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.

Point taken

sirlynchmob wrote:
I just had a horrible thought, I think a way for trump to get back on top and actually give himself a chance to win would be during the next debate bring Jill Harth (the woman he repeated groped) and formally admit what he did was wrong and sincerely apologize to her. Bonus points for bring on the others we don't know about and donating to a legitimate womans charity.

But that would take a man who has some humility (or the ability to pretend it), which Trump really seems to lack. And he'd have to admit to being wrong!

But it's true that he'd raise his stock if he did.

Spetulhu wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I just had a horrible thought, I think a way for trump to get back on top and actually give himself a chance to win would be during the next debate bring Jill Harth (the woman he repeated groped) and formally admit what he did was wrong and sincerely apologize to her. Bonus points for bring on the others we don't know about and donating to a legitimate womans charity.

But that would take a man who has some humility (or the ability to pretend it), which Trump really seems to lack. And he'd have to admit to being wrong!

But it's true that he'd raise his stock if he did.

You can't raise the stock of someone who's morally bankrupt. There's just no value to build upon.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I just had a horrible thought, I think a way for trump to get back on top and actually give himself a chance to win would be during the next debate bring Jill Harth (the woman he repeated groped) and formally admit what he did was wrong and sincerely apologize to her. Bonus points for bring on the others we don't know about and donating to a legitimate womans charity.

But that would take a man who has some humility (or the ability to pretend it), which Trump really seems to lack. And he'd have to admit to being wrong!

But it's true that he'd raise his stock if he did.

You can't raise the stock of someone who's morally bankrupt. There's just no value to build upon.

He has the delusions of his followers.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

You can't raise the stock of someone who's morally bankrupt. There's just no value to build upon.

He has the delusions of his followers.

And, more importantly, many of their mailing details to sell on to third parties!

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
And, more importantly, many of their mailing details to sell on to third parties!

I expect this is done by both parties every election, regardless of who the nominee is.

 Breotan wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
And, more importantly, many of their mailing details to sell on to third parties!

I expect this is done by both parties every election, regardless of who the nominee is.

This article from CNN shows that you are mostly correct. It names every failed Republican contender, as well as HRC.

It singles out Sanders as someone who refuses to engage in this dubious practice, to the surprise of nobody in the room.

Oh look, Trump found a supporter!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lepage-we-need-trump-to-show-authoritarian-power/ar-BBxifPO?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=ASUDHP

So... Trump is apparently a very big fan of his chair

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Oh look, Trump found a supporter!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lepage-we-need-trump-to-show-authoritarian-power/ar-BBxifPO?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=ASUDHP

Ah, Lepage. If you ever need proof that you shouldn't vote third party in FPTP, he us it.

 Breotan wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
And, more importantly, many of their mailing details to sell on to third parties!

I expect this is done by both parties every election, regardless of who the nominee is.

Yeah no gak. I've been getting mail from Ron Paul for a decade. Worst $5 I ever spent.

 Breotan wrote:
I'll still vote Trump because SCOTUS is far too important to me not to.

That must be very embarrassing for you. Years from now, when you're asked by your children or grandchildren about how you voted in this historic election, will you tell them the truth?

I wonder what Goldwater voters replied with, when asked 10 or 20 years after the election?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Well, for some reason he's going out of his way to ingratiate himself to the Putin administration. I'd really like to understand why this is so. Owed money? Wants to do business in Russia?

I know I've been after thus Russian connection for a while, but it seems the press doesn't want to press the issue. To me, it's the number 1 disqualifier for his candidacy, and that's even after hearing about the rapey stuff (which IMO is also disqualifying, but not as serious to national security as the Russian connection)

It's unlikely there's any formal connection. If there were, Trump wouldn't talk about it or even hint at pro-Russian sympathies. If a hostile foreign government is trying to put you in power in exchange for certain policies, the last thing you would do is hint at friendliness to that country. You certainly wouldn't appear on one of their state owned TV channels and quote their propaganda in your speeches.

I think this is another case where we can see how Trump's terrible information sources and his awful judgement combine to produce incredibly bad conclusions. There are reasons that he's added former heads of FOX News and Breitbart to his campaign staff - these are news sources he likes and trusts, the places he relies on to form and support his worldview. It's also no coincidence that Trump has tried to play and instead been played by the hard-right white nationalists on-line, their conspiracy driven, semi-apocalyptic worldview is match nicely with Trump's own views. So I've got no problem believing Trump reads and accepts much of the nonsense from the various Russian state media outlets, because that also broadly lines up with Trump's weird kind of anti-americanism, and his love for conspiracy theories.

Honestly, it's probably actually scarier that Trump probably hasn't been bought, but instead has just bought in to so many Russian lies of his own free will. If he was bought, there'd be a limit to the risk, he would give so much to the Russians, but that would be the end of it. Instead, we have to consider that Trump is actually dumb enough to read half-assed misquotes published in a Russia propaganda outfit, and then take that straight to his podium speech without any checking. The damage that kind of stupid could deliver from the oval office is vast.

Just found an article that argues something similar to my point above, but includes like actual facts and stuff;
"News from Russian propaganda sources are pervasive in the alt-right/neo-Nazi web. As a secondary matter we know from Adrian Chen's work that there are a decent number of faux 'pro-Trump' accounts on Twitter that are actually run from troll farms operated by Russian intelligence services... Russian propaganda stories from outlets like RT, Sputniknews and other similar sites spread freely on the alt-right/white supremacist web. And that's where the Trump camp lives...

In other words, don't worry. The Trump campaign isn't infiltrated by Russian intelligence (probably). They're just awash in neo-Nazi and white supremacist propaganda."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-russia-channel


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Whilst we would hope that they would take that away as the lesson learned, we cannot discount the possibility that they instead resort to thinking that Trump just wasn't terrible enough.

My guess is that they'll conclude next time around they someone with all Trump's racism and contempt for institutions, but without all the rapey stuff. They won't have to look hard to find that candidate, and there's a reasonable chance it'll work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I just had a horrible thought, I think a way for trump to get back on top and actually give himself a chance to win would be during the next debate bring Jill Harth (the woman he repeated groped) and formally admit what he did was wrong and sincerely apologize to her.

A large part of Trump's appeal comes from the fantasy he sells - that big powerful men can do what they want and never have to say sorry. That he actually broke from the fantasy to apologise for the groping allegations showed how big a deal that was, but after two lines of apology he was back to minimising - it was 'locker room talk'.

There's nothing to be gained from Trump by admitting to actually committing the acts he bragged about, and even less to be gained from apologizing for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
This article from CNN shows that you are mostly correct. It names every failed Republican contender, as well as HRC.

It singles out Sanders as someone who refuses to engage in this dubious practice, to the surprise of nobody in the room.

That's not what the article says. There is a difference between sharing a data list with a national committee, to help get other people in your party elected, and selling your list to another candidate or a private company for personal profit. Honestly, it would be very weird to expect a Democrat or a Republican to not share information to support other candidates of their own party.

Clinton did the former, and made no money in the deal. Each of the Republicans did the latter, selling their lists for cash, some even sold to candidates that they hated, ie Trump.

So, those with more conservative knowledge than me, now that Trump appears to be turning his guns on the GOP as well, what potential for damage is there?

The polls are indicating a smooth win for Clinton (still, it ain't decided til it's over) but what about the House and Senate? Will Trump fracture the party further, or will it open up lanes for the Democrats to snap up seats? Or both?

My gut feeling is he can definitely endanger the Senate on the GOP side. The House is safe.

By painting his own party, at least nominally, as a corrupt, broken establishment, I think he'll be able to depress turnout which otherwise might have shown up just to thumbs-down Hillary. Meanwhile on the other side, she hasn't depressed her own turnout any further.

 Ouze wrote:
My gut feeling is he can definitely endanger the Senate on the GOP side. The House is safe.

By painting his own party, at least nominally, as a corrupt, broken establishment, I think he'll be able to depress turnout which otherwise might have shown up just to thumbs-down Hillary. Meanwhile on the other side, she hasn't depressed her own turnout any further.

Yeah, at the start of the race the breakdown of senate already favoured Democrats on a purely mechanical level. This was the crop of senators elected in 2010, to break even Republicans would have had to repeat their successes that year. So it became a question of how much ground the Democrats could gain, even when the election was looking tight. So far things have held up okay for Republicans, despite everything about Trump and the infighting within his party he is still down by only 6 points. If that hols until election day then six points is a solid loss, but far from a catastrophe - Obama in 2008 won by 7.

538 is giving Democrats a 55% chance of gaining effective control in the senate (50 seats plus the VP). That would be a gain on 4 seats, with even chances of the DNC gain being a bit more or a bit less than that. It's interesting that's a lot less than the gain 2008, when the Democrats gained 8 seats. This might be because it was the Republican party as a whole that was disliked by voters in2008, whereas in 2016 the situation is a lot stranger, with Trump and the GOP both being disliked by different groups of voters. But the other factor might be the time delay in senate polling, it is much less common than presidential polling, so maybe the polls just haven't picked up the swing to the Democrats in the last two weeks yet.

As for the House of Reps... the Democrats have a natural headwind there. In 2012 they won the total votes cast for the House of Reps by almost 1.5 million, but ended up with 33 seats less. In contrast, in 2006 the Democrats had 6.5 million more votes cast in their favour, and ended up with a majority of 31 seats. A very rough calculation would say there's a headwind of about 4 million votes. It's pretty unlikely that will be overcome in this election. Even if Trump melts down entirely then a Republican effort to prevent total Democrat control should be effective enough to keep Republican votes for the house within that 4 million margin.

 sebster wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I'll still vote Trump because SCOTUS is far too important to me not to.

That must be very embarrassing for you. Years from now, when you're asked by your children or grandchildren about how you voted in this historic election, will you tell them the truth?

I will tell them the truth. I'll tell them I voted against Clinton. I believe that this political cartoon sums up my position (although clearly greatly exaggerated).

LOL, this country deserves Trump.

 Breotan wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I'll still vote Trump because SCOTUS is far too important to me not to.

That must be very embarrassing for you. Years from now, when you're asked by your children or grandchildren about how you voted in this historic election, will you tell them the truth?

I will tell them the truth. I'll tell them I voted against Clinton. I believe that this political cartoon sums up my position (although clearly greatly exaggerated).

No more Kool-Aid for you, you've had enough, methinks. Forget about Seb's comment regarding "Years from now...", how about NOW?! Explain your Trump support to your daughter, sister, mom, aunt, wife, girlfriend...unbelievable!
HRC appointees just wiping out swathes of the Constitution? What right wing click-bait fantasy world did that come out of?

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I'll still vote Trump because SCOTUS is far too important to me not to.

That must be very embarrassing for you. Years from now, when you're asked by your children or grandchildren about how you voted in this historic election, will you tell them the truth?

I will tell them the truth. I'll tell them I voted against Clinton. I believe that this political cartoon sums up my position (although clearly greatly exaggerated).

No more Kool-Aid for you, you've had enough, methinks. Forget about Seb's comment regarding "Years from now...", how about NOW?! Explain your Trump support to your daughter, sister, mom, aunt, wife, girlfriend...unbelievable!

This has been going on for a while in the land of the "free"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/02/obama-civil-liberties-history

 Breotan wrote:
I believe that this political cartoon sums up my position (although clearly greatly exaggerated).

That's not just exaggerated, it has nothing to do with the truth. Exactly what rights do you think Clinton's supreme court pick is going to take away, and why do you believe that Trump is going to nominate someone better? If anything Trump is the one to be afraid of, given his statements on things like advocating religious discrimination against minorities he doesn't like. We can expect Clinton to continue to be a typical center-left politician and pick supreme court justices that are well within mainstream political beliefs, I don't think it's at all justified to trust Trump to do the same.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I'll still vote Trump because SCOTUS is far too important to me not to.

That must be very embarrassing for you. Years from now, when you're asked by your children or grandchildren about how you voted in this historic election, will you tell them the truth?

I will tell them the truth. I'll tell them I voted against Clinton. I believe that this political cartoon sums up my position (although clearly greatly exaggerated).

No more Kool-Aid for you, you've had enough, methinks. Forget about Seb's comment regarding "Years from now...", how about NOW?! Explain your Trump support to your daughter, sister, mom, aunt, wife, girlfriend...unbelievable!

This has been going on for a while in the land of the "free"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/02/obama-civil-liberties-history

To quote from the article you reference, "The one common strain running through these historic civil liberties assaults is war."
To be fair, that kind of makes the point that this isn't really an America on a day-to-day, business-as-usual snapshot, is it?

 BigWaaagh wrote:
No more Kool-Aid for you, you've had enough, methinks.

No more Kool-Aid? Well, since you don't like the pragmatic side of my mind how about the emotional side?


As I said much earlier in the thread, Trump will find himself severely constrained as President. He's done so much to alienate the Republicans that it will be tough to get anything he wants done. No one in Congress seems to actually like the guy so there really won't be much of a "honeymoon" period. Oh, and Pence isn't entirely unappealing as VP.

If Clinton is elected and can get the Senate back, she'll work tirelessly to move SCOTUS hard left for at least the next two generations. I can see why that's appealing to liberals but it's a big NOPE for me. Then there are the scandals. Ngggggh... I vividly remember Bill's administration. I'm not looking forward to a repeat.

As for my actual political leanings, I'll invite you to go way back and you'll see I was a Marco Rubio supporter. Apparently the only one, but still. Of course by the time Washington's primary rolled around everything had been decided to I voted for Sanders in protest.

2016 was the Republicans' election to lose and by God they pulled it off. Again.

 Breotan wrote:
Oh, and Pence isn't entirely unappealing as VP.

I like how the party of small government has the guy who tried to start a state-run newspaper to compete with the free press as their VP pick.

 Spinner wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Oh, and Pence isn't entirely unappealing as VP.

I like how the party of small government has the guy who tried to start a state-run newspaper to compete with the free press as their VP pick.

I didn't pick him but he's still a better choice than Kaine.

 Breotan wrote:
I will tell them the truth. I'll tell them I voted against Clinton. I believe that this political cartoon sums up my position (although clearly greatly exaggerated).

Thanks for the response. I think it's quite a comment on Trump that there is already a cartoon out there trying to explain how people could vote for him, in spite of who he is It's obviously a question a lot of conservatives are struggling with.

Anyhow, do you think that similar concerns and claims were made about Obama before he began his presidency? Do you believe that after 8 years of Obama as president, it was shown those fears were largely unfounded? That Obama wasn't in fact a radical set to take away people's freedoms, but a centre left politician who happily accepted the status quo of US institutions and legal protections.

Is it possible then, that those concerns are equally unfounded in the case of Clinton, but are made anyway, because it suits certain political interests to scare people about the Democratic candidate, whoever that Democrat might be, whatever beliefs that Democrat might hold?

 Breotan wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
No more Kool-Aid for you, you've had enough, methinks.

No more Kool-Aid? Well, since you don't like the pragmatic side of my mind how about the emotional side?

Spoiler:

As I said much earlier in the thread, Trump will find himself severely constrained as President. He's done so much to alienate the Republicans that it will be tough to get anything he wants done. No one in Congress seems to actually like the guy so there really won't be much of a "honeymoon" period. Oh, and Pence isn't entirely unappealing as VP.

If Clinton is elected and can get the Senate back, she'll work tirelessly to move SCOTUS hard left for at least the next two generations. I can see why that's appealing to liberals but it's a big NOPE for me. Then there are the scandals. Ngggggh... I vividly remember Bill's administration. I'm not looking forward to a repeat.

As for my actual political leanings, I'll invite you to go way back and you'll see I was a Marco Rubio supporter. Apparently the only one, but still. Of course by the time Washington's primary rolled around everything had been decided to I voted for Sanders in protest.

2016 was the Republicans' election to lose and by God they pulled it off. Again.

I'm not going to entertain or start another false equivalency argument, because it goes nowhere with the brainwashed that have bought it.

As far as accepting Trump because "he'll be kept in check", that's just wrong. Obama has shown what can be done with Executive order. Trump should NEVER be anywhere near a position to make any Executive order.

As for those horrible, scandal ridden Clinton -90's. Yeah, I remember them very well. An era of robust U.S. and global economic growth, rampant job growth, a booming stock market, global peace, a balanced budget, a Democratic President that worked with a Republican Congress. But somehow, you think HRC is going to derail the world and shred the constitution? The same woman that was right by Bill's side for all those years in office? Do you think she wasn't paying attention? The same woman who has seen, first hand, partisanship(now) and bipartisanship(then) and has probably learned a few lessons from that? The first potential female POTUS and you don't think she'll appreciate her position in history and work to see that it's memorable for all the right reasons? You don't think she's not going to be acutely aware of the benchmark put up by her husband's years in office and know she's going to be measured against it?
I was for Kasich. Rubio, maybe as a VP...he's still a bit green. Now, I'm for this country and that means HRC, period. I will NEVER be for that feth of a human being, Trump. NEVER.

 Breotan wrote:
No more Kool-Aid? Well, since you don't like the pragmatic side of my mind how about the emotional side?

By the logic in the image you linked to - you are drinking bleach because you hate the idea of drinking gasoline even more.

If that image is what you believe, then wouldn't the answer be to not vote for either candidate, or vote for a third party?

As I said much earlier in the thread, Trump will find himself severely constrained as President. He's done so much to alienate the Republicans that it will be tough to get anything he wants done.

He'll have little ability to lead legislation, but given the partisan block no-one is likely to have any ability to make meaningful legislation. But these days much of the power of the presidency exists in the state departments, which can be directed through executive action. If Trump doesn't know this he'll have it figured out very quickly. I think its pretty safe to say that Trump's directions for the various departments under his control is going to be radical and unpredictable.

Oh, and Pence isn't entirely unappealing as VP.

Bathrooms a priority of yours?

If Clinton is elected and can get the Senate back, she'll work tirelessly to move SCOTUS hard left for at least the next two generations.

I can understand that argument as being important to someone with conservative convictions. Talking about it moving for two generations is hyperbole, because that's 60 years. No court lasts past a couple of election cycles.

What's interesting about that debate, though, is that all focus has been on Republicans trying to stop Democrats from swinging the court to the left. But while Scalia's death opened for a rebalancing of the Court to the left, the appointments most likely in the next 4 or 8 years will be replacing Breyer and Ginsburg. It's actually the left who is very vulnerable in the SC if they don't win the presidency. A Democrat could set a 5-4 court, a Republican could set a 7-2 court. But I guess that doesn't get mentioned as much because only the right understands how much of the importance of the presidency rests in the ability to nominate SC justices.

I vividly remember Bill's administration. I'm not looking forward to a repeat.

Best growth in modern history. Lest we forget.

As for my actual political leanings, I'll invite you to go way back and you'll see I was a Marco Rubio supporter. Apparently the only one, but still.

I hear his Mum liked him, but it remains unconfirmed at this time.

2016 was the Republicans' election to lose and by God they pulled it off. Again.

Maybe. Economic fundamentals didn't really favour anyone. From there you look at the policy positions and how that suits the mood of the nation. Republicans would be running with yet another tax cut for the very rich, and talk about turning lots of government programs in to vouchers. That's a really tough sell outside of the true believers.

The thing in the Republican party's favour is the intense and sustained effort they'd put in to trashing Hillary Clinton for 25 years. So on a personality level then a generic Republican would hold a natural advantage. That's probably a bigger advantage than their policy set is a drawback, but not by enough to conclude the Republicans would hold a natural advantage in the election.

 sebster wrote:
He'll have little ability to lead legislation, but given the partisan block no-one is likely to have any ability to make meaningful legislation. But these days much of the power of the presidency exists in the state departments, which can be directed through executive action. If Trump doesn't know this he'll have it figured out very quickly. I think its pretty safe to say that Trump's directions for the various departments under his control is going to be radical and unpredictable.

And hasn't a recurring theme from conservatives been how Obama has abused his power and done too much through executive action? Why would any sane person expect Trump to be any different?

But I guess that doesn't get mentioned as much because only the right understands how much of the importance of the presidency rests in the ability to nominate SC justices.

I have to disagree here. I think the importance of justices gets mentioned quite a bit from the left, especially as an argument to vote for Clinton even if she isn't quite the ideal candidate. I think a lot of people on the left are well aware of the possibility of a republican president nominating a conservative justice and attempting to overturn every left-leaning decision in recent history.

 sebster wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
No more Kool-Aid? Well, since you don't like the pragmatic side of my mind how about the emotional side?

By the logic in the image you linked to - you are drinking bleach because you hate the idea of drinking gasoline even more.

If that image is what you believe, then wouldn't the answer be to not vote for either candidate, or vote for a third party?

I said this was what the emotional side of my mind was feeling. The previous cartoon captured the logical side. Yes, the two together demonstrate intellectual dissonance which I've resolved by deciding to go with the logical side over the emotional side.

 sebster wrote:
But these days much of the power of the presidency exists in the state departments, which can be directed through executive action. If Trump doesn't know this he'll have it figured out very quickly. I think its pretty safe to say that Trump's directions for the various departments under his control is going to be radical and unpredictable.

He has to get them approved by the Senate first. It will be interesting to see what happens should he appoint "yes men" who will rubber stamp radical or unpredictable views.

 sebster wrote:
Bathrooms a priority of yours?

Gun rights are.

 sebster wrote:
I can understand that argument as being important to someone with conservative convictions. Talking about it moving for two generations is hyperbole, because that's 60 years.

As I understood it, two generations is 40 years, but I accept your point. Still, look how long Ginsberg and Thomas have been on the court and maybe you'll better understand my concern about younger, more liberal people being appointed.

 sebster wrote:
It's actually the left who is very vulnerable in the SC if they don't win the presidency.

I can understand that viewpoint, but Thomas isn't getting any younger and Roberts hasn't been the most reliable justice as far as conservatives are concerned.

 sebster wrote:
Best growth in modern history. Lest we forget.

According to a graphic from aneconomicsense.org, the growth was part of a trend going since the 50s.


Still, it was the Republicans who forced welfare reform and balanced budgets on Clinton. He vetoed both until he was concerned about the Democrats losing seats over those issues. And don't forget that retroactive tax increase when he first took office.

 sebster wrote:
So on a personality level then a generic Republican would hold a natural advantage. That's probably a bigger advantage than their policy set is a drawback, but not by enough to conclude the Republicans would hold a natural advantage in the election.

I believe that any halfway decent candidate would be doing better than Trump. Not having Trumps negative numbers where Hillary would still have hers is a powerful position to be in going into the general election. Unfortunately, those candidates didn't make it and we got Trump instead.

This whole thing reminds me of when Bush, Sr. was running for re-election. He broke his tax pledge and the base hit him with the ban hammer him for it. Now there's a general feeling at the grass roots that the Republicans have put big business and donors ahead of their interests and so the election "ban hammer" is being swung again. Trump comes in and acts like he has a pair so everybody loves him. Well, except the Republicans who are curled in the fetal position moaning, "Why? Oh, God, why?"

A formal apology form Trump wouldn't work for the simple reason that he isn't sorry.

Trump had the chance to apologise as soon as the tape storm broke, and he cranked out a half-arsed non-apology that was basically an insult.

If he turns around and does a blubbing recantation on his knees, he will just look like another typical insincere poltiician saying whatever people want to hear to get votes. This will piss off a lot of his core followers. His Alt-R followers of course would see it as a complete betrayal.