Comments by "" (@timogul) on "Fox News"
channel.
-
363
-
286
-
58
-
52
-
49
-
48
-
25
-
23
-
21
-
20
-
18
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@coreyb9240 Because the American people are NOT "just getting one check." That is only one part of the bill. American people are also getting things like improved unemployment payouts, food aid benefits to families, funding to keep schools and transit open, a significant child tax credit, vaccine distribution, health insurance subsidies, etc. Basically, the $1400 is the floor of what people get, but the more in need people are, the more additional functions the bill provides for them. Just handing people cash is not always the best solution to a problem, but it can be a part of a solution.
But yes, conservatives pushed the Democrats to lower the top-end of the eligibility requirements so that some people will be getting less. We need bigger Democratic majorities in the Senate so we can avoid that sort of thing in future.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@seraeggobutterworth5247 Nowhere in the 14th amendment does it say or imply that someone needs to be charged, tried, OR convicted of any crime to fall under the 14th's provisions. In fact, most of those who were disqualified from a ballot under the 14th were never charged, tried, or convicted of anything. The 14th does not say "if they have been convicted of insurrection," or anything of the sort, it only says "if they violate their oaths of office, which Trump did. A judge or other duly appointed election official is constitutionally justified in making such a determination, but of course higher authorities could overrule their determination. But again, legal convictions are 100% irrelevant to the process, I have no idea why so many on the right seem convinced that this is a winning argument for them.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@drawingdead9025 State governments were blasted by the covid crisis. They built their budgets based on reasonable predictions of their expected tax income over a normal year, just as if a regular person bought a house and car based on their current income level.
The covid crisis massively reduced their tax revenues, since businesses and taxpayers were making a lot less money, while at the same time their costs increased massively, in that they had to increase subsidies to public services, they had to pay for emergency relief, increased unemployment costs, etc.
Of course states need money (and red states more than blue, if you care about such things).
So of course it makes sense for the federal government, which can much more easily appropriate funds, to help keep these stats stable through the crisis, so that they don't have to lay off millions of employees and cut vital services like police and fire.
Why shouldn't they?
2
-
@privateuser7 I did already, you can find more answers upthread, but basically it goes into things like enhancing unemployment payouts, keeping schools open and safe, vaccine programs, keeping state governments functioning (so that they in turn can keep policing, firefighting, pothole repairs, etc.), food programs for needy families, etc. You can find breakdowns of what the bill provides online if you don't want to read it yourself or listen to Senate Pages read it for you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Abe Tsenoh " Support for universal healthcare has above 80% approval, a majority even among republicans."
Right, but a large chunk of those people are Republicans, and wouldn't vote for a Democrat who was promising to actually get Universal Healthcare done, and so they'll never have it. Until you can convince them to vote for a Democrat, their tacit approval of universal healthcare is completely toothless. Also, Biden lost Florida because Cuban Americans though he was "too socialist," even though he wasn't actually all that socialist. America has a definite anti-socialism bias that runs strong until the Cold War generation dies off. Until then, just vote for Democrats to keep moving that needle forward as fast it reasonably can in a divided country.
"Candidates like Andrew Yang or Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard or Mike Gravel, can't garner widespread support despite their popular policy positions because of the DNC/RNC, "
Nah, they just aren't that popular. They all got to the debates, they all had plenty of time to make their case to the American people, the American people did not want them. If any of them had actually gotten the nomination, they would have cost to Trump by about 55/40.
Now, it's fair to argue that the two-party system isn't great, but it's not really the fault of either of those parties, it's the fault of the electoral system itself. First past the post systems make two parties almost inevitable. It won't be until after we have some sort of ranked choice voting system that a third party candidate would be even remotely viable, and even then there would still likely be two parties that win most of the time.
"Even if a candidate with solid policies does build a massive grassroots campaign like Sanders did, they'll just toss the vote via black box voting machines like they did in the 2020 primaries, "
Lol, ok, now you've lost all your credibility by going into SCP territory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
rockn roll There were some cases on the west coast, but the way viruses work is they don't just grow evenly, they spread from points of contact, so the more points of contact, the quicker is spreads. We know based on DNA sampling that the outbreaks on the East Coast came through Europe, so if Europe had never gotten it, or those infected people had never come to America, the US still would have had outbreaks, but the spring ones would mostly have been on the West Coast, and outbreaks in the eastern states would have happened later, and perhaps been more manageable because there would have been more time to prepare for them. I don't blame Europe, a virus is a virus, I just think it's silly to "localize" a pandemic in the first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What is this obsession with "visiting the border?" Does anyone think that accomplishes anything? We spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to fly staff over there, they wander around, say "yep, that's a border alright," and then fly home? So what? All the important work on the border can be done just fine from Washington, or at most by sending a trusted aide to check into things, much more affordable than sending a VIP. I think that if she does go, they should call up the President of Mexico, and have him head to some nice place on the other side of the border. Then bring a few official border checkpoint guards, whatever they need to make this officially within the rules, and go to just on the other wide of one of Trump's impenetrable border walls. Then Harris should climb over the wall (again, with an official border check involved), and have a state meeting with the Mexican President over various border issues, then when they finish, she climbs back over and flies home. I bet their President would love the idea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williammorris4327 I don't think you understand how the national debt works. The debt rose during Obama's term due to two things, the ongoing effects of the Bush era tax cuts, which put us on a deficit trend after Clinton's surplusses, and then necessary stimulus to offset the Bush economic collapse.Had he not spent that money, we would still be in a massive recession today. That is the responsible thing to do during a significant economic downturn, as it is the responsible thing to do this year. What was NOT responsible was what Trump did during his first term, which was to inherit Obama's rising economy, and decide to cut a massive tax cut to the extremely wealthy, paid for on the backs of the middle class, when the responsible play would have been to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay down the deficit.
Basically, he ran up the nation's credit card when we had money to pay it off, so that now, when we need to be putting money on the credit card to cover necessary expenses, we already have this huge balance. It's still better to keep running up that card than to do nothing though, unfortunately.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DieFlabbergast Trump did a lot more than "behaving recklessly" though. You need to catch up with all his other indictments.
I think you misunderstand the point of the Jan 6th riots. It was NEVER that they posed some sort of military threat to the US government, obviously they could be wiped out effortlessly if it came to that, and yes, some of them fully intended to take members of congress hostage and cause other harms to them individually, and that would be tragic, but not particularly a threat to the nation itself. But the actual harm of the Jan 6th riots were that they were a DISTRACTION from the ACTUAL insurrection attempt taking place.
The ACTUAL insurrection attempt was to delay the certification of Biden as President, and to present a false slate of electors as an alternative, to lay enough confusion that the congress could refuse to certify Biden, and throw the question back to the House, which would then elect Trump as president. THAT was the insurrection they were attempting. The purpose of the crowd was just to create enough confusion that they could get away with their primary goals, similar to staging a riot outside of a bank so that you can clear out the vaults in the chaos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@craigcherry876 If the money was given out only in cash, then yeah, it would be $15K, but giving out cash is not the only, or the best way to help Americans through this. The other funding in the bill is for helping things that Americans need, like keeping schools running, keeping public transit running, helping businesses to keep people employed, etc. As they say, "give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day, invest in building a thriving local fishing industry and he can have solid employment and a livable wage for years to come."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drawingdead9025 Of course the schools lost money during covid. They still had to pay the same staff (unless they laid them off, which we don't want them to do, so we give them money so they don't have to), and they then also had to renovate the buildings so that they would be as covid-safe as possible (new AC units, maybe outdoor class set-ups, plexiglass sheeting, masks and etc.), they need to improve broadband access so that students can better distance-learn, and then you have to figure in that state and local governments had greatly reduced tax revenue over 2020 than they had budgeted for, so if the school system's budget was say $20m, and the government only took in $12m of that, then they would need money from outside to cover the difference. The current bill has around $170m that is being sent directly to schools, and then additional funds being sent to states that might go to schools, if that is where the most need is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AClRCLEOFLlGHT People who changed their votes didn't change it because they came to some revelation after hearing it, they did so because it gave the opposition time to whip votes and pull elbows and convince people to change their mind.
Most people do not even listen to the bill being read, including Ron Johnson himself. That is not the point of the reading, the point of the reading is to waste time and bore everyone. Anyone with practical objections to the content of the bill could READ it themselves, unless they are Republicans, in which case they could have a staffer read it to them without wasting the Senate's time.
Bills should be long, they are important, and intentionally short bill just lead to loopholes and legal challenges, because you said a thing that could be taken multiple ways, rather than making it perfectly clear what it does, and does not mean. If we're going to be spending $1.9 Trillion taxpayer dollars, I expect the bill to be clear on how that money is to be spent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rojodevo2724 The flu and covid are two different things. Covid is a type of virus that is similar to a flu, but calling them the same would be like saying that a football team and a soccer team are "basically the same thing." Covid cases are reported as covid cases and flu cases are reported as flu cases and they are not used interchangeably, but flu cases are down because the precautionary measures people take to prevent covid infection are just as effective at stopping the flu, so it is transmitting a lot less than usual this year.
Also, to address something you raised in a previous comment, touching your mask is NOT a serious issue with covid. This is because (unlike some diseases), covid cannot enter the body through your skin. It can only enter through your nose, mouth, or eyes, and has to reach your lungs to settle in. This means that your hands can be filthy with covid, and that's ok, so long as you don't bring your hands anywhere near your nose, mouth, or eyes. So while it is important to wash your hands before eating or touching your face, touching your mask really isn't an issue. I find it's simplest to just imagine that my hands are hot lava while I'm outside the house, don't get them anywhere near my face from the moment I leave to the moment I return, and then wash up as soon as I get inside.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maracohen5930 I'm against the government having a say in what happens between a patient and her doctor, as is 60%+ of the population.
The US is a representational republic, but that is a form of democracy, and if a "republic" does not accurately represent the will of the people, then it is no longer a republic, it is an autocracy like North Korea.
As for vaccinations, if you choose to put the lives of others at risk by not being vaccinated, then that can and should have consequences. Your argument here is like saying that it's your right to drink as much as you want and then drive, because "it's your body." Well you can drink as much as you want, but if you then choose to drive then you are putting others lives at risk, not just your own, and that is when it is the responsibility of the state to step in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thomashosking385 I think it's just a "criminal justice" motivated case. Some people say "well why this guy, and not other people," and that's a fair argument, so long as you're prepared to hear an answer that you might not like. The answer is that given that this guy was a controversial president for four years, and all sorts of criminal investigations and journalistic inquiries turned up mountains of evidence of wrongdoing, it would be malpractice for a prosecutor to ignore that and fail to chase it down, wherever it leads.
Most companies do not have these mountains of evidence just laying around, making an eyesore of itself. So while politics may have played a role in some of the attention the company received over the past few years, I don't think that the prosecutions were political at all, they were just proper justice at work, under these unusual circumstances. If you want an example of a purely political inquiry, look at the biden family.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mopar0IIII0jeep But again, you're drastically misrepresenting the situation. For one thing, a few broken windows and trashed cars isn't REMOTELY the same thing as violently invading the Capitol Building during the election certification. I mean, it would be idiotic to even try to compare those two situations.
For another, those protests lasted a day or so, not four years. While other protests have taken place over the past four years, as have taken place EVERY year during prior administrations, the protests were not about illegally replacing the sitting president, they had other, unrelated purposes. While people certainly disapproved of Trump and protested against his activities, it was not with the goal of illegal insurrection. And it's also worth noting that there were no fewer people protesting Obama's presidency.
Peaceful protest is an important part of American democracy, and occasionally you get a handful of people that are bad actors in such crowds and cause damage, but that is a VERY different thing than the insurrectionists that turned up last Wednesday and have threatened to return, and any rational observer should understand that distinction.
It is not "turning a blind eye" to point out the difference between a yapping chihuahua and a snarling jackal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Defund Democrats The Federal plan was never sufficient to the problem, and continues to be insufficient. It was muddled by the President publicly countermanding the recommendations of his experts, such as refusing to use and discouraging the use of masks, even when it became more and more clear how vital masks are to the process, or when he constantly promoted Chloroquin, even after it was understood that it offers no positive benefits.
If the Federal response had occurred even two weeks sooner than it did (which was entirely possible because the White House was aware of this issue months earlier), the result would have been a hundred thousand less people dead, because viruses grow exponentially, and shutting it down early means massive shifts to the eventual outcomes. If the federal response had been to convince red state governors to treat their Covid response as seriously as New York did, then there wouldn't have been these massive surges they've seen over the past few months, and states like Florida and Texas would only have had a few thousand cases by this point. Instead, the White House was pushing for "everyone to open back up!" which led to the current situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kennethrohloff7535 But, again, a defendant should not be allowed to attack or intimidate witnesses. A fair judicial process is a necessity, and the ability to attack witnesses undermines that. Trump and his lawyers can say ANYTHING that they want in the courtroom, where it is actually relevant to their case, they just can't take that battle into the streets. Now, once the trial is over, the gag order will be lifted, and he can say whatever he likes about the witnesses, and he certainly has no shortage of defenders who are already doing that work for him, but while the trial goes on, there is no rational basis for allowing him to direct his enemies toward witnesses. And no, the jury are not sequestered. They are told not to watch news coverage, but that's about it. That's why one already left, she was harassed for agreeing to be a juror.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tammyorton6356 It doesn't matter whether they believe in Jesus or not. What matters is what people who claim to believe in Jesus do with their lives. If people are going to invoke Jesus' name as a justification for their own behavior, then shouldn't they at least be following Jesus' teachings while doing so?
Ideally, an Atheist would follow Jesus's teachings, and typically, most do, better than many Christians do, but if someone is going to weird Christ's name like a weapon, they had better at least be using it right.
Also, you are yourself completely misunderstanding Jesus' teachings. He would NEVER agree with you that "do unto others" entitles ANYONE to ignore the hardships of others. "do unto others is not some bare minimum standard, where if you view someone as treating others poorly, that gives you license to treat them poorly. "Do unto others" means that REGARDLESS of how someone else behaves, you should treat them as you would want to be treated.
You are taking the Lord's name in vain by attempting to invoke Him falsely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TrollingwTyrone Including yourself, apparently, because that's not how it works. "Printing money" can reduce the value of the dollar, but the pitiful implosion of the economy hurt it far more. If we'd had a robust stimulus package in early summer to keep the economy stable through covid, yes, those costs would add up, but the confidence that we were working our way past this problem would leave the economic impact rather neutral. Basically it would be a show to the rest of the world that "we were good for it." Instead, by basically doing nothing about both the economic issues AND the virus, and allowing it to run rampant through the country, the rest of the world saw us for the shitshow we'd become, and that has caused some issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1