Exilian
Art, Writing, and Learning: The Clerisy Quarter => Discussion and Debate - The Philosopher's Plaza => Topic started by: Jubal on January 25, 2018, 11:55:42 AM
-
Well, the Trump train rattles on towards the midterms. So what's coming up in 2018, and what's the current situation?
- Trump is really really unpopular, his popularity is generally sitting at under 40%, and he's the lowest president on record for this point in his term.
- The "midterm" elections are coming up, electing 1/3 of the Senate seats and all of the House of Representatives. The Republicans control both houses at the moment: the Democrats are hoping to take advantage of Trump's unpopularity to retake one or both of these.
- The Dems have got a big voting lead. 538 estimates a 7.3% lead, RCP a 7.9% lead, according to aggregations of recent polls.
- The election maps are really skewed to Republicans. The Democrats, despite a big lead in ballot polls, need like a 6-7 point lead to have a decent chance of taking back the House of Representatives. There've been a significant bunch of Republican retiring, and the Democrats are reportedly doing very well at recruiting candidates, but even with their current 7% or so lead there's really not much margin for error at all.
- The senate is even harder for Democrats. The 1/3 of the Senate seats that are up, meanwhile, are those last elected in 2012, a good Democrat year, so Democrats have some really difficult races where they've got to hold onto Senate seats in states that Trump won. Indiana, Missouri, West Virginia, North Dakota could all be under serious threat, and Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida also have some potential for Republican gains. To win the Senate back, they've got to hold this bunch of seats in Trump territory and win two more to get the chamber to 51-49 in their favour (50-50 it stays with the Republicans, as the Vice-president gets to cast tie breaker votes). Nevada is the Dems' best bet for a gain; Arizona is their other best chance, though it's rarely elected Democrats statewide. The outlier shots for Dem pickups are Texas, which is a very long shot though they have a decent candidate and Ted Cruz isn't that popular, and Tennessee, which is heavily Republican but where popular former Democrat governor Phil Bredesden is running for the Democrats.
- There are fights on foreign policy and immigration coming up. Trump's new protectionist tariffs are designed to protect US manufacturing but might lead to higher prices for consumers and a weaker economy overall, and may drive a wedge through the parties as both Dems and Republicans are split between protectionist and free trade policies. There's also immigration, on which the Dems and some Republicans want a deal to protect DACA recipients (people who were brought to the US as babies, mostly only speak English/are completely part of US society, but are at risk of deportation because they were technically born abroad). Trump has vacillated on the issue, though, and the House of Representatives includes a lot of Republican anti-immigration hardliners who will work to block any deal.
- The economy's doing pretty well. It's growing fairly healthily, which Trump and the Republicans will be hoping will form a lifeline for them in the coming months. By and large Trump doesn't seem to be getting the credit for this - which makes logical sense, because basically none of his economic measures have really kicked in yet, but actually quite unusual since presidents usually get credit/blame for what happens in their term even if their predecessor's policies are responsible. The GOP's big hope is that voters will start to credit them for a continually growing economy, shaving Dems' lead down enough for them to hold both houses in November.
I think that's the basics. Buckle up, hope for no nuclear war with China, and let's see what happens next...
-
I would like to know if you can improve my knowledge or solve my doubts?
-
Lol US politics wouldn't be the best place to start with that you silly bot boi.
-
Polls seem to be tightening down towards about a 4% Dem lead, which probably wouldn't be enough to retake the house - but actually there's a split between a few pollsters who think the lead is 1-3 percent, and a few who think it's 8-11 percent. Which cluster is right, who knows. Interestingly, the Dem lead dropping isn't mostly because the Republican vote has improved - it's a little better, but mainly the Dem vote is dropping off into undecideds. That said, most people probably still aren't very engaged with the whole process, so it'll be hard to really start getting the shape of turnout/swing voters in polls until maybe August/Sept.
-
Whoa I used to dislike Kanye but he legit seems woke.
-
I hear he's a fan of Thomas Sowell. Pretty damn woke.
-
It's been a while since I listened to a presidential talk, or the news in general. Totally agree with free and fair trade, and NK, and the failures of our past leaders. Not so sure about letting Russia back in. They're just too nefarious.
The CNN bit was hilarious, and so like them to try and imply something like an alliance shift in the middle of a peace negotiation.
But yeah, well done, I like his business attitude, he's not pandering to anyone, and he feels to genuinely want to help make us and the world a more free and prosperous place. I just don't get the lingering and unseething hate.
-
"Free and fair trade" would be great if that was what Trump was doing. What he's actually doing is starting a trade war, chucking a load of tariffs on imports and provoking a load of retaliatory tariffs on US exports. Which makes trade less free, and less fair, and everyone poorer. His words just don't match what he's actually doing here. I'm not sure I can think of anything he's particularly done that's helped make the world more free and prosperous; this tariff war is definitely hitting the prosperity bit, and his administration's increasingly harsh border and blanket travel ban measures make it less free as well. Like, if you want to be world renowned for freedom, not separating detained children from their families would be a nice start I think.
And yeah - Russia was kicked out of the group after invading and occupying a large chunk of a neighbouring country (Crimea, taken from Ukraine), and they still haven't left yet...
-
Of course you would see it that way you're on the side who's benefiting from us lol. He said there would be retaliation. We're the ones being taken advantage of. We give everyone else a taste of their own medicine and then maybe they will see that we've been in an unfair deal for years and that it's time to make a new deal for the benefit everyone.
-
We're the ones being taken advantage of.
OK, please point to the details of current trading policy between the US and the EU, or the US and Canada, or the US and Mexico, that specifically unfairly disbenefit the USA. Because as far as I'm aware there aren't any and this is complete bollocks that Trump is pushing to make up for the fact that he doesn't actually have a decent economic plan and blaming the rest of the world is easier than actually doing anything to benefit US workers. You don't even have a deep trade deal with the EU, all that's there is a a reduction in goods tariffs which serves to level the playing field, it's not our fault if EU manufacturers are making stuff that US folk want to buy. But if you want to try and prove me wrong, then be my guest, the floor is yours and I'm happy to listen and be proven wrong if the evidence is there.
-
OK, please point to the details of current trading policy between the US and the EU, or the US and Canada, or the US and Mexico, that specifically unfairly benefit the USA.
I can't. Nothing unfairly benefits the USA. Everyone else benefits from us.
Get your hand out of our piggybank :P
Funny that you would only mention those countries anyway, which are small potatoes tbh. The bigger problems are with China etc.
-
Sorry, disbenefit, as you know I meant. Edited to clarify.
But the arguments he's having at this G7 aren't primarily with China, and it's not China that he just slapped a load of new tariffs on... like, none of the other G7 countries would be upset if Trump wanted to negotiate a response to e.g. Chinese steel dumping which IS an unfair trade practice and dealing with it isn't anti free trade. Slapping tariffs on produce from NAFTA and EU countries, on the other hand, is directly making trade less free, and he's just done it in a big way.
-
Start small, get everyone on the same page, then go after the big dudes as a team.
-
But we were on the same page. The only person on a different page is Trump, and if he wants to get everyone onto his page he's going to have to explain exactly what was unfair about how trade in the NAFTA/EU area worked beforehand that necessitates aggressive trade actions that are going to make everyone poorer. Which he hasn't, and as far as I can tell that's because it wasn't.
-
Right, well that's his job not mine. Can't expect me to explain the nuances. ;)
-
Sadly, I don't think I expect Trump to explain them either... I'm just not sure you should be quite so trusting that he's right if you don't know what the basis for him saying this stuff is, I guess.
-
I never said I was. :P
-
Your responses made me think of the nhs thing, and then I found this one xD
(https://i.imgur.com/ZyT75aE.png)
-
Hue hue.
Hope he backs down from the new tariffs but I doubt he will. I'm not sure exactly why he's trying to impose them, I'd guess it's just an attempt to appeal to voters who think its going to help US businesses. Not sure how many voters would think that though.
-
I think he's trying to encourage companies to make more things here and ultimately stay here.
-
We do actually have some numbers regarding how many voters think that: according to a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll, about 35% of US voters think the tariffs will help the economy, about 45% think they'll hurt it, the rest don't have an opinion. Interestingly, the same poll showed 38% of voters supporting the tariffs and 40% opposing them, implying there's some people who think it'll be bad for the economy but that Trump should do it anyway. Those numbers, especially the 35, are a step lower than Trump's approval (about 41%) or the GOP's generic ballot (about 39%), so on balance it seems like it'll probably lose Trump more votes than it gains, but it might be especially popular in rust-belt states and among Trump's base, so it may be that they're hoping it will be popular enough among core Trump voters to improve the rate at which they turn out to support the President.
Also of course in the US system, where you lose/gain votes really matters: if the free-trader republicans Trump annoys by this are mostly either living in solid red areas already, or are wealthy city-dwelling Republicans whose areas have already gone solid blue, then Trump can afford to lose them if he picks up suburban and rust belt voters in highly competitive areas, even if he picks up fewer than he loses numerically.
-
I've heard his approval is more like 44-45 the same as Obama at this point in his presidency.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/07/politics/trump-approval-nbc-wsj/index.html
Actually yeah, if CNN is saying that then it has to be - at least - that for them to admit it lol
-
I mean it depends poll by poll, I was using the FiveThirtyEight average (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/). Some pollsters do have him in the mid forties (and one recently was as high as 47), others down in the high thirties, so generally the average has been wobbling around 41-42, with disapproval around 51-52. Of course most news outlets will report whichever poll they prefer, so I tend to use the averaging websites for this stuff. RealClearPolitics (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/) is the other main average/aggregation site and that runs more "raw" mathematical averages than 538, which uses things like past pollsters' ratings/errors to try and correct for the reliability of different polls more. In terms of their analysis pieces, 538 is probably a bit more critical of Trump whereas RCP is more conservative-leaning, but both I think produce perfectly good/useful data stuff.
Obama at this stage was on about 44-46 on both positives and negatives according to RCP (I don't think 538 has data going back that far), so Trump is (according to the averages) doing a bit worse, more because a larger number of people dislike him than because he's got a vastly lower approval rating. That said, last year Trump's average was more like 37-38, so he's certainly improved it since then, whereas Obama's popularity declined significantly from mid 2009 to 2010, was kinda flatlining through early 2010 and then his numbers really slumped around August 2010 when the midterm election campaign began. If Trump could keep improving his rating at the rate he's been going between now and November then he'd overtake Obama's equivalent number in late summer/early Autumn. On the other hand, it may be that when the campaign hits in his numbers will go down again from anti-incumbency sentiment - we'll see in a couple of months!
-
Give it up, bruh. :P
-
Some interesting recent polling points about how things are shaping up:
- The Republicans look like coming third in New Mexico - Gary Johnson is running as the Libertarian candidate and the GOP are down on like 11% as he looks to be taking most of their voters. The Dem there still has a hefty lead over both of them though.
- Poll out today puts the Dem, Beto O'Rourke, only one point behind in Texas - basically it turns out that nobody likes Ted Cruz and the GOP are so lethargic there that the Dems might actually get an opening.
- Still looks unlikely that Dems will win the Senate. Whilst AZ and NV are in play to be the two pickups Dems need, GOP also still have really good pickup chances of their own especially in Florida, Missouri, and North Dakota. Indiana, West Virginia, and Montana look like they might be a bit better for Dems than expected.
- 538 give Dems a bit over a 70% chance of winning the House. That's decent for them but still has a lot of uncertainty - a 1 in 3 chance can come up pretty easily, and the chances of the GOP losing the popular vote but still keeping control of the House are pretty sizeable.
-
Turned the news on for the first time in years today. Trump sitting at his desk surrounded by very basic graphs showing how bad future climate change is predicted to be and just saying “these scientists have a political agenda, I’m not committing money to it”. Think I’ll dip out of US politics until something changes. Not like we’ve got to wait years before the moron is replaced and our own country isn’t wasting time on the train wreck that is brexit.
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45859325 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45859325)
-
Yes, I just ignore most of what Trump does and look at the numbers because I understand those better. :)
Polling updated: basically, since my last post, a buncha stuff happened around a new conservative judge, but he got confirmed anyway as expected.
Dems are still going to lose the Senate - Florida has rallied a bit for them, IN and MT are going to be tight, MO is going to be knife-edge, North Dakota is as good as gone though and they're struggling in Nevada, and their two long-shots (Texas and Tennessee) seem to be fading in the home stretch. Beto O'Rourke still has an arsetonne of money to spend in Texas and has been breaking fundraising records though, so they may still have a better shot there than the polls suggest (I think it's unlikely though). Dems are probably going to win the House back though, the GOP is just too exposed and not popular enough and the usual swing against the President's party seems like it's likely to see the Dems home mostly from chasing a load of GOP congressmen out of blue states (California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania especially look like going a bunch more blue and providing over half the seats the Dems need between the three of them).
So I guess some good news whoever you support, if you support one of the main two parties, and if you don't, as usual in US politics, sucks to be you :P It does still look quite likely that Gary Johnson will get a creditable second place in the New Mex senate race, which I still find funny mainly because everyone's fancy prediction models literally struggle to cope with the concept of a viable third party candidate, they're not built to handle the eventuality. Still really doesn't look likely that he'll win, though. I don't know why the Libertarian Party can't seem to get more good candidates in the west - like, statewide races in places like the Dakotas and Wyoming ought to be decent shots for them in some ways, especially since there's a bunch of those states where the Democrats are almost nonexistent so there's less competition. I keep meaning to write a piece on this and not getting round to it.
-
Polling updated: basically, since my last post, a buncha stuff happened around a new conservative judge, but he got confirmed anyway as expected.
A bit more to it than that. :P
Mainly that it showed us that, outside of Hollywood, due process of law is still a viable protector against baseless accusation.
-
I have a different viewpoint as you might guess, but I'm not going to get into that argument now, I'm way too tired to argue US judicial procedures (which is of course why I skipped over talking about it).
-
A different view from innocent until proven guilty??
-
No, a different view on whether what took place was "due process" and what we can learn from it. I entirely agree with innocent until proven guilty, but I'm very uncomfortable indeed with how fast they rushed the additional investigations and the fact they didn't even interview Judge Kavanaugh during them. As such I don't think we really learned much about the truth from the whole process. I also don't think that if the vote had gone the other way it would necessarily have meant anything about due process given that there were multiple other reasons why one could have perfectly reasonably voted against the nominee. I think all it mainly showed us was that the GOP have a Senate majority and can use it to put judges they like in place, which we kind of knew already.
-
Due process in our system means innocent till proven guilty.
Well yeah, that's how the Senate works. And the Democrats knew they couldn't block him with the vote so they came up with this chicanery hoping that the media armadillostorm would be enough. Fortunately one person's accusation is not enough to do anything legally.
-
Cowman do American schools not usually have To Kill a Mockingbird on their reading lists?
-
My school always had it.
-
So do you reckon the "believe all women" crowd were rooting for the Ewells?
-
(https://res.cloudinary.com/blavity/image/upload/c_crop,g_center,w_auto,q_auto:best,f_auto/l_text:Verdana_10:Blavity,g_south_east,x_0/v1526319185/ntipykqjpyl227boqdr5)
-
So do you reckon the "believe all women" crowd were rooting for the Ewells?
No, and I think this strawmans what people mean when they say "believe women". Nobody (at least nobody I've seen) is arguing that due process shouldn't take place in a court of law setting. What people are arguing is that allegations should be taken seriously, investigated thoroughly, and should be taken with respect to the fact that evidence suggests rape is a drastically under-reported crime, such that the balance of probabilities in an accusation case initially is likely, just in simple statistical terms, to be in favour of the woman telling the truth. That's not at all the same as saying that people should be convicted of crimes on the basis of hearsay, which seems to be what you're suggesting people think.
In addition, like with any other area of life, outside a court of law setting different evidence standards apply, and for good reason - if you're at a job interview and you have three references saying you, I dunno, have a habit of taking a dump on the floor, you probably won't get hired, and your prior employers are not obliged to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did so. Similarly, if I run an organisation I'm not obliged to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone, say, shouted racial slurs at another member before taking a process to kick them out, in general having the balance of evidence one way would be sufficient in that case. Suggesting that people should take a pattern of past allegations of sexual misconduct into account where one exists, even if a criminal conviction couldn't be sought for those, is in line with how we treat basically any other sort of allegations of misconduct. Again, respecting what women who come forward have to say, and taking what they say into account in disciplinary matters, is entirely different from suggesting that due process shouldn't take place in criminal matters.
I think the tendency should be to start off with a position of initially believing and respecting people who make the difficult step of coming forward to talk about their assaults, precisely because so few women feel able to. I think that after that, appropriate levels of investigation should take place in whatever setting allegations are brought forward in, appropriate action taken depending on the setting, and I think that where cases come to court that full due process and proof beyond reasonable doubt should always apply. I don't think that should be an especially controversial position.
-
Brett Kavanaugh = Tom Robinson
-
Hmm, I feel like getting appointed to a 250k per year job for life, which is also one of the most powerful positions in the country, is just a teensy bit different to getting wrongfully convicted and then shot while escaping from prison, but OK, whatever.
Unless of course you meant Tom Robinson the songwriter, bassist and LGBT rights activist famous for the hit "Glad to Be Gay", who I'm sure is a role model that Brett will be trying to emulate...! :)
Anyway, as usual I think I've said my piece on this, don't really have the energy to argue it any further.
General numbers update: house looks tight, senate looks like staying red. My baseline expectation now is that Dems narrowly take the house (gain of about 25 seats), and the GOP pick up maybe 2 senate seats net, the Dems have been fading in the closing stretch a bit in some of the Senate race polling (if pushed I'd guess they'll lose North Dakota, Missouri, and Indiana, but pick up Arizona). Governor races are looking decent for Dems with several really tight midwestern ones, especially Wisconsin, Ohio, and Iowa, and some really likely pickups too (the Illinois Dems managed to screw up the state government finances horribly and thus ended up losing the governorship there last time round, they seem on course to re-take it this time after the GOP guy also failed to solve the problem).
-
See, you keep looking at it from a political perspective. When you look at it objectively it's full-on, undeniable chicanery, as was the Robinson case.
-
I mean, it is a political appointments process we're talking about here, not a court case, and that does make a difference because the outcomes and assessments of evidence aren't in any way the same in the two situations - but I don't think, even in that context, that what I'm saying is particularly partisan or even at all controversial. Literally all I'm saying is "when something bad might have happened, whoever the accuser and whoever the accused, it should be investigated fully so people can take it into account when they make decisions, especially when a powerful lifetime appointment rides on it". It's pretty weird to me that you seem to be arguing against that point.
-
Are you kidding? It was on the news for like a month and everything was scrutinized to the death. In the end the only evidence was one highly inconsistent narrative of events vs multiple character witnesses for the defense.
What I mean by chicanery is the fact that it was only brought up to block him from a political position. It wasn't for justice, or to "protect the people from a vicious sexual predator", it was only because he was on the political opposite.
I just hope someone doesn't pull a dirty trick like that on you some day, but I'll gladly be one of your many defending character references. :)
-
Whew lad.
First of joobs I'm not suggesting that some people think the burden of evidence should be swapped around in rape cases, I am saying so outright as I've heard the view expressed explicitly by multiple nutters. Not that I'd say there's any real chance of that happening, they are obviously not the norm even among the left (I sure hope so anyway).
As to the actual Kavaunagh hearings I've mostly got to agree with the cowman. There's no way these allegations would result in a criminal conviction as they had litterally no corroborating evidence behind them at all, they should not be used to prevent his appointment. His behaviour in the court perhaps should have been (pretty sure he lied about the word boof and he blatantly tried to dodge a question without answering it) but the dems weren't arguing that. They were trying to fling all the armadillo they could at him and made sure this would be a dirty partisan armadillofest. The woman heading the inquisition (soz forgot her name) genuinely claimed that his anger at the accusation, inquisition and death threats etc was a sign that he could be guilty. That's flat out disgusting, as has been much of the leftwing media coverage (no I'm not saying mainstream is left-wing, I mean the obviously left-wing). After all of this what do you think the fall out would be if he was blocked from the court? I'd be willing to bet a whole lot of cash that the next time a democrat got to pick a sc appointment there'd be dozens of allegations flooding in, because when you make this crap an effective political tool it will be used as one.
-
I just don't feel at all convinced that we properly know the state of the evidence given that the supplementary investigation into the claims was only given a week and didn't involve interviewing either Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford, let alone other potential leads and sources of evidence. Media "scrutiny", and indeed public hearings, don't and can't make up for a proper investigation by people who actually know what they're doing. The Republicans, if they'd wanted to actually ensure this was cleared up, could have set up a four to six week investigation window and then run the confirmation in late November or December (at which point it's still the same senators voting, so it doesn't even undermine their majority for the nomination - the new Senate takes office in January). I really feel like the GOP had the chance to clear their nominee, if indeed they believed that no further evidence would come to light, and it troubles me that they just decided to stick two fingers up and fail to do so.
I also don't think it's true that Dems were primarily making their case on the basis of this - most Democrats had already given their statements and reasons for voting against Kavanaugh well before the hearings, and most people who gave their reasons during or after the hearings did not primarily do so on the basis of the allegations - looking at the key Democrats, Senator McCaskill explicitly stated that the allegations weren't her voting reason, Sen. Heitkamp made her case on the grounds of his temperament & behaviour in the hearings, Sen. Donnelly said he felt a more full investigation was needed, and Joe Manchin voted for Kavanaugh anyway. Parts of the left-leaning media ramped up this aspect of it, but it's not factually true to say that "the Dems weren't arguing that" - actually, key Democrats were. Outside those swing-vote Democrats the majority of Democrat senators, if you look at their statements, clearly gave their reasoning regarding his ideological positions on presidential power, his partisanship & past record as a Republican operative, and his past decisions as a lower court justice. Media reporters on either side of the aisle may not have bothered to read most of those voting statements, but I don't think one can fault the actual senators for that.
I certainly think that process was badly handled all round, and that it's a process that's in desperate need of improvement, as we've already seen (both bearing in mind the problems around Kavanaugh's appointment, and that the last Democratic SC nominee was blocked basically on the grounds of the GOP going "we have a majority so we're not even going to give your nominee a hearing, portugal you guys"); really I suspect it needs a constitutional amendment to require supermajorities for these appointments, and/or put in retirement rules to ensure turnover of judges and give every president 1 or 2 SC picks guaranteed rather than it being random, so then you end up with a permanently more moderate/less partisan Supreme Court where everyone's had decent bipartisan support.
-
But all that assumes there is even a hint of civility or common sense in politics lol
-
It doesn't matter how much time was given to the investigation, there's obviously never going to be any physical evidence in this case and unless the witness statements were drastically changed (which would seem rather shifty) then there's simply not going to be any real evidence behind these allegations. Delaying it could of course give more people the chance to come forward with fresh allegations, but considering the motivation for some to bring false allegations to bear I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Fair enough, I did not look into it deeply enough and I guess I was being unfair to the dem senators.
Can't say I know anywhere near enough about US government to speculate on whether the SC needs fixing or how that would be done, but I feel the lack of retirement age may be a good ting, since senators have no hold over a judge's future prospects once they have made it into the SC.
-
I don't see how a fixed term length for the court would give senators any additional power over judges? It wouldn't make it any easier to remove judges from office or anything whilst in post, but it would mean that appointments cycles were timed less randomly, which is one of the objectively weird things about the current system - appointments are basically partisan and dependent on the president, but it's really random how many picks a president gets. If a SC justice had a normal term of, say, 20 years, and they were retiring on a staggered system, you could basically guarantee that every presidential election roughly corresponded to getting one supreme court pick, rather than the current system where one party can just be "well we got lucky and got three picks in four years, so our judges might now control constitutional decision-making for the next thirty regardless of how people vote in the intervening time".
I think my point about requiring supermajorities for the appointments is a more important one though anyhow - ensuring judges had permanent bipartisan support would make a massive difference to who could be put forwards, and would in turn make it a much less high-profile campaign issue and instead something senators had to deliberate on more properly.
Not that any of the above is going to happen, because for some reason the US hasn't invited me to redraft their Constitution yet :P
-
I was thinking that SC judges were probably more likely to become less partisan as they ease in to their positions if that makes sense. If their career advancement has been somewhat reliant on appeasing politicians it may well take a while for them to be comfortable with actually being neutral. So the longer each judge sits on the court the less partisan they are likely to be. Perhaps. Plus the idea of your staggered system seems like admitting that the SC nominations are a legitimate political tool, which isn't a great message to send.
The super majority thing does sound like a good idea, and it has the word super in it so it must be pretty rad.