tomorrow directing them to investigate claims of this.  It really comes down to the fact that there are more Democrats that don't vote than Republicans, and if we make it easier to vote, there will be more Democrat than Republican voters who wouldn't have voted otherwise. In other words, anything that makes it easier to vote = win for Democrats. Harder to vote = win for Republicans. When Democrats try to make it easier to vote, Republicans accuse them of allowing voter fraud. When Republicans try to make it harder to vote, Democrats accuse them of voter suppression. That's how it's been for years. It's just politics. I'm sure if it were the other way around, we'd see the same arguments being made. Democrats would be the one pushing laws to make it harder to vote and Republicans would be accusing them of voter suppression. Trump is taking it to a whole new level. In 2016 he said lost the popular vote by 3 million votes only because there were up to 5 million illegal votes cast for Clinton. He's already laying the ground work for 2020 claiming it will be the most rigged election in history. He's also convinced many that there is exactly a 0% chance that he will lose in November. A narrow Democratic victory in Nov could actually be a disaster. Eh I don't think that all of the Republican ideas about securing the voter system is bad. I do think that it is very important to ensure that every vote in the US is done by a citizen of the US that has the right to vote by the guidelines established by their state. Do I think that you should be required to have an ID to be vote? Yes - but if this is a requirement in your state, I think the state should pay for the ID card for all people (or I guess those under a certain income level) Do I think that you should purge the voting rolls at some point that is determined by independent researchers / experts (and not the governor) yes. So, yeah. Yeah, I agree with you on the voter ids. I'm just saying if more voters benefited Republicans instead of Democrats, it would be the Democrats pushing for voter ids and Republicans pushing back. I'm not sure what the 'best' system looks like, but it's somewhere between what the dems want and what the republicans want. Oh, and (eventually) it involves some sort of block chain. No paper ballots. |
|
|
|
How do I get on this list? |
|
|
|
..
Hi, Tash. It's unlike you to not have a source listed for something this important. Or are you trying to get us to work?  Its from Quality Philippine news. That's a tabloid. The article doesn't even have an author listed or site any source. First sentence: Friends, coronavirus is never a virus as WHO has made us to believe; the whole PANDEMIC is because they want to vaccinate every living being, and assassinate the great number of people, control the living, and reduce the world population. |
|
|
|
[google results for 'voter fraud trump won popular vote']
You can type anything into google and find media reports to back up whatever argument you can think of. They're all sensationalized and don't prove anything other than 'voter fraud happens'. And nobody is arguing whether or not voter fraud happens. It does. There is proof it happens. We all know it happens. I randomly just clicked on this one: "Voter Fraud Rampant in Sanctuary Cities" https://www.libertyheadlines.com/fraud-rampant-sanctuary/Continuing a series of reports on rampant fraud in voter registration and participation, the Public Interest Legal Foundation this week reported that more than 3,100 non-citizens registered to vote in just 13 “sanctuary cities” in the past decade.
This comes on the heels of a report last week that 19 illegal aliens were charged with voting in North Carolina in the 2016 presidential election.
The article is more about immigration than any voter fraud, but we learned that there were 19 illegal aliens that voted in NC. They were charged. Over the past 10 years 3,120 names were removed from the voter registry because the person requested it themselves, it was a mistake at the dmv or shit like that. So yeah. Voter fraud happens. Good job. |
|
|
|
his campaign manager was working with russia to help get trump elected. he told them if trump won, they would have support from america on their invasion of ukraine. he passed them internal campaign data and regularly briefed them on things only a campaign insider would know. he was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States
Citation needed in bold. The section titled 'Paul Manafort' Chapter IV, A), part 8. Why not just read the report so you can have an intelligent discussion without having to ask for help. |
|
|
|
it's not alleged. he admitted it did it. You keep pretending we haven't been over this multiple times. So do you. When you plead guilty to a felony in federal court you become a convicted felon. A felony goes on your record. You know that though. Why don't you stop arguing in bad faith and just come out and say the only thing you care about is if they are loyal to Trump or not. Biden, Clinton, Comey....all criminal who haven't even been indicted. Flynn, Stone, Manafort... all convicted felons - but the felonies they were found guilty of by a jury don't matter and the felonies they plead guilty to don't matter because a jury didn't find them guilty. Oh, and you aren't going to bother even looking into the actual crimes yourself. Much easier to just google "Michael Flynn is innocent" or which and paste the first 10 results to defend him. |
|
|
|
I don't think we have to set it up to the degree of -- potential to change the outcome of an election -- but I still do agree with the sentiment here. I doubt there are many cases that can be found of voter fraud to begin with, let along with the chance of changing the outcome of the election.
A vote that is illegal is a problem even if it doesn't change the outcome of the election -- effectively it cancels out the vote of someone who is legally allowed to vote. But yes, there should obviously be more attention given to the time where the outcome of the election was (or could've) been altered.
Absolutely, fraud is fraud and needs to be prosecuted regardless if it's successful or not. I'm just saying that this whole idea that Democrats (or Republicans) engage in election fraud on a massive scale is far from a "documented fact" and it doesn't really make much sense that a political party commits such massive fraud but it doesn't affect the outcome and they never get caught. BTW many types of election fraud are federal crimes even if committed in local elections. So the conspiracy theory that states are hiding something doesn't make much sense either. Trump could send the FBI (or the Space Force since he obviously doesn't trust the FBI) and blow this thing wide open. Oh yeah you're totally right when it comes to this. This is why I said that if Democrats are doing it then why aren't Republicans doing it -- the reason is that it isn't happening (at least on the scale that some are talking about). Lol on the Space Force thing, but yeah -- the Feds are the people that investigate this, so if Trump really thinks that he can back his claims he could form task forces and such to combat this. Could literally just sign an executive order tomorrow directing them to investigate claims of this. It really comes down to the fact that there are more Democrats that don't vote than Republicans, and if we make it easier to vote, there will be more Democrat than Republican voters who wouldn't have voted otherwise. In other words, anything that makes it easier to vote = win for Democrats. Harder to vote = win for Republicans. When Democrats try to make it easier to vote, Republicans accuse them of allowing voter fraud. When Republicans try to make it harder to vote, Democrats accuse them of voter suppression. That's how it's been for years. It's just politics. I'm sure if it were the other way around, we'd see the same arguments being made. Democrats would be the one pushing laws to make it harder to vote and Republicans would be accusing them of voter suppression. Trump is taking it to a whole new level. In 2016 he said lost the popular vote by 3 million votes only because there were up to 5 million illegal votes cast for Clinton. He's already laying the ground work for 2020 claiming it will be the most rigged election in history. He's also convinced many that there is exactly a 0% chance that he will lose in November. A narrow Democratic victory in Nov could actually be a disaster. |
|
|
|
[more topic sliding designed to avoid addressing the fact that all of these investigations were based on fraud and ended up being proved baseless] You really are desperate to cling to this delusion of Russia collusion at all costs aren't you? his campaign manager was working with russia to help get trump elected. he told them if trump won, they would have support from america on their invasion of ukraine. he passed them internal campaign data and regularly briefed them on things only a campaign insider would know. he was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to commit offenses against the United StatesCitiation needed. On September 14, 2018, Manafort
pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia to (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to
commit offenses against the United States |
|
|
|
I do know she emailed herself to document what she was told, and the most likely explanation for that is she didn't believe what she was told, and didn't want to be the one held responsible for these crimes.
I don't know for sure either, and I do agree that this was her covering her ass, but I just don't see how this could be interpreted as Rice trying not to become the fall guy for Obama. It looks more like she was literally just keeping the record straight. By law, her notes - and literally any other notes or emails involving the President or VP belongs in the Presidential records with plans to eventually be made public. I don't think it's unreasonable to think on her last day of work (Inaguration) she was taking care of the last of whatever it takes to put things in the record. I assume Obama, Biden and Comey all know how the system works and expected there to be a record of their meeting, like every other meeting. I bet Comey filed a memo also considering it was one of the few times they ever spoke. The reason that is a big deal is because if they had information to support the claim that Flynn was working with the Russians, they had no excuse to not inform the incoming president about this so he could take precautions. So in the end this is not just about keeping Flynn in the dark, it is about keeping the president in the dark. If they really believed Flynn did this, they would intentionally be risking national security to go after Trump by not informing him. You can't have it both ways.
It was about whether or not they could trust Flynn with sensitive information regarding Russia. It was already known that there were connections between Trump, his family, his campaign and Russia. In Flynns case, he was fired by Obama in 2014 as head of the DIA and a few months later was being paid by RT and having dinner with Putin. Isn't that alone enough for Obama to ask Comey 'should I worry about what we hand over to Flynn about Russia right now?'. I know it was only a couple weeks left, but he was still President and responsible for the country. And he did reportedly warn Trump about Flynn. Told him not to hire him. Chris Christie (when he was head of transition) also said he was a train wreck waiting to happen or something. No, that is what YOU want it to be about. It is totally a irrelevant attempt at topic sliding away from the fact that the investigations into Flynn's alleged criminal activity was based on fraud. it's not alleged. he admitted it did it. |
|
|
|
i didnt make it to read about these parts lol its more interesting than i thought
so paul manafort was convincing russia that if trump won then trump would help russia take over ukraine. ukraine is our ally russia is our enemy so thats awful. but trump probably had nothing to do with this part of it, manafort just saw it as win win since hes friends with trump and also the oligarchs right? all this must have just given russia even more motivation.
Whether or not Trump was aware of or involved in Manafort offering Russia support in dealing with Ukraine (and keeping crimea, the part of Ukraine that Russia had recently invaded), while also passing along campaign info to oligarchs is something that Mueller was not able to prove. If Trump didn't know then there are a ton of crazy coincidences. For example, we know that on July 29, Manafort tells Kilimnik that Aug 2 would be a good date to meet in NYC. Trump ABC interview on July 31: "You know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were, And you have to look at that, also. Now, that was under -- just so you understand, that was done under Obama's administration. ... Crimea has been taken. Don't blame Donald Trump for that."  https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf (page 139) oh yeah i remember that. and then ukraine got pissed trump said that so trump said that was proof ukraine interfered to help hillary lol. thats wild. if only trump followed through and just sat down with mueller. He actually did ask him about these questions in the written statements. Questions:A) Prior to mid-August 2016, did you become aware that Paul Manafort had ties to the
Ukrainian government? Ifyes, describe who you learned this information from, when, and
the substance of what you were told. Did Mr. Manafort's connections to the Ukrainian or
Russian governments play any role in your decision to have him join your campaign? If
yes, describe that role.
B)Were you aware that Paul Manafort offered briefings on the progress of your campaign to
Oleg Deripaska? If yes, describe who you learned this information from, when, the
substance of what you were told, what you understood the purpose was of sharing such
information with Mr. Deripaska, and how you responded to learning this information.
C) Were you aware ofwhether Paul Manafort or anyone else associated with your campaign
sent or directed others to send internal Trump campaign information to any person located
in Ukraine or Russia or associated with the Ukrainian or Russian governments? If yes,
identify who provided you with this information, when, the substance ofthe discussion(s),
what you understood the purpose was of sharing the internal campaign information, and
how you responded to learning this information.
D) Did Paul Manafort communicate to you, directly or indirectly, any positions Ukraine or
Russia would want the U.S. to support? If yes, describe when he communicated those
positions to you and the substance of those communications. Trumps response to Question IV, Parts (a) through (d):Mr. Manafort was hired primarily because of his delegate work for prior presidential candidates,
including Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole. I knew that Mr.
Manafort had done international consulting work and, at some time before Mr. Manafort left the
campaign, I learned that he was somehow involved with individuals concerning Ukraine, but I do
not remember the specifics of what I knew at the time.
I had no knowledge of Mr. Manafort offering briefings on the progress of my campaign to an
individual named Oleg Deripaska, nor do I remember being aware of Mr. Manafort or anyone else
associated with my campaign sending or directing others to send internal Trump Campaign
information to anyone I knew to be in Ukraine or Russia at the time or to anyone I understood to
be a Ukrainian or Russian government employee or official. I do not remember Mr. Manafort
communicating to me any particular positions Ukraine or Russia would want the United States to
support. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf (p. 438) |
|
|
|
Of course there have been numerous other inquiries into this subject. I don't need to debate it, because I know for a fact of voter fraud, pro-Democratic, on a historical basis, and don't care to play the little game you have there.
You know for a fact there has been "voter fraud, pro-Democratic, on a historical basis", but just don't want to show any evidence, huh. I guess we'll just have to leave it at that. Imagine how I would be mocked if I were to say something like that about republicans. |
|
|
|
i didnt make it to read about these parts lol its more interesting than i thought
so paul manafort was convincing russia that if trump won then trump would help russia take over ukraine. ukraine is our ally russia is our enemy so thats awful. but trump probably had nothing to do with this part of it, manafort just saw it as win win since hes friends with trump and also the oligarchs right? all this must have just given russia even more motivation.
Whether or not Trump was aware of or involved in Manafort offering Russia support in dealing with Ukraine (and keeping crimea, the part of Ukraine that Russia had recently invaded), while also passing along campaign info to oligarchs is something that Mueller was not able to prove. If Trump didn't know then there are a ton of crazy coincidences. For example, we know that on July 29, Manafort tells Kilimnik that Aug 2 would be a good date to meet in NYC. Trump ABC interview on July 31: "You know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were, And you have to look at that, also. Now, that was under -- just so you understand, that was done under Obama's administration. ... Crimea has been taken. Don't blame Donald Trump for that." https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf (page 139) |
|
|
|
90% of that garbage has been proven false. Good try tho digging up corpses of arguments long dead to try to pretend you still have a point.
Which 10% is true has not been proven false? |
|
|
|
How they interfered in the 2016 election. Could you possibly be any more vague? Also what would make this different than any other election previous? Are you suggesting they suddenly started doing this in 2016? You should read the report. https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf 
Also check out the Russian indictments. Here is an example of how much Mueller uncovered: On occasion, the Conspirators facilitated bitcoin payments using the same computers that
they used to conduct their hacking activity, including to create and send test spearphishing emails.
Additionally, one of these dedicated accounts was used by the Conspirators in or around 2015 to
renew the registration of a domain (linuxkrnlnet) encoded in certain X-Agent malware installed
on the DNC network.
The Conspirators funded the purchase of computer infrastructure for their hacking activity
in part by “mining” bitcoin. Individuals and entities can mine bitcoin by allowing their computing
power to be used to verify and record payments on the bitcoin public ledger, a service for which
they are rewarded with freshly-minted bitcoin. The pool of bitcoin generated from the GRU’s
mining activity was used, for example, to pay a Romanian company to register the domain
dcleaks.com through a payment processing company located in the United States.
In addition to mining bitcoin, the Conspirators acquired bitcoin through a variety of means
designed to obscure the origin ofthe funds. This included purchasing bitcoin through peer-to-peer
exchanges, moving funds through other digital currencies, and using pre-paid cards. They also
enlisted the assistance of one or more third—party exchangers who facilitated layered transactions
through digital currency exchange platforms providing heightened anonymity
The Conspirators used the same funding structure—and in some cases, the very same pool
of fundsito purchase key accounts, servers, and domains used in their election—related hacking
activity.
a. The bitcoin mining operation that funded the registration payment for dcleaks.com
also sent newly-minted bitcoin to a bitcoin address controlled by “Daniel Farell,”
the persona that was used to renew the domain linuxkrnlnet. The bitcoin mining
operation also funded, through the same bitcoin address, the purchase of servers
and domains used in the GRU’s spearphishing operations, including accountsqooqle.com and account—gooogle.com.
b. On or about March 14, 2016, using funds in a bitcoin address, the Conspirators
purchased a VPN account, which they later used to log into the @Guccifer_2
Twitter account. The remaining funds from that bitcoin address were then used on
or about April 28, 2016, to lease a Malaysian server that hosted the dcleaks.com
website.
c. The Conspirators used a different set of fictitious names (including “Ward
DeClaur” and “Mike Long”) to send bitcoin to a US. company in order to lease a
server used to administer X-Tunnel malware implanted on the DCCC and DNC
networks, and to lease two servers used to hack the DNC’s cloud network. I like how you make the baseless claim of Russian collusion and move the goal posts to Ukraine so you can pretend you have an argument as we delve into yet another baseless accusation.
You wouldn't say that if you would have actually read the report. It's willful ignorance at this point.   |
|
|
|
The investigation was into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The investigation revealed exactly how they did it, which will make it easier to stop it from happening again. There were many links to and contacts between the Russian government and members of the Trump campaign which were investigated, but that only made up chapter 4 of the report. The destructiveness came from Trump bitching and crying every single day and obstructing the investigation. You should read it: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdfAlso, Cohen was convicted of making an excessive campaign contribution at the request of a candidate for the "principal purpose of influencing election". You're right it has nothing to do with Russia though. PS: did you know before Manafort was running Trumps campaign he made millions helping Putins top choice get elected in Ukraine? (Ukraine and Russia are enemies, fyi) That's the money he didn't pay taxes on. Money he made by helping Russia influence a different presidential election. Revealed exactly how they did what? How they interfered in the 2016 election. |
|
|
|
If anyone got their ass hammered from the Mueller investigation it was his Campaign Chair and Personal Lawyer. They're safe now serving the rest of their prison terms out at home due to the pandemic though, don't worry. Michael Cohen was convicted of tax fraud and perjuring himself in front of congress. None of this has anything to do with Russia, or Trump, except for the fact that he served as his lawyer. You enjoy your back breaking mental gymnastics to try to spin this as some kind of evidence of this massively destructive Russia collusion investigation being justified regardless. The investigation was into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The investigation revealed exactly how they did it, which will make it easier to stop it from happening again. There were many links to and contacts between the Russian government and members of the Trump campaign which were investigated, but that only made up chapter 4 of the report. The destructiveness came from Trump bitching and crying every single day and obstructing the investigation. You should read it: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdfAlso, Cohen was convicted of making an excessive campaign contribution at the request of a candidate for the "principal purpose of influencing election". You're right it has nothing to do with Russia though. PS: did you know before Manafort was running Trumps campaign he made millions helping Putins top choice get elected in Ukraine? (Ukraine and Russia are enemies, fyi) That's the money he didn't pay taxes on. Money he made by helping Russia influence a different presidential election. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
