Presidential Election Fraud is Everywhere, Be Very Careful

[ZackDaniels]

Might take years, decades, but I bet numbers for independent party candidates will steadily rise until they reach a certain point, and then all of a sudden it will "tip"....something will give it a nudge....a candidate makes a royal pooch screw, a new news media president that doesn't have one party or the other's cock in their mouth and reports things straight, something will happen that makes independents into a real "threat" to the old system rather than just a minority choice nobody pays any real notice to.

That would be nice, I'd love for at least 3 major parties to be serious contenders. Unfortunately the way it goes now is when a 3rd party gets a lot of support for its more popular agendas those agendas end up getting absorbed by one of the two mainstream parties and it cuts support down.

Look at Ralph Nader and the Green party - he got a good amount of support and Democrats absorbed the popular agendas to bleed support right back out.

Further back than that was Perot and the Reform Party getting absorbed by Republicans.

The party exists, but the most popular agendas are not theirs alone anymore and the differentiation between them and a major 'electable' party gets weaker and thus support drops. It's a wicked cycle :/

The fact that Obama is still first is what really worries me about the mindset of the majority of people in this country. Of course, you have to realize that the major portion of the population is in the major cities, where welfare (and crime, and drugs, and poverty) are highest.

I'm not on welfare, a criminal, drug user, or poor and of the two I'm going Obama this year. I've mentioned many reasons for this and none of them relate to these issues... unless you count my pointing out that welfare is only very loosely controlled by the federal government and thus not something a President can do a lot about. This is sort of like saying only racists vote republican... there's more to it than that.

:edit:
I took the isidewith and got Jill Stein then Obama... I got an awesome 27% agreement with Romney lol

 

[tothemax93]

Just took the Iside test. 98% Romney / 37% Obama.
I'm suprised I was that high for Barry.

 

[85 MAX-fan]

I do know how the gvmt runs, no political major but still, by saying Bush, i meant/should have said, Bush and his entire 8 years of government... You know what i mean, everyone knows one man doesnt run the show, but i agree its still easiest to point a finger at one person.

I do still stand behind the ball down the mountain comment. i will concede the 8 tril' didnt come from the last office, BUT, dont deny that a considerable portion was used to either bolster the economy due to previous offices laws, acts/ policies, or deal with a war that should have been over a few years ago. bring the boys and girls back...

Oh MY GOD the house is on fire!! Give me that bucket of gasoline to throw on it!! I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!

UUUUhhh,,no. Endless spending that is aimed entirely at bolstering public workers unions, patronage employee armies via the "Chicago" method of politics has made the money spent on Iraq look rather miniscule. By the time artifically supressed inflation is let out of the bag it will make the Carter era look like the "good ol' days" with only 20% mortgage rates

it would be foolish to think that obamas perfect, but look what he got into. When somethings ******, of course you put some cash into it to fix it, but again, policies that were introduced years ago set the ball in motion. (i should add the housing issue was started by Clintons gvt, but Bushs gvt did nothing but feed off it as people were spending!!!! You CANT tell me, all the eggheads there at the time, not one said this isnt going to end well?)

Bushes government? You do realize we purposely have an adversarial system of government? The republicans did not have full control over the presidents entire time in office. During the time they did it should be a clear lesson to the conservative voters to fire each and every shyster pissing money away without fear or care of our country's future. I will be the first to blame Bush for his totally unfunded prescription drug benefit GIVE AWAY, but I will not blame him for the other looting that democrats did.
The looting curently occuring is sold to the public under the guise that it is going to fix the previous looting. HUH!!!!!????????????????
i still think, Obamas trying to put people back to work, not help buisness friends...

Solyndra
Konarka ETC. ETC.

info...

-hes put a substantial amount of money into nuclear energy, 10s of 1000s of good jobs, construction, maintenance etc...

Please site your research I have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Money into nuclear energy?

-saved the auto industry, argue whether it was worth it or not... ppl are working.

Stiffed the bond holders contrary to our laws and handed power to the very people that sunk that ship to begin with.

-ive read the stock market is up 75% since obama took office and inherited the economic disaster, that tells me somethings looking up in the states for the country as a whole.
-also read that the housing market is on its way back up. slowly tho. but its still positive.

Seriously? We go from building one house a month to two and its a MASSIVE improvement!! LOL!

maybe this would have happened with McCain? maybe not, but the reality is hes taken a tortured economy and started rehabbing it. i think as a working man, I would vote him in.

Obama never was a working man. He was a community organizer. IE Jesse Jackson.....

And entitlements, trust me on this one, weve got the same problem here... Lazy people expect everything, hard working guys pay for it. I GET IT, if theres no work, theres no work. but you cant tell me that there isnt ANY job to work. you can walk to the unemployment line, you can work. it might not be your trade/ craft/ skillset. but the funny thing is, we can learn.

Just a general comment, You may drive a desk... or used to, go grab a shovel and help build some of the projects the gvt is putting money into to help the economy.
People are just lazy... end of story.

But thats just what i see.

peace,
evan...

Sorry, I just don't see anything improving through these policies. I don't believe they are intented to either.

 

[ZackDaniels]

Endless spending that is aimed entirely at bolstering public workers unions, patronage employee armies via the "Chicago" method of politics has made the money spent on Iraq look rather miniscule.

Obama has spent more money than Bush but it's not a crazy endless spending spree.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

The bills and increases he have signed represent roughly $200 billion in increase. Your comparison to the Iraq war cost that this is supposed to be more than is estimated anywhere between $500 billion and $4 trillion depending on metrics used.

Where was it spent?

$2 billion for children’s health insurance.
$114 billion in stimulus spending
$32 billion of the “omnibus” spending bill
$2 billion for Helping Families Save Their Homes Act
$31 billion in “supplemental” spending for the military and other purposes
$2 billion in additional “Cash for Clunkers” funding.
$20 billion for GM and Chrysler bailouts.

Thanks to this administration's push for accountability and transparency of spending you can actually see for yourself who's getting the most out of grants and tax breaks. Hint: it's not entirely public workers unions, patronage employee armies and whatever the hell 'Chicago Politics' is supposed to mean.

http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/fundingoverview/Pages/fundingbreakdown.aspx

Here are the biggest recipients of recovery spending since 2009:

Individual Tax Credits
$131.8B
First-Time Homebuyers. Transportation Subsidy. Education benefits. Earned Income Tax Credits.

Making Work Pay
$104.4B
$400 tax credit for working individuals; $800 for working married couples

Education
$91.1B
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Student Aid. Training and Employment Services. Aid for the Disadvantaged. Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Transportation
$36.1B
Highway Infrastructure. High-Speed Rail Corridors. Grants for Railroads and Airports

Medicaid/Medicare
$93.8B
Medicaid Grants to States; Medicare HITECH Incentive Payments; Program Management

Unemployment Insurance Programs
$61.1B

Solyndra
Konarka ETC. ETC.

Please site your research I have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Money into nuclear energy?

Solyndra was actually from the Bush era : http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/06/technology/solyndra/index.htm?iid=HP_LN

The larger point though is the disagreement with investment in green energy on the whole right? If so that's a fine view to hold... I happen to think it's a fine way of advancing technical research while creating jobs (some temporary, some will prove to be long term). NASA rather famously had it's funding cut by this administration, and a lot of what NASA research comes up with eventually finds it's way into your home. http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html

Investing in tech companies instead of NASA will create more short term jobs and hopefully without sacrificing tech research and invention. Ideally it will actually create more short term useful research.


Nuclear programs have not been excluded from support.
http://energy.gov/articles/obama-ad...ion-design-and-commercialize-us-small-modular

In 2010, the Department signed a conditional commitment for $8 billion in loan guarantees to support the Vogtle project, where the Southern Company and Georgia Power are building two new nuclear reactors, helping to create new jobs and export opportunities for American workers and businesses.

The Energy Department has also supported the Vogtle project and the development of the next generation of nuclear reactors by providing more than $200 million through a cost-share agreement to support the licensing reviews for Westinghouse’s AP1000 reactor design certification. The Vogtle license is the first for new nuclear power plant construction in more than three decades.

Promoting a sustainable nuclear industry in the U.S. also requires cultivating the next generation of scientists and engineers. Over the past three years, the Department has invested $170 million in research grants at more than 70 universities, supporting R&D into a full spectrum of technologies, from advanced reactor concepts to enhanced safety design.

Stiffed the bond holders contrary to our laws and handed power to the very people that sunk that ship to begin with.

I'm not sure the big 3 automakers can share a big part of the blame for the recession. They were pushing SUVs well after demand started dropping for them and that was short sighted, and drove a lot of business to smaller cars once MPGs became so important to the average car buyer. They were going to struggle with or without the recession as a result, but beyond that I'm not sure why in the scope of this whole mess this gets picked out?

Seriously? We go from building one house a month to two and its a MASSIVE improvement!! LOL!

Sorry, I just don't see anything improving through these policies. I don't believe they are intented to either.

When Obama took office... everybody knew the economy was in deep **** and he would have his work cut out for him. People against him said he was going to sink the whole country, and people that supported him said he had better be able to get **** done.

It is now 4 years later, and his opponent is campaigning on being able to create 12 million jobs in the next 4 years. He's been extremely fuzzy on the details of how he's going to do that. The ironic thing is this figure was already predicted before he started campaigning on it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d1d1e1c-170f-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html

Things are legitimately looking up. They're not great yet, but the improvement is visible and expected to improve. If you want a funny metric on the overall confidence of the American people... when this whole thing started you could not find this product: http://www.amazon.com/Emergency-Survival-Food-Supply-Meal/dp/B0029BE7AW Because it was sold out everywhere. Everybody was fearing the absolute worst to the point where 'emergency food bucket' was actually an unobtainable item. I happen to know this because at the time I was trying to buy one lol.

I keep saying this - if you don't support a candidate that's fine. Just be sure the reasons you don't like them are accurate.

 

[85 MAX-fan]

Obama has spent more money than Bush but it's not a crazy endless spending spree.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

The bills and increases he have signed represent roughly $200 billion in increase. Your comparison to the Iraq war cost that this is supposed to be more than is estimated anywhere between $500 billion and $4 trillion depending on metrics used.

I always love it when a cost estimate can swing from 800%... As far as what he signed, of course that doesn't take into account inflation, and artificially manipulated interest rates (Both are really taxes), or the preprogramed across the board increases from BASE LINE BUDGETING. Interesting this isn't included. We are borrowing what, 50% of every dollar spent? This cannot continue, but Obama still is determined to go farther. What was his pledge to cut spending? How much has he cut? What will be the real cost of socialized health care?

Where was it spent?


Thanks to this administration's push for accountability and transparency

IE "we have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it"
So much for Obama's promise to provide time for review and discussion over bills not to mention the governmment SEIZING control of nearly 20% of the US economy as well as setting the stage to control nearly any aspect of your life. Unless unpluged now this debocle will NEVER go away and will, like all such give-aways, spiral ever upwards.

of spending you can actually see for yourself who's getting the most out of grants and tax breaks. Hint: it's not entirely public workers unions, patronage employee armies and whatever the hell 'Chicago Politics' is supposed to mean.

It means this:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-18/news/ct-met-kass-0918-20110918_1_solyndra-loan-guarantee-obama-fundraisers-obama-white-house


Chicago Politics is the methodology used by the Chicago machine to crush opposition and entrench the party through Money grabs, payoffs, shakedowns, voter fraud, backroom deals, no bid contracts, money laundering, and patronage workers/unions in liberating the taxpayers of their money. Its organized crime. This is where Obama came from. I gaurantee there is not a whole lot of transparent accounting here. Wanna learn more for a quick example? Research the Chicago hired trucking scandal. Ever see the series Boss? It is based on a real politician.

Here are the biggest recipients of recovery spending since 2009:




Solyndra was actually from the Bush era : http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/06/technology/solyndra/index.htm?iid=HP_LN

The majority of Solyndra funding was provided under Title XVII section 1705 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (as amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). Title 1705 has provided $36 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy projects.[20] As of May 16, 2012, "The 1705 loan guarantee program has provided loan guarantees to projects worth $16.1 billion," about 2% of total federal loan guarantees.[21]


The larger point though is the disagreement with investment in green energy on the whole right?

NO, it means disagreeing on having the Government doling out taxpayer dollars to political cronies by politicians that are entirely unqualified, and untrustworthy. Largely, alternative energy is a scam. Unsustainable and costly. It is a gaurenteed fail. Private business is the most efficient way to accomplish these goals, and it cost the tax payers zip.

If so that's a fine view to hold... I happen to think it's a fine way of advancing technical research while creating jobs (some temporary, some will prove to be long term). NASA rather famously had it's funding cut by this administration, and a lot of what NASA research comes up with eventually finds it's way into your home. http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html

Investing in tech companies instead of NASA will create more short term jobs and hopefully without sacrificing tech research and invention. Ideally it will actually create more short term useful research.


Nuclear programs have not been excluded from support.
http://energy.gov/articles/obama-ad...ion-design-and-commercialize-us-small-modular

WHY DO TAXPAYERS NEED TO FUND SOMETHING PRIVATE BUSINESS CAN DO THEMSELVES? How many new nuke plants built in the US during the last four years ?

I'm not sure the big 3 automakers can share a big part of the blame for the recession. They were pushing SUVs well after demand started dropping for them and that was short sighted, and drove a lot of business to smaller cars once MPGs became so important to the average car buyer. They were going to struggle with or without the recession as a result, but beyond that I'm not sure why in the scope of this whole mess this gets picked out?

The US automakers went bankrupt due to unsustainable pension and benifit costs, not because of SUV's. These demands were forced down the throat of the automakers by the unions, and the ****s in charge signed off on it. Now you and I pay for it, along with the bond holders that were taken to the cleaners. The reason this is pointed out is because Obama handed the keys to the unions as part of the restructuring, so it will come arround again.


When Obama took office... everybody knew the economy was in deep **** and he would have his work cut out for him. People against him said he was going to sink the whole country, and people that supported him said he had better be able to get **** done.

It is now 4 years later, and his opponent is campaigning on being able to create 12 million jobs in the next 4 years. He's been extremely fuzzy on the details of how he's going to do that.

Its not really that fuzy at all. Obama has shouted that he is going to have the wealthy pick up the tag, but in reality this means a huge number of small businesses. Of course they pass all of this along to...... YOU GUESSED IT, the rest of us through higher cost for goods and services. Or the added burden will force them out of business. As it stands, there are less people working now, than when Obama took office.
Romney wants to reduce the burden on businesses which means more commerce. It will take congress to make this happen, but we already KNOW Obama will continue to hammer business.

Things are legitimately looking up. They're not great yet, but the improvement is visible and expected to improve. If you want a funny metric on the overall confidence of the American people... when this whole thing started you could not find this product: http://www.amazon.com/Emergency-Survival-Food-Supply-Meal/dp/B0029BE7AW Because it was sold out everywhere. Everybody was fearing the absolute worst to the point where 'emergency food bucket' was actually an unobtainable item. I happen to know this because at the time I was trying to buy one lol.

I keep saying this - if you don't support a candidate that's fine. Just be sure the reasons you don't like them are accurate.

I think I am pretty accurate on why I don't want a repeat of the last 4 years....

 

[alorio1]

Here is a thought;

If all the billions of dollars for bail out had been dispersed among legitimate tax payers, only to be used for the purchase of a GM automobile, we could all have a new car or maybe a new Escalade which would have certainly brought Gm out of their economic failure........

 

[ZackDaniels]

I think I am pretty accurate on why I don't want a repeat of the last 4 years....

Fair enough. You won't have it regardless of who you vote for though. The last 4 years represent a historical financial crisis that was in the making for decades and we're on our way out of it. Regardless of who is in office the game is changed entirely for this next term.

preprogramed across the board increases from BASE LINE BUDGETING. Interesting this isn't included. We are borrowing what, 50% of every dollar spent? This cannot continue, but Obama still is determined to go farther. What was his pledge to cut spending? How much has he cut? What will be the real cost of socialized health care?

It's closer to 30% last I heard, and the dollar metric isn't the best one to use on government budget. When talking about debt inflation is actually a good thing - meaning that the $10 you borrow today is actually easier to pay back in a year when the same $10 is worth less because the value $10 is less. So if inflation were taken into account on these debt budgets it would look even less severe.

US health care as it stands now is very very broken. We spend more on health care than any other country and for our expense we do not have the best. In some metrics we actually have the worst care of any other 1st world county.

Here's what we already spend:

Here's a break down from 2009 and compares on all kinds of metrics of cost vs effectiveness.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...laining_high_hlt_care_spending_intl_brief.pdf

Here are a few bullet points on our current system:

In 2010, four of 10 adults went without care because of costs and the number of either uninsured or “underinsured” (i.e., people with health coverage that does not adequately protect them from high medical expenses) increased to more than 80 million.

A 2007 survey in five states found that difficulty paying medical bills contributed to 62 percent of all bankruptcies, up 50 percent from 2001.

For the average worker with employer-based health insurance, growth in premiums and cost-sharing has largely erased wage gains over the past decade.

Health care costs go up way more than your taxes do every year. You will feel that in your paycheck directly either by increasing your portion of the bill or by a lack of raises because your employer is picking up the increase rather than giving it to you. The cost of insurance is causing more and more employers to go with shittier plans, and as a result more people are going bankrupt from health costs despite having insurance and a full time private sector job.

The size of the insurer allows cost negotiations to take place with care providers and pharma companies. The 'in-network' and 'out-of-network' portions of your plan represent this. The 'network' of a plan are providers that have agreed to bill less for patients that have insurance through company A vs patients that have insurance through company B. The exact same procedure costs less because the insurance company goes to a negotiation table and says 'I'll bring you x thousand patients and as a result you will charge me less.'

A large federal program is one way to bring all medical costs down, and a result give you a bigger paycheck. The paycheck will have higher taxes pulled from it, but less medical insurance, and even though you're spending less you'll actually have better coverage and care.

The majority of Solyndra funding was provided under Title XVII section 1705 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (as amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). Title 1705 has provided $36 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy projects.[20] As of May 16, 2012, "The 1705 loan guarantee program has provided loan guarantees to projects worth $16.1 billion," about 2% of total federal loan guarantees.

The company was already in the picture though was my point. They didn't show up after Obama received campaign contributions from them and suddenly have money rained down on them. The article you linked to demonstrate 'The Chicago Way' refers to an investigation that was active when it was written a year ago. In the year since that op-ed piece was written the investigation it refers to has shown no favoritism of any kind. There's nothing special about Solyndra vs any other company that got funds under the green energy program.

So the problem is simply this:

NO, it means disagreeing on having the Government doling out taxpayer dollars to political cronies by politicians that are entirely unqualified, and untrustworthy. Largely, alternative energy is a scam. Unsustainable and costly. It is a gaurenteed fail. Private business is the most efficient way to accomplish these goals, and it cost the tax payers zip.

I support government funding of research into new tech. They've been doing this (and continue to do this) in universities for years. The grants being given to the tech industry help to accelerate this and also gives a place for graduates to get employed. No doubt a lot of it will turn up nothing, but that's the name of the game in research and research grants. A lot of it turns up nothing, but some of it does, and you can't have the winners without also investing in the losers because without the funding you would have neither.

WHY DO TAXPAYERS NEED TO FUND SOMETHING PRIVATE BUSINESS CAN DO THEMSELVES? How many new nuke plants built in the US during the last four years ?

In the scope of the last 4 years because if they didn't then private business would not have either. There was a credit crisis and the private market funds were frozen. It needed a shot in the arm to keep things from grinding down completely.

These demands were forced down the throat of the automakers by the unions, and the ****s in charge signed off on it. Now you and I pay for it, along with the bond holders that were taken to the cleaners. The reason this is pointed out is because Obama handed the keys to the unions as part of the restructuring, so it will come arround again.

The bailout banned the UAW from going on strike and demanded they accept a wage cut that amounted to roughly $20 less per hour per worker (to bring their wage on par with other auto companies). The union accepted shares of the company as a trade-off. The shares they have been granted obligate them to help pay into the legacy pension plans you correctly cited as crippling the big 3. The shares are no-vote shares and thus they are 'key-less'. They ate **** on this at every corner because they finally recognized the only option was to eat the **** burger go hungry entirely.

Its not really that fuzy at all. Obama has shouted that he is going to have the wealthy pick up the tag, but in reality this means a huge number of small businesses. Of course they pass all of this along to...... YOU GUESSED IT, the rest of us through higher cost for goods and services.

It's important to note a couple of things here.
1. This whole debate isn't really about a tax hike. It's about allowing tax cuts to expire and for rates to return to former levels.
2. The number of small businesses impacted ranges from 1.5% to 24% depending on who's doing the math and what they're using to define 'small business'.

Here's a write-up on a ton of talking points from all sides on this. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3756

It's extremely complicated and everybody plays fast and loose with definitions. The studies these numbers come from tend to be commissioned by those with an interest. The same sort of conditions that had tobacco companies pointing to their own studies on health effects of their products. The only thing most seem to agree on is that keeping tax cuts in place that targets high-income households because it happens to also benefit a small % of business isn't the most efficient way to go about this.

 

[V-Four]

I think I am pretty accurate on why I don't want a repeat of the last 4 years....

I agree. if obama hadnt already been in office..maybe..just maaaybe i could see some people voting for him. But let me be clear. hes been here for 4 yrs. I challenge..wait i dar everybody to go and listen to all his "promises" from 2008..and compare them to what really happened.
Maybe romney cant fix it either..we dont knpw that yet. but we DO know that obama cant.(or wont). lets not even get into foreign policy... or lybia...?

im voting for hope and change . (get it)

the reality is that the system works perfectly...we argue about who and why and how...and it really doesnt matter..what goes on behind the curtain stays behind the curtain..and it has for years...and years....and years.I do not trust obama though...that much i do know.

 

[ZackDaniels]

I challenge..wait i dar everybody to go and listen to all his "promises" from 2008..and compare them to what really happened.

You're in luck it's actively been getting done by Politifact here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

That's 508 promises so if that's a lot to look at for the first time, here's their Top 25 only.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/politifacts-top-promises/

You will note the majority of the ones marked broken had some effort on them that either wasn't able to get through or ended up being an ineffective program. Very few were just outright broken as in not attempted or had the opposite action done.

Maybe romney cant fix it either..we dont knpw that yet.

You're right we don't know that for sure, but a lot of his campaign promises directly contradict each other or are simply not possible. So it's a safe bet his top 25 would end up with a great many broken.

The biggest one for me was his tax plan. Here's a pretty solid write-up on that.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/the-final-word-on-mitt-romney-s-tax-plan.html

The Tax Policy Center paper that sparked this discussion found that Romney's plan couldn't work because his tax rate cuts would provide $86 billion more in tax relief to people making over $200,000 than Romney could recoup by eliminating tax expenditures for that group. That means his plan is necessarily a tax cut for the rich, so if Romney keeps his promise not to grow the deficit, he'll have to raise taxes on the middle class.

And in response to this study the Romney campaign said they found 6 studies that showed it worked. Paul Ryan said this during the VP debate even.

These 'studies' are blogs, opinion pieces, and are worked on by people involved with the campaign or otherwise biased to the campaign. Of the studies that examine the middle class tax burden, none shows conclusively that households making less than $200,000 would be spared a tax increase. That is a group of taxpayers that Romney defines as middle class and says he would protect.

All politicians are full of it to one degree or another, but championing this and the 12 million jobs claims while saying he'll cut taxes on the wealthy (like Obama says) and not raise taxes on the middle class (like Obama says) are just too much for me. You know up front these are not possible, at least Obama's plan is accurate. All that's up to speculation is if he actually does it or not.

I mean in response to being called out on a plan loaded with BS, they respond with more BS calling blogs studies, and even THEN those don't actually support their claim. How could I possibly trust these guys?