A Civilised Executive? (Food Banks Split)

Post Reply
User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

A Civilised Executive? (Food Banks Split)

Post by Hermit » Mon Dec 19, 2016 8:45 pm

Split from : Food Banks Don't Need Food; Food Banks Need Money.
_____________________________________________
Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:The real question is, why would they need privately run food banks in a civilized country which takes care of its poor? Hasn't Canada, Europe and other "civilized" countries gotten a handle on this already?
There are degrees of civilisation. Canada, for instance, is currently governed by the Liberal party. Certainly more civilised than being governed by reactionary fuckknuckles like yours is about to be because a plurality of your voters want it that way, and whose wish has been granted through the agency of you Electoral Collegiate system, but not as civilised as countries governed by parties who still fundamentally support capitalism but temper it with policies based on compassion, altruism and empathy, those qualities being collectively known as "civilised".
This is a failure to understand the US system.
Oh, I understand alright. In parliamentary systems the executive is elected by direct popular vote. In the US system it isn't.

The irony is that one of the purposes for which the US electoral college was originally instituted actually brought about the opposite of what it was designed to ensure, namely, in Hamilton's words: "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States." What you got in this election, is a candidate with many years of experience working in the US administration receiving a plurality of the vote, and another candidate whose qualifications consist of repeatedly declaring bankruptcies, proudly relating how he grabs them by the pussy, changing hid mind on policies more often than he changes his underpants, never having served in any capacity as a servant to the public and basically persuading the masses to vote for him because he's going to make America great again.

And then there is another task the EC was established for, and that it has arguably failed in. It was supposed to protect the US government (Hamilton again) "from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils."

Anticipating you using the second and third paragraph to ignore the first, let me repeat: I understand the US system alright. In parliamentary systems the executive is elected by direct popular vote. In the US system it isn't. I added the next two merely in order to point out that it isn't working as it was designed to work.
Last edited by Brian Peacock on Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: added notice
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Food Banks Don't Need Food; Food Banks Need Money

Post by Forty Two » Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:33 pm

Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:The real question is, why would they need privately run food banks in a civilized country which takes care of its poor? Hasn't Canada, Europe and other "civilized" countries gotten a handle on this already?
There are degrees of civilisation. Canada, for instance, is currently governed by the Liberal party. Certainly more civilised than being governed by reactionary fuckknuckles like yours is about to be because a plurality of your voters want it that way, and whose wish has been granted through the agency of you Electoral Collegiate system, but not as civilised as countries governed by parties who still fundamentally support capitalism but temper it with policies based on compassion, altruism and empathy, those qualities being collectively known as "civilised".
This is a failure to understand the US system.
Oh, I understand alright. In parliamentary systems the executive is elected by direct popular vote. In the US system it isn't.
Not correct. In parliamentary systems, generally speaking, the public only votes for their member of parliament (equivalent of Congressman in the US). The MPs then select the executive by vote of Parliament. The voting public has no say. Examples = Canada and the United Kingdom. So, it's like if the US Congress picked the President.
Hermit wrote:
The irony is that one of the purposes for which the US electoral college was originally instituted actually brought about the opposite of what it was designed to ensure, namely, in Hamilton's words: "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States."
It is not a "given" that Hillary Clinton was a person meeting such qualifications. I sure don't agree that she had the kind of merit to establish her in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union.

Hermit wrote:
What you got in this election, is a candidate with many years of experience working in the US administration receiving a plurality of the vote, and another candidate whose qualifications consist of repeatedly declaring bankruptcies, proudly relating how he grabs them by the pussy, changing hid mind on policies more often than he changes his underpants, never having served in any capacity as a servant to the public and basically persuading the masses to vote for him because he's going to make America great again.
That's your view. Another view is that what we got in this election was a candidate who lies incessantly, and who broke the law relative to classified information and lied about it, lied about her activities and the US's activities in Libya, participated in a rigged primary where collusion existed between her campaign and the Democratic National Committee to improperly subvert the primary process, where she received debate questions in advance of debates and said nothing about it, where her campaign officials admitted to cheating in elections and were fired for it, where she lied about being under hostile gunfire, where she lied about her health, where she was extremely hawkish about war with Russia, using her super-PAC to take 10s of millions of dollars of foreign donations, and operating a "friends of Bill" pay to play system and basically using her Foundation as a money making scheme.... As Bernie Sanders said "I don't think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC."I don't think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don't think you are qualified if you've supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement, which has cost us millions of decent-paying jobs. I don't think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed and which, as all of you know, has allowed corporations and wealthy people all over the world to avoid paying their taxes to their countries."
Hermit wrote: And then there is another task the EC was established for, and that it has arguably failed in. It was supposed to protect the US government (Hamilton again) "from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils."
Hillary had far more established connections with foreign powers, given her unprecedented receipts of money from foreign governments and other sources.https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... a33ef82349 and http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/po ... .html?_r=0



Hermit wrote: Anticipating you using the second and third paragraph to ignore the first, let me repeat: I understand the US system alright. In parliamentary systems the executive is elected by direct popular vote. In the US system it isn't. I added the next two merely in order to point out that it isn't working as it was designed to work.
Well, which parliamentary country are you referring to? In Canada, only the people in Justin Trudeau's riding voted for or against him. Every other riding voted for or against candidates for MP to represent that riding. The chief executive of Canada was voted in by coalition of the MPs. If the US was to mimic that process, then the US Congress would elect the President.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Food Banks Don't Need Food; Food Banks Need Money

Post by Forty Two » Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:33 pm

Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:The real question is, why would they need privately run food banks in a civilized country which takes care of its poor? Hasn't Canada, Europe and other "civilized" countries gotten a handle on this already?
There are degrees of civilisation. Canada, for instance, is currently governed by the Liberal party. Certainly more civilised than being governed by reactionary fuckknuckles like yours is about to be because a plurality of your voters want it that way, and whose wish has been granted through the agency of you Electoral Collegiate system, but not as civilised as countries governed by parties who still fundamentally support capitalism but temper it with policies based on compassion, altruism and empathy, those qualities being collectively known as "civilised".
This is a failure to understand the US system.
Oh, I understand alright. In parliamentary systems the executive is elected by direct popular vote. In the US system it isn't.
Not correct. In parliamentary systems, generally speaking, the public only votes for their member of parliament (equivalent of Congressman in the US). The MPs then select the executive by vote of Parliament. The voting public has no say. Examples = Canada and the United Kingdom. So, it's like if the US Congress picked the President.
Hermit wrote:
The irony is that one of the purposes for which the US electoral college was originally instituted actually brought about the opposite of what it was designed to ensure, namely, in Hamilton's words: "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States."
It is not a "given" that Hillary Clinton was a person meeting such qualifications. I sure don't agree that she had the kind of merit to establish her in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union.

Hermit wrote:
What you got in this election, is a candidate with many years of experience working in the US administration receiving a plurality of the vote, and another candidate whose qualifications consist of repeatedly declaring bankruptcies, proudly relating how he grabs them by the pussy, changing hid mind on policies more often than he changes his underpants, never having served in any capacity as a servant to the public and basically persuading the masses to vote for him because he's going to make America great again.
That's your view. Another view is that what we got in this election was a candidate who lies incessantly, and who broke the law relative to classified information and lied about it, lied about her activities and the US's activities in Libya, participated in a rigged primary where collusion existed between her campaign and the Democratic National Committee to improperly subvert the primary process, where she received debate questions in advance of debates and said nothing about it, where her campaign officials admitted to cheating in elections and were fired for it, where she lied about being under hostile gunfire, where she lied about her health, where she was extremely hawkish about war with Russia, using her super-PAC to take 10s of millions of dollars of foreign donations, and operating a "friends of Bill" pay to play system and basically using her Foundation as a money making scheme.... As Bernie Sanders said "I don't think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC."I don't think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don't think you are qualified if you've supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement, which has cost us millions of decent-paying jobs. I don't think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed and which, as all of you know, has allowed corporations and wealthy people all over the world to avoid paying their taxes to their countries."
Hermit wrote: And then there is another task the EC was established for, and that it has arguably failed in. It was supposed to protect the US government (Hamilton again) "from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils."
Hillary had far more established connections with foreign powers, given her unprecedented receipts of money from foreign governments and other sources.https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... a33ef82349 and http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/po ... .html?_r=0



Hermit wrote: Anticipating you using the second and third paragraph to ignore the first, let me repeat: I understand the US system alright. In parliamentary systems the executive is elected by direct popular vote. In the US system it isn't. I added the next two merely in order to point out that it isn't working as it was designed to work.
Well, which parliamentary country are you referring to? In Canada, only the people in Justin Trudeau's riding voted for or against him. Every other riding voted for or against candidates for MP to represent that riding. The chief executive of Canada was voted in by coalition of the MPs. If the US was to mimic that process, then the US Congress would elect the President.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Food Banks Don't Need Food; Food Banks Need Money

Post by Hermit » Tue Dec 20, 2016 1:27 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:The real question is, why would they need privately run food banks in a civilized country which takes care of its poor? Hasn't Canada, Europe and other "civilized" countries gotten a handle on this already?
There are degrees of civilisation. Canada, for instance, is currently governed by the Liberal party. Certainly more civilised than being governed by reactionary fuckknuckles like yours is about to be because a plurality of your voters want it that way, and whose wish has been granted through the agency of you Electoral Collegiate system, but not as civilised as countries governed by parties who still fundamentally support capitalism but temper it with policies based on compassion, altruism and empathy, those qualities being collectively known as "civilised".
This is a failure to understand the US system.
Oh, I understand alright. In parliamentary systems the executive is elected by direct popular vote. In the US system it isn't.
In parliamentary systems, generally speaking, the public only votes for their member of parliament (equivalent of Congressman in the US). The MPs then select the executive by vote of Parliament.
No. See below.
Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:Anticipating you using the second and third paragraph to ignore the first, let me repeat: I understand the US system alright. In parliamentary systems the executive is elected by direct popular vote. In the US system it isn't. I added the next two merely in order to point out that it isn't working as it was designed to work.
Well, which parliamentary country are you referring to? In Canada, only the people in Justin Trudeau's riding voted for or against him. Every other riding voted for or against candidates for MP to represent that riding. The chief executive of Canada was voted in by coalition of the MPs. If the US was to mimic that process, then the US Congress would elect the President.
The Prime Minister is not the executive. Not in Canada, not in the UK, not in Australia. Executive power is vested in the parliament. That's why it's called the parliamentary system. In the US executive power is vested in the President. That's why your form of government is called the presidential system.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39933
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Food Banks Don't Need Food; Food Banks Need Money

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Dec 20, 2016 1:58 pm

The UK systems is a little curious. In the UK the Queen asks the person who leads the party with the most elected seats in The House of Commons to form the government. In this the incoming Prime Minister, the nominal 'first among equals', exercises the 'Royal Prerogative', that is; the Prime Minister exercises the executive power of the Crown and is solely responsible for forming an executive body on behalf of the Crown, not the people. Nonetheless, what we casually refer to as 'the government' comprises an executive formed by, and wholly at the discretion of, the party which holds a majority in The Commons. Parliament, the Houses of the Commons and the Lords, comprise the legislature. The government comprise the executive in which the Prime Minister holds ultimate executive power, authority and responsibility. At GE time we are voting for the next Prime Minister as much as voting for the next government.


edited for clarity
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Food Banks Don't Need Food; Food Banks Need Money

Post by Hermit » Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:33 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:The UK systems is a little curious. In the UK the Queen asks the person who it leads the party with the most seats in Parliament to form the government. In this the incoming Prime Minister, the nominal 'first among equals', exercises the 'Royal Prerogative', that is; the Prime Minister exercises the executive power of the Crown and is solely responsible for forming an executive body on behalf of the Crown, not the people. Nonetheless, what we casually refer to as 'the government' comprises an executive formed by, and wholly at the discretion of, the party which holds a majority in Parliament. Parliament, the Houses of the Commons and the Lords, comprise the legislature. The government comprise an executive in which the Prime Minister holds ultimate authority and responsibility.
Thanks for the correction. The UK system is more than a little curious. Despite in a way it making a mockery of codified law by not having a written constitution and by having an upper house whose members are unencumbered by the inconvenience of having to be elected to their seats via popular vote, it manages to be a more civilised government than anything the USA can offer. Maybe its monarchy and its aristocrats were forced to deal with the people they governed after one king lost his head in the heat of the moment and another was run out of the country. The difference between the US and the UK is illustrated by the irony that the latter actually invited someone Orange to take over from James II & VII, then enjoyed 13 years of relative peace and prosperity during his reign, the former happening after the end of the war William inherited.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Food Banks Don't Need Food; Food Banks Need Money

Post by Scot Dutchy » Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:25 pm

The UK system has nothing to do with democracy.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74146
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Food Banks Don't Need Food; Food Banks Need Money

Post by JimC » Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:51 pm

Forty Two wrote:

Not correct. In parliamentary systems, generally speaking, the public only votes for their member of parliament (equivalent of Congressman in the US). The MPs then select the executive by vote of Parliament. The voting public has no say. Examples = Canada and the United Kingdom. So, it's like if the US Congress picked the President.
I think you have missed Hermit's point. By executive, he means our cabinet of ministers, each of whom needs to be an elected member of parliament, rather than your executive, appointed by the whim of the president of the day.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41035
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Food Banks Don't Need Food; Food Banks Need Money

Post by Svartalf » Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:07 pm

I never got that thing about ministers having to be elected MPs... a person familiar with the subject of their ministry would be a better choice, especially since MPs are elected to represent their constituency, not to serve as sinisters.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
BarnettNewman
extemporaneous
Posts: 552
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: Food Banks Don't Need Food; Food Banks Need Money

Post by BarnettNewman » Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:33 pm

Additonally, in Canada, the cabinet is formed by elected members who have been appointed to the portfolio by the Prime Minister. You will never get a non-elected cabinet appointee.

ETA - oops didn't read down thread.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74146
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Food Banks Don't Need Food; Food Banks Need Money

Post by JimC » Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:16 pm

Svartalf wrote:I never got that thing about ministers having to be elected MPs... a person familiar with the subject of their ministry would be a better choice, especially since MPs are elected to represent their constituency, not to serve as sinisters.
I take your point, Svarty. However, each minister is supported by a civil servant who is head of that department, to provide (along with a team of others) the expert advice required. Additionally, appointments such as the recent Trump team seem to have conflict of interest written all over them...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Food Banks Don't Need Food; Food Banks Need Money

Post by mistermack » Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:56 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:The UK system has nothing to do with democracy.
Wrong. We have elections. And a maximum term of a parliament.
That's democracy.

You can have too much democracy. You could decide everything by referendum. Then you have people who haven't got a clue, making decisions that are completely democratic. And completely shit.

So you have to have a compromise. The UK system is a good compromise. It provides fairly stable government, that has the ability to actually do things, and the executive has some power, enabling the government to react to events in a realistic time scale.

If it became more democratic, decisions would be slower and less well-informed.
And you would get coalitions that lasted about a year, on average. Like Italy.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 39933
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Food Banks Don't Need Food; Food Banks Need Money

Post by Brian Peacock » Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:19 am

Indeed. That's not to say that British democracy couldn't be improved. A truly proportional voting system and a modern written constitution wouldn't go amiss I think. An elected second chamber is long overdue in my opinion. And we also could ditch the Royals while we're at it.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 21022
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Food Banks Don't Need Food; Food Banks Need Money

Post by laklak » Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:40 am

Fuck democracy. Fucking pesants telling their betters what to do. Fuck 'em.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Food Banks Don't Need Food; Food Banks Need Money

Post by Hermit » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:02 am

JimC wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Not correct. In parliamentary systems, generally speaking, the public only votes for their member of parliament (equivalent of Congressman in the US). The MPs then select the executive by vote of Parliament. The voting public has no say. Examples = Canada and the United Kingdom. So, it's like if the US Congress picked the President.
I think you have missed Hermit's point. By executive, he means our cabinet of ministers, each of whom needs to be an elected member of parliament, rather than your executive, appointed by the whim of the president of the day.
Forty Two has not missed anything. He keeps wilfully ignoring the several times I have pointed out to him that the executive in Australia is not vested in the Prime Minister - That the office of the Prime Minister does not even rate one solitary mention in our constitution.

If Forty Two wanted to criticise democracy in Australia, he could point to the fact that formally speaking the executive is headed by the monarch in Great Britain and flows down to parliament via the monarch's representative in Australia, the Governor General. Formally speaking again, parliament acts only as adviser to the monarch. In practice, though, the monarch, via the GG, acts only as a rubber stamp, especially so since the GG's reserve power. aka royal prerogative, was further sidelined with a constitutional change by referendum in 1977 following the 1975 constitutional crisis.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests