Feeding People is Cultural Appropriation?

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, Blueskye2 said:

Jesus also provided instructions for helping the poor, and explained the consequences for not doing so. Capitalism wasn't on the list.

I'm curious.  Other than Capitalism, what economic system even allows charity to exist?

[Blueskye2]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

I'm curious.  Other than Capitalism, what economic system even allows charity to exist?

Anyone can be charitable. Its altruism not capitalism. 

[unixknight]

13 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Anyone can be charitable. Its altruism not capitalism. 

That's right.  The problem is that Capitalism is the only system in which someone can exercise altruism.  Others tend to leave everybody poor (except those at the top of the food chain, for whom altruism is not a priority), or claim to make everybody economically equal (and always fails to do so.) 

In a capitalistic society, people have greater control over their own personal finances such that they actually have the option to be charitable.  (And the freedom to do so, should they choose.)  Socialism, on the other hand, tries to make everyone equal and the only way to do that is to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator.  The Government itself is tasked with taking care of people, and so there's no room for anyone to be charitable even if they could afford to do so. 

Edited June 3, 2017 by unixknight

[Guest]

On 6/2/2017 at 6:29 PM, Blueskye2 said:

Jesus also provided instructions for helping the poor, and explained the consequences for not doing so. Capitalism wasn't on the list.

Neither was socialism.  So, what's your point?

[Sunday21]

I hereby give permission for anyone to appropriate any one of the recipes of my homeland. Feel free!

Scottish delicacies:

Haggis:https://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&site=&source=hp&ei=Y_0zWb7oC8nVjwTl_4bIDw&q=recipe+haggis&oq=rcipe+haggis&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.0.0i13k1l5.4007.10544.0.16848.13.13.0.2.2.0.193.1914.0j13.13.0....0...1.1.64.mobile-gws-hp..0.13.1702.3..0j41j46j0i131k1j46i131k1j0i46k1j0i10k1j0i13i30k1j0i22i30k1.gwHHYq8hntM#imgrc=BENc1_qCbGzPeM:

Haggis includes all the parts of the sheep, you would normall eshew: eyeballs, intestines, offal (called offal for a reason!). These tasty bits are parboiled, minced with lots of salt, oatmeal added and boiled in a sheeps stomach. Seconds anyone? My mother had the recipe hanging on the wall in her kitchen. Never made it! But the threat was there.

Also deep fried: pizza & mars bars

black sausage: made from blood

nips: turnip boiled until all hope is lost, served watery

mince: a staple of my childhood. Fatty ground beef, fried in all the fat with additional bacon drippings added. Serve with a whole salt cellar.

Anyone who wants to appropriate these recipes can go right ahead!

Note: has anyone ever seen a restaurant labelled Scottish cuisine? Ever? Bakeries, yes. But restaurant? Good reason for this! 

 

Edited June 4, 2017 by Sunday21

[Blueskye2]

14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Neither was socialism.  So, what's your point?

? I never said anything about socialism.

My point has been and is, capitalism does not exist, and never has existed, to help anyone but businesses. It has side effects, some good some bad.  Trickle down economics is touted as a good side effect, which has never been proven.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Just_A_Guy]

On 6/1/2017 at 1:57 PM, Blueskye2 said:

The women in the OP story were not experimenting and making their own recipes. They outright stole existing recipes and cooking techniques and then opened a restaurant. It would be like me, learning the recipe of my neighbors carefully developed bbq sauce and then secretly opening a restaurant with her sauce as the thing that earns me money, without her consent. 

Actually, per this article (https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2017/05/24/burrito-shop-closes-after-being-accused-of-cultural-appropriation/amp/), there was quite a lot of experimenting; because the proprietors apparently weren't able to get the whole process from any one individual.  So they took parts of it and meshed it all together in different ways until they got it right.

As for the existing recipes/techniques--why do they "belong" to these Latina grandmothers?  Didn't they merely inherit those techniques from their own mothers and grandmothers, rather than inventing and developing them in their own?  Why should *they* get to profit off of someone else's ingenuity and experimentation and labor?  As a savvy politician might have said--"You didn't cook that!!!"

In Liberalspeak, culinarily speaking these grandmothers were the privileged--the one percenters--hoarding their riches at the expense of the oppressed gringos who just couldn't get a leg up in the tortilla business.  And they were inherited riches, to boot--the worst kind, as we all know.  Why, those heroic Portland revolutionaries just redistributed a little unearned wealth, that's all. 

We dream of a world without property, and behold!--the beginnings of a world without property appear, and we find it more tasteless and less palatable than previously imagined. . .

Edited June 4, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

On 5/30/2017 at 10:32 AM, Carborendum said:

Actually states rights was not a D/R thing.  It was historically used to support anyone's political agenda.

The North (mostly Republican) used the 10th amendment to nullify the Fugitive Slave Law.

The South (mostly Democrats) used it to nullify restrictions on slavery.

This leaning towards political agenda hasn't really changed much in 200 years.

This bears multitudinous repeating, in light of the pro-Confederacy apologetics gaining currency in some quarters.  

A South with any modicum of ideological devotion to state's rights would have led the chorus of howls in opposition to the Dred Scott decision.  And they would have created a Confederate constitution that allowed individual states to ban slavery if they so desired; rather than one that guaranteed the right to own slaves throughout the Confederacy.

To be sure, there were southerners who were deeply uncomfortable with slavery--Washington and Jefferson, and later Lee, among them.  But the ringleaders of the secessionist movement (and later, Jim Crow statutes) were primarily devoted to the trappings of power and control; and they would have (and did) sold themselves to whichever font of legal authority that seemed most likely to leave their new-world aristocracy unmolested.  When they could no longer get what they wanted from the federal government, they found themselves a new sugar daddy--states' rights.  And they polluted the doctrine in ways that continue to haunt conservatism 150 years later.

I feel bad for Lee, who opposed secession; and many of the yeoman farmers (including an ancestor of mine) who fought for the South primarily because they felt compelled by the prospect of hostile federal troops occupying their home states.  But as for Davis, Ruffin, Brooks, Beauregard, and the rest of the fire-eaters--if you're looking for a place to put their monuments, I'd suggest your nearest urinal.

Edited June 5, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[askandanswer]

I'm starting to wonder if I should feel guilty about eating Kentucky Fried Chicken. Have I been eating something that has been appropriated from the people of Kentucky?

[Guest]

On 6/4/2017 at 11:39 AM, Blueskye2 said:

? I never said anything about socialism.

So, what exactly were you saying about capitalism.  I might have misunderstood.  When you said "capitalism wasn't on the list", I understood that to mean that capitalism wasn't mentioned as a method of helping the poor.

My response was that the opposite (socialism) also wasn't listed either.  His only counsel to help the poor is that we do it.

On 6/4/2017 at 11:39 AM, Blueskye2 said:

My point has been and is, capitalism does not exist, and never has existed, to help anyone but businesses. It has side effects, some good some bad.  Trickle down economics is touted as a good side effect, which has never been proven.

Incorrect.  The entire point and basis of capitalism is to help the society as a whole.  The one single principle that defines capitalism is that you have to contribute something to get something back.  Having an economic system based on that principle can do nothing but help the morality of the society that fosters it.

If the society and its economic system is based on moral principles, then the most successful will also tend to be moral individuals.  Moral individuals through their own volition and not through force of gun will willingly give and help those around them that are less fortunate.

Immoral systems will develop and encourage immoral individuals.  Immoral individuals will NOT help the less fortunate.

If you really want there to be no poor among us, how can anyone support any other system other than capitalism?

Edited June 5, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

On 6/1/2017 at 8:29 PM, Blueskye2 said:

 

"The term is often used to criticize economic policies which favor the wealthy or privileged, while being framed as good for the average citizen."

 

I completely agree, there is no such thing. 

Touche.

The term is used as an arsenal in Class Warfare commonly called politically weaponized Envy wherein a person who is taxed can never get a tax cut because a tax cut only favors tax payers but half the citizenry is taxed 0 so they don't get a tax cut.  This is what they think is trickle-down economics - that somehow, the money a taxpayer do not send to the government in a tax cut is suppoed to end up in the pockets of the non-tax payer and because it doesn't  it must be bad.  Welcome to the stupid logic of today's American liberal.  AND YOU'RE DEFENDING IT. 

Edited June 5, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

On 6/1/2017 at 8:23 PM, Blueskye2 said:

I'm not defending the madness. Only explaining how I read the article.

I don't even know how you can read "intellectual theft" out of a cultural appropriation article.  It's hard enough agreeing to intellectual theft in an article proposing such out of this event.

[unixknight]

On 6/4/2017 at 0:39 PM, Blueskye2 said:

My point has been and is, capitalism does not exist, and never has existed, to help anyone but businesses.

Why is that a bad thing?  This sentence sounds like we're only talking about Exxon-Mobil and corporate fat cats.  Keep in mind Capitalism is also about the small business owner, like a local mom and pop grocery, or the guy who restores cars in his garage to sell, or the Tupperware consultant, or a guy like me who does web development on a freelance basis on the side.  Is it a bad thing for these people to benefit from Capitalism?  Are we so envious of the wealthy CEO that it's worth destroying all of these small enterprises in order to bring him down too?

And I know you never directly addressed Socialism, but is there some other system you find to be morally superior to Capitalism?  Because right now, Socialism is the only alternative most people are discussing.  I you have another in mind, then by all means please share.

[anatess2]

On 6/4/2017 at 0:39 PM, Blueskye2 said:

? I never said anything about socialism.

My point has been and is, capitalism does not exist, and never has existed, to help anyone but businesses. It has side effects, some good some bad.  Trickle down economics is touted as a good side effect, which has never been proven.

 

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Incorrect.  The entire point and basis of capitalism is to help the society as a whole.  The one single principle that defines capitalism is that you have to contribute something to get something back.  Having an economic system based on that principle can do nothing but help the morality of the society that fosters it.

If the society and its economic system is based on moral principles, then the most successful will also tend to be moral individuals.  Moral individuals through their own volition and not through force of gun will willingly give and help those around them that are less fortunate.

Immoral systems will develop and encourage immoral individuals.  Immoral individuals will NOT help the less fortunate.

If you really want there to be no poor among us, how can anyone support any other system other than capitalism?

 

21 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Why is that a bad thing?  This sentence sounds like we're only talking about Exxon-Mobil and corporate fat cats.  Keep in mind Capitalism is also about the small business owner, like a local mom and pop grocery, or the guy who restores cars in his garage to sell, or the Tupperware consultant, or a guy like me who does web development on a freelance basis on the side.  Is it a bad thing for these people to benefit from Capitalism?  Are we so envious of the wealthy CEO that it's worth destroying all of these small enterprises in order to bring him down too?

And I know you never directly addressed Socialism, but is there some other system you find to be morally superior to Capitalism?  Because right now, Socialism is the only alternative most people are discussing.  I you have another in mind, then by all means please share.

 

In case some of you don't know... The United States of America is not running on Capitalism.  The United States of America is running on Corporatism - that is, an application of Capitalism where the Regulatory Body is bought and paid for by Corporations.

So yes, Corporatism is a bad side-effect of Capitalism in the same manner that Communism is a bad side-effect of Socialism.  Therefore, the only way Capitalism is superior to Socialsm is through the strict and originalist application of the US Constitution - something that has not been practiced in the USA for decades now.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

In case some of you don't know... The United States of America is not running on Capitalism.  The United States of America is running on Corporatism - that is, an application of Capitalism where the Regulatory Body is bought and paid for by Corporations.

So yes, Corporatism is a bad side-effect of Capitalism in the same manner that Communism is a bad side-effect of Socialism.  Therefore, the only way Capitalism is superior to Socialsm is through the strict and originalist application of the US Constitution - something that has not been practiced in the USA for decades now.

What you are describing is actually corporate socialism.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, unixknight said:

I you have another in mind, then by all means please share.

Maggie Thatcher said it best. There is no alternative. 

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What you are describing is actually corporate socialism.

No.  Corporate socialism is a new-fangled development that became mainstream by the idiotic decision of Henry Paulson and GW. Bush in an attempt to not destroy the Republicans in the 2008 election.  Of course, it got cemented into society by the socialist agenda of Obama and continues through to today with the continued support of the Republican majority for insurance carrier bailouts.

What I'm talking about is corporatism that has been running this country for over a century at the State level and the past 50 or so years at the Federal level.  It is that exact same swampy campaign donor set-up that makes it virtually impossible for Google to penetrate Xfinity cities regardless of how superior quality, low priced, and high demand there is for Google fiber.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

No.  Corporate socialism is a new-fangled development that became mainstream by the ...

Allow me to enlighten you.

When was the New Deal? 1933         When was the first minimum wage?  1938               When were food stamps first introduced? 1964

What do these have to do with corporate socialism?

Henry Ford had a finely tuned corporation where pretty much everyone was pleased to work for him.  He had most of the best people who made top dollar because they were very good and very efficient at what they did.  Other companies couldn't really compete well with him.

Then along came the New Deal.  One of the privisions of the New Deal was a required wage if you won any publicly funded work.  Ford put his bid in and found that his company was blackballed because he didn't pay his workers the minimum wage.  He paid them too much.  As a result, the less successful companies paid their workers less money and got government work leaving Ford in the dust.

What do food stamps have to do with corporate profits?  Two categories of businesses benefit from food stamps:  Those who accept the stamps from the consumers and those who employ some at minimum wage (whose workers income is subsidized by the government through food stamps).

Accepting food stamps should be an obvious benefit/subsidy.  But what about the minimum wage earner on food stamps?

I'm a company who can employ a perfectly decent worker at minimum wage then I will employ them at minimum wage.  Those who can get more won't necessarily try as hard to get more because he's got the subsidy.  So, I don't have to share as much of my profits with them.  So, I'm indirectly being subsidized by my employees' food stamps.

If there were no minimum wage and no food stamps,  No one would have their sights set on minimum wage as the starting salary.  Everyone would have different rates and numbers.  The most capable people wouldn't even be thinking in terms of hourly wage.  They'd be thinking in terms of work done.

A man who works by the hour, is an employee.  A man who works by the job or by the quantity works for himself.  The "employer" is just a customer.  By setting a minimum wage, it sets the societal mindset on the wage, making more people employees rather than entrepreneurs.  As such, fewer entrepreneurs are competing.  More employees are available.  Thus the business owners always have the upper hand on negotiations.  This dynamic drives down wages.  

Having more entrepreneurs and fewer employees will energize any business transaction and any economy.  When more people are wealthy, they will be able to help the poor through offering of employment or through direct charitable assistance.  Regardless of what you think of rich people today because of the exceptions to the rule, wealthy people tend to be among the most generous.

[anatess2]

25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Allow me to enlighten you.

When was the New Deal? 1933         When was the first minimum wage?  1938               When were food stamps first introduced? 1964

What do these have to do with corporate socialism?

Henry Ford had a finely tuned corporation where pretty much everyone was pleased to work for him.  He had most of the best people who made top dollar because they were very good and very efficient at what they did.  Other companies couldn't really compete well with him.

Then along came the New Deal.  One of the privisions of the New Deal was a required wage if you won any publicly funded work.  Ford put his bid in and found that his company was blackballed because he didn't pay his workers the minimum wage.  He paid them too much.  As a result, the less successful companies paid their workers less money and got government work leaving Ford in the dust.

What do food stamps have to do with corporate profits?  Two categories of businesses benefit from food stamps:  Those who accept the stamps from the consumers and those who employ some at minimum wage (whose workers income is subsidized by the government through food stamps).

Accepting food stamps should be an obvious benefit/subsidy.  But what about the minimum wage earner on food stamps?

I'm a company who can employ a perfectly decent worker at minimum wage then I will employ them at minimum wage.  Those who can get more won't necessarily try as hard to get more because he's got the subsidy.  So, I don't have to share as much of my profits with them.  So, I'm indirectly being subsidized by my employees' food stamps.

If there were no minimum wage and no food stamps,  No one would have their sights set on minimum wage as the starting salary.  Everyone would have different rates and numbers.  The most capable people wouldn't even be thinking in terms of hourly wage.  They'd be thinking in terms of work done.

A man who works by the hour, is an employee.  A man who works by the job or by the quantity works for himself.  The "employer" is just a customer.  By setting a minimum wage, it sets the societal mindset on the wage, making more people employees rather than entrepreneurs.  As such, fewer entrepreneurs are competing.  More employees are available.  Thus the business owners always have the upper hand on negotiations.  This dynamic drives down wages.  

Having more entrepreneurs and fewer employees will energize any business transaction and any economy.  When more people are wealthy, they will be able to help the poor through offering of employment or through direct charitable assistance.  Regardless of what you think of rich people today because of the exceptions to the rule, wealthy people tend to be among the most generous.

This is not corporate socialism.  This is corporatism.  This is where the public (read government) skews the playing field to create non-capitalistic competition.

Corporate socialism (aka corporate welfare) is a structure by which Corporations are propped up by taxpayers such that they are protected from failure.

Edited June 6, 2017 by anatess2

[Blueskye2]

12 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Touche.

The term is used as an arsenal in Class Warfare commonly called politically weaponized Envy wherein a person who is taxed can never get a tax cut because a tax cut only favors tax payers but half the citizenry is taxed 0 so they don't get a tax cut.  This is what they think is trickle-down economics - that somehow, the money a taxpayer do not send to the government in a tax cut is suppoed to end up in the pockets of the non-tax payer and because it doesn't  it must be bad.  Welcome to the stupid logic of today's American liberal.  AND YOU'RE DEFENDING IT. 

Some sort of rant diversional personal attack that has nothing to do with trickle down economics , going on here.  I'm talking about Reaganomics, that is, the theory that government regulations that enable the rich to get richer is of benefit to all of society but in particular, boosting those in the middle class.

The theory, put into practice, never intended to reduce taxes of employees. It raised income tax, social security tax and Medicare tax. The largest tax increase put on the American worker since the the 1930s.

Simultaneously the tax on businesses was substantially reduced. The theory being, that unemployment would go down and wages would go up.  Both happened, for the middle class, but the effect for the poor, those below the poverty line, was higher taxes without the benefit of higher wages, placing a larger burden on the poor. Which goes to the original point made, that increasing business wealth benefits the poor, when the case is, that has never been proven to occur..

 

Edited June 6, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Blueskye2]

Critiquing capitalism does not imply I have a PhD in economics with a neat-o new kind of economy in my back pocket.  Geez, people are invested in the sacred cow of capitalism on this board.  

[Guest]

10 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is not corporate socialism.  This is corporatism.  This is where the public (read government) skews the playing field to create non-capitalistic competition.

Corporate socialism (aka corporate welfare) is a structure by which Corporations are propped up by taxpayers such that they are protected from failure.

First, I don't see much of a difference between the two of them.  You can put what labels you want and strain at the gnat to your heart's content.  But in the end, it is still government regulation of the distribution or method of distribution of non-public goods and services.

Second, my primary disagreement was not about the label as much as your statement that it was a "new-fangled development."  It's been around for nearly 100 years.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Critiquing capitalism does not imply I have a PhD in economics with a neat-o new kind of economy in my back pocket.  Geez, people are invested in the sacred cow of capitalism on this board.  

Yes, I am.  Capitalism means free-market.  Free-market means freedom.  We should all be invested in freedom.

I am also against distortions of capitalism such as crony capitalism, corporate socialism, fraud, and so forth.  These are not free-market.  They are merely additional forms of theft.

Give me ANY other economic system that does not depend on theft and I'll go with that one.  A TRUE theocracy where God Himself is running the economy is the only thing I can think of.  And I'd gladly abandon capitalism with all its weaknesses in favor of such a system.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Guest

[unixknight]

7 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Critiquing capitalism does not imply I have a PhD in economics with a neat-o new kind of economy in my back pocket.  Geez, people are invested in the sacred cow of capitalism on this board.  

One doesn't need a PhD to conduct a discussion, but I do think it's reasonable to expect that if someone is going to present a criticism, that they can support it with some reasonable arguments.  Further, something doesn't have to be a sacred cow for those who prefer it to want to defend it.  Is that unreasonable?

[anatess2]

9 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Some sort of rant diversional personal attack that has nothing to do with trickle down economics , going on here.  I'm talking about Reaganomics, that is, the theory that government regulations that enable the rich to get richer is of benefit to all of society but in particular, boosting those in the middle class.

The theory, put into practice, never intended to reduce taxes of employees. It raised income tax, social security tax and Medicare tax. The largest tax increase put on the American worker since the the 1930s.

Simultaneously the tax on businesses was substantially reduced. The theory being, that unemployment would go down and wages would go up.  Both happened, for the middle class, but the effect for the poor, those below the poverty line, was higher taxes without the benefit of higher wages, placing a larger burden on the poor. Which goes to the original point made, that increasing business wealth benefits the poor, when the case is, that has never been proven to occur..

 

Like I said, attacking a principle without understanding what it is.  Using buzz words without understanding what THAT is.  And then using Class Envy to muddy everything else.

You say you don't have a PhD in Economics.  You don't need one.  The concept is pretty simple - "Reaganomics" (another stupid label.  Classical economics is the term)  is a simple shifting of the Dollar out of the Public Sector and into the Private Sector.  This is the opposite of Carter's Keynesian model that moved more money out of the private sector to the public sector through the misguided principle that the public sector can provide the service better than the private sector.  The theory is that the Dollar is more productive in the hands of free-market capitalists than in the hands of the government.  The Reagan years proved this to be effective with the rapid rise of real GDP that brought on the hey days of the mid-80's and 90's.

Your critique of Reagan's economy is misguided because it has nothing to do with "Reaganomics" and everything to do with Corporatism (that has been in existence decades before Reagan) that prevented private Dollars from moving in its efficient free-market path.  The comparison therefore, is only valid as far as an analysis of which economy was more successful - Carter's or Reagan's?

Now, if you want to see proof of the failures of the Keynesian model (like socialism, Keynesian  failed everywhere it iwas applied), all you have to do is study the failed Kenesian experiment in Japan.  Japan is a great example because the Japanese people have a culture of productivity.  Unlike the US, they do not reduce productivity just because they are on government subsidy.  Corporatism, although present, is not as prevalent in Japan as the US.  For a while there, Japan was rocking a 200+% debt-to-GDP ratio in the height of its economic failures.  Japan finally accepted that their Keynesian economic model will have to be trashed after the Japanese government almost permanently shut-down under the burden of a nuclear power plant disaster.  Now Japan is in the path to recovery by slowly moving the Yen out of the public sector and into the private sector increasing private sector investments driving the GDP up and reducing prices of goods.

So, if you look at this analytically, there is only one question you need to answer - Do you believe that poverty is alleviated by government welfare?  Or do you believe that poverty is alleviated by private Industry?  You decide.  This is not a political question.  This is an economic theory question.  If you answer honestly, you'll get yummy brownies .  There are no wrong answers.

The past 50 years in the US shows that the public sector has not improved poverty, rather it has dropped a nuclear bomb at the family structure drastically producing more poverty as government favored single mothers for welfare assistance producing more single mothers.  The past 50 years in the US also shows that the private sector has not improved poverty with the income gap between rich and poor increasing decade by decade.  What do you think is the solution to that?  Move money out of the private sector to the public sector (Keynes) or move money out of the public sector to the private sector (Reagan)?  The people fomenting Class Envy will tell you that hey, the money tax-payers kept in their pockets when money is shifted out of the public sector into the private sector  SHOULD magically end up in the pockets of the poor.  Economics doesn't work that way.  The poor can only insert themselves into the flow of money through productivity in the form of wages.  Wages can only go up when there is competition.  Corporatism KILLS competition.  So, therein lies your problem.  And that's why you have TWO OPPOSING SOLUTIONS presented during the 2016 Presidential Election - Bernie Sanders (to represent the move of dollars from private to public sector) and Donald Trump (to represent the move of dollars from public to private), both solutions designed to Drain the Swamp of the Corporatists represented by Hillary Clinton.

Edited June 6, 2017 by anatess2