The New American Politics thread

[2Stonedbirds]

Would never happen as the idea of libertarianism has been demonized and projected as a right wing spin off kook movement.

Bernie Sanders is looking like the man to beat so far. A libertarian doesn't stand a chance in today's political climate. For better or worse.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I don't think so. From what I've seen Trump has the media, at least CNN and MSNBC, in his back pocket. MSNBC the left wing news channel of all things. Trump sells ads so they're on board. I guess Fox News needs to save us. Everything is upside down but maybe Bernie can return some sense to the political scene in our southern provinces.

Morning Joe is the most blatant of Trump supporters to the point where it is actually disgusting to watch. It wouldn't matter who they were supporting if they were as full throated in support of them. It would be equally unprofessional. It's pretty much a three hour advertisement for Trump every day.

At least the rest of the MSNBC lineup doesn't praise him and are openly critical of him whenever he's brought up.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Would never happen as the idea of libertarianism has been demonized and projected as a right wing spin off kook movement.

Bernie Sanders is looking like the man to beat so far. A libertarian doesn't stand a chance in today's political climate. For better or worse.

Sure. Part of that is because so many libertarians in the past have been socially conservative. But that's not a feature of the ideology...it's rather counter to the ideology in many cases.

Rand Paul is a great example of that phenomenon.

But a huge number of people actually fit the libertarian or "classical liberal" description without even knowing it.

[FlameOn]

Clinton keeps shooting herself in the foot. People have been clamouring for her to release her transcripts for her closed door multi-million dollar wall street speeches. She said last night that she'll release her transcripts if everyone else does. Sanders just called her bluff and started releasing videos of his paid speeches.

Hillary Clinton will release transcripts to her paid speeches — just as long as everyone else does too.

“I am happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same,” Clinton said during Thursday's Democratic town hall in Nevada, before adding that all other candidates had made paid speeches — including her Democratic rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

According to The New York Times, Sanders made just under $2,000 for three speeches in 2014, a fraction of what Clinton has made.

The former secretary of state made $675,000 for three speeches for Goldman Sachs. When asked during a previous televised town hall event why she accepted so much money, she responded, "Well, that’s what they offered.”

Clinton's aides and allies have sought to downplay the need to release her speech transcripts.

Her pollster, Joel Benenson, said at a Wall Street Journal breakfast on Feb. 5, "I don't think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...19472?cmpid=sf
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/st...28013746655232

How is anyone supporting Clinton right now given how badly she destroys herself consistently and how much baggage she has. She'll get destroyed by GOP mud slinging in the general from the emails, Benghazi, and other scandals.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by troutman

Trump can't articulate any specific plans when challenged.

That would be because he has no idea about how anything works. He thinks he can simply walk into a room full of world leaders tell them they are a bunch of losers and they'll do what he says.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Morning Joe is the most blatant of Trump supporters to the point where it is actually disgusting to watch.

This isn't the impression that I get at all, at least from my daily viewings of the show from around 6:30 to 7:00 am every weekday.

Mika, from what I can tell, cannot stand Hillary and is a supporter of Sanders.

Joe, from what I can tell, liked Christie quite a bit, thinks Trump is missing a few bolts, isn't a great fan of Bush, is abhorred by Cruz and Rubio, and could accept a Kasich presidency.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

How is anyone supporting Clinton right now given how badly she destroys herself consistently and how much baggage she has. She'll get destroyed by GOP mud slinging in the general from the emails, Benghazi, and other scandals.

Probably because those people believe Bernie likewise will get destroyed when getting down to the nitty gritty of how he plans to both pay for his promises. His economic projections somehow think after everything he wants to implement is implemented, that unemployment will be under 4% and GDP will grow at 5.5% per year. Both of those are utterly delusional numbers that will never happen (but might as well promise anyway right?).

He's also going to have to show how he's actually going to get any of his promises passed with the GOP almost certainly in control of the House and Senate. If you think Obama got obstructed, Sanders will be far worse because he's a one and done candidate due to his age (i.e. no way he wins a second term accomplishing nothing, thus the GOP has more incentive than under Obama to obstruct). Nevermind that Bernie won't even have full backing of his own party. I think people will remember Obama promised a lot and delivered not even close, and that was with a full House/Senate of Dems for 2 years, and that will hurt Bernie.

[ernie]

Depends who you choose to believe. Some economists believe that under Bernie's plan jobs and income would soar. Others don't. But it certainly isn't universally panned.

We'll see if the GOP remains in control. If Bernie truly is electable then I wouldn't be shocked to see the Senate and House move left. Maybe not democrat left but no longer tea party right. Bernie can work with both sides of the aisle...if they want to work with him. From everything I've seen he is extremely well respected.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by ernie

Depends who you choose to believe. Some economists believe that under Bernie's plan jobs and income would soar.

We'll see if the GOP remains in control. If Bernie truly is electable then I wouldn't be shocked to see the Senate and House move left. Maybe not democrat left but no longer tea party right. Bernie can work with both sides of the aisle...if they want to work with him. From everything I've seen he is extremely well respected.

Which economists? I mean, I think the man is a gentleman, but let's be real here - he is about 90 years out of date on the economics front.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by ernie

Depends who you choose to believe. Some economists believe that under Bernie's plan jobs and income would soar. Others don't. But it certainly isn't universally panned.

We'll see if the GOP remains in control. If Bernie truly is electable then I wouldn't be shocked to see the Senate and House move left. Maybe not democrat left but no longer tea party right. Bernie can work with both sides of the aisle...if they want to work with him. From everything I've seen he is extremely well respected.

The House will not be under Democratic control for probably another decade at least. You can say a lot of things about the GOP, but they aren't dumb. They've gerrymandered things to perfection, the Dems will probably win the popular vote across House races every time, but it won't matter because the GOP has rigged the game. Senate is more doable but then there's the filibuster, and there's no way the Dems are getting 60 Senate seats, so even if they get say a 54-46 edge, they still can't do anything because it will be filibustered to death.

As far as economist are concerned, I found it pretty curious that one economist who said he thinks Bernie's ideas could work...is choosing to support Hillary instead. Bernie's hoping for far too much to simply fall into place, or for all his ideas to be implemented smoothly. We obviously all know neither will ever happen. I just think most people will correctly deduct his ideas are likely never going to be implemented, or that his belief of what will happen if his ideas are implemented are highly unrealistic. When he has to get more detailed, just like Trump, I think he's in trouble.

[Nobama]

Originally Posted by ernie

That would be because he has no idea about how anything works. He thinks he can simply walk into a room full of world leaders tell them they are a bunch of losers and they'll do what he says.

Yes, I'm sure thats how he conducts all of his Multi Billion Dollar business :roll eyes:

I like the idea of a self funded non political candidate. In my opinion a career politician has very little real world skills. In hind site Romney would have been the right choice, I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise from the total disaster that is the Obama administration.

Oh, for those that have questions regarding Trumps plan take a look at his website, his tax reforms are the best out of the remaining candidates IMO

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

[ernie]

Originally Posted by peter12

Which economists? I mean, I think the man is a gentleman, but let's be real here - he is about 90 years out of date on the economics front.

Gerald Friedman, Prof. of economics at U of Mass-Amherst was the most recent. Mason from the Roosevelt Institute another. Saez (berkley) and Diamond (MIT) have papers suggesting optimal tax revenues at structures similar to what Bernie proposes. People who use other models disagree but that the thing with models and people also have to realize that only one analysis out of hundreds ends up being correct...and it's never the same ones. And above all, including supporting analyses, one must recognize that all models are lousy at predicting long term compared to short term (which they are also lousy at doing). But yes many go after his plans...just as they go after the GOP. At least, at worst, Bernie's are fantastical in the correct societal direction.


All his policies are actually laid out side by side with how they will be paid for which is far more than anyone else has done thus far. They also aren't off the wall policies. A good chunk of the world uses them and does so just fairly successfully.

Now I think he stretches too much (college tuition front for example) but the calls that universal healthcare will cost soooo much more ring hollow given thy already spend more per capita than any other country and single payer system are indeed cheaper in the long run. Predicitions about how much more it cost really just go by what it costs now and extrapolates....clearly the mechanisms also need to be changed.

And on the flip side you have everyone else running on the status quo which also definitely doesn't work. Yay another tax break...that will work this time for sure. In the end it really isn't so much a money issue but an attitude issue...which quite frankly is why he calls it a revolution. It requires a shift in thought from "me first" to understanding that perhaps having a little less personally right now benefits the country as a whole....and no that isn't communism. That's being, well, Canadian.

All that isn't to say there is any way one term even remotely gets this stuff done. Or even two terms. But these are things that need to start happening if the US wants any chance at narrowing wealth gap and actually allowing people to truly be able to go after the American Dream. The country has a lot of fundmental issues and the populace needs a reality check...the GOP will not provide that. Hillary likely won't. Sanders has a chance to start the process...even if he isn't the best suited to do so (Warren would have been much better IMO. If he wins the nomination I hope she's his running mate). His is a vision of trying something different...not a vision of doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different result.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Nobama

Yes, I'm sure thats how he conducts all of his Multi Billion Dollar business :roll eyes:

I like the idea of a self funded non political candidate. In my opinion a career politician has very little real world skills. In hind site Romney would have been the right choice, I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise from the total disaster that is the Obama administration.

Oh, for those that have questions regarding Trumps plan take a look at his website, his tax reforms are the best out of the remaining candidates IMO

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

You roll your eyes at me and not Trump!

That may not be how he runs his businesses but that is exactly how he says he'll be as president. In other words, he doesn't actually have ideas let alone plans on how to implement ideas.

By the way on his self funding --- the lie detector determined that was a lie. A third of his financinf for his campaign has come from donations. The self funder willingly takes money from others to fund him.

His tax plan ---> Again of course different analyses are different but the tax policy center places a $9.5 trillion dollar cost on his tax plan. The most of any candidate. Unless accompanied by massive spending cuts it would increase national debt to 80% of the GDP. The same organization puts Cruz at a $8.6 trillion dollar shortfall and Rubio at $6.8 trillion. So the question no one ever seems to want to ask is with yet another tax cut what more are they losing because of it and is it worth it?

That and he's a misogynistic, racist, xenophobic, lying buffoon. Which is really the major thing...he could have the best platform in the world, be able to actually express it but those things alone make him unsuitable for any office.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by peter12

Which economists? I mean, I think the man is a gentleman, but let's be real here - he is about 90 years out of date on the economics front.

Not sure about this economic plan yet since its early, but Sander's economic reform and regulatory plan has huge backing from a lot of prominent economists, professors, former policy makers and the like. List is as follows:

Signers (Institutional listing for identification purposes only):
1. Robert Reich, University of California Berkeley
2. Robert Hockett, Cornell University
3. James K. Galbraith, University of Texas
4. Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research
5. Christine Desan, Harvard Law School
6. Jeff Connaughton, Former Chief of Staff, Senator Ted Kaufman
7. William Darity Jr., Duke University
8. Eileen Appelbaum, Center for Economic and Policy Research
9. Brad Miller, Former U.S. Congressman and Senior Fellow, Roosevelt
Institute
10. William K. Black, University of Missouri-Kansas City
11. Lawrence Rufrano, Research, Federal Reserve Board, 2005-2015
12. Darrick Hamilton, New School for Social Research
13. Peter Eaton, University of Missouri-Kansas City
14. Eric Hake, Catawba College
15. Geoff Schneider, Bucknell University
16. Dell Champlin, Oregon State University
17. Antoine Godin, Kingston University, London, UK
18. John P. Watkins, Westminster College
19. Mayo C. Toruño, California State University, San Bernardino
20. Charles K. Wilber, Fellow, Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace
Studies, University of Notre Dame
21. Fadhel Kaboub, Denison University
22. Flavia Dantas, Cortland State University
23. Mitchell Green, Binzgar Institute
24. Bruce Collier, Education Management Information Systems
25. Winston H. Griffith, Bucknell University
26. Zdravka Todorova, Wright State University
27. David Barkin, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco
28. Rick Wicks, Göteborg, Sverige (Sweden) & Anchorage, Alaska
29. Philip Arestis, University of Cambridge
30. Amitava Krishna Dutt, University of Notre Dame
31. John F. Henry, Levy Economics Institute
32. James G. Devine, Loyola Marymount University
33. John Davis, Marquette University
34. Gary Mongiovi, St. John’s University
35. Eric Tymoigne, Lewis & Clark College
36. Trevor Roycroft, Ohio University
37. James Sturgeon, University of Missouri-Kansas City
38. Spencer J. Pack, Connecticut College
39. Thomas Kemp, University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire
40. Ronnie Phillips, Colorado State University
41. John Dennis Chasse, SUNY at Brockport
42. Pavlina R. Tcherneva, Bard College
43. Silvio Guaita, Institution, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
44. Glen Atkinson, University of Nevada, Reno
45. William Van Lear, Belmont Abbey College
46. James M. Cypher, Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas
47. Philip Pilkington, Political Economy Research Group, Kingston University
48. Eric Hoyt, PhD candidate, UMass-Amherst
49. Jon D. Wisman, American University
50. James K. Boyce, University of Massachusetts Amherst
51. Hendrik Van den Berg, Professor Emeritus, Universities of Nebraska
52. Thomas E. Lambert, Northern Kentucky University
53. Michael Nuwer, SUNY Potsdam
54. Nikka Lemons, The University of Texas-Arlington
55. Scott T. Fullwiler, Wartburg College
56. Charles M A. Clark, St. John's University
57. John T. Harvey, Texas Christian University
58. Daphne Greenwood, University of Colorado-Colorado Springs
59. Gerald Epstein, University of Massachusetts Amherst
60. Mohammad Moeini-Feizabadi, PhD candidate, University of Massachusetts
61. Rebecca Todd Peters, Elon University
62. Andres F. Cantillo, University of Missouri-Kansas City
63. Michael Meeropol, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Western New England
University
64. Robert H. Scott III, Monmouth University
65. Timothy A Wunder, Department of Economics University of TexasArlington
66. Mariano Torras, Adelphi University
67. Gennaro Zezza, Levy Economics Institute
68. Wolfram Elsner, University of Bremen
69. Larry Allen, Lamar University
70. John Miller, Wheaton College
71. Chris Tilly, UCLA
72. Sean Flaherty, Franklin and Marshall College
73. Clifford Poirot, Shawnee State University
74. Anita Dancs, Western New England University
75. Calvin Mudzingiri, University of the Free State
76. Roger Even Bove, West Chester University
77. Andrea Armeni, Transform Finance
78. Anwar Shaikh, New School for Social Research
79. Steven Pressman, Colorado State University
80. Frank Pasquale, University of Maryland, Carey School of Law
81. John Weeks, SOAS, University of London
82. Matías Vernengo, Bucknell University
83. Thomas Masterson, Levy Economics Institute
84. Antonio Callari, Franklin and Marshall College
85. Avraham Baranes, Rollins College
86. Janet Spitz, the College of Saint Rose
87. Nancy Folbre, University of Massachusetts Amherst
88. Jennifer Taub, Vermont Law School
89. Irene van Staveren, Erasmus University
90. Yavuz Yaşar, University of Denver
91. Scott McConnell, Eastern Oregon University
92. Don Goldstein, Allegheny College
93. J. Pérez Oya, Retired UN secretariat (Spain)
94. Elaine McCrate, University of Vermont
95. Thomas E. Weisskopf, University of Michigan
96. Jeffrey Zink, Morningside College
97. Scott Jeffrey, Monmouth University
98. Lourdes Benería, Cornell University
99. Frank Thompson, University of Michigan
100. Baban Hasnat, The College at Brockport, State University of New York
101. Ilene Grabel, University of Denver
102. Tara Natarajan, Saint Michael's College
103. Leanne Ussher, Queens College, City University of New York
104. Kathleen McAfee, San Francisco State University
105. Victoria Chick, University College London
106. Steve Keen, Kingston University
107. Heidi Mandanis Schooner, The Catholic University of America
108. Louis-Philippe Rochon, Laurentian University
109. Jamee K. Moudud, Professor of Economics, Sarah Lawrence College
110. Timothy A. Canova, Shepard Broad College of Law, Nova Southeastern
University
111. Karol Gil Vasquez, Nichols College
112. Mark Haggerty, University of Maine
113. Luis Brunstein University of California, Riverside
114. Cathleen Whiting, Willamette University
115. William Waller, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
116. Kade Finnoff, University of Massachuettes-Boston
117. Maarten de Kadt, Independent Economist
118. Timothy Koechlin, Vassar College
119. Ceren Soylu, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
120. Dorene Isenberg, University of Redlands
121. Barbara Hopkins, Wright State University
122. Matthew Rice, University of Missouri-Kansas City
123. David Gold, The New School for Social Research
124. Cyrus Bina, University of Minnesota
125. Mark Paul, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
126. Xuan Pham, Rockhurst University
127. Erik Dean, Portland Community College
128. Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr., George Washington University Law School
129. Rohan Grey, President, Modern Money Network
130. Tamar Diana Wilson, University of Missouri—St. Louis
131. Radhika Balakrishanan, Rutgers University
132. Alla Semenova, SUNY Potsdam
133. Yeva Nersisyan, Franklin and Marshall College
134. Linwood Tauheed, University of Missouri-Kansas City
135. Michael Perelman, California State University, Chico
136. Janet T. Knoedler, Bucknell University
137. David Laibman, Brooklyn College and Graduate School, City University of
New York
138. Ann Pettifor, Director, Policy Research in Macroeconomics, London
139. Steve Schifferes, City University London
140. Al Campbell, University of Utah
141. Faith Stevelman, New York Law School
142. Kathleen C. Engel, Suffolk University Law School
143. Jack Wendland, University of Missouri-Kansas City
144. Ruxandra Pavelchievici, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis
145. Zoe Sherman, Merrimack College
146. Donald St. Clair, CFP, Financial Planning Assoc. of Northern California
147. Carolyn McClanahan, CFP, Life Planning Partners, Inc.
148. Thomas Ferguson, Senior Fellow, Roosevelt Institute
149. Saule T. Omarova, Cornell University
150. Josh Ryan-Collins, City University, London
151. June Zaccone, Hofstra University
152. Alex Binder, Franklin & Marshall College
153. Albena Azmanova, University of Kent, Brussels School of International
Studies
154. Hans G. Ehrbar, University of Utah
155. Devin T. Rafferty, St. Peter’s University
156. Reynold F. Nesiba, Augustana University
157. David Zalewski, Providence College
158. Claudia Chaufan, University of California-San Francisco
159. L. Randall Wray, Levy Economics Institute and Bard College
160. Richard B. Wagner, JD, CFP, WorthLiving LLC
161. Joseph Persky, University of Illinois-Chicago
162. Julie Matthaei, Wellesley College
163. Peter Spiegler, University of Massachuetts-Amherst
164. James Ronald Stanfield, Colorado State University
165. William D. Pitney, CFP, Director of Advocacy, FPA of Silicon Valley
166. Ora R. Citron, CFP, Oak Tree Wealth Management
167. Susan Webber, Former Associate at Goldman, Sachs & Co.
168. Richard D. Wolff, Democracy at Work and New School for Social Research
169. Mu-JeongKho, University College London
170. Kevin Furey, Chemeketa Community College

https://berniesanders.com/wp-content...t-Letter-1.pdf

[peter12]

I am glad that Kevin Furey of Chemeketa Community College gave his endorsement.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by peter12

I am glad that Kevin Furey of Chemeketa Community College gave his endorsement.

Geez and you guys give me #### for low-effort trolling.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by ernie

All that isn't to say there is any way one term even remotely gets this stuff done. Or even two terms. But these are things that need to start happening if the US wants any chance at narrowing wealth gap and actually allowing people to truly be able to go after the American Dream. The country has a lot of fundmental issues and the populace needs a reality check...the GOP will not provide that. Hillary likely won't. Sanders has a chance to start the process...even if he isn't the best suited to do so (Warren would have been much better IMO. If he wins the nomination I hope she's his running mate). His is a vision of trying something different...not a vision of doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different result.

But this is where you're leaving out a critical element: None of what Bernie is proposing is ever getting passed. The real "revolution" needs to be to take out the GOP/Dems at the House/Senate level. If he wins and accomplishes nothing in 4 years (highly likely), he hasn't started any process. And if he wins with the usual changes in Congress (that is to say none), he's basically an independent President with no one who will back him to pass anything. A lame duck on day 1 basically.

The really process is changing the House/Senate makeup, but since we're going to see 90+% of incumbents return, what change is actually going to happen? The vast majority of those who can pass laws will still be backed by Wall Street and corporate money. And the country will go from a Dem President who couldn't do anything due to obstruction to....a Dem President who couldn't do anything due to obstruction. Not a lot of change there is it?

[ernie]

Oh I see, because things might be difficult to pass one shouldn't even try. Gun control in a nutshell. If you can't solve verything with one bill don't even bother trying. How about having vision and taking the steps you can to start going down the road. Geez. If he wins the election it is because a majority of voters agree with his vision. If the House and Senate stand in the way it will be 2 years of lame duck presidency followed by massive mid-term changes. The voters will not accept another do nothing congress.

More on Trump...just looking a the politifact. Of his statements they've looked at thus far 76% are ruled Mostly false (18%), False (39%) and pants on fire (19%). Only 1% of his statements have been judged as true. 6% mostly true. 16% half true. Those are shocking numbers. Cruz is nearly as bad at 68% being false to some degree.

Rubio 43%, Kasich 32 %, Sanders 32% (no pants on fire), Bush 31 %, Clinton 27%.

And he really doesn't matter at this point but Carson a whopping 85% with 0 statements looked at being true.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But this is where you're leaving out a critical element: None of what Bernie is proposing is ever getting passed. The real "revolution" needs to be to take out the GOP/Dems at the House/Senate level. If he wins and accomplishes nothing in 4 years (highly likely), he hasn't started any process. And if he wins with the usual changes in Congress (that is to say none), he's basically an independent President with no one who will back him to pass anything. A lame duck on day 1 basically.

The really process is changing the House/Senate makeup, but since we're going to see 90+% of incumbents return, what change is actually going to happen? The vast majority of those who can pass laws will still be backed by Wall Street and corporate money. And the country will go from a Dem President who couldn't do anything due to obstruction to....a Dem President who couldn't do anything due to obstruction. Not a lot of change there is it?

If there is enough of a turnout this year and people try to make a difference in even Gerrymandered areas, there could be change. GOP is up for 24 openings in the senate vs. 10 for Dems. It's a matter of getting enough support and getting people to realize the Congress/Senate are a huge problem.

The presidential elections are a first step... if there is a hard enough swing to the left you could see it much more balanced for the senate elections on the 8th and probably later into Congress.


Unless people are really eager to see a return of Obama era partisan intransigence by being lazy and just saying the system can't be fixed.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But this is where you're leaving out a critical element: None of what Bernie is proposing is ever getting passed. The real "revolution" needs to be to take out the GOP/Dems at the House/Senate level. If he wins and accomplishes nothing in 4 years (highly likely), he hasn't started any process. And if he wins with the usual changes in Congress (that is to say none), he's basically an independent President with no one who will back him to pass anything. A lame duck on day 1 basically.

The really process is changing the House/Senate makeup, but since we're going to see 90+% of incumbents return, what change is actually going to happen? The vast majority of those who can pass laws will still be backed by Wall Street and corporate money. And the country will go from a Dem President who couldn't do anything due to obstruction to....a Dem President who couldn't
do anything due to obstruction. Not a lot of change there is it?

A vote for Bernie is, either now or in four years, a vote for the hardline right wing republicans, because that is where the U.S. goes after a failed four years of nothing happening.