 Well, isn't that funny that it was one thing before he was elected the first time. I backed him from the beginning. But once he was in for four years, you say, well, now he's a known quantity. And yet they're somehow making the argument, no, he didn't act like a dictator or an authoritarian then, although they said so. But now when he gets his second term, that's when he'll act completely differently than he did in his first term. How does that make any sense logically, if no other way?