So apparently there is an issue on Wall Street with Hillary Clinton. I mean I understand the threat of regulation and breaking banks up, but will she really do it? Wall Street has supported Democrats with the same rhetoric in the past, right? Just post your thoughts or anything else even slightly pertaining to the 2016 campaign.
| +89 | Zoomers are doing life wrong | 28 | 1d | |
| +70 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 45 | 4h | |
| +52 | How to develop a thick skin? | 22 | 5d | |
| +39 | Insurance as High Finance? | 10 | 20h | |
| +32 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 23 | 19h | |
| +31 | Framed Photo of CEO on desk. | 16 | 1d | |
| +31 | 400k/year in HVAC sales? | 25 | 2h | |
| +27 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 16 | 3s | |
| +24 | BO -> ??? | 14 | 4d | |
| +22 | When do you plan to buy your first house and how much do you expect to spend? | 24 | 10h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Assuming she comes out of the Email fiasco with only a few scrapes and bruises (and that should be the first issue at hand here because although what she did may not be illegal per se, she may have also violated various statutes and laws which could see her in hot shit. This whole Email Scandal is definitely an interesting case study in its own right about data management and proper policy management), I doubt Wall Street won't support her. If she operates like Bill did and tries to govern from the middle, which I think is the general sentiment that is going around, she will do fine. Even if she doesn't, there has been enough support between her past campaign for the Senate and her husband's campaign for the White House that makes me think Wall Street doesn't have any issues with her just yet. I think the concern is the post-election appointments, but that's a whole different story.
Here is the CNN article where they questioned Wall Street's support of her candidacy http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/06/opinions/zelizer-democrats-vs-wall-street… Of course it is just an opinion article
Wall Street is the least partisan group of people on the face of the Earth. They will financially back the favorite. Hillary Clinton is the favorite and she will be backed by Wall Street. Fortunately for Wall Street, Hillary Clinton isn't an ideological Democrat (one of the few remaining), so Wall Street's money will be well received and will result in the industry's protection. From a Republican's perspective, it will be fun to watch the Left go batsh*t crazy over Hillary's fellatio of Wall Street.
As for me, I've finally decided that I'm tentatively backing Ohio Governor John Kasich for the GOP nomination. A good, center-right Republican who won re-election in a swing state by 31 points in 2014. I'd love to see a Kasich/Fiorina team.
>2015 >still placing your hopes on a non-establishment candidate
lets be real, we all know its going to be bush v. hildog, with a hilwin
I don't know if Kasich would be defined as "non-establishment." He's a conservative, but he's got a moderate personality, a former high profile job at Fox News, and a lot of crossover appeal as evidenced by his 31-point route in November.
Nice terminology with "hildog" I thought about saying it, but didn't for fear that no one would understand. hahah nice
Hillary Clinton is in the pockets of the banks, just like her husband.
Any populist vocabulary to the contrary is just necessary rhetoric to keep Real Democrats in line.
I had a dream last night Romney decided to re-enter the ring with 2 smoking barrels. I woke up with rock hard morning wood.
Haha, yeah. If Romney gets back in the race then I throw my support back to him.
Romney? Do you have a boner for failure?
I keep hoping for a Rubio/Romney ticket. Mitt promised Ann he wouldn't run for prez, no one said anything about VP.
We are all doomed if Hillary wins.
Edit: we are all doomed when Hillary wins.
Don't lie- you didn't actually make an edit :^)
Explain? How would we be "doomed"?
Because she's a women duh.
....
They don't matter. So much of the power has shifted to agency heads in the past few years that the name in the oval office doesn't really matter.
If you vote for Bush or Clinton you are a fascist.
I think Rubio will be the longevity candidate in the GOP... and he'll grab the Bush fundraising team after the GOP rejects anything resembling Statesmanship
It's been two weeks and I want to punch Ted Cruz every time he compares himseld to Reagan. I don't think I can handle a year and half more of that.
dim sum cook is my new favorite wso member
Hilary Clinton is the same women who said earlier, "Don't let anybody tell you that it's corporations and businesses that create jobs." And you think that she is going to be good for Wall Street's business interests?
Hilary Clinton is one of the worst kinds of hypocritical liberals, one who preaches populism and yet forwards the ends of the elite in private. If she were more ideologically principled, I could have respect for her, rather than having to condone her blatant limousine liberalism. I'll be casting my vote for Rand Paul or Marco Rubio.
Limousine liberalism isn't when politicians preach moments of populism while being triangulating sellouts. Its when liberals advocate for policies in the name of liberalism that hurt the working class. Charter schools and vouchers, when advocated from the left, or over regulating the environment are examples.
Its easy to identify LL, just look to see if the unions support or oppose the issue.
I'll vote for her.
I might have to as well because I just wouldn't be able to get enough of that first man
So what better candidates do we have for Wall Street?
Anyone is great for wall street except for Warren or Sanders.
There has never been a white president, maybe Hilary will be the first.
tommy carcetti 2016! i mean martin o'malley 2016!
Personally I like Hillary because she's the most pragmatic person so far and sits in the center. I don't want an ideologue who's going to push stupid shit simply because they come from the more extreme of their parties (Warren or Rubio) or from libertarianism (Paul). The last good and effective pres we had was a Clinton because he didn't get bogged down in believing that everything was black or white or by being so influenced by extreme elements in their parties that they did stupid shit (neocons pushing invading Iraq) or didn't get much done (Obama). I think demonizing or lionizing, depending on your POV, someone because they run around beating their chests saying they're true conservatives or true liberals demonstrates the idiocy of our current political environment. Too many people seem to act like politics and government are a football game and they're either Eagles or Cowboy fans and the other side is to be hated and viewed with so much disgust that there is no room for even considering the others viewpoint. They hardly know what they actually believe in, just that they like the Eagles or Cowboys and despise the other team.
And I just can't trust the modern Republican party. I'd probably be the last of the Rockefeller Republicans out there but I don't like half of what the current party stands for and I don't think it even truly knows that it stands for. The party sold its soul out to the religious right starting in the 80's, which beyond bringing up social issues that I don't believe belong in politics (and I'll be honest I just can't vote with a party that questions evolution to kowtow to a voting block) brought in a huge group of voters who don't necessarily agree with or even understand most of the economic points of the GOP but are ardent fans of the party because they think that the Flying Spaghetti Monster needs to be involved in government. Then there's the Libertarian wing that doesn't really jive with most of the GOP's traditional international platform or its current social platform but gets thrown in with the party because it's otherwise homeless. I don't even know how to classify the Tea Party but they seem to be losing influence regardless. And while the dems have some dumbasses in office they at least didn't nominate an absolute idiot as their candidate for VP in Palin.
There are a few other dichotomous aspects of the GOP that I don't feel like listing but I also really don't like the litmus test that a candidate must pass to be considered a true conservative and not a RINO. I liked a lot about Christie but he's needed to shift to the far right on every issue to even be considered a candidate. Mitt had to do the same. They had logical and good points on many issues but they need to get in line with the more extreme elements of the party or they're basically considered socialist pussies. There's no room for a moderate in the GOP. I just don't see that in the current Democratic Party. The far left doesn't like Hillary but she's the most likely candidate of the Dems. I see that as a good thing and something that can't happen in the GOP. Dogmatism and extreme political philosophies are interesting topics to debate and discuss in academia but, in my opinion, they just don't do any good in actually governing when there is no negotiation or discussion, just foot stomping and being the equivalent of an 8 year old taking his ball home from the playground because he's not getting his way. That chaos, the general fractured nature of the party and the incalcitrance of working with opposing viewpoints and subsequent willingness to shut shit down and to make extreme decisions is far worse for Wall Street and the economy than a moderate Hillary could ever be.
And contrary to what the right wants to be true, Mitt didn't lose because he wasn't conservative enough, he lost because he had to go too far right to win the nomination and couldn't back track to gain an extra 3% of the moderate vote.
Your position defies logic. You're calling the GOP ideologically dogmatic and uncompromising, but it nominated Mitt Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008, the 2 most liberal candidates running for the nomination. In 1996 it nominated an extreme moderate in Bob Dole, and in 1988 and 1992 it nominated probably the most centrist Republican of the last 50 years, George H.W. Bush, with the exception, of course, of Gerald Ford, a person so centrist that he was challenged from the right and nearly lost the nomination in 1976. Even George W. Bush wasn't close to being the most "conservative" candidate in 2000--not by a country mile. Other than Ronald Reagan, you'd have to go back to the 1920s (Calvin Coolidge) to find an elected Republican that resembles the conservative movement of today and back to 1964 (Goldwater) to find a nominee of the same stripes. And I hate to point this out, but Jeb Bush, who has staked out the center (to the chagrin of conservatives), is leading in MOST GOP primary polls. You can say you "feel" this and "feel" that, but your feelings don't match reality.
As far as Hillary Clinton goes, you're conflating Bill Clinton with Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is an ideological disciple of Saul Alinsky--he even offered her a job at the end of her collegiate career and her graduate thesis was on him. Maybe her politics have moderated, but the far left is going to hold her feet to the fire the next 18 months and she's going to owe them favors.
Just because there are crazier republicans than mitt Romney doesn't mean he ran on a centrist platform.
Look at VP selections: Palin and Ryan. Can't get more right if Romney picked jack kemp himself.
On Clinton, its funny, you mention Goldwater republicans (which Hillary is one) then she's supposedly part of Saul alinsky gang.. What next, she's backed by Soros $ and wants to build a Mexico cananda super highway? Secret alien plots? She's Kenyan? Lol.
How do you feel about Jeb right about now?
Well said sir
Silver banana +1
Ben Carson
I was reading an article today on how Rubio's stance on manmade climate change may cost him Latino votes. What do you guys think?
He can't really change his stance now, as it's well documented that he doesn't believe that humans are causing climate changes, but any time he voices his view on it, he will probably be losing more voters.
Nobody wants a woman for a president. Women hate each other so much that they voted in a black dude...and women have a greater voter turnout compared to men.
in 2007-8, there was a lot more to politics than identity-issues. foreign policy and what qualities we wanted from our head statesman were important. that's why Mr. Obama connected so well.
@DCDepository" better update his conspiracy theories: http://conservativetribune.com/video-surfaces-obama-1995/
Some of the many reasons why I've given up debating politics anywhere. It's as useful as debating religion or trying to convince an anti-vaxxer that they're taking their scientific and medical advice from a former Playboy Playmate.
My argument and opinion do not defy logic, they simply don't fall in line with your opinion. And it's ok that we don't agree, but they do not defy logic and that's one of my problems with today's GOP: once you don't agree, it's not that I simply have different opinions, it's that I'm an illogical fool whose opinions can't even be considered. I'm probably also an American hating socialist in some people's opinion.
Mitt and McCain may have been the least conservative in their respective fields, but, and it's a big but, one must take into consideration that the party has moved very far to the right since the time of Reagan and H.W. (btw, the first president I voted for was HW over Clinton). Demigod Ron wouldn't be conservative enough for the party today and he'd be blown out of the water for the number of times he negotiated with dems or, gasp!, raised taxes. Goldwater wouldn't be conservative enough. And, as I stated, those recent candidates and the more centrist one of this campaign, Christie, all have needed to pass the litmus test of being super conservative in every single way or they're branded RINO's, which from what I can tell is the worst four letter word one can call another. To me that just links them far too closely with parts of the party that I, and most of America, find too extreme. What I do like about them initially ends up getting caught up and drained away in the need for them to swear a blood oath to an extreme ideology that they can not disagree with or they're cast out. That doesn't happen in the Dem Party anywhere near the degree as in the GOP. Remember "severely conservative" Mitt? He wasn't but that put him over the top for me. I lived in Mass when he was governor and liked him. I had a good friend who was one of his top lieutenants and I met him a few times through her. Great person, incredibly intelligent and sharp as a samurai sword. I liked his policies in Mass. But once he got sucked into the primaries he went downhill and flubbed because he had to pander to the far right. And then once the general election started he couldn't back track because he had to go to the right to get the nomination. My friend who worked for him and worshiped the ground he walked on even questioned him during the general election.
You also quickly make a tenuous link from Hillary to a radical like Alinsky and accept it as fact. Much like I said that once someone doesn't get the stamp of approval of being a "true" conservative, they're not simply someone the right disagrees with, they're a communist and it's "fact" that 45 years ago Hillary was a radical leftist socialist (keep filling terms in if you'd like) and must still be today no matter how contradictory to fact that is. And because Bill is now looked upon fondly by most people (hell, I think the country would have loved to have been obsessed with cum filled blue dresses again during the waning days of the W presidency-W's the best thing that could have happened to Bill's legacy), she's nothing like her husband and is a radical. She actually does hold many similar positions as he and isn't a radical lefty. The right can say she it until they're blue in the face and it's fine to not like her or her policies, but it's simply not true because you want it to be and say it enough times.
I'm not really a democrat and not very liberal at all to tell you the truth. I like a lot of what's in the GOP platform. But the GOP has just gotten so obsessed with this ideological purity, parts of which are just illogical and in my opinion won't work, have pandered to the religious right and include social issues that just don't belong in politics (and I'm not kidding, I really can't get on with a party that questions evolution), that I will probably end up voting for her. I don't think she's perfect nor do I agree with some of what she says but I don't want the White House to be in the hands of a party that to me seems a bit schizophrenic and out of step with reality.
Jesus Christ. Write a book, why don't you?
Your position defies logic because it's (almost) provably wrong, as far as one can disprove an opinion. As I've pointed out, there have been 2 radical Republicans (by the standards of their day) nominated for President--that's Lincoln and Goldwater. Post FDR, Dewey, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, H.W. Bush, Dole, McCain, and Romney are not what one would describe as particularly conservative. As a conservative, I can attest that we here on the right don't consider these guys to be ideological brethren, although we may have liked them and/or their administrations for various reasons. The point is, we conservatives have a very long history of nominating people and voting for people that do not fall in line with our ideological bent. Therefore, your position that the GOP's conservatives are purists and won't negotiate on ideology is provably wrong. Your position is asinine.
mccain + rmoney were sacrificial lambs
^ Proof positive that conservatives simply don't understand academia and don't want to.
Ted Cruz
With Hillary, I think the obvious conclusion is that Hillary is going to "believe" whatever opinion helps Hillary get more power for Hillary.
A lot of this is....still just scratching at the surface. It doesn't particularly matter who runs. Both Obama and Bush got the biggest cut of their funding from the same source, and when push come to shove most politicians will bend over ask that institution how far they wanna stick it.
I love Hillary Clinton. She actually knows how to get shit done. I don't think she's an ethical person, but I think she'll be one of the most effective presidents of the post world war 2 era.
The email scandal is coming at a very bad time. The problem is that it is not just a scandal is the usual sense. In this case Congress pretty much has her cold on violating the National Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act. If she's charged, she won't be in much of a position to deny that she broke those laws. She will only be able to continue explaining away and hoping that it goes away, which will not be seen as a position of strength.
She will also be touted by many as simply an extension of the Obama administration. Fairly or not, many will say that with Hillary the country will essentially be getting a third Obama term for the simple reason that so many of the same people will be involved in the senior end of the administration. Again, whether or not it is fair (which hardly seems to matter any more), Hillary will be viewed as 'drawing from the same well' as Obama.
That plus the email scandal will make for a campaign that will be much more of an uphill trek than what she is currently thinking.
are you seriously suggesting the last acts of the Obama DOJ will be to indict Hillary Clinton? Oh my.
I didn't say the DOJ. The House of Representatives is pursuing it. Everyone else wants to simply go away.
Republicans true agenda is to preserve the wealth of the elite. They have to state fake stuff like religious beliefs and gun rights to get the votes from religious people and hicks, because there just aren't that many people who actually will benefit from a removal of the death tax. Hilarious that religious folk think that if a guy like Mitt gets in office he's going to lobby for abortion ban. Vote democrat
I'm just waiting for OG Bill to make an appearance on the campaign trail
Hillary to me is the epitome of hypocrisy. She is old, white, and rich. She hobnobs it and takes donations from wall street and the rich and famous. she is an addict of partisan politics (it was a right wing conspiracy that bill's dingdong ended up in monica's mouth?). She doesn't believe rules apply to her. Then she turns around and tries to paint herself as a champion for everyday america and a trustworthy, ethical fighter.
So clearly I cannot stand her. Lots of people don't like David Cameron in Britain but not as passionately as those who don't like Hillary here.
But there are no alternatives. Hillary's (somewhat waning) inevitability is in large part due to the fact that Bernie is viewed as too extreme and old and the Republicans cannot stand up a decent candidate to save anyone's life. Few people like Hillary. Many people can't stand her. But do we really have a choice?
I see Hilary and all I can think is "Cunty McCunterson". She's a fucking idiot, but you are correct that the landscape is pretty muddled right now. I'm crossing my fingers there is some fabulous revelation which comes out late in the game, smearing egg all over her face - right about the time the GOP gets their shit together (if possible).
Maybe I'll just write in Condi. She doesn't want to run but I think she would make the best candidate by far.
President Clinton ??? (Originally Posted: 10/25/2007)
Is this really gonna happen ??
I'm starting to read reports that she's a shoo-in for the Presidency. Polls are showing double-digit leads over Giuliani.
Then there's this Ron Paul nutcase. Do people really think he has a chance ??
I hope not.
Oh yeah. It is going to happen.
I believe it's Clintona (feminine)
If Clinton wins the presidency I suggest leaving the country as your after tax per hour income will absolutely plummet. You think you are overworked now and the government takes too much of your hard earned money now? Not to mention all these moronic democrats want to raise long-term capital gains taxes. Don't these idiots understand that will slow economic growth and make US citizens less likely to invest domestically.
It won't happen...
But then again I may be in denial
Its not as though the Republican party has any great candidates I would probably choose Mitt Romney (a Bain Capital guy)
I REALLY hope not, but she probably will be Pres.
The Republicans are kind of running under the 2004 democrat (we don't have anyone great, but at least we're not her). I think Romney would be an interesting one term president.
correction THE Bain Capital guy :)
What really annoys me are the dumb b**ches who blindly follow Clinton thinking she is the only hope for feminism (far from true). But this happens everywhere
Romney has varied experience and is the best choice by far for the Presidency but people are hung up on his faith. He won't win the Republican nomination. It will be either Giuliani or Fred Thompson.
Giuliani has the best shot of taking Hillary down but he doesn't have the support of the Evangelical base because he's a social liberal.
I hope it's Fred Thompson who sweeps the Republican nomination because that way at least the next 12 months will be highly entertaining.
lol ron paul wants us to go back to the gold standard. riiiiight.
Obama got the most donations from Wall Street, compared to any candidate democrat or republican. This includes funding given by a bunch of BB MDs
Good call by those BB MDs. Obama is the only candidate worth rooting for. He's really won me over the last few debates.
Hilary and Romney are completely two-faced. They will say ANYTHING to get into office. Who knows where they really stand on the issues.
Edwards has good intentions but we all know good intentions = HUGE taxes
Guiliani and Thompson are a couple of clowns who really have no biz running for the presidency. (I'm a conservative so dont call me some commie pinko for that statement) They would get thoroughly pwned in any real debate against the pros found above.
and Ron Paul...well hes kind of a looney tune
Hillary would be great! Who doesnt want to pay more taxes? Hillary is right, some people are too highly paid and it's about time we took the burden off the middle class. I think old folks that couldn't save a dime and need expensive drugs deserve my salary. I can't wait to start paying higher capital gains too, because if one thing is for sure, the government can spend my money smarter and better than I can. go Hilldog
Ron Paul is the Chosen One.
Honestly, read up on him, his voting record, his beliefs, his ideals. He is the perfect candidate.
Oblivion totally gets it.
Dude flip flopped on baseball. No respect for him. I am all about American League, but the only way you'd get a sox hat on my head is if you were putting it on a corpse.
Personally I'd vote for Huckabee. The only reason he won't win is because of his redneck last name (Who'd want a President Huckabee?) and the fact that he is a minister. If you listen to him at the Republican debates, he dominates the other candidate and is a social and economic conservative. If anyone knew who Huckabee or Hunter were they'd definitly win. I pray that the apparant Giuliani/Thompson (Romney) ticket is strong enough to defeat Hillary/Obama. If the President is Hillary, her idea of rich is making $100K or more. Bad news for us. THe IBD starting salaries are higher than that. Imagine the below minimum wage/hour we'd be getting paid f our tax bracket is at 80%. if Obama is president I think that t would be bad, but not as bad. If any of the Republican frontrunners is elected, at least we wouldn't be taxed into oblivion. But if Huckabee is elected America would keep rising and not stagnate like France or the other socialist European countries (the ones Hillary and the Democrats are trying to model the "new" America after). Imagine a liberal Democrat in power with this lackluster and liberal Congress. Hmmmmmm...... did anyone say Communism???
i hope not
Huckabee will never be elected because he basically caused a rapist and murderer to be freed from jail who then went to rape and murder two more people.
If Ron Paul is elected, there would be a global depression. The guy wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, remove the US from the UN, and put us back on the gold standard. He doesn't have much more credibility than the crazy homeless guy in the subway who tells me that the CIA controls every world leader.
I think Tom Brokaw should run for president. He has a presidential appearance. He has a presidential voice. What do you guys think?
"I think Tom Brokaw should run for president. He has a presidential appearance. He has a presidential voice. What do you guys think?"
I hope you're just joking though I doubt you are. Appearance? You've created a mirror image of H. Clinton's appeal to females (being a woman) and applied it to Brokaw. This is why women have no business in politics. They're just to stupid and DITZY.
Women have no business in politics? They're stupid and ditzy? ay vay
I hope it's YOU whose kidding on that one.
What utility do men have? Enlighten me.
lol I admit I made my post really critical because I was waiting for your response.
"Women have no business in politics" Yes, that's what I said. "They're stupid and ditzy" Right, that's correct. "ay vay" ?
"I Hope it's YOU whose kidding on that one." Only partially. Women are more ditzy then men. There are more men capable of making informed, intelligent political decisions then women, despite there still being a fair share of intelligent and informed women.
"What utility do men have? Englighten me." I already told you twice. No. ditzy bitches >>> No. ditzy fags
Pepsi has a love-hate relationships with men. She's gonna turn into a full blown man-hater by the time she hits 35.
yeah, she'll be a cat lady for sure...
Omnis ut dicta et omnis distinctio est ut. Nulla et velit voluptas doloremque dolores. Aut aut qui aliquid numquam repudiandae.
Dignissimos recusandae veniam totam voluptatem quas distinctio aliquam. Ea eveniet qui sapiente voluptates nemo ut ipsa. Odio beatae dolorum qui omnis voluptatem enim. Cum atque fugit est blanditiis enim iusto. Dolorum ut rem voluptas minima.
Voluptatem iure rerum est alias sequi repudiandae iste. Delectus fugit ut excepturi dolorum aut. Vel voluptas consequatur non voluptatem et. Aut nisi a atque officia optio ab blanditiis. Laudantium dolorum voluptas enim a fugiat. Quaerat ea voluptas sint exercitationem commodi. Illo ea possimus ad quia rerum ipsam rerum.
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...
Sint explicabo optio doloribus et rerum nihil sit. Illo doloribus recusandae ut velit qui. Magnam eius tempora eaque beatae voluptate. Illo enim velit voluptatum soluta.
Quo perferendis consequatur unde accusamus iste quibusdam. Facilis ipsum voluptatem autem quis sed. Vel repudiandae aut consequuntur unde. Voluptatum inventore ut sed voluptatem ut impedit quasi dicta. Molestiae nisi sequi placeat impedit placeat.
Soluta perferendis iusto vel voluptas autem facilis nam. Quae libero enim accusamus.
Dolorem architecto sed sit eos aperiam. Corrupti asperiores enim consequatur et repudiandae. Ab eligendi adipisci cum odit voluptatibus dicta.
Amet consequuntur voluptatibus laborum occaecati reprehenderit ut et labore. Sit nisi eaque nesciunt doloremque et expedita velit. Cupiditate rem corporis iusto eos quibusdam. Et accusamus corrupti cumque doloribus sed consequatur voluptatibus.
Eos perferendis fugiat harum voluptas mollitia. Nostrum praesentium ipsam laudantium id. Aut ea natus dolorem soluta sed blanditiis quas.
Eos at sit a harum. Rerum quae voluptas inventore dolor cum nihil tenetur fuga. Excepturi perspiciatis neque dolor sit aut in corrupti. Itaque sunt a totam aut dolore ipsa voluptatem.
Praesentium sit alias possimus ut et exercitationem. Et ullam repellendus exercitationem veritatis asperiores laborum maxime. Consequatur suscipit et illum sit tempore. Dolorum illum non est commodi qui.
Explicabo est officiis dolores non consectetur. Iste mollitia unde quidem numquam quasi deserunt.