Caecus Posted May 19, 2017 Author Share Posted May 19, 2017 You are attempting to paint me as stupid/ignorant/whatever to make yourself look better. No. I'm well aware of Nixon but as I told you, it doesn't matter. Trump's rules are not your rules. In the game that is politics he plays by different rules so what would normally sink others (who play with the other set) doesn't for him. I don't need to pain you "stupid/ignorant/whatever" to make myself look better than you. The fact that you state that "we don't know if there is collusion" is the best thing you stated. I say look into it, and that there is now an independent commission, good. However with what has been brought out by the .pdf you posted earlier it still looks like a witch-hunt. I see it as that. Everything being brought up as a mark against RT is the same garbage that could be brought up against the Libertarian Party. It is fishy and I have little trust in agencies to be honest since we went to war with Terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. My lack of faith and expectation of honesty went out the window with the Bush WMD blunder from his "Intelligence" agencies. I stated that in the last statement too. Nobody denies that. And yes, the guy for the investigation is a good person and respected by both parties as non-partisan, I agree. The sooner we finish looking into this, the sooner we can brush this all under the carpet and go back to calling Trump an egotistical incompetent president, instead of a treasonous one. Yeah, since the Bush blunder, it's a wonder why there are any intelligence agencies at all! I mean, if intelligence can be wrong once, why have it in the first place? It's like the weather man. He can be wrong, so when he says its raining outside tomorrow, don't bother bringing an umbrella. I wonder why meteorology is still a legitimate job. Also, to be entirely fair, there is a difference between starting with intelligence gathering to get a conclusion and starting with a conclusion to find intelligence. Do you have any reason, other than you think everyone is out to get Trump, that the intelligence agencies (I believe they listed 3) might have gotten it wrong again? Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 Also, to be entirely fair, there is a difference between starting with intelligence gathering to get a conclusion and starting with a conclusion to find intelligence. Do you have any reason, other than you think everyone is out to get Trump, that the intelligence agencies (I believe they listed 3) might have gotten it wrong again? Over the years there have been cases of political bias towards members of Congress and the President during and since the Bush administration. The NSA and CIA gave Obama a hard time in the beginning of his first term. Also, the NSA has blatantly lied to the public about illegally spying and gathering intel on the citizens and when called out on it the issue is ignored. Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 I don't need to pain you "stupid/ignorant/whatever" to make myself look better than you. Cute. I'll just keep winning as I have been while you keep losing and looking under your bed for the Russians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 First post of this reply. I hit the quote limit. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdfI just love government papers. When I say "you" in this post, I'm mainly referencing the paper. I'm not expecting you, Caecus, to release super secret info. and paid social media users or “trolls.â€"Shills" would be more appropriate. If I were to post about IWI every day on 4chan, then they would call me a shill. If I posted that Islam was the best religion, they would call me a troll. I know it sounds like nitpicking, but shouldn't experts releasing an official document be more precise with their word choice? It's in there at least twice. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shill?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll Moscow also saw the election of President elect Trump as a way to achieve an international counterterrorism coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).We already had that. http://theglobalcoalition.org/en/home/ Putin, Russian officials, and other pro-Kremlin pundits stopped publicly criticizing the US election process as unfair almost immediately after the election because Moscow probably assessed it would be counterproductive to building positive relations.Wow, really? You mean stating that the new leader wasn't supposed to be the leader would harm relations? Gee, I wonder why they would stop. Before the election, Russian diplomats had publicly denounced the US electoral process and were prepared to publicly call into question the validity of the results. Pro-Kremlin bloggers had prepared a Twitter campaign, #DemocracyRIP, on election night in anticipation of Secretary Clinton’s victory, judging from their social media activity.I find it strange how they are unable to at least release supporting evidence for this one. If half the nation doesn't believe the story, they would want to throw out all the evidence they can. If it found due to their Twitter activity, then why can't they have examples? Either the Tweets were public, or they were private. Starting a social media campaign which is private is counterproductive, so why don't they release the Twitter accounts, Tweets, etc.? By their nature, Russian influence campaigns are multifaceted and designed to be deniable because they use a mix of agents of influence, cutouts, front organizations, and false-flag operations.Alright, release some connections. Moscow demonstrated this during the Ukraine crisis in 2014, when Russia deployed forces and advisers to eastern Ukraine and denied it publicly.Yeah, and nobody believed them. There were pictures released of a Russian soldier in Georgia in 08 and the same guy in Ukraine in 14. Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties.If they wanted Trump to win, why did they target the Republicans? If they wanted it to appear they hacked both while supporting trump, then why did they not release some non-incriminating Trump emails to make the public more aware? We assess Russian intelligence services collected against the US primary campaigns, think tanks, and lobbying groups they viewed as likely to shape future US policies. In July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.It's almost like they want to fuel the Seth Rich thing even more. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.I just find this funny. Not related to my "analysis" of the paper. (Analysis used very loosely) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/23/are-clinton-wikileaks-emails-doctored-or-are-they-/ While Politifact does say that they may or may not be doctored, their last line surely implies there are some doctored emails. "So why doesn’t the Clinton campaign provide some evidence that emails have been doctored, like publishing original emails?" Russia collected on some Republican-affiliated targets but did not conduct a comparable disclosure campaign.Again, why? I haven't heard this in a long time. If they targeted Trump to seem "neutral," you think they would've released some non-incriminating Trump emails to actually appear neutral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 (edited) RT’s coverage of Secretary Clinton throughout the US presidential campaign was consistently negative and focused on her leaked e-mailsThe emails were very newsworthy at the time. Which is more newsworthy, leaked emails from a former Secretary of State who rigged the primaries against her candidate among other things, or declaring a cartoon frog a hate symbol? Russia used trolls as well as RT as part of its influence efforts to denigrate Secretary Clinton.The likely financier of the so-called Internet Research Agency of professional trolls located in Saint Petersburg is a close Putin ally with ties to Russian intelligence.Secretary Clinton used shills as part of her influence efforts to denigrate Donald J. Trump. The likely financer of the so-called Correct The Record of professional shills located in Washington DC is a close Clinton ally with ties to a close Soros ally with ties to American Bridge and Priorities USA. :^) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record Russia has sought to influence elections across Europe.The Cold War called. They want their facts back. From August to November 2012, RT ran numerous reports on alleged US election fraud and voting machine vulnerabilities, contending that US election results cannot be trusted and do not reflect the popular will.I thought that was why this paper was created? RT runs anti-fracking programmingBut Clinton is almost anti-fracking, while Trump is pro-fracking. Who were they supporting again? "I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, No. 1. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using. So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated." -Clinton, March 6 debate This page intentionally left blank.k Edited May 20, 2017 by WISD0MTREE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted May 20, 2017 Author Share Posted May 20, 2017 Over the years there have been cases of political bias towards members of Congress and the President during and since the Bush administration. The NSA and CIA gave Obama a hard time in the beginning of his first term. Also, the NSA has blatantly lied to the public about illegally spying and gathering intel on the citizens and when called out on it the issue is ignored. So, because of the few (and it is a few) instances where the intelligence agencies had "bias" towards people, you think 3 separate intelligence agencies made up a conspiracy to try and make Donald Trump look bad? Also, if the credibility of the intelligence agencies depends on the mistakes it has made in the past, then I dare you to name a single credible source anywhere. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted May 20, 2017 Author Share Posted May 20, 2017 The emails were very newsworthy at the time. Which is more newsworthy, leaked emails from a former Secretary of State who rigged the primaries against her candidate among other things, or declaring a cartoon frog a hate symbol? Secretary Clinton used shills as part of her influence efforts to denigrate Donald J. Trump. The likely financer of the so-called Correct The Record of professional shills located in Washington DC is a close Clinton ally with ties to a close Soros ally with ties to American Bridge and Priorities USA. :^) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record The Cold War called. They want their facts back. I thought that was why this paper was created? But Clinton is almost anti-fracking, while Trump is pro-fracking. Who were they supporting again? "I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, No. 1. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using. So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated." -Clinton, March 6 debate k I'm no computer science major, but I think "anti-fracking programming" is not referring to shell-fracking. But I digress. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you trying to make the point that the intelligence agencies involved in this report are incompetent? Are you trying to make the case that this report should be entirely discarded? Are you trying to make the case that this report is irrelevant? I'm not sure how your "analysis" (your quotes, not mine ) expects a response. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicente Martinez Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 The tricky thing about this impeachment stuff is that while there may be loads of evidence potentially putting Trump's presidency at risk (e.g. revealing highly classified information to Russia) there may not exactly be enough evidence to gather a solid case against the guy.If anything,he can simply make it so that the said evidence is never revealed.Even IF (very big If) they manage to launch an impeachment case they'll likely never get it through as the GOP has control of both the House and Senate, and the thought of Republicans impeaching a Republican President is just ridiculously unlikely. Quote "If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin "Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted May 20, 2017 Author Share Posted May 20, 2017 The tricky thing about this impeachment stuff is that while there may be loads of evidence potentially putting Trump's presidency at risk (e.g. revealing highly classified information to Russia) there may not exactly be enough evidence to gather a solid case against the guy.If anything,he can simply make it so that the said evidence is never revealed.Even IF (very big If) they manage to launch an impeachment case they'll likely never get it through as the GOP has control of both the House and Senate, and the thought of Republicans impeaching a Republican President is just ridiculously unlikely. I might be inclined to agree with you, except that the first clause of the Nixon impeachment was obstruction of justice. Entirely throwing out the Comey firing (because you have to prove that firing Comey directly impacted the FBI's investigation, which I imagine isn't actually too difficult to do. Proving is the Senate's job anyway), Comey still has contemporaneous notes of when Trump attempted to influence him to stop investigating his former National Security adviser. An FBI's contemporaneous notes (which have at least 2 witnesses of when he wrote it) can be held up in a court of law. That's more than enough to draft articles with. That being said, just drafting the articles of impeachment has deposed presidents. And yes, the House does need to present the articles of impeachment, but as to how ridiculously unlikely that is, I'm not sure if I agree with that. Trump is unstable, unpredictable, and there are fewer and fewer people in the House (because there isn't anyone in the Senate anymore) who are willing to go on national tv and give a full-throated approval. Better yet, the VP is infinitely more competent, stable, and not bat shit crazy to get the Republican agenda across in government. Trump's only campaign promise he managed to keep was to appoint a supreme court judge and a special prosecution. The better question is why wouldn't they impeach him? My guess is that they are waiting for him to do something so stupid or crazy that even his own base turns on him, and then the Republicans can use that as an excuse to jump ship and elect Pence. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 I'm no computer science major, but I think "anti-fracking programming" is not referring to shell-fracking. But I digress. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you trying to make the point that the intelligence agencies involved in this report are incompetent? Are you trying to make the case that this report should be entirely discarded? Are you trying to make the case that this report is irrelevant? I'm not sure how your "analysis" (your quotes, not mine ) expects a response. Part of the quote must have been cut off when copy and pasting. Formatting the post was annoying. Here's the full sentence: "RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health." The doc was stating that RT was Russian propaganda, which I don't think anybody thinks otherwise. I also don't see why it warrants seven pages in the document. I'm saying the report lacks evidence to back up claims, even when talking about public Twitter campaigns, and does a terrible job attempting to persuade people who are skeptical of Russian involvement. If they made more info public and it supports the Russia theory, I would believe it. However, as it stands, they made claims without any supporting evidence. Again, used very loosely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted May 20, 2017 Author Share Posted May 20, 2017 Part of the quote must have been cut off when copy and pasting. Formatting the post was annoying. Here's the full sentence: "RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health." The doc was stating that RT was Russian propaganda, which I don't think anybody thinks otherwise. I also don't see why it warrants seven pages in the document. I'm saying the report lacks evidence to back up claims, even when talking about public Twitter campaigns, and does a terrible job attempting to persuade people who are skeptical of Russian involvement. If they made more info public and it supports the Russia theory, I would believe it. However, as it stands, they made claims without any supporting evidence. Again, used very loosely. I still don't see how this is a discussion. Am I suppose to be responding to something? Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 I still don't see how this is a discussion. Am I suppose to be responding to something? Not really. I was just posting my opinion on the paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted May 20, 2017 Author Share Posted May 20, 2017 Over the years there have been cases of political bias towards members of Congress and the President during and since the Bush administration. The NSA and CIA gave Obama a hard time in the beginning of his first term. Also, the NSA has blatantly lied to the public about illegally spying and gathering intel on the citizens and when called out on it the issue is ignored. Oh hey! The State Department set out a list of taboos in Saudi Arabia, one of them including the thumbs-up gesture as being rude. Turns out, it isn't. Thus, Trump should abolish the State Department for lying to the public and not worry about talking about sex in public while he is in Saudi Arabia. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 Oh hey! The State Department set out a list of taboos in Saudi Arabia, one of them including the thumbs-up gesture as being rude. Turns out, it isn't. Thus, Trump should abolish the State Department for lying to the public and not worry about talking about sex in public while he is in Saudi Arabia. I acknowledge your facetiousness. Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted May 21, 2017 Author Share Posted May 21, 2017 I acknowledge your facetiousness. I acknowledge your acknowledgement of my facetiousness. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Agreed. All this talk of Trump firing Comey because Comey was in the middle of an investigation on Trump and Russia is crazy. Trump fired Comey because Comey was over-exaggerating on the scale of Clinton's emails like the liar he is. Trump is an honorable man who cares about Clinton so much, he fired the FBI director for misleading the general public towards the end of the 2016 election. He's also reaching out to democrats with this move, which is obvious by how many democratic senators and representatives he informed ahead of time right before his firing. It's also been pretty successful, I'm sure his new healthcare bill will now pass the senate with overwhelming support from the democrats who he reached out to. After all, a majority of the democratic leaders have already started to be really nice to Trump. Doubtful. The Democrats have finally decided, it seems, to show Republicans the same cooperation they offered to Obama during his two terms, which is to say none. But then all these anti-trumpeters keep saying that "Oh, Comey went to the deputy attorney general to ask for more resources on the Trump investigation right before he was fired." Well have they ever heard of coincidences? Those idiots. Be pretty nice if Trump would get off his ass and start repaying NYC for all the supplemental costs in keeping his ludicrous tower secured, though I think at this point the only way to force him to do so would be to have the city stop helping him until he starts repayment. Indeed, Clinton should have been arrested to give Trump the autowin so Comey mislead the public by clearing her. Trump being merciful gave Comey amble time to kowtow in penance which he did not and enough is clearly enough. Hillary's never committed a crime, which is a complication when you're a top law enforcement official trying to arrest someone. Yeah, he didn't kowtow. After all, he kept on with his investigation into Trump and Russia. Can Trump fire some Senators or representatives? I think there are still some senators who haven't kissed the don's ring yet. Hell, just fire all the democrats. Send in Pence with a manila folder and serve them a plate of ice cold authoritarianism. Yep. That's Comey's biggest problem, he should have bent over and have Trump subpoena all over his back. I'm also pretty sure you know you know how impeachment works too. I'm preeettttyyyyy sure. Pretty sure. It's begun already. You are really having a hard time as usual mate. Look just think how many times the words "Trump is finished this time, he has gone too far" have been said. Trump goes against the norms all the time and nothing happens. You know he won't get impeached over this, I know it, everybody knows it. I merely say how reality is and for all your talk you have been wrong again and again and again. It's already started so... The emails were very newsworthy at the time. Which is more newsworthy, leaked emails from a former Secretary of State who rigged the primaries against her candidate among other things, or declaring a cartoon frog a hate symbol? They've never been authenticated as genuine. Assuming Russia did anything to Clinton they'd benefit a great deal more by falsifying emails and releasing those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 They've never been authenticated as genuine. Assuming Russia did anything to Clinton they'd benefit a great deal more by falsifying emails and releasing those. Milton, we've been over this. Someone is offering 2 BTC (Almost $5,000 USD) to anyone who can falsify a 2048 bit DKIM key. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 Milton, we've been over this. Someone is offering 2 BTC (Almost $5,000 USD) to anyone who can falsify a 2048 bit DKIM key. Russia, China and likely Israel just off the top of my head. Russia is more likely to have done it due to their relationship with Trump, but Israel does that kind of thing pretty frequently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 Russia, China and likely Israel just off the top of my head. Russia is more likely to have done it due to their relationship with Trump, but Israel does that kind of thing pretty frequently. I find it unlikely that three countries can do what an Ivy math professor said is "mathematically impossible." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 China's gone so far as to begin operating its own deep web level that targets opponent networks, embassy equipment in a huge number of countries and foreign ministries. It was found when the Dalai Llama had his computer network checked. With the quantity and speed of their supercomputer facilities I'm sure they could do it. It'd take along time, but they can afford to be patient. Israel is basically as good at tech as it gets. I have no problem thinking they could do that. Russia has so much money and such a significant group of cyber people (including FAPSI) that I wouldn't be surprised if they could also do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 China's gone so far as to begin operating its own deep web level that targets opponent networks, embassy equipment in a huge number of countries and foreign ministries. It was found when the Dalai Llama had his computer network checked. With the quantity and speed of their supercomputer facilities I'm sure they could do it. It'd take along time, but they can afford to be patient. Israel is basically as good at tech as it gets. I have no problem thinking they could do that. Russia has so much money and such a significant group of cyber people (including FAPSI) that I wouldn't be surprised if they could also do it. I find it unlikely that three countries can do what an Ivy math professor said is "mathematically impossible." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 If you choose to believe that that's cool with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.