Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States – A Reflection on a National Dream denied?

Keywords or Terms: Electoral College; 2016 Election Results; White House; Melting Pot; Declaration of Independence; Right of the Disenfranchised; Muslims; Mexican; Wall Building; Renegotiating NAFTA; Empowerment of Disparate Groups; Consent of the Governed; Foundation Principle of Organized Powers; Anti-tyranny, Anti-repeated injuries and usurpation, Anti-harassment, Anti-cruelty, Anti-taxation without representation,  Anti-absolute governance; Civil Rights; Beauty of America’s Democracy; Ronald Reagan; Howard Dean

Every four years American citizens and voters flood the voting booths to fulfill the constitutional requirement to elect a president who will govern them. The choice of who ends up being the President of the United States of America in a spate of aspirants is reposed in an electoral college. In this respect, the Electoral College serves not only as a proxy of the American voters, but the voice of the people, following a detailed election proceeding that yields the ultimate occupant of the White House; except where there is a tie in the spread of the Electoral College members or numbers among the candidates for the office, in which case, the US Congress elects the ultimate occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington DC 20500. Within and beyond the general elections taking place in November of all even years, is a political culture stressing equal representation of all segments of the population. Representative groups of infinite number of interest groups, all races, all sexes, all religions, all emigre from multiple nations – the melting pot, exemplify the potential of empowerment of disparate groups and interests, all with a sense of inclusiveness that has now become, truly, the United States of America. The uniqueness of this great experiment, or the distinction of this great experiment, is that, no where on earth do we have this Hodge-bodge of all differences, being meshed into a nation with a singular creed that all these disparate and multiple groups or factions are created equal  with inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

American form of representative government has its foundation on the notion that just powers can and must only be drawn from the consent of the governed. If any government is found or determined to run afoul of the aspirations of the governed, it is within the rights of the people to alter, abolish and institute a new one that draws its powers only from the innate rights of the people; thus, laying foundation for the principles of second amendment right and precepts of organized powers to effect the safety and happiness of the governed, or the people. Contextually, such government must not be changed for light and transients causes; however, history has shown that voters or mankind, are more disposed to suffer foolery under evil, than to right themselves of an evil government, out of custom. This is why, voters must be vigilant and valiant as always, to ensure protection of the divine providence, to ascertain and uphold that the system of election is fair, independent, and representative of the constituent groups within the union – and for associated reasons, not allow to waste, a legacy that millions of Americans have stood firm for, fought for in the heat of the worst battles, died for, while still holding fervently and pledging to the flag of the United States of America with their sacred honor. Simply put, American government draws from God-given right to humans as beings; it is anti-tyranny, anti-repeated injuries and usurpation, anti-harassment, anti-cruelty, anti-taxation without representation, and anti-absolute governance.

The tension surrounding each group member in the union, as somehow embodied in the platform or promises of the two major political parties, Republicans or Democrats, during an election cycle every four years, continues to drive huge money influx into American politics and by default, humongous advertisement dollars that continue to make communication network executives salivate whenever the general election is around. The identification with either of the two major political party’s flag bearer, or a default to the promises of the two major political parties, are testimonies to how unique and beautiful America’s democracy is; and, how difficult other countries and nations questionably lament about how difficult it is for them to understand, our form or type of representative government and governance. The promise of equality to disparate communities of ages,  gender, national origin, race, and religion as essentially embodied in our constitution; and the empowerment of all groups within the union and affirmation of endowed inalienable rights, resonate with many American voters; and for a desire to reach that plateau of utopia promise of our Independence and often or sometimes achievable reality, led millions of Americans over two and a half-centuries to continue to believe, to continue to vote, no matter how sometimes, it is difficult to fathom the reasons behind the message of the candidate seeking to be the next President of the United States. You have heard of sexist, misogynist, racist and downright hostile campaign messages emanating from some candidates over the centuries, just as you have learned and heard of inclusive, conciliatory and complementary campaign messages; both brands, through the ages, helping some candidates achieve the highest office in the land, the President of the United States, while others have failed woefully.

The beauty of America’s democracy, is probably not found in representative voting or perfect voters’ preferences, considering the presence of electoral college standing in as proxy of the American voters in choosing the President of the United States. Rather, it is found in the simultaneous promise of equality of groups, race, sexes, and national origin and equality of representation by membership in the United States Congress. Until recently, the denial of equality of persons, including the right of minorities to vote, women and blacks, in and out of servitude, remained a blight on the democratic promise of the constitution, and made many in these “sub-classes” question the epitome or veracity of the constitutional promise. Many civil rights pressure groups and fighters, sought a more equal union based on the promise of the constitution; and for centuries, lampooned  the fact that a government solely run by Anglo-Saxon male, was essentially a government of and for Anglo-Saxon male; not a government of the people and by the people, as enshrined in the US Constitution. In reality, the emergence of hate groups took their root from the unfortunate notion that no one must contemplate that all races are equal, in other words, there has to be room for some type of hierarchy of persons in claiming right of citizenship. That is why some civil right groups touted the existing arrangement before the 1964 civil rights act, and as amended in 1972, as one of “government by the Anglo-Saxon Male for the Anglo-Saxon male”; a difficult caricature of President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address; one that can be seen and termed as despotic government, not of a perfect republic as promised and enshrined in the laws of the land. A promise of a female head of government, after two and a half century of nationhood, would have been foresighted and achievable if only the American voters were ready for change, if only they were willing to give equality of sexes a chance in the contemporary political arrangement; unfortunately, in this round of campaign for the White House oval office, the 2016 general election, voters are saying hold on, the choice and our first preference is to have White men rule America as usual.  

In practice then, the traditional governments of the past, like the result of 2016 general election implicates, will continue in the next four years to serve a microcosm of a larger promise; not the real equality of disparate groups, at least when it comes to the question of the sex of the aspirant for the highest office in the land. The difficulty of moving ahead and away from sexism, racism and associated shortcoming of truncated dreams, the challenge of separation, of having a two America, White or Black, excluding and denying dream of a huge segment of the American population, would depend on what is done and how we work and walk through the new murky waters. Women and rural residents failed to rally around a former US Senator, Secretary of State and first lady of the United States, a female politician with probably the best shot  at being the first female to occupy the White House oval office, in any recent memory. America is divisive, it is separate, no matter how we like to deny this; no longer can we depend on not having America discriminate against itself, specifically one of the bests of its female population. We now have to deal with a President who included an anti-semantic message on his campaign website for the White House; a president who threw away the playbook of traditional American Political campaigns, moving to capture the White House with huge chunk support of far-right groups; a businessman who has shied away from paying his due taxes, filed bankruptcies multiple of times, mocked the disabled, admire tyrants, and disdains the rights of women, championing anti-trade and anti-immigrant policies for America. A candidate who lost the popular vote and yet still won the White House in a grand slide, with two hundred and ninety electoral college votes.

Billionaire Business Magnate Donald Trump, the deal maker, the juvenile twitter feeder, is the forty-fifth President of the United States of America. Americans, White, Black or Brown, would have to deal with the reality of the voice of the people. Corollary, the victor in the contest for 2016 White House, will have to navigate through how to bring policymakers and people together to ensure a probable nationalistic government that looks more inward as contemplated in his campaign messages; a president that disavows the current female Federal Reserve Chairman, Janet Yellen, a descendant of minority Polish Jews,  a president whose male Anglo-Saxon heritage, reaffirms America's preference for an archaic political leadership arrangement that denies minorities the rights of equal citizenship; one that affirms a bigot's right to lord it over the rest of America in an information age. No longer, except an olive leaf is adopted by the incoming Anglo-Saxon President, female American citizens have to continue to endure the aviaries and proverbial assaulting behavior of the "machismo" American male against their counterparts, as demonstrated and communicated in the president-elect missive on that bus with Billy Bush. In the coming four years, women will have to deal with the existing hierarchical structure of governance, where they are expected to submit to the directives of male members of the society, because, they have lost the opportunity to put a female in the White House oval office. The reliable differences in race, religion, sexes and national origin and more, will continue to persist; the differences in the choices of the races, probably more prominent, the disparities in salaries and wages between the sexes continue unabated; and, necessary and progressive change would have to wait until another time and season. Observers of campaigns for the White House, who question the reason why a female American has not been given the keys to the White House oval office, and are quizzical about the results of the 2016 general election, now have their questions answered with the results and reality of the outcome of 2016 general election: America is a divided society with unquestionable preference for Anglo-Saxon male leaders in the White House, even when morally and financially bankrupt, and particular preference for one that is committed to shutting the doors against Muslims to America. Tonight, the glass ceiling is solidified, not shattered as anticipated or dreamed, history has failed to be made, and the negative rhetoric of the campaign season which fired up aura of separation and discrimination within the populace, are replicate of the voices to be heard in the next four years. The outstanding and astonishing victory of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, legitimizes probably, a classical scary presidency ahead, one that will send shocks waves through the world's global market; and, one that affirms that nationalism and discrimination win, when properly and well packaged in campaign messages for low information or uneducated groups in rural America, as is reminiscent of the kind of outcome of the 2016 White House oval office's contest between the Republicans and Democrats.

The remaining part of this article will make a comparison of the promises of candidate Donald Trump, the forty-fifth president-elect of the United States of America, against his former rival, candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. To sum up, candidate Donald Trump promises to: 1) ‘Build a wall’ — and make Mexico pay for it; 2) Temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States; 3) ‘Bring manufacturing (jobs) back” – being the greatest job president God ever created; 4) Impose tariffs on goods made in China and Mexico; 5) Renegotiate or withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement and Trans-Pacific Partnership; 6). ‘Full repeal of Obamacare’ and replace it with a market-based alternative; 7) Renegotiate the Iran deal to be more favorable for America; 8) leave social security including the retirement age and benefits as they currently are; 9) Cut taxes as part of a proposed tax reform, giving the top 0.1 percent more tax cut than the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers combined; and, 10) bomb oil assets under ISIS control. As further documented by Politifact.com, these are the top ten campaign promises of candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton: 1) For families making less than $125,000 a year, we will eliminate tuition" for in-state students at public colleges; 2) Pass comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship that keeps families together; 3) Stand up to Republican-led attacks on this landmark (health care) law—and build on its success to bring the promise of affordable health care to more people and make a ‘public option’ possible; 4) overturn the US Supreme Court landmark decision, Citizens United; 5) fight for equal pay, affordable childcare and paid family leave for women; 6)  will not raise middle-income taxes; but a tax policy that puts the burden of payment on the top  one percent will be instituted; 7) Say no to attacks on working families and no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership; 8) increase the federal minimum wage; 9) expanding background checks to more gun sales and the issue of second amendment rights; and 10) increase federal infrastructure funding by $275 billion over a five-year period.

Donald Trump promises appear to incite and polarize America; the needy-greedy of his campaign promises has not been laid out and critics maintain he has an obligation to flesh out the policies behind those promises if he is to win their hearts on the road ahead. As currently stands, the proposed changes to the the immigration law, to reduce influx of illegal immigrants to America, calls for substantial retooling and direction; one probably invoking a revolutionary agenda that many critics are waging continuous precipitous criticisms. Further, a promise to repeal Obamacare will endanger the introduction of workable and practical reform to the healthcare law as it stands, to afford for measurable action that could lead to further cumulative success; however, an outright repeal of the healthcare law appears as infeasible as millions of Americans already benefit from the provisions of the law; and, consider an outright scrapping of the law as a disservice or an aberration. The concept of an alternative market-based healthcare law is retrogressive, since the failure of the forces of the market, led to the initiation of the law in the first place; America once had a failed market based healthcare law before the advent of OBAMACARE. The fact that it would be difficult to muster sixty votes in the US Senate of today, even after the 2016 general election results, makes it obviously difficult at this time and as many lawmakers who worked long hours in passing and enacting OBAMACARE, are apprehensive of the speculative promise and proposal from Donald Trump. In addition, folks are terrified of disruptive trade policies that may throw the world economies into a a tailspin and chaos. A proposal to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement and Trans-Pacific Partnership, may adversely impact international trade, even to the detriment of the nation's economic welfare; since retaliatory policies may ensue from countries that signed up to NAFTA or TPP in the first place. As the nation faces the risk of having a non-traditional politician in the White House oval office, who has bad-mouthed, even seasoned policymakers and allied NATO States, the choice of collaboration on international security and fighting terrorism may be in jeopardy. Many of these countries are necessarily going to introduce dynamic nationalistic alternative proposals that will put their nation ahead of any provisions of internationally signed treaty under other America's White House administrations. The question of renegotiating the content of some of these international treaties are more likely going to make even conciliatory countries under any new dispensation, question if the content and body of the  newly renegotiated agreements are going to stand, considering that the existing ones are being scrapped by the rise of another US government. 

Meeting America's National Security needs, by renegotiating the Iranian Nuclear deal increases the potential  of restoring the status-quo against Iran before the deal with President Obama's Administration. Veteran International Policymakers speculate that a renegotiated nuclear deal may threaten international security and introduce another foreign voyeurism by the government of America. Such a renegotiation may call for once again, the exacerbation and expansion of the military-industrial complex to combat a potential resistance stand up by the country, Iran. This could be particularly dangerous for international peace; as responding to unpredictable crisis that may arise from bulking against this new policy of America. Special Operational forces that may end up being moved because of the potential balking of the nation of Iran, may not like this and may bring upon them an unusual hardship that could exacerbate the burgeoning national debt and deficits. There are going to be significant changes in America's foreign policies as Iran and other foreign countries react to America's choice to renege on an international agreement. United States has been the leading world's power, to now be in the position of reneging on international agreements may bring about new changes on the world's stage that make many apprehensive and wondering what's next.

The air is already full of warnings regarding temporary removal or banning of  Muslims from entering the United States.  The more likely repercussion of this kind of policy is infanticide. There are American Muslims who will fight against this type of policy and create an instability or confirmed front against a heavy-handed President attempting to push a discriminatory policy through or muscle through a policy that create the outsider mentality among some members of our populace. A misunderstanding of the place of America regarding immigrants from Muslim nations have a tendency of introducing deficiency of international trust on coalition building to confront collective enemies like the international terrorists and group of nations with intention to do harm to America. Religious discriminatory policies, or those with similar favor, are apt to make nations with democratic inclination, reconsider their position on negotiated bi-lateral agreements and advancing regimes towards democratic principles and governance. A policy like this has the potential of letting down many Islamic nations that have dedicated unique support towards fighting ISIS and international terrorism. America may loose her credibility by adopting a policy that directly confront inclusiveness of all groups and or factions within America's population. 

Taking literally, the potential of building a wall against Mexico and making that nation's government pay for it, is more of a long shot. By raising tariffs and calling a nation to pay for a project that is problematic to its population or work against the interests of surrounding nations that may have benefited from former out-migration up north, may impact national security dynamics that have hitherto helped the level of stability in the whole of North America. By adopting a policy that transfers burden to a neighboring nation, based on nationalism, racism and xenophobia flairs, may introduce or compel intrinsically uncertain political dynamics that many governments across the globe may find dubious and superficial. For astute observers of foreign policies and immigration issues, a relatively ambitious policy to deny or prevent free movement of people across the globe, is a recipe for unconscionable distrust of governments and leaders; one that may speed intemperance at the United Nations.  To resolve the challenges of US illegal immigration will require more than building a wall across the border of nations; nations like Mexico and Canada may pursue alternative policies that not only counteract the new policy, but create and explore alternative proposals on the basis of self-determination, national pride; and or national suffrage.

Bringing manufacturing jobs back tackles the question of disenchantment that many disenfranchised Americans in depressed regions of America feel right now. The purpose to fight unemployment by bringing back manufacturing firms that have left American shores appear a great investment in the future of America and her industries. Because billions of dollars in tax incentive write-offs may be necessary to effect this type of policy or encourage American firms abroad to come back home, it is imperative that this type of policy is not construed as punitive; rather, a two-headed sword, to encourage the nation to move forward on the issue of unemployment and to ensure that American workers are engaged, without necessarily seeming over-zealously protective of domestic economy. Some American firms may chose to come back however, others will remain reluctant, because the reason of their moving overseas has rather little to do with contemporary economic reason of higher labor cost as reason for initially moving overseas. Many firms that have left American shores have not done that to undo the promise of America to her citizens, but rather to concentrate their production processes close to their raw materials or ready markets for their products.

To resolve the challenges of fighting international terrorism is going to take more than bombing oil assets of ISIS and or, other international terrorist groups and domiciles. But to improve the current dynamics of the fleeting fight against international terrorism and afford stability, will require a new consistency and legitimate actions that do not run afoul of international laws. If every proposal in fighting international terrorism takes on the face of stealing from people, even if they are terrorist groups, then a case may be made for the old style of western banditry and high sea voyeurism that the last century saw and now distances herself from for multiple of reasons. The vision that our nation our national can fight international terrorism by violating international laws and negotiated treaties; or thumbing her nose on the rule of laws and avowed values of democratic principles. It is imperative that prior rhetoric regarding how America is going to fight terrorism under a Trump's administration, including taking oil rigs and personal properties of other nations, will open up a canker-worm regarding past US attempt to incur into other nation's domestic affairs. Our policies must not violate other people's right to their own goods just for the sake of fighting an ill that appears to have consumed our total attention, recently.  How painfully would it be, if after our bombing of ISIS and their domiciles, after taking their oil or whatever assets of theirs as proposed by the incoming administration, we are still unable to win the war against international or domestic terrorism?

In contrast to the promises of President-elect Donald Trump, Secretary Clinton’s promises look more like a continuity of the liberal agenda of the outgoing President of the United States. Cutting taxes to middle income earners, fighting excessive money into political campaigns, championing affordable healthcare for more people, appears more and more like the types of programs that President Barack Obama will gladly bless and probably implement if there were not term limit to the presidency. Historically, the issue of equal pay for equal work for women, affordable child care and family leave for pregnant and nursing mothers have always been forefront to the liberal agenda. This pronouncement reveal probably the coming requirements in the public and private sectors to accommodation of pregnant women and their children during the early childhood season of nursing mothers. The objections that these agenda has and continues to receive from the private sector makes this a hot button issues and an example of pivoting to the female community and one that may face discussions and extended challenges at US Congress, because of the potential financial implications for the private sector.

At the heart of the equal pay agenda for women and attacks on working families through “poor” trade deals, are the issues of egalitarianism and social inequality.  Women in the private and public sectors of the economy have claimed discrimination based on pay: women are paid about three quarters of a dollar to a man’s dollar.  Sometimes mandated employment policies and sometimes the structure of salary associated with family leave absence, have been the reasons for these disparities in wages. The inequality in pay that seems to have pervaded the labor force and made women second rate labor or employees could neither be resolved in her first term in office; and, probably never, except there is an active effort to change the labor laws to accommodate the long standing bias against women for getting pregnant and going on family leave.  The exclusion of women from high stress jobs or executive positions that pays rather handsomely is intertwined with the second-class allegation for the disparity in wages. Nursing mothers and professional women contemplating pregnancy must be perceived or elevated to status of women not in the child bearing years, or others who have chosen not to raise a family. Radical egalitarianism that may afford for better accommodation of women with whatever “disabilities” that have prevent women from earning equal wages as their male counterparts, are issues that would now have to wait, or maybe fought on the floor of US Congress, per chance, and given an appreciable time and look over, if the existing economic, social and financial hierarchies and or disparities are to be addressed.

Just as differential payment of sexes and egalitarianism are intertwined, also, are access to affordable childcare and increasing federal minimum wage are to social justice. There has been a finely graded or abbreviated hierarchy that disadvantages citizens on the lower rung of the pay ladder to afford upward mobility for their family. Many nursing and recently infant mothers have suffered economically; and have been unable to provide for their offspring, because of the lower pay and the inability to maintain accommodation for raising buoyant families. The labor force and employers have long practiced wage discrimination because of the interjecting biological clock of women. Employers have enacted not-easily proven wage disparities because of women who choose to get pregnant; these women have not been eligible for professional growth at the pace of their male counterparts; and in some instances, have lost their jobs for reason of attempting to get pregnant and raise a family. Unlike a system of fair enumeration for work contribution or length of working in an official capacity, women  have been insistently discriminated against on the basis of wages paid and disproportionately restricted to some cadre of positions that make them least upward professionally mobile. When you are restricted to the lower hierarchy of positions the commensurate pay, is usually at the lower pay scale. This is one part of the problem that may be resolved by proactive legislation.

Frankly, the inequality in women against men salaries and wages can be interpreted in terms of social and economic mobility. The inequality in social and economic status prior to getting pregnant by women appears not to be as stark as what obtains, when women choose to raise a family. The necessities and option of being a single and or nursing mother, and or some choosing family against rapid career path, especially in some high energy jobs and  or positions must be resolved; albeit, if only a Republican US Congress is interested, to help address salary and wage disparities between sexes. The object of distinction in salary and wage disparities cannot be raised on the issue of exclusions to some profession as in the military, since efforts in that arena has been made to bring women  and male counterparts salaries and wages at par in multiple positions; more constructively, women are now being brought  into non-traditional military roles and positions that will make their remuneration as equal for the size of efforts expended in about all armed forces positions.

While some communities and cities have achieved some level of frequency of non-gun violence, data and experience dictates that the inner cities and some fast growing communities are suffering new level of increased gun violence and homicide rate that can be considered intolerable for a nation of our size. Gun sales and the exclusions of intensive background checks have led some people who must not be in possession of guns and ammunition, to have access to these deadly weapons, which have led to increased gun violence. Mandating equal background and longer checks maybe one answer; however, asking Republicans and Democrats in Congress to work together to fashion a workable law that does not impede second amendment rights of citizens will continue to be the bane of contention for the 45th President of the United States just as the outgoing President found out, at the height of community violence, as in the event of killing of young Americans in a Connecticut Early Child Care and Kindergarten, the case of worshiping parishioners at a South Carolinian Pentecostal Black Church, gay dancing night club in Florida, and much more.

Just as there has always been the proverbial lamentation that we have not always done it this way, it is obvious and apparent that the results of the 2016 general election, and ensuing protests in the streets, challenge all of us to reflect on issues of past prejudices and to make amends so, we may allow all God’s Children, male and female, black, brown and white, Christians, non-Christians, Gays and Lesbians, to participate in the opportunities and the promise of America, to be that shinning city upon a hill, whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere as once espoused by another Republican, Ronald Reagan. Despite President-elect Donald Trump’s claim of being disrespectful of women by grabbing them by the pussy; maybe, it is time to start seeing such egregious behavior as unacceptable at anytime in the life of this nation. We must allow unity, love and reflection prevail in the life of our nation; we must not allow misogyny, discrimination and prejudice triumph; we must avail ourselves of all the contradictions that have made it impossible for our nation to claim completely its creed as enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [and women] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

America and Americans must not let the results of the 2016 presidential election shake their faith in government, electoral college, progressive and noble aspirations of equality of sexes, religions and person-hood; rather, it must forever remain a lesson in citizenship; that significant accomplishments of multiple and past White House administrations, may be fleeting, out of citizens' failure to actively participate in the process of voting, due to submission to unwelcome and unnecessary  fears, misinformation and disinformation, generated by a nationalistic campaign for the 2016 White House. If successive White House Administrations do not plan on building on the successes of outgoing White Houses, all of us, the nation, loses. If a disagreeable successor to the White House oval office, take ax to all the laudable programs and policies that continue to inch us toward the promise of America, we all fail to rise up to the challenge of our creed as a nation. A disruptive campaign effort of President-elect Donald Trump, a divisive and erratic leader in his campaign speeches, must now learn to work and commit to inclusiveness in running America. The purpose of the incoming Donald Trump's administration must now be to build bridges to those in fear and those who perceive themselves as unwelcome in this huge experiment and parade of democratic governance. The forty-fifth President of the United States will now have to depend on the favor of many in establishment Republican Politics; and this is why the message of 2003 Democratic Presidential aspirant, Dr. Howard Dean, as offered in Burlington Vermont, is now reflectively telling: “We shall be as one; .. we must delight in each other, make other’s conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always living before our eyes our Commission and community in our work.. It is that ideal, the ideal of an [equal] American Community, that we [must] seek to restore.”