Are the majority of Trump supporters racists? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Are Trump supporters inherently racists?

Yes, they are hardcore racists.
12
32%
No, they are not racists.
10
27%
Maybe, they are subconscious racists.
3
8%
They might be angry at mainstream polticians, and Trump is not.
3
8%
Other(please explain)
9
24%
#14972402
@Tainari88

You seem to forget that Jesus will return in Power and Glory as King of kings and Lord of lords.
He will not return as the humble servant as you see Him in the first coming to earth.
Jesus was explaining how his coming Kingdom of the future would be by parables of the way they knew things to be in their present time.

The parable in Matthew 20 begins like this:

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

But as you say Satan is the ruler of this world today and that also means he rules socialism as well.
I don't see why you would thing socialism under Satan control would be better than capitalism since it clear did not work for Venezuela.
#14972414
Hindsite wrote:@Tainari88

You seem to forget that Jesus will return in Power and Glory as King of kings and Lord of lords.
He will not return as the humble servant as you see Him in the first coming to earth.
Jesus was explaining how his coming Kingdom of the future would be by parables of the way they knew things to be in their present time.

The parable in Matthew 20 begins like this:

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

But as you say Satan is the ruler of this world today and that also means he rules socialism as well.
I don't see why you would thing socialism under Satan control would be better than capitalism since it clear did not work for Venezuela.


Venezuela is a nation that you never studied the history of Hindsite. You can't judge a nation out of its historical context.

Capitalism is about capital. Socialism is about society. Capital places a lot of importance on money, property and how human beings relate to capital. Socialism places its emphasis on how you organize society. Societal needs come first. In Capitalism capital needs come first. I happen to think society is more important than some money and buildings. If you create a society where a fight over damn money and property is more important than society as a whole when human beings are the generators of all wealth? You will have an eventual collapse.

So for me? Capitalism is the inferior system. But if you study history Hindsite? Capitalism is older than socialism. And older systems tire out and new ones fail a lot til they don't. Til the conditions get better and the circumstances are right to an expansion. Capitalism emerged at the end of the feudal period. It is fairly straight forward.

You got a slave system where people are just property and have no rights and don't get paid for their labor. They are paid for like one pays for a lawn mower to cut the grass in the front yard. You don't pay for the machine twice. Only once for the use of the machine. That is slavery and it is feudal in nature. The next system up from that is capitalism. The advantage is that you are no longer property. Owned by another human being like a lawn mower. But you can sell your labor to the capitalist and you both negotiate what your labor is worth. It is called wage labor. You have to sell your labor to a capitalist because you don't own any property or land or anything and as such the only way you have of feeding yourself is by selling your labor. To the one who does own something that they live off of without having to do the same thing to live. It makes property and who owns and who doesn't the way of controlling the work and labor between two different groups of human beings.

Socialism emerged from the conspiracy of equals Hindsite. That human beings should not be locked into a battle between those who own and those who don't own and therefore are not equal.

Jesus wasn't the owner of a damn thing when he died. He was barefoot and without property. If he was the perfect mainfestation of God on Earth? God is not into property and forcing other people to work for low wages because they own something the other human can't afford to do. Abuse of power is what it is about with the capitalists. Very un Christian.

I am going to bed now. Good night Hindsite.
#14972429
I once did not own anything and had to work for low wages. Then I gained more knowledge and experience and was able to take on more responsibility and make higher wages. Now I own two houses and two cars because I live in a primarily capitalist country. So I am not interested in experimenting with socialism and give up my nice retirement and having my houses taken away so I can beg for food the rest of my life. No thanks.
#14972458
Tainari88 wrote:I think you a man who is into selfish politics. And nasty politics.

Generally, these are more or less attacks on character and never seem to address policy positions in any meaningful way. That is why I do not take charges of racism seriously anymore. It's basically trumped Godwin's law. Calling someone a racist in an argument basically means you cannot support your policy position and have to resort to personal attacks.

Tainari88 wrote:Are you a racist? Since I think deep in your heart that you think you are superior
And believe you are superior?

Superior in what way and to whom? I think people have virtues and vices, strengths and weaknesses and they are different in different ways.

Tainari88 wrote:And that means that all people are not created equal?

I think there is a significant difference in equality before the law as a basic system of fairness and a presumption of equality in all things physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, etc. For the latter, I see very little evidence. I think that's what makes life interesting. We flourish in bartering our strengths and weaknesses with others.

Tainari88 wrote:I think you are a racist. Lol.You don't believe in equality.

I think you must be very young, or very close-minded. Racism is not the opposite of egalitarianism. Classical musicians typically think of their musical form as a bit more refined than punk rock, for example. That doesn't mean that they are inherently racist. It means that they characterize the traits of classical music as virtuous and the traits of punk rock as rather vicious. An aristocrat thinks a person of lower birth--irrespective of race--is typically a lesser person for it. You can ignore most of human history if it pleases you and just assume that everyone who does not embrace egalitarianism is a racist. That is the easy and intellectually lazy thing to do, and it doesn't give you a strong foundation for thought or action.

Tainari88 wrote:That is the core belief of racists.

Racism has lost its meaning as a word. In the past, it would mean someone who implements government policy with race-based differences in practice. Now, it means someone who does not agree with the Democratic party, political correctness, or thinks homosexuality is disgusting. It's simply not a meaningful distinction anymore, because it often has nothing to do with racial admixture whatsoever.

Tainari88 wrote:Black friends?

I have lots of very dark skinned friends, but they are from the Indian subcontinent. The British might have considered them black, but they are not sub-Saharan Africans. That is really the distinguishing characteristic when people are seriously talking about racial animus, because most other groups can fight each other viciously from time to time, but they can also get along. Skin color ultimately has nothing to do with it.

Tainari88 wrote:You calling me a moron is a good sign.

I didn't call you a moron. I actually complemented you on saying something that wasn't over-simplified left wing claptrap. It's a fleeting phenomena, but a hopeful one. It suggests that if you can rely on your faculty for reason instead of dwelling in emotion, you have the capacity for rational thought.

One Degree wrote:I decided to invent a new word. ‘Racistist’ is someone who calls everyone they disagree with a racist.

That's essentially what it boils down to now. A racist is someone who disagrees with the ideology of the political left.

Tainari88 wrote:It has to do with being pro capitalism. Capitalism is about classes of people. Owners and non owners of property. Power relationships.

Again, you say something that isn't completely moronic, but it does not prevent you from continuing to make stupid assertions. Classes of people have always existed, and they have not always been about race. For the most part, they haven't been about race. The first significant classes were warriors and farmer/rancher types. Those who protected the group and those who produced food were the essential members of society. Then, came skilled trades, and later merchants.

Hindsite wrote:Based on what you said the Spanish speakers must be the racist, since English speakers are part of the minority.

Marxists don't like it when you use their logic against them. :lol:

It probably means nothing to you Tainari88 since it is indicative of a class system, but I gave my Mexican maid a $500 bonus for Christmas. She was very happy and gave me a big hug. 8)
#14972464
Tainari88 wrote:Do you think Trump supporters are inherently racists?


Is Trump a racist? Yes.

Are the Trump apologists racist? Yes.

Are Trump supporters inherently racist? Ummm...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_primaries_in_Puerto_Rico

Are we assuming Trump supporters are one race? They are not. So no. People voted for Trump because he represents false hope. If Clinton is the establishment then what is the alternative? That is not to say that there isn't Trump supporters who are racist or that racists will not flock to Trump like flies to shit, but people who voted for him did not necessarily vote for him to "build the war". Some did so because he promised them jobs for example.
#14972485
Libertarian353 wrote:So if South Africans take land from whites cause they don't want whites to overrun their country it's not racist?


White arent flooding into south Africa its the other way around
They are leaving south Africa en mass (thats what happen when you give power to negros)

on the other hand Latinos are flooding non stop into the US
#14972543
Eauz wrote:Democrats were the ones with slaves and supported the policy so they are racists.


But in my opinion, to judge what a person of a particular race or religion or nationality or ethnicity or political party is now based on what they once historically were is absurd. Unlike the Democrats of the 18th, 19th, and mid-20th Century Democrats, Democrats of today are not advocating slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, separatism or anything close to that.

The racism Democrats advocate these days is one of expected/demanded obedience by people of color who they value as a voting bloc and not so much as friends, associates, dinner guests. They infuse a culture of dependency and victimization into that voting bloc and they excoriate, condemn, damn any who dare to stray off that reservation. It is a form of racism that is almost as insidious as the slavery and segregation that it replaced, and while they can point to a lot of grand gestures, the negative consequences have wiped out most of the good. As a result, under their policies, little or nothing has been done to improve the situation of a great many black people. But modern Democrats have convinced a lot people of color that being the Democrats' 'useful idiots' is okay because after all they believe the line that Republicans are a racist people who only care about making money on the backs of the poor and oppressed.

I would challenge anybody to point to ANYTHING proposed by President Trump to compare with that. Anything he has said that was racist. Any racist policy he has proposed or even thought about. Evidence of racism in his personal life.

Or, with the exception of the miniscule number of people pushing white supremacy, point to any policy or actions of Republicans that demonstrate any form of racism.
#14972685
skinster wrote:Yes. The stuff he said during his campaign about Mexicans and Muslims was obviously racist/bigoted bullshit.

Also

None of what Trump said about Mexicans, Muslims, or Blacks is racist. He is referring only to the actions of some of the people that happened to be Mexican, Muslims, and Black. It is not racist to call them out for their actions. He calls the Fake News media out all the time and it has nothing to do with race, but what they report. It appears to me that you are a Trump hater, because you don't know the difference.
#14972872
Hindsite wrote:None of what Trump said about Mexicans, Muslims, or Blacks is racist. He is referring only to the actions of some of the people that happened to be Mexican, Muslims, and Black. It is not racist to call them out for their actions. He calls the Fake News media out all the time and it has nothing to do with race, but what they report. It appears to me that you are a Trump hater, because you don't know the difference.


I 100% agree. President Trump can be legitimately criticized for many things--many/most of us can be criticized for many things--but nobody can legitimately accuse him of racism. Racism is the new dog whistle for anything the Left disapproves of, but most on the Left and even some on the Right have no clue what racism actually is. And President Trump is not guilty of it.

Complaining about or criticizing what a person of color or a particular ethnicity DOES is treating that person just like everybody else is treated. Which makes it the polar opposite of what racism is.
#14972911
blackjack21 wrote:Generally, these are more or less attacks on character and never seem to address policy positions in any meaningful way. That is why I do not take charges of racism seriously anymore. It's basically trumped Godwin's law. Calling someone a racist in an argument basically means you cannot support your policy position and have to resort to personal attacks. Superior in what way and to whom? I think people have virtues and vices, strengths and weaknesses and they are different in different ways.


No the stupid assertions are thinking that equality between human beings is an impossible goal and not possible. Again, variation is part of this world, part of this life. What is artificially constructed are limits on human potential and human development. Mainly because the privileged like you are Blackjack really don't want to let go of the power or open up the wealth to be used for the best lives lived of the many. Not the few. Fear. That is what racists are about. Fear is what the ones fighting against equality are about. Fear of having to see your maid whom was happy to get $500 dollars that you give to her to assuage your real truthful knowledge that you know is right...she is a human being same as you are, she works hard, just as you do, but somehow? You were born lucky and and you associate with the Indian Brahmins of your class and privilege and she is never really allowed into that world....why? Because she is Mexican? A woman? Poor? Never went to college? Why didn't she? Have you ever asked her why she has not done that? It might enlighten you on the controls people of your mentality hate to confront in their defective logic.

It is not about innate humanity and capabilities. It is about denying what is really the truth. We are all created equal in the human sense. But our smallness of thinking and our lack of generosity of spirit and our need to NOT KNOW the others we fear...is the real problem.

I am going to the movies with my family. Good night Blackjack.
#14972946
blackjack21 wrote:Generally, these are more or less attacks on character and never seem to address policy positions in any meaningful way. That is why I do not take charges of racism seriously anymore. It's basically trumped Godwin's law. Calling someone a racist in an argument basically means you cannot support your policy position and have to resort to personal attacks.


Superior in what way and to whom? I think people have virtues and vices, strengths and weaknesses and they are different in different ways.


I think there is a significant difference in equality before the law as a basic system of fairness and a presumption of equality in all things physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, etc. For the latter, I see very little evidence. I think that's what makes life interesting. We flourish in bartering our strengths and weaknesses with others.


I think you must be very young, or very close-minded. Racism is not the opposite of egalitarianism. Classical musicians typically think of their musical form as a bit more refined than punk rock, for example. That doesn't mean that they are inherently racist. It means that they characterize the traits of classical music as virtuous and the traits of punk rock as rather vicious. An aristocrat thinks a person of lower birth--irrespective of race--is typically a lesser person for it. You can ignore most of human history if it pleases you and just assume that everyone who does not embrace egalitarianism is a racist. That is the easy and intellectually lazy thing to do, and it doesn't give you a strong foundation for thought or action.


Racism has lost its meaning as a word. In the past, it would mean someone who implements government policy with race-based differences in practice. Now, it means someone who does not agree with the Democratic party, political correctness, or thinks homosexuality is disgusting. It's simply not a meaningful distinction anymore, because it often has nothing to do with racial admixture whatsoever.


I have lots of very dark skinned friends, but they are from the Indian subcontinent. The British might have considered them black, but they are not sub-Saharan Africans. That is really the distinguishing characteristic when people are seriously talking about racial animus, because most other groups can fight each other viciously from time to time, but they can also get along. Skin color ultimately has nothing to do with it.


I didn't call you a moron. I actually complemented you on saying something that wasn't over-simplified left wing claptrap. It's a fleeting phenomena, but a hopeful one. It suggests that if you can rely on your faculty for reason instead of dwelling in emotion, you have the capacity for rational thought.


That's essentially what it boils down to now. A racist is someone who disagrees with the ideology of the political left.


Again, you say something that isn't completely moronic, but it does not prevent you from continuing to make stupid assertions. Classes of people have always existed, and they have not always been about race. For the most part, they haven't been about race. The first significant classes were warriors and farmer/rancher types. Those who protected the group and those who produced food were the essential members of society. Then, came skilled trades, and later merchants.


Marxists don't like it when you use their logic against them. :lol:

It probably means nothing to you Tainari88 since it is indicative of a class system, but I gave my Mexican maid a $500 bonus for Christmas. She was very happy and gave me a big hug. 8)


Blackjack, I had a very thorough answer quoting each and every one of your claims. But? It got lost in some technical glitch. So I decided I am going to have to be succinct and summarize in this one what I said in the post I lost. (It irritates me but it happens). For your first assertion?

1) My assertions of you being about selfish and nasty politics is not some empty thing. No, Blackjack I have been reading you for years on this site. Do you remember the thread on California and immigration? I have read you in many many threads Mr. Blackjack21. Suffice it to say that you are a believer in class systems. You are. Everything you write is about class systems. Even this post is another justification for class systems. It is not about empty arguments and accusations of racism. It is about the reality that capitalism has a foundation. That is about owners and non owners and how capital is controlled. The entire system is about that. And it is a system based on two groups. Those who have wealth and property and those who don't. And the entire premise on which the entire society is told and told over and over again the reason why captitalism is the best system in the history of humanity is that it is about the superiority of those who have wealth and capital and those who don't. How did the slave owners in that feudal system I just talked to Hindsite about justify their positions to the slaves and the law makers of slavery codes in the books way back when? It is the natural way. Some people are born slaves due to their lack of superior intelligence, know-how, and etc etc. And the slave owners are owners because they are the chosen people of God, they are the ones with the knowledge, born the right way, etc. But ultimately they used FEAR to control the slaves and to safeguard their wealth and their power. Do you think capitalists don't do the same? Where do you think racism is related to that mentality? I let you figure it out because....you aint a moron are you? :lol:

2)Here you talk about superiority. In nature, in human evolution one of the most fundamental principles of human evolution based on the natural world and natural law is variation. Variation strengthens life. It gives us resilience and opportunities and the ability to adapt to a changing world. So variation is expected and natural. For animals, plants, human beings. All of us have to vary. If we did not? Survival would not be possible when things go wrong and we get hit with viruses, bacteria, illnesses, calamity in health, change in environmental conditions and we are all exact carbon copies of each other. No, it would be against our best interests to be the same. The key to making variation in human beings work. Variations in talents, abilties, proclivities, tendencies, thoughts, cultures, languages and land and environments---is to have certain inalienable rights as human beings. Without capitalistic economic interests overriding any gains in human rights all over the globe. Our variation needs to harnessed to serve the interests of an equality in rights and an equality in treatment, consideration and respect. And that includes economic equality. How does having a tiny fraction of humanity living with huge portions of wealth and power and leaving billions living in squalor and in tremendous need for basic things, services and essentials such as housing, clean water, electricity, transportation, education and stability to develop their own innate potential without tremendous limits on it placed by these tiny bits of elitism preventing that potential from gaining ground?

3) Bartering our strengths when the relationships are grounded in imbalances in power from the very beginning is a recipe for instability and violence from the beginning Blackjack. A person who has no choice but to go for a very low wage because? The one who owns the means of production or the bank who owns the property and who makes money exclusively from holding the title and living off of millions of workers paying interest? There is nothing natural about that situation. It is about systems. And capital. And it is not about superior or inferior intellects. It is about who has control and who doesn't. You know that. We all do. But the difference between you and I is that I don't think that is a situation that is set in concrete and stone and that human systems that are economic like capitalism is...is made to be eternal and not subject to expiration dates just like the feudal system became obsolete. Variation is not the problem. Human control of wealth, resources and how it is distributed and how it is organized IS.

4) I am fifty two years old. I will be fifty three in January. So being young is not my issue. Lol. Closed minded for me is about people defending a system they directly benefit from very well and have a lot of comfortable things from it. But they find it very hard to deal with the many outside of their spheres both social and economic and see that many are not benefiting from it very much at all. Do they ask themselves? Why is this not the case for the vast majority? It would be a good thing to ask themselves that. But they don't. Blind. Closed minded I guess. Are you one of them? Blackjack? Thinking to themselves....not my problem. I am doing well. No need to think why the rest are not. Must be they are not as good as I am. That ego again. I guess Satan relies on that one a lot.

The Democratic party and the Republican party are both accepting corrupt money to influence their policies. It is about selfish comforts and relying on keeping power. For both. Unfortunately getting that to stop is going to take a big organization effort from the many affected by the rot. Which is practically everyone. But? If you think fighting for equality and fighting class systems that are based on capitalistic needs for control of progress? You won't be doing much for that Blackjack. You are content with the present system. I never will be. For me? The advanced societies of the future don't belong to those who benefited from inequality of the past. Whether it be slave owners in feudal societies of the 17th and other centuries, nor of the capitalist robber barons of the 19th, or 20th....the future Blackjack is about stopping the waste that is present when billions of human beings are being held back with these false concepts that elitism is natural law, capitalism is the system for thousands of years and for millions of years and the only one that reflects natural law. No, like the past, it is about getting rid of the lies and the circumstances in which a system that is no longer working and needs to be discarded to tap into something better. Why struggle if all of it doesn't bring improvement for all? And only for some? We are all one. All one.

I am going to be fighting for ALL. And not just for the ones doing so well in a system that is failing the many.

Good night.
#14972997
Tainari88 wrote:Suffice it to say that you are a believer in class systems. You are.

Class systems are not all about race. The British upper class and lower class are the same race. The French aristocracy and the peasants were the same race. It wasn't about racism. Is there a point where you can deal with the abstraction of class generally, and not seem to take a concrete example such as racism and misuse it in circumstances that are wholly inappropriate? You might characterize someone from the British or French nobility as "racist," but they saw themselves as superior to the proletariat of their own race as well. It had little to do with race. I understand you don't like those sentiments, but trying to shoehorn them into a conflict that predates the global slave trade is kind of pointless.

Tainari88 wrote:Even this post is another justification for class systems.

Class systems exist in nature whether I am here to justify them or not. You seem to be of the mindset that if I were not acknowledging class systems then they would magically cease to exist. That is not so. Class systems predate me and will be here long after I am dead and gone. They also exists in other species. Chickens have a pecking order. Bees have queens, female worker bees and male drones. Perhaps you should try teaching Marxism to bee colonies and see where that gets you. Bee societies are inherently sexist and unfair.

Tainari88 wrote:It is about the reality that capitalism has a foundation.

So did classical civilization, medieval civilization and so forth.

Tainari88 wrote:And it is a system based on two groups. Those who have wealth and property and those who don't.

Once again, you are simplifying things to the point that meaningful distinctions are abolished so that you can process things in a more binary, Manichean way.

Tainari88 wrote:And the entire premise on which the entire society is told and told over and over again the reason why captitalism is the best system in the history of humanity is that it is about the superiority of those who have wealth and capital and those who don't.

Without capitalism, you don't have things like smartphones. Socialism doesn't have the track record of innovation in that area. Nationalist fascism has some, which is probably why the left that lives in hope of an international dictatorship of the proletariat fears fascism.

Tainari88 wrote:And that includes economic equality.

Economic equality creates a massive disincentive for innovation. That's why it fails everywhere it is tried.

Tainari88 wrote:How does having a tiny fraction of humanity living with huge portions of wealth and power and leaving billions living in squalor and in tremendous need for basic things, services and essentials such as housing, clean water, electricity, transportation, education and stability to develop their own innate potential without tremendous limits on it placed by these tiny bits of elitism preventing that potential from gaining ground?

Bill Gates may be a prick, but that doesn't mean he is responsible for piss poor living standards in the Congo for example. It doesn't even mean that he is guilty of oppressing Microsoft employees. Intellectual property is an area where you can't create a compelling narrative of labor exploitation with subsistence wages. 19th Century industrialists could be accused of that and the accusations sustained. Today, who is exploiting African populations? Chinese communists. That is the reality of the situation. The most peculiar aspect of today's world is that the most ruthless exploitation of labor today takes place under a communist oligarchy that puts forth a fiction of a proletariat paradise.

Tainari88 wrote:The one who owns the means of production or the bank who owns the property and who makes money exclusively from holding the title and living off of millions of workers paying interest?

So instead of a mortgage deduction, we could have a mortgage tax credit. However, that means you will not have the tax base for social programs.

Tainari88 wrote:But the difference between you and I is that I don't think that is a situation that is set in concrete and stone and that human systems that are economic like capitalism is...is made to be eternal and not subject to expiration dates just like the feudal system became obsolete.

It was technology that made the feudal system obsolete. It wasn't because some pamphleteer conducted some sort of "consciousness raising" exercise. Cannons could blow a wall through a castle. Rifles could blow a hole through armor and the person wearing it. Hence, the old order became obsolete militarily long before it became obsolete politically and economically. That is why I say today's so-called elite is a zombie-like walking dead. Talking about "renewable energy" worked when people didn't have the ability to criticize the media and return scientific arguments against horseshit government propaganda written by people who clearly flunked science class. Today's elite is dead, they just don't know it yet. Today, people from around the world can debate politics and rebut media propaganda. Google, Twitter, Facebook and others trying to squelch anti-establishment political movements will ultimately fail. It's a strategy form a bygone era when mass broadcast media was dominant. It isn't any longer.
#14973023
@Tainari88
You write like you have above average school learning. You are probably more educated in that way than I am. I hope you don't think just having higher education makes one person better than another. It seems to me that is the way you view class systems, that is one class is higher than another class. But you must understand that there are many people in the world that haven't spent a lot of time in school, but are still very intelligent. Sometimes, all that a lot of schooling does for a person is to make that person a highly educated fool.
#14973229
Don't play coy Ms. Spolia. You think Black people did not contribute a damn thing to humanity. Since you don't want your racist self to be kicked out of the forum you hide behind dictionary definitions of the term. Since I don't talk to the self declared racist of a husband of yours? He sends you in? To do what? Try to say something?

You don't. You should not be some second fiddle to that man. But you won't. Lol. Because it is about letting him play while you run around working yourself there with a bunch of kids. He should be a lot more appreciative. But? He is not. Wasting time writing trash instead of making your life easier.

Mujeres. I don't know. Lol. :lol:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Cricket

:lol: Still trying far too hard. Come out of[…]

@Negotiator , Many populations don't support goi[…]

One would imagine that any sentient being would re[…]

The Central Plaza mall parking lot at opening time[…]