Election November 5th, Are you Voting [Archive]

King Cobra

Nov 4, 2002, 09:32 PM

>(Durandal7) I'm just glad that the ads will be over soon :rolleyes:

I couldn't agree with you any more. Emphasis on the eye roll.

In Maine around Windham there is a rotary, and it was literaly decorate with all this political crap: Vote for this guy, Vote for that guy...

And some of them make your ash look pretty. :eek: :rolleyes:

Luckily, coming back this weekend, the competition to see who can sh** on grass the most seems to have died down. I've never seen so much sh** on a stick on property before. :p

And, no. I'm not voting...too young and too unwilling to give a sh**. :D

scem0

Nov 4, 2002, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Durandal7
I'm just glad that the ads will be over soon :rolleyes:

Hehe, yeah. They can be funny at times though....

3rdpath

Nov 4, 2002, 10:24 PM

as micheal moore said...payback time.

hopefully the 52% of voters who didn't vote for bush will send a message.

any guesses as to how many contests will end up in court?

Durandal7

Nov 5, 2002, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by King Cobra
>(Durandal7) I'm just glad that the ads will be over soon :rolleyes:

I couldn't agree with you any more. Emphasis on the eye roll.

In Maine around Windham there is a rotary, and it was literaly decorate with all this political crap: Vote for this guy, Vote for that guy...

I am unfortunate enough to live in one of the "key senate race" districts (Allard/Strickland race to be exact) and the ads are relentless. Strickland accuses Allard of trying to screw over the old folks and Allard accuses Strickland of being for big government. Pretty standard partisan fare actually :rolleyes:

any guesses as to how many contests will end up in court?
All of the ones in Florida :p

eyelikeart

Nov 5, 2002, 09:06 AM

sans the annoyance from "smear" ads all over about our current senator...I'm going to vote after I get out of work...

and no I'm not voting for the incumbent... ;)

jelloshotsrule

Nov 5, 2002, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by 3rdpath
as micheal moore said...payback time.

hmm.... for what?

if people really wanted to "pay them back" whoever they is, then they'd stop listening to their corporate bologna and people like michael moore would stick to their guns (ie, nader) rather than jumping ship as soon as the worse of two evils wins. moore's got some good ideas, but he needs to focus his energy. not "gore and bush are the same corporate conglomorate" one day and then "people who voted for nader screwed gore" the next.... neither of those are direct quotes of course. ;)

as for voting. dang. i don't know enough about the candidates... 2000 i was much more informed cause my roommate at the time was a political nut at the time and given the scope of the presidential election it's easier to stay informed. but with joe governor and jane senator, it's tougher...

not to mention the fact that i don't know if i have to confirm my registration or something or if i just show up and it's all good... etc... blah

Doctor Q

Nov 5, 2002, 12:52 PM

I've never missed voting in an election. Today, the volunteers (almost always retired people from around the neighborhood) were so inefficient that there was a big line, while a volunteer who really wasn't capable of the job tried to look up names in the registration list.

I admire people who take the time to man (and woman) the polls, and I didn't mind the 5 extra minutes, but some people didn't wait. Maybe they will come back later, maybe not.

Maybe employers should be encouraged to give up one employee on each election day to help out at polling places. Office workers who are used to working efficiently might make voting a little easier.

The more convenient it is to vote, the more participation there will be.

zimv20

Nov 5, 2002, 02:42 PM

of course i'm voting. i'm well-informed, too. i feel that's my responsibility.

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up
being governed by your inferiors." –– Plato

wdlove

Nov 5, 2002, 03:52 PM

I just returned from voting! Our Secretary of State, MA predicts 70% turnout of the 3.5 million registered voters. So far absentee ballots are 75,000 up 25% from 1998. Voting 1998, 57% of 3.3 million registered voter.

Alert voter fraud MA, at a local precinct our Democrat candidate is having volunteers taking non-English speaking, ?citizenship, & pulling the lever for the Democrat!!!!!

Unbalanced voting - More votes are lost with lever machines, Globe analyst finds.
Election day 2000 3,610 of 188,213 Bostonian ballots were blank.

I earnestly pray for this election!

MrMacMan

Nov 5, 2002, 04:48 PM

Yes all the votes in florida will be in dispute. :D
I cannot vote yet, darnit!
Well lets hope for a N0N 1 party controled congress.
Goverment doesn't work well when one party controls. :(

job

Nov 5, 2002, 05:50 PM

I'd vote if I could.

Only two more years. :rolleyes:

jefhatfield

Nov 5, 2002, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by hitman
I'd vote if I could.

Only two more years. :rolleyes:

i am glad that at least some of the younger people care

clinton got into the white house with less than half the vote...42% percent to be exact

bush got into the white house with the smaller portion of the popular vote...even after absentee ballots were counted

too many people in the usa don't really care and that's why we often do not get a candidate that speaks for the majority...many republicans i know liked mccain in 2000 and i wonder what happened to them...same with bradley and the democrats

did these people not vote in the primaries because they thought it would be a wasted vote??

it's sad to see a 2/3 turnout is considered amazing:confused:

today, i voted green for gov of calif as a protest vote and gop for lt governor and democrat most of the rest of the way for the smaller stuff...i voted for clean water bill and bill to help the local community college...on the issues i did not know about, i left blank

most voters don't go straight ticket so it will be interesting to see how everything shapes up...my hope is that one party controls the house and the other controls the senate because i like the idea of check and balance more than i fear the concept of gridlock

there was tons of gridlock when reagan had the house and senate for two years and the same with clinton so i don't think a divided government is the cause of gridlock

the main issue is the economy for me, then terrorism since going after terrorism is not always well defined...the media still does not know what to call john mohammad and john malvo

jelloshotsrule

Nov 5, 2002, 07:07 PM

i just voted. feels kinda good. even though i knew very little about most of the people.

voted green where i could and pretty much dem the rest of the way.... lots of people who were both dem and republican for state supreme court and ****e.

word

wdlove

Nov 5, 2002, 08:17 PM

That's the problem in MA, one party control, Democrat! Voters 30% Democrat. Independents majority! Problem voters vote a straight party vote. Once elected your in for life. Governor Swift only current Republican major office. State House has a small minority ~5 Senate & ~10House. Help Help Help!

dnte42

Nov 5, 2002, 09:09 PM

Arg, I waited way too long (procrastination and forgetfulness) and didn't get an absentee ballot for college. Not to mention that I didn't have the time to do any research on the contestants. I really don't like making an uninformed vote. So, yeah...no good. Maybe next time around.

Quark

Nov 5, 2002, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by 3rdpath
...any guesses as to how many contests will end up in court?

I voted. The court cases will all depend on how long the Democrats will want to keep whining about the truth and then accept that they lost - again, again, again and again.

I'm sure people won't be as duped by the democrats as they usually seem to be. I think the democrat's "scare" tactics can last only so long before people realize the truth.

It's kinda like those people that keep "predicting" the end of the earth each year - only to say later that they misplaced a decimal in their calculations - again, again, again and again.

Quark

Choppaface

Nov 5, 2002, 10:19 PM

nope, didn't register in time..... I had early apps to do that weekend

eyelikeart

Nov 6, 2002, 12:44 AM

so there was a return of our current Senator...ugh...

oh well...I did my part...

SPG

Nov 6, 2002, 02:51 AM

Hell yeah I voted...twice. Just kidding, I don't live in Florida or Chicago.

This race is a scary one, since if the Senate falls to Republican control then "Bush the Selected" will be able to ram every corporate handout and anti abortion bill right through to law completely unopposed all the way to the same supreme court his daddy appointed and then hijacked the last election to install him.

Quark, the Democrats weren't whining about something that didn't happen, but rather how a small group of people were able to disregard the truth, the law, the constitution, and ultimately the will of the people to achieve their lust for power "at any cost".
One of James Baker's first comments before the votes were even counted was "this will get settled in the supreme court".

I'm surprised at how little attention was given to the BBC's report on how the republican governor of Florida Jeb BUSH directed Kathleen Harris to purge the election roles in the poorest and mostly Democrat counties right before the election. Too many dirty tricks to ever trust the Republicans again, no matter what the issue.

alex_ant

Nov 6, 2002, 11:44 AM

Well, the Republicans sure cleaned up, didn't they...

Paul Wellstone died a week and a half ago...

The Green Party lost its major party status in Minnesota...

****ty past two weeks.

All you Alaskans had better enjoy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge while it still exists...

eyelikeart

Nov 6, 2002, 12:06 PM

actually...we're gonna have a runoff now...

more Republicans against the few Democrats...

I hope it works out...we gotta get Landrieu out of office! :D

SPG

Nov 6, 2002, 12:46 PM

I'm going to move to Europe and tell everyone I'm Canadian.

sturm375

Nov 6, 2002, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield

i am glad that at least some of the younger people care

clinton got into the white house with less than half the vote...42% percent to be exact

bush got into the white house with the smaller portion of the popular vote...even after absentee ballots were counted

too many people in the usa don't really care and that's why we often do not get a candidate that speaks for the majority...many republicans i know liked mccain in 2000 and i wonder what happened to them...same with bradley and the democrats

did these people not vote in the primaries because they thought it would be a wasted vote??

it's sad to see a 2/3 turnout is considered amazing:confused:

today, i voted green for gov of calif as a protest vote and gop for lt governor and democrat most of the rest of the way for the smaller stuff...i voted for clean water bill and bill to help the local community college...on the issues i did not know about, i left blank

most voters don't go straight ticket so it will be interesting to see how everything shapes up...my hope is that one party controls the house and the other controls the senate because i like the idea of check and balance more than i fear the concept of gridlock

there was tons of gridlock when reagan had the house and senate for two years and the same with clinton so i don't think a divided government is the cause of gridlock

the main issue is the economy for me, then terrorism since going after terrorism is not always well defined...the media still does not know what to call john mohammad and john malvo

Back in 2000, I wanted to vote for McCain, however before the primaries got to Illinois, he had already given up. Mathmatically elimated.

I voted early yesterday, straight party either. Some Republicans, some Dems, and a few Libertarians. If you look at the Illinois elections, winning had a direct corrispondance to how much money was spent on the campaign. It still sickens me to think that we can now legeally "buy" campaigns. McCain's Campaign Finance Reform will not stop this either, unfortunatly. The origional proposal might have stood a chance, but after going through both the House, and Senate, there really is no way it will help.

jelloshotsrule

Nov 6, 2002, 05:16 PM

besides having some good ideas about things that are ultimately the only thing that'll lead to true democracy (ie, campaign finance reform, so that it's not just a matter of $$$$$$/corporations), mccain just seems a bit more real than most politicians...

disappointed to see the weak green performance everywhere but cali basically... even in ny where i figured nyc would help boost them to a few %, only got 1%... blah

i wonder who's going to run for the greens in 2k4... hmm

alex_ant

Nov 6, 2002, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
besides having some good ideas about things that are ultimately the only thing that'll lead to true democracy (ie, campaign finance reform, so that it's not just a matter of $$$$$$/corporations), mccain just seems a bit more real than most politicians...

disappointed to see the weak green performance everywhere but cali basically... even in ny where i figured nyc would help boost them to a few %, only got 1%... blah

i wonder who's going to run for the greens in 2k4... hmm
I really like Ralph Nader, because he helps to legitimize the party. If the Greens get someone like Jello Biafra to run in 2004, they'll just be seen as another far-left wacko fringe party, (not that they aren't already... but even more so). With Nader's age, IMO, unless the Greens can find a candidate just as credible, their best days are behind them.

I agree about McCain. We need more people like him in office. Even if I don't agree with him on all the issues, the issues that a candidate supports are less important to me than the person him/herself. Specifically, their integrity.

If we want to fix our political system, it will take a huge mass movement. I think it's beyond the power of a single party to change the system in this way. The two major parties do dominate the elections, but only when you consider that the majority of eligible voters aren't voting. What I wonder is: What are the political stances of all these non-voters? If they could somehow be unified... somehow... united in their apathy... they would be able to completely overturn and revolutionize the system. I feel like Winston, dreaming about the day that will never come that the proles will overthrow the Party. :D

SPG

Nov 6, 2002, 08:34 PM

The Democrats have once again failed to show any backbone at all and have not stood by their convictions, "Republican Lite" is not what I want to vote for.

I truly feel that one of the big reasons that the Republicans were able to gain ground was through scare tactics. Say what you will but the way Bush came into office is sketchy at best, since then the economy has slid downhill, the CEO's have been revealed as the plunderers of the land, our civil rights are being trampled, the whole place is going to hell, and where is the public outrage? People are too scared from constant warnings of iminent doom lurking in the shadows and need a strong government to fight evil...puhlease!
War with Iraq? No nuclear weapons, no real offensive capabilities, and idealogical differences that preclude it from cooperating with the muslim fundamentalists have made it our number one priority?
The terorists are not in Iraq. We should be rooting out the terorists throughout the world and minimizing their base of support, not diverting our efforts to "finish what my father started" and further alienating the muslim world as well as the rest of the globe.
Carl Rove's infamous powerpoint presentation proved that the war on Iraq is smokescreen, but everyone bought it anyway.

http://www.foreigncorrespondent.com/index.html

jefhatfield

Nov 6, 2002, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by SPG
The Democrats have once again failed to show any backbone at all and have not stood by their convictions, "Republican Lite" is not what I want to vote for.

oh, the blue dog democrats...more like mbas instead of liberal lawyers

hey, it put the dems into the white house for 8 years...the dems could not play the leftist liberal game and expect to win in 92 and 96

i have a feeling that the dems might try a new strategy from the blue dog one and maybe play it a little more liberal and not so "big business"

it's worth a try

the dems were supposed to end up with the 51 or 52 senate seats, not the republicans...bush' stumping around the us paid off for some of the states (the majority in fact) where he went but i i think what really helped was that he stood up tall after 9/11 and was truly presidential...same goes for guiliani and many thought he could have won the new york senate race

many liberals like giuliani and he could have taken new york if he ran

SPG

Nov 7, 2002, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield

i think what really helped was that he stood up tall after 9/11 and was truly presidential...same goes for guiliani

Bush? Presidential? Standing tall flying from secret location to secret location on Air Force One for two days? Using the word "crusade" in a speech about hunting down fundamentalist islamic terorists? All bluster and political jockeying, especially the Iraq smokescreen.
The amount of vague warnings that have come from the government over the past year remind me of how psychological operations work. It's becoming clear to me that the Republicans have been trying to keep everyone scared for their own political advantage. Why else would you tell someone to be scared, very scared, because something that we won't tell you exactly what, might just happen horribly to you right now, unless you give me total authority to protect you. None of the warnings issued to the public have even been close to helpful in any way whatsoever, except to increase the level of fear, or dare I say it...terror.

Guiliani was much despised by most of New York for the way he ran roughshod over all the checks and balances and didn't give a damn whether he was acting within the law, even when executing a personal vendetta. Did you know that it was illegal to dance in a bar in New York under Guiliani's Cabaret Law? What my fellow New Yorkers did appreciate even before last September was that he did manage to make an apreciable difference in the petty crime rate and the overall mood of The City. Like most leaders you took the good with the bad, and Rudy did a lot to improve New York even if it was done under an iron fist. That same iron fist came in handy when New York needed real leadership. Ask around next time you're in Manhattan or Brooklyn about how people feel about Bush, most people either hate the guy, or grudgingly accept that we have to back the powers that be in a time of crisis. I have yet to meet anyone who really feels that Bush did anything substantial for New York. I ask you Jef, do you really think that Bush did a better job at handling the foreign affairs of this country after the attack? There is absolutely no question that foreign policy was his weakest point before, hell the guy never even left the continent before he got appointed by the supreme court.

SPG

Nov 7, 2002, 04:36 AM

Before anyone jumps on me for writing the above post from Seattle, I grew up in and around New York City, my family and friends still live there, and I'm there quite a bit myself as I can attest with all my JetBlue receipts.
I'd welcome some comments from other New Yorkers still living there, and don't get the idea that I'm anti Guiliani, I'm not. I like the guy more every time I think about all the car windows I had to replace under the Dinkins administration, I just sometimes get nostalgic for the Z-bar, No Tell Motel, and being able to move to music without getting yelled at by the bartender.

jefhatfield

Nov 7, 2002, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by SPG

I ask you Jef, do you really think that Bush did a better job at handling the foreign affairs of this country after the attack? There is absolutely no question that foreign policy was his weakest point before, hell the guy never even left the continent before he got appointed by the supreme court.

it is obvious that bush is not a very smart president and that he did get into office through the right leaning supreme court and not by the will of the american people

the guy grew up with a silver spoon up his butt and his high school test scores put him just above dull normal

he spent more than a year and a half awol from the air force reserve during the vietnam war

but that being said;

1) who said the president has to be a genius or even average in intelligence anymore than a president has to be faithful to his wife?

2) the president has two trusted advisors in former general colin powell and former department of defense secretary dick cheney

i voted for gore and if the election were held two days ago for president, i would have voted for gore again...but bush has done better concerning terrorism that i had thought he would

the taliban was dismantled out of power in afganistan and their number two man was caught

bin laden is most likely dead, al qaeda is scattered, and the number three man and their man operations planner are both caught

bin laden's son, a terrorist also, is caught

iraq is allowing the idea of weapons inspectors to go deeper than before

i think bush has done a good job or at least fair in the past two years

on the domestic front, he has failed and if he doesn't do something about the economy, anybody including mickey mouse can unseat him in 2004

overall, at least, he hasn't sold out america to the corporations and to the rich because he is, like his father and reagan, on the moderate end of the GOP

imagine if we had jesse helms or david duke running the country...that is a scary thought...they would probably appoint john mohammad as their secretary of defense since he seems to like guns a lot...someone like hoover would run the fbi and go against gays while at the same time appoint their boyfriends to high positions in the force...here's an idea to stop school shootings...arm all the children!!! these are the type of ideas i hear the right wing of the GOP put out all the time (it makes no more sense than the factions on the far left who want a violent overthow of the us government 60s style donning berets and m-16s)

all that being said in that above rant, bush will take the middle ground since he knows he wants his party to survive on some level for the next quarter of a century;)

alex_ant

Nov 7, 2002, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
1) who said the president has to be a genius or even average in intelligence anymore than a president has to be faithful to his wife?
I probably don't speak for anyone else here, but I would rather have an unmarried president who is one of the sharpest Americans in the country but screws a different prostitute every night than one who is basically good but doesn't know Saudi Arabia from the ficus sitting in his office. That's not to say I would want a president like that, it's just to say that if I had to choose... I mean, ideally, we'd want the perfect person as president, wouldn't we? Why did we have to settle for this loser? It's really sad.
2) the president has two trusted advisors in former general colin powell and former department of defense secretary dick cheney
That's true... what I fear is that they are responsible for a bit more than "advising," though.
imagine if we had jesse helms or david duke running the country...that is a scary thought...they would probably appoint john mohammad as their secretary of defense since he seems to like guns a lot...someone like hoover would run the fbi and go against gays while at the same time appoint their boyfriends to high positions in the force...here's an idea to stop school shootings...arm all the children!!!
Dude... that would be awesome! Sure beats flinging rubber bands :)

And I mostly agree with the rest of your comment, too.

jefhatfield

Nov 7, 2002, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by alex_ant

That's true... what I fear is that they are responsible for a bit more than "advising," though.

[/B]

but i would rather have dick cheney and especially colin powell running the country over bush any day of the week

i would have also preferred john mccain over W

dole over W, and either one ;)

jack kemp over W

W's father over W

W is not the worst president in us history, but unless the economy perks up some, he will be seen as one of the worst lame ducks around

sure, W can get the terrorists...his daddy got saddam out of kuwait but let the economy go by the wayside the following year

and after george bush sr's 90 percent favorable rating in 1991, not watching the economy for the next year after that made sure he was voted out of office

like everyone said, "it's the economy stupid!":p ;)

SPG

Nov 7, 2002, 01:29 PM

Colin Powel is okay, he's pretty much a realist when it comes to Iraq and as such got in trouble for not being a war mongering cheerleader. Funny how the only guy there with real militairy combat experience is the one least enthusiastic about going to war.
Cheney on the other hand scares the crap out of me even when he's hiding with the "shadow government" in an undisclosed location. A shadow government in a secret location? The X-files couldn't even write this stuff and make it believable but here it is...our new republican built reality.

SPG

Nov 7, 2002, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield

...sure, W can get the terrorists...his daddy got saddam out of kuwait but let the economy go by the wayside the following year

and after george bush sr's 90 percent favorable rating in 1991, not watching the economy for the next year after that made sure he was voted out of office

like everyone said, "it's the economy stupid!":p ;)

Soooo, now that W has cut taxes to the rich and eliminated all of the surplus and then some, and now that he's going to blow another trillion on bombs and missiles, where will the economy be then?

BTW, W hasn't gotten any terrorists, the militairy and the CIA has. The policy decisions that he is responsible for are agendas, not departments. Rooting out terror is the operation of the departments of defense, and intelligence. Initiating tax cuts and unilateral declarations of war are the president's responsibility.

jefhatfield

Nov 7, 2002, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by SPG

Soooo, now that W has cut taxes to the rich and eliminated all of the surplus and then some, and now that he's going to blow another trillion on bombs and missiles, where will the economy be then?

BTW, W hasn't gotten any terrorists, the militairy and the CIA has. The policy decisions that he is responsible for are agendas, not departments. Rooting out terror is the operation of the departments of defense, and intelligence. Initiating tax cuts and unilateral declarations of war are the president's responsibility.

hey, i hear what you say

i wish we had that surplus...especially to ensure social security

SPG

Nov 7, 2002, 06:05 PM

If we enact a "Living Wage" law we would be in mucch better shape regarding social security. Think about it, more people paying in with more money, and those that were earning minimum wage, usually through hard labor, might actually be able to put something away in savings.

jefhatfield

Nov 8, 2002, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by SPG
If we enact a "Living Wage" law we would be in mucch better shape regarding social security. Think about it, more people paying in with more money, and those that were earning minimum wage, usually through hard labor, might actually be able to put something away in savings.

i couldn't agree with you more!

it's such a shame when even college graduates get stuck at seven dollars an hour while CEOs are stealing money and sometimes getting away with it greasing the palms of both major parties

the movie "reality bitles" really hits to the core of any recession era time period and the job market:p

wdlove

Nov 10, 2002, 04:04 PM

We should reform Social Security before its too late! When it was setup the life expectancy was 65. At least a partial privatization would increase the rate of return. Currently its about 2.5%

jefhatfield

Nov 10, 2002, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by wdlove
We should reform Social Security before its too late! When it was setup the life expectancy was 65. At least a partial privatization would increase the rate of return. Currently its about 2.5%

when i was born in 1963, my life expectancy as a male was 66.7 years

today, or the latest i have heard about on the radio is 70.3 years for a man and "considerably" higher for a woman

i know it doesn't sound like much, but with 270+ million americans, that adds up to a lot of extra monthly payments

some politicians on the left say that by the time late baby boomers like me get there, the system will be bankrupt

i know it's a good scare tactic in order to scare up votes...pardon the pun...but perhaps social security needs to be reformed by a willing and able bi partisan group of elected officials

when the sh** hits the fan, the two parties in america have this amzaing way of burying the ax and working together

...but when it's nothing short of a dire crisis, the two sides like to battle against each other on the pettiest things and use the typical dirty tactics of the beltway:rolleyes:

sturm375

Nov 11, 2002, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield

when i was born in 1963, my life expectancy as a male was 66.7 years

today, or the latest i have heard about on the radio is 70.3 years for a man and "considerably" higher for a woman

i know it doesn't sound like much, but with 270+ million americans, that adds up to a lot of extra monthly payments

some politicians on the left say that by the time late baby boomers like me get there, the system will be bankrupt

i know it's a good scare tactic in order to scare up votes...pardon the pun...but perhaps social security needs to be reformed by a willing and able bi partisan group of elected officials

when the sh** hits the fan, the two parties in america have this amzaing way of burying the ax and working together

...but when it's nothing short of a dire crisis, the two sides like to battle against each other on the pettiest things and use the typical dirty tactics of the beltway:rolleyes:

The only problem is that the people responsible for SocSec, don't use it. Once elected to Congress, they never have to worry about retirement. What ever they are paid during their term, they get that for the rest of their lives. They live outside of SocSec. Since they don't see a crisis themselves, it will be hard to get them to fix it.