Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: How is that achieved, by treaties between all the states perhaps, or some national level agreement?
As I understand it, it's a nationwide agreement between the states (and Canada). Not a Federal thing. I can't speak from a position of authority on it though.
Correction. Our agreement with Canada is something brokered at the Federal level.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/16 12:00:18
Kilkrazy wrote: How is that achieved, by treaties between all the states perhaps, or some national level agreement?
As I understand it, it's a nationwide agreement between the states (and Canada). Not a Federal thing. I can't speak from a position of authority on it though.
It's covered by the constitution, has been since we ratified it.
Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, known as the "Full Faith and Credit Clause", addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, but the south was afraid that slavery was eventually going to be abolished, because most northern states were planning to or had already abolished slavery and the general popular feeling was slavery.
Secession precipitated the war.
Therefore you can see that from the southern viewpoint the war was fought over the issue of slavery.
Hmm.... well I hate to say it, but it looks like I'm wrong. I was doing some fact checking, found this lengthy thing by David Barton's site. My bad. Here's an excerpt:
"Ironically, southern apologists claim that the Confederacy was formed to preserve “states’ rights,” yet the Confederacy expressly prohibited any state from exercising its own “state’s right” to end slavery. Clearly, the Confederacy’s real issue was the preservation of slavery at all costs – even to the point that it constitutionally forbade the abolition of slavery by any of its member states."
Either way, I do have some reservation about the claim that most political heat since has centered around racial tension or racial inequality. What I meant by the theory of government, and there being a difference occurring at this time, was the matter of centralization.
First of all, it is commendable that you took the effort to look into the issue and revise your view based on the facts.
In regards to the Civil War, apologists have done a very good job of trying to whitewash a very ugly period in history. Not only was slavery a driving force, but the Confederacy was not at all interested in state's rights, except for areas of economic gain. The Confederate constitution largely mirrored the federal but actually gave fewer rights to the states in many ways. It explicitly referred to slavery and took away any state power to abolish slavery or interfere with it in any way. The CSA constitution also gave the president a line item veto that the federal constitution did not. The major limit on Congressional authority that was not present in the US constitution was a restriction on trade laws and tariffs.
If there is any question as to the racial issues, just look at what happened post Civil War. The South aggressively pursued racist legislation and segregation. "State's rights" became a rallying cry for segregationists. In a continuation of the pre Civil War issues, the South showed large opposition to democratically passed federal legislation that it did not favor.
And before you go extolling how great empowered state governance is, take a look at the lynchings and behavior in post Civil War southern states, corruption in Chicago, federal investigations into NY police in the 70s, etc.
I'm sorry, upstate NY is a "death zone". I guess someone forgot to tell everybody up here.
If you get eaten by a bear, can I have your stuff? Once you step outside The City, it’s a wilderness. Which makes all of us up here like some sort of death-world commandos. I can live with that.
The student body is the most liberal thing about Carbondale.
I'll default to you, but the 4 times I've been to SIU Carbondale have not left with me the impression that it is liberal to the point that a guy can claim his sign was taken down by conservatives.
Carbondale itself is a liberal city, but that is primarily because of SIU. When classes are in, students make up the bulk of the population for the city.
However the city itself has a large conservative population. You can see it when you look through the city ordinances. There are a lot of issues with zoning and housing in the city. You can only live in certain areas if you are a student, there are even ordinances where if you are living with 2 people and you are not related to at least one of them, you cannot live together. I was not a student, so I lived in an area on the north side of town, the opposite side of SIU. Generally north of the main roads, you wont find many students. This is where the conservative side of town lives.
This is very OT, but I thought I should clarify. When speaking of Carbondale, many people just assume SIU and you are a student.
So Donald Trump had a bad time giving a speech in Flint. Whatever, happens to everyone on the campaign trail sooner or later. What's incredible about it is that afterwards Trump made up a whole story about the whole thing, that's been quickly and emphatically disproven.
He claimed the next day on FOX News that the pastor talked him down while people in the crowd were calling to let him speak. But the speech was recorded, and it shows clearly that Trump was talking about Clinton, when the Pastor asked him to speak on the subject he was invited on - the water in Flint. After this, a few people in the crowd heckle Trump, and then the pastor asks the crowd to let Trump speak, after which Trump thanks the pastor and continues his speach.
This is hardly isolated, of course. He returned from his recent trip to Mexico claiming the wall and who would pay for it was not discussed. The Mexican president said the opposite - that was discussed and Mexico refused to pay.
This is seriously a guy that people are going to vote for. Isn't that just the most incredible thing? People are looking at the guy who can't tell the truth about events from the day before, in a public forum, and they'll think that yeah, this is the man who should be representing the US on the national stage.
kveldulf wrote: And what is the basic importance of government?
To provide the foundational legal, economic and political systems on which a whole society can function.
As to what makes you think they are anarchists, I'm curious?
I never said they were anarchists, you should read more carefully.
Oh and I'm not trying to equivocate the Paul and Trump.
Never said you thought they were the same. The mystery is in fact why a person who might be drawn Paul's radical economic views, particularly on social security and the social safety net, might also be drawn to Trump when his policy on the same is basically 'everyone gets free money don't ask where it's coming from i predict awesomeness will create a million % GDP growth oh that isn't enough make it a billion % GDP growth"
There's some hyperbole there, obviously, but the message should be clear. Paul and Trump are basically polar opposites on economic issues.
As far as Ron or Rand Paul, or Trump, for the matter being racist: I don't think so. I'm not sure where you got that from
Have you seriously not noticed the racist things Trump has said? He said a judge was unfit to preside in his case because of his heritage. This was so clearly racist that the Republican Leader of the House called it a textbook racist comment.
Here's a lovely quote from Trump for you; “The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”
And he continues to attack a senator for her claimed Indian heritage by calling her Pocahontas.
You want some fun stuff from Ron Paul? Okey dokey;
”We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”
“Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. These aren’t my figures, that is the assumption you can gather from” the report.”
Paul has tried to walk back on those statements, claiming they were written in his name but without his knowledge. Except that's total bs, because when they were challenged at the time Paul defended the comments, he knew they were there and he thought they were valid.
This isn't to claim Paul is racist now, lots of people were a lot more racist in the 90s than they are now, and he claims the statements are wrong now. That counts for something. But it still raises the question why so much of the liberty crowd is so deeply mired in racism.
And if you're subtly bringing the race card as the chief problem for our politics,
No, the biggest problem with your politics is stupidity and sensation replacing policy discussion. It's not so different from the problem with everyone's politics
The question of why fringe right wing groups, fixted on notions that would naturally include pretty open and tolerant views on race seem to end up mired in ugly bigotry... is really a side question. It's a little more important this election because Trump is playing to those groups, but it's still pretty minor compared to lots of other stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kveldulf wrote: Who really wants a government that is really but a clumsy leviathan at the national level?
I happen to come from another federalised country, where independent states have slowly lost power to a federal government. For basically the same reason too - federal income taxes give government the power of the purse, and so over time federal government takes more and more control. My own state, Western Australia, gets particularly screwed by this.
What I'm saying, basically, is that I have sympathy for the general view of returning more power to the states. But the devil, of course, is in the details. The problem with Paul is that the details of what he's saying is basically straight craziness. He actually believes there should be no regulation of companies, because the power of the market will somehow make lying and polluting unprofitable (he appears to have no understanding of the economic concept of externalities). He thinks FEMA is bad because it encourages people to live in areas that might have natural disasters. He's been claiming hyperinflation is just around the corner for more than 20 years - he's been wrong every single year but he still thinks it is coming because he thinks his economic ideas are so wonderful they don't have to work.
The issue with Trump, then, is that like everything he says he doesn't believe in one word of the smaller government crap he's claimed. He just says it to get support from a part of the Republican base. So he promises you guys tax cuts, then he turns around and says he won't touch the major spending programs in the US (health and social security, and in fact he'll increase the military budget), but he'll balance this with unmentioned, unknown 'savings'. The con is so obvious it feels bad pointing it out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: As I understand it, it's a nationwide agreement between the states (and Canada). Not a Federal thing. I can't speak from a position of authority on it though.
Correction. Our agreement with Canada is something brokered at the Federal level.
My Australian driver's license worked in the US. There's obviously some weirdness in it though, because I got pulled over for cutting in front of a cop at a merging lane, and the guy let me off with a warning. Considering he was driving to force me in to cutting him off because he was fishing for a ticket... my guess is his act of kindness was more about "I don't know how to fine this weird Australian and their weird license", more than any kind of national hospitality.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/09/16 16:33:56
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Prestor Jon wrote: The only way for 3rd parties to gain the ability to affect things is to grow. Getting federal funding helps them grow. Independents and 3rd party candidates have had successful statewide campaigns.
Sure, and then the question becomes one of how a party grows. And I don't think for one second that the answer is in getting federal funding from hitting the 5%. Money is nice but nothing is more valuable than voter loyalty, and voter loyalty comes from delivering results. So you win local and state elections, and find a way to get your policies enacted. Then if those policies actually help people and are something they want, you grow, and the money will flow with that.
To put it another way - if Gary Johnson had federal funding he'd have another $10m. There is no sensible way of claiming Johnson would be any chance of winning the election if only he had $10m more in campaign funds.
Gary Johnson isn't going to win this year and the Libertarian Party candidate may never win. However, there ae only 3 parties that have ballot access in all 50 states, Republican, Democrat and Libertarian. Getting an additional $10mil in federal funding can do a lot to help run state parties and hold onto that ballot access. Just being in the game brings visibility and viability even without ever having a shot at winning at the national level.
Prestor Jon wrote: Gary Johnson isn't going to win this year and the Libertarian Party candidate may never win. However, there ae only 3 parties that have ballot access in all 50 states, Republican, Democrat and Libertarian. Getting an additional $10mil in federal funding can do a lot to help run state parties and hold onto that ballot access. Just being in the game brings visibility and viability even without ever having a shot at winning at the national level.
That's $200,000 per state. It will be unlikely to cover the cost of the sausage sizzles.
The biggest achievement for the Libertarian party is simply legitimacy. Being seen and considered. The money is nice but it is nothing in itself. The best thing the Libertarians have going for them is Johnson's ability to sell libertarian values as simply more principled versions of conservative values. He doesn't get caught up in ideology, he hasn't mentioned the gold standard and he expressly rejects his own party's flatly stupid ideas on social security. He does a pretty good job of taking up that position of a conservative who isn't obsessed with people's private lives, and may actually be honest when he talks about lower deficits.
He has issues, of course, and he isn't really capable or useful on the national stage (hooboy that Aleppo thing was real bad), but that isn't really the point at this stage. The libertarian party under Johnson is moderating and is slowly becoming a party that appears interested in governing.
If nothing else, the party should be able to get on the Oklahoma ballot in 2020. It's a plain and simple disgrace that isn't the case in 2016.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
A question for American dakka members, but I think I already know the answer to this
There was an article in Private Eye Magazine (British magazine that focuses on investigative journalism)
and there was a feature about the deployment of Special Forces by the US Military...
To cut a long a story short, they haven't been telling Congress the full story. They have spent X Money when they told Congress it was Y Money, and the number of operations being carried out is more than the first number they gave Congress.
Naturally, Congress are annoyed at this...
But my question is this: Do average American care about tax money being wasted like this? Do American dakka members care?
Does anybody ever lose their jobs or get jailed for lying like this?
I think I know the answer but I'll ask anyway
Thanks for any replies.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
They actually qualified for Oklahoma this year by getting all the signatures needed. The main reason I'm voting for him is to help the party hit 5% to avoid automatically being kicked off the "recognized party" list after November.
Fun Oklahoma fact: if you don't get a required minimum of votes in the presidential or gubernatorial election your party looses recognition in Oklahoma, unless your party existed prior to the year that law was enacted. Can anybody guess what parties never have to worry about getting kicked off the ballot?
Have Trump and/or McCain said anything perchance ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
d-usa wrote: They actually qualified for Oklahoma this year by getting all the signatures needed. The main reason I'm voting for him is to help the party hit 5% to avoid automatically being kicked off the "recognized party" list after November.
Fun Oklahoma fact: if you don't get a required minimum of votes in the presidential or gubernatorial election your party looses recognition in Oklahoma, unless your party existed prior to the year that law was enacted. Can anybody guess what parties never have to worry about getting kicked off the ballot?
The Communists?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
From your own link, he didn't walk the comment back, as much as do the standard Trump trick of saying the opposite thing, and then continuing to justify his original comment through some nonsense.
"A is terrible." "A is great. As for my earlier comments that A is terrible, I like not to regret anything. What I said, frankly, is what I said. And you know some people like what I said, if you want to know the truth. Many people that like what I said."
This appears to be working to a remarkable extent, and I think there's two parts to it. The first part, the bump Trump got when he mocked McCain, that's because a lot of people are simply just terrible people. They hear Trump say the horrible thing and they like it, and even later on when he says the opposite he also doesn't really give up on his original statement, so he's still a kind of horrible hero to those horrible people. Then there's a second group, who aren't themselves horrible, but are trying really hard to pretend Trump isn't a horrible person. It isn't easy, but if they pretend hard enough they can hear Trump make the opposite statement, and then just try really hard to ignore that Trump didn't actually apologise for his earlier comment. And it turns these people are quite good at fooling themselves.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/16 18:23:21
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A question for American dakka members, but I think I already know the answer to this
There was an article in Private Eye Magazine (British magazine that focuses on investigative journalism)
and there was a feature about the deployment of Special Forces by the US Military...
To cut a long a story short, they haven't been telling Congress the full story. They have spent X Money when they told Congress it was Y Money, and the number of operations being carried out is more than the first number they gave Congress.
Naturally, Congress are annoyed at this...
But my question is this: Do average American care about tax money being wasted like this? Do American dakka members care?
Does anybody ever lose their jobs or get jailed for lying like this?
I think I know the answer but I'll ask anyway
Thanks for any replies.
I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the below observations. I'm simply making them.
With regards to the concerns stated in your post. Two things to remember about the dynamics of America at the moment.
A) Somebody lied to Congress? Well, right now Congress' approval rating would need a jetpack to reach the gutter. B) Special Forces get a pass. Money spent on them is probably the best part of the bloated gak bag of a defense budget we have.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/16 18:41:14
So I just feel the urge to ask a question on the fact so many people are planning to vote libertarian this fall.
Do any of you actually know any hardcore libertarians in person?
Cause the only one I know I wouldnt put in charge of overseeing an anthill, I'd come back an hour later and the very earth would be on fire while he screamed about how 9/11 was an inside job.
It just kind of genuinely scares the gak out of me that so many people are gonna vote for the party that think drivers liscence are a form of tyranny.
Do any of you actually know any hardcore libertarians in person?
Not many. Fortunately, Johnson is more libertarian than Libertarian. Hopefully the one eyed king can lead the blind to something-something. What? I can't turn a phrase sometimes. feth you.
Your other observations are certainly on-point from my limited exposure.
lonestarr777 wrote: So I just feel the urge to ask a question on the fact so many people are planning to vote libertarian this fall.
Do any of you actually know any hardcore libertarians in person?
Cause the only one I know I wouldnt put in charge of overseeing an anthill, I'd come back an hour later and the very earth would be on fire while he screamed about how 9/11 was an inside job.
It just kind of genuinely scares the gak out of me that so many people are gonna vote for the party that think drivers liscence are a form of tyranny.
I know quite a few... and there's a broad spectrum of libertarians (as in all political 'movements').
The most common denominator identifying these groups imo is that they're pro-States rights and very isolationist.
I know quite a few as well, ranging from crazy to pretty reasonable. I've had the opportunity to sit down for breakfast with two of the previous chairpersons back in 2008 and I've worked with the Libertarian Party of Oklahoma for a few years when I was the State Chair for the Pirate Party and working with them via the Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform coalition.
There are a lot of normal folks that consider themselves libertarian, and the Green Party, Socialist Party and Constitution Party in our state has the same kind of crazy outliers as every other party.
sebster wrote: From your own link, he didn't walk the comment back, as much as do the standard Trump trick of saying the opposite thing, and then continuing to justify his original comment through some nonsense.
"A is terrible."
"A is great. As for my earlier comments that A is terrible, I like not to regret anything. What I said, frankly, is what I said. And you know some people like what I said, if you want to know the truth. Many people that like what I said."
This appears to be working to a remarkable extent, and I think there's two parts to it. The first part, the bump Trump got when he mocked McCain, that's because a lot of people are simply just terrible people. They hear Trump say the horrible thing and they like it, and even later on when he says the opposite he also doesn't really give up on his original statement, so he's still a kind of horrible hero to those horrible people. Then there's a second group, who aren't themselves horrible, but are trying really hard to pretend Trump isn't a horrible person. It isn't easy, but if they pretend hard enough they can hear Trump make the opposite statement, and then just try really hard to ignore that Trump didn't actually apologise for his earlier comment. And it turns these people are quite good at fooling themselves.
At times, I almost think that Trump is a rhetorical genius. Then he makes a big blunder and you remember that he's mostly just stumbled onto certain things that work at times. I saw earlier this week that he started criticizing Hillary for not having any policies. People laughed, but that's textbook and smart, although it has the feel of something his campaign team suggested.
I maintain that Hillary may be in trouble in the debates. She's going to walk in wonked up and never get a fight on her terms.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/16 19:04:54
sebster wrote: From your own link, he didn't walk the comment back, as much as do the standard Trump trick of saying the opposite thing, and then continuing to justify his original comment through some nonsense.
"A is terrible."
"A is great. As for my earlier comments that A is terrible, I like not to regret anything. What I said, frankly, is what I said. And you know some people like what I said, if you want to know the truth. Many people that like what I said."
This appears to be working to a remarkable extent, and I think there's two parts to it. The first part, the bump Trump got when he mocked McCain, that's because a lot of people are simply just terrible people. They hear Trump say the horrible thing and they like it, and even later on when he says the opposite he also doesn't really give up on his original statement, so he's still a kind of horrible hero to those horrible people. Then there's a second group, who aren't themselves horrible, but are trying really hard to pretend Trump isn't a horrible person. It isn't easy, but if they pretend hard enough they can hear Trump make the opposite statement, and then just try really hard to ignore that Trump didn't actually apologise for his earlier comment. And it turns these people are quite good at fooling themselves.
At times, I almost think that Trump is a rhetorical genius. Then he makes a big blunder and you remember that he's mostly just stumbled onto certain things that work at times. I saw earlier this week that he started criticizing Hillary for not having any policies. People laughed, but that's textbook and smart, although it has the feel of something his campaign team suggested.
I maintain that Hillary may be in trouble in the debates. She's going to walk in wonked up and never get a fight on her terms.
He actually is a rhetorical genius. If you define rhetoric as the ability to use language to manipulate people who don't think too deeply about the actual words. He has a weird way of talking. He always uses active voice (which is generally good as it makes one seem more confident and implies that he isn't trying to hide anything). He uses key words at the beginning of statements, usually words that imply strength, (or if he is attacking someone, weakness) never finishes a thought, but repeats the key word again, leaving one with the impression that he is confident, honest, and with that one key idea. Of course, if someone actually thinks about his words, he is in trouble. Which is why he constantly changes the subject and narrative so one never has time to think. He is the Michael Bay of rhetoric.
Here is a pretty good video that looks at Trump's language:
As for HRC, I don't think she should engage a "yeah but" game with Trump at the debate. I'm wondering if she should just focus on the first 10 seconds by saying "You're wrong Mr. Trump..." or "I believe Mr. Trump is incorrect..." and then use the rest of the time to push her agenda.
If Trump succeeds to dragging Clinton into the gutters... she'll lose bad.
Trump hasn't been very good in the debates actually. His best shtick is two fold:
1. He relies on his dog pound to cheer him on or boo opponents. That will not be available in the debate.
2. What he REALLY DOES is shortly thereafter say or tweet some absolutely outrageous thing that takes everyone's attention off the debate. Clinton could get ahead of that and prebomb the moment the debate ends. Alternatively whatever current version of JournoList (which is out there) could do the combined focus on something in the debate. I am sure thats what they will likely do.
3. Inversely HRC did moderately well in the debate. I am sure they are training her on how to rise above Trump and pull a few Reaganesque "there you go again" moments. Thats her strong suit, pushing the optimistic "lets join hands" president thing.
Side note: after verbal sparring for three days with the Trumps on Townhall etc I think she nailed the Deplorable statement. She just shouldn't have said it about the voters but about him and his statements. I'd say about 20% of his hardcore Trumpheads fall squarely in that category-but the rest don't.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/16 20:19:08
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
What she should do is just answer the questions posed to her as specifically, forcefully, and clearly as possible. If he attacks, ignore it. The media will discuss the attack on its own. Stick to the issue. Or turn it into a joke and quickly pivot to the actual question. Do not name call. Do not get offended. Do not seem incredulous, just amused at the silly little man, and show people how an adult should answer a question asked of them. Will she? Doubt it. Alternatively, she could challenge him to an arm wrestling competition. He will decline, because of course he would, in which case he will look weak. Or if he takes her on, he will lose. (I'd be willing to put money on that). And he still looks weak. Really, Clinton's best debate prep strategy would be to just do right arm curls for the next week.
Watch to the end to get it:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/16 20:25:46
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
4k Points
Competition Index
