When do the ends justify the means in government and politics?

joko104 · May 18, 2019

In my opinion, other than the economy in general, immigration is President Trump's strongest issue. But should he play the issue in the strongest ways, in the view that the ends justify the means in the long run? If he loses, Democrats will open the Southern border flood gate.

Maybe, tacitly, Trump should do so himself about 3 months before the election. Covertly open gaps allow mobs of tens of thousands of illegal migrants to flood into San Diego, El Paso and Brownsville, while blocking all federal aid to those immigrants. Almost immediately those cities would be turned into chaotic crime centers, with this spreading across the nation. This would entirely land on the Democratic Party for refusing to pass the needed legislation to secure our borders and stop the waves of mobs of immigrants being escorted to our Southern border.

Would that be ethical? For the President to show Americans EXACTLY what the Democratic Party will do with a relative small scale demonstration of what the millions more uneducated and impoverished migrants would cause, knowing the harms that would come with that real-life practical demonstration of the effects of unrestricted mass immigration across our Southern border?

When do the ends justify the means in politics?

Rogue Valley · May 18, 2019

joko104 said:
In my opinion, other than the economy in general, immigration is President Trump's strongest issue. But should he play the issue in the strongest ways, in the view that the ends justify the means in the long run? If he loses, Democrats will open the Southern border flood gate.

Even for you that is quite the hyperbole.

joko104 · May 18, 2019

Rogue Valley said:
Even for you that is quite the hyperbole.

First, it is not. Second, it doesn't matter, that is the public perception. The Democratic Party is FOR illegal migrants and the Republican Party - specifically President Trump - is against illegal immigration. It is only public perception that matters in political persuasion.

KevinKohler · May 18, 2019

Using the ends to justify the means is how some of (all of?)the worst atrocities in all of human history have been excused, at their time of execution.

joko104 · May 18, 2019

I did some political consulting in the past. 100% of my candidates won, but it was local and state elections. I was very active in 2016 for President Trump and he massively carried this area of Florida with not only massive margins beyond typical, but massive voter turn out. The #1 emotional issues? Obama's rules that boys get to shower with naked girls and men able to hide out in women's bathrooms and girl's locker rooms merely by saying "I feel like a woman." (Notice how the Democrats went silent on trans-rights issues in 2018.)

This was my core approach to campaigns (though much more than just that):

Fact: It is very easy to lose an election and very difficult to win. Therefore, my goal was never to cause my candidate to win. My goal was to insure the other candidate lost. If the other candidate loses, winning takes care of itself.

It is only about 10 to 15% of voters who are relevant in a general election. Everyone else will just vote party line. That 10 to 15% are the least politically knowledgeable and interested in politics of all - meaning they also are the easiest votes to get.

That was the 2016 election and it worked for President Trump. He kept it simple and direct so that the ordinary person who doesn't live for political topics can understand. As people lamented thinking they had only 2 bad choices to pick from, the question then was only who is worse? Being not as bad as Hillary Clinton was possible. Trump is better on the attack than Hillary, and President Trump pulled the right emotional strings on this.

Why immigration is such a good issue for the President - if played correctly - is because most ordinary people perceive (true or not - though it is true) that the Democratic Party is pro mass immigration and President Trump is against it. Thus, the ONLY way to vote against illegal immigration is to vote against the Democratic candidate.

I also always felt any candidate should have 3 - no more than 3 - issues (ie attacks) in an election. That is all that the average person can deal with. While other topics and issues are discussed maybe, focus on 3 issues - no more than 3. For president Trump it should be the economy (jobs etc), immigration and socialism. Subsets would be the military and healthcare. Just talk around everything else, always going back to those 3 issues. Drill those into voters thinking of the election by repetition.

Oh, and definitely vastly overstate everything as this baits the other side into also talking on the same issue. If 1 million illegals came across last year, say it is was 2 million - forcing the other side to rant "but it was only 1 million!!" - so voters think "1 million!?!" - the other side literally making YOUR point by proving your point, thinking they proved you wrong. I used that in every campaign. President Trump uses this tactic brilliantly himself.

I've stated before, love or hate Donald Trump, but he is a brilliant strategist. Not just in politics too, but in life. Everything he did. Most impressive personal history I've ever read of in modern times across his entire life.

Democrats can not win the immigration issue nationwide, only in irrelevant Democratic stronghold states.

joko104 · May 18, 2019

KevinKohler said:
Using the ends to justify the means is how some of (all of?)the worst atrocities in all of human history have been excused, at their time of execution.

Isn't that what Democrats do when they attack President Trump, knowing this weakens the USA in all foreign policy matters - economic and military? To believe this is justified in the long run if it gets rid of the Republicans having the White House and Congress?

Helix · May 18, 2019

Rogue Valley said:
Even for you that is quite the hyperbole.

didn't surprise me much.

as for hyperbole, i heard that eighty gazillion brown migrants are crossing the border every second. only Tweety can save us with his black painted hot derpwall.

Casper · May 18, 2019

joko104 said:
In my opinion, other than the economy in general, immigration is President Trump's strongest issue. But should he play the issue in the strongest ways, in the view that the ends justify the means in the long run? If he loses, Democrats will open the Southern border flood gate.

Maybe, tacitly, Trump should do so himself about 3 months before the election. Covertly open gaps allow mobs of tens of thousands of illegal migrants to flood into San Diego, El Paso and Brownsville, while blocking all federal aid to those immigrants. Almost immediately those cities would be turned into chaotic crime centers, with this spreading across the nation. This would entirely land on the Democratic Party for refusing to pass the needed legislation to secure our borders and stop the waves of mobs of immigrants being escorted to our Southern border.

Would that be ethical? For the President to show Americans EXACTLY what the Democratic Party will do with a relative small scale demonstration of what the millions more uneducated and impoverished migrants would cause, knowing the harms that would come with that real-life practical demonstration of the effects of unrestricted mass immigration across our Southern border?

When do the ends justify the means in politics?

Problem is the Dems did not open the border under Clinton or Obama, so your claim is completely without merit.

jghiretire · May 18, 2019

Casper said:
Problem is the Dems did not open the border under Clinton or Obama, so your claim is completely without merit.

When does that stop them?

joko104 · May 18, 2019

Helix said:
didn't surprise me much.

as for hyperbole, i heard that eighty gazillion brown migrants are crossing the border every second. only Tweety can save us with his black painted hot derpwall.

In many ways your message makes my point. I would want you running the campaign of any candidate I wanted to lose. :thumbs:

Trump · May 18, 2019

joko104 said:
I did some political consulting in the past. 100% of my candidates won, but it was local and state elections. I was very active in 2016 for President Trump and he massively carried this area of Florida with not only massive margins beyond typical, but massive voter turn out. The #1 emotional issues? Obama's rules that boys get to shower with naked girls and men able to hide out in women's bathrooms and girl's locker rooms merely by saying "I feel like a woman." (Notice how the Democrats went silent on trans-rights issues in 2018.)

This was my core approach to campaigns (though much more than just that):

Fact: It is very easy to lose an election and very difficult to win. Therefore, my goal was never to cause my candidate to win. My goal was to insure the other candidate lost. If the other candidate loses, winning takes care of itself.

It is only about 10 to 15% of voters who are relevant in a general election. Everyone else will just vote party line. That 10 to 15% are the least politically knowledgeable and interested in politics of all - meaning they also are the easiest votes to get.

That was the 2016 election and it worked for President Trump. He kept it simple and direct so that the ordinary person who doesn't live for political topics can understand. As people lamented thinking they had only 2 bad choices to pick from, the question then was only who is worse? Being not as bad as Hillary Clinton was possible. Trump is better on the attack than Hillary, and President Trump pulled the right emotional strings on this.

Why immigration is such a good issue for the President - if played correctly - is because most ordinary people perceive (true or not - though it is true) that the Democratic Party is pro mass immigration and President Trump is against it. Thus, the ONLY way to vote against illegal immigration is to vote against the Democratic candidate.

I also always felt any candidate should have 3 - no more than 3 - issues (ie attacks) in an election. That is all that the average person can deal with. While other topics and issues are discussed maybe, focus on 3 issues - no more than 3. For president Trump it should be the economy (jobs etc), immigration and socialism. Subsets would be the military and healthcare. Just talk around everything else, always going back to those 3 issues. Drill those into voters thinking of the election by repetition.

Oh, and definitely vastly overstate everything as this baits the other side into also talking on the same issue. If 1 million illegals came across last year, say it is was 2 million - forcing the other side to rant "but it was only 1 million!!" - so voters think "1 million!?!" - the other side literally making YOUR point by proving your point, thinking they proved you wrong. I used that in every campaign. President Trump uses this tactic brilliantly himself.

I've stated before, love or hate Donald Trump, but he is a brilliant strategist. Not just in politics too, but in life. Everything he did. Most impressive personal history I've ever read of in modern times across his entire life.

Democrats can not win the immigration issue nationwide, only in irrelevant Democratic stronghold states.

Thanks for sharing.

I pay attention to politics but when Trump showed up... I was blind sided... by my wife's hair dresser lives in Vegas and went to Trump rally one of the first and said it was amazing energy. She had never voted in any election because all politicians are the same ...but Trump hit em with Immigration reform. Never heard a word out of this women about Politics and I've known her over 20 years.

Trump connected fast and hard. Agree Unbelievable energy on the trail.

joko104 · May 18, 2019

Casper said:
Problem is the Dems did not open the border under Clinton or Obama, so your claim is completely without merit.

Obama did in the end. It is Democratic allowances by which illegal immigrants other than from Mexico can not be summarily deported. All they have to do is walk across the border and they are in. It also was Obama that made anchor babies a legal certainty of remaining in the USA.

However, it is the perception that matters. Besides, the Democratic Party no longer even pretends they favor locking down the border against illegal migration. They claim stopping or detaining illegal immigrants is so evil it equates to murdering children.

AlbqOwl · May 18, 2019

joko104 said:
In my opinion, other than the economy in general, immigration is President Trump's strongest issue. But should he play the issue in the strongest ways, in the view that the ends justify the means in the long run? If he loses, Democrats will open the Southern border flood gate.

Maybe, tacitly, Trump should do so himself about 3 months before the election. Covertly open gaps allow mobs of tens of thousands of illegal migrants to flood into San Diego, El Paso and Brownsville, while blocking all federal aid to those immigrants. Almost immediately those cities would be turned into chaotic crime centers, with this spreading across the nation. This would entirely land on the Democratic Party for refusing to pass the needed legislation to secure our borders and stop the waves of mobs of immigrants being escorted to our Southern border.

Would that be ethical? For the President to show Americans EXACTLY what the Democratic Party will do with a relative small scale demonstration of what the millions more uneducated and impoverished migrants would cause, knowing the harms that would come with that real-life practical demonstration of the effects of unrestricted mass immigration across our Southern border?

When do the ends justify the means in politics?

No. Two wrongs don't make a right regardless of motive.

Our job as patriots is to reject the hateful vitriolic partisan and ideology driven destructive and divisive mean spiritedness and the dishonest rhetoric and talking points that go with that, and our job should always be to push as hard to get accurate and honest information out there as they push the disingenuous rhetoric.

Too often it just seems that we are shouting into a great void drowned out by the organized mobs of partisan attackers, derailers, disinformation distributors etc. all speaking the same tired assigned rhetoric and talking points.

But we must not become weary of doing good, speaking truth, and trying to be better.

joko104 · May 18, 2019

Trump said:
Thanks for sharing.

I pay attention to politics but when Trump showed up... I was blind sided... by my wife's hair dresser lives in Vegas and went to Trump rally one of the first and said it was amazing energy. She had never voted in any election because all politicians are the same ...but Trump hit em with Immigration reform. Never heard a word out of this women about Politics and I've known her over 20 years.

Trump connected fast and hard. Agree Unbelievable energy on the trail.

Contrary to the claims of the MSM, Trump MUST hold onto his base, not just minimally but impassioned.

While the left never stopped calling Sarah Palin stupid, but for her McCain would have been totally slaughtered. By the end, few Republicans like McCain as much of what he said should have been entitled "In defense of Obama and liberalism."

Same for milk toast Mitt Romney. Most conservatives had to hold their nose voting for him. The MSM had rammed Romney down Republican throats in the primary the way they rammed Hillary Clinton down the throats of Democrats. The leftwing always declares to win the Republicans must nominate a milk toast "moderate" - which excites exactly no one.

Donald Trump has never made their mistakes. He understands he must never show any weakness of any kind.

joko104 · May 18, 2019

AlbqOwl said:
No. Two wrongs don't make a right regardless of motive.

Our job as patriots is to reject the hateful vitriolic partisan and ideology driven destructive and divisive mean spiritedness and the dishonest rhetoric and talking points that go with that, and our job should always be to push as hard to get accurate and honest information out there as they push the disingenuous rhetoric.

Too often it just seems that we are shouting into a great void drowned out by the organized mobs of partisan attackers, derailers, disinformation distributors etc. all speaking the same tired assigned rhetoric and talking points.

But we must not become weary of doing good, speaking truth, and trying to be better.

And you have to do all that in a 12 second sound bite.

AlbqOwl · May 18, 2019

joko104 said:
And you have to do all that in a 12 second sound bite.

Or at least within 30 seconds.

But seriously. I have increasingly noticed that the most vitriolic anti-Trumpers manage to get their licks in pretty much on any thread of any topic. And they do their damndest to drown out, derail, cover up, deflect from, change the subject etc. from any comments, data, information, argument that doesn't fit THEIR agenda and THEIR assigned talking points of the day. And as often as not, they are succeeding.

We have to be as persistent, determined, and maintain the stamina that they have.

I honestly believe that given time and with enough willing to embrace it, good will overcome evil, right will prevail over wrong, common sense will expose lies and dishonesty. We don't have to be nasty or hateful and meanspirited ourselves and in fact if we believe in our message and our cause, we undercut it when we behave as they do.

We must not become weary of speaking truth and doing good.

joko104 · May 18, 2019

Baiting political opposition with technically inaccurate information to both control what the issue is and to grab the spotlight is a tactic few people can grasp.

In a Republican primary, I finally convinced a candidate with little chance against an incumbent Republican how to use learning that in the past that Republican had contributed $50 to the most hated local Democrat at all. I convinced the candidate to accuse the opponent of giving "thousands of dollars" in campaign contributions to that candidate at every appearance, every debate and in all campaign materials.

Stupidly the incumbent took the bait, explaining it was only $50 dollars and the only reason he did so was because as a lawyer he had to, because the Democrat was so corrupt he had to give something. That incumbent just kept doubling down on it. Thus, that became the issue - the incumbent contributing to and bribing the most hated Democrat. Not a winning issue in a Republican primary.

The incumbent lost, never realizing really all we was doing was admitting he was a contributor - and as his defense trying to justify it by calling it bribery he committed.

PS. In politics there is no such thing as good defense. Only good attacks and counter attacks. NEVER play defense in politics. NEVER. Say nothing on a topic rather than a defense. Ignore the attack. Counter attack. Do a "whataboutism" counter attack even if completely irrelevant.

Helix · May 18, 2019

joko104 said:
In many ways your message makes my point. I would want you running the campaign of any candidate I wanted to lose. :thumbs:

I have thought about that from time to time. I'd rather be a voice in the room contributing to the decision making process of which issues to prioritize and how to sell the platform. And no, you wouldn't, I'd guess.

Craig234 · May 18, 2019

joko104 said:
In my opinion, other than the economy in general, immigration is President Trump's strongest issue. But should he play the issue in the strongest ways, in the view that the ends justify the means in the long run? If he loses, Democrats will open the Southern border flood gate.

Maybe, tacitly, Trump should do so himself about 3 months before the election. Covertly open gaps allow mobs of tens of thousands of illegal migrants to flood into San Diego, El Paso and Brownsville, while blocking all federal aid to those immigrants. Almost immediately those cities would be turned into chaotic crime centers, with this spreading across the nation. This would entirely land on the Democratic Party for refusing to pass the needed legislation to secure our borders and stop the waves of mobs of immigrants being escorted to our Southern border.

Would that be ethical? For the President to show Americans EXACTLY what the Democratic Party will do with a relative small scale demonstration of what the millions more uneducated and impoverished migrants would cause, knowing the harms that would come with that real-life practical demonstration of the effects of unrestricted mass immigration across our Southern border?

When do the ends justify the means in politics?

Actually, if the US wanted to lower the crime rate, it would let in more immigrants - legal or not - since they have a lower crime rate than native born Americans.

Craig234 · May 18, 2019

joko104 said:
Baiting political opposition with technically inaccurate information to both control what the issue is and to grab the spotlight is a tactic few people can grasp.

In a Republican primary, I finally convinced a candidate with little chance against an incumbent Republican how to use learning that in the past that Republican had contributed $50 to the most hated local Democrat at all. I convinced the candidate to accuse the opponent of giving "thousands of dollars" in campaign contributions to that candidate at every appearance, every debate and in all campaign materials.

Stupidly the incumbent took the bait, explaining it was only $50 dollars and the only reason he did so was because as a lawyer he had to, because the Democrat was so corrupt he had to give something. That incumbent just kept doubling down on it. Thus, that became the issue - the incumbent contributing to and bribing the most hated Democrat. Not a winning issue in a Republican primary.

The incumbent lost, never realizing really all we was doing was admitting he was a contributor - and as his defense trying to justify it by calling it bribery he committed.

PS. In politics there is no such thing as good defense. Only good attacks and counter attacks. NEVER play defense in politics. NEVER. Say nothing on a topic rather than a defense. Ignore the attack. Counter attack. Do a "whataboutism" counter attack even if completely irrelevant.

Ethics and truth are concepts this poster can't grasp.

He's not entirely wrong, at a tactical level, if you want a political culture that has little to no actual value to its citizens, that is only about trying to win elections.

And let's be fair - it's not one side - LBJ famously said he wanted a candidate accused of having sex with a pig just to watch them deny having sex with a pig.

A difference is, that wasn't LBJ's best moment, it wasn't something embraced as the best in politics to recommend. This also suggests: the posters' lack of skill in how to apologize, the incumbent's lack of a strong campaign so the donation didn't matter, and Republican voters' inability to weigh issues rationally.

What if...? · May 18, 2019

joko104 said:
In my opinion, other than the economy in general, immigration is President Trump's strongest issue. But should he play the issue in the strongest ways, in the view that the ends justify the means in the long run? If he loses, Democrats will open the Southern border flood gate.

Maybe, tacitly, Trump should do so himself about 3 months before the election. Covertly open gaps allow mobs of tens of thousands of illegal migrants to flood into San Diego, El Paso and Brownsville, while blocking all federal aid to those immigrants. Almost immediately those cities would be turned into chaotic crime centers, with this spreading across the nation. This would entirely land on the Democratic Party for refusing to pass the needed legislation to secure our borders and stop the waves of mobs of immigrants being escorted to our Southern border.

Would that be ethical? For the President to show Americans EXACTLY what the Democratic Party will do with a relative small scale demonstration of what the millions more uneducated and impoverished migrants would cause, knowing the harms that would come with that real-life practical demonstration of the effects of unrestricted mass immigration across our Southern border?

When do the ends justify the means in politics?

Could we stop sending far more money to Washington than we get back too?

The republicans are still studiously avoiding prosecution g those who hire illegals.

They don't even have any harsh words for them.

Ever consider that that is because too many of their donors enjoy cheap labor and general wage depression?

Any time the powerful blame a major problem on the powerless they are lying to you. Simple as that.

Craig234 · May 18, 2019

AlbqOwl said:
Or at least within 30 seconds.

But seriously. I have increasingly noticed that the most vitriolic anti-Trumpers manage to get their licks in pretty much on any thread of any topic. And they do their damndest to drown out, derail, cover up, deflect from, change the subject etc. from any comments, data, information, argument that doesn't fit THEIR agenda and THEIR assigned talking points of the day. And as often as not, they are succeeding.

We have to be as persistent, determined, and maintain the stamina that they have.

I honestly believe that given time and with enough willing to embrace it, good will overcome evil, right will prevail over wrong, common sense will expose lies and dishonesty. We don't have to be nasty or hateful and meanspirited ourselves and in fact if we believe in our message and our cause, we undercut it when we behave as they do.

We must not become weary of speaking truth and doing good.

I think it's a lot more complicated than that. Do we really understand why a child like trump born into his situation becomes such a monster, while a child like the Roosevelts born into their situation became such different types of leaders? Why cultures get 'better' or 'worse', with many examples of cultures of each type of movement? I would suggest the allowance of unlimited money in US politics has been a fundamental corruption as long as it's allowed, which will continue.

RaleBulgarian · May 18, 2019

joko104 said:
In my opinion, other than the economy in general, immigration is President Trump's strongest issue. But should he play the issue in the strongest ways, in the view that the ends justify the means in the long run? If he loses, Democrats will open the Southern border flood gate.

Maybe, tacitly, Trump should do so himself about 3 months before the election. Covertly open gaps allow mobs of tens of thousands of illegal migrants to flood into San Diego, El Paso and Brownsville, while blocking all federal aid to those immigrants. Almost immediately those cities would be turned into chaotic crime centers, with this spreading across the nation. This would entirely land on the Democratic Party for refusing to pass the needed legislation to secure our borders and stop the waves of mobs of immigrants being escorted to our Southern border.

Would that be ethical? For the President to show Americans EXACTLY what the Democratic Party will do with a relative small scale demonstration of what the millions more uneducated and impoverished migrants would cause, knowing the harms that would come with that real-life practical demonstration of the effects of unrestricted mass immigration across our Southern border?

When do the ends justify the means in politics?

Trump’s sole bragging right is the economy. That’s it. His record on domestic violence (especially hate crimes), the environment, social programs, taxes, healthcare, and infrastructure range from failed to total ****ing disaster.

I sincerely hope Trump uses immigration, taxes, and healthcare as key issues of his re-election campaign because that will guarantee a crushing defeat.

And to even consider illegally allowing masses of immigrants to come through temporary openings in fencing demonstrates your utter lack of ethics and human decency.

What if...? · May 18, 2019

joko104 said:
First, it is not. Second, it doesn't matter, that is the public perception. The Democratic Party is FOR illegal migrants and the Republican Party - specifically President Trump - is against illegal immigration. It is only public perception that matters in political persuasion.

But not employers of illegals.

He ain't said **** about them.

Are you even capable of seeing that you are being played?

What if...? · May 18, 2019

joko104 said:
I did some political consulting in the past. 100% of my candidates won, but it was local and state elections. I was very active in 2016 for President Trump and he massively carried this area of Florida with not only massive margins beyond typical, but massive voter turn out. The #1 emotional issues? Obama's rules that boys get to shower with naked girls and men able to hide out in women's bathrooms and girl's locker rooms merely by saying "I feel like a woman." (Notice how the Democrats went silent on trans-rights issues in 2018.)

This was my core approach to campaigns (though much more than just that):

Fact: It is very easy to lose an election and very difficult to win. Therefore, my goal was never to cause my candidate to win. My goal was to insure the other candidate lost. If the other candidate loses, winning takes care of itself.

It is only about 10 to 15% of voters who are relevant in a general election. Everyone else will just vote party line. That 10 to 15% are the least politically knowledgeable and interested in politics of all - meaning they also are the easiest votes to get.

That was the 2016 election and it worked for President Trump. He kept it simple and direct so that the ordinary person who doesn't live for political topics can understand. As people lamented thinking they had only 2 bad choices to pick from, the question then was only who is worse? Being not as bad as Hillary Clinton was possible. Trump is better on the attack than Hillary, and President Trump pulled the right emotional strings on this.

Why immigration is such a good issue for the President - if played correctly - is because most ordinary people perceive (true or not - though it is true) that the Democratic Party is pro mass immigration and President Trump is against it. Thus, the ONLY way to vote against illegal immigration is to vote against the Democratic candidate.

I also always felt any candidate should have 3 - no more than 3 - issues (ie attacks) in an election. That is all that the average person can deal with. While other topics and issues are discussed maybe, focus on 3 issues - no more than 3. For president Trump it should be the economy (jobs etc), immigration and socialism. Subsets would be the military and healthcare. Just talk around everything else, always going back to those 3 issues. Drill those into voters thinking of the election by repetition.

Oh, and definitely vastly overstate everything as this baits the other side into also talking on the same issue. If 1 million illegals came across last year, say it is was 2 million - forcing the other side to rant "but it was only 1 million!!" - so voters think "1 million!?!" - the other side literally making YOUR point by proving your point, thinking they proved you wrong. I used that in every campaign. President Trump uses this tactic brilliantly himself.

I've stated before, love or hate Donald Trump, but he is a brilliant strategist. Not just in politics too, but in life. Everything he did. Most impressive personal history I've ever read of in modern times across his entire life.

Democrats can not win the immigration issue nationwide, only in irrelevant Democratic stronghold states.

You are easily impressed or totally amoral like your boy.

Because as far as I have seen over the last 30-40 years, trump is an amoral dirtbag.

When do the ends justify the means in government and politics?

Lead or get out of the way

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency