Cruz Nuz

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

You seem confident that everyone Trump has stomped will become his humble servant.

Robert,

There's something you're still not getting.

Trump doesn't stomp people. Trump supporters do.

Trump is an effect, not a cause.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

50 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You don't like his conclusions, but don't seem to mind Cruz's lawyerly conclusions. For instance, he claimed (for a while) that Trump supported Obamacare. And that Trump funded the Gang of 8. (Trump gave to lots of politicians, including some in the Gang of 8 and some opponents of them--for Cruz this constituted Trump funding the Gang of 8 and ideologically advocating all they stood for, especially amnesty for illegal immigrants.)

Are these statements by a "deeply dishonest wannabe demagogue" or merely politics as usual?

Michael,

When did Donald Trump actually come out against Obamacare?  And when did he stop saying complimentary things about single-payer (such as the National Health Service)?

He threatened to sue the Cruz campaign for simply presenting his positions over time on a number of issues.  Trump had, in fact, been all over the map on each of them.

As for giving money to members of the Gang of Eight... well, you don't perceive it as a problem that Donald Trump gave money to Chucky Schumer?  He had one opponent with a history of major cozying up to Chucky Schumer—"Lightweight" Marco Rubio, now duly stomped and out of the race.

How does having given money to Chucky Schumer (my spellchecker keeps wanting to call him"schemer") make Donald Trump the best candidate for Republicans to support?  His remaining opponents haven't given money to Schumer.

That will get even more interesting if Trump becomes the nominee.  He'll be running, in all probability, against Hillary Clinton, after giving money both to her and to her family slush fund foundation.

it seems like your arguments frequently fall back into "My guy's lies are better than your guy's."  

Is that a way to get anyone to support your guy?

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Speaking of Ted Cruz, for Cruz supporters, read it and weep.

Based on Current Situation=> Ted Cruz Will Be Knocked Out of Race By April 26th
Jim Hoft
Apr 2nd, 2016 
Gateway Pundit

From the article:

Hoft said:

 

Based on current delegate counts and poll numbers Ted Cruz will be mathematically unable to reach the delegate count required for him to win the Republican Presidential nomination.  

By the end April it will be clear that Ted Cruz has no chance of reaching the 1,237 delegates needed to win the nomination.

Actually in only 3 weeks, on April 26th, it will be clear that Ted Cruz cannot win.

Currently Cruz has only 463 delegates. Even if Cruz wins Wisconsin, which is a state whose delegates are winner take most (WTM), he still will not have enough delegates to win the election by April 26th.

. . .

Based on current numbers, come April 26th, Cruz will need 687 delegates to win the election but only 634 will be available.

Then Cruz’s only chance at the end of April to win the election is the highly unlikely scenario where Trump doesn’t gain enough delegates to win the nomination outright and that the Republican elites in a contested convention support Cruz.

 

We shall see.

As the saying goes, every time I look at Cruz, I'm glad I support Trump.

 

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

6 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

There's something you're still not getting.

Trump doesn't stomp people. Trump supporters do.

Trump is an effect, not a cause.

Michael

Really?

Trump's supporters would not be stomping a lot of the people they've set out to stomp, unless he had persuaded them to.

For instance, did most Republicans in Wisconsin despise Scott Walker, before Trump tried to get them to despise him?

We'll know, soon enough, how well the trying to get has actually worked.

Robert

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 minute ago, Robert Campbell said:

As for giving money to members of the Gang of Eight... well, you don't perceive it as a problem that Donald Trump gave money to Chucky Schumer?

Robert,

See? You're doing it, too.

Trump gave to lots of politicians on all sides to keep the wheels greased for his business interests.

Now he's a politician so he doesn't give anymore.

Does giving to all those people when he was a businessman only mean he adopted the ideology of only one politician--the one you want to hold up?

Come on. 

That's lawyerly stuff.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

13 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

Of course. 

People are only going to hear what they want to, anyway. For instance, I know someone who hears Trump say over and over and over and over and over he's going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something much better. And this person continued for the longest time saying Trump supported Obamacare. (That was Ted Cruz.)

That is one person who definitely should not listen to everything Trump says. He can't even get the easy stuff right.

Michael

Michael,

When did Donald Trump come out, definitively, against Obamacare?

Surely you would know.

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just now, Robert Campbell said:

Trump's supporters would not be stomping a lot of the people they've set out to stomp, unless he had persuaded them to.

Robert,

All I can say is keep believing as you will.

People keep making this mistake about Trump. And they keep losing.

The only persuasion Trump does with them is convince them he will actually do what they want to the best of his ability. All the rest is campaign noise.

I, for one, do not keep making the same mistake and expecting a different result. But for some reason, Trump haters never learn.  

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Just now, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

See? You're doing it, too.

Trump gave to lots of politicians on all sides to keep the wheels greased for his business interests.

Now he's a politician so he doesn't give anymore.

Does giving to all those people when he was a businessman only mean he adopted the ideology of only one politician--the one you want to hold up?

Come on. 

That's lawyerly stuff.

Michael

Michael,

He might have given money to Chucky or Hillary because (at the time, in that avatar) he actually supported something they were after.

Just a thought.

Why, after all, did he give money to Scott Walker?  Did he have business in Wisconsin at the time, for which wheels needed greasing?

And wasn't all this wheel greasing precisely what he now affects to deplore?  (Well, maybe not with ethanol mandates, maybe not with taking private property for private use, maybe not with a few other things, but by and large.)

Enough for now.  I remain intensely curious as to the actual effectiveness of re-stomping Walker in Wisconsin, but it's the voters there who will have to tell us the answer.

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

When did Donald Trump come out, definitively, against Obamacare?

Robert,

Listen to almost any campaign speech going back to July.

One of Trump's core campaign promises is to repeal Obamacare. He's said it a gazillion times.

Do you really need help in something this obvious?

It's like me asking, when did Ted Cruz say, definitively, he believed in God?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

17 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

I remain intensely curious as to the actual effectiveness of re-stomping Walker in Wisconsin, but it's the voters there who will have to tell us the answer.

Robert,

I, too, am curious. However, I don't put nearly the weight on Trump's "stomping" or "re-stomping" of Walker as you do.

I merely see Walker as a popular governor and believe his endorsement of Cruz helped, but it was not the end all and be all of Cruz's campaign. On the other side, I don't see Walker's "stomping" of Trump (which you never mention for some reason  ) having more than a medium impact.

Man, Trump and Walker do a lot of stomping, don't they?  

I think the voters are more concerned with other issues instead of personality stomp contests. Now that Trump is actually campaigning in Wisconsin instead of letting the barrage of negative ads, Cruz (and Cruz staff) speeches and campaigns by talk radio hosts inform Wisconsin voters on what he thinks, I believe his numbers will rise.

After all, where is a "Stop Cruz" or "Anyone but Cruz" movement going on? Nowhere. But a "Stop Trump" movement has been alive and well for some time in Wisconsin. Hell, some Republicans are even saying they will vote for Hillary over Trump. Where is there anything comparable against Cruz?

I don't know if Trump will carry Wisconsin, but I don't believe Cruz will do a blowout if he wins. The delegates will be divided up regardless of who wins. 

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

27 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

34 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

When did Donald Trump come out, definitively, against Obamacare?

Robert,

Listen to almost any campaign speech going back to July.

One of Trump's core campaign promises is to repeal Obamacare. He's said it a gazillion times.

Do you really need help in something this obvious?

 

Recently, DT has been very vague and sounds more like a welfare-statist, bleeding heart liberal. Tonight on a town hall with Greta Van Susteren, he talked vaguely about "9 different options" and repealing Obamacare and replacing it with "something so much better" than Obamacare - "great health care for much less money." Yeah, right. Sounds just like Obamacare was touted to us. DT sez: "Whoever wants it is gonna have it." (Whatever "it" is.) "Nobody's gonna be dying on the street if I'm President." (Paid for by whom, and where are the savings going to come from??) "If it has to come from Medicare or whatever, we're going to help them out. We've got to." (This, he says, gets standing ovations from Republicans. Republicans???)

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4829699406001/trump-on-what-trumpcare-will-look-like/?#sp=show-clips

REB

[Roger Bissell]

19 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

After all, where is a "Stop Cruz" or "Anyone but Cruz" movement going on? Nowhere. But a "Stop Trump" movement has been alive and well for some time in Wisconsin.

 

This is a mystery? Good lord, look at Trump's negatives. Compared to Cruz, compared to anyone else running except Hillary, Trump is afloat only because of a loud vociferous minority who likes insults and vague promises to fight the Establishment.

The more candidates that drop out, the more obvious it becomes that he does not have a majority of the party behind him. Now he's clamoring for Kasich to get out of the race - coincidentally (?) as the next states after Wisconsin will be back East where Kasich could seriously threaten Trump's racking up more delegates.

Trump is no dummy, but he must think we are.

REB

[Selene]

3 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

Recently, DT has been very vague and sounds more like a welfare-statist, bleeding heart liberal. Tonight on a town hall with Greta Van Susteren, he talked vaguely about "9 different options" and repealing Obamacare and replacing it with "something so much better" than Obamacare - "great health care for much less money." Yeah, right. Sounds just like Obamacare was touted to us. DT sez: "Whoever wants it is gonna have it." (Whatever "it" is.) "Nobody's gonna be dying on the street if I'm President." (Paid for by whom, and where are the savings going to come from??) "If it has to come from Medicare or whatever, we're going to help them out. We've got to." (This, he says, gets standing ovations from Republicans. Republicans???)

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4829699406001/trump-on-what-trumpcare-will-look-like/?#sp=show-clips

REB

REB:

If we had direct payments to Drs/hospitals for all the "assigned risk health cases," that could not be serviced by private competitive insurance plans, this assigned risk pool would be significantly less costly than layer upon layer of civil service workers who "process" compliance with useless regulations with crippling costs.

That is just one simple structural change that will eliminate the civil service bloat in any program.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

9 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

Recently, DT has been very vague and sounds more like a welfare-statist, bleeding heart liberal. Tonight on a town hall with Greta Van Susteren, he talked vaguely about "9 different options" and repealing Obamacare and replacing it with "something so much better" than Obamacare - "great health care for much less money." Yeah, right. Sounds just like Obamacare was touted to us. DT sez: "Whoever wants it is gonna have it." (Whatever "it" is.) "Nobody's gonna be dying on the street if I'm President." (Paid for by whom, and where are the savings going to come from??) "If it has to come from Medicare or whatever, we're going to help them out. We've got to." (This, he says, gets standing ovations from Republicans. Republicans???)

Roger,

As I understand it, Trump wants to get the government out of the insurance business, starting with abolishing statewide monopolies for insurance companies. Trump wants nationwide free competition. 

But he wants to provide some kind of government health aid (not insurance) to the destitute.

I can think of much worse...

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

Listen to almost any campaign speech going back to July.

One of Trump's core campaign promises is to repeal Obamacare. He's said it a gazillion times.

Do you really need help in something this obvious?

It's like me asking, when did Ted Cruz say, definitively, he believed in God?

Michael

Michael,

If you were following any of it, you know that the struggle against Obamacare's been going on, more or less continuously, for 7 years.

Donald Trump deigned to join it when, exactly?

Robert

[Peter]

Roger wrote: This is a mystery? Good lord, look at Trump's negatives. Compared to Cruz, compared to anyone else running except Hillary, Trump is afloat only because of a loud vociferous minority who likes insults and vague promises to fight the Establishment. end quote

Well said! I can count Cruz’s faults while standing on one foot, but I would need to sit down to try and explain the appeal of Trump to a six year old. Are the Trumpeters blind? Are they (Eric Hoffer’s?) true believers? To a degree, yes. No matter what he does wrong they are ready to laugh it off and point their finger at the shine on Cruz’s shoes.

Peter  

[Robert Campbell]

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

After all, where is a "Stop Cruz" or "Anyone but Cruz" movement going on?

Michael,

Well, since Jeb and Marco dropped out, the Anyone but Cruz campaign has effectively been identical with the Trump campaign.  Kasich's efforts have been a pale imitation of Trump's.

If Trump doesn't get the nomination on the first ballot in Cleveland, there will be a Stop Cruz movement orders of magnitude more furious than any we've seen up to now.

Robert

 

[Peter]

When talking about Mideast terrorists Cruz has said he will make the sand glow if necessary and also from The Objective Standard: Cruz acknowledges that the Islamic theocracy in Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism against America and, indeed, that “Iran has declared war on us.” And he promises that if he is elected president, “under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons,” adding, “if the ayatollah doesn’t understand that, we may have to help introduce him to his seventy-two virgins.” end quote

Great Zeus, we need this guy as President. As far as a "Stop Cruz" movement at the convention I would agree about its potential ferocity if Trump were not also there. Trump steals the negative and he envelopes the chaos. Cruz is 10 times more acceptable to a Rand Paul, Carly, Jeb or Kasich and even a Carson supporter. He is preferable to women and Hispanics. He has better "unfavorable ratings" by far. Cruz has outlined how he will be a strict Constitutionalist. He HAS the Objectivist vote.      

Peter

Notes. Should we stand with staunch Objectivists like Leonard? I wonder if he is going to vote for Trump? If he is consistent, he will. Rebellion! Overthrow the bums! No Theocracy! Chaos! NO NEW equilibrium!  He thinks a candidate’s religion is the greatest threat to freedom and certainly worse than Progressive Socialism and terrorism. Is he for real? Yes. I don’t have the heart to look up what he saying lately.  

Peikoff on the 2006 Elections by Leonard Peikoff | 19 Oct 2006 | Elections, POLITICS:

Q: In view of the constant parade of jackassery which is Washington, is there any point in voting for candidates of either entrenched party? Throwing out the incumbents “for a change” is to me an idea based on the philosophy that my head will stop hurting if I bang it on the opposite wall.

A: How you cast your vote in the coming election is important, even if the two parties are both rotten. In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power.

Socialism – a fad of the last few centuries – has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast – the destroyer of man since time immemorial – is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government.

Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because “both are bad.”

The survival of this country will not be determined by the degree to which the government, simply by inertia, imposes taxes, entitlements, controls, etc., although such impositions will be harmful (and all of them and worse will be embraced or pioneered by conservatives, as Bush has shown). What does determine the survival of this country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy. And in this area the only real threat to the country now, the only political evil comparable to or even greater than the threat once posed by Soviet Communism, is religion and the Party which is its home and sponsor.

The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a “good” Republican.

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life – which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.

If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner.

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

Michael,

Well, since Jeb and Marco dropped out, the Anyone but Cruz campaign has effectively been identical with the Trump campaign.  Katich's efforts have been a pale imitation of Trump's.

If Trump doesn't get the nomination on the first ballot in Cleveland, there will be a Stop Cruz movement orders of magnitude more furious than any we've seen up to now.

Robert

To what effect on what people? The delegates? It takes time to ramp up opposition. I tend to agree with you post-convention if Cruz is nominated, but that's true for whomever is chosen. If Hillary is elected consequently--and through pure voter fraud--a huge (Trump) segment of the population is going to be more pissed than ever. A new major political party might be created, mostly but not entirely at Republican Party expense. Trump himself would play little in that.

--Brant

[Peter]

Brant wrote about a potential Stop Cruz campaign: To what effect on what people? The delegates? It takes time to ramp up opposition. I tend to agree with you post-convention if Cruz is nominated, but that's true for whomever is chosen. end quote

I was at the VA today to give a yearly blood sample and I thought the staff was overworked. A lot of guys were in the waiting room. Patriots need what American’s need: a constitutional government based on individual rights. Trump cannot articulate what that is. 

What will happen in Cleveland? Better dead than red? Better dead than Ted? Piekoff’s (or is it pickoff’s) political chaos theory of “vote the bastards out, no majorities anywhere, and Socialist Progressives over Republicans who believe in god,” is truly hurtful to America’s freedom. It does embody the rebellious, Trump-ian spirit of “hurt them, replace them, and anybody is better than” spirit of Donald’s supporters. Donald could be a fascist for all we know. Or do we already suspect that? He WILL yank the football from the toe of Charley Brown’s foot.   

Hmmm? What say you? Known or unknown? In ink or pencil? Stand for something or the art of (everything is negotiable} deal? We can vote in the respectful, 1776 philosophical intellectualism and passion of Ted Cruz. Yes we can. So why start out by supporting a phony rebellion?

Now at the convention Brant, I expect all sides to be fired up. I can't wait! The anti rino’s have Trump. They support a negative. The anti rino’s, The Tea Party, and thinking middle of the roaders have Cruz. That is one big positive. Who will have the better argument? From intimidation? Trump. A Trump sign in your yard invites frowns from passers by and vandalism. The argument from reason? Cruz. Cruz in 2016. All smiles.

Peter 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

If you were following any of it, you know that the struggle against Obamacare's been going on, more or less continuously, for 7 years.

Donald Trump deigned to join it when, exactly?

Robert,

Since Trump decided to fix it, I imagine. At least since the beginning of his campaign.

Trump has been bitching about state monopolies of health insurance for his companies for a long time. And about the morons who run things on the government side. But he's also friends with owners of insurance companies. 

Does it matter when he first started using the word Obamacare instead of insurance?

There's a mentality thing you seem to constantly miss with Trump. He doesn't live according to gotchas, neither do his supporters. He lives and thinks according to projects. If he is not engaged in a project, he might comment about the pros and cons of this or that aspect of it or not. There is nothing deeper involved other than an opinion like you or I might have about the bait to use for carp fishing.

Once he engages, he uses his best thinking to get it done right.

It's a producer mindset. And it's the same one his supporters have.

Like I said, at the root, underneath everything, Trump is a reflection of his supporters, not a puppet-master controlling their minds.

If these people were so vulnerable to Mesmer-like manipulation, Obama would have had them in his hip pocket and eating out of his hand long ago through the efforts of all his behavioral scientists (COBS).

(Apropos, Cruz uses behavioral science kind of info and techniques. I read near the beginning of the race he admitted it--in fact, he admitted to learning from Obama's campaigns. I could probably find several articles on this if I dig. That's what they use to filter big data.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Robert Campbell said:

Well, since Jeb and Marco dropped out, the Anyone but Cruz campaign has effectively been identical with the Trump campaign.

Robert,

You mean like when Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham and other establishment luminaries endorsed Cruz?

That kind of identical?

btw - I do agree the establishment will eat Cruz alive if he manages to knock out Trump. And they are right in their calculation that Trump's followers will not support Cruz, especially if Cruz keeps using dirty tricks. At this stage, a Hillary win is the best they can hope for, so they are hoping for it. The idea in this scenario is to knock out Cruz, then watch as the entire Republican voter base walks away in disgust and Hillary takes the election. That way they keep a second in line place at the trough. 

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

Listen to almost any campaign speech going back to July.

One of Trump's core campaign promises is to repeal Obamacare. He's said it a gazillion times.

Do you really need help in something this obvious?

It's like me asking, when did Ted Cruz say, definitively, he believed in God?

Michael

Uh, Michael,

Ted Cruz must have first said he believed in God well before there was an Obamacare.  Even before there was the sketch of an ambition, on the part of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Max Baucus, and Nancy Pelosi, to foist something like that on everyone.

Robert

Edited April 4, 2016 by Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

25 minutes ago, Robert Campbell said:

Ted Cruz must have first said he believed in God well before there was an Obamacare.  Even before there was the sketch of an ambition, on the part of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Max Baucus, and Nancy Pelosi, to foist something like that on everyone.

Robert,

Is that a gotcha?

That's what I'm talking about.

It doesn't mean anything other than words. I have no resonance that, for or against.

Who cares?

Trump is going to repeal Obamacare regardless of who thinks what about when he decided to use the word Obamacare.

Trump has been pounding that he will repeal it over and over and over in almost all of his many campaign speeches and interviews on TV and radio. Months and months of the same message.

In light of that, there is no excuse, none, for Ted Cruz to say Trump supports Obamacare. It's bullshit, even if he tries to attach some gotcha or other to it.

That's exactly the way I see it, I am certain that's the way Trump supporters see it, and I can almost guarantee that's the way independents see it.

This is not a gotcha-friendly election. 

If a man says he hates something, there is no way for someone to proclaim to the four winds he loves it and sound rational. Or if rational, there is no way to sound honest.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

8 hours ago, Robert Campbell said:

If you were following any of it, you know that the struggle against Obamacare's been going on, more or less continuously, for 7 years.

Donald Trump deigned to join it when, exactly?

 

Robert,

Since Trump decided to fix it, I imagine. At least since the beginning of his campaign.

Trump has been bitching about state monopolies of health insurance for his companies for a long time. And about the morons who run things on the government side. But he's also friends with owners of insurance companies. 

Does it matter when he first started using the word Obamacare instead of insurance?

There's a mentality thing you seem to constantly miss with Trump. He doesn't live according to gotchas, neither do his supporters. He lives and thinks according to projects. If he is not engaged in a project, he might comment about the pros and cons of this or that aspect of it or not. There is nothing deeper involved other than an opinion like you or I might have about the bait to use for carp fishing.

Once he engages, he uses his best thinking to get it done right.

 

"Long time"?? Kinda relative, isn't it??

Is 16 years ago a "long time"? In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve (ouch!) - meant to prepare the way for a Trump run for President - he said he supported universal healthcare because "we should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses." He said, "I'm a conservative on most [MOST???] issues, but a liberal on this one." He said, "we need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan." This, of course, is a major plank in Bernie Sanders's campaign.

Was THIS "his best thinking"? Or his current, vague, arm-waving, semi-coherent rant that hardly sounds different, except for letting companies compete across state lines and for people to have medical accounts - while the taxpayers pick up the tab on everyone who can't or won't pay for their own health insurance or healthcare?

We "constantly miss" "a mentality thing...with Trump"?? Oh, no, I think we are well aware of his mentality. It's to say any vague, enthusiastic, big-talking thing you think will get you attention and votes - even if you have to reverse it 15 years or 15 minutes later.

His 2000 book's position on healthcare was not the equivalent of carp fishing bait, and neither is his current not-so-different position. Except that's really about all either of them is worth.

REB