I'm sure the title of this thread alone can provoke premature ejaculation for a lot of the diehard Paul supporters on WSO. But as a former history major, I love thinking about "what-if" scenarios and various hypotheticals.
So here's a fun one to ponder. What effect will a Ron Paul presidency have on this country if the congressman were to win the 2012 election? Assume for the sake of the hypo that he wins in a squeaker over Obama and that the composition of the congress has not changed. The dems control the senate, and the GOP controls the House.
Here are my thoughts on what will happen. It will be interesting to hear others' opinions as well.
By far the biggest change will be in U.S. foreign policy. As commander-in-chief the president has much more latitude over foreign policy than he does on domestic. President Paul will definitely withdraw all troops from the middle east including advisors and non-combat troops. I also think he will shut down or greatly reduce military bases in germany, japan, south korea, and other countries. And covert operations will virtually be extinguished. Without a doubt, the Pentagon and CIA will DESPISE a president Paul. But that will pale in comparison to the hatred we will receive from Israel. They will be outraged that Paul no longer kisses their ass and does everything they tell us to do. AIPAC will spend millions to try to destroy Paul's presidency, including calling for impeachment.
On the domestic front, his impact will be far less consequential. After all, the president needs congress to pass budgets. His plan to cut the deficit by $1 TRILLION each year will be a non-starter, as members of both parties will find parts of his plan to be highly objectionable. Paul will probably veto more bills than any president in modern history. And he will try hard to eradicate the federal reserve act of 1913 and put America back on the gold standard (ie. pre-1971 bretton woods years).
1.) Who gives a flying fuck what AIPAC thinks? Is Israel a state? Is it part of America? Last I checked, it is not. The cow towing we do to them is absurd beyond reason.
2.) What if I went to HBS next year? What would it do for me socially? Would I party non-stop and crush pussy every night? Could I potentially go on a ski trip and then waltz into a six figure job without really trying?
I personally could care less about AIPAC or Israel for that matter. But no one can deny that they wield tremendous power on our foreign policy.
The only reason the insanely hyper-pro Israel views get support is because of a small but vocal group of evangelicals (also known as a good chunk of the GOP base) that believes we must support Israel for purposes of bringing Christ back and ushering in the armageddon.
"durrr my thousands of years old book filled with falsehoods, contradictions, and arcane rules about slave ownership tells me we need to support israel to bring jesus back...durrrr...must support hyper-pro Israel candidate...durrr Iran is the biggest threat of all time"
if RP was president, i wouldn't be subjected to an involuntary queer date every time i walk through a TSA checkpoint. that's reason enough for me.
Lets face it, a Ron Paul presidency would destroy the Republican party. Dems in Congress would vote against RP, but that is fine, their ideology would support this. Republicans on the other hand would be shown to be truly against smaller government and less taxation, the parties core tenants.
Imagine a Republican president Paul, promoting bills that would close government agencies and slash debt, only to be voted down by his own party. Republicans would look like garbage.
Great point, ANT. The GOP has not been conservative on fiscal policies for quite some time, a trend that accelerated drastically during George W. Bush's presidency. It's amazing how much damage Bush did to conservatism.
even as a paul supporter and donor i will agree that without a new congress RP won't be able to do much in the WH. what does that say about how corrupted our government is? the only cure is a root and branch extraction. every parasite sucking blood out of the productive members of society would fight that to the death.
Corporations and various interest groups have too much at stake in preserving the status quo. The mere mention of Paul winning Iowa puts them in panic mode. I can't even imagine what their reaction would be if Paul were to become president. I really think it will be tantamount to the reaction of southerners when Lincoln won the presidency in 1860: utter rebellion and chaos.
What I think RP would do in the case of Republican and Democratic obstructionism is reach out directly to the people. If I were him, I would give Congress a rapid action list of bills, watch them get killed and then hit the campaign trail.
RP has passionate supports, especially in Hollywood. All he needs to do is speak to the people and lay it out. Republicans will fall in line or risk an uproar.
Whaaa? Who else besides Vince Vaughn?
do not underestimate the power of vince vaughn.
ANT, i will play devil's advocate on this one and say that even that strategy won't work, because RP really would take all the welfare goodies away. few people support the welfare queens, but the biggest welfare queens are in the form of SS, medicare and the military industrial complex. this is welfare for the middle class, and when RP tries to pull the plug on those intergenerational highway robberies, we will see if all the self-flattery we heap on ourselves as rugged individualists and self-reliant people holds up. we are a nation of pathetic welfare parasites either plundering producers of real value in real-time, or plundering our posterity's economic production through deficit spending. it might be too late for RP. right now we have all the worst demogoguery of the right wing and the wild-eyed fanaticism of the left wing rolled up into that shitshow that we call a government.
Totally agree. That's why I've said in the past that Liberty is something only well educated and independent people want. The vast majority of Americans are ok with being slaves as long as they get 3 hots and a cot.
Hence why I tend to be more of a Republicans than a RP supporter. If you have an education and money you will always be free. As for the rest of the people, let them have what they want so badly.
In the alternate reality of Ludwig Mises, Ron Paul as president = better than the second coming of Christ.
In actual reality, he would attempt to gut very powerful constituents and probably be assasinated.
Surviving that, he'd pull the plug on too many things and crash the global system.
He's a good source of ideas, but he's not realistic, please let it go.
Dude, the global system is better, FAR BETTER, than it was fifty, eighty, or a hundred years ago. Remember WWI, WWII, the cold war, etc...? I see no reason at all to cause a global panic because some dude from Texas doesn't want to have any rules on anything or ever pay taxes.
If he wants to build a portfolio based on America's economy collapsing.........and then run for office????? then let him. That's the DEFINITION of conflict of interest. I admire Paul's ideas but the same way I do Karl Rove or Jimmy Carter: they're better as an idea person than an executive.
We think nation building is stupid, yet we try and nation build at home. The majority of our population is oblivious to this country as well as the world. We live in a consumer nation that blames everyone else. Why do we continue to push libertarian-ism when the majority of people don't want it.
In fact, we (educated and greedy) could maximize our benefit and liberty by providing small hand outs to the masses and restricting their freedom.
let me be the first to say it:
CAMACHO FOR PRESIDENT IN 2012
-
ANT:
I agree with what you are saying with regards to why the GOP establishment supports AIPAC and Israel to such an extent. However, my point is that the GOP base, or at least a large, vocal evangelical chunk of it, is whipped up into a frenzy by pastor types who are insanely pro-Israel for biblical end-of-days reasons. The average evangelical voting clown doesn't think through geopolitics on the same plane as you or GOP establishment elites.
I tend to think Christian conservatives are the same % as liberal leftists. A large % of people in the US identify as religious, but that doesn't mean they are protesting abortion clinics.
Christian conservatives are a powerful voting block, but moderate conservatives carry the day. Hence why this flip flopping shit won't do in Romney and why Bachman would never get the nomination.
Conservatives don't support Israel based on religion.. what garbage.
Plain and simply, convservatives support Israel because it is our only true influence over the middle east. A large fraction of the republican party would like to control all the future political outcomes in the middle east for what ever reason (I seem to think it has to be motivated by oil, but sometimes I think the GOP doesn't even know why it is the pushing the agenda). There is no evangelical reasoning behind Rick Santorum defending Israel, trust me.
Liberals like to say that they support Israel because of the fellow Jews among us in America, but I'm fearing that both right and left are growing closer together and their goals are much the same now.. bigger government, nation building, etc.
You know you're in a political shit show when it's almost impossible to determine why our gov't supports certain things and leads you down a rat maze to figure it out for yourself..
Again, smart conservatives and major political operatives agree with you, but the uninformed evangelical base is whipped into a frenzy of support for Israel via end of days type beliefs. Again, i'm talking about the uninformed base that gets behind hyper-pro israel policies, not for reasons of geopolitics, but for absurd non-sensical reasons.
Obviously, this is not Romney or Gingrich or Santorum's POV.
Really? How about Turkey, Kuwait and the UAE? America's support of Israel is a throwback to the war of 1967, when the USSR supported Israel's opponents.
No more international benevolence.
rick santorum does what his masters tell him, but is not bright enough to triangulate when two different masters give contradictory orders.
It's not better than it was 20 years ago. We need a real crash. TARP never should have happened and we need to spend a few years as a libertarian economy with the libertarian values that GOT US to where we were in the 1990s. The country won't have a sense of justice and progress again until the bankers and James Taggarts of the world who crashed the economy are allowed to go hungry. They don't want to do that and are holding our economy "hostage".
I say let them pull the trigger. Hard-working Americans have gotten through worse; we will be just fine, and in four years, we'll all say we are better for it.
^^^ Hardworking Americans yes, the growing amount of people who exist on entitlements, no.
People who depend on the government do not want liberty. You let the system crash and tell them they are free, go conqueror and enjoy liberty and they will revolt.
Yup. There's a real financial crash about every 30-40 years, and we haven't had one yet. Hence why we have so many idiots who haven't produced anything making it into the Forbes 400.
We need to turn the economy upside down, start shaking it a bit, and:
-force folks like Donald Trump to admit he's a millionaire actor who pretends he's a billionaire businessman. -bankrupt AIPAC -bankrupt Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan along with most of the hedge funds. -Let middle-class moms and pops in the Midwest pick up oil stocks and manufacturing stocks- the real producers- at 20% dividends. --Save social security from trillion dollar deficits.
We need a system purge in Washington. We need to stop the revolving door between DC and Wall Street that is transferring wealth from their rightful owners to the bankers. We need to let the lobbyists and bankers starve. It will probably happen in the next 10-20 years anyways, but if we make it happen now, we can get it over with before more damage is done and also start rebuilding sooner.
Doubling down on a crash is really nothing when the country is facing TRILLION dollar deficits for the next decade. Us Ron Paul supporters may be kooky- and yes- we know Ron Paul is going to cause a crash- but it sure beats the wall our country is eventually going to hit if we don't elect him. You can't ring up trillion dollar deficits forever.
I was under the impression that we just HAD a meltdown, and that having learned from history, the government headed off the worst by DOING SOMETHING as opposed to just sticking their thumbs up their ass and praying that "things just work themselves out". People have ALWAYS gotten rich doing stupid things...that doesn't mean we should just scrap the current system because we don't approve. Pull the plug on the FED and watch the world burn??
Ironically, I DO have access to a wilderness cabin stocked with heavy weapons and food to run to. Do you?
It's directly because of the US's actions: who do you think has spent the last century spreading capitalism? The Easter Bunny?We've already gotten through the worst of the crash. Another 30% dip and the bankers and lobbyists are all out on the street again. It's really not that big of a deal.
Hmmmm... businessmen? Maybe mothers and fathers who want their kids to have a better life than they did? Could it be the proliferation of the English language, especially in Europe and South America which gave hundreds of millions of young people access to ideas like free markets? Maybe the proliferation of American moves which tend to popularize materialism? Could it be multi-national companies?
Whatever... USA USA USA!!!!
IlliniProgrammer for the win!
+1 to IP, couldn't have said it better myself.
Former eagle scout here. Wilderness survival merit badge too. Send me out with some matches and a pocketknife and I will probably be ok. (Though not very happy about it- I swore off camping once I hit college.)
IP, this concept that the elite are going to get thrown on their asses while the poor and lower class rise up is a little silly, don't you think. Even when you talk about our farming power, the farms are no longer in the hands of poor or lower class citizens.
Go buy guys and ammo because the lower caste of society is growing and there is no future for them. Mexican wages will go up eventually and farmers will finally invest in John Deere. Then you will have even more uneducated and unemployable manual labor.
These people will needed to be satiated or else they will resort to violence. Guns and ammo will keep the proletariat in line. You can use a carrot for a reasonably educated person but only force is understood by the ignorant.
And if it comes down to it, states have the authority to limit landownership to 160 acres and force folks to sell if they'd like. If that means land has to be sold at $200/acre to bring middle-class families into the farming business, then I guess that will have to happen.
Until they reach 51% of the population in your state. At which point, they vote to limit landownership to 160 acres and place other limits on assets subject to sovereignty, and force you to sell at cut-rate prices.Maybe it's just easier and cheaper to pay people to get vasectomies rather than pay the non-working people to have more children via welfare.
Ron Paul simply reflects the fact that you can't use government to obscure reality forever in this country.
man this thing went from preppy to prepper real quickly.
http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/demographics.html
There are only about 960,000 persons claiming farming as their principal occupation
"In spite of the predominance of family farms, there is strong evidence of a trend toward concentration in agricultural production. By 1997, a mere 46,000of the two million farms in this country accounted for 50% of sales of agricultural products (USDA, 1997 Census of Agriculture data). That number was down from almost 62,000 in 1992. "
70% of the USA has less than a BS degree, 13% don't have a high school degree!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_State…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Inco…
25% of American house holds live on $25K or less.
US Population is 307MM
$78MM people making $25K or less.
214MM without a bachelors degree
40MM without a high school degree!
That is a low ball figure because it doesn't count illegal immigrants
If you think the economy is going to magically rebound and employ uneducated people in high paying jobs you are nuts.
IP, we might be long lost brothers. I 100% support a child tax.
Also, farming is not only hard, but expensive. If people bitch and moan about going out in the modern world and making a buck I really don't think they will be cut out for waking up before the sunrise and going to be after the sunset.
Hypo: Brady gets into HBS
Sure ANT, but the fact is that my grandpa rents out his land next to the farmer next door. He doesn't call himself a farmer nor does he call his land a farm. Much of the land being "concentrated" into large commercial farms is really held by a number of landowners renting their land out to one person and charging rents which ultimately track to the land's agricultural productivity when demand gets large enough and supply gets constrained enough.
The book that you and I believe sets up a just system says that land needs to get redistributed every 49 years. That's obviously unworkable in a capitalist society, but we can do something that approximates that rule- set land ownership limits. First cap farmland ownership at 5000 acres (excluding nonprofits). Give folks exceeding that limit 10 years to sell. Then bring it down to 1000 acres. No corporate ownership, no partnership ownership, no entity ownership. Just individual residents. Now you have a much broader segment of the population controlling the resources at a very minor cost to laissez-faire capitalism.
If you have land and you can grow food you are good, but make sure you are armed. Take a look at Africa to see what happens to farmers and land owners when the proletariat gets uppity. I'd suggest farmers form militias and pool their arms to repel entitlement seekers when the day comes.
It's not going to get to that ANT. When 50% of the country is starving, there will be a political solution to keep wealth from getting more concentrated.
Land will become like savings bonds. Series I savings bonds offer an amazing rate right now- ~2% for an 11-month commitment- but the catch is that you can only buy $5000/year. Same deal with farmland. There will be limits as to how much you can own and how long you must be a resident of a given state before you can buy.
i remember when a 1-year rate of 2% was considered shitty and i'm not even that old
My family owns 5 acres upstate. My friends all have small arsenals. I'm not too worried about things.
I think living in the midwest automatically puts you a couple steps above everyone else in the "likely-to-survive-armagedon" category
Barring a major natural disaster, there is and will be plenty of food to feed the world at current projected rates of growth. We will top off at around 9.7 billion people at most and decline from there, while farm efficiency should increase more so. Now proper allocation of that food is a different story (the reason we have an overabundance of food here and Africa has very little) and also the nutritional quality (most food these days is crap, but we can genetically engineer "good" food.)
I think you're underestimating the price of food in the future. I'm no peak oil spook, but more and more legitimate oil experts are coming out and saying that oil is not going to get any cheaper--ever. I highly doubt there is going to be 'plenty' of food to go around, especially to poor developing nations who can't afford a globalized food transport system. I've seen some pretty scary scenarios as far as our food/water/fossil fuel supplies go for the next 20 - 50 years. Even though wealthy countries may be 'okay', there will most definitely be locations in the world that will not be able to afford these things come the future.
The problem isn't population, it is how that population wants to live. 8 Billion people who want to live like Americans and Europeans is a major issue. We could have 15 billion people if the majority of them were starving, poor and jammed into cities.
I like African game preserves and untouched forests. Large populations are directly against such things. I mean where are we going to put Cheetahs when we have 10 billion consumers living on this planet.
the only cheetah we will have in that world is chester cheetah and look at how far along we are already. ever step into a mall in the midwest?
Using fossil fuels allows for a much smaller footprint than using things like ethanol and the like. Additionally, farm productivity has increased VASTLY over the past four decades and is continuing to increase. We are become more efficient at using the land we have. We have actually GAINED forest land and natural habitat over the past 30 years. I am confident that once Africa / Asia gets out of poverty and subsistence farming (should take 20-30 years), birth rates will go down significantly (they have already halved in several African nations) and we should approach a population climax around 2030-2040, with the population falling and leveling out after that. The more people we have in the world economy who specialize and produce the better off we will all be.
In the long run the current generation will be the richest and most prosperous (as a whole especially) the world has ever seen. American / European relative share of wealth may go down, but world GDP should continue to rise.
For some reason I don't think the developed nations will be cool with this, but we shall see.
^^^
I agree. Sadly :(
Environmentalism is directly against human expansion at its core. I wonder how the Democrats reconcile all of this. I mean core Democrats (Educated, environmentally friendly, etc) gain their power from the poor, but the poor are also their direct, ideological enemy.
The only way for Africa and the world to come into the "first world" is for the continued use of fossil fuels. Additionally, several degrees of warming will actually make the world a better place to farm. The earth goes through climate cycles all of the time, and I don't think it's our say as to what the "correct" temperature of the earth is. Why is 50 years ago the benchmark? Why not 200? or 5000? The only thing climate protection will do is to stunt growth which will be terrible for the world economy. I am not saying we should go out and all buy SUVs, we should try our best to make as minimal impact as possible, but things like organic farming, biofuels, and the like are a recipe for disaster. It takes an ungodly amount of land to grow our own fuel (and almost as much carbon) when we could just grab it out of the ground. Climate change isn't a myth, but I think our mentality towards it is not only wrong, it is immoral. We say climate change hurts the poor, well imagine what the poor would do without fossil fuels and the tools for growth.
Also, I don't understand this whole idea of nations and nationalities continuing to be a huge issue. I suppose we are biologically developed for liking our kin and relatives, but we need to realize that we are now a huge global system that is interconnected in ways that even 20 years ago would be unthinkable. We need to come up with global solutions to global problems and increase dialogue on all levels. Simply resorting to old world protectionism and the like is a terrible idea.
Oh I can imagine my friend.
But what about the Cheetah?
What about the dinosaurs? No one complains about them.
Most species are actually doing better than they were 40-50 years ago, and moving towards biofuels and the like would cause massive habitat destruction that would be far worse than anything climate change would do. Also, the polar bears will be ok.
We look at the direct result of the problem of climate change (receding polar ice caps) and draw a conclusion (the polar bears will die) and then come up with a solution (use biofuels and wind). However, those solutions actually do more harm than the climate change did in the first place. Eventually we will move to more sustainable fuels, but as of now it doesn't make any sense. Nuclear and fossil fuels will be with us for decades if not centuries to come.
No one complains about the Dinosaurs because we weren't the cause nor could we do anything to save them. In the case of my dear Cheetah, we are the cause and we can do something to save them.
There is no need for 8 billion people. Definitely no need for 10 billion. Holy fuck!
Humans are good with cause ----> effect scenarios, but we are terrible at dealing with unintended consequences. For instance, we are great at donating for things like aid for Katrina / 9/11 / Earthquakes, but donating for things like curing Parkinsons, which in fact kills many more Americans, gets diverted because the outcomes are not concrete. The same holds true with government spending (we see the new medical system but we don't see the lost jobs that never were created), minimum wages (we see the increased salaries but not the lost jobs), etc. etc.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ORJ7HBYkhv0/TV5nq5j-yyI/AAAAAAAAAxU/OU1bYE3iD…
Who are we to dictate who lives and who dies? In my opinion forced abortion / vasectomies are one of the most immoral things that can be done. If we have the carrying capacity for 10 billion people, why not allow 10 billion people to live. What if the government told your parents "O sorry, we have to many people, little ANT cannot live."
I'm happy in my Missouri home where I have access to plenty of land, good clean water, and some good friends.
Might makes Right.
If the government killed me as a child I would have no concept of life since I would not of existed. The thought of me dying as a child only has relevance because I have lived and can reflect on that not happening.
You are missing something important, the Cheetah. Focus on the Cheetah and you will understand.
The evolution is complete.
How the fuck to embed pictures?
Morality is subjective. According to which moral system.
What about the Cheetah's right to exist.
These Cheetahs?
No, this cute lil' fella
Fuck that is huge.
How do I scale it down?
append these width="200" height="150"
Yo da man!
http://www.mediacollege.com/internet/html/image-tag.html
I'm late :/
Look at those fuckers!
I have no clue why people care about animals. Every polar bear in the world could die tomorrow and nothing would happen.
If something did happen like the baby seals started becoming overpopulated then we just allow hunting of baby seals.
I feel the same way about people...
Enough with the god damn cheetahs.
If a hypothetical President Paul could accomplish one of these objectives then my vote would be vindicated
How does TSA groping have the same level of importance as phasing out Social Security or recalling the military?
http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html
The whole food shortage thing is more of a political issue than anything else. There is a surplus of food to go around to everyone.
5 days till Iowa win
I’m wondering if an alternate (and maybe more viable) play towards the same ends as this forum might be supporting next year’s socialist or communist candidate. Let’s face it, for the past hundred years this country has been lurching left under both republican and democratic leadership. Let’s just accelerate the process and have a have a hellish Cultural Revolution/Great Leap Forward. Folks will realize capitalism is actually pretty damn good, and then it’s smooth sailing after that. Always better to rip off the band-aid quickly.
This country would become militant Fascist before it becomes peace loving Socialist. The debt crisis will force us to either reduce government or increase taxation. Considering how militantly the USA is to anything related to taxation, I feel as if we will just guy social programs and other things. At the end of the day, politicians care about votes and influence. Poor people have neither.
Although I suppose if you consider that the entirely ineffective security techniques the TSA imposes are in gross violation of civil liberties and give the govt. further ability to intrude in our lives, you could find a few good reasons to can the entire organization. Imo, the only effect this has is that the public is further desensitized to govt. agents shitting all over their privacy in the name of security. Again.
+1 blackrainn for the link. I'd really like to see more data points and scholarly sources backing up your ideas.
Also, Brady how do you keep creating threads which attract this much attention? The HBS threads became a little tedious but each still garnered a massive amount of replies...
Thank Eriginal, I finished reading Matt Ridley's the Rational Optimist a few weeks ago and he goes into depth about the subject, although that link was the first thing that popped up on google. I no longer have the book so I can't quote his sources, but from past history betting against any sort of 'peak' anything, especially a renewable resource such as food, seems to be pretty foolish. Human ingenuity has a nice way of finding solutions to a lot of problems. The only problem with food in the future could be political more than anything (countries like China not having access to the food supplies they need to sustain their population, leading to conflict.)
Thanks for the recommendation, just bought the book on Amazon.
We need to let the lobbyists and bankers starve. It will probably happen in the next 10-20 years anyways, but if we make it happen now.
Big day today... Let's get it done in Iowa!
In the spirit of graciousness, good luck to all of the candidates out there.
Nah fuck it RON PAUL 2012 the rest can go to hell.
If Santorum wins Iowa tonight, I might be done with politics. Fuck that guy.
p.s. - Santorum's gotta be in the closet, right?
Yeah Santorum is a known homosexual. My prediction: Paul 26% Romney 23% Frothy 18%
I'm not usually one to be paranoid but part of me thinks the Iowa GOP will just rig it to prevent Paul from winning.
Ipsum dolores optio aut iure aliquid nesciunt. Quidem enim blanditiis ut et accusamus occaecati qui. Occaecati mollitia at dolor excepturi. Iusto quia qui perferendis ex quis commodi aut. Ut nam laboriosam iusto omnis maiores.
Praesentium ipsa laudantium qui tempore qui. Officiis repudiandae est molestiae unde. Vel explicabo consequuntur ratione distinctio iure culpa. Voluptatem explicabo id optio sequi perspiciatis veniam.
Omnis hic dolor qui qui. Occaecati asperiores in magni voluptatibus itaque sit rem.
Eligendi vero explicabo quae. Voluptas quis eveniet et. Exercitationem voluptates repellendus voluptas.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Optio voluptatem vitae qui itaque aut illum quis non. Accusantium accusamus sit eum animi quia odio vel.
Ut dolore pariatur quis repudiandae quibusdam asperiores. Qui nesciunt dolorem excepturi accusamus dignissimos et. Labore optio esse inventore maiores cupiditate reprehenderit. Eligendi fuga qui et velit pariatur.
Repellendus asperiores quia voluptates et iusto laudantium. Facere nulla voluptatem saepe eveniet excepturi perspiciatis. Ut illum ut nam qui vel rem fugiat. Natus ut expedita corrupti eligendi eos. Ratione eos vero aspernatur corporis.
Sapiente et quia voluptatum asperiores. Ab adipisci debitis consectetur. Eveniet veniam id corporis non quae.
Itaque qui beatae voluptas error voluptatem iste nam et. Consequatur aut perspiciatis aperiam aperiam nihil molestias. Aperiam aut totam sit et necessitatibus nisi.
Maxime qui quia quia incidunt ea impedit veritatis. Sed placeat voluptate voluptatem repudiandae non et non. A voluptatem aspernatur odit temporibus nesciunt aut. Aut ullam repellat labore voluptatibus. Consequatur labore praesentium consequatur nam. Repudiandae quam provident libero quam id ut qui. Et doloribus qui similique non ut.
Rerum assumenda est dolores nulla ab esse. Error laboriosam temporibus alias distinctio. Ea ea quidem sed. Nostrum voluptas est voluptatem sunt nam nobis eos.
Saepe ipsa est omnis suscipit ab modi. Cum ut veniam explicabo nihil beatae explicabo ut sit. Temporibus rerum facilis quisquam impedit amet.
Eaque quod esse praesentium nam cupiditate debitis. Aut modi quod repellendus exercitationem quis. Incidunt velit sit doloribus itaque praesentium officiis dolor. Sed blanditiis qui dignissimos quo a libero et.
Aliquid corrupti est repudiandae necessitatibus ut. Sequi laborum quos sit ab. Tenetur ut et aut dolore. Id officiis voluptas debitis. Suscipit quia minus qui id.
Ducimus dolorem qui dignissimos quidem dolorem vero. Ipsa iure sint qui assumenda earum. Cupiditate id aspernatur earum et explicabo est cum. Sapiente aut corporis nulla praesentium qui enim aliquid. Impedit facilis ut accusamus. Libero omnis ad enim voluptas.
Nulla dolorem ut ad assumenda labore et ut. Voluptatum dolore mollitia ut deserunt dolor fugiat alias. Aut asperiores deleniti praesentium. Dolores consectetur animi totam eos. Et ex repellendus est nesciunt nam. Nostrum quo perspiciatis optio voluptates.
Rerum incidunt culpa rerum eum. Dolor earum et recusandae voluptatem mollitia. Enim sint voluptatem et provident temporibus tenetur.