Ok, agree with the sentiment, but not sure that a commencement address is the right venue for a political speech.

I agree with that. The thing is... Trump isn't a politician. He is deeply unqualified to be president.

This is a moral issue. I'm extremely proud that it is being approached as such.

And that is what Burns is saying. This isn't "politics."

For all his faults Trump is still the best of the two.

I think you're hoping he'll just be merely useless.

See this is just demonstrably false. The moment someone says, "Don't just kill the combatant, kill their parents and children and sisters and brothers." they become total and utter scum. There is absolutely no way someone running an unsecured e-mail server is worse than this. There is no way that some mistakes made leading to the murder of a handful of American ambassadors is worse than this.

Trump is scum. He has sullied his name and will never recover.

So, firstly, I must agree with @ChaosEngine, a commencement speech is no place for political commentary. A commencement speech's purpose is to allow one who has paved a complex path through life and come out on top, or one who has overcome something great, (and) has a important lesson for those less-learned to share their knowledge, that it may be used for good.

(God that sentence is long, let me catch my virtual breath...)

Next, why, if he is to provide political commentary during a commencement speech, as so many do nowadays, does he slam Trump?

Anybody? Is it his hair? Is it his puffy little face? Is it because he looks like a pumpkin? No? Perhaps its because he is a disaster waiting to happen, because that seems to be the general sentiment from many people who are allowed to speak their minds en-masse nowadays...

But how is Trump worse than Clinton? Hmmm? Perhaps there are buried rape cases THAT WERE MADE PUBLIC BTW, in Trump's past? No?

Perhaps making billions of dollars FROM ONE MILLION is just inherently evil? Hmmm, no?

Okay, that Hairdo, it must burn a hole in the Ozone layer wherever he walks... Or flames must flower at his feet, as lotus flowers did for the Buddha? NO?

Perhaps he was wrong about the people that you blokes are letting into the country? Yes? Then how come one of them, (whom you could never tell is a radical, HE HAD A WIFE AND CHILD), just killed 50 members of the LGBT community in the horrible massacre in Orlando?(which was so bad we are getting news coverage of it in LONDON)

Hmmm, maybe electing someone who actually admits there is a problem, destroying political correctness, and being damned with the "established order" which supposedly keeps you Americans safe isnt such a bad idea...

Maybe electing a Woman with a hideous blot of a record, and a long standing member of said establishment is one such bad idea...

Trump is a birther,who said vaccines cause autism. He is a true piece of human filth. There is no comparison.

There is no limit to the willfull ignorance of the modern american republican.

@bareboards2, I take it back, you're absolutely correct.

@Syntaxed, I vehemently disagree with pretty much everything else you said.

@iaui is right, Trump is scum, which is an insult to scum, quite frankly.

He should be slammed at every possible opportunity.
"Can I take your order sir?"
"Thanks. Black coffee please. Also, Trump is a horrible human being"
"Amen to that!"

"Excuse me, ma'am you dropped your purse. Also, Trump is a racist asshole"
"Thank you, kind sir. But you forgot he's also a misogynistic windbag"
"You are quite correct... have a nice day"

and so on.

Trump isn't trying to "destroy political correctness" (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean), he's just a fucking asshole, and a dangerous one at that.

@Syntaxed

The disturbed man whose ex-wife says had something wrong with him, deeply wrong with him, was born in America.

He was an American.

The fact that you think he was an immigrant puts all your comments into perspective.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Firstly, I accidentally upvoted this comment [oopsie]

And ... fun fact ... The ASSHAT, I mean, ASSAILANT was born in New York ... same as the ASSHAT Drumpf!

He's born in America = he's qualified to be a politician. That's how it works in democracy.

In any case, what makes you qualified to disqualify anyone?

Ugh. I want to disagree so much, but in light of the email scandals, breech of trust, bribery, wall street speeches, corporatist super pac, vote suppression, and election fraud, I don't have much to go on.

And on the note of vote suppression and election fraud: there is mounting evidence that those are the two qualities that most enabled Hillary to snare her victory for the 'democratic' nomination.

Okay. You're right. He can be a politician. He is a politician. A stinking poor one, but since he is running for public office, he is by definition a "politician."

Doesn't change the fact he is unqualified to be President. He knows nothing. He promotes fear-mongering and encourages violence. He says he will do things as president that are clearly unconstitutional and outside his powers (banning Muslims, changing the libel laws so he can gain financially.) He is thin-skinned.

He has just revoked the press credentials of The Washington Post because he didn't like a front page story. The man doesn't understand the three branches of government plus the fourth estate of a free press.

I'm qualified to disqualify him because I am a thinking American who knows some history. Like Ken Burns. Like Mitt Romney.

Trump is a unifier, all right. For the first time in almost eight years, some Republicans are putting their love of country above partisanship. I've never been more proud of everyone who has the courage to tell the truth about Donald Trump.

He is patently unfit to serve our country. He has never done it before. He isn't interested in doing it now.

Bernie should have gotten more delegates.

Hillary been around the block and know hows the game goes and knows how to duck and weave ( bribe) herself to victory.

Don't forget the 47 dead bodies Bills womens.

I never said he was an immigrant, nor made any claim as to such, and I certainly did not mean to allude to such, I apologize for any misleading commentary I posted.

However, on a note which I meant to strike in my original comment, what was the religion of said disturbed man? What was his allegiance? What law did he uphold when he ruthlessly murdered those people in the name of Allah?

Hint: it wasn't any of your American Laws, and the name of the code of laws he followed starts with an S... The same law and religion and practices that immigrants from those countries are coming to your country and mine with...

No one made that claim, but yes, it does. I bet you had a good ol' time making mountains out of molehills over Obama's alleged birthplace, no?
The birthplace of the said assailant/asshat makes a difference to your primary statement/argument:
Syntaxed said: "Perhaps he was wrong about the people that you blokes are letting into the country? Yes? Then how come one of them, (whom you could never tell is a radical, HE HAD A WIFE AND CHILD), just killed 50 members of the LGBT community in the horrible massacre in Orlando?(which was so bad we are getting news coverage of it in LONDON)"
EDIT: This is a clear, unambiguous claim that he was an immigrant, since you seem to not comprehend your own post.

It proves that you are speaking from a position that starts with a total ignorance of or disregard for the facts in order to support factually deficient demagoguery. The asshat in question was not one of those we are "letting into the country"
According to Wiki, in the last 6 years, only 8 out of 21 terrorist attacks in the US were committed by Muslims, but 10 were committed by anti-government non-Muslim right wingers. I guess a ban on all right wing immigrants would make MORE sense?

Your reply proves that you know you have no argument to make, as you instantly discard it when challenged to chase red herrings.

So you do now see why I thought you were calling him an immigrant? It certainly reads that way. Glad to know you didn't mean it.

As for killing gays in the name of Allah -- turns out not so much, now that reporting and information gathering has had time to happen.

A man who lives in America, being told on all sides that being gay is an abomination and sinful -- by some Christians, Muslims, good lord how many different sources -- who hangs out in gay bars in what pit of self-loathing because of the messages he received during his life....

A perfect case of internalized homophobia. Do a google search to find out how many of the most virulently anti-gay people turn out to actually be gay.

When this first happened, my first thought was to go up those who say gay people are sinners, take them by their lapels, look them in their eyes and say, "The blood of these people is on your hands. Your attacks on the humanity of these people who were made as God made them, have led to this horrific event."

So a hint back at you -- it isn't just sharia law that led to this. It is old fashioned religious bigotry and fear of the "other" -- very few religions are free from this crap. Certainly not Christianity. Westboro Baptist Church ring a bell?

Donald Trump is unfit for the office of the Presidency of the United States of America. This is a fact.

Same here, naturally, all politicians have some skeletons hiding somewhere, but some have more than most...

The persecution of others to the exclusion of all but the primary religion is a tact shared with many major religions, and yes, Christianity has left its scorching mark upon humanity as a terrifying blot.

However, it is not, on this day, nor in these recent years, the acts of Christians, or Catholics that most burns a hole in our hearts and minds. Indeed, it is the acts of Radical Islamism, which is no more than a literal taking of their Koran brought to life by hate and malice.

And no, Islam is not a religion of peace, neither is Christainity-based religions for that matter. It is a matter of choice, and now, it is the choice of these Muslims, being great in number at this point in the Human Timeline, to continue the exploitation and caging of Women as sex slaves, to behead hundreds of thousands in the name of their God, and to spread their holy war to every corner of the globe until all is ruled by Islam.

That is fact, sir, as they(ISIS) have stated, as they show their brand of religion to state, as they act, and chose to carry forth action.

Sir, yes, all religions have committed to horrible deeds, but, it is always the purview of those of us that realize this to deny the growth of violence-via-religion, and now, in this day and age, that primary religion which we must stop from continuing violence is radicalized Islam.

@Syntaxed

Whoa. Hyberbole much?

Beheading hundreds of thousands? That is factually untrue.

So. At this point, I need to bow out of this back and forth. This isn't a serious conversation.

And that's "ma'am", by the way. This photo is of my father, who died last year. I like this photo. It makes me smile.

That's odd of you to say, since Muslims were and are not the main perpetrators of terrorism in the US, Christians are. See the above stats, 8 of 21 were Muslim, 13 (+-) Christian. If you're going to fear a group because it spawns a few terrorists, it's Christians and/or right wingers that are the bigger, more dangerous, far more active groups, at least in the US.

I do agree, though, exposure to Islam seems to have burned a hole in your mind. It's apparently a hole that makes you accept right wing lies, because as I said and facts bear out, the primary religion spawning terrorists in America is Christianity. Sorry, it's just simple math. 13>8

I'd call him a political candidate. He hasn't been elected to office yet.

As before, he is qualified to be president by virtue of his birth right.

My question was a semi rhetorical poke. You can't disqualify anyone from being eligible to be president. The one thing you can do is vote for someone else. That vote, in conjunction with millions of others, will determine who wins by popular vote.

No, that is an opinion.

He's just so awful, I actually want to see him get the job. Perhaps, just perhaps that will precipitate real Change™.

Hillary is an equally horrible person and political entity, just in more secretive and sophisticated ways.

@harlequinn

Thought experiment for you.

Thirty five year old American born citizen.

Had a car accident with major brain damage. Has trouble with memory. Has to have things explained to them over and over? Gets easily frustrated and enraged by lack of actual abilities? Physically, mentally and emotionally challenged?

Qualified to be president? With that set of circumstances?

There is a difference between "eligible" and "qualified."

This poor soul, and Donald, are "eligible."

Neither are qualified.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I guarantee you that history will show that I am correct.

There is a reason that so many intelligent thoughtful people all over the political spectrum are seeing this as a genuine threat to our Republic.

So. Yeah. Fact. Well informed people don't hesitate to say this. He is unqualified to be President of the United States of America.

EDIT: I'm solidly Democrat, and as much as I hated George W for his policy choices and manipulation of the American public over the Iraq Invasion, I always said -- he is doing what he thinks is the right thing to do. He's wrong, but he thinks he is right.

History is bearing me out on that call, too.

I'm not a knee jerk partisan who thinks that my "side" knows everything and has to get our way. We need conservatives, we need both sides of the story to struggle towards the best, albeit imperfect, solution.

Donald is unfit for the office.

If you're eligible then you're qualified.

Again, your vote determines who will be the winner.

If you like to think of it in regards to qualified or not, then the final popular vote determines "qualification".

There are thousands if not millions of Republicans who would say that Clinton is not qualified on account of x,y or z. And they're all wrong.

Donald Trump is as fit for office as any other candidate on offer.

Don't like for what he stands for? Don't vote for him.

You didn't need to qualify your position as "solidly democrat". It is very obvious.

@bareboards2 Ma'am, I apologize both for the factually untrue statement, which I made without keeping with proper English debate/conversation etiquette, and also for assuming a gender for you title without proper evaluation.

To make clear my position, as I believe many, if not all of you here (@PlayhousePals @newtboy @Januari @bareboards2) mistake my position and/or personal political siding...

Firstly, I DO NOT like Trump, his policies, his manner, his monomaniacal bent towards the topics he figures are worth his time to address, not much of anything, actually.

Secondly, yes, I am conservative, and for a young male in British society, this leaves me at rather an odd way with those of an opposing political bent, particularly those of the Liberal/Progressive variety(Liberal less so, as it is an off-take of Libertarianism). I believe that effectually bending society over backwards to meet the stresses of a brave new world is a brash and undeveloped concept. I believe the perfect society is a logical one, where all that are able are held to an advantageously high level of acumen, education, etiquette, state of public dress, etc. I do not believe in the idea of "Utopia", as basic human psychology(which I have the equivalent of the american bachelors degree in) denies the facet of a cohesive human culture/society.

Thirdly, I arrive in support of Trump not out of a liking for him or his policy, but an awareness of what the enaction of his policies would bring. This awareness is spawned by the awareness of the state of the American Political Establishment, as is governed by people with power beyond reckoning, the face of which happens to be Hillary Clinton. Trump's policies, if allowed to be implemented, would cause such as rift in the political establishment/climate, as well as the hearts and minds of the American people, as to bring about change.

So, in effect, I support Trump for the very reason many of you don't, the Chaos that would almost inevitably ensue. A chaos that would likely go unnoticed, as such shifts occur without common knowledge...

Or... You could vote for a woman who has on more occasions than is accountable, broken Federal Law, covered up her husband's brutalization of women, and God knows what else, and only manages to escape prison because she is one of the sharpest tools the totalitarian American political establishment has...

Oh, but if only there was someone qualified to disqualify him.

...if only.

...but there isn't, and now we have to hope the hoi polloi figure out the difference between his dangerously qualified, and her merely status-quo-corrupt qualified.

You seem to imagine that the "chaos" that a Trump presidency would be confined to the American political arena. It would not. You can be certain that another world wide recession/depression would follow his election, before he's even in office. Financial markets hate uncertainty, and he is the embodiment of uncertainty. That chaos would not go unnoticed by anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together, nor would it be the only chaos he would incite.
I defy you to show one case in history when a power grasping fascist demagogue seizing the reigns of power has ever led to a net positive outcome.

You also seem to not know or care that Trump has been sued 3500 times in the last decades, has likely broken as many or more federal laws than Clinton, brutalizes women personally (that's what it's called when you take a non-citizen wife because she can't say "no" to you, and it's what it's called when you steal from people because you don't pay your bills or fulfil your contracts, causing hundreds of businesses to fail, some owned by women), is a consummate con man, a bully, an idiot, is incredibly gullible and naïve, is incredibly thin skinned, is hyper reactionary, and is a narcissistic demagogue. I say you either don't know or care because you implied he is "better" than Clinton in these areas, which you could only claim because you are either 1) completely naïve on the subject 2) willfully blind to his innumerable faults or 3) intentionally misleading and misguided. Your choice.

Up until the final vote every candidate is fit (they are only a candidate, and they determine whether they are ready for the job or not). The final vote determines who the winner is (which is a test of popularity).

Your opinion is that he is not as fit. Others disagree with you. That's the thing about opinions, they are not absolute.

We can only imagine what will happen. Nobody knows.

He is already one of the most powerful men in the world.

He can't seize the reigns. He can only be voted in. I.e., the reigns will be handed to him freely given by democratic vote.

Fascist means such a lot of things nowadays that it is an easy catchall insult. You'll have to elucidate exactly what you mean. Totalitarian? Despot? Anti-democratic? Etc, etc. the list is so long. It's a useless word when it means so many different things. You might as well say "smurf".

"Demagogue". Lol. Yes, he seems pretty good at it too.

Likely is not the same as has. He either has or he hasn't broken as many or more federal laws. And if he has you'd be able to point out the investigations, convictions or some other irrefutably damning evidence. And, just like Clinton, he's innocent until proven guilty.

You forgot an option at the end of your diatribe against Trump. 4) Lacking knowledge of said allegations. Which is not the same as naive.

True, no one KNOWS, but it's a no brainer that his election would be seen as unpredictable by the markets, and dire political unpredictability=bear market.

Not so in any way. He has so little actual power it's laughable that you would think that. He's not even allowed to run the companies he actually owns large parts of because the boards won't allow him to, because they have a duty to not let him drive the companies into the ground. What "power" do you think he has?

He probably can't "seize the reigns" by force unless he's elected. He can attempt to seize them if he is elected.

Facism-(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Has Clinton been convicted? You didn't even say "likely broken Federal law", you said "on more occasions than is accountable, broken Federal Law" Because his past has not been as transparent by far and usually those dealing with him are forced to sign non disclosure agreements, it's patently ridiculous to imply that his crimes would be simple to just point to....but OK, not paying off on interstate contracts is a federal crime, one he's admitted publicly that he's committed uncountable times, any time he gets service before payment in full it seems....and he's been found guilty of that in civil court. Satisfied?

Um...lacking knowledge is being naïve.
Naïve-having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous:

He's a billionaire. Traditionally speaking society at large accepts that people with incredible wealth are powerful.

If he's elected then by definition no force is needed and he doesn't need to try and seize the reigns. He's the president. He has a lot of parliamentary power. The reigns are handed to him on a silver platter. That said, he's still got congress to deal with, and if it's a hostile congress then he could be pushing shit up a hill.

Thank you for your fascism elucidation. I disagree that system will happen if he is elected. It's almost fanciful.

I don't believe Clinton has been charged or convicted. That's why I said she's "innocent until proven guilty".

No, not satisfied. I'd need to see links to court outcomes. But I'm not that interested so don't bother on my behalf.

As per the Oxford Dictionary the common use of naive is: showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/naive

Dictionary.com doesn't cut it for me

According to him, but he's pathological. Prove it. It's possible he's in debt.

Being president does not hand the rule of government to one man....no matter what Fox News said. He has ZERO parliamentary power. We don't have a parliament.

A president can grasp power (see Bush2) for the office and, if not stymied by congress and the courts, might be successful in wrestling the reigns of power from it's rightful places in our system.

It's how he operates, what indication do you have that he would change his MO?

But you also said she's committed more Federal crimes than are countable (or that's what you meant to say), then went on to whine when I said Trump has LIKELY committed more Federal crimes than are countable...and I gave you specifics. If I can't say he committed them until he's convicted (and he has been found guilty of those crimes) then you can't say it until she's convicted based on YOUR own rules....but you can't follow that logic.

Yeah, that's what I thought....'I'm gonna say what I want to say, don't bother proving me wrong, because I'll keep saying it anyway'. You enjoy that....by yourself.

How is that different? You're still incredibly naïve by both definitions, and they aren't very different. One says lacking wisdom, the other lacking information. I say both are correct, and you resemble both.

4.5 billion dollars.

http://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#7553bc81790b

I wrote that he has a lot of parliamentary power. And he does. Parliament and congress are synonyms. I clearly wrote the president has to deal with congress.

I know of the Bush junior situation, but that's not what the conversation is about (i.e. it's not about a vote miscount).

Trump has many character flaws (as all people do), but it is unlikely those flaws will lead to a fanciful dictatorship as you have suggested they will.

I didn't write that. Syntaxed, whom you were originally replying to wrote "You could vote for a woman who has on more occasions than is accountable, broken Federal Law, covered up her husband's brutalization of women, and God knows what else, and only manages to escape prison because she is one of the sharpest tools the totalitarian American political establishment has..."

You're not following the conversation.

You're welcome to prove yourself correct in regards to court outcomes. I'm just not that interested in it. I'm trying to save you the bother. What am I enjoying by myself? You making a statement and not providing proof? Sure, super fun. You can enjoy that I defended both Clinton and Trump as innocent until proven guilty. How it should be.

I'm "still incredibly naïve"! Lol, once again, you were replying to Syntaxed and called him naive. You're not following the conversation.

I'm glad you asked how it is different. I pointed out that the word naive (especially in your usage) does not encompass a lack of knowledge (as in he did not know the facts of the case). You were using naive as a pejorative, as in he was simple, unsophisticated, guileless. I showed you a definition of the common usage of the word naive. You found a definition that included the word "information". I pointed out that this is not the common usage (and as above it was not your intention to suggest he didn't know the facts). You could probably use the word naive, which is still a synonym for simple, unsophisticated and guileless, in the context of being those things, because one lacked "information", but it would of course need to be contextually evident in the statement.

As a kindness I'm going to chalk you being confused down to tiredness. Go have a lie down.

My mistake. I conflated Syntax's comment with your defense of it, but the point still stands, just change "you" to "they" in that paragraph.
Beyond that, you simply created red herrings to attack because you don't understand my points but seem too stubborn to admit it and ask for clarification, and you are STILL incredibly naïve, by either definition, and sesquipedalianly obtuse as well.
Enjoy battling those windmills.

No, your point doesn't stand.

I didn't defend Syntax's comment. I pointed out that you had provided no evidence that Trump had committed any crimes, and that Clinton and he are both innocent until proven guilty. If I was defending anyone, it was Clinton.

These aren't red herrings. Unless pointing out an error is a red herring.

I understand your points perfectly well, they're just wrong.

"sesquipedalianly". Nice word, I had to look that up. For that you win word of the week and ironic phrase of the week all in one.

Do you mean insensitive or slow (in regards to obtuse)? Context is always nice. I admit to being insensitive. But if your attempt was to call me slow I'll have a dozen other people laugh at you on the way out.

The only person battling windmills in this context is you. Fighting against simple corrections. Why? Because you hate Trump? I don't hate or like him or Clinton. But I'll correct other people's dogmatic bullshit against him or Clinton every time I get the opportunity to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/opinion/campaign-stops/a-week-for-all-time.html?emc=edit_th_20160617&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=40977923

Golden quote:
"In this week of trial and tragedy, Trump showed us how he would govern — by fear, by intimidation, by lies, by turning American against American, by exhibiting all the empathy of a sociopath. Seal this week. Put it in a time capsule. Teach it. History will remember. But come November, will we?"

By the way, I've stayed out of this extremely boring back and forth. There was nothing to be gained by weighing in. It finally has come to a blessed end, just as this op-ed was published in the New York Times.

So I'll say it again, since this video is my contribution to the Sift and I am claiming final word. I may not be accorded it, but I am claiming it.

It is a stone hard fact that eligible does not equal fit. A brain-damaged accident victim with the right birth certificate, with the right age, is eligible to be president. That person is not fit to be president. This is logic. It just is. You can ignore the crystalline beauty of the fact of this analogy and have a fine time talking around it. Doesn't change the fact that Ken Burns is right, Timothy Egan is right, Mitt Romney, both Bushes, Meg Whitman, and the Republican strategist who is quoted in this op-ed are all right.

Trump is unfit for the Presidency.

There are two types of fitness being dealt with here (since the word has many contexts):

The first is whether they are fit to hold office. I.e. do they meet the requirements? If you're:
A natural born citizen
Have permanent residency
Are at least 35 years of age
Then you are fit for this purpose. This is objective.

The second type is whether the constituent believes they are fit to be the president. I.e. does the president, in their opinion, have the necessary features they believe are required for the candidate to become president. This is subjective.

As I've said before, the test for subjective fitness comes on election day, where if enough people agree with you then your group wins. It doesn't make you right though. I say this because if Trump wins the election you aren't necessarily wrong, it's that your opinion wasn't held by the majority.

No matter how anyone twists it, subjective opinion is not fact.

Oh, someone with celebrity said it. It must be true then. Lol.

Bareboards opinion is that "Trump is unfit for the Presidency."

I knew it. Couldn't let it lie.

He'll come back and say something else now.

In 5...4...3...2...1...

OMG, you predicted that I'd reply in a back and forth conversation.

That's the thing with conversations, you say something, I say something back, ad nauseam. It's how they work.

I'm done here when I decide I'm done. Not you.

Lol, you're butt hurt.

You attempted to shutdown the conversation but you failed.

Are you assuming I'm male?

Please, feel free to reply.

But this time, perhaps you could address my point.

Or maybe share some more opinions and try to pass them off as fact.

BLASTOFF!

Meanwhile you crashed into the dirt.

You are the one who couldn't "let it lie." I never left the conversation, but you did.

You wrote "It finally has come to a blessed end" and "I am claiming final word".

But it wasn't your final word. You've broken that twice now.

You're choosing to interact with me and I'm happy to interact back. But the only way it ends for you is when you decide to leave, and nobody dictates that but you.

I noticed you berated someone for assuming you were male. Perhaps you could answer my question about your assumption.

Or maybe you can share another witty (lol) one word post.

Again, feel free to reply.

Come on, get the last word in. I know it'll make all the difference for you. Do it.

YOU ROCK DOLL!! I am nominating you for Queen, and I will be butt hurt if you don't accept. I know it will make all the difference for you. Do it.