The General Election

[AFhusker]

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose we should be OK with Hillary using unauthorized email like we were OK with Reagan having coke-fueled parties and Bush II dodging the draft, right?

 

Or is the fact that Hillary used email in the same way that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used email somehow a huge smoking gun?

 

Or is it just some stupid smoke screen that the gullible will latch onto....

 

Wait. Don't answer that.

 

Trump 2016.

 

lol

I don't understand how the misdeeds and the errors of others should excuse Hillary's behavior. I haven't really been one to raise much of a stink about any of them but two wrongs don't make a right. I thought you didn't like Hillary? One of the main reason I have been avoiding these political threads lately is, I dont think any of the candidates are worthy of being defended. I dont want anyone to think I support any of them because IMO that would be somewhat embarrassing and also extremely hard to get very enthusiastic about. I'm confused why anybody who regularly claims the same thing, that all the candidates are poor, so often is seen defending one of them. Is it just the least bad of the bad thing that makes her worthy of sticking up for? Or, do you think she's not really all that bad? Or, is it just the thrill of pointing out cases of perceived hypocrisy?

I don't mean to be getting on you specifically. I'm just dumbfounded by all the apparent support any of these wastes of air are garnering. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical.

You wouldn't be hearing about this if Hilary weren't running for office. You wouldn't care. It wouldn't be treated as "big news," because it wouldn't be. It'd be treated the same as when Colin Powell did it and Condoleeza Rice did it. With a "meh" and barely a mention in the news.

 

What you should be dumbfounded with is how shrill the attacks on Hillary are over something that at least two other Secretaries of State have done. What you should be dumbfounded about is how, 12 years after John Kerry was "swiftboated" in a crazy, stupid smear campaign, Americans are falling for the same kind of smear tactics again.

I guess it doesn't surprise me that a candidate for President is being highly, and maybe unfairly, scrutinized by supporters of the opponent. Also it doesn't surprise me that people will tend to ignore the flaws of the person they support and raise a bigger stink about the opponent. That's just human nature. I guess I'll just have to remain most dumbfounded by the fact that any of them have any supporters who think they're worth defending. I'm having trouble coming to terms with these being our choices. I don't want any of them to get a pass on anything even if the attack may be considered unfair. Made up and over played controversy has been a backbone of our political system forever. But totally worthless candidates for POTUS? I won't accept that.

Well written JJ - I agree with everything you said. What gets stuck in my craw however, are the lies that are being spewed and then believed by the simple minded folks who are unable or who choose not to think for themselves; weigh the lessor of two evils, sort through the truth from the made up stuff, research a candidate's overall history and make an educated decision. Anybody who depends on Trump to educate them about Hilary or vice versa (or their respective news stations) and votes based on the rhetoric they hear from their candidate is a fool. And we seem to have a boatload of them right now. Shame on us, the US should be better than that - think what image of normal this sets for younger people who as far as they know, this is the sort of candidate and the sort of campaigns that the US has.

 

Scrutiny - yes, it's expected and I think anyone who puts their name in the hat to run anticipates having to deal with it. But some of what's going on this year is just too much. The name calling, the immature twitter comments, the flippant disregard for other humans, the absolute made up on the spot lies. Why would any young person today live through this and say, "yeah, President is a job I want to strive for someday" or what middle aged person says, "yeah, I think my skeletons are not real bad, and I've got a tough skin, don't care about my family getting taken down, maybe I'll run in 4 years".

 

It's no wonder we have who we have to choose from today - who would want to go through all this and to get THAT job. It's no longer a respected position, at least by Americans - it's not a job that anybody can honestly look at and say, "I think I can get things done". It's a sad, sad time for America.

I agree totally. And, as you pointed out, the current and recent past is making it less and less likely for decent qualified people to seek the office. Not that I am even remotely qualified but I sure wouldn't want the job knowing what I'd have to go through to get it. A sad time indeed, with no silver lining in view.

 

And Moiraine- I've just never and likely will never be a fan of Obama's. I will admit that his spell as POTUS has not been as bad as I anticipated but I also hold him accountable for much of the divisiveness, especially racial tensions, in this country. I had originally some hope that he would be a unifying force......I've given up on that hope long ago. And no, I am under no delusion that he has been the biggest problem in this area. I realize the obstruction he has received from congress and the blatant racism exhibited by too many in this country have been a larger problem. I had hoped that he would've been the bigger man on these issues but he wasn't. Also I can't really get beyond his arrogance and narcissism. Just a couple pet peeves of mine I guess. I can see how some people sort of like him. I'm just not one of them.

 

I agree that neither are qualified for the job. Trump doesn't know a dam thing about being president and Hillary's experience is screwing up the country and doing whatever she wants whenever she wants laws be dammed. Where I disagree is with the Obama administration, he has screwed up our foreign affairs, destroyed our military, treated our vets like crap and raised the national debit 62%. Not to mention the race relations are as bad as they ever were. All he had done is make the country more PC and used it as a huge social experiment. Then you don't want to even bring up trade, his Trans Pacific Partnership is going to send even more jobs overseas. It is a worse deal for the country than NAFTA was in 1994 that her husband signed into law that has cost the US worker over 2 million jobs. That had a lot of Republican support too, factually more Republicans voted for it than Democrats, which is why I couldn't support Kasich as he was and is still for these type of trade agreements that allow companies to not have to pay tariffs or taxes as long as their headquarters are in the US which is disgusting IMO.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

 

I suppose we should be OK with Hillary using unauthorized email like we were OK with Reagan having coke-fueled parties and Bush II dodging the draft, right?

 

Or is the fact that Hillary used email in the same way that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used email somehow a huge smoking gun?

 

Or is it just some stupid smoke screen that the gullible will latch onto....

 

Wait. Don't answer that.

 

Trump 2016.

 

lol

I don't understand how the misdeeds and the errors of others should excuse Hillary's behavior. I haven't really been one to raise much of a stink about any of them but two wrongs don't make a right. I thought you didn't like Hillary? One of the main reason I have been avoiding these political threads lately is, I dont think any of the candidates are worthy of being defended. I dont want anyone to think I support any of them because IMO that would be somewhat embarrassing and also extremely hard to get very enthusiastic about. I'm confused why anybody who regularly claims the same thing, that all the candidates are poor, so often is seen defending one of them. Is it just the least bad of the bad thing that makes her worthy of sticking up for? Or, do you think she's not really all that bad? Or, is it just the thrill of pointing out cases of perceived hypocrisy?

 

I don't mean to be getting on you specifically. I'm just dumbfounded by all the apparent support any of these wastes of air are garnering. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical.

 

 

You wouldn't be hearing about this if Hilary weren't running for office. You wouldn't care. It wouldn't be treated as "big news," because it wouldn't be. It'd be treated the same as when Colin Powell did it and Condoleeza Rice did it. With a "meh" and barely a mention in the news.

 

What you should be dumbfounded with is how shrill the attacks on Hillary are over something that at least two other Secretaries of State have done. What you should be dumbfounded about is how, 12 years after John Kerry was "swiftboated" in a crazy, stupid smear campaign, Americans are falling for the same kind of smear tactics again.

 

I don't care if people drive a mile over the speed limit but that still doesn't mean it isn't wrong and/or illegal.

 

Is it a big deal? Maybe not at all...was it wrong/illegal? Maybe.

 

But dismissing it because someone else didn't get in trouble is just as bad or worse as it becoming a witch hunt because of the the person is.

 

It is a big deal, anyone who has worked for the government knows this. The Clinton's think that laws are for common people, but not for them. Both of them should have been in jail a long time ago for various scandals. The 83 page report that came out yesterday is very damning because it isn't coming from the republicans and it isn't a conspiracy. It was from the IG who was appointed by Kerry, and therefore from the Obama administration. That is why this will stick and if they find any Benghazi info on there that will seal her fate. Even if they don't, she has been lying to everyone (no surprise there).

 

Here's some info on how what she did is different than anyone else no matter how she tries to spin it,

 

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/could-email-gate-be-hillary-clintons-political-undoing_032015

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2997193/Hillary-s-email-gate-linked-whistle-blower-s-description-State-Department-boiler-room-operation-set-hide-documents-Benghazi.html

 

http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/

 

 

The thing with the report is that it still doesn't say that Clinton broke any laws. It says that she went against State Department guidelines, but that's not breaking the law. Has her handling of the situation been great? No, it's been terrible. It was a silly mistake to make in the first place. But other reports suggest there's no evidence of anything criminal so far, just bad judgment. While that may disqualify her for some people, Trump's judgment is much worse, he has a complete lack of knowledge or experience for the job, and is an offensive jackass to boot. Clinton's lack of email savvy pales in comparison to his list of issues.

 

But our government's technology on the whole is sorely lacking. Here's a report from inside the State Dept about how terrible their tech is. And Clinton specifically requested a secure Blackberry from the NSA like the one Obama uses and was denied.

 

Perhaps it would be easier to comply with guidelines and regulations and be effective if the government didn't make it so damn difficult?

 

Benghazi is a big nothingburger. Plenty of sources saying we did the right thing, and could not have acted differently to save more lives. We can have our own opinions on the matter, but nothing that Clinton did with Benghazi was prosecutable, and that notion is ridiculous. From everything I've seen, everyone involved aside from the Republicans actually on the committee think that the whole thing is a big waste of time and money. They're pissed and they want the thing to be over. Luckily, it should be within a month.

[knapplc]

I guess it doesn't surprise me that a candidate for President is being highly, and maybe unfairly, scrutinized by supporters of the opponent. Also it doesn't surprise me that people will tend to ignore the flaws of the person they support and raise a bigger stink about the opponent. That's just human nature. I guess I'll just have to remain most dumbfounded by the fact that any of them have any supporters who think they're worth defending. I'm having trouble coming to terms with these being our choices. I don't want any of them to get a pass on anything even if the attack may be considered unfair. Made up and over played controversy has been a backbone of our political system forever. But totally worthless candidates for POTUS? I won't accept that.

We should support fair scrutiny. The email "scandal" and the millions of dollars wasted on BENGHAZI!!! are not fair scrutiny. They are witch hunts.

 

I do not support Hillary Clinton. I do not like Hillary Clinton. I do not want her to be president. I thought she was part of a crooked team when Bill was in office, I thought she was a carpet-bagging hack when she "moved" to New York and won a senate seat, and I do not think she would make a great president. If you're operating under the assumption that I'm supporting Hillary because I want her to be president, you can stop. That couldn't be further from the truth.

 

The awful thing is, she's the best available candidate. That's the bald truth, and the only reason I'll vote for her - because the alternatives are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, and neither are viable candidates.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

I suppose we should be OK with Hillary using unauthorized email like we were OK with Reagan having coke-fueled parties and Bush II dodging the draft, right?

 

Or is the fact that Hillary used email in the same way that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used email somehow a huge smoking gun?

 

Or is it just some stupid smoke screen that the gullible will latch onto....

 

Wait. Don't answer that.

 

Trump 2016.

 

lol

I don't understand how the misdeeds and the errors of others should excuse Hillary's behavior. I haven't really been one to raise much of a stink about any of them but two wrongs don't make a right. I thought you didn't like Hillary? One of the main reason I have been avoiding these political threads lately is, I dont think any of the candidates are worthy of being defended. I dont want anyone to think I support any of them because IMO that would be somewhat embarrassing and also extremely hard to get very enthusiastic about. I'm confused why anybody who regularly claims the same thing, that all the candidates are poor, so often is seen defending one of them. Is it just the least bad of the bad thing that makes her worthy of sticking up for? Or, do you think she's not really all that bad? Or, is it just the thrill of pointing out cases of perceived hypocrisy?

 

I don't mean to be getting on you specifically. I'm just dumbfounded by all the apparent support any of these wastes of air are garnering. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical.

 

 

You wouldn't be hearing about this if Hilary weren't running for office. You wouldn't care. It wouldn't be treated as "big news," because it wouldn't be. It'd be treated the same as when Colin Powell did it and Condoleeza Rice did it. With a "meh" and barely a mention in the news.

 

What you should be dumbfounded with is how shrill the attacks on Hillary are over something that at least two other Secretaries of State have done. What you should be dumbfounded about is how, 12 years after John Kerry was "swiftboated" in a crazy, stupid smear campaign, Americans are falling for the same kind of smear tactics again.

 

I don't care if people drive a mile over the speed limit but that still doesn't mean it isn't wrong and/or illegal.

 

Is it a big deal? Maybe not at all...was it wrong/illegal? Maybe.

 

But dismissing it because someone else didn't get in trouble is just as bad or worse as it becoming a witch hunt because of the the person is.

 

I don't think knapplc is trying to dismiss it, though he can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe his point was that it's being blown up to epic proportions because Clinton is a presidential candidate and the other two were not, yet people don't want to acknowledge or don't care about it having happened to other political figures. It makes sense, again, because Clinton is a presidential figure. But, that makes it no less hypocritical.

[knapplc]

I don't think knapplc is trying to dismiss it, though he can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe his point was that it's being blown up to epic proportions because Clinton is a presidential candidate and the other two were not, yet people don't want to acknowledge or don't care about it having happened to other political figures. It makes sense, again, because Clinton is a presidential figure. But, that makes it no less hypocritical.

Exactly correct. Everyone wants to make a scandal - including some muck about "dismissing it" if you don't react the way they react - when what they should do is back off the hysteria and look soberly at the situation.

[Lil' Red]

 

 

 

 

I suppose we should be OK with Hillary using unauthorized email like we were OK with Reagan having coke-fueled parties and Bush II dodging the draft, right?

 

Or is the fact that Hillary used email in the same way that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used email somehow a huge smoking gun?

 

Or is it just some stupid smoke screen that the gullible will latch onto....

 

Wait. Don't answer that.

 

Trump 2016.

 

lol

I don't understand how the misdeeds and the errors of others should excuse Hillary's behavior. I haven't really been one to raise much of a stink about any of them but two wrongs don't make a right. I thought you didn't like Hillary? One of the main reason I have been avoiding these political threads lately is, I dont think any of the candidates are worthy of being defended. I dont want anyone to think I support any of them because IMO that would be somewhat embarrassing and also extremely hard to get very enthusiastic about. I'm confused why anybody who regularly claims the same thing, that all the candidates are poor, so often is seen defending one of them. Is it just the least bad of the bad thing that makes her worthy of sticking up for? Or, do you think she's not really all that bad? Or, is it just the thrill of pointing out cases of perceived hypocrisy?

 

I don't mean to be getting on you specifically. I'm just dumbfounded by all the apparent support any of these wastes of air are garnering. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical.

 

 

You wouldn't be hearing about this if Hilary weren't running for office. You wouldn't care. It wouldn't be treated as "big news," because it wouldn't be. It'd be treated the same as when Colin Powell did it and Condoleeza Rice did it. With a "meh" and barely a mention in the news.

 

What you should be dumbfounded with is how shrill the attacks on Hillary are over something that at least two other Secretaries of State have done. What you should be dumbfounded about is how, 12 years after John Kerry was "swiftboated" in a crazy, stupid smear campaign, Americans are falling for the same kind of smear tactics again.

 

I don't care if people drive a mile over the speed limit but that still doesn't mean it isn't wrong and/or illegal.

 

Is it a big deal? Maybe not at all...was it wrong/illegal? Maybe.

 

But dismissing it because someone else didn't get in trouble is just as bad or worse as it becoming a witch hunt because of the the person is.

 

I don't think knapplc is trying to dismiss it, though he can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe his point was that it's being blown up to epic proportions because Clinton is a presidential candidate and the other two were not, yet people don't want to acknowledge or don't care about it having happened to other political figures. It makes sense, again, because Clinton is a presidential figure. But, that makes it no less hypocritical.

 

 

I still don't understand why it gets more attention than setting up a sham University to scam college students out of money.

[BigRedBuster]

Can someone tell me how not following a department's protocol all of a sudden becomes a crime so bad that the person should be in prison?

OK...I could see it if it could be proven that she did it for the purpose of allowing foreign spies to access the information. However, I haven't ever seen a report that the information was even hacked into without her intending it to be.

 

Was it poor judgement for her, Rice and Powell to do it? I would think so. Should any of them be in prison for it???? I can't imagine why.

[JJ Husker]

Can someone tell me how not following a department's protocol all of a sudden becomes a crime so bad that the person should be in prison?

 

OK...I could see it if it could be proven that she did it for the purpose of allowing foreign spies to access the information. However, I haven't ever seen a report that the information was even hacked into without her intending it to be.

 

Was it poor judgement for her, Rice and Powell to do it? I would think so. Should any of them be in prison for it???? I can't imagine why.

In that position.....as Secretary of State....yeah, it should be a prison worthy crime. Security and confidentiality of that level of information requires following protocol and not circumventing it. I'm not claiming she was any worse than the others, hell I don't know a lot of the particulars but, damn our SoS can't operate that way without ramifications. Rice and Powell, if they also engaged in this behavior, should've been dragged over the coals too. You can understand this, can't you? I mean it's not like some average person screwing up at their job. That IS their job.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose we should be OK with Hillary using unauthorized email like we were OK with Reagan having coke-fueled parties and Bush II dodging the draft, right?

 

Or is the fact that Hillary used email in the same way that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used email somehow a huge smoking gun?

 

Or is it just some stupid smoke screen that the gullible will latch onto....

 

Wait. Don't answer that.

 

Trump 2016.

 

lol

I don't understand how the misdeeds and the errors of others should excuse Hillary's behavior. I haven't really been one to raise much of a stink about any of them but two wrongs don't make a right. I thought you didn't like Hillary? One of the main reason I have been avoiding these political threads lately is, I dont think any of the candidates are worthy of being defended. I dont want anyone to think I support any of them because IMO that would be somewhat embarrassing and also extremely hard to get very enthusiastic about. I'm confused why anybody who regularly claims the same thing, that all the candidates are poor, so often is seen defending one of them. Is it just the least bad of the bad thing that makes her worthy of sticking up for? Or, do you think she's not really all that bad? Or, is it just the thrill of pointing out cases of perceived hypocrisy?

 

I don't mean to be getting on you specifically. I'm just dumbfounded by all the apparent support any of these wastes of air are garnering. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical.

 

 

You wouldn't be hearing about this if Hilary weren't running for office. You wouldn't care. It wouldn't be treated as "big news," because it wouldn't be. It'd be treated the same as when Colin Powell did it and Condoleeza Rice did it. With a "meh" and barely a mention in the news.

 

What you should be dumbfounded with is how shrill the attacks on Hillary are over something that at least two other Secretaries of State have done. What you should be dumbfounded about is how, 12 years after John Kerry was "swiftboated" in a crazy, stupid smear campaign, Americans are falling for the same kind of smear tactics again.

 

I don't care if people drive a mile over the speed limit but that still doesn't mean it isn't wrong and/or illegal.

 

Is it a big deal? Maybe not at all...was it wrong/illegal? Maybe.

 

But dismissing it because someone else didn't get in trouble is just as bad or worse as it becoming a witch hunt because of the the person is.

 

I don't think knapplc is trying to dismiss it, though he can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe his point was that it's being blown up to epic proportions because Clinton is a presidential candidate and the other two were not, yet people don't want to acknowledge or don't care about it having happened to other political figures. It makes sense, again, because Clinton is a presidential figure. But, that makes it no less hypocritical.

 

 

I still don't understand why it gets more attention than setting up a sham University to scam college students out of money.

 

I don't quite get why one gets more attention than the other either but they also are not even remotely the same thing. One is just plain criminal low-down behavior but the other involves national security issues. I would hope we expect and demand near perfection in that area when it comes to our SoS and transmission of possibly highly confidential information.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Can someone tell me how not following a department's protocol all of a sudden becomes a crime so bad that the person should be in prison?

 

OK...I could see it if it could be proven that she did it for the purpose of allowing foreign spies to access the information. However, I haven't ever seen a report that the information was even hacked into without her intending it to be.

 

Was it poor judgement for her, Rice and Powell to do it? I would think so. Should any of them be in prison for it???? I can't imagine why.

In that position.....as Secretary of State....yeah, it should be a prison worthy crime. Security and confidentiality of that level of information requires following protocol and not circumventing it. I'm not claiming she was any worse than the others, hell I don't know a lot of the particulars but, damn our SoS can't operate that way without ramifications. Rice and Powell, if they also engaged in this behavior, should've been dragged over the coals too. You can understand this, can't you? I mean it's not like some average person screwing up at their job. That IS their job.

 

I fully understand dragging them over the coals and giving them all criticism that is deserved of basically sucking at their job of doing what is necessary to keep this information private. However, still, I don't see how it's a prison worthy offense unless it is proven she did it with the intent of letting the information out.

[knapplc]

I don't quite get why one gets more attention than the other either but they also are not even remotely the same thing. One is just plain criminal low-down behavior but the other involves national security issues. I would hope we expect and demand near perfection in that area when it comes to our SoS and transmission of possibly highly confidential information.

What classified information did she email from the private email account?

[JJ Husker]

 

I guess it doesn't surprise me that a candidate for President is being highly, and maybe unfairly, scrutinized by supporters of the opponent. Also it doesn't surprise me that people will tend to ignore the flaws of the person they support and raise a bigger stink about the opponent. That's just human nature. I guess I'll just have to remain most dumbfounded by the fact that any of them have any supporters who think they're worth defending. I'm having trouble coming to terms with these being our choices. I don't want any of them to get a pass on anything even if the attack may be considered unfair. Made up and over played controversy has been a backbone of our political system forever. But totally worthless candidates for POTUS? I won't accept that.

We should support fair scrutiny. The email "scandal" and the millions of dollars wasted on BENGHAZI!!! are not fair scrutiny. They are witch hunts.

 

I do not support Hillary Clinton. I do not like Hillary Clinton. I do not want her to be president. I thought she was part of a crooked team when Bill was in office, I thought she was a carpet-bagging hack when she "moved" to New York and won a senate seat, and I do not think she would make a great president. If you're operating under the assumption that I'm supporting Hillary because I want her to be president, you can stop. That couldn't be further from the truth.

 

The awful thing is, she's the best available candidate. That's the bald truth, and the only reason I'll vote for her - because the alternatives are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, and neither are viable candidates.

 

Okay, good. You had me a little worried there for a minute. I guess now we'll just have to disagree about Hillary being the best or a viable candidate. If somebody had a gun to my head forcing me to vote, I don't know what I'd do at this point. There is a 100% chance I will not vote for Clinton or Sanders. I just won't do it. And about a 98% chance I won't vote for Trump either. And that 2% is just the ornery in me wondering how entertaining those 4 years might be. I'll likely write in FU for President and see if that gets elected.

[teachercd]

 

I don't quite get why one gets more attention than the other either but they also are not even remotely the same thing. One is just plain criminal low-down behavior but the other involves national security issues. I would hope we expect and demand near perfection in that area when it comes to our SoS and transmission of possibly highly confidential information.

What classified information did she email from the private email account?

 

How would anyone know that...it is classified!

[JJ Husker]

 

I don't quite get why one gets more attention than the other either but they also are not even remotely the same thing. One is just plain criminal low-down behavior but the other involves national security issues. I would hope we expect and demand near perfection in that area when it comes to our SoS and transmission of possibly highly confidential information.

What classified information did she email from the private email account?

 

Don't know, don't care. I'm not running around making a big stink about it either way. But, it is important and based on the little snippets of information I've gathered on the subject, I think it should be investigated and made extremely clear if she did or didn't, because she is running for President and it is extremely relevant information at this time. Rice and Powell should've been investigated with a microscope up their butt too if they engaged in the same activity. I care less about them at this time because they are not seeking the most powerful office in the world. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite, just a realist who doesn't personally care enough to waste my time finding out more about it. If there was any chance at all I would vote for her, I'd do the research and learn more about it. But there is no chance so I'm content letting others demonize her.

[AR Husker Fan]

The correct answer, of course, is "none". In May of 2015 the State Department began releasing several thousand pages of Clinton's emails, many of them partly redacted. The releases continued until the last of the roughly 30,000 messages were made public in February of 2016. In other words, all the email (with the exception of 22 emails that contained “top secret” material - and that were classified as such AFTER they had been sent) from the server have been turned over.