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.
The whole point of the President's financial arrangements (blind trust and so on) is to obviate any suspicion he is using his office to feather his nest.
Which is damn near impossible for Trump to do... unless... you have a better idea?
Let's say that it is close to impossible for Trump to do (which I don't accept as fact for a second)....should he then do nothing? Not even a token effort with a whiff of credibility?
He hTrump is feathering his nest to the extent that his wife is suing for $150 million of losses because the Daily Mail apparently has bollixed her chance at turning that much profit out of being the First Lady.
Eh? Isn't she suing for libel? Or, is this something else?
As part of the suit there are references to damages due to lost business opportunities connected with her being the First Lady. They are not even being discreet about it.
Trump still refuses to release his tax returns, so we'll never know how much of a profit he is actually turning from the presidency.
There are financial disclosures he has to file, like all prior presidents. As for the tax returns, those are not nor has ever been a "requirement" for office.
Are you honestly having us believe that you would be as blasé had another opposing candidate refused the same? Really?
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
Trump still refuses to release his tax returns, so we'll never know how much of a profit he is actually turning from the presidency.
There are financial disclosures he has to file, like all prior presidents. As for the tax returns, those are not nor has ever been a "requirement" for office.
Are you honestly having us believe that you would be as blasé had another opposing candidate refused the same? Really?
That's pretty hysterical actually. I mean, we all know Whembly's partisanship but this is a new level of obvious double-standards.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I would actually argue that some of his fiercest supporters will actually be the ones to suffer the most.... I say this because we've seen among his most vocal supporters the poorest, least educated people, as well as the people hurt most by unregulated capitalism.
For now, those that suffered the most are well-off Irano-Americans (and Americans from those other countries on the list) who couldn't go home…
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Just Tony wrote: If this thing pans out, we're talking a low-fuel powerplant that can increase interbody travel times enough that human relocation is not only possible, but plausible.
No we aren't talking about that. The main problem with interplanetary travel is getting in and out of planetary gravity wells, which this does nothing for. If it even works at all, and its physics-breaking result isn't just experimental error.
You might find this delta-V chart informative: http://i.imgur.com/SqdzxzF.png Note that it takes considerably more delta-V to get from the surface of earth into low earth orbit (9.4 km/s) than it does to get all the way to low mars orbit (5.7 km/s) once you're in LEO.
I'm aware. I'm also aware that this design, whether it works well enough to be used for intraplanetary travel or not, is indeed the gateway for drives that WILL work well enough. Am I talking other solar systems? Of course not, not in our lifetimes. But this right here, this bumps up a visit to Ganymede within our lifetimes from possible to plausible, if not probable.
I'm sure humans would have done at least better than that.
Humans would also tend to be somewhat reluctant to go along on a suicide mission to crash into a comet. And for the same cost of sending a human you could send a whole swarm of Rosetta probes to take pictures.
What constitutes a swarm, what is the cost in resources to build and ship one Rosetta, let alone a "swarm"? Once more, robots aren't THAT cheap.
Since I got that off my chest, sure.
Ah yes, the classic "now that I've had the last word we can end the discussion" move...
And did me saying that prevent you from swooping in to have the last word? Of course not.
Look, I'm an Asimov fan myself, I get the desire to see robots used in this way, and I hope we DO use robots this way in the future. However, I think that we have more of a chance of colonization in our lifetimes than we do having "Caves of Steel" become reality in our lifetimes. And until that time, we send people to do the job unless their survival is minimal, such as Curiosity vs. humans on Mars at this time.
I mean, if you think pieces of land are more important than people (and if your party benefits from it), I'm sure it works just fine. But you have yet to give a convincing argument beyond "It's how it was designed".
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean, if you think pieces of land are more important than people (and if your party benefits from it), I'm sure it works just fine. But you have yet to give a convincing argument beyond "It's how it was designed".
The land is more important in the sense that you mean we're the United STATES. The PotUS is President of these United States, the states choose the electors who choose the president so each state runs its own election. Those state elections are weighted for population and given an electoral value, the Electoral points are added up as the results of the state elections are certified. A straight popular vote ignores the fact that the states exist which is diametrically opposed to a federalist system.
Starts with some more or less conventional ones - Sun Tzu's Art of War, Taleb's Black Swan, but then there's this:
Before he emerged on the political scene, an obscure Silicon Valley computer programmer with ties to Trump backer and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel was explaining his behavior. Curtis Yarvin, the self-proclaimed “neoreactionary” who blogs under the name “Mencius Moldbug,” attracted a following in 2008 when he published a wordy treatise asserting, among other things, that “nonsense is a more effective organizing tool than the truth.” When the organizer of a computer science conference canceled Yarvin’s appearance following an outcry over his blogging under his nom de web, Bannon took note: Breitbart News decried the act of censorship in an article about the programmer-blogger’s dismissal.
Moldbug’s dense, discursive musings on history—“What’s so bad about the Nazis?” he asks in one 2008 post that condemns the Holocaust but questions the moral superiority of the Allies—include a belief in the utility of spreading misinformation that now looks like a template for Trump’s approach to truth. “To believe in nonsense is an unforgeable [sic] demonstration of loyalty. It serves as a political uniform. And if you have a uniform, you have an army,” he writes in a May 2008 post.
In one January 2008 post, titled “How I stopped believing in democracy,” he decries the “Georgetownist worldview” of elites like the late diplomat George Kennan. Moldbug’s writings, coming amid the failure of the U.S. state-building project in Iraq, are hard to parse clearly and are open to multiple interpretations, but the author seems aware that his views are provocative. “It's been a while since I posted anything really controversial and offensive here,” he begins in a July 25, 2007, post explaining why he associates democracy with “war, tyranny, destruction and poverty.”
Moldbug, who does not do interviews and could not be reached for this story, has reportedly opened up a line to the White House, communicating with Bannon and his aides through an intermediary, according to a source. Yarvin said he has never spoken with Bannon. During the transition, he made clear his deep skepticism that the Russians were behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the source said—a message that Trump himself reiterated several times.
***
If Taleb and Yarvin laid some of the theoretical groundwork for Trumpism, the most muscular and controversial case for electing him president—and the most unrelenting attack on Trump’s conservative critics—came from Michael Anton, a onetime conservative intellectual writing under the pseudonym Publius Decius Mus.
Thanks to an entree from Thiel, Anton now sits on the National Security Council staff. Initial reports indicated he would serve as a spokesman, but Anton is set to take on a policy role, according to a source with knowledge of the situation. A former speechwriter for Rudy Giuliani and George W. Bush’s National Security Council, Anton most recently worked as a managing director for BlackRock, the Wall Street investment firm.
Hiring Anton puts one of the key intellectual forces behind Trump in the West Wing. In his blockbuster article “The Flight 93 Election,” a 4,300-plus-word tract published in September 2016 under his pseudonym, Anton strikes many of the same notes as Taleb and Yarvin. “America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad,” he writes. He blasts conservatives as “keepers of the status quo” for refusing to take account of the need for “truly fundamental” change—especially a crackdown on immigration that he argues is promoting “ethnic separatism” and risks entrenching a permanent Democratic majority.
Anton is no blind Trump supporter—the analogy in his essay’s title suggests that electing the Manhattan mogul was merely an alternative to the certain civilizational death of choosing another member of the “bipartisan junta” that he says is driving America “off a cliff.”
“2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die,” he writes. “You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.”
Will Trumpism work, Anton asks? He’s not sure—but he argues that it’s worth trying, given the alternative: “[T]he ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle.”
Anton’s real target is his fellow conservative intellectuals, who by opposing Trump are “objectively pro-Hillary”—a choice he warns will lead to “Caesarism, secession/crack-up, collapse, or managerial Davoisie liberalism as far as the eye can see.”
If that sounds like a highbrow expression of Trumpism—his inaugural address ripping the “establishment” in both parties for allegedly selling out the American people to foreign interests—it’s because it is. Hiring Anton speaks to Bannon’s ambition to displace traditional American conservatism with the sort of populist nationalism that Trump rode to office, and that his allies say is merely a return to the country’s original ideals.
“To me, part of the attraction and the appeal of Trump was that actually, if you take a look at what Trump’s saying and what he’s trying to do, [it] is actually more in keeping with the founding principles than the rest of the Republicans,” said the White House aide.
Am I allowed to call them fascists yet then? Cause they seem to be fitting the definition more and more
You can call them whatever you want but, much like Patton, you still can't just smack them.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean, if you think pieces of land are more important than people (and if your party benefits from it), I'm sure it works just fine. But you have yet to give a convincing argument beyond "It's how it was designed".
The land is more important in the sense that you mean we're the United STATES. The PotUS is President of these United States, the states choose the electors who choose the president so each state runs its own election. Those state elections are weighted for population and given an electoral value, the Electoral points are added up as the results of the state elections are certified. A straight popular vote ignores the fact that the states exist which is diametrically opposed to a federalist system.
Which ignores the difference in politics, technology, and communications when the constitution was written and now. And also how the elcectors were chosen and worked then vs now. Which is the point.
And, again, I'd like to see an argument as to why States should be more important than people, all I've heard so far is that they are.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean, if you think pieces of land are more important than people (and if your party benefits from it), I'm sure it works just fine. But you have yet to give a convincing argument beyond "It's how it was designed".
The land is more important in the sense that you mean we're the United STATES. The PotUS is President of these United States, the states choose the electors who choose the president so each state runs its own election. Those state elections are weighted for population and given an electoral value, the Electoral points are added up as the results of the state elections are certified. A straight popular vote ignores the fact that the states exist which is diametrically opposed to a federalist system.
Which ignores the difference in politics, technology, and communications when the constitution was written and now. And also how the elcectors were chosen and worked then vs now. Which is the point.
And, again, I'd like to see an argument as to why States should be more important than people, all I've heard so far is that they are.
None of the changes in politics technology or communications changes the fact that we are a republic made up of a union of semi autonomous states in a federal system of governance. The states make up the country, the states send representatives to Congress, the states ratified the constitution, statehood was granted to new parts of the country when we expanded. People can come and go, they are transient but the states remain. You're not seeing the importance of the states because your viewing the issue through the wrong perspective.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean, if you think pieces of land are more important than people (and if your party benefits from it), I'm sure it works just fine. But you have yet to give a convincing argument beyond "It's how it was designed".
The land is more important in the sense that you mean we're the United STATES. The PotUS is President of these United States, the states choose the electors who choose the president so each state runs its own election. Those state elections are weighted for population and given an electoral value, the Electoral points are added up as the results of the state elections are certified. A straight popular vote ignores the fact that the states exist which is diametrically opposed to a federalist system.
Which ignores the difference in politics, technology, and communications when the constitution was written and now. And also how the elcectors were chosen and worked then vs now. Which is the point.
And, again, I'd like to see an argument as to why States should be more important than people, all I've heard so far is that they are.
None of the changes in politics technology or communications changes the fact that we are a republic made up of a union of semi autonomous states in a federal system of governance. The states make up the country, the states send representatives to Congress, the states ratified the constitution, statehood was granted to new parts of the country when we expanded. People can come and go, they are transient but the states remain. You're not seeing the importance of the states because your viewing the issue through the wrong perspective.
Then do explain why what states want is more important than what the people want. And why the changes to how the election is done haven't broken the system
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
jasper76 wrote: Remember, there are many Trump voters, especially in crucial rust belt states, that were once Obama voters. I don't know what kind of future the Dems have in presidential politics without making a sincere effort to win these people back, and that will definitelly take some self-reflection and likely some meaningful platform adjustments.
The way to win them back is to convince them that the democrats will do a better job on economic issues, not to embrace Trump's policy. Turning the democrats into another right-wing clown party might appeal to some of Trump's voters, but it would destroy their support from everyone else.
I never meant to say they should adopt Trump's policies. In my mind, here are several things they could do right now to improve their standing with voters in general:
-Come up with policies that protect American labor. Dems used to be THE party of labor, and they have lost touch.
-Jettison identity politics.
-Jettison any thought of policies that force people to violate their religious convictions
-If Trump doesn't come up with a reasonable immigration policy, then come up with a reform platform that is sensible, compassionate, logical, and easy to understand and to communicate to voters.
-Admit the ACA has problems, and come up with solutions to fix those problems. Solutions that are easy to understand and to communicate to voters.
-Broaden the tent to be welcoming to pro-lifers.
I imagine the last one would be the hardest pill to swallow, but I think the Democrats have created too hard a line to where huge swaths of people who might be sympathetic to Democrats simply cannot support them because of abortion.
Anyways, those were off the top of my head. Not pretending I have all the answers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Retrogamer0001 wrote: Would it be crass to suggest that America is now reaping what it has sown? This is what a large majority of Americans voted for - Trump is at least retaining his vile, ignorant, hateful character, so none of the US's current woes should be much of a shock to anyone.
It's not correct that a large majority of Americans voted for Trump. In fact, a minority of voters did. But because we have an Electoral College system for our Presidential elections, and the rust belt States did swing for Trump, Trump won.
The Dems should be working hard to figure out how to get the Rust Belt back, how they went wrong there and what to do about it including platform changes, and how to win over Florida.
It probably won't be helpful to the Dems to use incendiary rhetoric like vile, ignorant, and hateful, because people in these States did indeed support Trumps policies, so you'd in effect be calling those voters vile, ignorant, and hateful, which will just entrench them further in the R column. It may have lost Clinton the election that she used terms like deplorablez irredeemable, racist, homophobic, and xenophobic. Don't insult the voters!
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/02/11 04:48:21
Automatically Appended Next Post: All that said, if they can somehow get Bill Gates to run for them...
Doubtful that hell run...
He's always been that 'behind the scenes' guy... not firebrand who can 'rally the troops'.
Now... if Will Smith runs...
Will Smith is quite frankly a nutjob. He wouldn't even get a sniff of the Presidency.
Would anyone think about Mark Cuban seriously? He certainly likes to sound off on politics.
Right now, the Dems best chance from their current roster is Cory Booker IMO. But he must stay scandal free, and actually show that he can work with Republicans in the next four years.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/11 04:52:23
Automatically Appended Next Post: All that said, if they can somehow get Bill Gates to run for them...
Doubtful that hell run...
He's always been that 'behind the scenes' guy... not firebrand who can 'rally the troops'.
Now... if Will Smith runs...
Will Smith is quite frankly a nutjob. He wouldn't even get a sniff of the Presidency.
Would anyone think about Mark Cuban seriously? He certainly likes to sound off on politics.
Right now, the Dems best chance from their current roster is Cory Booker IMO. But he must stay scandal free, and actually show that he can work with Republicans in the next four years.
jasper76 wrote: -Come up with policies that protect American labor. Dems used to be THE party of labor, and they have lost touch.
They already did. The issue is that people would rather listen to republican lies about "we'll magically make all the jobs come back".
-Jettison identity politics.
-Jettison any thought of policies that force people to violate their religious convictions
IOW, join the republicans in becoming the party of white Christian men. No thanks.
-If Trump doesn't come up with a reasonable immigration policy, then come up with a reform platform that is sensible, compassionate, logical, and easy to understand and to communicate to voters.
They already did. It just hasn't gone anywhere because the republican party won't accept anything but "DEPORT THEM NOW BUILD THAT WALL".
-Admit the ACA has problems, and come up with solutions to fix those problems. Solutions that are easy to understand and to communicate to voters.
This is a similar situation. All talk on reasonable solutions to fix the ACA is obstructed by the fact that one side won't listen to anything besides "REPEAL IT NOW". And, to the extent that any simple solution is even possible, it probably involves moving farther in the direction of government involvement in health care, a position the other side isn't going to listen to at all.
-Broaden the tent to be welcoming to pro-lifers.
I imagine the last one would be the hardest pill to swallow, but I think the Democrats have created too hard a line to where huge swaths of people who might be sympathetic to Democrats simply cannot support them because of abortion.
IOW, lose their moral high ground AND lose enthusiasm from the many pro-choice people who vote democrat over the issue. No thanks.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean, if you think pieces of land are more important than people (and if your party benefits from it), I'm sure it works just fine. But you have yet to give a convincing argument beyond "It's how it was designed".
The land is more important in the sense that you mean we're the United STATES. The PotUS is President of these United States, the states choose the electors who choose the president so each state runs its own election. Those state elections are weighted for population and given an electoral value, the Electoral points are added up as the results of the state elections are certified. A straight popular vote ignores the fact that the states exist which is diametrically opposed to a federalist system.
Which ignores the difference in politics, technology, and communications when the constitution was written and now. And also how the elcectors were chosen and worked then vs now. Which is the point.
And, again, I'd like to see an argument as to why States should be more important than people, all I've heard so far is that they are.
None of the changes in politics technology or communications changes the fact that we are a republic made up of a union of semi autonomous states in a federal system of governance. The states make up the country, the states send representatives to Congress, the states ratified the constitution, statehood was granted to new parts of the country when we expanded. People can come and go, they are transient but the states remain. You're not seeing the importance of the states because your viewing the issue through the wrong perspective.
Then do explain why what states want is more important than what the people want. And why the changes to how the election is done haven't broken the system
It' s not exactly about what the state wants per say, but trying to give the people of these states a more equal say in the presidential election. If we didn't have it this way, the election would come down to a handful of population centers, instead of the broader United States. Having an entire branch of government put in by these same population centers everytime is really denying a fair voice to this branch to the rest of the government. I believe that having the house-style electorial system helps allow these people to have a weighted say in the election of the executive branch.
Sasori wrote: If we didn't have it this way, the election would come down to a handful of population centers, instead of the broader United States.
You mean like how the election comes down to a handful of states in the current system?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
jasper76 wrote: -Come up with policies that protect American labor. Dems used to be THE party of labor, and they have lost touch.
A They already did. The issue is that people would rather listen to republican lies about "we'll magically make all the jobs come back".
-Jettison identity politics.
-Jettison any thought of policies that force people to violate their religious convictions
BIOW, join the republicans in becoming the party of white Christian men. No thanks.
-If Trump doesn't come up with a reasonable immigration policy, then come up with a reform platform that is sensible, compassionate, logical, and easy to understand and to communicate to voters.
C They already did. It just hasn't gone anywhere because the republican party won't accept anything but "DEPORT THEM NOW BUILD THAT WALL".
-Admit the ACA has problems, and come up with solutions to fix those problems. Solutions that are easy to understand and to communicate to voters.
This is a similar situation. All talk on reasonable solutions to fix the ACA is obstructed by the fact that one side won't listen to anything besides "REPEAL IT NOW". And, to the extent that any simple solution is even possible, it probably involves moving farther in the direction of government involvement in health care, a position the other side isn't going to listen to at all.
-Broaden the tent to be welcoming to pro-lifers.
I imagine the last one would be the hardest pill to swallow, but I think the Democrats have created too hard a line to where huge swaths of people who might be sympathetic to Democrats simply cannot support them because of abortion.
DIOW, lose their moral high ground AND lose enthusiasm from the many pro-choice people who vote democrat over the issue. No thanks.
A - I'd be interested in a list of those policies.
B - Nope. Become the party of ALL Americans, and stop demonizing Christians, white people, and males. The cult of hatred towards these people has got to go.
C - Don't really know much about immigration issues TBH so I won't comment.
D - It's entirely questionable that abortion support constitutes a moral high ground. To people who think abortion is murder, there's probably no lower ground to be had. It just seems like a waste to me to lose so many voters over abortion support. I wonder if there are more single-issue pro-life voters, or single-issue pro-choice voters. Honestly I have no idea.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/11 05:26:32
Kilkrazy wrote: So you're absolutely fine with the hypocrisy, corruption and incompetence of the Trump administration.
Not a big surprise.
^This is quite possibly the most disappointing thing I've ever read from a moderator.
Holding him to a higher standard than the President of the United States?
Honestly, I far prefer the sites where posters who repeatedly and knowingly argue in bad faith are banned. Here, the best we can hope for is that a moderator calls them out on it sometimes. Would you prefer a safe space?
Identity politics are a hard thing to really grasp for a majority of americans. It quite frankly doesnt really register with them. I know in my family, I spent hours trying to explain to them why someone can be a women, but born with a penis. It came back too "But they have a penis"
Its really something for a majority of people, they just cant understand because they have no real experiance with it. Anf Focusing on it so much, is relly detriment to the party IMO, Especially with the "You have to accept it" dogma many have to go through.
jasper76 wrote: A - I'd be interested in a list of those policies.
A couple examples from 2016: increasing the minimum wage and making a living wage a policy priority (so American labor can actually afford to live without killing themselves with 80 hour weeks), and improving training and education options for workers in regions that have been suffering economic decline. The problem is that "coal is a dying industry, it's going to be tough work but here's some possibilities for transitioning to a new industry" turns out to be less popular than "I'll make the coal jobs come back" even if the latter is a blatant lie.
B - Nope. Become the party of ALL Americans, and stop demonizing Christians, white people, and males. The cult of hatred towards these people has got to go.
Ah yes, the classic "criticizing the poor fragile white Christian men in any way is persecuting them". I'd rather not have both parties adopt a policy of never attacking inequality or bad behavior because it might hurt someone's feelings to be told that they've done something wrong.
D - It's entirely questionable that abortion support constitutes a moral high ground. To people who think abortion is murder, there's probably no lower ground to be had. It just seems like a waste to me to lose so many voters over abortion support. I wonder if there are more single-issue pro-life voters, or single-issue pro-choice voters. Honestly I have no idea.
People who think abortion is murder are not dealing with reality. And, again, it might lose some voter but it also gains voters. Just look at how much the pro-choice arguments were being made at the inauguration protests. Do you honestly think that killing enthusiasm from that group, especially at a time when the democrats are already struggling with voter turnout, in favor of a desperate appeal to social conservatives that are already committed to the republican party is a really good idea?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
18.000 
3.500 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.200 
3.000
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
Thousand Sons 4000+
