 John Claude, you said a consequential presidency, so why, what does that mean exactly? Let me start by asking the audience and the panel, how many of you are going to vote at the next presidential election in the United States? That's the problem, because everybody in this room has an opinion, who should be the next president of the United States? Well, there may be some non-Americans in this room, so we wouldn't, Trump wouldn't allow them to vote. They've got to have a proper ID card. What I mean by that, everybody has an opinion, who should be president of the United States? The bad news is that only the American citizen vote. It takes 60 million people plus, give and take a few, to elect the president of the United States. And the people who are going to vote at the next presidential election, as they have in the past, the prior election, are not voting on trade unless it affects their own situation. If they are selling soybeans from Hyowa to China, they have a view on trade, or if they are from Wisconsin and they're selling milk to Canada, USMCA gives 5% more access. Not yet approved by Congress, as you know. This is the new NAFTA or Alina, as you call it here. USMCA gives an additional 5% of market access for milk product from Wisconsin, which is a milk state, as we all know, to Canada. So the... A state which Mr. Trump barely wants. What I mean by that is that the American people, the American citizen, care about international policy when it affects their own personal selfish interest, or when they belong to a community, that's very important and has some influence on the political process. And I'll take two examples, and I won't elaborate on that. The Irish community, we've seen that in the past, and obviously the Israeli community or the Jewish community. And that's where you see that they have a view and strong view. Now, why consequential? I'm not trying to run away from your question. Well, again, I mean, I will give you a few examples, positive and negative, you do it the way you want. I will tell you my own personal view. I'm not trying to prehem John, but I mean, I agree with deregulation is, to me, one a very critical one, and I can come back to that. The other one is the judicial process. We have a country that has a three-power structure, legislative, executive, and judicial, and start with the Supreme Court, federal court, and so on and so forth. I have some statistics we can get back to that. But clearly, the judicial process, the number of judicial appointments that have been made since the beginning of the Trump administration is something that's very critical and very important for the Republican Party. The Republican Party don't like Trump. Trump hijacked the Republican Party. They don't like him as a person, but it delivers what they want. So they accept the tweets and they accept his personal attitude and a lot of things that they hate because they're getting what they think is essential. And again, I mean, deregulation because it's good for business, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprise. Judicial process, now they're also getting a more, and I know we're going to talk about Turkey and Kurds and so on. But there is less and less, and I think this is very much a bipartisan effort. We've talked about it the last few days. There is less engagement, not the prior panel, the one before who talks about the Middle East, said there's less engagement in the U.S. This is not something that's, the Republicans are more interventionist traditionally than the Democrat. But now Trump, but you know, Trump is not a Republican. Trump was a registered Democrat most of his life. When he was not registered Democrat, he was an independent. And you know that the 2016 primary election in New York is children couldn't vote because this is what you call a close primary. They couldn't vote because they were not registered Republicans six months before the election. So I mean, this is the reality. He hijacked the Republican Party. It does not represent the Republican Party, but the Republican Party gets something out of him and they accept the rest because on balance, they feel that they get what's important. But from your standpoint, do you think that Trump is a game changer when you compare it to Obama? That his time in office already has so complicated? Not everything, not everything, but in certain aspects, yes. Definitely, you know, in foreign policy, there are Obama at the surge in Afghanistan and so on and so forth. Trump said that he was against Iraq war in 2003. That's not true. But he campaigned and saying, I'm against foreign engagement. I'm not for regime change. And look, and you know, he appointed Bolton, but everybody knew that I was a mistake and he was five Bolton at some point. That's exactly what happened. And what he's doing now in northern Syria is something that's very disturbing for many people from the moral and ethical standpoint. But this is consistent with the view that a lot of Americans, Democrats and Republicans feel that this is not the role of the United States to settle every international conflict on the other side of the world. There's been enormous pushback on that from even the Republicans who, you know. No, I know that, but there are also people who are, I mean, one of my argument is that one of the consequential aspect of the Trump election on foreign policy has been what I call the defeat of the neocons. The neocons have lost. And that was not obvious. And I think it's a positive thing. And I can continue on that. I'm sure you can.