I have been researching Hillary pretty intensely the past few weeks, mostly because I believe she will be the next president, and I truly want to see if she deserves my vote. I feel like a lot of people have come to similar conclusions; several people have expressed it to me privately to avoid making waves with loved ones who feel differently. I have done my best to remain unemotional in such a charged election (mostly because I do not feel much affinity toward either candidate). I feel like a lot of people genuinely want to know who to vote for and have wracked their brains, and still remain completely at a loss. I felt it would be helpful to my friends who are still undecided to share my journey to voting for Hillary, and share my research sources, since I've lately done a lot of digging. I feel like I've found articles from publications of many different biases and leanings, and some that are strictly fact checking only. Am I super thrilled to be voting for Hillary? Not especially. She doesn't embody all of the issues I would like. But I am a fervent member of the #NeverTrump movement, and I need to know my options. I'll mainly address my findings on moral issues, conservatives' constitutional concerns, the economy, abortion, and character claims, on why I've gone from deciding to simply not vote and despairing, to consciously choosing Hillary over Trump. I hope those of you who need help deciding will find my sources useful. So, here we go:
THE MORALS ISSUE
Morally, we as Americans feel backed into a corner. Neither candidate feels remotely moral, so the “I think he/she is a good person” argument has essentially been taken off the table for many people, which has drawn many of us to candidates’ past histories. But for the even more astute, those who remain truly and genuinely undecided, it comes down to policy, something that has seemed to fall onto the back burner this election, with the emotional fervor that’s been so prevalent.
This elections' voters, while probably the most dismayed, are perhaps among the most informed in a long time, simply because research is the best hope we have of making a decent choice, since basic character can't fully be relied upon.
Let’s focus on policy. Never in the history of America have we needed to be so focused on policy. There has never been such a large pool of undecided voters this late in the game. We can't focus on who we like more because we strongly dislike them equally. There's no party bias because both parties are equally exposed as "corrupt". As likability and party lines dissolve, is the only thing we have left simply policy? Is this America's first moment after years of polarization to focus solely on policy? This is how my feelings have been, personally, so far.
THE CONSTITUTION, ISSUE #1
Most Mormon Trump supporters' concerns with Hillary revolve around the Constitution. I have to admit, I have heard
many worries from far-right conservatives that Hillary poses an enormous threat to the Constitution, but when I pressed to find out exactly how, I wasn’t able to find many answers from any of them. They would simply leave it at "She will destroy the Constituion!" After a little more prodding, it seems that the sensibility is a growing panic over globalism, which many view as contradictory to the Constitution (I disagree and will address this later). The view by ardent conservatives and Trump supporters seems to be this:
- When people say “ globalist", they are referring to those who would give preference and precedence to global laws and decision making over our own Constitution. If you look at the history of it, it started with the father of progressivism, Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations, followed by the United Nations. So virtually, to Trump supporters or far right conservatives, all people that label themselves as “ progressives” are lumped in as globalists. That is why many conservatives believe Obama has focused so much on saying that there is nothing "special or unique" about America and its tenets. It is widely viewed by conservatives that progressives believe we are just another one of many nations and our Constitution is no better than others, despite the fact that ours is the basis for virtually every constitution and rule of law in the free world. So essentially there are two polar opposites: the globalists, which umbrella over progressives such as Hillary; and isolationists, which umbrella over conservatives such as Trump. (However, I firmly believe that Hillary genuinely believes America’s constitution was divinely inspired, while I firmly believe Obama does not).
Ideally, America is to fall somewhere in between: valuing and upholding our Constitution, while being a powerful and present force for good throughout the world. However as our parties’ views slowly polarize more and more, panic is beginning to snowball. Conservatives worry that our country will lose its identity as we cow-tow to the world’s whims, while progressives fear that we will lose our credibility and relevance throughout the world.
It seems this is more of a hot-button topic for conservatives and is the main reason for why they want Hillary out of office at all costs. They believe she will be able to accomplish this largely because of the supreme court justices she will have power to appoint, and that her legacy will continue for generations because of those justices. They favor Trump in this instance, convinced that his closing of borders and isolating ourselves from the rest of the world would keep our country and our people safer, and his justice choices will do the same.
I feel like this is dangerous rhetoric. Not only as an American but as a Mormon. The last time America was so firmly isolationist was during WWII, a part of our country’s history that I am perhaps most ashamed of. We knew of the suffering and genocide of the Jews and other groups from persecution at the hands of Hitler, yet we refused to actively join the Allies until very late in the game, and turned away tens of thousands of Jews seeking refuge back to death and torture in the hands of the Axis. We literally sent their ships full of refugees back to Europe upon their arrival in our waters. We are seeing history repeat itself right before our eyes, and, half of America would have us continue down the same path, angrily and hatefully dismissing and rejecting Muslims out of fear, as we did the Jews not so long ago.
A lot of conservatives would argue that Muslims today pose a serious threat, while Jews were not seen as a threat by the Europeans, and therefore Trump is justified in his fear mongering. This is simply not true. Yes, jihadists are a serious threat and should not be taken lightly, but the widespread hatred, fear, and persecution of the general Muslim community is reprehensible. If you are familiar with history of the Holocaust, you’ll remember that Jews were perceived as an enormous threat to Europe at the time, with stereotypes of Jews with “dangerous ideaologies” and “plagues to honest merchants” among other things. Europe feared a Jewish takeover and hysteria ensued with disastrous results (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/02/europes-current-anti-migrant-rhetoric-carries-echoes-of-1930s-anti-semitism/). The similarities we see from Trump and his followers today are incredibly unsettling.
Haven’t we been admonished by the Savior to “clothe the naked and feed the hungry”? Or when we see others as strangers, we “take them in?” (Matthew 25:34-46). On top of this, we as Mormons have been DIRECTLY admonished by the auxiliary leaders of the church in General Conference to serve refugees through the “I Was a Stranger” initiatives and Church Humanitarian Services.
I find it hard to grapple with Mormons who support Trump’s radical notions of isolationism when doing so has led to so many horrors in the past. They worry so much about our borders that they forget the will of Christ. Hillary’s policies allow refugees into our country for us to serve and succor. Let’s not forget, that of roughly 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, the percent of Muslims who are jihadists are a "tiny fraction of one percent” (http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trumps-false-muslim-claim/). Let us also not forget, Hillary is intent on vetting refugees before they enter our country, she has said so herself (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-u-s-should-take-65000-syrian-refugees/).
So, ultimately, for me on the argument of the Constitution and globalization vs isolation, POINT HILLARY, HILLARY 1, TRUMP 0.
THE CONSTITUTION, ISSUE #2
Far right Mormon conservatives and Trump supporters have also mentioned fears of the prophecies of the constitution "hanging by a thread” (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/06/i-have-a-question?lang=eng), although it has never been written canonically, but was mentioned in conversations and discussions with early Church leaders. But when Anti-Hillary/Pro-Trump supporters consider this notion, they seem to only think about their fear of globalization and Supreme Court justices. I have to wonder, do they REALLY think that's what God and the prophets were worried about? Is that what the people in the Book of Mormon are worried about? I would have to disagree. The prophets, the people of the scriptures (particularly the Book of Mormon, as illustrated in the Title of Liberty https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/title-of-liberty?lang=eng), our founding fathers, and ultimately our Constitution, are built and united upon one important thread. Religious freedom. Thisis the "Constitutional Thread" they were likely talking about in the Latter-Days. Not globalization or Supreme Court justices. And is Hillary the antagonist of religious freedom in this election? Again, I would have to say no. That blatantly remains with Trump. I feel that Mormons in his favor are only blind to it because for once we are not the ones being persecuted, and have been very privy to he constantly rising anti-Muslim panic. Trump’s radical religious oppression is starting with Muslims, but what a slippery slope! He is advocating plastering a figurative "star of David" patch on all Muslims with his plans to have all Muslims “register in a database” (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/20/donald-trump-says-hed-absolutely-require-muslims-to-register/?_r=0). Let us not forget the horrors this logic has brought the modern world. Once that legislation of discrimination is in place, it's in place. And you know who is behind it most ardently? The GOP. Maybe, as much as we begrudgingly will admit it, Hillary's Supreme Court judges may be more supportive of religious liberty than those chosen by the GOP? We as conservatives may think they are crazy in most regards, but one thing they shout from the rooftops is tolerance, even though their definition of it is sometimes misguided. Better to have it there than not at all. Maybe we should rally behind that. Maybe they will truly make good on their promises to uphold religious freedom and tolerance without forcing everyone to homogenize. I know we've had issues with liberals in the past on religious with Prop 8 and things of that nature, but Trump’s policies on religious prejudice and discrimination are far more radical and frightening, and more contradictory to the very foundation of the Constitution. Say what you will about Hillary but she is a strong fighter for religious freedom and tolerance.
Her campaign has recently come under fire from leaked emails which said a lot of shady things about Catholics and Evangelicals that are pretty deplorable. Her machine is definitely hellbent on calling certain religions “backwards.” Yet from those emails, you find nothing derogatory about Christians coming from her mouth, as we hear endless hatred pouring from Trump’s. Her latest quote that people are running with, now that the emails have been leaked and religion is a hot topic for her, is from the 2015 Women in the World summit: "deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed”. This quote initially troubled me until I researched and found it is enormously taken out of context. It sounds like she is saying religious beliefs need to be changed, but she is speaking about cultural codes and structural biases. The entire quote can be found here:
She is essentially saying how women need a voice in every sphere, from religion to education, to healthcare. I believe this is in line with my religious beliefs. As a Mormon, we know that women are absolutely vital to the organization and administration of the Church. I don’t believe she means that religions should change their doctrine to fall in line with her “New World Order”, especially when that line is read in context. I feel like she, like myself, believes that world religions should always take into account the feelings of women, and to those who take religion to extremes by excluding or violently oppressing women should consider the actual teachings of their religion and whether they are giving them their proper due.
I know a lot of people will still stand by the leaked emails from her campaign and I can’t fault them for that. They were pretty nasty. They believe because of this she is vehemently agains religious freedom. But I’m going to take her at her own word, what comes out of her mouth, directly to the American people. Not what her machine says to each other in snarky emails.
Trump, if permitted, would COMPLETELY erase religious freedom at its heart, and currently ceaselessly spouts that rationale directly from his mouth for the world to hear; with his blatant "othering" of the Muslim community, he has millions of the American people and leaders of the GOP behind him. It's truly, truly frightening. Can you imagine how Mormons would feel if Trump was treating us the way he is treating Muslims? Wanting us to "register" in a database and keep tabs on us? Not letting us into the country? Send us back to unsafe places to be slaughtered instead of welcomed and given refuge? It's not right. If Mormons would just stop and think about that I wonder if they would still stick with him. I’m not trying to be dramatic here or a panicked follower of Godwin’s Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law), but it very objectively looks exactly like Hitler did with the Jews. And you know what? Hitler got ELECTED, just as the American people are so close to electing Trump. Granted, if Trump does get elected there would definitely be some pushback from the House and Senate for all of his attacks on religious freedom, but the scary part is, I'm almost positive there wouldn't be any pushback from the GOP. This truly terrifies me.
Are we witnessing a radical shift as to which parties most support and uphold religious freedom and embody our ideals? Do we need to rearrange our bias? Do we need to fundamentally dissolve our American bipartisan party system as we know it and start over completely? This election has raised all of these questions for me.
So, in the name of religious freedom and as a Latter-day Saint, ANOTHER POINT HILLARY. HILLARY 2 TRUMP 0
THE ECONOMY
Fiscally and economically, I will never be a liberal or progressive, but as times get increasingly scarier I'm beginning to wonder as I look at the bigger picture, is this the most important issue at hand during this particular election season? Is it the most important issue during the last days? I'm not so sure. The economy ebbs and flows. It always has. Legislation against religious freedom cannot be as easily undone once the match is lit. We need to focus on what really, REALLY matters right now at thismoment with the candidates we are offered.
Aside from xenophobic isolationism and othering, Trump’s campaign thrives on economic promises (however empty). Is this the adversary's way to distract us from what's truly important this election: religious liberties? I'd rather take fighting the small battles such as Prop 8 and the like, rather than an enormous issue we face as Trump tramples completely over religious liberties, and treats each Muslim as a criminal and enemy, playing directly into the hands of the desires ISIS has to divide us? Who will be next? Has Trump, in his divisive hatred rhetoric, brought what's truly important to light?
And as a side note, Hillary’s economic and tax policies are mainly moderate and will relatively maintain the status quo (
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/). If you are looking for a candidate that will drastically change what we have now, for better or for worse, you’d have to look elsewhere. Surprisingly, for all his talk on taxes and superiority to Hillary, their policies are relatively similar (
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/tax-plan). Substance-wise, his campaign is fairly lacking. Hillary, while through more liberal methods than I’d ideally like, has a very solid plan for job creation and improving American infrastructure (
http://fortune.com/hillary-clinton-business/). I can get behind that.
POINT HILLARY. HILLARY 3, TRUMP 0.
ABORTION
Because Hillary is a Democrat, pro-lifers and many far-right Trump supporting conservatives are vehemently opposed to another Democratic presidency and flock to Trump as part of the unanimous “pro-life” party. As a pro-lifer considering Hillary, this gave me cause for concern. So I did some more research. Hillary’s personal stance as a Christian and Methodist, has been that it should be “legal, safe, and rare” (
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150729/NEWS0605/150729073&template=mobileart). I’ve just found out recently that she has since dropped rare from her wording for this campaign, which is unfortunate, but I truly believe this is politics. Her party is strongly pro-choice and she wants the votes. Sad, but politics are politics.
People are concerned that she has voted in favor of late term abortions. However, so have all Republicans who believe there should be abortion exceptions for rape and incest, or danger to the life of the mother or baby. “…The House Republican late-term abortion bill that passed the House and failed in the Senate on a party-line vote
included exceptions allowing late-term abortion if the child was conceived through rape or incest or the woman's life was in danger. When Hillary Clinton allows for those exceptions, [Christians] are told she "supports late-term abortion," but
when Republicans make those exact same exceptions, they are awarded 100% Pro-Life voting records?” (
http://www.christianpost.com/news/hillary-clinton-is-the-best-choice-for-voters-against-abortion-170258/). This fact, that she doesn't willy nilly support late-term abortions, greatly calmed my troubled nerves.
As for her favor in funding for Planned Parenthood, this also gave me cause for concern. However, I did some research here too. Planned Parenthood only uses 3% of funding to fund abortions, which the federal government
does not fund (
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/). I also learned that abortions almost exclusively decline under democratic presidencies for several reasons outlined in this article:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/hillary-clinton-is-the-best-choice-for-voters-against-abortion-170258/ . It’s an interesting statistic. But I would actually credit it to programs like Planned Parenthood. This quote resonated with me: "It's no coincidence that abortions go up when Republicans are in charge and down when Democrats are. The two biggest indicators a woman will have an abortion are that she is
poor (75% of women who have abortions make less than $23,000 and half make less than $11,000), and had an
unintended pregnancy (half of U.S. pregnancies are unintended, and 43% end in abortion). Want to guess which political party is more effective at reducing poverty and unwanted pregnancies? I'll give you a hint. It's not the "pro-life" Party that in this last Congressional session alone fought to cut medical care for poor mothers and children, food programs for kids, and contraception coverage and access for women….So if abortion was outlawed in [...the states who’ve seriously tried to limit abortions], and no woman crossed state lines to get one, the most overturning
Roe would achieve is a 10% reduction in abortions. Compare that to nearly 40 years of data showing that we would save more than
three times as many unborn children by cutting the number of poor women in half. Increase contraception access, family leave, and improve pre- and post- natal healthcare, and we'd
cut abortions by 50% or more.”(
http://www.christianpost.com/news/hillary-clinton-is-the-best-choice-for-voters-against-abortion-170258/). This makes a very good case of her continued funding of Planned Parenthood.
If you recall this embarrassing interview with Donald Trump on abortion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGSttcyn2RI you'll know that Trump has literally NO idea about his stance on abortion. He can lump himself into the pro-life camp all he wants, but he hasn’t got a clue, with absolutely
no convictions.
So again, POINT HILLARY. HILLARY 4, TRUMP 0.
CHARACTER CLAIMS
My last point, probably the one in the forefront of everyone’s mind at the moment, is that of the many, especially most recent revelations that Trump is, in fact, a sex offender. He is a despicable human being with no regard for the sanctity of womanhood or the respect of others, women in particular. Especially this week, women have come forward with accounts of him forcing himself violently upon them, groping them (even underneath their underwear) kissing them, and pushing them up against walls (
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/women-step-forward-sexual-misconduct-allegations-trump/story?id=42815475). Yet Trump supporters continue to stand behind him, reiterating that he isn’t “running for pope” (
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/08/nigel-farage-donald-trump-not-running-pope-president-ukip-brexit-hillary-lewd-comments”, or that Bill Clinton has said and done way worse, and while he was in office.
Here’s the difference between Bill and Trump (which, by the way, this should be irrelevant because guess who isn’t running for president? Bill Clinton.) Bill Clinton is a womanizer and a philanderer (not unlike several of our founding fathers, i.e. Jefferson and Ben Franklin). Yes, he is very adulterous but he's
not a serial sex offender. Trump is a sex
offender and a sexual
bully and criminal. The women who came forward about Bill admitted to "affairs" while women coming forward about Trump are victims of his assault and abuse.
Bill Clinton may have been a womanizer, but he did not initiate his sexual exploits through bullying, force, or violence. In addition, Bill did it mostly behind closed doors, admitted it sheepishly, and slinked back with his tail between his legs each time (albeit probably with a smile on his face. ew). Trump however does it blatantly in the open, acknowledges it, does not apologize (apologizing if "people were offended" is a NON-APOLOGY), brags about how he could have assaulted better “choices” (
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/10/14/donald-trump-on-accuser-she-not-my-first-choice-sot.cnn), and, perhaps most dangerously, acts as if sexual bullying, assault, and abuse is normal, regular, ubiquitous, and simple locker room talk. This is not true, but may become so if we make such a deplorable, disgusting man leader of the free world.
I get so tired of Trump supporters backing this man up when they hear these accusations come pouring in by dismissing it and saying “BUT HILLARY’S EMAILS!”, and the other favorite "Her rape defense case and laughing about it!" (which is completely overturned, contextualized, and debunked here: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/). Yes, Hillary made a HUGE mistake with her email crisis. She has made MANY mistakes and questionable decisions in the past. She has lied frequently. She hasn't been a good role model. She has been shamelessly self-serving. But I firmly, FIRMLY believe that these flaws in her character are NOTHING compared to the danger of having such a disgusting, unapologetic abusive man as leader of the free world.
So, again, POINT HILLARY. HILLARY 5, TRUMP 0.
I know this election has a lot of people very worried. As foretold in the scriptures, these times are terrible. But also as equally foretold, these times are among the most marvelous the world has seen. We have been promised that “iniquity shall abound” (D&C 45:27). However, we have been equally promised that they will only continue to become increasingly marvelous. President Hinckley has said: "The era in which we live is the fulness of times spoken of in the scriptures, when God has brought together all of the elements of previous dispensations...there has been a tremendous cascade of enlightenment poured out upon the world....There has been more of scientific discovery during these years than during all of the previous history of mankind. Transportation, communication, medicine, public hygiene, the unlocking of the atom, the miracle of the computer, with all of its ramifications, have blossomed forth, particularly in our own era. We take it for granted."
(https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2001/10/living-in-the-fulness-of-times?lang=eng&_r=1). We need to remember that there is just as much good in the world as there is bad. Maybe more. The Lord always makes good in his promises. President Hinckley has also said "I have little doubt that many of us are troubled with fears concerning ourselves. We are in a period of stress across the world…. Do not despair. Do not give up. Look for the sunlight through the clouds...Do not let the prophets of gloom endanger your possibilities" (Ensign, Apr. 1986, 4–5).
This election, through how strongly it may seem, is not the end of the world. Let's not let it divide us as it has been. Let's rally as a people and continue to do good in this country and the world in a way that no other country can. Let's be a force for good in a world in need. We can't do that if we do not stand together. We can’t do that if we isolate ourselves so fervently from the rest of the world that we lose our presence. I’ve made my choice. This isn't meant to be a persuasive essay in favor of Clinton. I know many of us are at a complete loss. I was. NEVER in my life did I EVER think I would EVER vote for a Democrat. Do your research. I encourage you to seriously, humbly, thoughtfully, and prayerfully consider your decision. This is the path I have prayerfully been led down. I pray that we all can make sense if this muddled election and stand firm in our convictions.
_________________________EDIT 10/17/16______________________
THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ISSUE
I have heard a lot of pushback from Trump supporters who have decided he is the best choice because he will appoint conservative supreme court justices. As for myself, in all honesty I want NOTHING MORE than a conservative supreme court. It would seriously be a dream come true. But again I have to ask at what cost?
Trump supporters have repeatedly claimed that a 1-2 term Trump presidency would be worth it if we could solidify a strong conservative presence in the Supreme Court. They've asked “What could possibly happen in 4-8 years that is so awful, that it wouldn’t justify this?”
I absolutely CANNOT get behind that argument. To me, it’s absurd.
Really? What could happen in 4-8 years?
Let’s take a look at good old American history.
For instance, take the Internment of Japanese Americans in the 1940s.
- President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler were sworn into office in the same exact month, January 1933. Hitler's ideologies were no secret to the rest of the world at this time. His rise to power had been in the works for several years leading up to his election as Chancellor. FDR, a frim isolationist, turned a complete blind eye. Germany attacked Poland in 1939. 6 years. That’s less than 2 presidential terms.
- WWII began in 1939. FDR was a resolute Isolationist and initially refused to get completely involved, even though he knew of the terror ensuing in the rest of the world. He ignored pleas for refuge and assisting refugees, and pleas for aid in an offense against the most dangerous regime in recent history. He waited until an attack on American soil to do anything about the carnage ensuing throughout the globe. This was in 1941. 2 years. 2 years of astute isolationism, and there is an attack on American soil. 2 years. That’s half of a presidential term. Let’s continue.
- During our involvement in the war, American racial and culturally xenophobic hysteria against Japanese Americans (immigrants, or children of immigrants born in the US who had never even been to Japan) soared to amazing heights. (sound familiar?) We entered the war in 1941. By 1942, "Roosevelt authorized the deportation and incarceration with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942, which allowed regional military commanders to designate "military areas" from which "any or all persons may be excluded."[9] This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire West Coast, including all of California and much of Oregon, Washington and Arizona, except for those in government camps.[10] Approximately 5,000 Japanese Americans voluntarily relocated outside the exclusion zone before March 1942,[11] and some 5,500 community leaders arrested after the Pearl Harbor attack were already in custody.[12] But, the majority of nearly 130,000 mainland Japanese Americans were forcibly relocated from their West Coast homes during the spring of 1942.”(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans)
One year.
One. Year.
From the moment we entered the war, it only took one year for racial hysteria to become so prevalent that FDR forced over 100,00 AMERICANS into internment camps, a heavy majority of which (approx. 80,000) were SECOND AND THIRD GENERATION. “Given the shock and fear that followed the attack on Pearl Harbor, many consider the internment to have resulted more from racism than from any security risk posed by Japanese Americans.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans)
The similarities between the alarmism and xenophobia against Japanese Americans then and that against Islamic people now are startling and terrifying, except now we have a caveat: the discrimination we see now is religious.
One year. That’s all Trump would need to do irreparable damage. To the American people, and to the Constitution.
So, what could happen in one (or two) measly terms with Trump as our president? A lot of things. This is just one very relevant example.
Are you willing to risk that for a few supreme court justices?
Not me.
I'll take the risk of Hillary's choices for the Supreme Court in the name of avoiding what could truly be a catastrophic presidency with Trump.
POINT HILLARY. HILLARY 6 TRUMP 0.
