|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:You voted for Hillary Clinton, lol. You voted for a man whose solution to climate change is colonizing other planets because eventually the sun will expand and envelop the earth. A man who promised to abolish the department of education and cut the federal budget in half. You protest voted for an ultra conservative who was obviously worse than the democratic candidate.
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had much more in common than they did not, specifically on war, defense contractors, corporate welfare, banks, private prisons, and fracking. This poo poo is epically dumb and the leftists who were pushing this narrative (and voting accordingly in swing states) during the election are part of the reason we have trump. FuriousxGeorge posted:I didn't protest vote. He was the best candidate on the ballot even with his flaws and my areas of disagreement with him. Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You know you're going to have to back up your assertions that leftist criticisms of Clinton played any meaningful role, right? You see that I'm discussing this with two leftists who believe the false equivalency between Trump and Clinton justifies voting for Gary Johnson in a swing state, right? I'm not sure the burden on me is to prove they're not meaningless outliers. Alienwarehouse posted:We'll also wait for noted shithead JeffersonClay to provide evidence that Hillary Clinton did NOT have cozy relationships with defense contractors, corporate welfare, banks, private prisons, and pro-fracking lobbyists. If you're not smart enough to identify meaningful differences between Hillary and Trump on defense, corporations, criminal justice and the environment now, no amount of reasoned explanation is going to fix the problem. Also Majoritarian is trying real hard to pretend leftists like you don't exist enough to matter so maybe throw him a bone?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No, you've been making this claim for quite a while now. You need to back it up. I'm not really interested in someone's absurd excuses for voting for Gary "Hurrrr Aleppo?!" Johnson. I'm interested in why we should believe you when you claim that left-wing criticisms of Clinton hurt her significantly in the general election. I'm also interested in why the fault should be placed with the leftists who pointed out her painfully glaring flaws, instead of folks like you who insisted that those flaws were inconsequential. There's a big difference between identifying Hillary's flaws and asserting those flaws mean there's no important difference between her and Trump. In the context of a binary choice between her and trump, those flaws really were inconsequential. Entertaining other viewpoints, particularly after the primary was decided, was actively harmful to the party. I think the centrist labor voters who are considering voting for smaller parties as a way to get Corbyn out are bad and dumb too. They really should just get over it and face the existential threat from the right.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:Oh, I agree. Clinton and Trump, fundamentally, are both neoliberals with a hard-on for cosmopolitan capitalism with minimal regulations. I guess it's not surprising that terrible opinions are comorbid with reading comprehension deficits.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:And yet, somehow, some way... Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders persuaded me to vote for them. Weird. The only thing Sanders, Obama and Johnson have in common is a Y chromosome.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:This stab-in-the-back falsehood and conspiracy theory you're promoting about leftists precipitating Hillary's (ahem, "Abuela") defeat has ugly historical ramifications to it. Its not a falsehood to suggest you're promulgating the idea that there's no difference between the democrats and the republicans because that's exactly what you've been doing in this thread. Ytlaya posted:As FuriousxGeorge himself said, he doesn't consider himself a leftist. He seems more like the sort of voter who is just vaguely anti-establishment and willing to support anyone who gives that impression (though even under those circumstances I'm not sure why someone would vote Johnson instead of Stein; I mean, they're both awful, but Johnson is even worse than her). He was a Bernie supporter and the narrative that there was no important difference between Trump and Clinton lead him to vote 3rd party in a swing state instead of listening to Sanders. Certainly most leftists did not believe or amplify that narrative, but some did and they helped Trump succeed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Obama's giving a speech about healthcare at a healthcare conference. The organizer, Cantor Fitzgerald, is a midsize wall street firm that was not a mortgage banking institution before the financial crisis and did not receive a bailout. Obama's DOJ indicted one of their traders for fraud 4 months ago. So obviously this is a naked bribe.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
It's not mysterious why Cantor Fitzgerald is paying 400k, either. They want people to come to their healthcare conference, so they hired the biggest name in government healthcare policy to headline it. Interesting aside, Cantor Fitzgerald lost like 600 people on 9/11 and they (unsuccessfully) sued the KSA afterword. The optics are still bad here though. The last thing democrats should be doing is triggering the Sanders wing. Tie trump to Wall Street, not yourselves, dummies.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i like how you disingenuously tried to pretend the 400k wasn't from a financial services firm cause "they're having a healthcare conference" It's a health care conference put on by a Wall Street firm. There's nothing disingenuous about my post, I even state that the optics of being associated with Wall Street are bad! A disingenuous post would be one like Condiv posted:it's payment for sevices rendered. namely keeping them out of jail during their many scandals in his administration. it's also payment for letting them run the country for 8 years. that's p anti-DNC to me, but you new democrats seem to think bribes are good and cool now so... Because it ignores the fact that Obama was hired to speak at a healthcare conference because he'll increase attendance, and that the firm in question was not responsible for the financial crisis, and that Obama's DOJ indicted one of their former employees for fraud he committed while at the company. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Condiv posted:oh? which firm was responsible for the financial crisis? did we ever get a non-bullshit answer to that, cause i think if we did there would be people in jail for it. One of the big ones? One that was selling hosed up mortgages and foreclosing on people? One that made lovely investments and required the government to bail them out? Cantor Fitzgerald was none of these. Fansy posted:Calling it a healthcare conference is disingenuous. LOL he's speaking at the Cantor Fitzgerald Healthcare Conference 2017.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
I'd say "going to Wall Street" for a politician usually means sitting on the board of some big firm. Barney Frank went to Wall Street.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Fansy posted:I don't believe that's true. CDSs are not inherently fraudulent, was there any indication that Cantor Fitzgerald was committing fraud, or taking on absurd amounts of risk with the assumption the government would bail them out? Here's the next paragraph from time that I cannot imagine why you did not quote. quote:But unlike its much larger financial rivals, Cantor never made home loans. It trades mortgage bonds, but never held onto bundles of those bonds hoping to make a big profit. That means Cantor has not had to suffer the same credit crunch that its larger rivals have been struggling with for more than six months as many of those loans or bonds have gone bad. Many firms have had to pull back from some trading businesses, or go out of business all together. quote:What do you think Cantor Fitzgerald, a financial services firm, is doing with healthcare? Connecting investors and healthcare companies. That's a good thing if you want Obamacare to work.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
There'd be a lot more room for suspicion if this weren't a public event designed to attract financing for healthcare companies. Obama has a vested interest in healthcare companies getting investors so his signature healthcare bill doesn't death-spiral.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Fansy posted:Yes. I've referenced that indictment multiple times. That wasn't about the financial crisis, he was indicted for actions in 2011. This also blows up the argument that the 400k was a payment to obama for shielding Cantor from prosecution. frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:
It's completely plausible that Obama's appearance at this healthcare conference will promote investment in the corporations which Obamacare needs to remain functional. Maybe we shouldn't reflexively poo poo on it. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:It's also completely plausible he could have done it for free if this were the case Yes, everyone who has ever been paid to do a good thing could theoretically have done it for free. There are bad optics here, but part of the reason the optics are bad is ideological opponents stripping his speech of all context. Wall Street paid obama to give a speech which will help Obamacare remain functional !!! Condiv posted:
He didn't shield them his justice department indicted him you dolt.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 20:15
|
|
sorry, but obama shielding cantor from crimes committed in 2011 doesn't blow up the argument that he's being rewarded for a job well done protecting wall street from its many scandals
|
icantfindaname posted:The pre-ACA healthcare system was functional. Jim Crow was functional. If 'functional' is your standard you may as well drop the pretense and admit you don't believe in a single one of the goals of liberals or the left more broadly, and that you're just here to troll Bernie voters Are you comparing Obamacare to jim crow here? I don't get it. Obamacare needs participating health care companies to work. The healthcare conference Obama is speaking at is designed to connect health care companies with investors. If you think Obamacare death spiraling is a bad thing, obama giving this speech is a good thing. Majorian contends no bernie supporters think the failure of Obamacare would be a good thing, so I guess I'm "trolling" the pretend Bernie supporters? Pedro De Heredia posted:Of all the ideological conflicts to have, this is the least ideological. Being against cozy relationships between politicians and big business should not be ideological. It is not something that should just 'anger the Sanders wing'. Everyone should be bothered by this kind of thing (and, in fact, most people who are not devoted to specific politicians/parties do get bothered by it). I don't agree with the characterization of the relationship as cozy here. Obama's giving a speech that will actively support his policies. He's getting paid as much as he would by any institution.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:I've highlighted the part where you make a massive, unsupported leap of faith for your convenience. You're right, I cannot prove what the outcome of a future event will be. But that's not really important, right? The story is plausible. Private companies offer policies on the Obamacare exchanges. More companies offering plans is good, fewer is bad. To expand their offerings, insurance companies need investment. This conference connects healthcare investors with healthcare companies. It's not complicated. Obama, by headlining the event, has an opportunity to speak to these companies and investors. Can we know what he intends to say? No. But it's likely to be something like "Y'all need to make sure Obamacare works or the government's going to take over when it fails". Gratitude has nothing to do with it-- he'll appeal to their sense of self-preservation. There's no risk that this investment conference will result in less funding for companies participating in the Obamacare exchanges, only the risk that it will result in investment in these companies that will allow them to expand and/or maintain their offerings. And that's a good thing (unless you're an accelerationist who wants Obamacare to fail).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:
Lol since when does defending Obamacare constitute backtalk to the financial industry? And the assumption that Obama's going to spend this money on rims rather than charity or political advocacy is precious.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:JC I have extremely bad news for you about the events of the 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 House and Senate elections. I'm pretty sure you're confused. Isn't Obamacare neoliberal bullshit designed to stave off demands for a real government healthcare system? How would intimating that be some profound leftist statement? Fansy posted:In your fantasy of Obama's speech, he's helping Wall St. plan a strategy to indefinitely profit from sick people. Fansy gets it! But he's undercutting the Majorian assertion that no bernie supporters want Obamacare to fail so I dunno.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Only in this thread I guess?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Obamacare is a federal insurance program subsidized by rich people taxes. It just doesn't have a public option. A public insurance option wouldn't stop Wall Street from indefinitely profiting from sick people, though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
I don't disagree. If private companies don't provide sufficient plans for the exchanges, the government will have no choice but to offer a public option, or to just nationalize the whole thing. I would not be surprised if Obama makes exactly that point.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think that what a lot of people defending Obama taking money don't realize is that, even if it isn't "payment for services rendered" so to speak (and I actually don't believe it is in the sense of "you did good things for us, now we will give you money"), it is still a direct result of his actions in office. This is easy to understand if you imagine the opposite situation. If Obama had presided over an administration that was relatively hostile to Wall Street and behaved in ways that were to Wall Street's notable detriment, it is extremely less likely they would be willing to involve him in transactions like this. They're trying to get people to come to their healthcare conference and Obama's a huge draw whether he guillotined a bunch of bankers or not.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
They're paying him to profit from their healthcare conference, not as a reward for his administration actions, and they would even if he had been tougher on Wall Street. They just care about making money here, no more and no less.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Yes i'm sure on Alternative Earth April 28, 2025 Wall Street gives ex-POTUS Bernie Sanders 400k to speak at one of their conferences after he sends half their CEO's to jail Wall Street is not a monolith. Small and medium sized firms like Cantor would benefit substantially if the government shut down their largest competitors or tarred their reputations with fraud convictions. Similarly it doesn't make sense that Cantor would engage in a quid pro quo with a politician for treatment of the industry generally because so much of the benefit would accrue to their larger competitors. Ytlaya posted:So the main issue is that, if you don't ban this sort of behavior, you effectively create an avenue for untraceable corruption. If the intent really is for Obama to help bring garner interest in healthcare investment, he can always volunteer to do it for free. It's not like presidents don't already receive a large six-figure pension (in addition to other sources of money like book deals). It seems like any exchange of services for money creates the possibility of untraceable corruption. what's the difference between a paid speech and a book contract, or a consulting gig? MooselanderII posted:Or he could donate it. Or he could use it to further his stated goal of fighting voter suppression. Condiv posted:btw, you never answered my question. how is obamacare supposed to keep working if you continually gotta find investors to grease the wheels? what happens to obamacare if we hit an economic downturn and investment dries up? The Obamacare marketplaces need more providers and options. Investment allows companies to offer more options. More investment is only necessary when more providers and options are needed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Or he could donate it directly and immediately to a cause that helps clean up the optics on this whole thing? Why are you dragging your heels on this? You've acknowledged it looks bad, Obama donating the cash would help clear this whole thing up. He hasn't been paid yet, but he could announce his intentions I guess. I agree the optics are bad. I don't think we need to make them worse by assuming with no evidence that he's taking kickbacks from Wall Street for favors during his term. Condiv posted:i thought the marketplace was supposed to attract providers and options on its own? why is obama having to beg private companies to get into marketplaces at a time when the stock market and the economy is supposedly humming along and has been for a while?are the marketplaces going to lose all their options and providers in the event of another recession? There's an incredible amount of uncertainty around government healthcare policy right now which impacts the financial calculus of healthcare firms. That's why Obama is a new effective draw for this healthcare conference--he might have insight into what might happen next. quote:also, why does obama need to be paid $400k for any of this? Anybody who wants to have obama speak is going to need to pay that much, and he certainly needs the money if he intends to spend his time post-presidency affecting political change, which is his stated intention. Kilroy posted:Book contracts are generally tied to your ability to sell books. If a book publisher advances a politician an amount of money that they can't realistically hope to recoup on sales, then I'll raise my eyebrows. It's hard to imagine that happening since book publishers don't face any serious regulatory threat to their business from the government, and they don't need any protection from an angry populace after they cratered the economy, either. Any corporation could just buy a bunch of the books. They could offer advances on books that they never expect to recoup. Consulting gigs can easily pay out much more than 400k. You've articulated no significant difference here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Expand on this thought, please. Obama says he intends to spend his post presidency fighting voter suppression. Money will help him do that. He can make a lot of money by being paid to give speeches. The more he can charge, the better. It looks like his price will be 400K. FuriousxGeorge posted:Yeah, we should really be sending thank you notes to the banks. Doing this speech for free would be a giant thank you to a bank because they are definitely going to profit from his appearance. Condiv posted:i do wonder jc, if you think obama should ever meet with anyone who doesn't have 400k. kids maybe? no? what about kids with cancer? no deal there either? Obviously Obama is still going to give speeches and meet with people for free. if a big corporation wants him to speak, he's going to ask for 400K. If the NAACP wants him to speak, he won't. How is this too complicated for y'all to grasp?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Why are you being such a deferential wuss and pussyfooting about this? Yeah, he should announce his intentions to donate it because the optics look bad if he keeps it! This comes at a time when most voters see the Democratic party as more out of touch than the GOP, it is a no brainier and it is amazing that you need to be dragged kicking and screaming to see that this exacerbates a very real problem. What if he announces his intention to use it to fight voter suppression or to fund his own charity or foundation? What's the difference? Cerebral Bore posted:the idea that this isn't so bad because Cantor isn't the biggest player on Wall Street is super dumb because this is sure as poo poo not going to be the last Wall Street gig that Obama signs up for. These arguments may not make any sense right now, but mark my words, they will some day!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i thought you said this was a needed conference to save obamacare. why does he want a big paycheck for that, much less from a financial services firm? would he not save obamacare if he wasn't paid by wallstreet? Because Cantor is going to profit from his appearance so why should he let them do that for free? WampaLord posted:I assumed he was planning on raising money to do this the normal way, by asking for donations to a political organization, not funding it himself personally. Is it abnormal for ex-presidents to fund their charities with the profits from their speaking gigs? Carter does this, and clearly the Clintons did too. Pedro De Heredia posted:You are complaining about people believing things without evidence, but you have no evidence about the motivations of this fee and speech. You are just assuming. I'm complaining about democrats making unfounded assumptions about democrats, and providing an alternate narrative where those unfounded assumptions about democrats need not be true. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
If you were just making an optics argument, I'd agree with you. But you apparently think the Clinton foundation was a vile nest of corruption because there isn't a single right wing conspiracy you won't parrot if it lets you poo poo on the democrats.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i thought he did the event cause he was trying to save obamacare? i guess he just wants money... quote:money from a financial services firm who hosed people over after the big second chance they got in 2008. whose case he threw, and for which he's being rewarded now You have no evidence whatsoever to support these claims. "Democrats" who mindlessly parrot right wing smears of democrats are not helping.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Because that is speculative at this point? He hasn't announced the intention, let alone gone through with the hypothetical action of donating or funding (ignoring for a moment the absurdity of self funding a political organization aimed to fight gerrymandering). That is the point. It's speculative that he won't give the money to charity or use it to fund political advocacy--he hasn't actually been paid yet. I'm willing to give obama the benefit of the doubt on his stated intention to fight voter suppression because I have no reason to doubt him. Why is there any absurdity in self-funding an anti-gerrymandering campaign? Cerebral Bore posted:It's pretty incredible that Jeffersonclay is still demading that no negative opinion whatsoever about the morons who have ran the Democratic Party straight into the ground may be voiced under any circumstances. Bad criticism: See Obama's just collecting the bribes he earned during his administration. quote:lol you've literally spent pages ITT making up some weird political fanfiction about what Obama is totally going to do with all that cash based on nothing besides your own inability to find any fault with your political idols. We cannot know the future. I believe Obama when he says he intends to fight voter suppression post-presidency. You think he's lying. It's fan fiction from all sides, here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it's a right wing smear that obama let banks get away with forging title documentation with nothing but a slap on the wrist and let them continue foreclosing on homes instead of letting the owners stay in them? Yes there is, because Cantor Fitzgerald didn't sell mortgages or foreclose on homeowners. Why would they pay him for protecting their competitors? Your narrative makes no sense at all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Because such organizations aren't generally self funded, which makes your claim that this money will, dollar for dollar, go into funding this org dubious at best. There's no reason why the organization can't be funded by both obama and other contributors. Condiv posted:You mean cantor fitzgerald, the criminal financial services company that Obama let off the hook? My narrative makes perfect sense, you're selectively forgetting parts of it No, you don't realize that Cantor Fitzgerald did not do mortgage lending for homebuyers before the financial crisis, and thus could not be motivated to avoid prosecution for fraudulent mortgages to homebuyers or foreclosures, and indeed they would benefit if their larger competitors were successfully prosecuted. Your narrative is real dumb, period.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Cantor was indicted in December remember, for fraud? Obama indicted them well after their crimes, when he knew trump was gonna be pres, and knew it would be safe for them. Yet more criminals let off the hook by Obama, and now they're paying him back This is even dumber. If obama wanted to protect Cantor for something that happened in 2013 he wouldn't have indicted at all. But I'm glad you've abandoned the crazy assertion that Cantor Fitzgerald was paying obama for not prosecuting their nonexistent residential mortgage banking fraud.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:JC you'll go only as far as to admit that the optics are bad, but you'll go no further in either actually explaining why they are bad or even suggesting that maybe Obama could have done something to obviate them. The optics are bad because people are dumb and think Wall Street is some giant nefarious octopus instead of a bunch of corporations in competition with one another with varying sizes and degrees of nefariousness and culpability for the financial crisis.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Condiv posted:oh? him indicting them in late december means he really wanted to do something about them? cause as far as I'm aware that just hands the case off to supercorrupt trump, who obama knows for drat sure isn't gonna prosecute. It would obviously have been better for Cantor if Obama had decided not to indict at all. There's literally zero evidence to support your narrative here. But there's a democrat to poo poo on so drat the torpedoes! NoEyedSquareGuy posted:So you admit that the Wall Street financial institutions are collectively responsible for the financial crisis, but think it's dumb for people to not like them. Makes sense. No, that's the opposite of what I wrote. Agnosticnixie posted:"These lords are all competing for the king's favor, how can feudalism be real" These lords are all competing for the Kings favor so why would one want to reward a regulator who failed to punish crimes committed only by the others?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 21:20
|
|
)
|
Condiv posted:wall street bankers gave obama $400k almost immediately after he delayed their indictment until they would never have any chance of facing justice. There's zero evidence the indictment was delayed. You made that up when i pointed out your narrative about mortgages was laughably wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Surely even you realize how stupid this is. It is very obvious that you're just trying to coming up with literally any way to score points in this argument. If Obama wants to use money to affect change, he can volunteer to do things in exchange for having the money directly donated to a political organization. The organization he's going to use doesn't exist yet. He hasn't been paid yet, either. If in September he takes the money and spends it on rims, that would be bad and dumb. Ytlaya posted:- Speeches generally do not directly create value. As a result, it is very easy for them to effectively be a way to pseudo-bribe someone. Again, I'm not saying speeches will always be used in this way; only that it's a big problem that they can be used this way with zero form of potential recourse. If a president helps write a book, on the other hand, the company in question and president are making money in a direct and obvious manner. The speech he's giving at this healthcare conference obviously creates value for Cantor, though. Sure, the potential to use speech fees as cover for bribes exists, just like consulting fees, or board member wages, or book advances. But we have no reason to think that's the case here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 22:05
|
|