JUST IN: 🇺🇸 Federal Judge pauses tariff ban and grants Trump admin 14 days to appeal.

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) May 29, 2025

Since the so-called International Trade Court just ruled that Trump doesn't have the authority to impose tariffs. I have no choice but to make this thread literally pointing out that not only does he have the authority, but it's VERY BROAD.

Those dumb judges should read this. pic.twitter.com/eGZ9PulTJG

— George (@BehizyTweets) May 29, 2025

Johnson: The projection he's referring to and others is from the CBO, the congressional budget office. They are historically, totally unreliable. It's run by Democrats.. This is going to be deficit reducing pic.twitter.com/ZAfy6Yp1EH

— Acyn (@Acyn) May 29, 2025

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

" The Fake News. Just lies from the left."

It certainly doesn't help that they admitted that they were wrong.
We need to just trust Trump, from whichever side he seems to be on today.

---

Trump has let allies and supporters avoid centuries of prison time
Trump's pardons have cleared the records of over 230 individuals, including violent rioters and extremists.

---

Is being an extremist a crime? Thought is not a crime.

Who defines extremism and labels extremist? Courts if crimes are committed. Executive branch if person is an alien (legal or illegal)

Is being passionate about a subject, regardless of what that subject may be, a form of extremism? Depends on actions of the passionate person

Are extremist views always in opposition to personal views? No (always)

I'm just trying to figure out how close some of us are to advocating for thought police. I'm in the same boat. For example, government employees who differ from Trump are fired, professors looking for tenure who differ from liberal orthodoxy are denied tenure, some on this board who voice opinions different from prevailing wisdom are belittled and are subject to a hominem attacks.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

" The Fake News. Just lies from the left."

It certainly doesn't help that they admitted that they were wrong.
We need to just trust Trump, from whichever side he seems to be on today.

---

Trump has let allies and supporters avoid centuries of prison time
Trump's pardons have cleared the records of over 230 individuals, including violent rioters and extremists.

---

Is being an extremist a crime?

Who defines extremism and labels extremist?

Is being passionate about a subject, regardless of what that subject may be, a form of extremism?

Are extremist views always in opposition to personal views?

I'm just trying to figure out how close some of us are to advocating for thought police

---

Trump's clemency spree extends to ex-gangster, artist, former congressmen
The pardon recipients confirmed by a White House official all had felony convictions, like Trump, and could see an array of benefits.

---

You used the word extremist.

I asked you questions about extremist/extremism.

You've yet to answer any of the questions I asked.

Twice now you've brought up something I didn't ask.

Are you afraid an honest answer will make you look like you support the "thought police"?

Are you afraid to say you got emotional and resorted to hyperbole?

I've neither agreed nor disagreed with your views of the pardons. I've only asked about your use of the word extremist.

---

I answered below.
I hope you can see that you are asking questions that are nuanced and demanding yes/no answers.
We could have a pretty good discussion on this subject if you are interested and polite

BearFan33 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

🇺🇸 President Trump pardons rapper NBA YoungBoy. pic.twitter.com/HvuBihu76p

— Remarks (@remarks) May 29, 2025

---

Wait, I thought Trump was a racist and Nazi.

---

Yep been a racist and a Nazi ever since he became a Republican.

Also is incredibly dumb, which is why he is not really a billionaire several times over.

The country would have been far better off With Harris continuing Biden's policies.

Who could possibly doubt it ?

TERROR: The FBI determined that Rep Ilhan Omar’s Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District is the leading hub for the recruitment of terrorists in the US.pic.twitter.com/N47QRexRkj

— @amuse (@amuse) May 29, 2025

Assassin said:

---

TERROR: The FBI determined that Rep Ilhan Omar’s Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District is the leading hub for the recruitment of terrorists in the US.pic.twitter.com/N47QRexRkj

— @amuse (@amuse) May 29, 2025

---

Is she still married to her brother?

ScottS said:

---

Assassin said:

---

TERROR: The FBI determined that Rep Ilhan Omar’s Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District is the leading hub for the recruitment of terrorists in the US.pic.twitter.com/N47QRexRkj

— @amuse (@amuse) May 29, 2025

---

Is she still married to her brother?

---

I hear they are expecting...

BARTIROMO: So you're willing to break the Constitution and have President Trump have a third term?

REP. ANDY OGLES: I actually have a bill that amends the Constitution and there's a process by which you can do that ... we have a lot of support in the House pic.twitter.com/n9A7tRPwzp

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 29, 2025

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Don’t order the taco platter quite yet. From Goldman: pic.twitter.com/7HpTSrvn2k

— Peter Berezin (@PeterBerezinBCA) May 29, 2025

---

Literally Smoot-Hawley being referenced.

---

Is there ANY situation which you believe would justify a tariff of any kind?

---

They were citing Smoot-Hawley which I pointed out, which is like citing the Hindenburg as a model for air travel. If there's ever been a cautionary tale in economic history, it's that disaster of a tariff policy. But that symbolic irony seems lost on you who prefers chasing political wins.

But to answer your question directly, yes as I've said many times, there are clear cases where targeted tariffs are warranted, China being the prime example. They present genuine national security and strategic challenges.

The courts have offered a face saving offramp from this chaotic mess and an opportunity to reset and refocus on strategic interests like China rather than political theater targeting things like wine from France and rubber from Brazil. But it appears stubbornness and ego are going to try to keep the circus going.

The real question is, is there anything Trump could do that you wouldn't defend?

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Don’t order the taco platter quite yet. From Goldman: pic.twitter.com/7HpTSrvn2k

— Peter Berezin (@PeterBerezinBCA) May 29, 2025

---

Literally Smoot-Hawley being referenced.

---

Is there ANY situation which you believe would justify a tariff of any kind?

---

They were citing Smoot-Hawley which I pointed out, which is like citing the Hindenburg as a model for air travel. If there's ever been a cautionary tale in economic history, it's that disaster of a tariff policy. But that symbolic irony seems lost on you who prefers chasing political wins.

But to answer your question directly, yes as I've said many times, there are clear cases where targeted tariffs are warranted, China being the prime example. They present genuine national security and strategic challenges.

The courts have offered a face saving offramp from this chaotic mess and an opportunity to reset and refocus on strategic interests like China rather than political theater targeting things like wine from France and rubber from Brazil. But it appears stubbornness and ego are going to try to keep the circus going.

The real question is, is there anything Trump could do that you wouldn't defend?

---

I agree.

Specific industries to achieve a political purpose. The one I have no issue with is Canadian dairy.

boognish_bear said:

---

BARTIROMO: So you're willing to break the Constitution and have President Trump have a third term?

REP. ANDY OGLES: I actually have a bill that amends the Constitution and there's a process by which you can do that ... we have a lot of support in the House pic.twitter.com/n9A7tRPwzp

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 29, 2025

---

No thank you.

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING: The White House says there will be no increase in the US deficit under President Trump’s tax bill.

Recent estimates have suggested the bill would increase the US deficit by $3.8 trillion.

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) May 29, 2025

---

Again, CBO estimates are static. They do not even attempt to calculate what higher levels of revenue would be in response to statutory stimulus. They also make arbitrary assumptions, like making the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent being scored as a loss in revenue (because they are scheduled to expire). Even though the actual situation is an extension of existing tax rates, CBO scores it as a tax cut.

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Also: a good read on the first Trump tax cuts. They did not pay for themselves. They might in 2028, and then "remain close to the pre-TCJA trend." If they are made permanent, they likely pay for themselves in 2033.

https://www.cato.org/blog/did-tax-cuts-jobs-act-pay-itself

---

LOL.

"there are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics."
--Sam Rayburn

Reality is: the 2017 Trump tax cuts INCREASED revenues to the federal treasury.

---

Can you show that? Without statistics please?

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Don’t order the taco platter quite yet. From Goldman: pic.twitter.com/7HpTSrvn2k

— Peter Berezin (@PeterBerezinBCA) May 29, 2025

---

Literally Smoot-Hawley being referenced.

---

Is there ANY situation which you believe would justify a tariff of any kind?

---

They were citing Smoot-Hawley which I pointed out, which is like citing the Hindenburg as a model for air travel. If there's ever been a cautionary tale in economic history, it's that disaster of a tariff policy. But that symbolic irony seems lost on you who prefers chasing political wins.

But to answer your question directly, yes as I've said many times, there are clear cases where targeted tariffs are warranted, China being the prime example. They present genuine national security and strategic challenges.

The courts have offered a face saving offramp from this chaotic mess and an opportunity to reset and refocus on strategic interests like China rather than political theater targeting things like wine from France and rubber from Brazil. But it appears stubbornness and ego are going to try to keep the circus going.

The real question is, is there anything Trump could do that you wouldn't defend?

---

Not attacking is not the same as defending. I do not attack someone who is doing a bunch of things I like. I help them achieve those things, then come back to work on the stuff I don't like later. For example, my position on the war Ukraine is well documented and exists in significant tension with Trump's approach on the matter. But I do agree with a number of premises of Trump's position - war is bad; war is expensive; we have a deficit spending problem that is, given Russian capabilities at the moment, a more immediate threat than Russian ambitions in Dnieper Valley; China is a greater threat than Russia; there's a net gain from forcing a less-than-desirable settlement in Ukraine to get busy with the larger problem with China; etc....... Ok. Fine. I woulda been quite a bit more hawkish than that with aid, ROE, and sanctions right off the bat. But his plan is cogent and if successful will improve our position. So I am not going to throw tomatoes at him. We can always come back to Russia/Ukraine later, to include lowering the boom on aid, ROE, and sanctions. And if that approach forces Europe to step up & do more on military spending in general and Ukraine in particular....well, that is a worthy objective indeed that every president before him has flailed away at but accomplished essentially nothing.

I happen to agree with him entirely on trade. He's doing exactly what the textbooks say he should do in the current circumstances (which happens to dovetail perfectly with what a majority of the public want done). He's attempting to do what Reagan actually did, only more systemically. I agree with him entirely on illegal immigration. I agree with him mostly on virtually every issue. THAT's WHY I VOTED FOR HIM. And, as anyone who knows him should now expect, Trump is tenacious and thorough in fighting to accomplish the things he promises to do. No Republican in my lifetime has spent political capital more earnestly to do what he promised than Donald Trump. It's his finest virtue. It's why he has such enduring support. And it's why the right track/wrong track polling has pulled into positive territory for the first time in over 20 years. He is actually trying to do things a majority of the American people have wanted for decades (rather than just pay lip service to them like the Bushies did).

His critics, on the other hand, seem to care not how many things they might agree upon with him. They can only see the orange hair and hear the mangled syntax and just go nuts. Even some people who call themselves Republicans/Conservatives can't compliment him on anything. It's almost like they have to make sure everyone knows they hate him and everything he stands for in order to maintain self-image that they are above playing politics THAT way. (as though their position on Trump somehow is a reflection of their own virtue.) How do we know this? Those people never, ever, ever give him props for any accomplishment. They can't. They're afraid someone will call them 'Trumpist." The childishness of it all is really quite amusing.

I'm a helluva lot more tolerant and pragmatic about such things than all the folks setting their hair on fire every day about the latest thing Trump said/did. He's making progress on things his predecessors promised but hardly lifted a finger to do. We should be grateful for that.

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING: The White House says there will be no increase in the US deficit under President Trump’s tax bill.

Recent estimates have suggested the bill would increase the US deficit by $3.8 trillion.

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) May 29, 2025

---

It's yet another case of Trump making an outlandish claim nobody should take seriously, and somehow his zealot supporters not just entertaining it,but swallowing it whole and defending it to the death.

At this point I wonder how many would kill themselves if he said to. It is more than 0. If he gets his 3rd term whiterock wants so badly, I think it will head into real death cult territory.

If the trade deals continue to go well, it will be very difficult to know the scope of the damage from the tax cuts. Already there is a ton of foreign investment promised, and if it actually happens, I'm sure the tax cuts will be credited for it.

Of course the reality is that this foreign investment should be credited to incredible abuse of power, one man declaring economic war on the entire world. It is incredible that it is working so well, just shows you how much leverage we have. For example, tariffs alone are not enough to get the EU where it wants, so we float the idea of walking away from the defense of Europe. Throwing a continent to the wolves is what zealots think a more prosperous economy is worth. It's just incredible.

And I think it just might work. Right or wrong be damned, let's make some money!

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Also: a good read on the first Trump tax cuts. They did not pay for themselves. They might in 2028, and then "remain close to the pre-TCJA trend." If they are made permanent, they likely pay for themselves in 2033.

https://www.cato.org/blog/did-tax-cuts-jobs-act-pay-itself

---

LOL.

"there are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics."
--Sam Rayburn

Reality is: the 2017 Trump tax cuts INCREASED revenues to the federal treasury.

---

Can you show that? Without statistics please?

---

The Kennedy tax cuts and Reagan tax cuts did the same thing. Revenue to the government is easy to look up.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BARTIROMO: So you're willing to break the Constitution and have President Trump have a third term?

REP. ANDY OGLES: I actually have a bill that amends the Constitution and there's a process by which you can do that ... we have a lot of support in the House pic.twitter.com/n9A7tRPwzp

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 29, 2025

---

No thank you.

---

I'm a Trump supporter and I say NO.

When thinking these things through, you have to flip the rolls. What would it be like if we had a third Obama presidency? How did it work out with a third and forth Roosevelt presidency?

This is especially true since we have a partisan press. Even if that flipped to Rs and Fox was the standard, it would be a horrible thing.

I'd prefer an honest press an no more than 2 terms executive and no more than 12 years max for legislative.

I'm cool with lifetime appointments of judges but I think the judge count should be frozen for SCOTUS.

BREAKING: US goods imports fall -19.8% in April as President Trump's "reciprocal tariffs" effectively halted trade with many countries.

This marks the largest drop in history for US goods imports.

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) May 30, 2025

A Turgid 120 Days!

- el KKM

D!

Go Bears!!

Viva DOGE!!!

Suelten los perros, citoyens!!!!

BREAKING: JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon says he is “quite prepared” for rates to go to 5%.

He also says the Fed is “right” to wait on rate cuts for now.

Dimon is preparing for a 5% 10Y Note Yield.

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) May 30, 2025

So...Trump was playing hardball with China but then decided to work with them when he says he saw it hurting their country?

HOLY SH*T

Donald Trump just WENT OFF on China…

Buckle up. pic.twitter.com/ROBS7yD6yH

— American AF 🇺🇸 (@iAnonPatriot) May 30, 2025

He is absolutely right - Europe is lost! This excellent WSJ 📊 shows a sharp & rapid decline in European innovation which translates into the small share of private European tech companies valued >$1B. Europe is almost undetectable in the global innovation landscape and is no… pic.twitter.com/NaKvJ75bqQ

— Yair Einhorn (@yaireinhorn) May 29, 2025

Vance is so good: "The American Space Program, the first program to put a human being on the moon, was built by American citizens. This idea that American citizens don't have the talent to do great things, that you have to import a foreign class of servants, I just reject that." pic.twitter.com/Wnr1XBfBxg

— Logan Hall (@loganclarkhall) May 30, 2025

Savannah Chrisley: The biggest misconception right now is I either paid for a pardon or slept for a pardon—
Todd Chrisley: That’s something I would’ve done pic.twitter.com/Mk0HvqnfL3

— Acyn (@Acyn) May 30, 2025

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Don’t order the taco platter quite yet. From Goldman: pic.twitter.com/7HpTSrvn2k

— Peter Berezin (@PeterBerezinBCA) May 29, 2025

---

Literally Smoot-Hawley being referenced.

---

Is there ANY situation which you believe would justify a tariff of any kind?

---

They were citing Smoot-Hawley which I pointed out, which is like citing the Hindenburg as a model for air travel. If there's ever been a cautionary tale in economic history, it's that disaster of a tariff policy. But that symbolic irony seems lost on you who prefers chasing political wins.

But to answer your question directly, yes as I've said many times, there are clear cases where targeted tariffs are warranted, China being the prime example. They present genuine national security and strategic challenges.

The courts have offered a face saving offramp from this chaotic mess and an opportunity to reset and refocus on strategic interests like China rather than political theater targeting things like wine from France and rubber from Brazil. But it appears stubbornness and ego are going to try to keep the circus going.

The real question is, is there anything Trump could do that you wouldn't defend?

---

Not attacking is not the same as defending. I do not attack someone who is doing a bunch of things I like. I help them achieve those things, then come back to work on the stuff I don't like later. For example, my position on the war Ukraine is well documented and exists in significant tension with Trump's approach on the matter. But I do agree with a number of premises of Trump's position - war is bad; war is expensive; we have a deficit spending problem that is, given Russian capabilities at the moment, a more immediate threat than Russian ambitions in Dnieper Valley; China is a greater threat than Russia; there's a net gain from forcing a less-than-desirable settlement in Ukraine to get busy with the larger problem with China; etc....... Ok. Fine. I woulda been quite a bit more hawkish than that with aid, ROE, and sanctions right off the bat. But his plan is cogent and if successful will improve our position. So I am not going to throw tomatoes at him. We can always come back to Russia/Ukraine later, to include lowering the boom on aid, ROE, and sanctions. And if that approach forces Europe to step up & do more on military spending in general and Ukraine in particular....well, that is a worthy objective indeed that every president before him has flailed away at but accomplished essentially nothing.

I happen to agree with him entirely on trade. He's doing exactly what the textbooks say he should do in the current circumstances (which happens to dovetail perfectly with what a majority of the public want done). He's attempting to do what Reagan actually did, only more systemically. I agree with him entirely on illegal immigration. I agree with him mostly on virtually every issue. THAT's WHY I VOTED FOR HIM. And, as anyone who knows him should now expect, Trump is tenacious and thorough in fighting to accomplish the things he promises to do. No Republican in my lifetime has spent political capital more earnestly to do what he promised than Donald Trump. It's his finest virtue. It's why he has such enduring support. And it's why the right track/wrong track polling has pulled into positive territory for the first time in over 20 years. He is actually trying to do things a majority of the American people have wanted for decades (rather than just pay lip service to them like the Bushies did).

His critics, on the other hand, seem to care not how many things they might agree upon with him. They can only see the orange hair and hear the mangled syntax and just go nuts. Even some people who call themselves Republicans/Conservatives can't compliment him on anything. It's almost like they have to make sure everyone knows they hate him and everything he stands for in order to maintain self-image that they are above playing politics THAT way. (as though their position on Trump somehow is a reflection of their own virtue.) How do we know this? Those people never, ever, ever give him props for any accomplishment. They can't. They're afraid someone will call them 'Trumpist." The childishness of it all is really quite amusing.

I'm a helluva lot more tolerant and pragmatic about such things than all the folks setting their hair on fire every day about the latest thing Trump said/did. He's making progress on things his predecessors promised but hardly lifted a finger to do. We should be grateful for that.

---

So there isn't anything he could do you wouldn't support. Got it. You could have said it with a lot less words.

And before the question is asked, he's done better on the border than I ever could have imagined. He's been fantastic in reversing the woke agenda. He's been terrific in actively pursuing foreign investment. Not including Ukraine, he has had some foreign policy successes. I was ready to give high praise on DOGE efforts but he TACO'd the budget part of the effort (smile at the joke, don't have a hissy). Maybe next cycle it will materialize, so I'm holding out hope.

The only thing I've consistently beat him up on is the trade and economic policy, and I've occasionally chirped at some of his more outlandish statements and claims. The "trolling" as I keep being told. I'm also aligned with the founders with a healthy fear of populism regardless of political stripe. Apparently that makes me a hair on fire liberal when I'm about as far from that as possible.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I voted for him.

ScottS said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Also: a good read on the first Trump tax cuts. They did not pay for themselves. They might in 2028, and then "remain close to the pre-TCJA trend." If they are made permanent, they likely pay for themselves in 2033.

https://www.cato.org/blog/did-tax-cuts-jobs-act-pay-itself

---

LOL.

"there are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics."
--Sam Rayburn

Reality is: the 2017 Trump tax cuts INCREASED revenues to the federal treasury.

---

Can you show that? Without statistics please?

---

The Kennedy tax cuts and Reagan tax cuts did the same thing. Revenue to the government is easy to look up.

---

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/has-tcja-paid-itself

Porteroso said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Also: a good read on the first Trump tax cuts. They did not pay for themselves. They might in 2028, and then "remain close to the pre-TCJA trend." If they are made permanent, they likely pay for themselves in 2033.

https://www.cato.org/blog/did-tax-cuts-jobs-act-pay-itself

---

LOL.

"there are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics."
--Sam Rayburn

Reality is: the 2017 Trump tax cuts INCREASED revenues to the federal treasury.

---

Can you show that? Without statistics please?

---

The Kennedy tax cuts and Reagan tax cuts did the same thing. Revenue to the government is easy to look up.

---

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/has-tcja-paid-itself

---

Basically, revenues were higher, because inflation was higher, and covid stimulus was good for business. If you adjust for inflation, the real revenue collection was lower than the CBO projection preceding the bill's passage. Except for in 2022, and guess what happened in 2022?

But again, if you have different data, let me know.

JUST IN: 🇺🇸🇨🇳 US to increase sanctions on Chinese tech, targeting subsidiaries.

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) May 30, 2025

🚨 Stephen Miller just BEAT DOWN a fake news CNN "reporter" for simping for rogue judges

Miller left her literally shaking 🤣

"So what you're saying is, each individual action a President makes has to be individually approved by 700 DISTRICT COURT JUDGES?"

"That is absurd. The… pic.twitter.com/W1OkbZWQXs

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) May 30, 2025

Breaking: The U.S.-China trade truce risks falling apart, with rare-earth minerals at the heart of accusations that Beijing is reneging on the agreement https://t.co/mAFqapJJhM

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) May 30, 2025

Porteroso said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Also: a good read on the first Trump tax cuts. They did not pay for themselves. They might in 2028, and then "remain close to the pre-TCJA trend." If they are made permanent, they likely pay for themselves in 2033.

https://www.cato.org/blog/did-tax-cuts-jobs-act-pay-itself

---

LOL.

"there are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics."
--Sam Rayburn

Reality is: the 2017 Trump tax cuts INCREASED revenues to the federal treasury.

---

Can you show that? Without statistics please?

---

The Kennedy tax cuts and Reagan tax cuts did the same thing. Revenue to the government is easy to look up.

---

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/has-tcja-paid-itself

---

Basically, revenues were higher, because inflation was higher, and covid stimulus was good for business. If you adjust for inflation, the real revenue collection was lower than the CBO projection preceding the bill's passage. Except for in 2022, and guess what happened in 2022?

But again, if you have different data, let me know.

---

Here are the numbers for federal revenue:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/200405/receipts-of-the-us-government-since-fiscal-year-2000/

Revenue rose still after the 2017 tax cuts. They did not fall until Covid in 2020. Then they took off as inflation rose under Biden.
It's interesting how impossible it is for our government to live within its means.