Good points here. A 60% majority was not healthy, and couldn't agree among themselves. The center has swing voters. Moderate elected members are swing voters, too.

No Party Affiliations

Good points here. A 60% majority was not healthy, and couldn't agree among themselves. The center has swing voters. Moderate elected members are swing voters, too.

Kudos to Obama. He will not try to rush the healthcare vote through before Brown is sworn in as Brown is elected, and the chap sitting in Kennedy's seat is not. Technically he could. But he won't. True super-majority democracy.

Good points here. A 60% majority was not healthy, and couldn't agree among themselves. The center has swing voters. Moderate elected members are swing voters, too.

Kudos to Obama. He will not try to rush the healthcare vote through before Brown is sworn in as Brown is elected, and the chap sitting in Kennedy's seat is not. Technically he could. But he won't. True super-majority democracy.

It's not really up to Obama at this stage. President Obama is part of the Executive branch of government. The bill is now before the House of Representatives in Congress, the Legislative branch. Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. If she wants to try to push a vote through, it's up to her, not the President.

For Washington to work, it must be split. If it is split there is gridlock. Nothing gets passed except what is absolutely necessary, making gridlock the only condition for the good of the American people.

We cannot have one party in control of both Houses of Congress and the White House at the same time. We are witnessing now what happens as a result.It is my firm belief that control of Congress will change (or get drastically altered) during the 2010 election. The independents do not like what they have seen in Washington during the past year and they will change it.

Independents are the real third party.

Gridlock is good.

So what is happening Chuckd? It's seems to me that both the best and worst Obama administrations predictions have failed to materialise. There was never going to be a quick fix for some of the problems the US faced and anyone who thought there was going to be is a pure fool. (Let's not confuse election promises by either side with reality here).

I remember when the election results came in and I was browsing the FreeRepublic forum and the simpler souls were crying "this is the end of the US as we know it" but wiser heads quite rightly said it would mean, at worst, nothing more than annoying couple of terms then business as normal.

Do you think Obama will be relelected? To me, the liberals he has disappointed have nowhere else to take their votes and some of his opponents may stick their heads out of the sand for long enough to see the sky hasn't fallen.

Personally I don't care, it's meant little to me either way.

Edit: Curse my Fathers spellcheck free system.

The real third party took another giant step forward yesterday in the US state of Massachusetts. They voted overwhelmingly for a Republican candidate for the US senate, thereby removing the super majority from the hands of the Democratic Party. The Democrats still have a majority but not the 60% required to override a Republican filibuster, which can often completely derail legislation.

This is the third state-wide election that has been held since Obama was inaugurated one year ago. Since then the independents have chosen to side with two Republican candidates for Governorships in New Jersey and Virginia. Both were elected.

With the Senatorial election of yesterday, Democrats will be required to change their modus operandi if they wish to enact any legislation. The Democrats will now have to actually unlock the doors and let some fresh air and light into the proceedings that have been going on. No more smoke filled rooms on Capitol Hill.

More and more people are discovering the change they are getting isn't the change they voted for. I think Obama's agenda is in real trouble.

It is going to be an interesting time between now and November election day. Stay tuned for the fun.

Hmm.... historically governments don't fare well in by elections. Voters use these to punish the ruling party on what they see as problems in individual areas. This doesn't always mean they turn against the government when it really matters.

Many who consider Obama to have let them down on social or economic issues still wouldn't like a return to the Bush years.

Your main complaints against Obama still seem pretty nebulous. OK, his allies in Congress/The Senate seem to be locked into committee mode but remember they are liberals after all.

I detest the though of filibusters derailing legislation being passed by an elected government. that's about silliness, not democracy.

For Washington to work, it must be split. If it is split there is gridlock. Nothing gets passed except what is absolutely necessary, making gridlock the only condition for the good of the American people.

We cannot have one party in control of both Houses of Congress and the White House at the same time. We are witnessing now what happens as a result.It is my firm belief that control of Congress will change (or get drastically altered) during the 2010 election. The independents do not like what they have seen in Washington during the past year and they will change it.

Independents are the real third party.

Gridlock is good.

So what is happening Chuckd? It's seems to me that both the best and worst Obama administrations predictions have failed to materialise. There was never going to be a quick fix for some of the problems the US faced and anyone who thought there was going to be is a pure fool. (Let's not confuse election promises by either side with reality here).

I remember when the election results came in and I was browsing the FreeRepublic forum and the simpler souls were crying "this is the end of the US as we know it" but wiser heads quite rightly said it would mean, at worst, nothing more than annoying couple of terms then business as normal.

Do you think Obama will be relelected? To me, the liberals he has disappointed have nowhere else to take their votes and some of his opponents may stick their heads out of the sand for long enough to see the sky hasn't fallen.

Personally I don't care, it's meant little to me either way.

Edit: Curse my Fathers spellcheck free system.

The real third party took another giant step forward yesterday in the US state of Massachusetts. They voted overwhelmingly for a Republican candidate for the US senate, thereby removing the super majority from the hands of the Democratic Party. The Democrats still have a majority but not the 60% required to override a Republican filibuster, which can often completely derail legislation.

This is the third state-wide election that has been held since Obama was inaugurated one year ago. Since then the independents have chosen to side with two Republican candidates for Governorships in New Jersey and Virginia. Both were elected.

With the Senatorial election of yesterday, Democrats will be required to change their modus operandi if they wish to enact any legislation. The Democrats will now have to actually unlock the doors and let some fresh air and light into the proceedings that have been going on. No more smoke filled rooms on Capitol Hill.

More and more people are discovering the change they are getting isn't the change they voted for. I think Obama's agenda is in real trouble.

It is going to be an interesting time between now and November election day. Stay tuned for the fun.

Hmm.... historically governments don't fare well in by elections. Voters use these to punish the ruling party on what they see as problems in individual areas. This doesn't always mean they turn against the government when it really matters.

Many who consider Obama to have let them down on social or economic issues still wouldn't like a return to the Bush years.

Your main complaints against Obama still seem pretty nebulous. OK, his allies in Congress/The Senate seem to be locked into committee mode but remember they are liberals after all.

I detest the though of filibusters derailing legislation being passed by an elected government. that's about silliness, not democracy.

Let me try to address, in my own simple way, some of the issues you have brought forward.

Yes, it is true that mid-term elections are always difficult for the party in power. They generally lose seats and influence in the halls of Congress. Having said that, the approval rating for Congress is in the 20-30% range at this time. This Congress, particularly, has shown a disdain for transparancy and openness to an alarming degree. The Democrats have rammed through an $800 billion stimulus that has not proven effective and have been attempting to ram through a health care reform package that is estimated to cost somewhere between $1 Trillion to $2.5 trillion. Nobody really seems to know how much it will cost. The first year of this administration has increased the budget from Bush's last year figure of $450 Billion to something over $1.4 Trillion, the highest in recorded history of any administration. They have done all of this in the middle of the night and, seemingly, against the wishes of their constituents. This is not the way to win friends and influence people. I firmly believe both parties will see losses in the mid-term elections. I believe the independent voter will rule the roost in the near term and will vote against any abuse of the system they have seen, regardless of party affiliation.

I am a Conservative and the Republican party has done many things I disagree with. It seem to me the Democrats misread the 2008 election for Obama. They interpreted the results as an endorsement of all things Democrat, rather than a vote for a change in the White House. Obama in 2008 was a perfect storm. He came along with his inspiring speeches, delivered in a booming oratorical style and promised "change" in all forms of the federal government. After one year in office many people now see Obama was not really what he appeared to be. They were hoping and voting for a Washington outsider to come in and be the new sheriff in town. Instead they are finding out they got the same old Beltway Bandit they didn't want or need.

As far as my dislike for Obama is concerned, let me count the ways. Primarily, and to refrain from making this too lengthy post any longer, I will make it short and sweet. He is too short on experience by a long run to be President. His experience in community organization and the academic world leave him well short on experience and overly long on theory. He has been for too many years on the bureaucratic dole. He served a few years in the Illinois Senate and voted "present" too many times. His two plus years as a US Senator hardly qualify him for anything other than as a lobbyist, if he chose to go that way in his career. He learned his politics in the sewers of Illinois and Chicago politics and apparantly learned them very well. He has carried these strong armed methods into the White House with him and has caused many to turn against him as a result. He is doing himself no favors with the people he has surrounded himself with. Mostly Chicago cronies running a Chicago operation.

In short, he is a liberal socialist while I am a conservative. "Never the twain shall meet", to quote Kipling.

While you may detest filibusters, you might remember this is often the only voice a minority party has. Without the possibility of a filibuster, do you really think the US Senate would have any trouble passing anything they want, even with a 59-41 majority (counting the two independents that align themselves with the Democrats)? They cannot seem to pass much of anything even with the largest majority in the senate since the 95th Congress in 1977-79. It really isn't the Republicans that are causing problems for the Obama agenda. It is the blue dog dog Democrats.

I apologize for the lengthy missive. Hopefully some of it is even correct. Regardless, it is my opinion which you seemed to solicit.

PS: Link for US Senate Party Division.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/o...rs/partydiv.htm

Having said that, the approval rating for Congress is in the 20-30% range at this time.

The average of 5 major polls of Congressional Job Approval shows a 26% approval versus 66.2% disapproval. How do these SOBs continue to get elected? While the overall approval of Congress is low, people have a higher approval of their own congressmen/women. The old, "yeah, Congress sucks but my Congressman is one of the good ones". No doubt that attitude will change for many come November.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ot...proval-903.html

I am a Conservative and the Republican party has done many things I disagree with. It seem to me the Democrats misread the 2008 election for Obama. They interpreted the results as an endorsement of all things Democrat, rather than a vote for a change in the White House.

The same thing happened with the Republicans when they actually gained seats in the 2004 election. The hardcore Democrats will always vote for a Democrat. The hardcore Republicans will always vote for a Republican. It is the middle - the Independents & party moderates - who actually choose our leaders (well, vote for the ones chosen by others in the first place). So I don't believe election results can ever be interpreted as a victory for all "Democrat" policies or all "Republican" policies. It's more complex than that and at the same time, simple. The people want good leadership. Screw it up and a candidate's party affiliation means little (and they can't help but to screw it up). But politicians are snakes who care more about their own jobs/careers than the country so they rarely lead and just govern by the polls (in other words, play it safe).

As far as my dislike for Obama is concerned, let me count the ways. Primarily, and to refrain from making this too lengthy post any longer, I will make it short and sweet. He is too short on experience by a long run to be President. His experience in community organization and the academic world leave him well short on experience and overly long on theory. He has been for too many years on the bureaucratic dole. He served a few years in the Illinois Senate and voted "present" too many times. His two plus years as a US Senator hardly qualify him for anything other than as a lobbyist, if he chose to go that way in his career.

Amen.

While you may detest filibusters, you might remember this is often the only voice a minority party has. Without the possibility of a filibuster, do you really think the US Senate would have any trouble passing anything they want, even with a 59-41 majority (counting the two independents that align themselves with the Democrats)? They cannot seem to pass much of anything even with the largest majority in the senate since the 95th Congress in 1977-79. It really isn't the Republicans that are causing problems for the Obama agenda. It is the blue dog dog Democrats.

Do any of the non-Americans know who 91-yr old Democrat Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia is? The so-called "conscience of the Senate"? Joined the Senate in January 1959 and is the longest serving member in Congressional history? Well...back in 1964 he personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 hours. Did I mention that he was active in the KKK as an "Exalted Cyclops"? Back in those days I guarantee he witnessed - likely even participated in - the lynching of black men. But he's a Democrat so it's OK. Anyway, it's interesting to see Democrats today disliking the filibuster when they were happy to use it for 83 days back in 1964 to keep blacks from having equal rights under the law.

In Canada I voted for over 40 years and eventually gave up. No matter what party got into power they screwed up the country for their own personal gain. I finally came to the conclusion that 90% of the politicians are self serving crooks and it didn't matter WHO I voted for. I always got screwed in the end. When my arsehol_e got too sore I finally gave up. The USA has a different system that I like a bit better, but I still don't see much difference with the end results.

I apologize for the lengthy missive. Hopefully some of it is even correct. Regardless, it is my opinion which you seemed to solicit.

Good Post Mr Chuck

I don't vote any more. No real choices.

True, Blondie. Yet most have been indoctrinated into understanding that there is a firm division regarding respective political philosophies. One and the same.....same as it ever was.

I don't vote any more. No real choices.

True, Blondie. Yet most have been indoctrinated into understanding that there is a firm division regarding respective political philosophies. One and the same.....same as it ever was.

If you don't vote, do you have a right to complain? If most people took the attitude of "why bother?", politicians themselves would not have a mandate from the people....if there is no mandate from the people, there is not even a semblence of a democracy.

I don't vote any more. No real choices.

True, Blondie. Yet most have been indoctrinated into understanding that there is a firm division regarding respective political philosophies. One and the same.....same as it ever was.

If you don't vote, do you have a right to complain? If most people took the attitude of "why bother?", politicians themselves would not have a mandate from the people....if there is no mandate from the people, there is not even a semblence of a democracy.

A very good point. I vote, therefore I complain.

I think voter turnout would be much higher if they did include a "none of the above". But that would be hard for the losing politicians to spin. Then again, the Obama admin is saying that Republican Scott Brown won in Massachusetts because voters were still angry at Bush's policies of the last 8 [sic] years. If they can do that, I guess they can pretty much spin anything.

I think voter turnout would be much higher if they did include a "none of the above". But that would be hard for the losing politicians to spin. Then again, the Obama admin is saying that Republican Scott Brown won in Massachusetts because voters were still angry at Bush's policies of the last 8 [sic] years. If they can do that, I guess they can pretty much spin anything.

That's what happens when you spin spun spin....and then spin it around.

I don't vote any more. No real choices.

True, Blondie. Yet most have been indoctrinated into understanding that there is a firm division regarding respective political philosophies. One and the same.....same as it ever was.

If you don't vote, do you have a right to complain? If most people took the attitude of "why bother?", politicians themselves would not have a mandate from the people....if there is no mandate from the people, there is not even a semblence of a democracy.

A very good point. I vote, therefore I complain.

As is your right.

A more important point, though, is the government's mandate.

I don't vote any more. No real choices.

True, Blondie. Yet most have been indoctrinated into understanding that there is a firm division regarding respective political philosophies. One and the same.....same as it ever was.

If you don't vote, do you have a right to complain? If most people took the attitude of "why bother?", politicians themselves would not have a mandate from the people....if there is no mandate from the people, there is not even a semblence of a democracy.

You're still missing the big picture, Harcourt. As it doesn't really matter - because nothing changes for the better. This deep indoctrination that such dismissive and innocent ideals that the elective process changes for the good......

I don't vote any more. No real choices.

True, Blondie. Yet most have been indoctrinated into understanding that there is a firm division regarding respective political philosophies. One and the same.....same as it ever was.

If you don't vote, do you have a right to complain? If most people took the attitude of "why bother?", politicians themselves would not have a mandate from the people....if there is no mandate from the people, there is not even a semblence of a democracy.

You're still missing the big picture, Harcourt. As it doesn't really matter - because nothing changes for the better. This deep indoctrination that such dismissive and innocent ideals that the elective process changes for the good......

I may be missing the big picture.

Have a look at how the "Democracy" thread develops and what ideas come out of it, because it seems that is what you are alluding to.

Whether or not I vote does not rob me of freedom of expression.

Whether or not I vote does not rob me of freedom of expression.

Good point.

Whether or not I vote does not rob me of freedom of expression.

True.

Your freedom of expression has arisen out of democracy. Aren't you abusing your right to freedom of expression if you do not use it to participate in the democratic process since it is the democratic process that has given you that right in the first place?

Whether or not I vote does not rob me of freedom of expression.

True.

Your freedom of expression has arisen out of democracy. Aren't you abusing your right to freedom of expression if you do not use it to participate in the democratic process since it is the democratic process that has given you that right in the first place?

I switched my party affiliation as Texas swung the opposite way. For presidential elections, my votes were almost always overruled. Why bother?

True, Blondie. Yet most have been indoctrinated into understanding that there is a firm division regarding respective political philosophies. One and the same.....same as it ever was.

If you don't vote, do you have a right to complain? If most people took the attitude of "why bother?", politicians themselves would not have a mandate from the people....if there is no mandate from the people, there is not even a semblence of a democracy.

A very good point. I vote, therefore I complain.

As is your right.

A more important point, though, is the government's mandate.

What mandate would that be?

If you don't vote, do you have a right to complain? If most people took the attitude of "why bother?", politicians themselves would not have a mandate from the people....if there is no mandate from the people, there is not even a semblence of a democracy.

A very good point. I vote, therefore I complain.

As is your right.

A more important point, though, is the government's mandate.

What mandate would that be?

In the democratic sense, the mandate of the people. It's the lynchpin of democracy.

OK. That closes the somewhat vague statement you made earlier. Thank you.

But, (isn't there always a "but"?), the US government's mandate does not come from the people, it comes from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Our Constitution has mandated what the responsibilities of the government are. Nothing more and nothing less. If Congress and the President enact legislation that is not in agreement with our Constitution, the Judicial Branch can, and will, rule the legislation unconstitutional and throw it out. This happened yesterday with the McCain-Feingold Bill on the matter of corporate political donations.

A mandate emanating from the people doesn't have to be acted upon. A Congress or President might refuse to take action on a mandate or, conversely, take action when they really had no mandate to begin with. They only thought they had one.

Our current administration is a prime example of government action without a real mandate.

I know little about the government of NZ so perhaps the people can mandate a government to act regardless what the law or constitution might say. Perhaps that is the case there.

OK. That closes the somewhat vague statement you made earlier. Thank you.

But, (isn't there always a "but"?), the US government's mandate does not come from the people, it comes from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Our Constitution has mandated what the responsibilities of the government are. Nothing more and nothing less. If Congress and the President enact legislation that is not in agreement with our Constitution, the Judicial Branch can, and will, rule the legislation unconstitutional and throw it out. This happened yesterday with the McCain-Feingold Bill on the matter of corporate political donations.

A mandate emanating from the people doesn't have to be acted upon. A Congress or President might refuse to take action on a mandate or, conversely, take action when they really had no mandate to begin with. They only thought they had one.

Our current administration is a prime example of government action without a real mandate.

I know little about the government of NZ so perhaps the people can mandate a government to act regardless what the law or constitution might say. Perhaps that is the case there.

It wasn't somewhat vague if you took it in the broad context of democracy, instead of the Americocentric view that you (understandably) have a habit of taking.

Even looking at it from an American point of view, the mandate your government has from the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights, does not mean that there can be no other mandates.

I have no idea what the US Constitution or Bill of Rights says (aside from the usual stuff we hear in action and cop movies, and legal drama series), I would venture to say that one or both of those documents proscribes a mandate of the people by dint of voting for representatives.

Representatives. They represent the mandate of the people.

It wasn't somewhat vague if you took it in the broad context of democracy, instead of the Americocentric view that you (understandably) have a habit of taking.

Even looking at it from an American point of view, the mandate your government has from the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights, does not mean that there can be no other mandates.

I have no idea what the US Constitution or Bill of Rights says (aside from the usual stuff we hear in action and cop movies, and legal drama series), I would venture to say that one or both of those documents proscribes a mandate of the people by dint of voting for representatives.

Representatives. They represent the mandate of the people.

fyi - This is a thread about American political parties.

OK. That closes the somewhat vague statement you made earlier. Thank you.

But, (isn't there always a "but"?), the US government's mandate does not come from the people, it comes from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Our Constitution has mandated what the responsibilities of the government are. Nothing more and nothing less. If Congress and the President enact legislation that is not in agreement with our Constitution, the Judicial Branch can, and will, rule the legislation unconstitutional and throw it out. This happened yesterday with the McCain-Feingold Bill on the matter of corporate political donations.

A mandate emanating from the people doesn't have to be acted upon. A Congress or President might refuse to take action on a mandate or, conversely, take action when they really had no mandate to begin with. They only thought they had one.

Our current administration is a prime example of government action without a real mandate.

I know little about the government of NZ so perhaps the people can mandate a government to act regardless what the law or constitution might say. Perhaps that is the case there.

It wasn't somewhat vague if you took it in the broad context of democracy, instead of the Americocentric view that you (understandably) have a habit of taking.

Even looking at it from an American point of view, the mandate your government has from the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights, does not mean that there can be no other mandates.

I have no idea what the US Constitution or Bill of Rights says (aside from the usual stuff we hear in action and cop movies, and legal drama series), I would venture to say that one or both of those documents proscribes a mandate of the people by dint of voting for representatives.

Representatives. They represent the mandate of the people.

Since Mr. Koheesti has kindly pointed out the thread title and subject, I really feel no inclination to defend my 'Americocentric" point of view. Is there such a word as "Americocentric"?

Since you claim to have gained your US Constitutional knowledge from movies and TV dramas, it would seem fruitless to continue to discuss Constitutional issues with you. I am certain you will understand.

OK. That closes the somewhat vague statement you made earlier. Thank you.

But, (isn't there always a "but"?), the US government's mandate does not come from the people, it comes from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Our Constitution has mandated what the responsibilities of the government are. Nothing more and nothing less. If Congress and the President enact legislation that is not in agreement with our Constitution, the Judicial Branch can, and will, rule the legislation unconstitutional and throw it out. This happened yesterday with the McCain-Feingold Bill on the matter of corporate political donations.

A mandate emanating from the people doesn't have to be acted upon. A Congress or President might refuse to take action on a mandate or, conversely, take action when they really had no mandate to begin with. They only thought they had one.

Our current administration is a prime example of government action without a real mandate.

I know little about the government of NZ so perhaps the people can mandate a government to act regardless what the law or constitution might say. Perhaps that is the case there.

It wasn't somewhat vague if you took it in the broad context of democracy, instead of the Americocentric view that you (understandably) have a habit of taking.

Even looking at it from an American point of view, the mandate your government has from the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights, does not mean that there can be no other mandates.

I have no idea what the US Constitution or Bill of Rights says (aside from the usual stuff we hear in action and cop movies, and legal drama series), I would venture to say that one or both of those documents proscribes a mandate of the people by dint of voting for representatives.

Representatives. They represent the mandate of the people.

Since Mr. Koheesti has kindly pointed out the thread title and subject, I really feel no inclination to defend my 'Americocentric" point of view. Is there such a word as "Americocentric"?

Since you claim to have gained your US Constitutional knowledge from movies and TV dramas, it would seem fruitless to continue to discuss Constitutional issues with you. I am certain you will understand.

I understand that the last two posts in this thread are prevarications.

It wasn't somewhat vague if you took it in the broad context of democracy, instead of the Americocentric view that you (understandably) have a habit of taking.

Even looking at it from an American point of view, the mandate your government has from the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights, does not mean that there can be no other mandates.

I have no idea what the US Constitution or Bill of Rights says (aside from the usual stuff we hear in action and cop movies, and legal drama series), I would venture to say that one or both of those documents proscribes a mandate of the people by dint of voting for representatives.

Representatives. They represent the mandate of the people.

Since Mr. Koheesti has kindly pointed out the thread title and subject, I really feel no inclination to defend my 'Americocentric" point of view. Is there such a word as "Americocentric"?

Since you claim to have gained your US Constitutional knowledge from movies and TV dramas, it would seem fruitless to continue to discuss Constitutional issues with you. I am certain you will understand.

I understand that the last two posts in this thread are prevarications.

Yet another vague post. What are you talking about? The last two posts on this thread are yours and mine. Which one is a prevarication?

It wasn't somewhat vague if you took it in the broad context of democracy, instead of the Americocentric view that you (understandably) have a habit of taking.

Even looking at it from an American point of view, the mandate your government has from the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights, does not mean that there can be no other mandates.

I have no idea what the US Constitution or Bill of Rights says (aside from the usual stuff we hear in action and cop movies, and legal drama series), I would venture to say that one or both of those documents proscribes a mandate of the people by dint of voting for representatives.

Representatives. They represent the mandate of the people.

Since Mr. Koheesti has kindly pointed out the thread title and subject, I really feel no inclination to defend my 'Americocentric" point of view. Is there such a word as "Americocentric"?

Since you claim to have gained your US Constitutional knowledge from movies and TV dramas, it would seem fruitless to continue to discuss Constitutional issues with you. I am certain you will understand.

I understand that the last two posts in this thread are prevarications.

Yet another vague post. What are you talking about? The last two posts on this thread are yours and mine. Which one is a prevarication?

You quote post 58......neither posts 57 nor 56 are mine. What is the point you want to make??