Epstein list incoming today

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

Seeing as how so many people from both sides "could" be involved, I don't want to come off as if I'm choosing sides here. I'm all...

Seeing as how so many people from both sides "could" be involved, I don't want to come off as if I'm choosing sides here. I'm all for crucifying any guilty party.

However, I can't imagine Epstien would have some sort of "list" of his fellow criminals somewhere that the DOJ could get their hands on. When I was slinging shit loads of weed in the 80's, I damn sure didn't keep any lists that would have made any sense to anyone, for sure not enough to implicate anyone.

Could be that aside from flight manifests, photos of JE with people, that the truth is, there's no incriminating evidence.

I don't like it either, but it might be what it is.

truck wrote:

My suspicion is that anyone and everyone had their name come up somewhere in the investigation, but not in ways that would ever hold up as...

My suspicion is that anyone and everyone had their name come up somewhere in the investigation, but not in ways that would ever hold up as evidence of anything in particular, so both sides are happy to just keep the names quiet and hope it all goes away. 

People seem to forget that both sides have the same disdain for all of us and only do the polarization thing because it's good for business. In the end they still laugh together behind closed doors and are going to look out for each other when shit really hits the fan. Either side giving some names for short term win would result in mutually assured destruction and they all know it. In hindsight it was silly to ever believe this was going to come to a different conclusion. 

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

Well, if you're truly an innocent bystander, you wouldn't want your name mixed in,would you?I thought from the beginning that Epstien had his shit together enough...

Well, if you're truly an innocent bystander, you wouldn't want your name mixed in,would you?

I thought from the beginning that Epstien had his shit together enough to get this by.

I wanted to see him burn, but now we have been told that he killed himself. By both parties.  Maybe, just maybe, that's what happened. 

truck wrote:

My suspicion is that anyone and everyone had their name come up somewhere in the investigation, but not in ways that would ever hold up as...

My suspicion is that anyone and everyone had their name come up somewhere in the investigation, but not in ways that would ever hold up as evidence of anything in particular, so both sides are happy to just keep the names quiet and hope it all goes away. 

People seem to forget that both sides have the same disdain for all of us and only do the polarization thing because it's good for business. In the end they still laugh together behind closed doors and are going to look out for each other when shit really hits the fan. Either side giving some names for short term win would result in mutually assured destruction and they all know it. In hindsight it was silly to ever believe this was going to come to a different conclusion. 

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

Well, if you're truly an innocent bystander, you wouldn't want your name mixed in,would you?I thought from the beginning that Epstien had his shit together enough...

Well, if you're truly an innocent bystander, you wouldn't want your name mixed in,would you?

I thought from the beginning that Epstien had his shit together enough to get this by.

I wanted to see him burn, but now we have been told that he killed himself. By both parties.  Maybe, just maybe, that's what happened. 

Cool_Hand_Luke wrote:

Seems many in here find it hard to fathom.

LungButter wrote:

It’s pretty wild how many folks are so loyal to Daddy Donald that they are just dismissing this. Dude fucked some kids for sure.

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

Well, if you're truly an innocent bystander, you wouldn't want your name mixed in,would you?I thought from the beginning that Epstien had his shit together enough...

Well, if you're truly an innocent bystander, you wouldn't want your name mixed in,would you?

I thought from the beginning that Epstien had his shit together enough to get this by.

I wanted to see him burn, but now we have been told that he killed himself. By both parties.  Maybe, just maybe, that's what happened. 

Cool_Hand_Luke wrote:

Seems many in here find it hard to fathom.

soggy wrote:

I’m sure you did as well until daddy said otherwise

Cool_Hand_Luke wrote:

Seems many in here find it hard to fathom.

soggy wrote:

I’m sure you did as well until daddy said otherwise

Cool_Hand_Luke wrote:

Hard to take anything serious from a poster named soggy.....

soggy wrote:

I’m sure you did as well until daddy said otherwise

Cool_Hand_Luke wrote:

Hard to take anything serious from a poster named soggy.....

soggy wrote:

Ah yes the old deflection play, just as good as an acknowledgement of truth. 

LungButter wrote:

Both sides are a cult, that's the problem and it's eventually going to lead to the demise of America.

 

soggy wrote:

The left is a rudder less ship right now. The right view trump as a savior. It’s why he won. The dems ostracized there best chance when...

The left is a rudder less ship right now. The right view trump as a savior. It’s why he won. 

The dems ostracized there best chance when they did Bernie dirty in 2016.  

2028 will be very interesting. Trump will certainly try to run again. If he fails at that the republicans have some huge shoes to fill. Hard to predict who the dems will try to run. They don’t seem to have anyone that can captivate right now. It’s actually a great time to try to introduce a 3rd party because of to see circumstances. But the fact that’s it’s Elon doing it will get no one excited. 

byke wrote:

Bernie's comfort with including the word "socialist" in his political ideologies is not the same as the rest of the county's. He was never going to...

Bernie's comfort with including the word "socialist" in his political ideologies is not the same as the rest of the county's. He was never going to win a controlling portion of swing voters. 

But anyway, this Epstein stuff is turning hilarious. The more time they spend with the investigation materials, the less they want to talk about it...

Cool_Hand_Luke wrote:

Hard to take anything serious from a poster named soggy.....

soggy wrote:

Ah yes the old deflection play, just as good as an acknowledgement of truth. 

Cool_Hand_Luke wrote:

Defecting on what? I have posted my view on this many times. Some of you Mensa members are dense.

truck wrote:

My suspicion is that anyone and everyone had their name come up somewhere in the investigation, but not in ways that would ever hold up as...

My suspicion is that anyone and everyone had their name come up somewhere in the investigation, but not in ways that would ever hold up as evidence of anything in particular, so both sides are happy to just keep the names quiet and hope it all goes away. 

People seem to forget that both sides have the same disdain for all of us and only do the polarization thing because it's good for business. In the end they still laugh together behind closed doors and are going to look out for each other when shit really hits the fan. Either side giving some names for short term win would result in mutually assured destruction and they all know it. In hindsight it was silly to ever believe this was going to come to a different conclusion. 

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

Well, if you're truly an innocent bystander, you wouldn't want your name mixed in,would you?I thought from the beginning that Epstien had his shit together enough...

Well, if you're truly an innocent bystander, you wouldn't want your name mixed in,would you?

I thought from the beginning that Epstien had his shit together enough to get this by.

I wanted to see him burn, but now we have been told that he killed himself. By both parties.  Maybe, just maybe, that's what happened. 

Cool_Hand_Luke wrote:

Seems many in here find it hard to fathom.

soggy wrote:

Ah yes the old deflection play, just as good as an acknowledgement of truth. 

Cool_Hand_Luke wrote:

Defecting on what? I have posted my view on this many times. Some of you Mensa members are dense.

soggy wrote:

Do you think JE killed himself?

MPJC wrote:

It’s the simplest and most probable explanation of his death. The question is: Why was he allowed to do it? He had been on suicide watch...

It’s the simplest and most probable explanation of his death. The question is: Why was he allowed to do it? He had been on suicide watch with 24 hour supervision. But he was taken off of it and left alone with the means to kill himself. If you want want someone dead you don’t have to kill them if they’ll do it themselves. Someone made the decision to let him do exactly that. If someone wanted him dead he made it very for them to the point where the distinction between killing and letting die becomes a distinction without a difference. 

Edit: I know you weren’t asking me - I just thought I’d throw in my 2 cents anyways if that’s ok.

Cool_Hand_Luke wrote:

Defecting on what? I have posted my view on this many times. Some of you Mensa members are dense.

soggy wrote:

Do you think JE killed himself?

MPJC wrote:

It’s the simplest and most probable explanation of his death. The question is: Why was he allowed to do it? He had been on suicide watch...

It’s the simplest and most probable explanation of his death. The question is: Why was he allowed to do it? He had been on suicide watch with 24 hour supervision. But he was taken off of it and left alone with the means to kill himself. If you want want someone dead you don’t have to kill them if they’ll do it themselves. Someone made the decision to let him do exactly that. If someone wanted him dead he made it very for them to the point where the distinction between killing and letting die becomes a distinction without a difference. 

Edit: I know you weren’t asking me - I just thought I’d throw in my 2 cents anyways if that’s ok.

soggy wrote:

Do you think JE killed himself?

MPJC wrote:

It’s the simplest and most probable explanation of his death. The question is: Why was he allowed to do it? He had been on suicide watch...

It’s the simplest and most probable explanation of his death. The question is: Why was he allowed to do it? He had been on suicide watch with 24 hour supervision. But he was taken off of it and left alone with the means to kill himself. If you want want someone dead you don’t have to kill them if they’ll do it themselves. Someone made the decision to let him do exactly that. If someone wanted him dead he made it very for them to the point where the distinction between killing and letting die becomes a distinction without a difference. 

Edit: I know you weren’t asking me - I just thought I’d throw in my 2 cents anyways if that’s ok.

soggy wrote:

It’s a free country!  To your point in those circumstances there’s really no difference.

soggy wrote:

The left is a rudder less ship right now. The right view trump as a savior. It’s why he won. The dems ostracized there best chance when...

The left is a rudder less ship right now. The right view trump as a savior. It’s why he won. 

The dems ostracized there best chance when they did Bernie dirty in 2016.  

2028 will be very interesting. Trump will certainly try to run again. If he fails at that the republicans have some huge shoes to fill. Hard to predict who the dems will try to run. They don’t seem to have anyone that can captivate right now. It’s actually a great time to try to introduce a 3rd party because of to see circumstances. But the fact that’s it’s Elon doing it will get no one excited. 

byke wrote:

Bernie's comfort with including the word "socialist" in his political ideologies is not the same as the rest of the county's. He was never going to...

Bernie's comfort with including the word "socialist" in his political ideologies is not the same as the rest of the county's. He was never going to win a controlling portion of swing voters. 

But anyway, this Epstein stuff is turning hilarious. The more time they spend with the investigation materials, the less they want to talk about it...

MPJC wrote:

You can’t be too sure about who’s unelectable. The Democrats were delighted when Trump won the nomination in 2016 because they were sure he was unelectable...

You can’t be too sure about who’s unelectable. The Democrats were delighted when Trump won the nomination in 2016 because they were sure he was unelectable. They were also sure they couldn’t nominate Sanders because he was unelectable. They might have been wrong on both counts. We can only speculate now, but Hilary was the most unlikable, downright awful candidate in recent memory and she still almost won (she won the popular vote). Is being a called a socialist worse than being Hilary Clinton? Maybe, but that’s far from obvious. 

Interestingly, Trump thought the Democratic Party treated Sanders very unfairly and he seemed to express some level of respect for Sanders - which is, of course, easier to do when he’s not your opponent. 

byke wrote:

Bernie's comfort with including the word "socialist" in his political ideologies is not the same as the rest of the county's. He was never going to...

Bernie's comfort with including the word "socialist" in his political ideologies is not the same as the rest of the county's. He was never going to win a controlling portion of swing voters. 

But anyway, this Epstein stuff is turning hilarious. The more time they spend with the investigation materials, the less they want to talk about it...

MPJC wrote:

You can’t be too sure about who’s unelectable. The Democrats were delighted when Trump won the nomination in 2016 because they were sure he was unelectable...

You can’t be too sure about who’s unelectable. The Democrats were delighted when Trump won the nomination in 2016 because they were sure he was unelectable. They were also sure they couldn’t nominate Sanders because he was unelectable. They might have been wrong on both counts. We can only speculate now, but Hilary was the most unlikable, downright awful candidate in recent memory and she still almost won (she won the popular vote). Is being a called a socialist worse than being Hilary Clinton? Maybe, but that’s far from obvious. 

Interestingly, Trump thought the Democratic Party treated Sanders very unfairly and he seemed to express some level of respect for Sanders - which is, of course, easier to do when he’s not your opponent. 

byke wrote:

Dems are generally naive and what they had been completely unable to recognize, was how deep the resentment was for them by Republicans and how badly...

Dems are generally naive and what they had been completely unable to recognize, was how deep the resentment was for them by Republicans and how badly they wanted express it. That frustration ran deep. Even now, I don't think they get it. And that's where the fervency of Trump support comes from, that identity connection. Dems don't have that fervency with anyone, which I'd argue is a good thing, even though it doesn't win elections. Soggy mentioned that Dems are rudderless, but is Trump a rudder? Because if a Dem version of Trump idolatry is a Dem rudder, then....no thanks. The world doesn't need two Maga's. Better to just lose elections.

MPJC wrote:

You can’t be too sure about who’s unelectable. The Democrats were delighted when Trump won the nomination in 2016 because they were sure he was unelectable...

You can’t be too sure about who’s unelectable. The Democrats were delighted when Trump won the nomination in 2016 because they were sure he was unelectable. They were also sure they couldn’t nominate Sanders because he was unelectable. They might have been wrong on both counts. We can only speculate now, but Hilary was the most unlikable, downright awful candidate in recent memory and she still almost won (she won the popular vote). Is being a called a socialist worse than being Hilary Clinton? Maybe, but that’s far from obvious. 

Interestingly, Trump thought the Democratic Party treated Sanders very unfairly and he seemed to express some level of respect for Sanders - which is, of course, easier to do when he’s not your opponent. 

byke wrote:

Dems are generally naive and what they had been completely unable to recognize, was how deep the resentment was for them by Republicans and how badly...

Dems are generally naive and what they had been completely unable to recognize, was how deep the resentment was for them by Republicans and how badly they wanted express it. That frustration ran deep. Even now, I don't think they get it. And that's where the fervency of Trump support comes from, that identity connection. Dems don't have that fervency with anyone, which I'd argue is a good thing, even though it doesn't win elections. Soggy mentioned that Dems are rudderless, but is Trump a rudder? Because if a Dem version of Trump idolatry is a Dem rudder, then....no thanks. The world doesn't need two Maga's. Better to just lose elections.

MPJC wrote:

They don't need a rudder to be politically successful. They need a celebrity. There are, of course, some people who think deeply about the issues. But...

They don't need a rudder to be politically successful. They need a celebrity. There are, of course, some people who think deeply about the issues. But for the most part, when it comes to electoral success I suspect celebrity trumps substance. (Pun intended!)

soggy wrote:

The left is a rudder less ship right now. The right view trump as a savior. It’s why he won. The dems ostracized there best chance when...

The left is a rudder less ship right now. The right view trump as a savior. It’s why he won. 

The dems ostracized there best chance when they did Bernie dirty in 2016.  

2028 will be very interesting. Trump will certainly try to run again. If he fails at that the republicans have some huge shoes to fill. Hard to predict who the dems will try to run. They don’t seem to have anyone that can captivate right now. It’s actually a great time to try to introduce a 3rd party because of to see circumstances. But the fact that’s it’s Elon doing it will get no one excited. 

byke wrote:

Dems are generally naive and what they had been completely unable to recognize, was how deep the resentment was for them by Republicans and how badly...

Dems are generally naive and what they had been completely unable to recognize, was how deep the resentment was for them by Republicans and how badly they wanted express it. That frustration ran deep. Even now, I don't think they get it. And that's where the fervency of Trump support comes from, that identity connection. Dems don't have that fervency with anyone, which I'd argue is a good thing, even though it doesn't win elections. Soggy mentioned that Dems are rudderless, but is Trump a rudder? Because if a Dem version of Trump idolatry is a Dem rudder, then....no thanks. The world doesn't need two Maga's. Better to just lose elections.

MPJC wrote:

They don't need a rudder to be politically successful. They need a celebrity. There are, of course, some people who think deeply about the issues. But...

They don't need a rudder to be politically successful. They need a celebrity. There are, of course, some people who think deeply about the issues. But for the most part, when it comes to electoral success I suspect celebrity trumps substance. (Pun intended!)

byke wrote:

I definitely do not question a strong degree of truth to that, it's just not what I want. I don't want another celebrity. I want politics...

I definitely do not question a strong degree of truth to that, it's just not what I want. I don't want another celebrity. I want politics to be boring again! Not everything needs to have a WWF version of it. 

soggy wrote:

The left is a rudder less ship right now. The right view trump as a savior. It’s why he won. The dems ostracized there best chance when...

The left is a rudder less ship right now. The right view trump as a savior. It’s why he won. 

The dems ostracized there best chance when they did Bernie dirty in 2016.  

2028 will be very interesting. Trump will certainly try to run again. If he fails at that the republicans have some huge shoes to fill. Hard to predict who the dems will try to run. They don’t seem to have anyone that can captivate right now. It’s actually a great time to try to introduce a 3rd party because of to see circumstances. But the fact that’s it’s Elon doing it will get no one excited. 

rc51 wrote:

"2028 will be very interesting. Trump will certainly try to run again"

Twenty-Second Amendment 🤷‍♂️

soggy wrote:

The left is a rudder less ship right now. The right view trump as a savior. It’s why he won. The dems ostracized there best chance when...

The left is a rudder less ship right now. The right view trump as a savior. It’s why he won. 

The dems ostracized there best chance when they did Bernie dirty in 2016.  

2028 will be very interesting. Trump will certainly try to run again. If he fails at that the republicans have some huge shoes to fill. Hard to predict who the dems will try to run. They don’t seem to have anyone that can captivate right now. It’s actually a great time to try to introduce a 3rd party because of to see circumstances. But the fact that’s it’s Elon doing it will get no one excited. 

rc51 wrote:

"2028 will be very interesting. Trump will certainly try to run again"

Twenty-Second Amendment 🤷‍♂️

soggy wrote:

I know. I’m just reading the tea leaves. I know it’s not constitutional but we are already seeing violations of that it seems. I’m not saying...

I know. I’m just reading the tea leaves. I know it’s not constitutional but we are already seeing violations of that it seems. I’m not saying he’ll be successful in getting the nomination again but he is going to try. 

rc51 wrote:

"2028 will be very interesting. Trump will certainly try to run again"

Twenty-Second Amendment 🤷‍♂️

soggy wrote:

I know. I’m just reading the tea leaves. I know it’s not constitutional but we are already seeing violations of that it seems. I’m not saying...

I know. I’m just reading the tea leaves. I know it’s not constitutional but we are already seeing violations of that it seems. I’m not saying he’ll be successful in getting the nomination again but he is going to try. 

Kenny Banyan wrote:

You don’t really believe that do you? 😂

byke wrote:

Bernie's comfort with including the word "socialist" in his political ideologies is not the same as the rest of the county's. He was never going to...

Bernie's comfort with including the word "socialist" in his political ideologies is not the same as the rest of the county's. He was never going to win a controlling portion of swing voters. 

But anyway, this Epstein stuff is turning hilarious. The more time they spend with the investigation materials, the less they want to talk about it...

MPJC wrote:

You can’t be too sure about who’s unelectable. The Democrats were delighted when Trump won the nomination in 2016 because they were sure he was unelectable...

You can’t be too sure about who’s unelectable. The Democrats were delighted when Trump won the nomination in 2016 because they were sure he was unelectable. They were also sure they couldn’t nominate Sanders because he was unelectable. They might have been wrong on both counts. We can only speculate now, but Hilary was the most unlikable, downright awful candidate in recent memory and she still almost won (she won the popular vote). Is being a called a socialist worse than being Hilary Clinton? Maybe, but that’s far from obvious. 

Interestingly, Trump thought the Democratic Party treated Sanders very unfairly and he seemed to express some level of respect for Sanders - which is, of course, easier to do when he’s not your opponent. 

byke wrote:

Dems are generally naive and what they had been completely unable to recognize, was how deep the resentment was for them by Republicans and how badly...

Dems are generally naive and what they had been completely unable to recognize, was how deep the resentment was for them by Republicans and how badly they wanted express it. That frustration ran deep. Even now, I don't think they get it. And that's where the fervency of Trump support comes from, that identity connection. Dems don't have that fervency with anyone, which I'd argue is a good thing, even though it doesn't win elections. Soggy mentioned that Dems are rudderless, but is Trump a rudder? Because if a Dem version of Trump idolatry is a Dem rudder, then....no thanks. The world doesn't need two Maga's. Better to just lose elections.

MPJC wrote:

You can’t be too sure about who’s unelectable. The Democrats were delighted when Trump won the nomination in 2016 because they were sure he was unelectable...

You can’t be too sure about who’s unelectable. The Democrats were delighted when Trump won the nomination in 2016 because they were sure he was unelectable. They were also sure they couldn’t nominate Sanders because he was unelectable. They might have been wrong on both counts. We can only speculate now, but Hilary was the most unlikable, downright awful candidate in recent memory and she still almost won (she won the popular vote). Is being a called a socialist worse than being Hilary Clinton? Maybe, but that’s far from obvious. 

Interestingly, Trump thought the Democratic Party treated Sanders very unfairly and he seemed to express some level of respect for Sanders - which is, of course, easier to do when he’s not your opponent. 

byke wrote:

Dems are generally naive and what they had been completely unable to recognize, was how deep the resentment was for them by Republicans and how badly...

Dems are generally naive and what they had been completely unable to recognize, was how deep the resentment was for them by Republicans and how badly they wanted express it. That frustration ran deep. Even now, I don't think they get it. And that's where the fervency of Trump support comes from, that identity connection. Dems don't have that fervency with anyone, which I'd argue is a good thing, even though it doesn't win elections. Soggy mentioned that Dems are rudderless, but is Trump a rudder? Because if a Dem version of Trump idolatry is a Dem rudder, then....no thanks. The world doesn't need two Maga's. Better to just lose elections.

vet323 wrote:

If you are a Democrat (I assume you are), you are way worse than naive to think this way. The DNC has spent three presidential cycles...

If you are a Democrat (I assume you are), you are way worse than naive to think this way. The DNC has spent three presidential cycles pushing the three worst candidates in modern history (in 2020, anyone would have been able to beat Trump, Biden barely did, even with all the advantages afforded him).

Trump isn't some amazing leader, he's just not as lame or off-putting as the candidates offered by the DNC have been.

byke wrote:

Dems are generally naive and what they had been completely unable to recognize, was how deep the resentment was for them by Republicans and how badly...

Dems are generally naive and what they had been completely unable to recognize, was how deep the resentment was for them by Republicans and how badly they wanted express it. That frustration ran deep. Even now, I don't think they get it. And that's where the fervency of Trump support comes from, that identity connection. Dems don't have that fervency with anyone, which I'd argue is a good thing, even though it doesn't win elections. Soggy mentioned that Dems are rudderless, but is Trump a rudder? Because if a Dem version of Trump idolatry is a Dem rudder, then....no thanks. The world doesn't need two Maga's. Better to just lose elections.

MPJC wrote:

They don't need a rudder to be politically successful. They need a celebrity. There are, of course, some people who think deeply about the issues. But...

They don't need a rudder to be politically successful. They need a celebrity. There are, of course, some people who think deeply about the issues. But for the most part, when it comes to electoral success I suspect celebrity trumps substance. (Pun intended!)

byke wrote:

I definitely do not question a strong degree of truth to that, it's just not what I want. I don't want another celebrity. I want politics...

I definitely do not question a strong degree of truth to that, it's just not what I want. I don't want another celebrity. I want politics to be boring again! Not everything needs to have a WWF version of it. 

MPJC wrote:

They don't need a rudder to be politically successful. They need a celebrity. There are, of course, some people who think deeply about the issues. But...

They don't need a rudder to be politically successful. They need a celebrity. There are, of course, some people who think deeply about the issues. But for the most part, when it comes to electoral success I suspect celebrity trumps substance. (Pun intended!)

byke wrote:

I definitely do not question a strong degree of truth to that, it's just not what I want. I don't want another celebrity. I want politics...

I definitely do not question a strong degree of truth to that, it's just not what I want. I don't want another celebrity. I want politics to be boring again! Not everything needs to have a WWF version of it. 

truck wrote:

When was that? Before cable TV? Reagan was a movie star. Clinton went on TV and played his saxophone. Bush was the guy you'd rather have...

When was that? Before cable TV? Reagan was a movie star. Clinton went on TV and played his saxophone. Bush was the guy you'd rather have a beer with. Obama was entirely unqualified and got elected with speeches that gave people warm and fuzzy feelings at big rallies. Not sure a presidential election in my lifetime has been about substance. 

I do believe you're right about trump's success being driven mostly by dem hate. If they just laughed him off and paid no attention to him the first time he got out of office I don't believe he would have won a second time. 

byke wrote:

I definitely do not question a strong degree of truth to that, it's just not what I want. I don't want another celebrity. I want politics...

I definitely do not question a strong degree of truth to that, it's just not what I want. I don't want another celebrity. I want politics to be boring again! Not everything needs to have a WWF version of it. 

byke wrote:

I definitely do not question a strong degree of truth to that, it's just not what I want. I don't want another celebrity. I want politics...

I definitely do not question a strong degree of truth to that, it's just not what I want. I don't want another celebrity. I want politics to be boring again! Not everything needs to have a WWF version of it. 

Kenny Banyan wrote:

This is politics son, that’s how it works!