American Politics

[M3J]

Who's "we"? I mean, I will grant that some people are quicker to label attacks as Islamic terrorism before the facts are out (which proper media outlets aren't supposed to do, but that's besides the point), but people are merely playing the odds. That's just the world we live in. Getting it wrong could indicate prejudice, but that doesn't mean there's some sort of social injustice going on IMO. Killers are killers... Someone assuming that an incident is Islamic terrorism is not the same thing as trying to say any Muslim could snap and turn into a terrorist, if that's the sort of implication you're getting at.

Americans, humans, etc.

There is some sort of social injustice if the terrorist is found to be white and goes from terrorist to mentally fucked up lone wolf despite motivation being in line with terrorism. I've seen many sources do that, and some sources don't even call Roof a terrorist. Interesting how most white killers are treated differently from colored ones. The problem with doing that is Muslims are seen as bad people, while many white people who criticize the religion don't see the irony. If nothing happened from it, if Muslims weren't attacked or whatnot, I wouldn't care much.

Same with BLM. Most people, if not white people, see the movement as terrorist or violent or bad because the news covered the riots and shit, even though BLM has a good message and apparently does care about all lives.


I find it funny that same people criticizing Obama are supporting Trump. He's waaaaay worse and more full of shit than Obama.

 

[Philia]

Americans, humans, etc.

There is some sort of social injustice if the terrorist is found to be white and goes from terrorist to mentally fucked up lone wolf despite motivation being in line with terrorism. I've seen many sources do that, and some sources don't even call Roof a terrorist. Interesting how most white killers are treated differently from colored ones. The problem with doing that is Muslims are seen as bad people, while many white people who criticize the religion don't see the irony. If nothing happened from it, if Muslims weren't attacked or whatnot, I wouldn't care much.

Same with BLM. Most people, if not white people, see the movement as terrorist or violent or bad because the news covered the riots and shit, even though BLM has a good message and apparently does care about all lives.

Only a few does it. Sadly they stand out the most. Just like only a few Muslim commit terrorist activities. But they make most of the headlines.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 9, 2016, Original Post Date: Aug 9, 2016 ---

I find it funny that same people criticizing Obama are supporting Trump. He's waaaaay worse and more full of shit than Obama.

Trump makes Clinton looks like a better choice. Who else could do that? By the way how is Obama seen in USA? Outside, he is regarded as a decent guy, much better than GWB. But I heard it is different in America.

I still think a Kasich/Rubio ticket would've defeat Clinton by a large margin.

 

[M3J]

Obama is for the most part criticized in the US and shat on, with republicans/conservatives doing the most. I know out of the US, he's seen as either a great president or a murderer. I think Obama is one of the few who's respected, and probably the only reason US has any shred of respect, especially since anti-Obama brigades and conservatives are louder.

 

[xi0]

Interesting how most white killers are treated differently from colored ones.

Treated differently in the media? Otherwise how else? I mean, I see similar stereotypes being applied to white killers as well (trenchcoats, etc). It isn't like whites who commit similar acts are not being admonished in the same way Islamic radicals are (the only argument I can see for this being the case is if you only watch Fox News or something, but I know that can't be the case).

The problem with doing that is Muslims are seen as bad people, while many white people who criticize the religion don't see the irony.

How exactly is calling Islamic terrorism what it is something that can be blamed it someone thinks Muslims are "bad" people? I mean, we can debate the merit of a religion's ideology, but it isn't the totality of who a person is. You're not going to stop prejudices by micromanaging language.

And either way, people like Breivik or whoever are terrorists obviously if they meet the general criteria and should be called that. But there is a debate or at least a discussion to be had when it comes to many of the attackers who are labeled as "lone wolves" as an appropriate label. Breivik, for example, was both a terrorist and a lone wolf. So was Dylan Roof. They were obvious far-right nationalists/neo-nazis. But someone like Adam Lanza or Elliot Rodger? No, I don't really think they can be labeled as terrorists, as there's little to no evidence of a political or ideological motivation.

But if you just look at all of the attacks committed within the last year involving radical Islamism, every single one of them has a political/religious ideology and pledge their allegiance to the IS. So we're just supposed to say they're lying? And regardless, I've seen someone like Omar Mateen or the Nice attacker being called a "lone wolf" quite frequently as well (even when the latter turned out not to be). But again, that doesn't have anything to do with whether they're terrorists or not.

Same with BLM. Most people, if not white people, see the movement as terrorist or violent or bad because the news covered the riots and shit, even though BLM has a good message and apparently does care about all lives.

I'm of the opinion that there are usually valid criticisms of most movements, especially when they get as large as quickly as BLM has.

 

[M3J]

Treated differently in the media? Otherwise how else? I mean, I see similar stereotypes being applied to white killers as well (trenchcoats, etc). It isn't like whites who commit similar acts are not being admonished in the same way Islamic radicals are (the only argument I can see for this being the case is if you only watch Fox News or something, but I know that can't be the case).

I've never seen trenchcoats be mentioned, but colored people do make some jokes about white high school kids potentially going on a shooting spree based on how they look or are treated, which is fucked up. How aren't they being admonished? How many celebrities, politicians, or whatnot are asking white people or Americans to apologize for the crimes of mass shooters or something? How many people are claiming the entire white group should be killed? Have you been attacked by a colored person and be told to get out of this country?

The worst I've seen from most colored people is racist jokes and stuff.

How exactly is calling Islamic terrorism what it is something that can be blamed it someone thinks Muslims are "bad" people? I mean, we can debate the merit of a religion's ideology, but it isn't the totality of who a person is. You're not going to stop prejudices by micromanaging language.

And either way, people like Breivik or whoever are terrorists obviously if they meet the general criteria and should be called that. But there is a debate or at least a discussion to be had when it comes to many of the attackers who are labeled as "lone wolves" as an appropriate label. Breivik, for example, was both a terrorist and a lone wolf. So was Dylan Roof. They were obvious far-right nationalists/neo-nazis. But someone like Adam Lanza or Elliot Rodger? No, I don't really think they can be labeled as terrorists, as there's little to no evidence of a political or ideological motivation.

But if you just look at all of the attacks committed within the last year involving radical Islamism, every single one of them has a political/religious ideology and pledge their allegiance to the IS. So we're just supposed to say they're lying? And regardless, I've seen someone like Omar Mateen or the Nice attacker being called a "lone wolf" quite frequently as well (even when the latter turned out not to be). But again, that doesn't have anything to do with whether they're terrorists or not.

What?

Adam Lanza was definitely mentally addled, not a terrorist at all. I was not thinking of him as anything but an example of a mentally fucked up person. But the problem is, people like Brevik and Roof aren't called terrorists, they're called lone wolves. If I recall, most sources went from terrorist to lone wolf when they found out Brevik wasn't brown. Brevik and Roof (though I doubt they're lone) can easily be considered a lone terrorist wolf. If they can be considered lone wolf, why can't the Orlando shooter be? I mean, while he may have pledged alliance to ISIS, he still operated alone. Just as Roof probably pledged alliance to the Confederates and/or KKK, he's considered a lone wolf. I don't care if lone wolf is included, but they should be called terrorists.

How do we know for sure they're telling the truth? Or that ISIS is when they claim responsibility for everything?

I'm of the opinion that there are usually valid criticisms of most movements, especially when they get as large as quickly as BLM has.

I think it depends, and that it's unfair to lump most in with the few. Rioters were there to cause damage and loot, and it was the protesters who cleaned up their town. Some of them anyway. And weren't the police acting as if the protesters would get violent? According to some videos or sources, both sides got along when the police weren't being asshats.

 

[xi0]

How many celebrities, politicians, or whatnot are asking white people or Americans to apologize for the crimes of mass shooters or something? How many people are claiming the entire white group should be killed? Have you been attacked by a colored person and be told to get out of this country?

Uh, I mean...this is a bit of a straw man argument IMO. Who in the mainstream media is asking for Muslims to apologize for the acts of terrorists, much less say that they must all be killed? Which serious authority figures of any relevance espouse such notions? You're either reacting to the worst possible common denominator and assuming it's a mainstream stance, or removing the nuance out of the issue completely for the sake of your point (whatever that is at this point, I'm not entirely sure anymore btw).

But the problem is, people like Brevik and Roof aren't called terrorists, they're called lone wolves.

They're called both, depending on the source...because that's what they are. Just like Omar Mateen and Dylan Roof. Acting alone = lone wolf. The media might fixate more on an radical Islamic connection because it's clearly been a recent trend, but it doesn't change facts. Acting like there needs to be a universal rule for all media on when to use or not use the word "terrorist" when reporting on breaking news and that it would be of any consequence whatsoever just seems petty to me, I don't know.

If I recall, most sources went from terrorist to lone wolf when they found out Brevik wasn't brown.

What....?? I mean, if you say so. He's both. Being a lone wolf and being a terrorist are NOT mutually exclusive. But if you care to look at any serious writing or documentary regarding Breivik, it's clear he's a terrorist regardless of the impression you get from the media. Sometimes I think you're just way too fixated on the connotations a word like "terrorist" might have to some people instead of the actual meaning. If someone genuinely thinks white people can't be terrorists, despite abundant proof to the contrary, let them live with their own delusions, I'm certain they're are not lacking in them.

I think it depends, and that it's unfair to lump most in with the few. Rioters were there to cause damage and loot, and it was the protesters who cleaned up their town. Some of them anyway. And weren't the police acting as if the protesters would get violent? According to some videos or sources, both sides got along when the police weren't being asshats.

It probably is unfair, to lump in a few people's views/actions with everyone else in a movement/group... but you just did it yourself earlier in this very post, and you do it every time you complain about racist Republican party or Hillary Clinton supporters.

I wasn't necessarily referring to rioters btw, I was also referring to rhetoric. And I was saying why someone might criticize the BLM movement, not the merits of the movement itself or what the founders of the movement actually intend for it. Be that as it may, revolutionaries tend to want to clash with authority or what they perceive to be the status quo, otherwise who will pay attention?

 

[Josef]

Why isn't the media freaking out over this?

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Why isn't the media freaking out over this?

That's fucked up and uncalled for. I'd get it if it were lawsuits against Julian Assange, but to threaten him with assassination is barbaric.


It looks like Trump claims that Obama "founded" ISIS, and then claims that Hillary "Co-founded" it. I guess I should also claim that I've met with George Washington then.
I'd get it if he says something like "Obama led to the formation of ISIS", but a founder? Doubtful.

 

[xi0]

Why isn't the media freaking out over this?

Because it's six years old. This guy has said a lot of dumb shit and he isn't even on Fox News anymore, he works for CNN last I checked. I wasn't aware of his association with the Clinton campaign though, unless that's something recent?

 

[M3J]

Uh, I mean...this is a bit of a straw man argument IMO. Who in the mainstream media is asking for Muslims to apologize for the acts of terrorists, much less say that they must all be killed? Which serious authority figures of any relevance espouse such notions? You're either reacting to the worst possible common denominator and assuming it's a mainstream stance, or removing the nuance out of the issue completely for the sake of your point (whatever that is at this point, I'm not entirely sure anymore btw).

I forgot who, but I think one guy was a journalist or politician? It's been months. But no authority figure to my recollection has said Muslims must be wiped out, I think it's just the horrible people. Point taken though, with the common denominator into mainstream stance assumption thing.

My point is that Muslims are treated badly, and people employ double standards with them. Muslims can be lone wolf terrorists (granted, I can only think of one), but other races and religions can be terrorists as well. Singling Muslims out as terrorists does more damage, especially when the percent of Islamic terrorists are low.

They're called both, depending on the source...because that's what they are. Just like Omar Mateen and Dylan Roof. Acting alone = lone wolf. The media might fixate more on an radical Islamic connection because it's clearly been a recent trend, but it doesn't change facts. Acting like there needs to be a universal rule for all media on when to use or not use the word "terrorist" when reporting on breaking news and that it would be of any consequence whatsoever just seems petty to me, I don't know.


What....?? I mean, if you say so. He's both. Being a lone wolf and being a terrorist are NOT mutually exclusive. But if you care to look at any serious writing or documentary regarding Breivik, it's clear he's a terrorist regardless of the impression you get from the media. Sometimes I think you're just way too fixated on the connotations a word like "terrorist" might have to some people instead of the actual meaning. If someone genuinely thinks white people can't be terrorists, despite abundant proof to the contrary, let them live with their own delusions, I'm certain they're are not lacking in them.

They're not called both, it's mainly liberal sources that call people like Brevik and Roof terrorists, while less liberal sources will call them lone wolves, and with Americans try not to paint them in bad light. I"m not sure if Daily News and NY Post have branches in other states, but they're guilty of making white people look better than they deserve while black people (bar Trayvon) are somehow made out to be criminals, whether history or picture.
it's not petty, and there are consequences. If you committed an act of terrorism (at least where white people don't make up majority of victims), most media would call you a lone wolf, post a good pic of you on front page, and cover positive history of you. If thorny did the same thing, most media would call him a terrorist, try to find negative picture to post (or positive, maybe), and show any past issues he's had. It makes people think only Muslims can be terrorists, black people violent thugs, and white people as lone wolves, if they even care.

I've seen some media go from calling him terrorist before he was identified to mentally fucked up (not sure about the lone wolf, actually) when they found out he wasn't a Muslim. I'd be happy to let these people live with their delusions if it didn't affect others, but the violence towards brown people is why I'm very irked.

It probably is unfair, to lump in a few people's views/actions with everyone else in a movement/group... but you just did it yourself earlier in this very post, and you do it every time you complain about racist Republican party or Hillary Clinton supporters.

I wasn't necessarily referring to rioters btw, I was also referring to rhetoric. And I was saying why someone might criticize the BLM movement, not the merits of the movement itself or what the founders of the movement actually intend for it. Be that as it may, revolutionaries tend to want to clash with authority or what they perceive to be the status quo, otherwise who will pay attention?

It definitely is unfair, and I've been unintentionally doing this for years. Out of anger ,out of annoyance, whatever, but I've been working on it. It's why I say "most" or "apparently" more often now.

How else can you have a revolution? Clashing with authority needs to happen. I personally wouldn't care less if someone from a dictator group died, like one of Hitler or Mussolini's supporters, but killing officers is disturbing... although it's been confirmed no BLM killed an officer. but that's one kind of revolution I don't support... and I even said that I supported BLM disrupting rallies, even the politician that I supported. Because they did that, Bernie hired one of them to help him reach out to the community and stuff, which is something.

I think I just went off topic to your BLM reply. But some people are watching videos of "BLM" supporters raising hell for no reason in places like libraries and judging the entire movement. Not sure if this is true, or if the media/anti-BLM are just bullshitting.

 

[xi0]

They're not called both, it's mainly liberal sources that call people like Brevik and Roof terrorists, while less liberal sources will call them lone wolves, and with Americans try not to paint them in bad light.

Who the hell in American media is actively trying to paint someone like Dylan Roof in less of a bad light?....come on man, this is just intellectually dishonest. Reporters report on what is thought to be known. Just think about all the things that were reported about 9/11 the day it happened that weren't accurate. News as it happens is dynamic, and in a 24/7 instant news cycle, nothing is going to be succinct.

I've seen some media go from calling him terrorist before he was identified to mentally fucked up (not sure about the lone wolf, actually) when they found out he wasn't a Muslim

But what does this matter at the end of the day? That's my point. Anyone with any sense will examine reporting and come to their own conclusions. That they are both terrorists and lone wolves...end of story.

And if they stopped saying he was a terrorist after they found out he was Muslim, what exactly could that mean? Does that mean he isn't a terrorist? Of course not, if changes nothing about what occurred. It's more likely that people are quick to assume it's Islamic terrorism because it's just playing the odds. If there was an attack in London tomorrow, who is more likely to be responsible? Radical Islam, or White Nationalists? Cmon, it's just common sense.

I think I just went off topic to your BLM reply. But some people are watching videos of "BLM" supporters raising hell for no reason in places like libraries and judging the entire movement. Not sure if this is true, or if the media/anti-BLM are just bullshitting.

Well I mean, if there are enough people doing it, then there is a point to be made. That was what I was talking about when movements become large so quickly, the message gets muddled and less controllable. The founders and the majority don't support the killing of officers, but there are still elements within it who are calling for it. Also, how exactly can it be confirmed that none of the cop killers were supporters of BLM? If I'm completely off-base there, pardon my ignorance.

 

[Philia]

Trump has a vacation plan in case he loses the election
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/11/gop-presidential-candidate-donald-trump.html

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 12, 2016, Original Post Date: Aug 12, 2016 ---

Obama is for the most part criticized in the US and shat on, with republicans/conservatives doing the most. I know out of the US, he's seen as either a great president or a murderer. I think Obama is one of the few who's respected, and probably the only reason US has any shred of respect, especially since anti-Obama brigades and conservatives are louder.

In UK he's not seen as a great president in general. Just a less troublemaker than GWB.

 

[kkck]

Trump has a vacation plan in case he loses the election
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/11/gop-presidential-candidate-donald-trump.html

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 12, 2016, Original Post Date: Aug 12, 2016 ---

In UK he's not seen as a great president in general. Just a less troublemaker than GWB.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/24/7-charts-on-how-the-world-views-president-obama/

I guess it depends on who you ask. Obama has been very popular worldwide so far. Well, that is from 2015 but as far as I know he remains popular. IIRC one of the reasons he actually commented on Brexit before the vote and why people for it were angry about it was because of how popular obama is.

 

[shionoro]

He is still popular in germany, at least the media almost univocally never show him in a negative light.
And I think it is justified really. People are going to miss Obama.
If Obama could go for a third term, i'd be sure he'd win, too.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

The comments section in the Pewresearch website makes me appreciate that I'm not wearing a tin-foiled hat.

I could definitely see President Obama winning a 3rd term if that were possible. Granted, I'm probably one of those people with a "No Opinion" about him, but I can see why he's loved by the people (similar to Reagan's case... a little bit). Although I'm genuinely surprised there's no data about how some Middle Eastern sees President Obama (at least in the more "stable" countries like UAE where they can get data). Granted, I'm not talking about nations with anti-Americanism like Iran and all.

 

[kkck]

The comments section in the Pewresearch website makes me appreciate that I'm not wearing a tin-foiled hat.

I could definitely see President Obama winning a 3rd term if that were possible. Granted, I'm probably one of those people with a "No Opinion" about him, but I can see why he's loved by the people (similar to Reagan's case... a little bit). Although I'm genuinely surprised there's no data about how some Middle Eastern sees President Obama (at least in the more "stable" countries like UAE where they can get data). Granted, I'm not talking about nations with anti-Americanism like Iran and all.

What surprises me quite a bit is how many people think the rest of the world does not respect obama. You see that quite a bit in the comments and in many other places. I get the impression they think respect is the same thing as fear....

I am not sure the obama situation is comparable to the reagan situation as far as popularity goes. Reagan was more popular within the US than outside at least. I don't have a source right now but from what I understand reagan was not popular in europe for the most part. Need to work on that source though.

 

[xi0]

I am not sure the obama situation is comparable to the reagan situation as far as popularity goes. Reagan was more popular within the US than outside at least. I don't have a source right now but from what I understand reagan was not popular in europe for the most part. Need to work on that source though.

The difference there is Reagan's presidency was during the Cold War, and he is seen as the person who "ended" it. So there might have been a lot of resentment among those in Europe who "lost" or whatever.

In my own trusted and true American ignorance, I'd probably the say the safest bet for countries who resent Obama the most would be places where we've engaged in direct conflict with, and perhaps Russia.

 

[M3J]

Who the hell in American media is actively trying to paint someone like Dylan Roof in less of a bad light?....come on man, this is just intellectually dishonest. Reporters report on what is thought to be known. Just think about all the things that were reported about 9/11 the day it happened that weren't accurate. News as it happens is dynamic, and in a 24/7 instant news cycle, nothing is going to be succinct.

Well, I was thinking more about Brock Turner, and I can't recall if any paper tried to soften up Roof's image, actually.

Also, I'm talking about newspapers, not TV news. Only communists like you and @Drmke believe in TV news.

But what does this matter at the end of the day? That's my point. Anyone with any sense will examine reporting and come to their own conclusions. That they are both terrorists and lone wolves...end of story.

And again, my point is that many people will believe what the media tells them, especially when it comes to what they believe. If a group believes rape is bad, then they will be mad at the media for covering Turner's accomplishments and pasting good pictures of him in the paper while demonizing a black man who did the same thing. If that same group dislikes Muslims, then they will be even more confident that all Muslims are terrorists while white people doing bad shit are lone wolves.

End of story.

And if they stopped saying he was a terrorist after they found out he was Muslim, what exactly could that mean? Does that mean he isn't a terrorist? Of course not, if changes nothing about what occurred. It's more likely that people are quick to assume it's Islamic terrorism because it's just playing the odds. If there was an attack in London tomorrow, who is more likely to be responsible? Radical Islam, or White Nationalists? Cmon, it's just common sense.

It indicates they don't think terrorist can apply to Brevik, otherwise why not call him a terrorist who was a lone wolf?

might very well be white nationalists if #Brexit gets 'cancelled.'

Well I mean, if there are enough people doing it, then there is a point to be made. That was what I was talking about when movements become large so quickly, the message gets muddled and less controllable. The founders and the majority don't support the killing of officers, but there are still elements within it who are calling for it. Also, how exactly can it be confirmed that none of the cop killers were supporters of BLM? If I'm completely off-base there, pardon my ignorance.

That is true, and they need to be arrested for even thinking about killing officers.

Didn't various media and some of the cop killers say they weren't with BLM? I know the killer who snuffed the two cops in NYC apparently did it for his black brothers, but he was also mentally ill. Not sure if he was truly part of BLM.

He is still popular in germany, at least the media almost univocally never show him in a negative light.
And I think it is justified really. People are going to miss Obama.
If Obama could go for a third term, i'd be sure he'd win, too.

Highly doubt it, it'd probably be a close race between the three. Or at least, between him and Trump.

The comments section in the Pewresearch website makes me appreciate that I'm not wearing a tin-foiled hat.

I could definitely see President Obama winning a 3rd term if that were possible. Granted, I'm probably one of those people with a "No Opinion" about him, but I can see why he's loved by the people (similar to Reagan's case... a little bit). Although I'm genuinely surprised there's no data about how some Middle Eastern sees President Obama (at least in the more "stable" countries like UAE where they can get data). Granted, I'm not talking about nations with anti-Americanism like Iran and all.

Middle East sees Obama as a violent war criminal responsible for the death of many of their people, especially by supporting Israel. they are not happy with him. Assuming my sources are true.

Why are you surprised? People don't give a shit about the Middle East other than oil and dislike of Muslims.

 

[xi0]

And again, my point is that many people will believe what the media tells them, especially when it comes to what they believe. If a group believes rape is bad, then they will be mad at the media for covering Turner's accomplishments and pasting good pictures of him in the paper while demonizing a black man who did the same thing. If that same group dislikes Muslims, then they will be even more confident that all Muslims are terrorists while white people doing bad shit are lone wolves.

The onus is on the individual to be well-informed. The media can't be held accountable for people being ignorant or even in some cases mislead. That's all I really have left to say about this issue.

might very well be white nationalists if #Brexit gets 'cancelled.'

I mean, okay? That's just pure conjecture....lol

Didn't various media and some of the cop killers say they weren't with BLM? I know the killer who snuffed the two cops in NYC apparently did it for his black brothers, but he was also mentally ill. Not sure if he was truly part of BLM.

Probably spokespeople or those who identify as being a part of the movement. I mean, who wouldn't disavow it? That wasn't really my point. The fact is, no one on twitter can control shit like who uses hashtags or what is done in the name of a cause.

The incident in New York occurred before BLM became as popular as it is now IIRC. Actions and rhetoric aren't the same thing, but you still see some people online making excuses for heinous and hypocritical rhetoric, simply because "black people are dead" or what have you. That said, I don't believe they're a hate group and most protests occur without incident. There's definitely a reason and justification for BLM existing, but labeling any kind of criticism or questioning of their message as "racist" is also inexcusable IMO. It feels like there is way too much hostility when it comes to topics like this or topics like religion. It seems like we live in a day and age where people are actively seeking to be offended and "victimized" only by encountering someone who disagrees with them, but I digress.

 

[kkck]

The difference there is Reagan's presidency was during the Cold War, and he is seen as the person who "ended" it. So there might have been a lot of resentment among those in Europe who "lost" or whatever.

In my own trusted and true American ignorance, I'd probably the say the safest bet for countries who resent Obama the most would be places where we've engaged in direct conflict with, and perhaps Russia.

I was thinking more of, say, england or germany when I wrote that. As in, the US traditional allies. Of course, you would find people there who like the guy but it is not necessarily the norm. Reagan's brand of politics (far right wing compared to countries where their right is further to the left than the US left) is not bound to be popular there (more or less how they hated GWB). Then again, I am still missing a source on that even though I recall reading about it.