Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

2008 Presidential election, the 21st thread thereof

Old 07-26-08, 07:54 AM
  #1  
Moderator
Thread Starter
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,264
2008 Presidential election, the 21st thread thereof

And, continue.

<a href = "http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=535301">Previous thread.</a>
wendersfan is offline  
Old 07-26-08, 08:20 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Obama wraps up his trip to Europe today. He did not convince the French to learn Spanish. More when he returns...
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 07-26-08, 09:05 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Obama from Europe:
"You're always more popular before you're actually in charge of things and then, once you're responsible, then you're going to make some people unhappy. That's just the nature of politics," he said.
Agreed. Although Obama is probably more prone to this, given that he is actually "popular" with almost all of his voters.

"Even during the course of this campaign, there have been months when I'm (considered) a genius and there are months when I'm (considered) an idiot."
Can someone point out which months he has been considered a "genius?"

Last edited by Th0r S1mpson; 07-26-08 at 09:08 AM.
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 07-26-08, 10:31 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 5,205
Originally Posted by Thor Simpson
Can someone point out which months he has been considered a "genius?"
Here you go: http://forum.dvdtalk.com/search.php?searchid=2639875
printerati is online now  
Old 07-26-08, 10:43 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by Thor Simpson
Obama wraps up his trip to Europe today. He did not convince the French to learn Spanish. More when he returns...
classicman2 is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 10:57 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,070
Here's Senator McCain's latest ad.



Well, at least he's standing by his promise to run an honorable, issues-based campaign.

What is Senator McCain's position on the issues today? He's gone from "It's OK if we stay in Iraq for 100 years" to "We'll be out by 2013" to "16 months seems like an appropriate timetable. Oops --did I say timetable? I mean time horizon! Yeah, that's it -- a time horizon! Did I mention that Senator Obama is a traitor?"



Meanwhile, Senator Obama goes with the exact same "My goal is 16 months, subject to conditions on the ground" that he's been advocating for the last year and he gets accused of flip-flopping.
JasonF is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 11:30 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,921
The Campaign Spot

Jim Geraghty reporting


'There comes a time when we heed a certain call.'

There was not a ton to object to, and indeed a lot to like, in Obama's speech in Berlin. Although I think I preferred it the first time I heard it, when it was sung by all those celebrities and rock stars back in the mid-80s.

Oh, wait, that was "We Are The World."

UPDATE: Pop quiz, hot shot. Pick out the "We Are The World" lyrics vs. Obama speech lines.

A: "We can't go on pretending day by day that someone, somewhere will soon make a change."

B: "This is the moment we must help answer the call."

C: "But if you just believe there's no way we can fall."

D. "The world will watch and remember what we do."

E. "Let us realize that a change can only come when we stand together as one."

F. "We cannot afford to be divided."

G. "These now are the walls we must tear down."

H. "This is the moment when we must come together."

I. "They'll know that someone cares, and their lives will be stronger and free."

Spoiler:

We Are the World: A, C, E, I.
Obama's Speech: B, D, F, G, H.



http://campaignspot.nationalreview.c...JmNWViZjE5YWY=
Ky-Fi is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 12:07 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Brent L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Upstate, SC
Posts: 13,617
Originally Posted by JasonF
What is Senator McCain's position on the issues today? He's gone from "It's OK if we stay in Iraq for 100 years" to "We'll be out by 2013" to "16 months seems like an appropriate timetable. Oops --did I say timetable? I mean time horizon! Yeah, that's it -- a time horizon! Did I mention that Senator Obama is a traitor?"
Ugh, McCain's opinion on Iraq (especially the "100 years" comment) has been twisted around just about as much as Obama being a "Muslim". Even in that video you just posted he flat out said that we'll likely still have a military presence after we finally do pullout, whenever that may be. The entire concept of pulling active military forces out of Iraq is an ever changing concept. It all depends on the Iraqi leaders, and how the conditions change. Anyone with half a brain knows that, and it would be foolish to stand up and flat out say "we'll leave Iraq at this exact time, period", simply because you just never know what will happen. Not to mention that would allow the enemy to formulate plans to take advantage of that date. I don't care who it would be, McCain or Obama, but the actual pullout date will be ever changing. It could be a year and a half, it could be five+ years, depending on how everything goes.
Brent L is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 01:16 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Bacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: on somone's ignore list
Posts: 20,886
Originally Posted by JasonF
Here's Senator McCain's latest ad.



Well, at least he's standing by his promise to run an honorable, issues-based campaign.

What is Senator McCain's position on the issues today? He's gone from "It's OK if we stay in Iraq for 100 years" to "We'll be out by 2013" to "16 months seems like an appropriate timetable. Oops --did I say timetable? I mean time horizon! Yeah, that's it -- a time horizon! Did I mention that Senator Obama is a traitor?"



Meanwhile, Senator Obama goes with the exact same "My goal is 16 months, subject to conditions on the ground" that he's been advocating for the last year and he gets accused of flip-flopping.
McCain is like a baby whose bottle of milk got spilled
always whining yet never bothers to do anything about the cause of the problem.
Bacon is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 01:54 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,070
Originally Posted by Brent L
Ugh, McCain's opinion on Iraq (especially the "100 years" comment) has been twisted around just about as much as Obama being a "Muslim". Even in that video you just posted he flat out said that we'll likely still have a military presence after we finally do pullout, whenever that may be. The entire concept of pulling active military forces out of Iraq is an ever changing concept. It all depends on the Iraqi leaders, and how the conditions change. Anyone with half a brain knows that, and it would be foolish to stand up and flat out say "we'll leave Iraq at this exact time, period", simply because you just never know what will happen. Not to mention that would allow the enemy to formulate plans to take advantage of that date. I don't care who it would be, McCain or Obama, but the actual pullout date will be ever changing. It could be a year and a half, it could be five+ years, depending on how everything goes.
My problem with Senator McCain and Iraq is twofold.

First, the 100 years comment. Senator McCain said he had no problem with our stoops staying in Iraq for 100 years if they are not getting killed. That's fine. I have no objection to our bases in Okinawa and at Ramstein, and I would have no objection to a base in Iraq, if we are the welcome guests of the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people. My problem with Senator McCain is that he never explains how we're going to get from here to there. He doesn't have a plan to get us to a point where our troops aren't getting attacked. Saying "The American people don't mind staying in Iraq for a 100 years if there are no casualties" is no different from saying "The American people don't mind eating an entire ice cream cake for dinner every night if they don't gain weight." Sorry, Senator, but unless you explain to me how I can eat that ice cream cake without gaining weight, it's an empty proposition.

Second, Senator McCain touts his war experiences and his time in the Senate serving on the Armed Forces committee and his eight trips to Iraq and everything else under the sun, but from week to week, he keeps changing what he has to say about Iraq. He went from 100 years (which, even at it's most charitable reading, is a shrug of the shoulders in response to the question "when will the war be over") to five years, and now he's at 16 months. And I believe last week, he was saying 12 months, although he has backed away from that. You can say he's trying to make the argument that what matters is what's going on in Iraq on the ground. And that does matter. But it's not all that matters. We have civilian leadership of the armed forces, and the President will need to make the broad strategic decisions about what are our goals there. Senator Obama has clearly articulated his startegic goals -- get out of the country and let the Iraqis govern themselves. Senator McCain hasn't done that. Instead, he just keeps saying that at some indeterminate point in the future -- maybe 2013, maybe 2009, who knows -- we will have accomplished whatever it is he thinks we're supposed to be accomplishing (though he won't tell us what that is), and then we can bring the troops home.

And yet Senator Obama is the one who gets derided as an empty suit.
JasonF is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 02:18 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
JasonF, for you to say that McCain's stance on Iraq has changed while Obama's has remained consistent is flabbergasting.
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 03:06 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
From McCain's website, on his plan for Iraq: (this is only the conclusion, feel free to read the details)
“I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership. “

“I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. And I regret sincerely the additional sacrifices imposed on the brave Americans who defend us. But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and on our country's security. By giving General Petraeus and the men and women he has the honor to command the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq we have before us a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Those who disregard the unmistakable progress we have made in the last year and the terrible consequences that would ensue were we to abandon our responsibilities in Iraq have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election.”
McCain's stance has been consistent. He wants our combat troops as soon as possible without compromising our interests there, which includes the security of the Iraqi people. No fixed timeline. Naturally, when a drawdawn begins, there will be estimates on how long that process will take. And there will continue to be flex based on the conditions on the ground. Man, that sounds an awful lot like what Obama has been saying lately. The difference is that Obama wanted out with things stable or not, let the Iraqi people stand up and see if they are up to the task. McCain has pledged to keep a strong presence until they are tested. This has already been accomplished in a number of areas, where our presence is now minimal.


<B>100 years:</B> referring to a military presence similar to what the nation already has in places like Japan, Germany and South Korea. <B>Consistent.</B> Distorted to make people fear 100 more years of what we are currently enduring. Obama himself will not rule out a large force still being in Iraq in 10 years in a support role, under his own plan. Some people completely ignore this. The Iraqis may not even let Obama keep our troops there that long.

2013: "What I want to do today is take a little time to describe what I would hope to have achieved at the end of my first term as president. I cannot guarantee I will have achieved these things... By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and -women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension." The violence in Iraq will persist, the candidate believes, but it will be "spasmodic and much reduced." But civil war will be prevented, armed militias will be disbanded, security forces will become "professional and competent," and the government will be able to impose "its authority in every province of Iraq" and properly defend its borders. (CNN.com) <b>Consistent.</b>


12 months: First of all, it was Heather Wilson, not McCain, who said this: "<B>He'd like troops to come home earlier than 16 months if the conditions allow it</B>," said Congresswoman Heather Wilson of New Mexico, on a conference call with reporters just now. "<B>Senator Obama has said it's a 16-month timeline no matter what.</b>[thor note: we now know this is incorrect, right?]" Wilson walked this line back a bit later on, reminding people that any such withdrawal would have to be based on conditions on the ground, and might take longer: "<B>Whether that happens in 12 months, or 16 months, or 24 months, the important thing is that our troops come home with victory and America's vital national interests secured.</B>" So from that, you are implying a change in policy? What did McCain's camp have to say about it? "<B>John McCain would like to get U.S. troops out of Iraq tomorrow, but any withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground and our commanders have made fairly clear that they do not believe that 16 months, even under ideal conditions, would allow for a safe and responsible withdrawal of all American troops and their equipment. Even Barack Obama does not intend to pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq in 16 months, but has committed to maintaining in Iraq a "residual force" of unspecified size for an undetermined length of time.</B>" <b>CONSISTENT</B>

So there you have it. Consistent on all three fronts.

The interesting tidbit there, is that McCain's camp acknowledged that Obama would retain a force there. So the 16 months was not seen as rigid on that date. But McCain's view has remained quite consistent from what I have seen. If the quotes you are intending to address are not the ones above, then I am open to correction.

Last edited by Th0r S1mpson; 07-27-08 at 03:12 PM.
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 03:11 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Brent L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Upstate, SC
Posts: 13,617
Thor, I don't even think it's worth trying.

Like I said, his Iraq policy has been just as twisted as people saying Obama is a Muslim.
Brent L is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 03:36 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
GreenMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,281
That's right. McCain is definitely the candidate who wants the occupation of Iraq to end, ASAP. We are so deluded to think he had a different position than Obama.

GreenMonkey is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 03:44 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Originally Posted by GreenMonkey
That's right. McCain is definitely the candidate who wants the occupation of Iraq to end, ASAP. We are so deluded to think he had a different position than Obama.

I'm sorry, what point exactly are you debating?

It's a measure of withdrawal and responsibility.

John McCain wants to ensure that we withdraw as soon as possible, <i>in a responsible manner</i>. In the past, Obama wanted out in 16 months, but he is strongly leaning towards the "responsible manner" verbiage these days. How one defines "responsible" is up for debate. But to imply that McCain simply wants to be there is wrong.

So yes, McCain wants to withdraw as soon as possible, but his measure of responsibility has historically been greater towards supporting the Iraqis than Obama's.

I suppose if there was a candidate proposing that we simply nuke all of Iraq with our soldiers in it to end the occupation ASAP, some people might not like that idea because it shows a lack of judgment. That's not to imply that Obama's plan shows such an irresponsibility, but some do feel that it shows a certain amount of it.

But make no mistake about it... McCain, and anyone who would be elected the next president, wants our forces out as soon as possible for a host of reasons. The question is what are you willing to leave behind and what will be the long term cost and benefit to our nation.

That is the debate. Not this ridiculous fear mongering from both sides about "retreat" or "100 years of war."

Last edited by Th0r S1mpson; 07-27-08 at 03:53 PM.
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 04:28 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,070
Again, Thor, I fully concede that Senator McCain was not talking about 100 years of war. He was talking about 100 years of a magical happy friendly base in Iraq, where everyone is our friend, and the Sunnis and Shi-ites come by once a week for poker night. I get it. But what you don't seem to get is that Senator McCain didn't say "We're going to withdraw most of our troops as soon as possible, but leave a base there for 100 years." He was asked about how long our troops would be there and he shot back with "make it 100 years." That was his line, that was what he chose to emphasize. It was only when people started pointing out how batshit insane that is that he began walking it back, emphasizing the fact that he wants to bring the troops home sooner -- first by 2013, and now possibly within 16 months.

It's clear what's going on here. Senator McCain's only Iraq strategy is that we must win. No matter what, we have to win. What constitutes winning? Who the fuck knows. Who the fuck cares. He's for winning, the other guy is for losing, and all the rest is just details.

So you get nonsensical situations like his current position, which is that he wants to bring the troops home, that 16 months sounds like a good time frame, that he'll modify his plans as conditions on the ground warrant, and that Senator Obama -- who all along has had the exact same position as Senator McCain's current position -- somehow wants to lose the war.

I can show you quotes from Senator Obama from last summer in which he consistently says his goal is to begin bringing the troops home as soon as he takes office, he thinks we can bring 1 or 2 brigades home per month, that the whole process will take about 16 months, but that he will modify his position based on the advice of the commanders on the ground at the time.

So I defy you, Thor, Brent L, or anyone else who thinks Senator McCain is in the right on this:

1. Show me where Senator Obama has chnaged his position on Iraq.
2. Show me an inch of daylight between Senator McCain's current position on Iraq and Senator Obama's position on Iraq.
JasonF is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 04:44 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Originally Posted by JasonF
Show me an inch of daylight between Senator McCain's current position on Iraq and Senator Obama's position on Iraq.


I honestly can't believe you are saying this right now. I've been saying that for weeks (as have some others).

Either we "get" these guys' views on the war a little better than some people, or we are all simultaneously psychicly viewing the end games for this election. Which would also be bad news for Obama fans, since about the only "prediction" I've made this election cycle was early in the year, saying that Hillary would likely score the nomination, and August isn't over yet.

Their views on the war ARE very much the same now (again, aside from their views on permanent bases, which is largely out of their hands any way). Even before either nomination was locked up, I'd said that in this coming election the Dems escape plan and the Republican "way forward" would end up being pretty much the same thing any way, no matter how they choose to spin it.

Even with the same goal and same "course," we can still find division over this. Us people, we loves us our words.

Last edited by Th0r S1mpson; 07-27-08 at 06:08 PM.
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 06:29 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,070
Originally Posted by Thor Simpson


I honestly can't believe you are saying this right now. I've been saying that for weeks (as have some others).
Their views weren't the same weeks ago. Fortunately, Senator McCain has come around to Senator Obama's way of thinking.
JasonF is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 06:48 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
IMO, it's difficult to argue against the fact that McCain was right about the surge, and Obama was wrong.

I understand some will argue against that.

That is one of the few things that McCain has been right on.

Well, I take that back. I believe he was right on his stance on a comprehensive immigration policy.

I don't know about McCain's stance on energy policy. He has changed a couple of times.

I do know that Obama is dead wrong in his immigration policy.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 07:05 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Originally Posted by JasonF
Their views weren't the same weeks ago. Fortunately, Senator McCain has come around to Senator Obama's way of thinking.
I'd laugh again, but I fear that you're being serious.
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 07:43 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,070
Originally Posted by classicman2
IMO, it's difficult to argue against the fact that McCain was right about the surge, and Obama was wrong.
Senator Obama was wrong about the surge, at least insofar as he said it would make things worse. I'm not convinced Senator McCain was right. There has been a lot going on in Iraq the last few years. There is no denying that casualties have gone down. I'm not certain how much of that can be laid at the feet of the surge, and how much is due to other factors -- the Anbar Awakening, and the changes in Iraq's demographics chief amaong them.

Well, I take that back. I believe he was right on his stance on a comprehensive immigration policy.

I do know that Obama is dead wrong in his immigration policy.
Im surprised to hear you say that, since Senator Obama's positions seem very similar to positions I've seen you take in this forum. Which of these do you think is "dead wrong"?
  • Create Secure Borders
    Obama wants to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.
  • Improve Our Immigration System
    Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.
  • Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
    Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
  • Bring People Out of the Shadows
    Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.
  • Work with Mexico
    Obama believes we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration.

I don't know about McCain's stance on energy policy. He has changed a couple of times.
Senator Obama's energy policy is one of the few areas where I think he gets it wrong. He's right about needing to explore alternative energy. But I think there needs to be a greater recognition of the fact that we've still got several decades of dependence on fossil fuels, and that this means drilling in the U.S. I would also like to see him advocate for nuclear.
JasonF is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 09:21 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
GreenMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,281
I don't think the surge was a success. It was/has been a waste of American lives and billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money.

Sure, tossing more money and more soldiers into Iraq is going to improve things for a while. I don't think it is doing us any good in the long term, nor it is going to help Iraq become a stable democracy in the long term, either.

I keep hearing McCain and the neocon Republicans saying how the surge has been some huge success. Well, I don't see it. To me it's been extravagant waste for minimal gain. Just like most of the occupation.

I'm sure there's plenty of "Successful" strategies during the Vietnam war period too. The only good solution was to not get involved, and the second best solution was to get the hell out.

But hey, I'm just a tree-hugging hippie liberal because I thought this was stupid idea from the get-go.

Last edited by GreenMonkey; 07-27-08 at 09:25 PM.
GreenMonkey is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 09:46 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
I meant 'energy' not 'immigration.'

I believe Obama is right on immigration.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 09:52 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 11,747
Originally Posted by GreenMonkey
But hey, I'm just a tree-hugging hippie liberal because I thought this was stupid idea from the get-go.
I don't know about that, but you do seem to want to ignore data that contradict your beliefs. This is what supporters of the war did for its first several years and look where that got us.
dork is offline  
Old 07-27-08, 10:43 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,070
Originally Posted by classicman2
I meant 'energy' not 'immigration.'

I believe Obama is right on immigration.
Then you and I are on the same page.

What the hell are we going to argue about?
JasonF is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.