Why vote GOP back in?

[bkg]

Honest and serious question.

All of this talk about 2010 and getting the GOP back... why?

They had 6 years of full control and increased gov't over 40%. Other than the Bush tax cuts, what did they do well?

And what makes people so confident that if they win in 2010, and even 2012, that we'll be on our way to a smaller gov't, lower taxes, protections for freedom and liberty?

People are talking "we have to win" like the Dems have been in power for 30 years. It's been three! Honestly - what will the GOP reverse? How will they cut spending? How will they cut taxes? How will they protect liberty and freedom? Private property? Privacy? Personal responsibility?

The GOP hasn't had that as an agenda in almost 30 years from where I sit.

Talk me into voting for them.

[Duke Nukum]

They've done at least 30 years of damage in 3 years.  With the GOP, at least you can get them to resign.  If Frank or Dodd had been GOP, both of them would be gone, Frank would have been gone back in '89 or '90, whenever he was caught running a brothel.

[Carl]

Like it or not it is the only viable choice today in the real world to undo or stop what is happening.
The real world,not a make believe idealistic one.

Wish that wasn`t so exactly but any suggestion otherwise is just coffee table talk.
Work as hard as one can to get as much as you can but to think in 2010 there will be a perfect conservative world is folly.

Anyone is free to vote for whom they wish or not at all but when it comes to legislation and agendas the majority in either house of Congress will set that.
The dems know this and will use every second they have in that position to institutionalize their agenda.

[Oceander]

Again, it is in part because we conservatives rested for far too long on our laurels.  We all assumed - and we all know what happens when one assumes - that Gingrich and the '94 rout had broken the back of American liberalism/communism for good, and we let the politicians go off on their own on autopilot in the mistaken belief that the worst we would get would be a little Republican-type hanky-panky.  Well, guess what?  Politics is not a spectator sport, and the '94 rout only drove the left underground, where it festered and built up like a bad mold infestation.  We are now, unfortunately, paying the price for our lack of attention; one can only hope that there is still enough time left to lance the boil and clean out the pus before the patient - the US of A - dies from the liberal infection.

[BlueStateSaint]

Again, it is in part because we conservatives rested for far too long on our laurels.  We all assumed - and we all know what happens when one assumes - that Gingrich and the '94 rout had broken the back of American liberalism/communism for good, and we let the politicians go off on their own on autopilot in the mistaken belief that the worst we would get would be a little Republican-type hanky-panky.  Well, guess what?  Politics is not a spectator sport, and the '94 rout only drove the left underground, where it festered and built up like a bad mold infestation.  We are now, unfortunately, paying the price for our lack of attention; one can only hope that there is still enough time left to lance the boil and clean out the pus before the patient - the US of A - dies from the liberal infection.

The post-mortem will be pretty bloody, as well.

[Oceander]

The post-mortem will be pretty bloody, as well.

Indeed.  As Thos. Jefferson admonished, the tree of liberty may need watering by now:

[rustybayonet]

I have a dilemma also.  I voted for Perot, helping split the Conservative/Republican ticket, and look what we got.  Yes I believe a third party is needed and warranted, but I also think right now unity is the only way to rid this county of the socialist plaque in power now.  The panacea of a third party in 2010, in my opinion, is just wishful thinking.  I don't see enough viable people out there to make a difference.  Whether the Washington power wants to admit it or not, there is the beginning of a 'house cleaning', but it is to early to rely on the 'tea party's' to completely overrun the establishment.  Stripping the monoply of power from the extreme left in the 2010 congressional election should be our major focus.  By taking power back decisively in the House and Senate, it will strip the White House of most it's bully pulpit, buying more time to effectively create a viable and powerful third party.  If in fact we do that, it will get the remaining Senators attention.  With a two year voting out look, we can enforce two year term limits on representatives - start listening to the people, or we will replace you.

[Carl]

I could be convinced to support a third party as long as there was a guarantee of an equally viable fourth party from the left.
If there wasn`t you will have a split of Republican/third party and a majority of dems.
Show me where that helps any cause.

Lets face it there have been two partys in this country since the end of Washingtons term and as stated on another thread the two that exist today go back to the 1850s.
I know that philosophies have shifted within those party names but a third party springing up just doesn`t happen,isn`t successful when tried and doesn`t shift the body politic.
It is the dream of the true believers that flock to Libertarianism (the party) but is not realistic so you do what you can with what you have is my feeling.

[Oceander]

I couldn't agree more at this point in time.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I have a dilemma also.  I voted for Perot, helping split the Conservative/Republican ticket, and look what we got.  Yes I believe a third party is needed and warranted, but I also think right now unity is the only way to rid this county of the socialist plaque in power now.  The panacea of a third party in 2010, in my opinion, is just wishful thinking.  I don't see enough viable people out there to make a difference.  Whether the Washington power wants to admit it or not, there is the beginning of a 'house cleaning', but it is to early to rely on the 'tea party's' to completely overrun the establishment.  Stripping the monoply of power from the extreme left in the 2010 congressional election should be our major focus.  By taking power back decisively in the House and Senate, it will strip the White House of most it's bully pulpit, buying more time to effectively create a viable and powerful third party.  If in fact we do that, it will get the remaining Senators attention.  With a two year voting out look, we can enforce two year term limits on representatives - start listening to the people, or we will replace you.

Maybe we don't need a third party but just a strong voting bloc akin to the unions or some hyphenated-American group. If it's large enough the parties will chase us dragging their centers of gravity rightward.

We also need to pay closer attention to primaries and local races.

[Oceander]

Maybe we don't need a third party but just a strong voting bloc akin to the unions or some hyphenated-American group. If it's large enough the parties will chase us dragging their centers of gravity rightward.

We also need to pay closer attention to primaries and local races.

Basically, yes.  We need to be noisy, and we need to give our politicians the "love" and attention that they, as personality disorder types - crave.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I've watched third party movements try and fail to do anything except divide their own allies and then fall on their asses my whole life, and US history has plenty of examples that pre-date me, like the ill-fated Bull Moose Party.

Do whatever makes you happy, bkg, just try not to sound so much like a Ronulan when people don't agree with you or try to explain where you're going off into the weeds on this.  Hint, if you find yourself tempted to use the word 'Sheeple' in a post, just step away from the keyboard and take a walk.   

Am I happy with the GOP?  Hell, no.  I don't see a serious alternative that doesn't involve keeping the Dems in charge for a few more election cycles though.  MSB has the right of it in saying we have to actively try to drag the GOP to the right instead of walking away from it for some futile diversion like that crackpot Perot (Frankly I don't know what any social conservatives saw in him, he was totally anti-gun and into social control, the only conservative thing about him was his fiscal outlook, but plenty of social conservatives had a complete attack of terminal stupid and voted for him anyway).

[catsmtrods]

At the moment its the lesser of 2 evils. We must continue to make allot of noise and let all politicians know how we feel. 

[Lacarnut]

Conservatives, Tea Party and Independents should work to take over the Repub party from the RINO's. That is the ticket rather than a 3rd party. That would insure huge gains in 010 elections to remove the Democrats lock on passing any more socialistic laws. That is step #1. Also, RINO's would not be exempt from conservative challengers.

[bkg]

I've watched third party movements try and fail to do anything except divide their own allies and then fall on their asses my whole life, and US history has plenty of examples that pre-date me, like the ill-fated Bull Moose Party.

Do whatever makes you happy, bkg, just try not to sound so much like a Ronulan when people don't agree with you or try to explain where you're going off into the weeds on this.  Hint, if you find yourself tempted to use the word 'Sheeple' in a post, just step away from the keyboard and take a walk.   

Am I happy with the GOP?  Hell, no.  I don't see a serious alternative that doesn't involve keeping the Dems in charge for a few more election cycles though.  MSB has the right of it in saying we have to actively try to drag the GOP to the right instead of walking away from it for some futile diversion like that crackpot Perot (Frankly I don't know what any social conservatives saw in him, he was totally anti-gun and into social control, the only conservative thing about him was his fiscal outlook, but plenty of social conservatives had a complete attack of terminal stupid and voted for him anyway).

I'm a Ronulan because I'm a Constitutionalist and disagree with the GOP? Wow...  I'll take that as a compliment. I don't get the hatred of the one person in Congress who has never voted for a tax increase and who actually defends the COTUS.

I"m done voting for the people who will drive us into the shitter the slowest... That's just stupid, IMHO, and I don't understand why people endorse it. So feel free to call me names. I think it's sad, but that's up to you. No one has given a single reason, other than lesser of two evils, why the GOP is better than the dems... I asked for ideas, I've gotten few... and insulted.  Pathetic, if you ask me. 

[catsmtrods]

I am in contact with the repubs all the time imploring them to put up true Conservatives and and stop trying to get along with Dem's. We all must demand they do that. I would like to see the Tea Party movement get together and endorse candidates at a national level. If somthing don't change soon we will have to get French on them.

[Carl]

...and so it begins,was only a matter of time wasn`t it DAT?

First off bkg your question was answered several times but of course not how you wanted so you ignore them and then claim no one did.
That is dishonest but the motivation of the thread was too it seems as you finally have gotten to where you can lecture us on your purity.

No one insulted you,although your constant tone of arrogance does make it difficult

Why don`t you come clean now and tell us what you views of Israel,abortion,and gay marriage are to name a few little items Libertarians are decidedly not conservative about.
 
Chest thumping is a playground stunt,you are talking to adults here so spare us that.

[formerlurker]

I've watched third party movements try and fail to do anything except divide their own allies and then fall on their asses my whole life, and US history has plenty of examples that pre-date me, like the ill-fated Bull Moose Party.

Do whatever makes you happy, bkg, just try not to sound so much like a Ronulan when people don't agree with you or try to explain where you're going off into the weeds on this.  Hint, if you find yourself tempted to use the word 'Sheeple' in a post, just step away from the keyboard and take a walk.   

Am I happy with the GOP?  Hell, no.  I don't see a serious alternative that doesn't involve keeping the Dems in charge for a few more election cycles though.  MSB has the right of it in saying we have to actively try to drag the GOP to the right instead of walking away from it for some futile diversion like that crackpot Perot (Frankly I don't know what any social conservatives saw in him, he was totally anti-gun and into social control, the only conservative thing about him was his fiscal outlook, but plenty of social conservatives had a complete attack of terminal stupid and voted for him anyway).

Amen.

[formerlurker]

...and so it begins,was only a matter of time wasn`t it DAT?

First off bkg your question was answered several times but of course not how you wanted so you ignore them and then claim no one did.
That is dishonest but the motivation of the thread was too it seems as you finally have gotten to where you can lecture us on your purity.

No one insulted you,although your constant tone of arrogance does make it difficult

Why don`t you come clean now and tell us what you views of Israel,abortion,and gay marriage are to name a few little items Libertarians are decidedly not conservative about.
 
Chest thumping is a playground stunt,you are talking to adults here so spare us that.

Another great post.    I agree with MSB also that we have to pay close attention to local races and don't use primaries as some sort of poetic valentine to our "true ideologies." 

As is true in local races, you saturate the field with candidates (good and not so good) you screw the candidate who has the most legitimate shot of winning.    Once you learn you cannot have everything on your shopping list (I think those who pay the closest attention to history know this lesson well), then you know you must throw your support behind the candidate whose platform  contains the most important items on that list (and for me, has the most legitimate chance of winning).

My shopping priorities for 2010-2012?  Fiscal conservative and strong foreign policy/national defense.   I could give a flying fig about how they voted on abortion in the past or future as that is not the danger facing our country.  The freakin economy is.  We don't make a quick u-turn from the path to pure socialism we are on now, we can kiss our country good-bye.

[bkg]

...and so it begins,was only a matter of time wasn`t it DAT?

First off bkg your question was answered several times but of course not how you wanted so you ignore them and then claim no one did.
That is dishonest but the motivation of the thread was too it seems as you finally have gotten to where you can lecture us on your purity.

No one insulted you,although your constant tone of arrogance does make it difficult

Why don`t you come clean now and tell us what you views of Israel,abortion,and gay marriage are to name a few little items Libertarians are decidedly not conservative about.
 
Chest thumping is a playground stunt,you are talking to adults here so spare us that.

Chest thumping? Wow - none of that happening here. I asked a very serious question, the most common response was in the veign of lesser of two evils. I'm looking for real answers - to what the GOP will do better in the future than they did in the past. I honestly nolonger agree with voting for someone just because they'll run the country into the ground a tad slower. The GOP has done as much dammage to this country, our economic system and COTUS as the dems have. As much as I supported Bush, growing the gov't by 40%, increasing the debt load by trillions, patriot act, etc... were not conservative driven values.

Calling me a Ronbot - or Ronulan - for asking the question and challenging the answers is an insult. I'm a Constitutionalist and a libertarian, and that's labeled as bad. I didn't vote for Paul, but I do agree with his positions on a lot of things.

My views on gay marriage, abortion, etc have been covered in the welcome post. But to refresh - I'm against gay marriage, pro-life, and believe we need to help support oure allies. As stated, I don't always agree with Paul's foreign policy. Social issues are secondary. When I rank what is important - supporting COTUS, supporting liberty and freedom, reducing the debt, shrinking government, shrinking entitlements, shutting down the fed, lowering taxes... and really believing in the founder's vision... I don't know who else is as passionate as Paul. Where in COTUS is foreign aide a mandated function of the fed govt? It may be there, but I haven't seen it spelled out explicitely. So I honestly do not understand the hatred towards his positions... Who in the GOP has his tract record or is as interested in adhering to COTUS as Paul? Serious question!

I agreed with MSB and agree with Formerlurker's latest post as well. The local elections are critical and will be the conduit for making election changes at the federal level. But like FL's last paragraph (which I think is spot-on), I'm done worrying about some of the social issues - like abortion - as they are NEVER going to change. RvW will never be reversed. I want a fiscal conservative first, a COTUS defending candidate. Yes, I hope they are in the best spot to win, but even if not, I can't throw my vote away on people like McCain who are almost as left as the base of the dem party. I don't understand where the value is in supporting the dem-lite. That's why I asked the question.

So call me arrogant or a Ronbot or whatever. I asked a serious question because as of now, I don't see the value or the change needed coming from the dem-lites. I honestly don't. I wish I did, but the best indication of future behavior is past behavior. And the past GOP behavior has helped put us where we are today.. with a looming 13 trillion dollar debt and growing dependency on gov't rule.

[Carl]

Do you think then for one second in the real world a third party candidate will win or a third party will rise up.
One can go on and on about things based on raw emotion but that doesn`t change the real world.
Tell us how it happens and if we are at such a tipping point why does Dr Nutz keep the (R) behind his name.

What happens to your vaunted principles when dems have a 70 seat majority in the Senate?
Bet you have no answer for that.

Wouldn`t it make a lot more sense to work to change what exists and push the GOP towards a more conservative stance then wander in an unrealistic dreamland because unless you can tell me how or show that it will happen that is all you have.

Now there once more is the answer to your supposed serious question and no doubt once more is not the answer you want to hear.
I don`t live in a world of make believe and realize that not everyone will agree with me politically so am happy to get as much as I can get through the best avenue possible rather then get nothing.
Oh and by the way...look up and around and see that nothing is where we are at today...liking it?

No you did not ask a serious question...you postulated a position to eventually declare your beliefs.
So be it,but be honest about it if you can.

[bkg]

Do you think then for one second in the real world a third party candidate will win or a third party will rise up.
One can go on and on about things based on raw emotion but that doesn`t change the real world.
Tell us how it happens and if we are at such a tipping point why does Dr Nutz keep the (R) behind his name.

What happens to your vaunted principles when dems have a 70 seat majority in the Senate?
Bet you have no answer for that.

Wouldn`t it make a lot more sense to work to change what exists and push the GOP towards a more conservative stance then wander in an unrealistic dreamland because unless you can tell me how or show that it will happen that is all you have.

Now there once more is the answer to your supposed serious question and no doubt once more is not the answer you want to hear.
I don`t live in a world of make believe and realize that not everyone will agree with me politically so am happy to get as much as I can get through the best avenue possible rather then get nothing.
Oh and by the way...look up and around and see that nothing is where we are at today...liking it?

No you did not ask a serious question...you postulated a position to eventually declare your beliefs.
So be it,but be honest about it if you can.

Carl, I don't know what your issue is with me. I've tried to explain my position and concerns, and you think I live in make-believe land because of it.

Hey I agree, and have stated it many times, that I'd like to see a truly conservative GOP and that it would be a lot easier to win elections if that were the case. But I haven't seen a conservative GOP member in a long time, sans Bachmann and Paul, and a small number of others. And they are all villified by the GOP and even conservatives.

My question about third parties has always been that positions like yours, where you firmly believe that they have no chance of making a difference, is that I believe you to be incorrect. If people voted on values, rather than what is behind the person's name on the ballot (D, R), then we would see change. But people are afraid of doing that because they are afraid the other team will win. If that's how we are all voting, both libs and conservatives, to keep the other team from winning regardles of how f'd up our candidate is... then how can we expect to have any real change in DC?

I don't think you'll see the GOP become the conservative party you want. That's my opinion. Their past behavior hasn't supported conservatism since the early 80's. Since then, they've  been almost as liberal as the dems. So would I be pissed with a 70 person majority for the dems? Very much! But if the GOP is voting and pormoting similar values, then what's the real difference?

Your point about things not being where we want them to be is spot-on. But who's fault is that? The Dem's? The GOP? Both? If the GOP hadn't moved so far left the last 10 years and they actually promoted conservative candidates, we might be in a different position. Might - no guarantees. But McCain was not a conservative. The person they supported in D23 was not a conservative. The MN Senate GOP (Coleman) candidate was not a conservative. Pawlenty, our governer, is not a conservative.  So I blame both parties. Again, i see them heading in the same direction, just at different velocity.

Do I see a real-world thrid party candidate? Yeah, in many senses I do. I think we had one in the past who would have won had he not dropped out at end and made another charge at the 11th hour. We have a growing number of independents in congress and local races. I think there is as much an appetite for someoen outside of the DC corruption as there is for a truly conservative GOP.

And again, I agree with your position that it would be easier to move the GOP right than rise up a new party. But how realistic is that? I wish it was, but their past behavior doesn't support that either, IMHO. I'll support them moving right and will help where possible, but I really need to see truly conservative candidates AND a truly conservative platform. I'm not sure we've seem much of either in the last 10 years.

I did ask a serious question. You refuse to believe that because you don't like or agree with it. Tha'ts fine. That's your right. But please don't attempt to read my mind and don't accuse me of being dishonest simply because I disagree with some of the responses. Your assumption of motive and goals are completely incorrect. It was a very seroius question, and still is. I don't know if there is any value, other than a weak defense, of voting for the GOP as it stands today. If it changes, then yeah, they'll definitely get my vote. But the position of voting for them because we might be able to change them... I don't know that we have enough invluence over them to make that happen, ya know?

[Carl]

Carl, I don't know what your issue is with me. I've tried to explain my position and concerns, and you think I live in make-believe land because of it.

Hey I agree, and have stated it many times, that I'd like to see a truly conservative GOP and that it would be a lot easier to win elections if that were the case. But I haven't seen a conservative GOP member in a long time, sans Bachmann and Paul, and a small number of others. And they are all villified by the GOP and even conservatives.

My question about third parties has always been that positions like yours, where you firmly believe that they have no chance of making a difference, is that I believe you to be incorrect. If people voted on values, rather than what is behind the person's name on the ballot (D, R), then we would see change. But people are afraid of doing that because they are afraid the other team will win. If that's how we are all voting, both libs and conservatives, to keep the other team from winning regardles of how f'd up our candidate is... then how can we expect to have any real change in DC?

I don't think you'll see the GOP become the conservative party you want. That's my opinion. Their past behavior hasn't supported conservatism since the early 80's. Since then, they've  been almost as liberal as the dems. So would I be pissed with a 70 person majority for the dems? Very much! But if the GOP is voting and pormoting similar values, then what's the real difference?

Your point about things not being where we want them to be is spot-on. But who's fault is that? The Dem's? The GOP? Both? If the GOP hadn't moved so far left the last 10 years and they actually promoted conservative candidates, we might be in a different position. Might - no guarantees. But McCain was not a conservative. The person they supported in D23 was not a conservative. The MN Senate GOP (Coleman) candidate was not a conservative. Pawlenty, our governer, is not a conservative.  So I blame both parties. Again, i see them heading in the same direction, just at different velocity.

Do I see a real-world thrid party candidate? Yeah, in many senses I do. I think we had one in the past who would have won had he not dropped out at end and made another charge at the 11th hour. We have a growing number of independents in congress and local races. I think there is as much an appetite for someoen outside of the DC corruption as there is for a truly conservative GOP.

And again, I agree with your position that it would be easier to move the GOP right than rise up a new party. But how realistic is that? I wish it was, but their past behavior doesn't support that either, IMHO. I'll support them moving right and will help where possible, but I really need to see truly conservative candidates AND a truly conservative platform. I'm not sure we've seem much of either in the last 10 years.

I did ask a serious question. You refuse to believe that because you don't like or agree with it. Tha'ts fine. That's your right. But please don't attempt to read my mind and don't accuse me of being dishonest simply because I disagree with some of the responses. Your assumption of motive and goals are completely incorrect. It was a very seroius question, and still is. I don't know if there is any value, other than a weak defense, of voting for the GOP as it stands today. If it changes, then yeah, they'll definitely get my vote. But the position of voting for them because we might be able to change them... I don't know that we have enough invluence over them to make that happen, ya know?

My issue is simple..I have seen Libertarian sorts for years try to pretend that theirs is a great third way with almost cult like fervor.
They are long on hyperbole and fantasies and short on realistic sense.
Maybe that does describe you,maybe it doesn`t but I will happily let everyone read the thread..your "question" and then your attack that since no one satisfied you we were all pathetic (your words).

Instead of trying to have a discussion that is avenue they take and then claim innocence of purpose or as you did that you were insulted.
The tactics are always the same.
Everyone that disagrees with me is stupid or weak (again your word pathetic) trying to use intimidation against folks that try to be polite.
I will call the bs what it is every time I see it.

You started the thread,you attacked disagreement and I called you to defend your position.
Don`t like that well sorry,too bad.

Just don`t ever complain about what happens in the real world if you go your way which is your right to do.

[bkg]

Carl - you don't like me. That's fine. The libertarian position that you hate is no different than the positions espoused by the GOP or DNC or any other party - they all believe theirs is correct. If they didn't, they'd have zero credibility as a candidate.

What I called pathetic was being labeled. Please re-read what I wrote. I've defended my position, directly to you, and you've chosen to continue to attack me personally rather than respond to my concerns and questions. That's not a debate, Carl. You're calling me out for stating that beinc labled was a sad, but now you've been attacking me for your last three posts. C'mon - you're accusng me of exactly what you are doing.

We're not going to disagree. You think that my disagreements with the GOP leaves me in a fantasy world. I think that the position that the GOP is going to change directions is equally fantasy - their past actions haven't supported that change in direction for the last almost 25 years. And that's the reason I asked the question. Show me where my thinking is wrong - I've agreed with you on many points already (which you've seemed to ignore for some reason), but I still see a gap in the strong direction change that people believe the GOP will bring. They seem to be going the same direction (and even endorse Dem candidates!) as the dems... just at a different pace.

So disagree with me. Tha'ts totally fine. Stop calling me a liar, though. Stop labeling me as a Ron Paul cult member, and start addressing the concerns I've brought forth. Ignoring many of them - even in my last post - and trying to discredit me instead. I've been honest in my positions, my concerns, my fears. If that makes me a utopian in your mind, then so be it. I don't live my life by other people's opinions.

And back at ya - if you vote in the GOP and things do NOT change... I assume you'll stick to your request of me and NOT COMPLAIN about anything that the GOP does at that point. 

[Carl]

I have no opinion of you but will say again if you are going to post a thread asking a question and then your only response to any answers you get is an attack then expect to be called on it.
The history of the thread is its own thing I don`t have to prove otherwise,anyone can read it and see,it was your only response to that point.

I'm a Ronulan because I'm a Constitutionalist and disagree with the GOP? Wow...    I'll take that as a compliment. I don't get the hatred of the one person in Congress who has never voted for a tax increase and who actually defends the COTUS.

I"m done voting for the people who will drive us into the shitter the slowest... That's just stupid, IMHO, and I don't understand why people endorse it. So feel free to call me names. I think it's sad, but that's up to you. No one has given a single reason, other than lesser of two evils, why the GOP is better than the dems... I asked for ideas, I've gotten few... and insulted.  Pathetic, if you ask me.

You were given many reasons why voting for the best chance to win even if not perfect was better then not and also that we need to work to get a more conservative lean to the party.
You rejected those answers out of hand and it seems have the same conclusion you started with.
I don`t know what else to say because it won`t be good enough anyways.

I can`t make you change your mind but if you think for a second that next year there will be 218 members of the House and 51 in the Senate from a third party then it simply isn`t realistic or show me how it happens.
It is your thread so up to you to explain the position you take and how it is achieved.