If Brexit passes, Texit is next!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I love how CBS News puts it:

The left loves the poor working class until they don't vote the same way and they are just idiots who need to die off.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The left loves the poor working class until they don't vote the same way and they are just idiots who need to die off.

Thats accurate and fair to say.

[PilotMan]

The poor, working class, consistently votes against their own best interests. They vote from an emotional base and if they can be worked up enough the vote will follow. Do you think all those poor neighborhoods in the UK really sat down to look at the financial and larger macro effects of leaving the UK? Or did they hear that soundbyte about taking their country back? Did they look at how their own cities and neighborhoods were benefiting from the EU subsidies, or were they angry about being under the thumb of foreign government? Do you think that the poor, working class actively seeks out the objective opinion, reads journal articles, and scientific research or do they look for the person who tells them exactly how they should feel, whether or not it's fact based?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The left loves the poor working class until they don't vote the same way and they are just idiots who need to die off.

The right loves the working poor class until they don't vote the same way and they are America-hating libtards who just need to stop mooching off of the system and die off.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by cartman

The right loves the working poor class until they don't vote the same way and they are America-hating libtards who just need to stop mooching off of the system and die off.

That's accurate and fair to say.

[panerd]

And then every once in a while candidates come along that actually represent the poor's best interests and both the left and right pull out all the reasons why these candidates have no chance. They tell the poor instead vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Nothing is wrong with this system at all!

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The poor, working class, consistently votes against their own best interests. They vote from an emotional base and if they can be worked up enough the vote will follow. Do you think all those poor neighborhoods in the UK really sat down to look at the financial and larger macro effects of leaving the UK? Or did they hear that soundbyte about taking their country back? Did they look at how their own cities and neighborhoods were benefiting from the EU subsidies, or were they angry about being under the thumb of foreign government? Do you think that the poor, working class actively seeks out the objective opinion, reads journal articles, and scientific research or do they look for the person who tells them exactly how they should feel, whether or not it's fact based?

The problem is that many of the poorer demographic lack the education and critical thinking skills to be able to determine what is likely true and what isn't with regards to the constant bombardment of propoganda - Politics is one arena where there is no protection for the consumer at al, politicians are allowed to blatantly lie without any consequences and often with much to gain ...

To demonstrate this you only have to look at Donald Trump and his constantly surfing statements which vary hugely from day to day according to how people react and often contradict reality to a terrifying degree*.

*Him standing in Scotland - a country within which EVERY country voted to remain in the EU and state that the country is excited at the outcome of the referrendum amused me somewhat

[JPhillips]

Right leaning parties generally have a message that's easier for people to understand, "The government is taking your money and immigrants are taking your jobs." Certainly in the U.S. the left leaning parties don't have anything as simple and easy to understand, and they compound the problem by occasionally validating the right's message in an effort to appeal to some voters.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The poor, working class, consistently votes against their own best interests.

What about you? Do you vote against your own best interest as a well-paid pilot? It's nice to have choices, maybe there's more to it than you give people credit? Who knows.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Right leaning parties generally have a message that's easier for people to understand, "The government is taking your money and immigrants are taking your jobs." Certainly in the U.S. the left leaning parties don't have anything as simple and easy to understand, and they compound the problem by occasionally validating the right's message in an effort to appeal to some voters.

So what's the overly simplistic message on the left?

The government is giving you money? Let the immigrants have your jobs. The rich are gonna pay for everything anyway?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Certainly in the U.S. the left leaning parties don't have anything as simple and easy to understand

The thing I found most interesting about the CBS blurb was not the comment about the poor, but the comment about the old. I don't think there's anything to be done about it, but for example, my 94yo grandfather's vote counts just as much as mine does. Statistically, I have a much greater stake in the future than he does however. For a vote such as Brexit which greatly affects the future (and may not be hashed out for some time, certainly not the immediate present) that's not quite ideal for the youth, who have to deal with a decision by the aged who may not even be around for the consequences.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So what's the overly simplistic message on the left?

That's the whole point. The left doesn't have an easy to digest message. When they do come up with something, they tend to undercut it pretty quickly. The right has gotten almost forty years out of, the government is taking all your money. In the U.S. the right has a brand and the left doesn't.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

The thing I found most interesting about the CBS blurb was not the comment about the poor, but the comment about the old. I don't think there's anything to be done about it, but for example, my 94yo grandfather's vote counts just as much as mine does. Statistically, I have a much greater stake in the future than he does however. For a vote such as Brexit which greatly affects the future (and may not be hashed out for some time, certainly not the immediate present) that's not quite ideal for the youth, who have to deal with a decision by the aged who may not even be around for the consequences.

The counter is that the older generation has more life experience which may translate itself into rose-tinted glasses, but also may mean a more educated decison.

The main argument seems to be we're young and we wanted to work in Europe... Well guess what, if they're good enough, they'll be able to.

I'm fed up of everybody having a sense of entitlement - everybody should be given equal opportunities, but not everybody is equal: some are more skilled, more intelligent, more able than others.

It seems to me that people here expect to be given things rather than earn them, and have no idea how to compete, how to respond to setbacks and defeats.

[Edward64]

Uh oh, more drama. A call for a do over!

Brexit: Do you #Regrexit? - CNNPolitics.com

From Brexit to #Regrexit -- an online petition demanding a second referendum on Britain's decision to leave the EU has passed 2 million signatures.

By Saturday afternoon, more than 2 million people had signed the petition on the official UK Parliament website. That number takes it well over the 100,000-signature threshold needed to force a debate on the issue by members of Parliament.
:
Thursday's referendum had a turnout of 72% -- an increase over last year's general election turnout of 66%, but below the 75% suggested in the petition

[Ryno]

How can that petition be taken seriously? All you need is an email address to vote. The residency verification is a check box.

[JPhillips]

I don't care about the petition, but I think there is a slight chance that Boris will come up with a way out of invoking Article 50. It was a great way to set himself apart and challenge Tory leadership, but I'm not convinced he wants this on his resume. I think he was hoping for a close loss so that he could blame every bad thing on the remain vote.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's the whole point. The left doesn't have an easy to digest message. When they do come up with something, they tend to undercut it pretty quickly. The right has gotten almost forty years out of, the government is taking all your money. In the U.S. the right has a brand and the left doesn't.

I think YOU don't have an easy to digest message, but the left, as a national organization, does in fact push votes for money. There message has always been, you don't have to do a thing, vote for us and you will get more money. That's as simple as it gets.

[Super Ugly]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't care about the petition, but I think there is a slight chance that Boris will come up with a way out of invoking Article 50. It was a great way to set himself apart and challenge Tory leadership, but I'm not convinced he wants this on his resume. I think he was hoping for a close loss so that he could blame every bad thing on the remain vote.

I think that you're right, although it's far from certain that Boris will be the next leader.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I think YOU don't have an easy to digest message, but the left, as a national organization, does in fact push votes for money. There message has always been, you don't have to do a thing, vote for us and you will get more money. That's as simple as it gets.

Nope, you are either not understanding or just throwing shade. The point was about a brand, not the strerotyoe from the right. Reagan, basically, created "get government off our backs" and it has stuck as a powerful (but meaningless) motto. The post was about there being no motto from the left, certainly one not as ubiquitous as that one.

I also think your left quote is nonsense because, if anything the brand (for non-poor) is about social causes rather than handouts. Perhaps "left guilt: thinking good, doing bad" is closer. I think California is more of an example of the left brand than any other place. It's a place with lots of regulation, massive out of the bedroom laws and an economy that provides the subsidies for republican states to live their dream.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I think YOU don't have an easy to digest message, but the left, as a national organization, does in fact push votes for money. There message has always been, you don't have to do a thing, vote for us and you will get more money. That's as simple as it gets.

Not even Bernie ran on the cartoon platform you're claiming and he didn't win the primary. If this was the platform of the left, why haven't they bothered enacting it, or even introducing bills that might enact it?

As long as you're living in this fantasy world where Chuck Schumer doesn't protect Wall Street and is an ardent disciple of Karl Marx, there really isn't a point in a discussion.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Super Ugly

I think that you're right, although it's far from certain that Boris will be the next leader.

He seems most likely, but I would agree he'll face a lot of resistance from the financial backers of the Tories.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The left loves the poor working class until they don't vote the same way and they are just idiots who need to die off.

I don't necessarily self-identify with "the left" but I'm sure I fit your definition. My faith and values tells me that myself and my society will be judged by how we care for the least among us. I don't know if that means I love the "poor working class," but I'll let you be the judge.

I do shake my head in wonder how so many people vote against their own self-interests. There are people dependent on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, the minimum wage and government jobs who vote for candidates who vow to cut every single one of those programs. It's also hard to see Tea Party activist with signs that say "Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare."

But I don't think for one minute anyone needs to die off. That's ridiculous.
So you're wrong.

[kcchief19]

I have very little doubt if they had another Brexit vote, Remain would win quite handily. There appears to be a ton of buyer's remorse, especially given the deceptive nature of the Leave campaign and the confused voters who though their protest vote wouldn't matter.

A Clinton Super PAC could put together a highly effective anti-Trump ad with British voters talking about how they wish they could take their vote back and how they would have voted differently if they knew Leave would win.

[AlexB]

I don't think that's the case at all. The Remain camp had nothing positive to say during the campaign, only scaremongering, and half of what they claimed would happen has already proven to be lies within 48 hours

Leave were as guilty of mistruths too - the worst thing about the entire referendum was that both sides preferred to use lies and half-truths rather than try to push the positives of their cause.

But I would argue that anyone with a brain could see this, and while it is certainly not a positive, the lies cancelled each other out in essence.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The poor, working class, consistently votes against their own best interests. They vote from an emotional base and if they can be worked up enough the vote will follow. Do you think all those poor neighborhoods in the UK really sat down to look at the financial and larger macro effects of leaving the UK? Or did they hear that soundbyte about taking their country back? Did they look at how their own cities and neighborhoods were benefiting from the EU subsidies, or were they angry about being under the thumb of foreign government? Do you think that the poor, working class actively seeks out the objective opinion, reads journal articles, and scientific research or do they look for the person who tells them exactly how they should feel, whether or not it's fact based?

This sums it up perfectly. So much contempt for poor working class people. Can't figure out why they wouldn't line up behind you.

[cartman]

I don't see where he wishes they would die.

[cartman]

Dola,

Questioning if someone made a fully formed decision isn't contempt.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cartman

Dola,

Questioning if someone made a fully formed decision isn't contempt.

The stance of they are poor and thus stupid and need us to tell them what is best for them does reek of contempt.

Like I'm probably more on the left than the right these days but this has always been something that bothers me about the left. People have concerns whether they are valid or not in your mind. Assuming these decisions are all made because they are too stupid to understand or just evil racists is unfair.

[cartman]

That's why we asking if they had taken those items into consideration. I didn't see anywhere in his post where he said they were stupid. Making bad/poor/incomplete decisions without considering data is not equal to being stupid. You are the one making that connection. Example:

You see a piece of metal on the ground. You go to pick it up, and it burns your hand because it is incredibly hot. Poor choice, but not stupid.

You see a piece of metal on the ground that you saw the welder had his blowtorch pointed towards. You go to pick it up, and it burns your hand because it is incredibly hot. Poor choice, and very stupid.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cartman

That's why we asking if they had taken those items into consideration. I didn't see anywhere in his post where he said they were stupid. Making bad/poor/incomplete decisions without considering data is not equal to being stupid. You are the one making that connection. Example:

You see a piece of metal on the ground. You go to pick it up, and it burns your hand because it is incredibly hot. Poor choice, but not stupid.

You see a piece of metal on the ground that you saw the welder had his blowtorch pointed towards. You go to pick it up, and it burns your hand because it is incredibly hot. Poor choice, and very stupid.

You're claiming to be the welder. The person who knows what's best for someone else. What's in their best interest. That because they are poor they can't possibly be educated enough to make decisions for themselves.

I get what you and others are saying. I just think it's condescending to those people and I understand why they'd align on the other side.

[cuervo72]

I hate being condescended to, so I try my best not to do that to others. But honestly, look at how many fucked up people there are. Some of them can't make sound decisions for themselves.

Probably why the Founding Fathers chose a republic and not a direct democracy.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This sums it up perfectly. So much contempt for poor working class people. Can't figure out why they wouldn't line up behind you.

Damn. You got me.

I hate it when arguments over facts are suddenly negotiable because you don't like what they say.

Higher stress lives, and poor critical thinking skills either as a result of of experience or education, lead people to make emotional decisions. Emotion fills in for objective decision making ability. Whether it's in regards to money or politics or love, the result is the same. It's seen in both blue and red areas.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

What about you? Do you vote against your own best interest as a well-paid pilot? It's nice to have choices, maybe there's more to it than you give people credit? Who knows.

It depends on the context of what you think is against my best interests. I guess my willingness to pay higher taxes because I believe that doing my part to support my community is the best option then sure.

I fail to see how voting for someone who will actively work to keep your ability to be upwardly mobile is the right decision ever. Worse protections for employees, worse oversight of manufacturing and industry. Two areas where the poor are directly impacted much greater than the top 5%, and yet people will go right ahead and throw their support to right to work laws, low to no minimum wage controls, reduction of government regulation letting those with money set the rules and be responsible for their own safety (personal and environmental.)

That's voting against your best interest.

[JPhillips]

A lot of people put social issues above economic issues. For them, they are voting in their self-interest, they just think their morals are the most important issues.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A lot of people put social issues above economic issues. For them, they are voting in their self-interest, they just think their morals are the most important issues.

While we ain't exactly known for agreeing on ... well, much of anything ... you just made one hell of a too-frequently overlooked point IMO.

[RainMaker]

Brexit Proves Baby Boomers Should Get Less of a Vote | VICE | Australia / NZ

This stuff is funny considering it came from the side that fought for civil rights and voting rights for a century.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Brexit Proves Baby Boomers Should Get Less of a Vote | VICE | Australia / NZ

This stuff is funny considering it came from the side that fought for civil rights and voting rights for a century.

They still are. I don't think this proposal was floated a a serious LET'S DO THIS FUCK OLD PEOPLE thing. Hell, the last two paragraphs all but explicitly say that. Two things I took away from this article:

1) What the article is railing against is a system of government established by the old to favor the old. One thing I wish the author had discussed a little more was 16-17 y/o's being allowed to vote on Scottish independence but not on the "Brexit." Why was that? Was that a specifically Scottish decision that didn't apply to the rest of the UK in other electoral circumstances?

One thing that happens domestically is an effort to suppress the youth vote. Hell, sometimes explicitly. Look at Ohio: 17 year olds are allowed to vote in primaries so long as they'll be 18 years old by Election Day.

The Republican Secretary of State there tried to play rules lawyer and say "Presidential candidates aren't directly nominated; voters elect delegates who then nominate the candidate. Since 17 year olds are only allowed to nominate, and not elect, they can't vote in Presidential primaries."

The courts smacked him down on that one.

The Wisconsin voter ID law mandates greater scrutiny of a college student's voter ID (their student ID is insufficient under the law; they have to request an additional ID, they have to present documentation proving their student status beyond their existing student ID, and even once they have that student voter ID, the poll worker has to check signatures) than of a "regular" citizen.

North Carolina explicitly ended a program in 2013 that "pre-registered" 17 year olds. That is, 17 year olds who would turn 18 before the general election were enrolled in a program upon receiving their driver's license that would automatically register them as voters. In the name of "reducing fraud," of course, which has often been a dog whistle for "preventing people we don't want voting from casting a ballot."

So, I mean, yeah. It's incongruous to see someone whose values include protecting the franchise calling for age-weighting of the vote to give the young a greater voice in their future, but in the larger context of "older people gaming the system for their benefit while the young are unable to push back," maybe it makes a little more sense. And that ties in to the second thing that caught my eye.

2) Did you look at the ratios proposed? A whole vote for the younger demographic, 60% of a vote for the middle aged? I don't think that was an accident. That author is drawing historical parallels to make a point about manipulation of the franchise.

[AlexB]

What no-one seems to realise is young people are generally more naive and idealistic, while older voters have seen more, worn the T-shirt.

And also the voter turnout is a lot less with younger age groups

The current system is fine - the balance is there: the youth need the experience of the oldies, the oldies need the constant fresh ideas and input from the youth.

As far as the 16-17 years olds, the Scottish vote was the only time that that has ever been allowed in the UK, and it's too young IMO, most will still be in education, still living with parents, no life experience at all.

[nol]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

One thing that happens domestically is an effort to suppress the youth vote. Hell, sometimes explicitly. Look at Ohio: 17 year olds are allowed to vote in primaries so long as they'll be 18 years old by Election Day.

The Republican Secretary of State there tried to play rules lawyer and say "Presidential candidates aren't directly nominated; voters elect delegates who then nominate the candidate. Since 17 year olds are only allowed to nominate, and not elect, they can't vote in Presidential primaries."

The courts smacked him down on that one.

The Wisconsin voter ID law mandates greater scrutiny of a college student's voter ID (their student ID is insufficient under the law; they have to request an additional ID, they have to present documentation proving their student status beyond their existing student ID, and even once they have that student voter ID, the poll worker has to check signatures) than of a "regular" citizen.

North Carolina explicitly ended a program in 2013 that "pre-registered" 17 year olds. That is, 17 year olds who would turn 18 before the general election were enrolled in a program upon receiving their driver's license that would automatically register them as voters. In the name of "reducing fraud," of course, which has often been a dog whistle for "preventing people we don't want voting from casting a ballot."

So, I mean, yeah. It's incongruous to see someone whose values include protecting the franchise calling for age-weighting of the vote to give the young a greater voice in their future, but in the larger context of "older people gaming the system for their benefit while the young are unable to push back," maybe it makes a little more sense.

And that's all before you consider that the average 60-year-old is much, much whiter than the average 18-year-old.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This stuff is funny considering it came from the side that fought for civil rights and voting rights for a century.

That's a pretty impressive legacy for one guy from Australia.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by AlexB

What no-one seems to realise is young people are generally more naive and idealistic, while older voters have seen more, worn the T-shirt.

The old run from the world they're afraid might come to pass.

The young interact with the world as they think it should be.

Go ahead and call the young "naive and idealistic."

Because the other side of that coin is that the old are are full of fear and ignorance.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The old run from the world they're afraid might come to pass.

The young interact with the world as they think it should be.

Go ahead and call the young "naive and idealistic."

Because the other side of that coin is that the old are are full of fear and ignorance.

Which is what I was saying, the contrast provides a balance and it's why everyone's vote is equal, regardless of nuance.

Now in actuality not everyone's vote is equal in our General Election system - in my parents' constituency with a 20,000 majority, it's an extremely safe seat, and this may also be in part why there is a low turnout on occasion as tbh a lote of votes don't really count in the greater sense.

[OldGiants]

I remember this:

South Jersey voted to secede from NJ

[whomario]

So now both lead figures of the movement stepped down. In a perfect world, both would be imprisoned and stripped of their posessions ...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The old run from the world they're afraid might come to pass.

The young interact with the world as they think it should be.

Go ahead and call the young "naive and idealistic."

Because the other side of that coin is that the old are are full of fear and ignorance.

Interesting. Would you say you are more fearful than you were 5 years ago? More ignorant? Less naive? Less idealistic?

How about more or less wise? More or less knowledgable?

An 18-year old simply does not enough experience in the world to claim their elders are wrong. All 60-year olds were once 18-year olds, afterall, but the reverse can't ever be true. So in essence, an 18-year old only knows half the story. And many are trying to convert from child to adult. Rebellion of the current world (one heavily dependent on others) is very natural. It's not until you are independent do older (more independent) people make much sense. And by that point, it might be a little silly to still hang on to your ideals that you had as a child. Depending on how those ideals came about, obviously.

I know as a 44-year old, I'm basically "in-charge" of everything that has come to pass. In 15 years, at 59 (ugh), I'll know my time has passed a bit and it's time to relinquish control to the next generation. It's not to be feared, it's not ignorance, it's a desire to ensure that my children and our generations children have continued success. Although, admittedly, since I'm not their yet, I'm only speculating. Maybe I will be filled with fear and ignorance in 15 years. But I don't think that's a fair or accurate assessment (the vilification of our elders) to be levied towards that demographic by our younger demographic.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dutch

In 15 years, at 59 (ugh), I'll know my time has passed a bit and it's time to relinquish control to the next generation.

What? We'll just be finally getting control from the boomers at this point!

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

I remember this:

South Jersey voted to secede from NJ

A lot of secession movement (though not as strong as Texas).

5 U.S. Independence Movements Inspired by Brexit - POLITICO Magazine

[cuervo72]

I could see Hawaii having a legit beef.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

A lot of secession movement (though not as strong as Texas).

5 U.S. Independence Movements Inspired by Brexit - POLITICO Magazine

So, this data is a couple of years old, but of those, California is the only one that isn't a net receiver of federal tax dollars.

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers? - The Atlantic

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I know as a 44-year old, I'm basically "in-charge" of everything that has come to pass. In 15 years, at 59 (ugh), I'll know my time has passed a bit and it's time to relinquish control to the next generation. It's not to be feared, it's not ignorance, it's a desire to ensure that my children and our generations children have continued success. Although, admittedly, since I'm not their yet, I'm only speculating. Maybe I will be filled with fear and ignorance in 15 years. But I don't think that's a fair or accurate assessment (the vilification of our elders) to be levied towards that demographic by our younger demographic.

It's absolutely fair. Adults fear and vilify things that today's youth have grown up with and are comfortable with. Ask your average 16 year old if she has a problem with her best friend having a girlfriend, and with those two marrying someday. She'll shrug.

Ask your average 65 year old, and you'll probably hear about the moral destruction of America.

Ask your average 22 year old if she fears transgender folk using the same restroom as her. Ask her if she's afraid her Muslim friends are going to impose a Sharia reign of terror.

Ask your average 65 year old the same question, and on top of the moral destruction of America, you'll hear how this country was FOUNDED on the BIBLE and how...well, the rhetoric coming from many conservative-sympathetic posters hereabouts can fill in the rest.

Ask your average Briton between the ages of 18-25 whether free movement within the Continent with all the ramifications that entails for the job market was a threat to national sovereignty, or a benefit for the workers.

Ask the 65 year olds who voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU because immigration (even though leaving the EU won't actually change a damn thing if the UK wants to retain access to the EU's "single market").

On virtually every topic of significance to older voters, you will find a more fearful response from the elderly and a more receptive response from the young.

That isn't universal; there are certainly liberal elders who will sympathize with the hopes and dreams of the youth (as evidenced by the fact that the 65+ crowd didn't vote unanimously for "Brexit") and some kids who sympathize with the nationalistic fears of their conservative elders.

But on balance, yes, old people are absolutely more fearful and more ignorant than the generations after them. Part of that is education - youth today have more educational opportunities than kids who grew up during the Great Depression did - and part of that is that kids are just more resilient in general, where older people hit a certain age and the world stops making sense to them.

Ever tried to teach your mother how to operate a VCR, a DVD player, or anything more complex than email and Facebook? Yes, some elders take to it quite readily. But far more common are the ones who just go nope not gonna i don't wanna deal with this

And that, on some level, is fear. Fear of technology, of fucking up, of...whatever.

But yes, the impulses that rule the lives of older conservatives *absolutely* have their imprimatur in fear - because the world around them is changing and they don't know how to deal with it. Ever has it been, ever shall it be.