|
Post by robbiealive on Dec 28, 2023 15:27:58 GMT
Macron. 2017 election was v unusual. The centre-left candidate, Flambe (was he nicknamed) was dead in the water. Fill-yr-boots Fillon, the usual centre-right crook was found out. That was Le Pen's real chance while politics was disorganised? Melenchon close to 2nd twice? Interesting if he had made it, like Labour getting just 10 more seats in 2017. Politicians tend to panic raced with extreme right usurpation. Take the gutless Cameron n his EU Ref.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2023 15:41:41 GMT
I'm never quite sure whether to like your posts of not! I agree with a lot of what you are saying in your previous posts but, arguing against myself on Macron to some extent, I think a lot of the West's current leaders are inheriting bad decisions from 30-40 years ago and haven't a clue or the tools to make things better for their populations. I do agree with you though that mainstream politicians seem stuck in the headlights and sticking to "moderate" policies that no longer work. They are at it now arguing like rats in a sack about how far and how quickly they go on global warming. When globalisation and multinationals really took off Western governments failed to create checks and balances, and these are much harder to put into place now. Politicians of the era seemed to take the view that getting things cheaper through international trade and movement of capital and people was a good thing, competition with countries on a fraction of the wages would be a good thing that would push us to be more efficient, and we could go off and do other things which we were "good at". Unfortunately there weren't too many of them and as we've seen in the past the countries that actually make things tend to become the innovators themselves. We saw with covid that we had very little security in all sorts of areas and our ability to react quickly with things like PPE etc and we saw with Ukraine a creaking insecurity in food and energy prices. It did more or less hold but not without a big downturn. To make the improvements we need for a stable and healthy economy actually means accepting that we have to pay more for home produced goods and that's probably something the electorate won't stomach simply because things will cost more and even fairly liberal people still shriek if you talk about any form of "protectionism". Unfortunately we also have countries, multinationals and oligarchs who already have a very firm grip on natural resources so even if we wanted to it's going to be very hard and painful to take a step back from the current world economic situation. Well I like your posts often shevii because you write interesting thought provoking ones -like the above. Without trying to construct a detailed analysis for which I am unqualified, I do share your concerns on the global situation-economic and in other areas too. I think the Pandemic + normalised Monetary policy ( post QE) + Putin's energy war and imperial ambitions have fundamentallty changed things in so many ways. Chickens are coming home to roost in flocks -on cheap energy, cheap credit, global supply lines, ageing populations and healthcare, defence ...... -and I think you are right to say that ( mainstream) politicians are finding the right tools for it all, difficult to find. And in the wings, waiting to exploit the liberal democracies are Putin & Xi. And Trump too if he joins them !
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 28, 2023 15:49:36 GMT
colin
Apologies; the dreaded paywalled link strikes again! The Atlantic article was an interesting piece that ranged over a number of reasons why the author thought it unlikely Trump would win in 2024. He wasn't being complacent about the outcome of the election at all though, and concluded by saying how important it was that the "Democrats, and any other sensible voters who oppose Trump, need to forcefully remind the American people about how disastrous he was as president and inform them of how much worse a second term would be."
His overall optimism, however, derived from a similar source to mine. He wrote, " It’s hard to imagine any Republican candidate galvanizing Democrats, independents, and even some Republicans to vote for the current president (Biden) in the way that Trump will."
In other words, the factor that greatly assisted Biden's victory in 2020, and contributed so much to his historically large popular vote, will still be in play in 2024. Maybe turbo-charged too.
Biden would be much more vulnerable, maybe, to a younger and less baggage-laden Republican opponent. The irony is that Trump is probably his ideal opponent.
I'd also say that Biden, much derided, is a very canny politician too. Not to be under-estimated at all. He knows how to win a presidential race.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 28, 2023 15:56:25 GMT
I might sound angry. F*ing right. You often say that sort of thing. Chill out man (as I believe the cool kids say ). You'll never live to be a complacent old pensioner in your comfortable wholly-owned home if you keep up this level of rage.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 28, 2023 16:12:30 GMT
I should add too, as I did when talking about Macron seeing off Le Pen and the Far Right in France, that Biden defeating Trump (assuming Trump gets on to the ballot paper) is only part of the battle in terms of defeating the politics Trump represents. They are politics and ideas that still attract widespread support in the US. Preventing a Trump Presidency is hugely important, obviously, but there is then the job of bringing the Republican Party back in to mainstream centre-right politics
I think there is a lot of self-loathing in the mainstream centre of politics, particularly on the centre left, right across the globe, that blames itself for the spawning of far right politics and the success of right wing ideology and its crowd pleasing ideologues. It'd obviously true that failing economies that breed inequality, stagnant/declining standards of living, deprivation and shrivelled public services will produce the disenchantment that incubates extreme political ideology. Snake oil salesman selling quack cures thrive, but I think a lot of the blame should go to the powerful corporate interests, ruthlessly ambitious politicians and compliant media organisations that cultivate politicians like Le Pen, Farage, Trump, Bolansaro etc. Maybe some religions too.
Genuine and vibrantly healthy democracy tends to be the disinfectant, that's why populists and their cult followers despise it as a a form of government, but where democracies are hollowed out, either by, decline, osmosis or design, then the demagogues come out to play. The right wing populists rarely derive from the people. Powerful interests create them and then convince the people that they are their saviours. Foisted on people in other words, rarely born by them.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Dec 28, 2023 16:13:45 GMT
I might sound angry. F*ing right. You often say that sort of thing. Chill out man (as I believe the cool kids say ). You'll never live to be a complacent old pensioner in your comfortable wholly-owned home if you keep up this level of rage. I am quite a chilled person generally but not about politics, at least not in recent years. A bit of well focussed anger keeps you young I reckon! I and so many people I know my age (late forties) show zero signs of becoming more conservative with age, in fact quite the opposite, regardless of assets.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 28, 2023 16:31:23 GMT
Proving that there is education, and then there is intelligence, and having the former doesn't mean you have the latter, Jacob Rees-Mogg is quoted as saying "“It is hard to see why this harmless little measure {re-introducing Imperial measures for wine} is not being implemented especially as our largest trading partner, the United States, still uses imperial units."
As mathematician Kit Yates points out - "The US remains is one of only three countries worldwide not to make extensive use of a metric system. But the US system of measurement is not the same as the UK’s imperial system. An imperial pint is 1.2 pints in the US. A US gallon is approximately 0.83 imperial gallons."
Oh dear.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 28, 2023 16:38:53 GMT
You often say that sort of thing. Chill out man (as I believe the cool kids say ). You'll never live to be a complacent old pensioner in your comfortable wholly-owned home if you keep up this level of rage. I am quite a chilled person generally but not about politics, at least not in recent years. A bit of well focussed anger keeps you young I reckon! I and so many people I know my age (late forties) show zero signs of becoming more conservative with age, in fact quite the opposite, regardless of assets. I'm working on mercian and suspect he is swinging gradually leftward in his twilight years. When I met him I thought I detected a liberal inner self yearning to be released from within its hard and seemingly uncompromising conservative shell. He spoke movingly about how he now no longer gave the Droitwich homeless people, sleeping rough in the streets, a good kicking on his drunken way home from chess matches in the town. Instead, he engaged them in long conversation, much to the consternation of his long suffering wife, enquiring of them their background stories and how they came to be in such a dire predicament. Mercian may well be coming home. No more years of hurt. No more need for dreaming.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Dec 28, 2023 16:39:33 GMT
colin Apologies; the dreaded paywalled link strikes again! The Atlantic article was an interesting piece that ranged over a number of reasons why the author thought it unlikely Trump would win in 2024. He wasn't being complacent about the outcome of the election at all though, and concluded by saying how important it was that the "Democrats, and any other sensible voters who oppose Trump, need to forcefully remind the American people about how disastrous he was as president and inform them of how much worse a second term would be."His overall optimism, however, derived from a similar source to mine. He wrote, " It’s hard to imagine any Republican candidate galvanizing Democrats, independents, and even some Republicans to vote for the current president (Biden) in the way that Trump will."In other words, the factor that greatly assisted Biden's victory in 2020, and contributed so much to his historically large popular vote, will still be in play in 2024. Maybe turbo-charged too. Biden would be much more vulnerable, maybe, to a younger and less baggage-laden Republican opponent. The irony is that Trump is probably his ideal opponent. I'd also say that Biden, much derided, is a very canny politician too. Not to be under-estimated at all. He knows how to win a presidential race. The Good Judgement superforecasters in the Economist's 'The world ahead 2024' give the Democratic nominee a 63% chance of winning the popular vote and the electoral college vote and a 2% chance of winning the electoral college vote without the popular vote. They give the Republican nominee a 25% chance of winning the college vote but not popular vote and a 10% chance of winning both. Last year they got all 9 predictions correct so they have good form. Closer to home they give the chance of a Labour majority government as 74%. They also say the Ukraine war will still be raging by next October.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Dec 28, 2023 16:58:43 GMT
I really, really dislike this broadbrush criticism of people born in the forties /early fifties. As one myself - and knowing many others - I can’t think of anyone who wilfully did what is claimed in the second paragraph. Broadbrush criticism certainly but we have polling and election results that prove a significant majority of boomers did precisely that and continue to do it. They chose tax cuts over selling the family silver and reducing public services. You'd be hard pressed to say their thought processes were anything other than self interest or that they really thought tax cuts and selling off publicly owned assets were going to make life better for everyone and improve public services and safety nets. I was pondering robbiealive's post yesterday and I suppose social attitudes did change for the better with the boomers- maybe that was due to the 1960's movements that flagged these things up more and maybe because not being prejudiced was something that did no harm to the personal wellbeing of the boomers and was just a natural evolution from Victorian attitudes that had been gradually changing anyway. Singling out boomers as some sort of evil anomaly in human evolution might be wrong but I have little doubt that "they" took more from the system than they should have done and made life harder for later generations. That's probably just human nature and any generation would have behaved similarly given the opportunity. mark61 makes a very valid point about the 60's that it was a tiny minority that created the impression of it being a fairer more liberal generation and even that tiny minority were ones that could afford to "drop out" or be creative or whatever. ROBBIE REPLIES 1. I was going to ignore this but as darkness falls on the Buzzard. Your post was misguiding in what ways that I can think. A. You ascribe agency to the boomers which they did not possess. B. The notion of a natural evolution in social ideas since Victorian times is bizarre. Social trends are artificial not natural n gradualism seldom explains anything Social ideas are shaprd by humans with authority or who galvanise public opinion for their divergent social purposes. The notion that radicalism is merely self-seeking is wrong. 2. The mere notion of boomers as an evil anomaly is tosh. Evolution again! We grew up when GDP growth averaged 3-4% annual. We benefitted. In what way did we take too much. And as for the notion that we made it hard for later generations What. The architects of the economy screwed up. Econ growth became erratic. 3. The notion that v few benefited. Really. The evidence on social mobility contradicts that.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,252
|
Post by steve on Dec 28, 2023 17:26:10 GMT
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,252
|
Post by steve on Dec 28, 2023 18:14:07 GMT
Just as a reminder Chris Christie sort of excluded the other republican candidates for their presidential ticket are also fascists. Here's Nikki Hayley doing cartwheels trying to avoid the reason for the American civil war, the abolition or retention of slavery, it was all about central government over reach folks! And she's the moderate one. youtu.be/wMbqJHRrgnw?si=CT7Q97_hkiBwUARi
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,082
|
Post by oldnat on Dec 28, 2023 19:51:34 GMT
Just as a reminder Chris Christie sort of excluded the other republican candidates for their presidential ticket are also fascists. Here's Nikki Hayley doing cartwheels trying to avoid the reason for the American civil war, the abolition or retention of slavery, it was all about central government over reach folks! And she's the moderate one. youtu.be/wMbqJHRrgnw?si=CT7Q97_hkiBwUARi There is no single "the reason" for the American Civil War, just as the case for every other war. Slavery was one among many, and states rights was an important one.
Anyone who argues that there was only one reason, and they know what it was, is either somewhat unaware of how war came about - or is partisan about aspects of current US society.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Dec 28, 2023 20:02:41 GMT
Broadbrush criticism certainly but we have polling and election results that prove a significant majority of boomers did precisely that and continue to do it. They chose tax cuts over selling the family silver and reducing public services. You'd be hard pressed to say their thought processes were anything other than self interest or that they really thought tax cuts and selling off publicly owned assets were going to make life better for everyone and improve public services and safety nets. I was pondering robbiealive's post yesterday and I suppose social attitudes did change for the better with the boomers- maybe that was due to the 1960's movements that flagged these things up more and maybe because not being prejudiced was something that did no harm to the personal wellbeing of the boomers and was just a natural evolution from Victorian attitudes that had been gradually changing anyway. Singling out boomers as some sort of evil anomaly in human evolution might be wrong but I have little doubt that "they" took more from the system than they should have done and made life harder for later generations. That's probably just human nature and any generation would have behaved similarly given the opportunity. mark61 makes a very valid point about the 60's that it was a tiny minority that created the impression of it being a fairer more liberal generation and even that tiny minority were ones that could afford to "drop out" or be creative or whatever. Obviously a gross generalisation to condemn boomers en masse but I do think that generation in most western nations became accustomed to the world reflecting their needs and the state falling over itself to please them from youth through to retirement. The sixties were for them, the neo liberalism of the eighties was for them, brexit was for them etc etc. I don't doubt that it engendered in many of them a pronounced if probably unconscious sense of entitlement and much of their current anger is that the world no longer looks like how they think it should and considering their needs have been pandered to buy the state at every age in their minds that does not compute. The sixties were I think more about individualism (nothing wrong with that per se) than equality and solidarity and it's no real surprise that the broader attitudes it created led to the economics of the eighties. ROBBIE REPLIES Train 5 hours late. Now on bus replacement. 1. Domjg I think you conflate quite different social trends n give them a common origin 2. I was brought up under WELFARISM. The compact held in the '50s, under Tory rule, as in the US the new deal held under Republicans. Neo-liberalism was made by Thatcher, Joseph, Tebbit. These were the inter war generation. They recruited boomers. But even in 2016 the demographic most inclined to vote Brexit, 75 plus, were not boomers. 3. The notion that feminist. Or gay radicals etc were self-serving individualists is false. 3a. Solidarity is shown by e.g. the recent pro abortion campaigns in US to enshrine rights in state constitutions. (Trump is wary about losing Roe-Wade cos he knows it loses votes n mobilises his enemies.)
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,252
|
Post by steve on Dec 28, 2023 20:12:11 GMT
oldnat the economics and morality of slavery was the core reason for the U.S. Civil war, read contemporary accounts before making assumptions. The fact that Hayley didn't mention it at all as a reason is beyond bizarre
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,082
|
Post by oldnat on Dec 28, 2023 21:17:20 GMT
oldnat the economics and morality of slavery was the core reason for the U.S. Civil war, read contemporary accounts before making assumptions. The fact that Hayley didn't mention it at all as a reason is beyond bizarre The US Civil War was a core part of the American History course that I did for my degree, so I have read a fair number of contemporary accounts - from both sides!
Slavery became the issue around which all the differences between the northern and southern states coalesced. All those of us who lived through the Brexit debate should recognise that complex contributory reasons can coalesce around a single issue!
The Union didn't make the ending of slavery a war aim until half way through the war. Their primary "reason" for war was to prevent secession. It's often said that history is written by the victors, and presenting their side as purely a moral crusade made sense. The losers, however, also have their (equally distorted) history, and Hayley is simply stressing the version developed in the South after the war, which will appeal to her audience (in both the North and South).
In a Federal system (and in many others) the tensions between the Union and its constituent parts is an ongoing one. Hence Hayley is not being "bizarre", just using a partial view of history to support a political stance.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,252
|
Post by steve on Dec 28, 2023 22:14:27 GMT
oldnatMy economic history degree also covered the civil war period and I have to disagree, the economics of slavery were core to the reasons for the war , of course the issue of secession was significant but after the secession had occurred the United States coalesced around the issue of slavery, there were elements of moral crusade as well but the economy of the South was based on the availability of indentured labour. The pretence that it wasn't which the far right republicans espouse is a canard based on the concept of racial superiority.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,379
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 28, 2023 22:17:20 GMT
Just as a reminder Chris Christie sort of excluded the other republican candidates for their presidential ticket are also fascists. Here's Nikki Hayley doing cartwheels trying to avoid the reason for the American civil war, the abolition or retention of slavery, it was all about central government over reach folks! And she's the moderate one. youtu.be/wMbqJHRrgnw?si=CT7Q97_hkiBwUARi There is no single "the reason" for the American Civil War, just as the case for every other war. Slavery was one among many, and states rights was an important one.
Anyone who argues that there was only one reason, and they know what it was, is either somewhat unaware of how war came about - or is partisan about aspects of current US society. But why were the leaders of the southern states so exercised about pressing the doctrine of states rights? - to protect the "peculiar institution" of slavery and with it a certain set of perceptions of their way of life. However, I agree with you that the north was not fighting to end slavery (if Lincoln had made that the war aim, the north would have been badly divided and the border states lost). Principally it was to maintain the union. Of course many ordinary soldiers on both sides weren't fighting for any high principle at all. There is a story of Union officers interrogating a captured Confederate private. It was plainly obvious he was far too poor to own a slave and it seemed highly unlikely he had any interest in the arcane principles of states rights, so they asked him why he was fighting. His reply was: "because you people are down here." (P.s. - if it is becoming necessary to quote the sources of knowledge, I have just counted and I have 38 books on the ACW on my shelves and I have read them all, most more than once. Its one of my favorite periods of history. I thoroughly recommend Shelby Foote's 3 volume history - scholarly enough and yet hugely entertaining at the same time).
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Dec 28, 2023 22:19:24 GMT
WOW-weeee!!!!
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,379
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 28, 2023 22:37:27 GMT
? Edit - oh, is this a billionaire kick-ball reference?
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Dec 28, 2023 22:39:04 GMT
Ask Crofty …
edit; sorry, pj, wholly unrelated to your erudite analysis of American political history!!!
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,379
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 28, 2023 22:48:32 GMT
Ask Crofty … edit; sorry, pj, wholly unrelated to your erudite analysis of American political history!!! Don't worry - they are equally unrelated to polling!
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 28, 2023 22:51:25 GMT
Ask Crofty … edit; sorry, pj, wholly unrelated to your erudite analysis of American political history!!! I have it on good authority that Crofty is now lying down in a darkened room. He then intends to go for a walk and may be some time.
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Dec 28, 2023 23:14:43 GMT
Lincoln quote.
''“If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves,” he wrote, “I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”
|
|
Dave
Member
... I'm dreaming dreams, I'm scheming schemes, I'm building castles high ..
Posts: 818
|
Post by Dave on Dec 29, 2023 0:21:19 GMT
… doesn’t come close to covering it mate And against that lot too. We are living in wondrous times ⚒ As I’ve said before - Mr Rice, what you have done? “Signed for a big club, you should have signed for a big club” was apparently the song tonight and Arteta showed himself yet again to be utterly classless. Anyway, patently an omen for the election - Labour will win by a majority of at least 1,000 seats. You heard it here first.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Dec 29, 2023 1:06:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 29, 2023 2:32:20 GMT
... I think there is a lot of self-loathing in the mainstream centre of politics, particularly on the centre left, right across the globe, that blames itself for the spawning of far right politics and the success of right wing ideology and its crowd pleasing ideologues. It'd obviously true that failing economies that breed inequality, stagnant/declining standards of living, deprivation and shrivelled public services will produce the disenchantment that incubates extreme political ideology. Snake oil salesman selling quack cures thrive, but I think a lot of the blame should go to the powerful corporate interests, ruthlessly ambitious politicians and compliant media organisations that cultivate politicians like Le Pen, Farage, Trump, Bolansaro etc. Maybe some religions too. ... I think that a lot of the disenchantment with centrist policies (whether leftish or rightish) is that all the mainstream parties ignore concerns of ordinary people. They are too concerned with following the latest fashionable nonsense. A good example was Brexit. All the main parties had a conspiracy of silence about the EU for years. Membership was never to be questioned. When UKIP won the European elections the government realised the writing was on the wall and were forced to hold the referendum. If there had been honest debate about the EU in parliament and possibly referenda on the various treaties we might still be in the EU. There are other concerns that are ignored though perhaps lower on the agenda than Brexit. Immigration was ignored for many years. The current government is making a big fuss about it but has done very little. Support for the death penalty in some circumstances is still quite popular but no mainstream party even contemplates it. It's not the most important issue but it adds to the general perception that the mainstream politicians are out of touch. There are other examples. It won't please everyone here but can anyone doubt that if a party came along that had a real plan to cut immigration drastically and to restore the death penalty as well as the usual economic stuff they wouldn't get at least 10% in a GE? Enough to sway quite a few seats.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 29, 2023 2:35:46 GMT
Proving that there is education, and then there is intelligence, and having the former doesn't mean you have the latter, Jacob Rees-Mogg is quoted as saying "“It is hard to see why this harmless little measure {re-introducing Imperial measures for wine} is not being implemented especially as our largest trading partner, the United States, still uses imperial units." As mathematician Kit Yates points out - "The US remains is one of only three countries worldwide not to make extensive use of a metric system. But the US system of measurement is not the same as the UK’s imperial system. An imperial pint is 1.2 pints in the US. A US gallon is approximately 0.83 imperial gallons." Oh dear. Absolutely. Rees-Mogg is a pretentious ignoramus. However some cans of beer are available in pints now
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 29, 2023 2:48:02 GMT
I am quite a chilled person generally but not about politics, at least not in recent years. A bit of well focussed anger keeps you young I reckon! I and so many people I know my age (late forties) show zero signs of becoming more conservative with age, in fact quite the opposite, regardless of assets. I'm working on mercian and suspect he is swinging gradually leftward in his twilight years. When I met him I thought I detected a liberal inner self yearning to be released from within its hard and seemingly uncompromising conservative shell. He spoke movingly about how he now no longer gave the Droitwich homeless people, sleeping rough in the streets, a good kicking on his drunken way home from chess matches in the town. Instead, he engaged them in long conversation, much to the consternation of his long suffering wife, enquiring of them their background stories and how they came to be in such a dire predicament. Mercian may well be coming home. No more years of hurt. No more need for dreaming. How odd. I detected an inner gauleiter in you. The feathered hat and regalia of your canal officer's uniform seemed indicative of an inner authoritarian wanting to expand and force everyone into a socialist utopia at the point of a gun or perhaps bargepole. A world where everyone (except party members of course) would be ground down to an equal level of poverty and dependence on the state. I see you as O'Brien asking how many fingers he was holding up. To which my reply would be unprintable here unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 29, 2023 2:58:57 GMT
Just as a reminder Chris Christie sort of excluded the other republican candidates for their presidential ticket are also fascists. Here's Nikki Hayley doing cartwheels trying to avoid the reason for the American civil war, the abolition or retention of slavery, it was all about central government over reach folks! And she's the moderate one. youtu.be/wMbqJHRrgnw?si=CT7Q97_hkiBwUARiI don't know much about the machinations since the American Civil War, but let's not forget that Lincoln was a Republican. EDIT: Sorry for all the consecutive posts but you people seem to go to bed very early.
|
|