russkies make 1st moves

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

"MOSCOW – Russian President Dmitry Medvedev could resign from his post in 2009 to pave the way for Vladimir Putin to return to the Kremlin, Vedomosti newspaper reported on Thursday, citing an unidentified source close to the Kremlin.

 

Medvedev Wednesday proposed increasing the presidential term to six years from four years, a step the newspaper said was part of a plan drawn up by Vladislav Surkov, who serves as Medvedev's first deputy chief of staff.

 

Under the plan, Medvedev could implement changes to the constitution and unpopular social reforms "so that Putin could return to the Kremlin for a longer period," the newspaper said.

 

"Under this scenario Medvedev could resign early citing changes to the constitution and then presidential elections could take place in 2009," the newspaper said, citing the unidentified source close to the Kremlinl.

 

The paper said Putin, who is currently prime minister, could then rule for two six year terms, so from 2009 to 2021. The paper cited Putin's spokesman as saying he saw no reason for Putin to return to power in 2009.

 

Investors, already jittery over the impact of the financial crisis on Russia's economic boom, are trying to work out who is really in charge of Russia, the biggest question for those seeking to ascertain political risk.

 

They are seeking any details on how the current set up -- with Medvedev as president and Putin as prime minister -- could change. During Medvedev's speech Wednesday the Russian stock market erased most of the gains it made earlier in the day."

 

 

 

 

for those of you who don't realize the signigificane of this and of course the obvious significance of the timing, not coinicidental, to put it more simply, change is coming.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

to be followed up by this

 

"The first of the challenges thrown at the President-elect, who received his first national security intelligence briefing yesterday, came from the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

 

He threatened to base warheads along the Polish border if Obama goes ahead with a Bush administration plan to create a missile shield in Eastern Europe."

[Lance 228]

this is in response to Bush and his missile defense system BS...why would America need missile defense systems in Eastern Europe and the Middle East?

 

My point is how would we react if the Russians put the same thing in Canada?

 

This is just another failed Bush policy...and the Russian response is typical to say the least...personally I hope Obama pulls the plug on the whole thing and stops the Bush admin's attempt to re-start the cold war...which is all this was. We should be working to change the Russian and China relations for the better, which would benefit our country on the economic front, instead of trying to piss them off even more than they already are...

 

That's one thing that Obama brings to the table, I think that a lot of these other countries will be willing to try to work to fix the damage the Bush admin has done to the reputation of the USA on a global market...we were once the leaders and looked up to, now we are just despised....hopefully that will change.

[mountainman74 12]

I agree with Lance. Bush may be a fine man, but the folks he surrounded himself with were rotten, and the world viewed us as a bulling, dictatorship. The world celebrating over our election tells a lot, and shows that a dark cloud was lifted off of us. Hopefully we can re-establish a respectfull reputation in the world again.

[Hacker 82]

I agree with Lance. Bush may be a fine man, but the folks he surrounded himself with were rotten, and the world viewed us as a bulling, dictatorship. The world celebrating over our election tells a lot, and shows that a dark cloud was lifted off of us. Hopefully we can re-establish a respectfull reputation in the world again.

 

Growing up, I was seen by a lot of folks as a thug, because I was always hanging with them. While I wasn't, that was how others viewed.

 

Isn't that the way it is with how the world views the US. If we want to improve the world's opinion of us, we need to do the same things we teach our kids. Choose your friends carefully, and to practice what you preach.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

this is in response to Bush and his missile defense system BS...why would America need missile defense systems in Eastern Europe and the Middle East?

 

My point is how would we react if the Russians put the same thing in Canada?

 

This is just another failed Bush policy...and the Russian response is typical to say the least...personally I hope Obama pulls the plug on the whole thing and stops the Bush admin's attempt to re-start the cold war...which is all this was. We should be working to change the Russian and China relations for the better, which would benefit our country on the economic front, instead of trying to piss them off even more than they already are...

 

That's one thing that Obama brings to the table, I think that a lot of these other countries will be willing to try to work to fix the damage the Bush admin has done to the reputation of the USA on a global market...we were once the leaders and looked up to, now we are just despised....hopefully that will change.

 

Exactly what is it that makes some of you think that all of the world is passive, that all nations have this common goal of being friendly? The cold hard fact is there's a big power play in europe and asia over "resources", particularly energy. Resources are vital to the survival of superpowers.

Russia intends to reach superpower status again, ( wouldn't the u.s.? ) and the cold war is a chess game of moves for territory that takes place over years, but has been idle since the '80s till recently. They made a bold move against georgia as yall know and they did it because they knew the u.s. wasn't in position to project military strength there.

 

It's odd that you all talk about world status, seem to hint that you all realize the need for supporting allies and such, and fail to see communist moves on fellow nato members, countries that the u.s. directly supports, such as georgia, as anything to be concerned about. It's odd that you all fail to see the security of eastern european nato as a threat, (you care to see the economy of europe then the u.s. tank to depths you didn't think possible? ) then let the russians move on the nato members next on their list

( where the u.s. has missle defense in place for good reasons. ).

How you could possibly say this is a failed policy is beyond me, do you think handshakes are going to keep an agressive communist country intending on projecting strength at bay?

Nato's strength projection goes as the U.S. foreign policy and strength projection goes, and more talk and clinton, carter like weakness are exactly what they've been waiting for.

 

Diplomacy simply isn't going to stop either the russian intentions or iran, (who intends to wipe Israel from the face of the earth ), it doesn't have to be a shooting war that does, but the fact is force projection, i.e. missle defense, strategicly placed military assets, and the belief that a country will use them and only that makes diplomacy even possible in this situations.

 

Of course the soviets say their actions are in defense of u.s. "agression", of course they would say that, ( I guess Iran intends nuclear status for defense only to? ), but wake up and realize the threat to nato and realize the impact nato and our allies have in the world.

PErsonally I don't think much of nato because they tend to project weakness and rely on the U.S. and great britan for strength projection, but the fact is europe is vital to the U.S. econmy and the U.S. reliance on natural resources there.

 

Pick a darned side for a change you all and make it the u.s. side, the u.s. isn't attempting to restart any cold war, reagan put a damper on it but the russians simply don't intend to stay down, their survival is at stake now more than ever, these are power plays for resources and survival, it's real life not the feel good world yall are hoping for. You all should accept the worldwide situation for what it is and quit believing that the powers that be in the world just want to be 1 big happy family if only people would talk more.

It's been this way throughout history, it didn't change when obama became president either.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

I agree with Lance. Bush may be a fine man, but the folks he surrounded himself with were rotten, and the world viewed us as a bulling, dictatorship. The world celebrating over our election tells a lot, and shows that a dark cloud was lifted off of us. Hopefully we can re-establish a respectfull reputation in the world again.

 

I personally don't give a you know what what the world's feel good perception of the u.s. is though, the world talks but then looks right to the u.s. for assistance when something bad happens, or the nato needs the u.s. to do it's fighting for it, or a tsunami kills 250,000 people in the Indian ocean region and perception goes out the window. I don't think the world thought of the u.s. as a bullying dictator when 90% of the financial relief and direct support after those tsunami's was from the u.s..

In ignorance, people bite the hand that feeds them all the time. The u.s. should be concerned about doing what it has to about terrorism, nato, energy, whatever and forget the hatred from ignorant people.

 

Keep this cold hard fact in mind, you see it all the time in American society and sports even, "people hate a winner". You ever heard that in sports? You know you're on top, you know you're good, ect., you know people are jealous of what you have when they hate you?

 

Quit believing that America has wronged the world, America has been the "protector" and light of the world and lead the way in human rights by example.

Bullying, dictatorship my a!!.

Ironcically liberals use the phrase "the U.S. shouldn't be the world's policemen" often. 1 day the U.S. are dictators, the next, world protectors, 1 day we should care about the world, the next day mind our own business and not intervene in foreign problems.....

 

typical liberal weakness to, seems they want to be friendly with the world when it's something passive or considered something good, but want America to mind it's own business if there's harship or fighting to be done. And it does have to be done, more than some of you people seem to know..

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

or you could read about it from stratfor, the most respected tell it as it is global intelligence agency. from an article about what obama faces as president.

 

The Russian Question

 

At the same time, Obama will face the Russian question. The morning after Obama’s election, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev announced that Russia was deploying missiles in its European exclave of Kaliningrad in response to the U.S. deployment of ballistic missile defense systems in Poland. Obama opposed the Russians on their August intervention in Georgia, but he has never enunciated a clear Russia policy. We expect Ukraine will have shifted its political alignment toward Russia, and Moscow will be rapidly moving to create a sphere of influence before Obama can bring his attention — and U.S. power — to bear.

 

Obama will again turn to the Europeans to create a coalition to resist the Russians. But the Europeans will again be divided. The Germans can’t afford to alienate the Russians because of German energy dependence on Russia and because Germany does not want to fight another Cold War. The British and French may be more inclined to address the question, but certainly not to the point of resurrecting NATO as a major military force. The Russians will be prepared to talk, and will want to talk a great deal, all the while pursuing their own national interest of increasing their power in what they call their “near abroad.â€

 

Obama will have many options on domestic policy given his majorities in Congress. But his Achilles’ heel, as it was for Bush and for many presidents, will be foreign policy. He has made what appear to be three guarantees. First, he will withdraw from Iraq. Second, he will focus on Afghanistan. Third, he will oppose Russian expansionism. To deliver on the first promise, he must deal with the Iranians. To deliver on the second, he must deal with the Taliban. To deliver on the third, he must deal with the Europeans.

Global Finance and the European Problem

 

The Europeans will pose another critical problem, as they want a second Bretton Woods agreement. Some European states appear to desire a set of international regulations for the financial system. There are three problems with this.

 

First, unless Obama wants to change course dramatically, the U.S. and European positions differ over the degree to which governments will regulate interbank transactions. The Europeans want much more intrusion than the Americans. They are far less averse to direct government controls than the Americans have been. Obama has the power to shift American policy, but doing that will make it harder to expand his base.

 

Second, the creation of an international regulatory body that has authority over American banks would create a system where U.S. financial management was subordinated to European financial management.

 

And third, the Europeans themselves have no common understanding of things. Obama could thus quickly be drawn into complex EU policy issues that could tie his hands in the United States. These could quickly turn into painful negotiations, in which Obama’s allure to the Europeans will evaporate.

 

One of the foundations of Obama’s foreign policy — and one of the reasons the Europeans have celebrated his election — was the perception that Obama is prepared to work closely with the Europeans. He is in fact prepared to do so, but his problem will be the same one Bush had: The Europeans are in no position to give the things that Obama will need from them — namely, troops, a revived NATO to confront the Russians and a global financial system that doesn’t subordinate American financial authority to an international bureaucracy.

The Hard Road Ahead

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Buzzsaw, you lay out the conservative cause very clearly here. It's common-sensical, really, and you get it.

[mountainman74 12]

Up until the year 2002, Id agree with everything you said, Buzzsaw.

[Lance 228]

The difference is that the Bush admin was seen as a tyrant and a dictator...a Hitler type by most of the world...when you have that then you have people who not only hate you but try to overthrow you....when we went in to Iraq and bypassed the United Nations in doing so, we undermined everything the US had done to that point to legitimize it....and we used the "war on terror" as an excuse.

 

There is no "war on terror"...terrorism is a theory...you can't have a war with a theory...you can have a war with terrorists but not terror in general.

 

Anyway...we spent billions of dollars to do what? overthow a dictatorship in a country that's now dising with it's long time enemy and trying to "throw us out" at the earliest chance they get...have billions of dollars in surplus to spend yet continue to hand us the bill each month to the tune of $10 Billion+ and we pay it...we could have removed Sadam without invading Iraq...we went in there, spent 100's of Billions of dollars....lost 4,000 American lives...and for what?

 

Just look at where we are right now as a country and where we were just 5 or 6 years ago and if you think we are better off and honestly don't know what is wrong with the Bush admin and why he is the most hated president in our history by his own people...then there is no point in trying to explain or debate any of this.

 

We have problems at home that need to be fixed before we go and try to fix the rest of the worlds....

[Deleted Account 5,203]

The difference is that the Bush admin was seen as a tyrant and a dictator...a Hitler type by most of the world...

 

Very, very poor comparison, IMO. For all the obvious reasons.

The rest of your argument isn't terrible, though.

[Lance 228]

Very, very poor comparison, IMO. For all the obvious reasons.

The rest of your argument isn't terrible, though.

 

 

most people at home don't see him that way, I said the rest of the world....and sadly that is very accurate as that is how most of the rest of the world views Mr. Bush.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

most people at home don't see him that way, I said the rest of the world....and sadly that is very accurate as that is how most of the rest of the world views Mr. Bush.

 

No, it's not accurate. Not accurate in the least. From someone who goes and has went to schools with LARGE foreign contingencies, trust me.

[Lance 228]

No, it's not accurate. Not accurate in the least. From someone who goes and has went to schools with LARGE foreign contingencies, trust me.

 

we must talk to different people...I'm guessing your crowd lives here in the USA...my crowd lives overseas...Egypt, Israel, Syria, UK, Kuwait...etc...probably two different points of view...it's one thing to go to school with the ones privileged to be here, it's another when the people still actually live there.

 

and...yes...it is accurate...unless you live under a rock.

 

why don't you lay down for us exactly what you think people around the world think of Mr. Bush....I'd love to hear it.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

we must talk to different people...I'm guessing your crowd lives here in the USA...my crowd lives overseas...Egypt, Israel, Syria, UK, Kuwait...etc...probably two different points of view...it's one thing to go to school with the ones privileged to be here, it's another when the people still actually live there.

 

and...yes...it is accurate...unless you live under a rock.

 

why don't you lay down for us exactly what you think people around the world think of Mr. Bush....I'd love to hear it.

 

Nah, my guys only come from Hong Kong, Australia, Great Britain, France, Spain, Cuba, Mexico, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, South Africa, Kenya, Pakistan, India, and Italy. Quite a wide array of folks, indeed, and that's just all the people I can think about off the top of my head. And I don't know these people just on the guise of a message board: I've talked to them, went out to dinner with them, had them in school-related activities with me, had classes with them. In short, I know them. I know that they know their homelands WELL. Some of these people got American citizenship as recently as 2 years ago. Some still don't.

 

I actually asked a few of my friends, just in anticipation that you'd bring this up. Honest. Across the board, without exception, they spoke exactly against what you've claimed. Some were incredibly flabbergasted, and some were even wondering "who on Earth would suggest that". Here's the shortest, sweetest response verbatim from my good tuba-playing friend from Pakistan: "No! My, my, no. Many people in Pakistan see Bush as incredibly aggressive, and some even see him as a tyrant. But suggesting that he's like Hitler is crazy. If for no other reason that Bush hasn't committed mass genocide."

 

No, it's certainly not accurate. It's just a flat out mistruth and an extremely poor comparison. I haven't seen Bush command the mass slaughter of 6 million of any ethnic group lately. I haven't seen him inter innocent citizens in concentration camps (no, Guantanamo doesn't count, it's a military prison for terrorists). I haven't seen him sign any non-aggression pacts to stop him from blitzkrieging through the Middle East, then reneging on them as soon as he signed them. I haven't seen him stand atop balconies and address rabid mobs of people, spewing hate speech with raucous applause afterward. And most in the world recognize this.

 

Come on, Lance. It's an undeniably preposterous proposition that one could use Bush and Hitler in the same breath. Of course, some people are going to believe it, either from being undeniably ignorant to the affairs of the world or being brainwashed to hate the United States. But to say that the rest of the world as a whole believes that Bush is comparable to Hitler is a "certifiably insane" statement, my friend. Your analysis greatly undercut their intelligence, at the very least, for suggesting this. Either this, or the multitude of international people I've been blessed to come across have been "living under a rock". Though I doubt it.

Edited November 11, 2008 by UVAObserver

[Guest JJBrickface]

Lance, The reason you think this is because the media ONLY views President Bush in a negative way. In the past 10 years or so the U.S. media in general have become so incredibly irresponsible with "reporting" that its scary. Lance, just think of this. In the past year there has been great success by our military in Iraq, how much of that have you heard on the news? Its almost like we aren't even over there anymore because the news doesn't cover it unless their is an attack. Just think of that in relation to what you believe is the worlds perception that Bush is a tyrant.

[Lance 228]

lol....i guess the world loves Bush...my bad.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

lol....i guess the world loves Bush...my bad.

 

They certainly don't love him. In fact, he's even despised. But any person a bare-bones knowledge of international affairs would recoil at the thought of comparing him to the biggest megalomaniac the world has ever known.

 

Frankly, I don't think you comprehend the depth of the comparison you claim that the majority of the world has. It's before both of our times, but the depravity Hitler has shown has went unmatched in written history. It's debatable whether Bush is even the worst U.S. President of all-time. Put differently, it's like comparing Bradshaw Mountain to Mount Everest. There is little, if any, similarity. Much less a full-fledged comparison.

[Lance 228]

lol...ok.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

we must talk to different people...I'm guessing your crowd lives here in the USA...my crowd lives overseas...Egypt, Israel, Syria, UK, Kuwait...etc...probably two different points of view...it's one thing to go to school with the ones privileged to be here, it's another when the people still actually live there.

 

and...yes...it is accurate...unless you live under a rock.

 

why don't you lay down for us exactly what you think people around the world think of Mr. Bush....I'd love to hear it.

 

I doubt many people around the world actually care about Bush, it's a big place with many different ways of life and in the bigger scheme most people's lives are what they are regardless of the U.S.., they have their own interests and cultures and aside from those in more modern societies having some American politics thrown in their faces by media, few really care.

There's many different opinions of Bush from the people of countries that actually do care some, as for europe, particualry france, they don't seem to care much for Americans to start with....

Iraqi's don't really care they just know someone liberated them from a dictator, they have struggles ahead to make it but then didn't the U.S., the U.S. had many obstacles and even fought a real civil war where thousands were killed in individual battles, I can think of 2, gettysburg and antietum?, that claimed the lives of over 10,000 soliders each in 1 day..

[Lance 228]

IF you think the world doesn't know and hate Bush...you are kidding yourself...70%+ of Americans don't even like him.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Lance, The reason you think this is because the media ONLY views President Bush in a negative way. In the past 10 years or so the U.S. media in general have become so incredibly irresponsible with "reporting" that its scary. Lance, just think of this. In the past year there has been great success by our military in Iraq, how much of that have you heard on the news? Its almost like we aren't even over there anymore because the news doesn't cover it unless their is an attack. Just think of that in relation to what you believe is the worlds perception that Bush is a tyrant.

 

and therein is a huge problem facing America, you have a media that is irresponsible with their power, which is far and a lot bigger than ever, answers to noone really, has their individual interests and agendas and unfortunately much of those interests are world wide interests with America secondary, and a very liberal, often very anti christian agenda at that.

In the military it's not uncommon anymore for a lot of folks to almost consider them borderline a domestic enemy.

They paint the pictures they want Americans to see, and America's attention span seems shorter than ever and the Amercian people seem to be more easily led than ever to at that....

........

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

historical survival manual 101, it's long and spelling's unchecked, and you might not care to argue either way abiut it, but you might learn actually learn something about national security, for any country, and whether America is better or worse off than it was 5 or 10 years ago.

 

The simple fact is the many reasons for invading Iraq are much deeper or simply more numerous than a dumbed down American public cares to consider. Democrats thought Iraq was a big liability to American security themselves and said the exact things about saddam in '98 that Bush did in '02 and '03, look up democratic quotes on weapons of mass destruction and operation deset fox of '98 for those examples.

 

Weapons of mass destruction, particuarly after 911, were a quick easy sell to congress.

More than that though the war on terror made gaining a military stronghold somewhere in the middle east a must so that the U.S. would have a big foundation of military assets in place to fight anywhere throughout the region, Iraq was the common sense place.

Actually invading afghanastan the way the U.S. did Iraq would have been much more costly in lives and military resources, Iran would have been tenfold worse like so.

 

Iraq had already had it's military pounded by the U.S. in the gulf war, a lot of armor and air power had been in place since and invasion had been wargamed by the U.S. throughout the ;90s, so it was the obvious large scale military foothold in the middle east to be had.

The fact that saddam had threatened the U.S.. had trained and supported terrorists for decades and had chemical weapons and used them on his own people repeatedly was simply a bonus.

Removing saddam as suggested simply wouldn't have done much, his sons would have been far worse and Iraq's politics still had to be changed from within.

The U.S. will almost certainly maintain large airbases there for decades, to maintain that stronghold and to better defend Israel.

Democracy at least gives Iraqis hope that their country can make a turnaround and the common people there are all for it.

The fact is the common human being desires peace and freedom, but many countries aren't ruled by common people, but if you can put it in their hands it's possible to change a way a country thinks and acts politically. A democratic Iraq has a chance and a sucessful Iraq would be big in the middle east.

Iraq has been a successful country before and was doing well before saddam and the bath party took over, on that you could consider that Iran used to be an American allie before the shaw was overthrown in the '70s and Iran put it's alliance with communism and the soviet union.

The U.S. has accomplished a lot in Iraq.

 

Perhaps if people took more time to learn about history and war and how things happen they'd realize how complicated it really is. Perhaps people would realize how much there is to national security.

The fact is we can't forsee every situation but regardless of what America does, as a superpower, we have our fingers in a lot of pies, that simply goes with being a superpower, and we have a lot of foreign interests that must be tended to.

As a rule, historically, all wars are the result of the fallout of previous wars, and the power vacums that follow, and you can't ignore an immediate security situation simply to prevent the guaranteed yet unforseeable problems down the line.

 

The situation with the U.S. and al queda goes back to the days of the U.S. assisting the muslim extremists in defeating the Soviet Union in Afghanastan, many other reasons since then to, but the cold war was the priority then and problems with the middle east were some of the costs in the defeat of the soviet union then.

The gulf war of '90 '91, was the direct result of Iraq's invasion kuwait,

which was a direct result of the Iraq Iran war of the '80s,

which was encouraged by the U.S. with successful intentions of occupying Iran ( to prevent Iran's assistance and influence to the russians in neighboring Afghanastan where the U.S. was assisting afghanastan against them).

That cold war of course was the bigger fallout of the defeat of Germany after world war 2, after which the huge power vacum was filled by Russia and America. How many smaller wars have ben fought as the result of that between communism and freedom, vietnam comes to mind, and of course the soviet invasion of Afghanastan was a major break out move by a struggling Societ Union..

World war 2 was in the bigger scheme the result of germany's defeat in world war 1, which was the result of .........and so on and so on and so on...................

 

 

people in America simply need to realize what's beyond sports and reality tv and our spoiled lives and realize that there's going to be an ongoing struggle in the big scheme of nations and powers and between differing cultures such as atheistic russians and chinese, muslims, and God fearing christians and jews, and all the people in between.

Freedom and security will never be free.

 

Is America better off than it was 5 or 10 years ago, security wise no more or less, Iraq was simply a smaller battleground in the daunting task of maintaining as much national security as possible, and fighting for every resource, way of American life, ect.... and keeping enemies and those with opposing interest at bay as much as possible for the time being to.

 

Of course we're going to have to reinvest, certainly with afghanastan becoming a bigger situation and forseeably if I had to guess myself that could cause problems with pakistan down the line, and then there's the russians, and then china a decade or so away.

I tell people in these arguments a lot, it's a lot like crime, you simply have to keep fighting it because the crime and the criminals aren't going away, neither are terrorists, communists, supowerpowers with a need for resources, desire for more territories and influence, ect., ect., ect., and that's a cold hard fact that would be good for the common American to wake up and realize, or perhaps for the "common America student to be taught"...

 

I'd would say America's doing well considering all there is going on outside our borders. The simple fact that most of America is able to go about their more simple lives here in relative safety and seemingly in ignorance of what all is out there says to me that it's good in that measures.

 

 

ps.

Hitler however caused the deaths of millions of people, many, jews and others, directly under his biding, and many others as the result of the world war that he started.

Saddam in history, will be remembered as 1 of the bigger mass murderers of our time, not time as in decades, but bigger.

Bush will likely be remembered by history as a president who had way more to deal with than many presidents around him in time, and in hindsight to a bunch of people who are conveneintly willing to be indifferent, won't likely look so bad at all really.

 

Obama might have a lot of trials himself, anymore it's simply the sign of the times, the world only goes so long before something gives and there's a lot bearing down on our present day superpower status, not to mention internally in America, whether we're ready and willing for it all or not.

Edited November 14, 2008 by buzzsawBeaver

[Deleted Account 5,203]

IF you think the world doesn't know and hate Bush...you are kidding yourself...70%+ of Americans don't even like him.

 

Thank you, finally, the RIGHT comparison!