ChrisWeigant.com

Obama Poll Watch -- May, 2014

[ Posted Monday, June 2nd, 2014 – 15:55 PDT ]

Slow recovery continues

President Obama's job approval ratings continued to improve, slowly, in the month of May. In five out of the last six months, in fact, Obama's numbers have gotten better. He is now roughly where he was right before the impact of the Obamacare website rollout hit his approval rating. This is still not fantastic territory for any president's approval rating to be in, but it does represent a steady increase as Obama has won back people he lost in the Obamacare website disaster. However, this trend may now be flattening out, meaning June's numbers may not be as positive. But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Let's start with a look at last month's chart:

Obama Approval -- May 2014

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

May, 2014

May started with some very positive economic news, as the unemployment rate fell sharply, from 6.7 to 6.3 percent. Primary season got under way in May, but the news was mostly on the Republican side and didn't affect Obama's numbers much. Republicans seemed to realize last month that their election campaign strategy (which consisted solely of "Obamacare stinks!") was no longer going to be enough, and they tried to shift attention to old scandals instead, announcing the eighth investigation (to date) over Benghazi. Republicans also seem to have pivoted somewhat towards directing their wrath at Hillary Clinton rather than the president, as an early preview of what the 2016 contest will be like.

Obama suffered a serious political setback in May, as he was forced to essentially fire one of his cabinet members -- something no president ever enjoys doing. But whatever you think of Eric Shinseki's culpability in the Veterans Administration scandal, politically he had to go. The V.A. hospital story loomed all month long, until a scathing interim report came out which hastened Shinseki's exit. While Republicans were attempting to focus on Benghazi, Obama provided them with a new scandal instead. This, so far, hasn't hurt Obama much in the polls, but it may do so next month as the details of how bad the situation is trickle out.

Obama, toward the end of the month, exhibited a burst of activity which is still continuing. He announced the end of America's longest war, giving a timetable for troop withdrawals from Afghanistan (which is a wildly popular idea with the general public, it's worth noting). He gave a foreign policy speech to a graduating military academy. Last week, the White House leaked some of the particulars of the new E.P.A. pollution rules Obama unveiled formally today, which amounts to a major policy shift on greenhouse gas emissions -- possibly the most significant since Richard Nixon created the E.P.A., in fact. And on the last days of the month, Obama announced the prisoner-of-war swap which gained the release of the only American soldier held by the Taliban. These last two will affect Obama's poll numbers in June, perhaps, but came so late in May that the polling really didn't have time to react. So it's anyone's guess how the public will ultimately see them.

Obama's average monthly job approval rating rose 0.6 percent in May, hitting 44.0 percent. Job disapproval fell to 51.7 percent in May, a drop of 0.4 percent. In five of the last six months, Obama has managed to improve his job approval rating. One thing worth noting in this time period is that Obama's "undecided" numbers have been about one percent lower than normal. During his first term, the undecided stat spent most months in the 5-to-6 percent range, while for most of his second term he's been more in the 4-to-5.5 percent range. In May, his undecided number was at 4.3 percent, and it hasn't been as high as 5.0 percent since October. Some good news for Obama in his "underwater" number (disapproval minus approval), as he is down from a high of a 12.5 percent gap last November to only a 7.7 percent difference in May. That shows marked improvement (a full percent last month alone), and this number is now within the range of Obama's first term. But, a note of caution, this only means that Obama's polling now is slightly better than the worst polling he saw during his entire first term.

 

Overall Trends

Obama's job approval monthly average is now back to where it was before October of last year, when the Obamacare website appeared. His disapproval average still lags about a point from where he was back then, though, so he hasn't completely climbed out of this hole yet. Here's a magnified view of Obama's past year, to better show this movement:

Obama Approval Detail -- May 2014

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

In September of 2013, Obama's average monthly job approval was 43.9 percent. It now stands at 44.0 percent, up from a low of 41.4 percent in November. However, his disapproval average stood at 50.8 percent in September, and now stands at 51.7 percent -- almost a full point higher (this is where the movement has been from the undecideds, to put it another way). So he hasn't fully recovered all the damage the Obamacare website rollout did, although his approval rate has indeed recovered fully.

Obama's numbers each improved roughly half a percent in May, continuing the trend which began after Obama announced the website was working (at the beginning of December). His approval rate has improved 2.6 percent over the last six months, while his disapproval improved 2.2 percent. However, this trend may be slowing or even coming to an end.

Within May, Obama stayed remarkably steady, as both his daily job approval and disapproval averages (from RealClearPolitics.com's daily "poll of polls") only fluctuated 1.2 percentage points each. This is historically very low, as these numbers usually bounce around quite a bit more. He started the month at a low of 43.4 percent daily approval, rose within a week or so to a high of 44.6 percent, and then stayed within that range for the rest of the month. His disapproval averages showed a slower improvement, from 52.1 percent early in the month to 50.9 percent towards the end.

But the last week of May showed a downturn, which may be significant and may not. Obama finished the month at 43.6 percent daily approval and 52.0 percent daily disapproval -- both numbers worse than what he charted overall for May. One recent poll (Reuters) only gave Obama 38 percent approval, which is currently bringing his average down. But it may be just an outlier poll -- all the others show Obama in much better position, roughly in the 43-44 percent range. If it is just one bad poll, then Obama's numbers will recover in June, but if it is the indication of a new downward trend, then Obama's positive trend may come to an end this month.

This could take the form of a leveling out of Obama's numbers, roughly where they were before the Obamacare rollout. Or it could even signal a new downturn, as the V.A. scandal unfolds and Republicans rake over Benghazi once again. The unemployment numbers come out at the end of the week, which could help Obama's public approval, if the news is positive. But the safe money, at this point, is that Obama's approval levels out in June and ends the slow improvement he's shown for the last six months, at least for now.

 

[Obama Poll Watch Data:]

Sources And Methodology

ObamaPollWatch.com is an admittedly amateur effort, but we do try to stay professional when it comes to revealing our sources and methodology. All our source data comes from RealClearPolitics.com; specifically from their daily presidential approval ratings "poll of polls" graphic page. We take their daily numbers, log them, and then average each month's data into a single number -- which is then shown on our monthly charts here (a "poll of polls of polls," if you will...). You can read a much-more detailed explanation of our source data and methodology on our "About Obama Poll Watch" page, if you're interested.

Questions or comments? Use the Email Chris page to drop me a private note.

 

Obama's Second Term Statistical Records

Monthly
Highest Monthly Approval -- 1/13 -- 52.7%
Lowest Monthly Approval -- 11/13 -- 41.4%

Highest Monthly Disapproval -- 12/13 -- 54.0%
Lowest Monthly Disapproval -- 1/13 -- 42.6%

Daily
Highest Daily Approval -- 1/31/13 -- 52.5%
Lowest Daily Approval -- 12/2/13 -- 39.8%

Highest Daily Disapproval -- 12/2/13 -- 55.9%
Lowest Daily Disapproval -- 2/24/13 -- 42.3%

 

Obama's Second Term Raw Monthly Data

[All-time high in bold, all-time low underlined.]

Month -- (Approval / Disapproval / Undecided)
05/14 -- 44.0 / 51.7 / 4.3
04/14 -- 43.4 / 52.1 / 4.5
03/14 -- 42.9 / 52.8 / 4.3
02/14 -- 43.3 / 52.3 / 4.4
01/14 -- 42.7 / 52.7 / 4.6
12/13 -- 41.9 / 54.0 / 4.1
11/13 -- 41.4 / 53.9 / 4.7
10/13 -- 44.2 / 50.8 / 5.0
09/13 -- 43.9 / 50.8 / 5.3
08/13 -- 44.4 / 50.2 / 5.4
07/13 -- 45.3 / 49.2 / 5.5
06/13 -- 46.5 / 48.5 / 5.0
05/13 -- 48.3 / 46.9 / 4.8
04/13 -- 48.6 / 46.8 / 4.6
03/13 -- 48.5 / 46.3 / 5.2
02/13 -- 51.1 / 43.0 / 5.9
01/13 -- 52.7 / 42.6 / 4.7

 

Second Term Column Archives

[Apr 14], [Mar 14], [Feb 14], [Jan 14], Dec 13], [Nov 13], [Oct 13], Sep 13], [Aug 13], [Jul 13], [Jun 13], [May 13], [Apr 13], [Mar 13], [Feb 13], [Jan 13]

 

First Term Data

To save space, the only data and statistics listed above are from Obama's second term. If you'd like to see the data and stats from Obama's first term, including a list of links to the full archives of the Obama Poll Watch column for the first term, we've set up an Obama Poll Watch First Term Data page, for those still interested.

 

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

61 Comments on “Obama Poll Watch -- May, 2014”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    Between the VA and this new POW scandal, Obama's numbers are heading south... They are already lower than they were last week...

    June is not going to be pretty for Obama...

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Haven't you been predicting the great fall in Obama's poll numbers for quite a while now?

    Heh.

    Weren't we supposed to be having a picnic right now? Here's the reality, rather than the picnic, from the same number of months into their terms:

    GWBush -- 33.6 approval, 61.2 disapproval
    Obama -- 44.0 (+10.4), 51.7 (-9.5)

    So, who really got their buns toasted at that picnic, hmmm?

    :-)

    Respectfully,

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    OK, went searching (to put this little snarkfest into perspective for other readers), but couldn't find your original "picnic" comment, which went (to the best of my memory) something like "Bush's numbers are going to look like a picnic compared to Obama's, early in 2014."

    But I did find this gem from you, from March 7th:

    CW,

    [Ed. note: Michale is quoting me here, from an earlier comment:] "Anytime you're willing to concede defeat on this one, just let me know... something about a 'picnic' as I recall..."

    Tell ya what, CW. Like I told LD above, I am a fair guy..

    Let's let March percolate til, say.. Mid April...

    If Obama's numbers are STILL above 40%, then I will concede that I was wrong and ya'all were right..

    BUT.....

    If Obama's numbers are BELOW 40% than ya'all concede that I was right and ya'all were wrong...

    Can't get more of a fair deal than that, eh? :D

    What say ya'all??

    Michale

    What I say is we're all waiting for your concession speech. Obama's numbers, as of May (even gave you an extra month, there) are 44 percent approval.

    Cue Michale admitting us'all were right in 3...2...1...

    :-)

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Haven't you been predicting the great fall in Obama's poll numbers for quite a while now?

    Yea,I know..

    But that just means I am due!! :D

    What I say is we're all waiting for your concession speech. Obama's numbers, as of May (even gave you an extra month, there) are 44 percent approval.

    If Obama hadn't violated his own law, I would have been right... His poll numbers WOULD have tanked..

    But Obama cheated, so that (of course) skewed the results..

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is why Obama's numbers are going to tank..

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/2/pentagon-knew-berghdahls-whereabouts-but-didnt-ris/

    The military knew for a while where this scumbag deserter was being held..

    But they didn't want to risk any more lives for a deserter..

    But when Obama needed a distraction from his VA scandal, all of the sudden this deserter became a MUST RESCUE hero...

    The political maneuvering is pathetic and sickening..

    Maybe THIS is the "transparency" that Obama promised.

    Because his political partisan agenda is VERY transparent...

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the last week of May, Obama went from 44.3 to 43.6...

    THAT is likely due to the VA and Terrorist Giveaway scandals. We're still learning more and more about what a scumbag this alleged "POW" is so it's likely that the drop will continue and intensify..

    Like I said above.. I'm due... :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    the White House leaked some of the particulars of the new E.P.A. pollution rules Obama unveiled formally today, which amounts to a major policy shift on greenhouse gas emissions -- possibly the most significant since Richard Nixon created the E.P.A., in fact.

    Which will make power prices skyrocket. Which has been obama's intentions all along..

    And, of course, who is going to get hurt most by this move??

    The middle class....

    So, once again, obama and the Democrats prove that they are no "warriors" for the Middle Class..

    That, if their partisan agenda demands it, obama and the Democrats will screw over the Middle Class in a stone cold minute...

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said in the previous commentary...

    It takes a special kind of ineptitude for an Administration to try and move a scandal off the front page but using a diversion that becomes an even BIGGER scandal in and of itself..

    Ironically enough, the heart of BOTH scandals is that military men and women died needlessly.... unnecessarily....

    That doesn't bode well for Democrats getting the military vote...

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305184/Bowe-Bergdahl-Taliban-claim-captured-U-S-solider-teaching-fighters-bomb-making-skills.html

    That's who obama gave up 5 of the most dangerous terrorists in the world to "rescue"..

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The sad thing, and I believe this truly is sad, is that Republicans have cried wolf so often that most of America just doesn't care anymore.

    The reason this is sad is that in areas where they might actually have a case, no one's going to listen.

    A good example is the Comcast/Time-Warner proposed merger and the proposed changes to "net neutrality".

    All of this is going on, in large part, because President Obama put Tom Wheeler, an industry lobbyist in charge of the FCC.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU#t=18

    Or as John Oliver puts it: "That is the equivalent of needing a babysitter and hiring a dingo."

    This is an area where I'd support Republicans if they came out in favor of more competition and breaking up these monopolies.

    Because of these monopolies, we pay more for our Internet than almost anyone else on the planet and get some of the sh*ttiest service.

    -David

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    The reason this is sad is that in areas where they might actually have a case, no one's going to listen.

    I am curious..

    Could you give me an example of the GOP actually "having a case"??

    Having asked that, I do agree with you completely..

    The GOP has done a piss-poor job of picking their battles..

    A good example is the Comcast/Time-Warner proposed merger and the proposed changes to "net neutrality".

    OK, that's one..

    I am actually surprised you haven't mentioned it til now..

    As I recall, a while back when this was discussed you and I went round and round over this issue.. :D

    This is an area where I'd support Republicans if they came out in favor of more competition and breaking up these monopolies.

    I take back some of the bad things I have said about you! :D

    "Egon, I am going to take back some of the bad things I have said about you. Here... no.. yes, you've earned it.."
    -Bill Murray, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

    Because of these monopolies, we pay more for our Internet than almost anyone else on the planet and get some of the sh*ttiest service.

    And, with these new carbon regs coming down the pipe, it's going to get a LOT worse.. :(

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    All of this is going on, in large part, because President Obama put Tom Wheeler, an industry lobbyist in charge of the FCC.

    So, what you are saying is that Obama, on strictly a policy decision, royally frak'ed up...

    Is that an accurate assessment?? :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Could you give me an example of the GOP actually "having a case"?

    Sorry, should have been more clear w/ what I meant by that. What I mean is a case that is popular across partisan lines.

    Tom Wheeler at the FCC is a good one.

    Another is NSA surveillance. This is widely unpopular with the general public.

    Another is that I think they could seriously have some input on the healthcare discussion if they weren't so busy simply trying to use it as a political wedge.

    So, what you are saying is that Obama, on strictly a policy decision, royally frak'ed up.

    Well, the policy decision hasn't been made yet.

    But I will say that I think he frak'ed up on the Tom Wheeler appointment. Absolutely.

    The principle I will stand behind is that an industry should be separate from the agencies that regulate the industry. Doesn't matter who's doing it.

    I also wrote about this back in April and would like to think John Oliver or one of his writers saw the article as they totally stole some of my material. But this is probably wishful thinking :).

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/11/1291124/-Comcast-admits-what-everyone-in-a-TWC-Comcast-market-already-knows-there-is-no-competition

    -David

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another is NSA surveillance. This is widely unpopular with the general public.

    And yet, obama doesn't seem to be paying any price for it here in Weigantia...

    Which is about 80% of my beef around here.. :D

    Ya'all would hear a LOT less from me if we heard a little more from ya'all.. :D

    Just a little hint.. :D

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the HITS just keep on coming...

    Revealed: Bowe Bergdahl left letter telling comrades at Afghan base he was 'leaving to start new life and didn't want to fight for America' as Army announces he DOES face desertion charges
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2647397/Revealed-Bowe-Bergdahl-left-note-comrades-telling-leaving-start-new-life-Army-general-says-faces-desertion-charges.html

    Obama released 5 of THE most dangerous terrorists on the planet to win the release of a scumbag deserter...

    Could there POSSIBLY be more egg on Obama's face???

    Obama is looking pretty stoopid right now...

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Lets be clear, I don't care if Bergdahl DID desert. Unless, and until, he's convicted he should be treated like any other service member, and we don't leave our people behind.

    Republicans believe in guilty until proven innocent--when it suits them. Republicans believe only "real" Americans are entitled to rights.--"Real" Americans being defined as Republicans. Republicans believe that Congress gets to tell the President under what circumstances he may exercise his authority.--When the President is a Democrat. Republicans think their conspiracy theories and paranoia more than justify sacrificing others because no amount of others' sacrifices is too great a price to pay for Conservatives feeling warm and fuzzy.--It'd all about THEM. Screw anyone else.--And since only Republicans are "real" Americans sacrificing American lives to protect Conservatives is "defending" America.--Which is why kids being gunned down in school is a perfectly reasonable cost if it may protect Conservatives' right to bear arms.

    Conservatives are NEVER guilty unless prosecuted and convicted.--Not so for Obama, or anyone else who isn't deemed a Conservative.

    Laws passed by Conservative are the law until they are declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Laws passed by Democrats are unconstitutional unless declared constitutional by the Supreme Court.--Corollary: Acts by Republican Presidents are constitutional unless declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Acts by Democratic Presidents are unconstitutional unless declared constitutional by SCOTUS.

    And, as always, Republicans fully support our troops.--Unless there's some potential advantage in throwing them under a bus.

    Fid I mention that, as usual, I find the Republicans' supposed arguments unpersuasive?--As usual.

    Move along folks. Nothing to see here. Just another faux "scandal" Republican wet dream.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lets be clear, I don't care if Bergdahl DID desert. Unless, and until, he's convicted he should be treated like any other service member, and we don't leave our people behind.

    Bullshit...

    Let me put it this way...

    Should the CIA have put out all the stops and traded away a half dozen high value KGB agents to get back Aldrich Ames??

    Of course not..

    This scumbag deserter is no different..

    Nice defense of the indefensible..

    You left out one minor detail..

    5 Terrorists are now loose again.. The worst of the worst are now free to attack and kill Americans...

    Which is why the US never negotiates with terrorists...

    Obama scrooed the pooch on this one...

    Your defense of him simply proves that..

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    But at least you are true to form LD..

    It's ALWAYS the Republicans fault...

    Obama is ALWAYS pure as the driven snow.. :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless, Bergdahl has been PROVEN to be a deserter..

    The eyewitnesses, the physical evidence, the 14 soldiers who were killed/wounded trying to locate him... It all points to the same inescapable conclusion...

    The scumbag deserted...

    The letter alone proves that beyond any doubt..

    But, let's say you're right LD..

    Let's say that Bergdahl still shouldn't be left behind..

    Why now???

    Why, after 5 years, does his release all of the sudden require such a huge sacrifice???

    Because Obama needed to move ANOTHER scandal off the front page...

    Even YOU must see that....

    It's Obama's own bad luck that he created a BIGGER scandal in his vain attempt to diffuse a different scandal..

    Ya gotta admire it..

    Obama could fall into a mountain of diamonds and STILL come out all covered in shit... :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Still waiting for that concession. There are no qualifiers in your statement:

    Let's let March percolate til, say.. Mid April...

    If Obama's numbers are STILL above 40%, then I will concede that I was wrong and ya'all were right.

    Obama's numbers are still above 40%.

    Man up.

    -CW

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://thehill.com/policy/defense/208070-white-house-apologizes-to-senate-intelligence

    Apparently, Obama realizes he messed up...

    Which is ironic because I don't agree that Obama needed to notify anyone...

    So, chalk that up to those who claim I *always* blame Obama.. :D

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama's numbers are still above 40%.

    Man up.

    -CW

    "He cheated!!"
    "I changed the conditions of the test.... I don't like to lose"

    -Star Trek II, The Wrath Of Kahn

    Obama changed the rules.. Broke the law in fact..

    Ergo, any prediction was rendered null and void.

    You have to admit.

    If Obama hadn't changed a THING, I would have been dead on ballz accurate...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, I'll tell you what...

    Circumstances now are a bit different. Obama can't bend the law to his agenda this time... The VA scandal and this scumbag deserter scandal?? They are going to hang around Obama's neck like a Tiberian Bat...

    If Obama's Poll Numbers are above 40% approval on the next Obama Poll Watch, I will happily and with great gusto, concede the point.. :D And will perform ANY form of Mea Culpa you deem fit... :D

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Yo got one thing right, I am true to form. I still believe in the law. I still believe in treating everyone equally. I still believe in due process. And I still don't believe that whether or not people have rights depends on what their political views are, what their sexual orientation is, what their gender is, what their race is, what their sex is, what their religion to is, what their nationality is, what their weight is, what their drug of choice is, or what anything else is, other than their conviction of criminality after having received due process under the law. Which means I also don't care whether or not you think they're a "scumbag."

    You, however, like the rest of the Right, don't care about any of those things. Prisoners at Guantanamo have a right to trial and sentencing, or release. Everyone we place in harms way has a right to expect us to do everything prudently possible to secure their release. And the commander-in-chief has a right to make any military decisions he considers necessary without having to warn congress or get their permission.

    The President gets his authority from the constitution. That's the law. The ONLY way Congress can legally circumscribe the Presidents authority is by amending the Constitution. That too is the law.

    Sometimes we must sacrifice people to deal with specific security threats. But the Right's eagerness to sacrifice people, especially people they don't like, because of hypothetical potential threats isn't providing security its demonstrating prejudice.

    The Right trampled the rights of gays to equal protection under the law claiming to being protecting marriage. They trample the tights of women under the law claiming to be protecting women. They trample the rights of Latino-Americans under the law claiming to protect our borders. They trample the rights of Blacks under the law claiming to protect election's. You are ALWAYS claiming your bigoted trampling of everyone else rights is justified because you're "protecting" against some imaginary hypothetical threat.

    Unlike you, I understand that adherence to the rule of law is always necessary to prevent people like you from trampling the rights of anyone and everyone who gets in their way. Because in order to protect ourselves we must protect everyone else as well. Or one day we will be the ones whose rights your trampling under some spurious claim of defending something.

    That's the principle this nation was founded on. Its what's known as "American." And its as much a truth, and wisdom, today as it was in the eighteenth century.

    People like you feel such a massive sense of entitlement you feel free to trample the right of others, secure in the knowledge that YOU have rights no matter what. Those of us who are rational know better. If you can strip people of their rights on a whim then they is NOTHING to stop someone else from stripping YOUR rights on a whim.

    Standing up for the law is "national defense." Not the hypocritical trash you talk.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yo got one thing right, I am true to form. I still believe in the law.

    True to form. ONLY when it suits your agenda..

    You don't mind Obama breaking the law when it suits him.

    Where is your belief in the law then??

    I still believe in due process.

    Except when yer messiah Obama wants to kill some American citizens..

    You are a mass of contradictions, LD.. :D

    But, at least you are consistent in your inconsistency...

    In your little world, Obama can do no wrong. Obama is as pure as the driven snow..

    Newsflash for ya.. The driven snow has a buttload of tire tracks thru it.. :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    You, however, like the rest of the Right, don't care about any of those things. Prisoners at Guantanamo have a right to trial and sentencing, or release.

    Bullshit.. They are terrorists. The ONLY "right" they have is to be squeezed for every drop of intelligence they got and then they have a "right" to be taken out and shot..

    Their guilt is not in ANY question whatsoever..

    Well, except by Democrats and the Left Wing who are already on record (claiming that they are taking a moral stand..) as collaborating with and sympathetic to Al Qaeda...

    Everyone we place in harms way has a right to expect us to do everything prudently possible to secure their release.

    The guy deserted.. He has no rights... HIS guilt is not in question either...

    And the commander-in-chief has a right to make any military decisions he considers necessary without having to warn congress or get their permission.

    Uhhh.... That's what I said... So, you are agreeing with me.. :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other news, Obama is embracing Hamas....

    http://thehill.com/policy/international/208017-israeli-ambassador-slams-state-department

    Another reason why his poll numbers are going to go down...

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    To pull off the prisoner swap of five Taliban leaders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the White House overrode an existing interagency process charged with debating the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prisoners and dismissed long-standing Pentagon and intelligence community concerns based on Top Secret intelligence about the dangers of releasing the five men, sources familiar with the debate tell TIME
    http://time.com/2818827/taliban-bergdahl-pow-release-objections-white-house/

    Basically King Obama ignored his advisers, ignored the threat to Americans and decreed that these scumbag terrorists would be released to get back a scumbag deserter so King Obama could move a scandal off the front page...

    But, as usual, King Obama is so incompetent, the diversion he used is now a BIGGER scandal...

    Like I said.. Obama could fall into a mountain of diamonds and emerge covered in crap... :D

    Ya simply gots to admire Obama's consistency for incompetence..

    Obama hasn't done one thing right in years.. That's why his poll numbers have been underwater for so long...

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Should the CIA have pulled out all the stops and traded away a half dozen high value KGB agents to get back Aldrich Ames??

    I noticed you ignored this, LD...

    Figured I would give you another shot at it.. :D

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/03/baker-forced-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/?intcmp=obnetwork

    This is the problem with Obama's Amerika...

    Basically, ALL of the Left says, "Believe as WE want you to believe or else you lose your livelyhood and get sent to re-education camps"

    And ya'all see absolutely NOTHING wrong with that...

    So much for "diversity" and "respect" for other's beliefs, eh?? :^/

    Another reason why Obama's poll numbers will go down..

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    On Berghdal, Democrats are abandoning Obama in droves...

    More than a dozen Democrats who, just 48 hours ago, supported Obama unabashedly, NOW won't comment until they get the briefing scheduled for tomorrow..

    Wonder what changed their minds..

    Could it be that it was discovered that Bergdahl was a scumbag deserter???

    I imagine that Democrats who face a tough re-election this year are going to be pissed at Obama..

    ANOTHER scandal that will all but insure that the House stays GOP and the Senate is delivered to the GOP on a silver platter...

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am betting that Obama is thinking he should release some bad news on the VA scandal to take the Berghdal scandal off the front page! :D

    hehehehehehehe

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The GOP has done a piss-poor job of picking their battles.

    Let's talk a little about the reason for this.

    At least as far as the points I mentioned, the problem the GOP faces is that they can't talk about any of these things.

    Why?

    Because these are the issues of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and some of the top lobbying firms in America.

    The GOP gets as much, if not more, money from Comcast and Time-Warner. They would have appointed the same lobbyist to head the FCC. Or someone similar.

    Similarly, some of the top donors to the GOP are defense contractors. The GOP isn't going to come out against NSA spying. They're more in favor of it than the Dems.

    This is why they keep the fake scandals like Benghazi going. Because they're even more for the 1% than the Dems.

    -David

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Similarly, some of the top donors to the GOP are defense contractors. The GOP isn't going to come out against NSA spying. They're more in favor of it than the Dems.

    I know that...

    *MY* point has been that Dems WEREN'T in favor of it..

    Until it was THEIR guy doing it..

    Now Democrats are all for it. Nancy Pelosi SAVED the NSA!!!

    If THAT is not a topsy turvy world, what is!?? :D

    This is why they keep the fake scandals like Benghazi going.

    Assumes facts not in evidence. If a GOP'er was POTUS, then Benghazi WOULD be a "real scandal"...

    Ergo, it's a real scandal...

    Simple logic...

    Because they're even more for the 1% than the Dems.

    Perhaps...

    Which doesn't (or at least SHOULDN'T) excuse the Dems...

    Right??

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    The GOP gets as much, if not more, money from Comcast and Time-Warner. They would have appointed the same lobbyist to head the FCC. Or someone similar.

    In other words, no difference between Dems and GOPs...

    :D

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's talk a little about the reason for this.

    Or.... We could talk about the Democrats and their incompetence... :D

    Everyone here knows that the GOP sucks... Talking about that seems to me to be redumbnant... :D

    BUT....

    The only point of contention here in Weigantia is whether or not Democrats are any better...

    Ya'all seem to think so despite ALL the facts and evidence to the contrary...

    This latest Bergadahal/Deserter scandal is a PERFECT example on how frak'ed up this administration is...

    Why doesn't anyone want to talk about that??

    Because ya'all want to ignore that in the quest to make everything the GOP's fault...

    Well, sorry.. I musta missed that memo.. :D

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay LD...

    Two words for you...

    Jessica Lynch....

    CHECK.... And mate... :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    WOW...

    http://sjfm.us/temp/Drudge1.jpg

    24 Top Bar stories on Drudge dealing with this Berghdahl/Deserter mess of Obama's..

    I don't think that I have EVER seen Obama pummeled so much by Drudge and his own Democrats...

    It almost makes me believe that there is a god! :D

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    akadjian wrote:

    *MY* point has been that Dems WEREN'T in favor of it.. Until it was THEIR guy doing it.

    Really? I don't know of any Democrats who are for it?

    We're the ones still fighting it.

    In other words, no difference between Dems and GOPs.

    Ummm. No.

    - Dems aren't trying to kill the government
    - Dems are focusing on the economy, not starting wars
    - Dems talk about health care
    - Dems believe in science
    - Dems aren't walking into Chipotles with assault rifles

    You say 'Dems get a pass ...'

    Not true. We're still fighting for better Dems. The problem is that the Republican party left planet earth in favor of Planet Rand sometime in the early 2000s (or earlier) and isn't a viable alternative.

    So you can keep demonizing Democrats all you want.

    If Republicans want my vote, stop the crazy and let's start talking about solutions.

    -David

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? I don't know of any Democrats who are for it?

    Uhh... Nancy Pelosi SAVED the NSA...

    Harry Reid is on record as stating that all of the NSA activities are justified..

    Plus a plethora of Obama's minions go on and on saying that the NSA activities are perfectly justified..

    Remember.. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts...

    - Dems aren't trying to kill the government

    No, they are just trying to kill the American dream and the American way of life. The right to have their OWN beliefs and live their lives BY those beliefs..

    - Dems are focusing on the economy, not starting wars

    And yet, the economy is STILL in the shitter...

    - Dems talk about health care

    Dems LIE about health care...

    - Dems believe in science

    ONLY the science that supports their agenda. All the other science, they ignore..

    - Dems aren't walking into Chipotles with assault rifles

    Non-Sequitor.. Not having to do with anything...

    As I have just proven, there is no difference between Dems and Republicans..

    Not true. We're still fighting for better Dems.

    How so?? By supporting the Dems who are doing everything that you DON'T want them to do??

    So you can keep demonizing Democrats all you want.

    Oh, I will. SOMEONE has to speak facts to hysteria...

    Might as well be me... :D

    If Republicans want my vote, stop the crazy and let's start talking about solutions.

    Ya'all don't WANT solutions..

    Ya'all want YOUR agenda...

    And that just AIN'T gonna happen.. :D

    No way... No how...

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    - Dems talk about health care

    Yea??

    How'de that work out for the VA???

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not true. We're still fighting for better Dems.

    Ya'all whine and complain when Dems do this or Dems do that, yet you STILL support everything those Dems do..

    How, EXACTLY is that "fighting for better Dems"

    Do you hold Dems responsible when they step out of line??

    No..

    Do you punish Dems when they step out of line??

    No...

    Do you threaten Dems with witholding your vote if they don't toe the line??

    No....

    So, how EXACTLY are you working for better Dems???

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? I don't know of any Democrats who are for it?

    Uhh... Nancy Pelosi SAVED the NSA...

    Pelosi Confronted By Teen Reporter On NSA
    “Why do you support the NSA’s illegal and ubiquitous data collection?”

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/pelosi-confronted-teen-reporter-nsa

    Of course, Pelosi had the Tried-And-True-Democrat-GoTo-Reponse...

    "It's all Bush's fault... :^/

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    This whole Bergdal/Deserter scandal really only begs ONE question...

    How could the Obama Administration think that Susan He-Served-With-Honor-And-Distinction/Benghazi-Was-Just-A-Video-Protest Rice has even the SMALLEST, MINUTEST iota of credibility left???

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You're a funny one, Michale.

    It warms my heart though that you're so concerned about Democrats.

    :)

    I now return you to your hating. Heheh.

    -David

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    It warms my heart though that you're so concerned about Democrats.

    Hay, I am just trying to teach them to be better leaders...

    First thing.. Lost the hypocrisy....

    Second thing.. Put country before Party/Self...

    It's really simple...

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale [37],

    Jessica Lynch?! What's she got to do with anything? No one pummeled Bush for rescuing Jessica Lynch. Bush was pummeled for falsely claiming she was the female Rambo who singlehandedly held off Al Queda and survived retaliatory terrorist torture.--Once again, Bush's lies earned him the grief he got, not partisanship.--And, once again, Bush's lies were "read my lips" clear and unambiguous intentional attempts to misrepresent and deceive.--Which YOU have no problems with. Not the tortured nonsensical misrepresentations you like to claim are lies by Obama.

    And how is it you can hold prisoners indefinitely who are not soldiers of anyone we're at war with? If they're soldiers and we're at war they have rights. You claim they don't. If they're criminals in our custody they have rights. You claim thru don't. If you think American citizens in foreign lands are entitled to due process why aren't prisoners held by America in American territory?

    If you're going to claim Guantanamo is outside the constitution because it is outside the U.S. you can't claim drone strikes outside the U.S. are unconstitutional. Done strikes ate nothing more than special operations assassinations using modern high-tech equipment. As a former military officer you have to know that. Just as you have to know targeted assassinations have always been a part of every armed conflict. But, as always, in your eagerness to smear Obama you're happy to lie.

    "Due process" applies to people restrained, detained,
    searched, or robbed by the government. Nothing in the constitution guarantees armed combatants, foreign or domestic, citizen or not, any protection from summary execution at the discretion of the government. You think its legal for cops on the street, or some citizen with a handgun to decide security requires killing someone, without due process, but not the President of the United States?--The President has greater authority than the average citizen, not less.--Even when he's s Democrat.--And even if he's Black.

    Get back to me if you ever come up with a sensible argument. If all your going to do is continue to lie and spout nonsense I've got better people to offend.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    No one pummeled Bush for rescuing Jessica Lynch. Bush was pummeled for falsely claiming she was the female Rambo who singlehandedly held off Al Queda and survived retaliatory terrorist torture.--

    So, you disagree with Bush for using Lynch for political purposes..

    But, of course, you have NO PROBLEM with Obama using this deserter for political purposes..

    Funny, iddn't it? :D

    And how is it you can hold prisoners indefinitely who are not soldiers of anyone we're at war with?

    I dunno...

    Ask your guy Obama.. He signed off on it..

    Personally, he made the right call. These are TERRORISTS who live to kill Americans...

    Personally, I agree with you. We shouldn't be holding them.. We should just take them out and shoot them...

    "Due process" applies to people restrained, detained,
    searched, or robbed by the government. Nothing in the constitution guarantees armed combatants, foreign or domestic, citizen or not, any protection from summary execution at the discretion of the government. You think its legal for cops on the street, or some citizen with a handgun to decide security requires killing someone, without due process, but not the President of the United States?--The President has greater authority than the average citizen, not less.

    You are preaching to the choir.. I completely agree with you that "due process" is wasted on these scumbags... Shoot them all and let Crowley sort them out...

    The difference between you and I is that *I* am of that opinion REGARDLESS of whether or not the POTUS is a GOP'er or a Dem...

    YOU are only of that opinion when the the POTUS is a Democrat...

    It's that simple...

    By the by... Did you notice that the deserter's hometown cancelled their WELCOME BACK parade/celebration??

    They don't want to welcome a traitor either, it seems...

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Since World War Two we have not negotiated with terrorists or other groups. What concerns me is the future. This puts all Americans at risk throughout the world, including our men and women on the front line…for kidnapping.”

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bush was pummeled for falsely claiming she was the female Rambo who singlehandedly held off Al Queda and survived retaliatory terrorist torture.

    And Obama is being pummeled for falsely claiming that this scumbag deserter was a sickly hero/POW..

    He was a collaborator.. A deserter...

    A scumbag who is no higher on the TO BE DRONE-IFIED list than any of the other American terrorist that has been nuked..

    I am glad we can agree... :D

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bush was pummeled for falsely claiming she was the female Rambo who singlehandedly held off Al Queda and survived retaliatory terrorist torture.

    And Obama is being pummeled for falsely claiming that this scumbag deserter was a sickly hero/POW..

    At least, PFC Lynch was a LOT closer to what Bush said she was than Sgt Berghdal was to what Obama said he was...

    This is fact...

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    Bush's problem wasn't using Lynch for propaganda, nothing wrong with that. It was LYING about Lynch to create propaganda to promote the war he started by lying about WMDs.

    ...So let me get this straight, according to you Obama is lying about Bergdahl having been a POW?! Obama is so TERRIFIED of Tpublicans investigating Benghazi, for the sixteenth time, that Qatar negotiated Bergdahl's fake release? Because Obama, Qatar, AND the terrorists we're fighting are ALL conspiring to "wag the dog?!" And you actually think that your even-more-insane-than-usual conspiracy theory should be taken seriously?

    lol My friend, you REALLY need to get back on your meds!

  53. [53] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [22] -

    The only thing I have to admit is that my prediction skills are better than yours, when it comes to Obama's job approval.

    In other words: "Thppppbbbbbtttt!" [sound of "Bronx cheer"...]

    Also, I will admit that I at least own up to things when I call them wrong. Unlike... um... certain other unnamed folks....

    Heh.

    -CW

  54. [54] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    I'm reading through the rest of these comments, and have a question for you:

    Was it right for America to trade North Vietnamese prisoners for John McCain's release in 1973?

    Just curious as to your answer to that one.

    -CW

  55. [55] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LewDan [16] -

    Yet another exemplary comment. Just had to say that. Really sums it up, in fine manner!

    :-)

    Michale [17] -

    Which is why the US never negotiates with terrorists...

    Except, you know, when Reagan does it... right?

    Or the Israelis, for that matter (they paid 1000-to-1 for one of their soldiers...).

    [19] -

    I'm disappointed in you. For all your vaunted "LEO" experience, surely you know that "proven" means adjucated in a court of law. Which hasn't happened yet, I believe. I'm not defending Bergdahl, just the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

    [21] -

    Aha -- now that's interesting! What are your feelings on Congress and the executive when it comes to war powers? I'm interested to hear.

    -CW

  56. [56] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [23] -

    If Obama's Poll Numbers are above 40% approval on the next Obama Poll Watch, I will happily and with great gusto, concede the point.. :D And will perform ANY form of Mea Culpa you deem fit... :D

    Really? Above 40% next month? And we can force you to do anything?

    Hmmm...

    Any ideas anyone? We've already made him wear an Obama T-shirt all day at his work, remember, so it's got to be something different than that.

    Video of Michale dancing "Gangnam style" anyone? Heh. Or does someone else have a better idea?

    All in fun, of course...

    LewDan [24] -

    The President gets his authority from the constitution. That's the law. The ONLY way Congress can legally circumscribe the Presidents authority is by amending the Constitution. That too is the law.

    I have to pick one nit, here. I think you meant "the ONLY TWO ways are impeachment and..."

    It's extreme, but it is always an option for Congress.

    Michale [38] -

    I hope you didn't mean to imply by saying Drudge and his own Democrats that Drudge is somehow a Democrat? (shudder)

    I'm probably reading that phrase wrong, right?

    [42] -

    I do. Can't speak for anyone else, of course....

    LewDan [47] -

    Another excellent comment!

    Michale [49] -

    Um, what? Cite?

    Except, of course, when Reagan tried to free hostages held by terrorists by selling arms to the Iranians. That whole "Iran/Contra" thing? I'm sure you've heard of it. Separate out the "/Contra" part, and it was a simple "arms-for-hostages" deal with terrorists. By Saint Ronnie of Reagan.

    Also, one might bring up the over 500 Gitmo prisoners released under George W. Bush...

    Just sayin'...

    LewDan [52] -

    To say nothing of the Pat Tillman story, too...

    To all -

    Whew! Finally made it through the whole thread!

    :-)

    -CW

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also, I will admit that I at least own up to things when I call them wrong. Unlike... um... certain other unnamed folks....

    Hay now.. You know me.. I always admit when I am wrong..

    But you have to admit there are extenuating circumstances here...

    Did you ever watch HILL STREET BLUES? Remember the bet between Detective LaRue and Officer Renko? They made a bet on whose route was faster to work.. But during the "proving phase" they put up roadblocks and stuff in each other's way..

    So, the bet wasn't truly consummated because of the exigent circumstances.

    I will throw you a small bone.. I *SHOULD* have qualified my prediction with the statement "As long as Obama obeys the law"...

    I mean, we're talking about a POTUS here, so I didn't think I needed to enter such qualifications into the record..

    But then again, we ARE talking Obama here. He is the PRESIDENT that Nixon always wanted to be...

    Was it right for America to trade North Vietnamese prisoners for John McCain's release in 1973?

    Crowley, as they say, is in the details..

    Were these NK prisoners top commanders??

    Were these NK prisoners commanders in a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent people??

    If the answer to those questions are "YES" then no.. McCain should NOT have been traded for those NK prisoners...

    And I bet you a million quatloos that McCain would be the absolute FIRST person to agree with me...

    "Al!! You could have been rescued!!"
    "I'm going to be repatriated soon. What's another 4 years?"

    -QUANTUM LEAP

    Except, you know, when Reagan does it... right?

    Or the Israelis, for that matter (they paid 1000-to-1 for one of their soldiers...).

    And both we're wrong to do so.

    Especially ISRAEL.. Israel should KNOW better!

    I'm disappointed in you. For all your vaunted "LEO" experience, surely you know that "proven" means adjucated in a court of law. Which hasn't happened yet, I believe. I'm not defending Bergdahl, just the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

    We're not talking a court of law here... We're talking about the court of public opinion..

    And most, if not all, Weigantians have been quick to condemn people without any evidence. Ironically enough, all those people were on the Right side of the political spectrum..

    Abu Ghraib
    Katrina/FEMA

    And the list goes on and on of "convictions"...

    Aha -- now that's interesting! What are your feelings on Congress and the executive when it comes to war powers? I'm interested to hear.

    My feelings have ALWAYS been that the Commander In Chief is the Commander In Chief.. And ANYTHING that detracts from that role is a no-no...

    Obama notified Congress that, if circumstances came down to it, he would not abide by that requirement. He used a signing statement...

    Ironically enough, ya'all howled to high heavens when Bush used signing statements to state the same thing...

    But my feelings have always been consistent in that regard...

    Consistency is the foundation of logic..

    Really? Above 40% next month? And we can force you to do anything?

    Nothing is off the table.. Well, within reason..

    Ever see 13 SINS??? :D Queue it up if you haven't... Ya'all will like it..

    I hope you didn't mean to imply by saying Drudge and his own Democrats that Drudge is somehow a Democrat? (shudder)

    I'm probably reading that phrase wrong, right?

    Yes, I did not parse that properly..

    That SHOULD read:

    Drudge and Obama's own Democrats

    My bust... :D

    I do. Can't speak for anyone else, of course....

    That's one of your job requirements. :D

    As per usual, you are the exception that emphasizes the rule..

    Um, what? Cite?

    Cite?? Oh for the quote??

    Democrat Leader For The House Select Committee On Intelligence :D

    Gotcha... :D

    Except, of course, when Reagan tried to free hostages held by terrorists by selling arms to the Iranians. That whole "Iran/Contra" thing? I'm sure you've heard of it. Separate out the "/Contra" part, and it was a simple "arms-for-hostages" deal with terrorists. By Saint Ronnie of Reagan.

    Also, one might bring up the over 500 Gitmo prisoners released under George W. Bush...

    And they were wrong.. As far as Bush, he did so on gross and perverse pressure from Democrats..

    But NONE of them were as HVTs as the 5 that Obama released..

    Doesn't make it right what Bush or Reagan did...

    But it makes what Obama did MUCH worse...

    Whew! Finally made it through the whole thread!

    :-)

    Hope you follow up.. Interested in your responses :D

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    ...So let me get this straight, according to you Obama is lying about Bergdahl having been a POW?! Obama is so TERRIFIED of Tpublicans investigating Benghazi, for the sixteenth time, that Qatar negotiated Bergdahl's fake release? Because Obama, Qatar, AND the terrorists we're fighting are ALL conspiring to "wag the dog?!" And you actually think that your even-more-insane-than-usual conspiracy theory should be taken seriously?

    As usual, you lay up a straw man and then get so proud when you knock it down.

    Benghazi had nothing to do with this..

    It was all about getting the VA scandal off the front page..

    Ya remember. The VA scandal where your guy Obama let dozens of veterans die....

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was all about getting the VA scandal off the front page..

    Ya remember. The VA scandal where your guy Obama let dozens of veterans die....

    It's a testament to Obama's incompetence..

    Only Obama could lay up a scandal that was BIGGER than the scandal it was supposed to obfuscate...

    Like I said..

    Pile of diamonds..

    Obama...

    Covered in shit...

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Any ideas anyone? We've already made him wear an Obama T-shirt all day at his work, remember, so it's got to be something different than that.

    Video of Michale dancing "Gangnam style" anyone? Heh. Or does someone else have a better idea?

    All in fun, of course...

    Conversely, ya'all be thinking what ya'all could do when ya'all lose... :D

    Obama's Poll ratings have already dropped more than a point..

    And it's only gonna get worse..

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    “It’s not that we don’t want to respect the commander-in-chief. It’s just that he makes it so hard to do so.”
    -Unknown D-Day Veteran

    I couldn't agree more with that exact sentiment..

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.