DOJ Puts States on Notice About Election Law Changes - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15183123
SpecialOlympian wrote:It's gonna be really fucking funny if they start cracking down on the people in Arizona and now Pennsylvania who are going door to door asking people who they voted for.



The GOP has been nothing but a bunch of conmen operating a gigantic scam, a fractal con wherein grifts make up larger grifts, for a long time. And it turns out that when you spend decades selling your moronic base on unfounded fears to hock vitamins and get votes, a la Alex Jones, it will eventually gin people into action. This is definitely very normal and cool behavior from the Q party, the one that believes in an end times prophecy wherein all Democrats and anyone who even vaguely opposed Trump will be murdered on live television for the crime of harvesting adrenochrome from mole children.

Very normal, very cool party that is in love with democratic principles.



Congratulations, you were tricked into believing you have principles based on your committment, knowingly or unknowingly, to propagating a racist lie meant to keep the poor and non-whites from voting. You can't register within a California precinct without first registering in your district, which requires a state ID. Nor can you cast a provisional ballot without listing your ID number. On top of that, every poll worker I've ever spoken with has asked for my name and address to verify that I'm registered to vote in their station.

The idea that people are going around claiming to be someone who lives at a registered voter's address is ridiculous, as the odds of being caught are insanely high if you want to affect the vote in any meaningful way. It is a non-issue, and if even one person ends up coming in to vote that twice cast ballot will be caught very quickly.



I do take issue with that. Why do you think legislators crafted this bill to begin with? What do you think was their intent? Are people not already prohibited from trying to persuade voters outside the precinct with signs or in-person advocacy? Also lmao, oh no, people are being offered water inside the polling place. What horror!

Here is what I think their intent is: To punish voters who are already at understaffed precincts in blue districts who get out of line to grab water, causing them to lose their place and hopefully be dissuaded. Every vote counts, but not as much as the votes you can take away from your opposition

Maybe I'm cynical. Maybe you have a more positive idea of why this law was crafted. Surely, the legislators must have had nothing but good intentions.






I have to humbly apologise for propagating a racist lie and blocking poor people and non whites from voting.
#15183128
I know you're being sarcastic but you're the one pushing a bullshit GOP lie to address a non-issue, because voter fraud is not significant. Prove voter fraud is even a problem first, nobody gives a shit about you wasting poll workers' time.

This thread is the first time I've ever seen your posts and you seem to fold pretty quick at even the slightest pushback on you saying, "Well, the GOP did it, so the law must be good."
#15183130
Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin




Politics_Observer << The evidence show, from what I can see, that current voter ID laws that were just recently passed don't seem to effect election results one way or another. They also show that there is no evidence such laws combat the notion of "voter fraud."<<



Politics_Observer, you cannot prove the impossible. If there is no ID Requirement, no one can vouch for the integrity of the system. It is that simple. Unless, Political_Observer, you are imbubed with some magical powers that allow you to vouch for the identities of unknown persons.

You have to be careful about what the studies you are citing are saying. The studies do not say that no ID requirement cannot affect election results. Theoritically they can. It can neither be proven nor disproven. Such concerns can only be allayed by introduction of ID requirements. I believe the concerns are valid, and should be addressed by making them full proof. My understanding is that you will rather cry racism! Alert racism! Alert racism! Blacks are being asked to carry identification :p

No, no, my dear Politics_Observer blacks are not the helpless midgets you appear to believe them to be. Blacks, at least the ones I am used to, are your equal in everything, I repeat, everything, and all carry identification. It is not a black thing, sir.





Politics_Observer << So, given these voter id laws as they currently are do not effect elections one way or another, personally I am not worried about them. What I do worry about is when republicans try to make it a crime to give somebody some water while standing in line to vote in the hot sun. But, even with voter id laws, why bother with them if they don't combat the notion of voter fraud given the hard evidence?<<


Politics_Observer, try to be much more rigorous in your presentations. It is a stretch to take a law in Georgia, by Georgia Republicans and extrapolate to Republicans of all 50 States.

And what is your beef with restrictions at polling places? You seem to ignore the specifics. Your water bearers can hand out all the water the want, just not within 150 ft of the edge of the building. Do you know what is 150ft? It is not a long distance at all. Lets say you, Politics_Observer, are 6 ft tall, all you have to find 25 people your height and align them end to end, that is it. Even the most fragile black in the world will not die of thirst by the time a water bearer 150 ft away gets to him. :lol:


*I forgot to address the ID requirement studies you have been citing. In the main they have studied whether ID requirements affect turnouts. That is all they can do. You can look at the stats before ID requirements, and post ID requirements.
#15183133
[quote="wat0n"][/quote]



Politics_Observer << The evidence show, from what I can see, that current voter ID laws that were just recently passed don't seem to effect election results one way or another. They also show that there is no evidence such laws combat the notion of "voter fraud." So, given these voter id laws as they currently are do not effect elections one way or another, personally I am not worried about them. What I do worry about is when republicans try to make it a crime to give somebody some water while standing in line to vote in the hot sun. But, even with voter id laws, why bother with them if they don't combat the notion of voter fraud given the hard evidence?


wat0n << That's an interesting result, and it's great they don't affect the actual vote percentages, turnout or registration regardless of the demographic involved. I don't find it surprising they also don't seem to affect voter fraud, if it was nonexistent before these laws were passed, of course it will remain nonexistent after the fact.

I still think these laws are useful, even though those who have made their minds on the matter of the extent of voter fraud will be unlikely to change their mind, the fact that these laws exist are good for preventing fence-sitters from doubting results in the future. The next time the election deniers claim voter fraud, just remind them of the laws that are currently in place and fence-sitters will be able to see they are bullshitting or at least remain skeptical.

I see that paper as providing support for ID laws as they are meant to shore up the credibility of electoral results as much as possible.<<



wat0n,

You are spot on. ID requirement laws eliminate doubt as far as fence sitters are concerned. If a polling station has no ID requirements that places a question mark on the legitimacy of every vote cast there. There is just no way around it.
#15183140
@Juin @SpecialOlympian

Hey Juin, SO makes a good point. The republicans make the accusation of "voter fraud" but haven't produced not one shred of evidence of voter fraud. Prove your accusation before passing laws that are not necessary. If you are going to make an accusation you have to back it up with proof. I also noticed that you didn't address my point about how it is against the law here in the state of Georgia for somebody standing in line to be given some water. Moreover, news reports are indicating republican attempts to try to take over election in democrat areas of Georgia. That sounds like a power grab to me rather than a legitimate and fair election.
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 31 Jul 2021 01:11, edited 1 time in total.
#15183141
Juin wrote:Politics_Observer, you cannot prove the impossible. If there is no ID Requirement, no one can vouch for the integrity of the system. It is that simple. Unless, Political_Observer, you are imbubed with some magical powers that allow you to vouch for the identities of unknown persons.


When has an unknown person ever voted? You have to register to vote, which involves proving your identity to the state. Presenting ID at the voting station is just an additional hurdle for no reason that doesn't do anything to make elections more secure.

I still think these laws are useful, even though those who have made their minds on the matter of the extent of voter fraud will be unlikely to change their mind, the fact that these laws exist are good for preventing fence-sitters from doubting results in the future. The next time the election deniers claim voter fraud, just remind them of the laws that are currently in place and fence-sitters will be able to see they are bullshitting or at least remain skeptical.


Trump lost 99% of his court cases and the 1 or 2 he did win were meaningless. That didn't change anybody's minds, now did it?

This is because the point isn't election integrity. The point is purposely denying the results of a democratic election that didn't go their way.

There is no reason to assume Trump supporters or the GOP are arguing in good faith. What they want are as many hurdles to voting as possible, because the GOP does not represent the popular will of the people and does better in lower turnout conditions. They, especially the GOP, do not care about democracy because more free and fair elections are an obstacle to their political goals.

And what is your beef with restrictions at polling places? You seem to ignore the specifics. Your water bearers can hand out all the water the want, just not within 150 ft of the edge of the building. Do you know what is 150ft? It is not a long distance at all. Lets say you, Politics_Observer, are 6 ft tall, all you have to find 25 people your height and align them end to end, that is it. Even the most fragile black in the world will not die of thirst by the time a water bearer 150 ft away gets to him.


Why should someone have to risk giving up their place in line at an understaffed and underserved polling station to get water?

Why do you think this bill was written in the first place?

Politics_Observer wrote:I also noticed that you didn't address my point about how it is against the law here in the state of Georgia for somebody standing in line to be given some water.


It's because he knows exactly why it was passed and agrees with it, but because it benefits him politically he is able to stifle his own precious principles. Principles which, upon examination, seem to bend toward ensuring the right people rather than the most people vote.

Either that or he is so tremendously stupid and cruel that he likes the idea of people baking in the Georgia sun while waiting to vote. Like some kind of misguided and moronic delusion that you must suffer to earn the right to vote, rather than demand that your government make voting as easy as possible for you.
#15183143
SpecialOlympian wrote:Trump lost 99% of his court cases and the 1 or 2 he did win were meaningless. That didn't change anybody's minds, now did it?


Actually it did, plenty of people decided to follow the courts. Especially outside the US, where people also followed the drama.

SpecialOlympian wrote:This is because the point isn't election integrity. The point is purposely denying the results of a democratic election that didn't go their way.

There is no reason to assume Trump supporters or the GOP are arguing in good faith. What they want are as many hurdles to voting as possible, because the GOP does not represent the popular will of the people and does better in lower turnout conditions. They, especially the GOP, do not care about democracy because more free and fair elections are an obstacle to their political goals.


Then they'll have even less room to whine if the laws they have been calling for are in place.
#15183146
[quote="Politics_Observer"]@Juin


Political_Observer << Hey Juin, SO makes a good point.<<


I bow to his brilliance.




Political_Observer << The republicans make the accusation of "voter fraud" but haven't produced not one shred of evidence of voter fraud. Prove your accusation before passing laws that are not necessary.<<


Listen carefully Political_Observer, it is for the Georgia Legislature to decide whether a law is necessary or not. Or at least I assume that is the case there. It is the case in the other states and at the federal level. It seems to me a sufficient number of Georgia Lawmakers decided on that. Democrats can overturn that, but they will have to come up with the numbers. Them's the rules.

Secondly, any system of transactions- banking, elections, insurance- that requires no identification exposes itself to fraud. That is axiomatic. My bank takes identification very seriously. Which I approve. As a matter of fact, I will be very disturbed if I went to my local bank and the cashier told me she did not need to identify me as the account holder. I will change banks right away if there was a hint at my local bank that identifications were no more required because some social activist says it disadvantages black and/or poor clients who cannot obtain identification cards.

My dollars are a valuable commodity. My vote as well. And when we are talking about as dominant a political and economic colossus like the United States of America, the votes that select its CEO are extremely valuable commodities. The least that can be asked is that the system that selects the CEO of the United States of America be no less rigorous than that exercised at banks.




Political Observer << I also noticed that you didn't address my point about how it is against the law here in the state of Georgia for somebody standing in line to be given some water.<<


I did. Maybe you missed my post on that.

btw do you have a history of blacks and/or the poor dying of thirst at polling stations? LOL Me and you seem to be acquainted with different kinds of blacks. The blacks I am acquainted with all have identifications, ALL of them. And none of them has a history of collapsing from thirst at polling stations. I dont know about Georgia, the state, or maybe it is only your environs, appears to have an epidemy of blacks collapsing from thirst. LOL [wiping tears from my eyes].

Political_Observer, believe me, blacks are actually tough, very tough. Ever heard of George Foreman? A panzer. A human wrecking machine. Only problem is he from Texas, not Georgia. Ever heard of Muhammad Ali? Danced like a butterfly, stung like a bee. Only problem, he was from Kentucky, not Georgia. Maybe that is why you Georgians have this false impression that blacks are some brittle constructions, ready to collapse and die from thirst at the drop of a hat. LOL [wiping tears from my eyes]. You are gonna kill me, Political_Observer if you keep up this narrative of brittle blacks collapsing from thirst at the drop of a hat. You do blacks a disservice. Blacks are tougher than that.

In an earlier post to you I pointed out that your water bearers can offer all the water they want, just not within 150 ft of the edge of a building. Do you want the 150 ft to be reduced to zero? Why not make the job of your water bearers easier by giving them a stool inside each voting boothe so that they can have their pitchers of water inches away from the lips of the voters as they vote? Heck, why stop at water bearers? My pressing needs are different. Instead of a water bearer at my knees inside the booth I am voting in, I will rather have a shoe shiner. That will do the trick for me. Put a Democratic shoe shiner in my booth, and I promise you I will vote Democrat for the rest of my life.





Political Observer << Moreover, news reports are indicating republican attempts to try to take over election in democrat areas of Georgia. That sounds like a power grab to me rather than a legitimate and fair election.<<


You will have to expand on that. I have no clue what you are talking about.
#15183158
wat0n wrote:Especially outside the US, where people also followed the drama.


Oh, good, that's reassuring. Good thing it's foreigners conducting the Arizona audit and pushing for others in multiple states.

Then they'll have even less room to whine if the laws they have been calling for are in place.


There is no point at which the GOP will ever stop whining or trying to work the ref. The laws they are calling for do not address a problem that actually exists anywhere outside of their own head, one that was invented by Republican policy makers to push for more restrictive voting laws.

For the party of "fuck your feelings" they really like to demand that everyone else accommodate their delicate, stupid fee fees all the time and cover the world in wood chips and foam padding so they don't hurt themselves.
#15183159
Juin wrote:btw do you have a history of blacks and/or the poor dying of thirst at polling stations? LOL Me and you seem to be acquainted with different kinds of blacks. The blacks I am acquainted with all have identifications, ALL of them. And none of them has a history of collapsing from thirst at polling stations. I dont know about Georgia, the state, or maybe it is only your environs, appears to have an epidemy of blacks collapsing from thirst. LOL [wiping tears from my eyes].

Political_Observer, believe me, blacks are actually tough, very tough. Ever heard of George Foreman? A panzer. A human wrecking machine. Only problem is he from Texas, not Georgia. Ever heard of Muhammad Ali? Danced like a butterfly, stung like a bee. Only problem, he was from Kentucky, not Georgia. Maybe that is why you Georgians have this false impression that blacks are some brittle constructions, ready to collapse and die from thirst at the drop of a hat. LOL [wiping tears from my eyes]. You are gonna kill me, Political_Observer if you keep up this narrative of brittle blacks collapsing from thirst at the drop of a hat. You do blacks a disservice. Blacks are tougher than that.

In an earlier post to you I pointed out that your water bearers can offer all the water they want, just not within 150 ft of the edge of a building. Do you want the 150 ft to be reduced to zero? Why not make the job of your water bearers easier by giving them a stool inside each voting boothe so that they can have their pitchers of water inches away from the lips of the voters as they vote? Heck, why stop at water bearers? My pressing needs are different. Instead of a water bearer at my knees inside the booth I am voting in, I will rather have a shoe shiner. That will do the trick for me. Put a Democratic shoe shiner in my booth, and I promise you I will vote Democrat for the rest of my life.


All of this is lame, boring bullshit designed to evade the question of why you think legislators wrote this bill. It's weak shit that took way too long to say.

Here is a shorter way to communicate the above: "I do not want to defend this bill because it is indefensible and will make me look bad. So I will mock you instead. Also I have black friends."

Tell us why you think the bill is good, coward. Tell us how the people of Georgia were served by this legislation. Tell us what the desired goal of the bill is.

Do you want the 150 ft to be reduced to zero?


Yes. As a Republican voter, why do you even approve of the government restricting the right of free citizens to give water to anyone who desires it? I thought you guys were supposed to be into all that small government bullshit. Now because a GOP legislature did it you suddenly support limitations on citizens freely exchanging property?
#15183164
SpecialOlympian wrote:Oh, good, that's reassuring. Good thing it's foreigners conducting the Arizona audit and pushing for others in multiple states.


You do realize the rest of the world was looking at the election drama with a mix of concern and scorn in equal measure, do you? Even more so as it turns out some states don't follow procedures that are standard abroad.

SpecialOlympian wrote:There is no point at which the GOP will ever stop whining or trying to work the ref. The laws they are calling for do not address a problem that actually exists anywhere outside of their own head, one that was invented by Republican policy makers to push for more restrictive voting laws.

For the party of "fuck your feelings" they really like to demand that everyone else accommodate their delicate, stupid fee fees all the time and cover the world in wood chips and foam padding so they don't hurt themselves.


Who cares. When they do, then the auto response will and should be that the procedure is done largely according to what they had demanded and how it's also done in other western democracies.
#15183183
wat0n wrote:You do realize the rest of the world was looking at the election drama with a mix of concern and scorn in equal measure, do you?


Yeah, and I don't give a shit. I live here, I have to live in the insanity. I don't care what observers think.

Who cares. When they do, then the auto response will and should be that the procedure is done largely according to what they had demanded and how it's also done in other western democracies.


Their demands are stupid and I do not acknowledge their legitimacy. How about you acknowledge my feelings about the election process instead of capitulating to the loudest and whiniest bitches you can find? If we are talking about feelings, why are the feelings of the crybabies of the rightwing more important than mine or anyone else's fee fees?

Voter fraud isn't a problem. It has never been a problem in the modern age. Prove voter fraud is a problem first and then we will talk.

I am going to repeat myself here because you seem to be an illiterate moron: There is no level of election integrity ~measures~ that will satisfy America's rightwing. Their goal is not ~election integrity~ but the delegitimization of all Democratic victories. Not an inch of ground should be ceded to them, because they are not arguing in good faith.

If you don't believe me, ask Juin why he thinks it's a good idea to make it illegal to give water to people waiting in line to vote. Ask him to explain how such a law came into being in the first place. Ask him why he supports it.

I don't have to defend shit, because I'm the guy saying everyone should be able to vote as easily as possible. You want to make elections more legitimate? Let people vote for an entire week, make voting days national holidays, anything. Anything besides this ~you can't serve water to people in line~ bullshit.
#15183187
Look at me, I'm the precocious fucking loser who makes 70+ year old ladies working the polling station look at my Driver's License because I have principles. Principles that I uphold dearly and truly to my heart. I make Granny Smith look at my license every time I vote and every time I do she says, "That's nice," and I know I'm defending democracy.

But a person getting water while waiting in line to vote? LOL, whatever you liberal faggot. You think people need water to vote? Only the strong can vote!!! Also I have black friends.

Lmao you are such a fucking intellectual toddler, @juin.

Come at me you weak little bitch. Tell me why there should be any legal limits on giving water to people waiting in line to vote. Tell me, you coward. You absolute, bitchmade coward.















































Tell me why you support this law, coward.
#15183216
SpecialOlympian wrote:Yeah, and I don't give a shit. I live here, I have to live in the insanity. I don't care what observers think.


And so do I. What's your point?

SpecialOlympian wrote:Their demands are stupid and I do not acknowledge their legitimacy. How about you acknowledge my feelings about the election process instead of capitulating to the loudest and whiniest bitches you can find? If we are talking about feelings, why are the feelings of the crybabies of the rightwing more important than mine or anyone else's fee fees?


Who cares about their feelings? What matters is what fence sitters believe, and that election conspiracy theories are seen as credible as chem trails and 9/11 truthers. And one way to do that is to give them the voter ID laws they want so much, even more so since it seems they don't affect results, turnout and registration in any meaningful way and then they'll have less room to whine when they lose again.

SpecialOlympian wrote:Voter fraud isn't a problem. It has never been a problem in the modern age. Prove voter fraud is a problem first and then we will talk.


It doesn't have to be a problem for the laws to be good, to prevent the idea that voter fraud is a problem from ever taking hold. Also, this is like saying we shouldn't have any building safety standards because, well, fires and earthquakes are not a problem.

SpecialOlympian wrote:I am going to repeat myself here because you seem to be an illiterate moron: There is no level of election integrity ~measures~ that will satisfy America's rightwing. Their goal is not ~election integrity~ but the delegitimization of all Democratic victories. Not an inch of ground should be ceded to them, because they are not arguing in good faith.


And I'm telling you again, mr genius: Those laws are directed at fence sitters, and it seems they don't in fact lead to lower turnout, registration or affect results.

SpecialOlympian wrote:If you don't believe me, ask Juin why he thinks it's a good idea to make it illegal to give water to people waiting in line to vote. Ask him to explain how such a law came into being in the first place. Ask him why he supports it.


Let him answer that for himself, I also don't see why one would place a ban like that.

SpecialOlympian wrote:I don't have to defend shit, because I'm the guy saying everyone should be able to vote as easily as possible. You want to make elections more legitimate? Let people vote for an entire week, make voting days national holidays, anything. Anything besides this ~you can't serve water to people in line~ bullshit.


Making elections holidays is also done abroad and should definitely be done. They could also be held on Sundays or, if such a law was passed, on Wednesdays so people won't just use the election day as a long weekend to go on a vacation. I don't understand why Americans make such a big deal over implementing measures that are common elsewhere.

Also, vote counting could be done by randomly selected citizens instead of government officials, that's also something that's done abroad and works okay too, and would also serve to silence the conspiracy nutters. I had to do election duty earlier this month for one of my country's elections and although it's annoying to spend a full day on this, I at least know how my booth did because I counted the votes myself.
#15183221
@SpecialOlympian you are so smart you can't even set up a proper quote, even after all this years :lol:

PS: Ah, you fixed it. Good.

Don't understand why are you so mad though. And doubting electoral results is not something only Republicans do - I recall plenty of Democrats doing the same with Trump's election too.
Last edited by wat0n on 31 Jul 2021 17:52, edited 1 time in total.
#15183222
wat0n wrote:Also, vote counting could be done by randomly selected citizens instead of government officials, that's also something that's done abroad and works okay too, and would also serve to silence the conspiracy nutters. I had to do election duty earlier this month for one of my country's elections and although it's annoying to spend a full day on this, I at least know how my booth did because I counted the votes myself.


Haha

Hey, I'm just inventing new ways Trump could have won, but hear me out.

But I'm not retarded. I'm actually very smart. I'm only thinking of ways to sate retarded people, who I definitely don't agree with, and satisfy them. Because I'm NOT retarded.

Just hear me out: What if we counted the votes in a way that made MAGAtards happpy? Then nobody could complain!
#15183224
Voter restriction laws have a clear impact in terms of disenfranchisement of legal voters.

This is apparently acceptable because of some hypothetical fence sitters who honestly believe that the vote might have been rigged.

I doubt this latter group of people even exists.

So the act of disenfranchising legal voters seems to be pointless.
#15183231
SpecialOlympian wrote:Haha

Hey, I'm just inventing new ways Trump could have won, but hear me out.

But I'm not retarded. I'm actually very smart. I'm only thinking of ways to sate retarded people, who I definitely don't agree with, and satisfy them. Because I'm NOT retarded.


Trump wouldn't have won either way. But denying the result would be harder with procedures that are common abroad in place.

And fence sitters quite obviously exist. Indeed, only around 60% of all voters and 60% of independents trust the election system circa late 2020 and early 2021, and the same could be said about Democrats and Republicans right before the 2020 election too:

https://morningconsult.com/form/trackin ... elections/

It's interesting how for both Democrats and Republicans trust of elections or believing they are free and fair depends on whether their party wins or not. Guess you are reacting just as Democrats are expected to, minus the pathetic big boy in the interwebs insults that you'd not dare to say to anyone's face IRL :)

Pants-of-Dog wrote:Voter restriction laws have a clear impact in terms of disenfranchisement of legal voters.


It seems according to recent research cited by @Politics_Observer that this is not really the case. Those laws did not affect results, turnout or registration even when looking at them by demographic variables like race/ethnicity, age, gender, voter fraud itself (makes sense, since it is already non-existent), etc.

If you have other literature to cite, please do so.

Pants-of-Dog wrote:This is apparently acceptable because of some hypothetical fence sitters who honestly believe that the vote might have been rigged.

I doubt this latter group of people even exists.

So the act of disenfranchising legal voters seems to be pointless.


It seems only around 60% of all US adults trusted electoral results before the 2020 election, including 60% of independents, as per the link included above. Care to explain why shouldn't this be concerning?
#15183235
This post serves as a friendly reminder to @Juin to tell everyone why it should be illegal to give people water while they are waiting in line to vote. We are all waiting on your explanation of how this serves the people of Georgia.

Tell us why this legislation makes sense you weak coward bitch.
Last edited by SpecialOlympian on 31 Jul 2021 18:25, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

I just heard this news on my way home. France se[…]

This is not Conservative thought. It's Libertaria[…]

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/09/18/nat[…]

He likes to go to universities and dominate inexpe[…]