segnosaur

Just out of curiosity, are those defense lawyers or prosecuting lawyers? Because if you are referring to defense lawyers, they may have a conflict of interest there. And keep in mind that they already have a way to take into account the context of the case and the person who did the crime... We're talking about minimum sentences here. If the context justifies it (person is genuinely contrite, or the crime was at least partly justified they would get the minimum (or, in some cases, the charges dropped or plea bargained down to a lesser charge). Otherwise, the convicted person would get closer to the maximum sentence. I am in favor of minimum sentences. Judges are not perfect (and neither is our jury system). Setting a minimum will provide at least a little consistency in our legal system. i.e. a convicted person getting significant jail time from Hanging Judge John, vs. a criminal getting nothing but probation from Liberal Judge Lloyd, under near identical circumstances. With a specified minimum, at least those crimes will have similar punishments regardless of the judge.

First of all, keep in mind that Iraq's infrastructure was already in poor condition at the time of the invasion, so there was already a need for rebuilding. There is a parallel there with ISIS... people with any sort of skills are abandoning ISIS-held territory and as a result, their infrastructure will likely be falling apart in much the same way. So whether they have to rebuild after ISIS is defeated by airstrikes or goes out of business some other way, it will still need to be rebuilt. Well, on the whole, pretty darn good. Afghanistan is not a nice place to live... there is significant corruption, fighting between militant groups is common, and they are still struggling to rebuild their economy. But you know what? They are still better off than they were before the Taliban was defeated. Life expectancy has increased by over a decade, more children are in school (including girls, which didn't happen under the Taliban) and people are better off financially. The problem is, people like you seem to be comparing the Afghanistan of today with some sort of idealized utopia, when you should be comparing it to the way it was under the Taliban. Its not a modern western-style democracy now, and may never be. But that doesn't mean people's lives there aren't better than they were. http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/03/04/what-went-right/

First of all, the world's experience in Kosovo demonstrates that a "war" can be won largely through the use of air power. Secondly, even if air power won't be enough by itself, it doesn't mean that just using planes won't be of benefit. Yes we can. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't also contribute to the bombing missions. For all of the claims of Canada having an economic crisis, we are still a relatively wealthy country, and we have a competent and experienced (if a bit underfunded) military. Let Canada do what it can do... including use of air craft in bombing missions, and leave the piddly-little stuff to the countries that have fewer resources. Uhhh... so? The fact that we failed to act in one conflict does not automatically justify a lack of action in other conflicts.

Because regardless of how or why ISIS exists in the first place, they are major league scum bags who engage in wide spread human rights abuses. Some people have the belief that individuals (or countries) that have the resources to protect innocent people should do so. Put it this way... do you think Canada should have joined in WW2? After all, there was little risk to the Canadian mainland from German or Japanese attack. Granted, Hitler was the aggressor, but it was still a foreign problem. No, its not very clear at all. Canada is a western-style democracy with constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms and a free market economy. Although reducing things down to "they hate our freedoms" sounds a little simplistic, there is a bit of truth to it. Add a few other things: our close geographic proximity to the US (even if we had no military relations, they are still a major trading partner), our global economic ties, and the fact that we still might be giving humanitarian aid to refugees that ISIS does not like means that Canada would still likely be a target. Plus, there is also the possibility that, even if we were not engaged militarily, they would attack us as a way to draw us in to the conflict. Actually the more likely reason is that Canada and France have significant muslim populations, some of whom have been radicalized. I believe China, Japan and Mexico are societies which much smaller Muslim communities. Now, that does not mean that all muslims are terrorists. But people fighting for ISIS tend to be muslims... fewer muslims overall means fewer 'radicalized' muslims. By the way, from what I understand, Tunisia was attacked by ISIS back in the spring of 2015, before it was a member of the coalition. So yes, it is possible to be subject to ISIS attacks even if you're not bombing them.

Actually, nobody knows how many soldiers ISIS has, but it may be far more than 40,000. From: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-with-isis-islamic-militants-have-army-of-200000-claims-kurdish-leader-9863418.html The Islamic State (Isis) has recruited an army hundreds of thousands strong, far larger than previous estimates by the CIA, according to a senior Kurdish leader. He said the ability of Isis to attack on many widely separated fronts in Iraq and Syria at the same time shows that the number of militant fighters is at least 200,000 As for them being "disorganized soldiers", many of the people with ISIS do have former military experience, and they've shown some ability to quickly learn to use captured American and Russian military equipment. As another poster stated... slowly and carefully. ISIS is a rather horrible entity... human rights abuses exceed even those of places like Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia. But, there are problems... Seems like people with skills (doctors, engineers, etc.) don't want to live there and are fleeing the area. (Seems like those with brains don't want to live in a fundamentalist state run by lunatics.). Their economy is in shambles. (Much of their income has been from robbing banks and selling off antiquities, but that is a finite source of income.) Keep them from expanding, and we may find that they collapse on their own. http://www.cracked.com/blog/isis-wants-us-to-invade-7-facts-revealed-by-their-magazine_p2/

First of all, do you have any proof that "over a million people" have been killed? The figures I've seen for the various ISIS conflicts have been in the thousands, far from the "million people" figure you are quoting. Secondly, keep in mind that its not just saving lives that's the issue. ISIS is quite brutal with human rights, even worse than places like Iraq, Iran, etc.... western powers are also attempting to prevent ISIS from taking over more territory to allow abuses to happen on a wider scale. That's pretty much bordering on "conspiracy theory" territory. Wars are messy, and the fact that the western world want to limit civilian casualties prevents them from just going in there and bombing everything.

Canada hasn't stopped bombing yet, but we have indicated our plans to withdraw and will likely do so around March (when our initial commitment would end). So even if we continue flying bombing runs until then, it makes sense that we wouldn't have much to contribute with regards to long term planning. Germany doesn't do bombing (I believe their constitution forbids it). However they supposedly have: - Multiple Tornados for air-to-ground reconnisaince - Air refueling craft - A warship to protect the French air craft carrier - Possible deployment of ~1200 military personnel http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12032948/Germany-joins-fight-against-Isil-after-parliament-approves-military-action-in-Syria.html Canada will continue running refueling missions and may send more soldiers to train rebels, but even with those commitments, Germany's commitment will exceed that of Canada.

Exactly. With all the scandals by the provincial government and overall economic mismanagement, they probably think they can get on people's good side by giving people a small break on parking, a rather visible expense for some people.

I'm in Ottawa. There are ~4 main hospitals here (depending on how you count what a hospital is). None of them are across from a shopping mall. Many may have limited on-street parking near, but its typically pretty limited. Well, the shopping mall offers the parking with the idea that people will spend money at the mall, which provides the income to maintain the parking lot. Hospitals have a different pricing dynamic... you usually don't have a choice of which hospital to go to, and the hospitals do not strickly operate on a profit motive, so there is no incentive for them to offer free parking to entice patients to visit. One thing that should be noted: While I'm sure it will seem like a big cost saving for people if parking costs are limited, ultimately it is probably of little or no financial benefit. Money collected for parking fees would go to support the hospital; without those fees, they will require more support through government support. So you don't pay for parking, you just pay more through taxes.

Haven't been following this thread, but I skimmed it and didn't see any mention of this. Seems the occupiers have been getting all sorts of support... From: http://www.gq.com/story/oregon-militia-dummies-dicks-in-the-mail The armed anti-government "militia" that took over an Oregon wildlife sanctuary last week and pretty quickly began asking supporters to send them supplies. ...Well, it turns out people did begin sending supplies. Some people sent stuff that was on the list. Other people decided to send some things that weren't on the list. Namely dicks. Lots of different kinds of dicks. Dildos. Gummy dicks. You name it. Its nice to see people lending a hand, isn't it?

No problem. Its an on-line forum. People can have disagreements and be quite... forceful in expressing them. I have actually seen that particular site before. They certainly do make their case for the Gripen, but I found several issues with the article: 1) While it compares the ability of each plane, it doesn't really give any sort of weight to each of the factors... thus, 'dogfighting' is given equal weight to 'air to ground' abilities, even though air to ground attack (an area that your article says the F35 is better at) has traditionally been an area that our planes have been used more frequently 2) I would also question its accuracy in doing each of the comparisons... for example, it claims that the Gripen has an advantage in air-to-air combat because it can carry a Meteor missile, but they have begun to adapt the Meteor to the F35 as well. They also claim that the Gripen is faster/more maneouverable, but that may not be the case, if the F35 is using all-internal weapons. (External weapons introduce a certain amount of drag, which means your maximum speed will be less, and you won't be as maneuverable.) So, if the F35 is capable of carrying the same weapons as the Gripen, and can do so without it slowing the plane down (due to its internal bays) then the advantage by the Gripen isn't quite as assured I would also question the Gripen's supposed superiority in Close air support. The F35 has been designed right from the start to allow it to work with other military equipment. Other planes often have to use external communication pods, and/or have the pilot communicate verbally with ground forces, which negatively affects its ability to work with troops on the ground. The article also falsely mentions that "cold weather testing has yet to be done", yet the F35 has already started to undergo testing for extreme weather conditions, including sub-zero tests. 3) The article also doesn't mention one key advantage that the F35 has over the Gripen... The F35 will likely be manufactured for decades to come. Thus, if we need replacement craft or spare parts, we will be able to obtain them from the assembly line. The Gripen may be manufactured for a few more years (even a few more decades), but eventually production will end, and it will probably happen long before they stop making the F35. Thus, if we want to go with the Gripen, we would probably need to buy several more than just 65, so that we have spares. This would certainly negate much of its supposed cost advantages Now, I'm not necessarily saying the Gripen is a bad plane. And in fact there are features that the Gripen has that really are clearly superior to the F35 (e.g. shorter runway requirements). The question is whether those advantages are more important than (for example) the greater combat radius, total weapons capacity, and expected production life that the F35 has. I personally don't think the advantages that the gripen has outweigh the advantages of the F35.

so... you're down with Canada's requirements limited to "bombing runs"? I don't think anyone is saying that. After all, at the very least we do need some sort of ability to handle issues over our own air space (similar to 9/11-type hijackings, Payne Stewart mishaps where contact is lost, or Mathais Rust incidents.) The problem is the anti-F35 people here put far too much emphasis on the incorrect belief that "the F35 can't dogfight", like they think our air force is composed of Tom Cruise clones and our planes are regularly getting into top-gun scenarios. And they regularly chant things like "bomb truck" like its some magic spell that will make the big bad F35 go away (ignoring the fact that bombing ground targets is something our air force does on a fairly regular basis, something that all major federal political parties have agreed to at one time or another.). The F35 can handle the air-to-air missions that we would reasonably expect them to have to deal with, and its good at attacking targets on the ground, something that we also expect our planes to do.

At no point have I ever claimed that there was only one problem with the F35. I quite openly acknowldge that there have been many problems in the past. And there are still some things that have to be fixed. My 2 main complaints are: - People pointing to problems that have already been fixed. If a problem has already been fixed, it won't be a problem should Canada decide to purchase the plane in the future. - The complete and total hypocrisy of those complaining about the F35, while ignoring similar or identical problems with the alternatives. Yet for a plane who's costs are out of control, its currently selling for less than many of its competitors (including the Eurofighter Typhoon and versions of the Rafale), and its cost is actually decreasing as the assembly line increases production it will likely become cost competitive with the F18 and Gripen. From: http://breakingdefense.com/2011/08/marine-test-pilots-prefers-f-35-over-f-18/ I asked two test pilots who’ve actually flown both the F-35 and the F/A-18 E/F for their opinion. Their unequivocal opinion — I’d fly the F-35. First of all, not sure why you think that is the exact article I was referring to. The false "dogfight" claim came from a blog called "war is boring", and its been repeated over and over. The problem is, the original claim was wrong. It was never tested in a 'mock combat test' or dogfight... A dogfight implies 2 planes that are trying to win. That was not the case here. Instead, it was a test of the F35s controls, that used the F16 as a frame of reference. (Controls that have since been modified, which was the purpose of the exercise.) The F35 was never set up to test in a realistic scenario (i.e. where it would actually be able to use its advantages.) It did not have its stealth coating, nor it did not have fully functional weapons systems. Its a little like saying a Smart Car is better than a Ferrari because of its tight turning radius when you put them both on a go-cart track, ignoring the fact that its a scenario which is not one that our pilots would likely have to deal with. Stealth is not an all-or-nothing concept. All planes will have some radar cross section, whether its the size of a golf ball or the size of a barn door. Because the F35 is able to carry a significant number of weapons internally, it is more than capable of carrying out many of its missions without external fuel tanks or external weapons, minimizing its radar cross section. Even in those cases where it DOES need to carry weapons or fuel externally, it will STILL have a smaller cross section than the F18, or Gripen. In the time Canada has purchased or CF18s, we have used them in: - Libya for bombing - Syria for bombing - Gulf War 1 for bombing - Eastern Europe for bombing It should be noted that ALL major federal political parties have supported at least one (if not more) of those missions. So yes, having a capability to bomb targets on the ground is something that Canada has done and will probably do in the future. For better or worse, industrial spin-offs (i.e. jobs) ARE an important part of military procurement. If we spend $X on buying a plane, and as part of the deal the manufacturer contracts several billion dollars to Canadian companies for work, it may make the ultimate cost of the plane cheaper than lower cost alternatives that have no such spin-offs. I'm sure its fun to toss around terms like 'Military industrial complex', but aircraft manufacturing is a high-tech endeavor, and it benefits the Canadian economy to be involved. They may make that statement, but that does not mean they are correct. While the F35 does not have the capability of (for example) the F22, its capabilities would still make it effective against your typical 4th generation fighter. Actually, we should have a plane that is capable of handling both functions. While we can't ignore the defense of our own air space, historically we have gotten involved in many air-to-ground missions, and will likely do so in the future. Buying planes that are less capable in an air-to-ground role would be unfairly hampering future governments. The Gripen? According to Wikipedia, the Gripen's combat radius is 800km. The F35s combat radius is 1135km. So, in a country as large as Canada, you really want to reduce the distance it can fly by around 1/3rd? Oh, and let me be proactive... the Gripen does supposedly have a higher rated speed than the F35, but that is in a clean configuration (i.e. no weapons). When you add weapons, it slows the plane down. The F35 can fly at a higher speed on missions because it can carry weapons internally. Oh, and speaking of the Gripen... did you know that 2 of their planes were destroyed during their test phase? Yet here you are, touting it as the "plane for Canada". Why is it that the Gripen can have problems during its development and still be acceptable, but the F35 cannot? Yet not as far as the F35 Yet with a smaller number of users and a smaller global fleet, costs will rise as planes need to be upgraded. With the larger number of F35 users, upgrade costs can be spread among a larger number of countries. Not to mention that the F35 will likely be manufactured for decades to come. The Gripen may not be produced in a decade or two. This makes getting replacement parts and planes cheaper if we get the F35. Not sure what exactly you mean by that.... The F35 can certainly use many of the same weapons the CF18 can (AIM120 missles, AGM154 bombs, etc.) Granted, there are some weapons the CF18 can carry that the F35 can't, but then there are also weapons that the CF18 can carry that the Gripen can't either... JDAM, Mk83/84 bombs, etc.

What, you mean like those who oppose the F35 tend to clutch at straws by pointing out incorrect data and irrelevancies? Such as the way they keep pointing out the engine fire on the F35, while ignoring the fact that there was a redesign that fixed the problem? Such as the way they keep saying it lost in a dogfight to an F16, when it was never actually IN a dogfight with an F16? Yeah it is rather sad when people clutch at straws like that.

Well, for one, the assembly line has not started full production runs. Until the plane is out of the prototype/low rate production phase, you can't really reliably state an actual "flyaway cost", since the price of assembly tends to go down once you enter full production. Not sure why you consider this issue so significant. While the flyaway cost may have some use for vague price comparisons between planes, its an imperfect measure, since buyers often make modifications to the base model (which increases the price). For that reason, pointing to the actual price paid by a country (i.e. the amount stated in the contract between a government and the manufacturer) is probably just as useful (if not more) than looking at a stated flyaway cost. (And, since prices tend to decrease as production rates increase, future prices of the F35 will probably be lower than current prices, until full production rates are hit.) you mean the Italians that cut their commitment from 131 down to 90? Yes, the Italians reduced their planned purchase of the F35. So has the U.S. So what? In defense procurement, its all too common for countries to plan certain purchases, and then reduce the planned order. Its happened with a lot of planes. For example, both Germany and Austria reduced their commitments to the Eurofighter Typhoon. In the 2000s, Israel had an option for (I think) 60 F16 but only bought 52. And India canceled a fighter program that may have seen them purchase >100 Rafales. About the only reason you don't hear of reductions in orders of the F18 Super Hornet is that there are so few users of that plane. If you're pointing to reduced orders as justification for your flawed opinion of the F35, then you are likely a huge hypocrite. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303636404579393103247459842 https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/austria-resolves-eurofighter-dispute-with-reduced-or-215290/ http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/08/09/analysts-indias-fighter-buy-cancellation-hurts-industry-air-force/31159223/ Countries may cut defense purchases for a number of reasons: Economic conditions may worsen, a change in leadership may mean decisions are made base on "looking different" than the previous government. Politicians may also use jet purchases as "piggy banks"... using savings from cutting orders to fund pork barrel projects. So, the fact that some countries reduced their planned purchases of the F35 is neither surprising nor alarming. Its more or less just par for the course. The only way it would actually mean anything is if countries started outright cancelling their F35 purchases in order to buy other planes (which of course they aren't).

Some people think that not only does greenpeace have no value to the world, their continued existence is actually harmful, not only to the economy, but human lives and the very environment they pretend to be protecting. Genetically modified food (e.g. golden rice) has the opportunity to save millions of lives, and at the same time reduce pollution. Likewise, nuclear energy is a technology with a smaller ecological footprint (when measured against total production) than most alternatives (as well as a lower death toll). Yet Greenpeace has actively campaigned against those technologies. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/26/golden_rice_attack_in_philippines_anti_gmo_activists_lie_about_protest_and.html

Most economists believe tax cuts (in general) help stimulate the economy. Furthermore, tax cuts for people with a lower/middle income provide more benefit than cuts for high level earners. Consumption taxes (such as the GST) are regressive taxes... they have a greater impact on those with lower incomes. So cutting the GST gives a higher portion of savings to those in lower tax brackets than an across-the-board tax cut. (And cutting taxes for those people provides the most benefit to the economy.) Furthermore, cutting consumption taxes encourages more spending (which would provide the needed economic stimulation); cutting things like income taxes might result in more money being diverted to savings. http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_2irlrss5UC27YXi http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150429140608.htm http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb0596-e.html

First of all, your assumption that those who are critical of the Liberals "did not want muslims here" may be wrong. Many people had no problems with bringing refugees here; we were just critical of the timing. Here's the reason I am critical.... Trudeau promised during the election that he would bring in 25,000 refugees by the end of 2015. Not 2016. However, there were many people who felt that was unrealistic. The NDP were going to bring in 10s of thousands, but had a more realistic schedule. Even many aid workers thought the Liberal plans were unfeasible. So, there were 2 possibilities; - The Liberals were lying. They realized that they could not do what they said, but cynically promised they could do it, in an attempt to get votes over a hot-button issue (hey! look at us! We're more caring than even the NDP!) And if they are going to lie so blatantly about the refugees (when the lie would be uncovered so quickly) then what other promises of theirs were cynical lies? - The Liberals were incompetent. They honestly thought they could do it, and ignored any and all people who said otherwise (including many aid workers.) And if they don't understand the logistical problems of bringing in that many refugees (and won't listen to those who do understand the problem), then how much are they going to screw up the country as a whole?

Or, they will be like the Chretien government, who started with a solid majority, but steadily lost seats in successive elections, until they themselves were thrown out in favor of the conservatives. The Liberal government has barely had any time in office, and already they've broken one promise (bringing in 25,000 refugees by the end of THIS year), and other promises that are actually impossible to fill. (e.g. their tax cut promises and their impact on the deficit.) Certainly not a great start to their administration. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/does-the-government-s-math-add-up-1.3357005/finance-minister-bill-morneau-won-t-scale-back-liberal-promises-despite-concerns-of-bigger-deficit-1.3359129

Its easy to imagine that, if Canada had a more liberal immigration policy than the U.S., that their government could potentially put rules in to examine cross-border traffic more carefully (e.g. to prevent the "evil" foreigners from using Canada to get to the U.S.) This might mean longer delays at border crossings as cars and trucks are checked in more detail, lest any vehicles are carrying terrorist-related people or weapons. And, delays at the border crossings can negatively impact trade. Even if the response by the americans is totally paranoid (seeing terrorists where little or no risk actually exists) it would still negatively impact us.

Don't forget... Donald Trump wants to have sex with his daughter.... http://www.salon.com/2015/12/10/trevor_noah_mocks_donald_trumps_joke_about_banging_his_daughter_thousands_were_laughing_on_a_rooftop_in_jersey_i_saw_it/

"Backfiring" suggests that there was an option that would have lead to greater success (either winning the election or at least gaining more seats.) Since the conservatives were an incumbent party, with all the various issues (scandals, past policies that many voters did not like, etc.) there was a good chance that they were going to loose anyways. What isn't known is whether they would have gotten more or less seats had they called the election later. Yes, they ran the risk of turning off voters with a long campaign, but they curtailed 3rd party union-backed ads, which themselves might have been damaging if they had been allowed to run unfettered for an additional month before the election call.

The point you are missing is that those laws don't kick in until the writ is dropped. So the campaign actually started before that. And, if you have a lengthy campaign you can hope to drain the coffers of the competition who you know have less to spend. Actually, finance laws dictating how much a person or organization can donate to political parties are always in effect. So someone cannot donate millions per year for 3 years and then stop right before the election call. They can only donate $1500/year, whether it is during the election itself, or in the middle of the term. However, there is no law preventing someone (or in this case unions) from donating millions to an anti-conservative organization, year after year, and have them publish anti-conservative ads for years at a time.. Now, when the election is actually called, those 3rd parties are limited in their ability to spend. And that is probably one of the key reasons Harper called the election early. To silence 3rd party organizations like Engage Canada, who were collecting money in ways that regular political parties could not.

I suspect as far as the money issue goes, the cpc simply were well aware they had a much larger bank account than their 2 main competitors combined, and that they could just spend their way back into power. You're missing the point... The purpose of Canada's election finance laws is to prevent any particular group from "buying" the election. So, individuals, companies and organizations are prevented from donating more than $1500 in a year. The conservatives probably did have more money than the other 2 parties (based on many small contributions). The problem is, 3rd party organizations (like the previously mentioned Engage Canda) are able to raise and spend money outside of the constraints of the major parties. And that's what happened... Engage Canada collected more money from unions that the unions would have been able to donate directly to any political party. (There were a couple of attempts to set up pro-conservative organizations, but they had nowhere near the impact as the pro-Liberal organizations.) Now, such 3rd party organizations are prevented from supporting a particular party, but there is nothing keeping them from running ads bashing one party (as long as they don't tell you who you should vote for). And they may not be able to directly work with a particular party, but in the case of Engage Canada, many of the organizers had links to the NDP and Liberals. Its dirty politics. But quite legal. And that's one of the reasons why Harper may have called the election early... rather than listen to an extra month of "Bash the conservative" ads (paid for by forced union dues and organized by Liberals and NDPers) they called the election early. If you want to know the impact, try looking at the U.S. The impact of their SuperPACs is often the target of scorn (viewed as anti-democratic). But here, the Liberals and NDP greatly benefited by the same type of spending.

There was a valid reason for launching an early election call. Recall that prior to the election call, 3rd party organizations were allowed to spend relatively large amounts of money (outside of the limits placed on political parties.) One such organization was a Union-backed organization run by Liberals and NDPers. Once the election was called, the ability of 3rd parties to spend money got significantly cut back. From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/engage-canada-s-anti-conservative-tv-ad-all-about-timing-1.3122069 One ad that made its debut this month comes from Engage Canada, a group whose stated intent is to make the Conservative party "unelectable." Engage calls itself a non-partisan, grassroots organization, though is headed by former Liberal and NDP strategists and it counts unions among its donors. Ironic, isn't it... the conservatives get slammed (quite rightly in some cases) for some shady advertising, and yet here we have the left-wing engaging in the type of questionable practices that would be more at home in the U.S. (with its super PACS.)