“Higher prices guarantee Democrat victories in 2026 and 2028”
Trump 47 is a repeat of Trump 45. After having a unified Republican government (House, Senate, and Presidency) in 2017 and 2018, Trump lost the House in 2018 (leading to multiple impeachments), then lost the Senate and Presidency in 2020 (likely due to the COVID debacle orchestrated by his handing the “keys to the kingdom” to Dr Fauci).
We are about to enter a worldwide recession that will not bottom until 3Q2028 — right in the middle of election season — that has now been exacerbated by Trump’s Executive Order imposing the biggest supply chain disruption and tax increase in U.S. history. What a shame that Republicans chose as its presidential candidate a life-long New York Democrat.
Since Trump cannot be re-elected, he was a “lame duck” on Day 1. He will hand the next president a unified Democrat government in 2028. Had we chosen Ron DeSantis, he would have CUT taxes, as he’s doing in Florida, and been able to recover from the (much milder) recession during his TWO TERMS in office. But of course, Republicans have always chased the “bright, shiny object” and sucked at political strategy.
No matter whether it happens a month from now or a year from now, voters will remember it in November 2026 and punish Republicans then. Then, if Republicans continue to insist on tariffs, voters will repeat their punishment in November 2028. Higher prices will not be easily or quickly forgiven.
It comes from Martin Armstrong’s computer that tracks global economic cycles. It predicts the bottom of the world-wide recession will be August 25, 2028.
Neither am I. Should prices skyrocket in a sustained fashion then tariffs will be seen as the gift that keeps on giving for the Dems. However, I doubt they would need to roll the dice with a pure socialist or someone like AOC -- my guess is that a middle-of-the-road sensible Dem, like Fetterman or Torres or Shapiro, would be sufficient to overturn the GOP.
This is unusually unpredictable. I have no strong guess on what will actually happen here as far as DJT is concerned. It could go either way. But I can't really be optimistic at this point.
By the way, I think you’re missing the mark here on saying we are getting higher prices due to tariffs; Although, temporarily I would say yes to that. The American people voted for lower prices and they are eventually going to get lower prices. Crude oil tanked today - meaning lower prices at the pump, and lower transportation costs, -potentially lowering food prices. The 10 year note dropped nearly 15 basis points to 4.05% - meaning lower prices on mortgages. Right there you have major expenses that are most important to American consumers. Go figure that 2 of them are excluded from the government’s CPI numbers.
When the new 34% tax on iPhones starts to manifest in the Apple stores in the coming months, let's see if the consumer is enjoying paying $1,340 instead of $1,000.
A $1,340 cell phone is not a daily necessity; food, shelter, utilities, good health, and the like are. Keep your old phone for a few extra years, and purchase a cheaper one the next time. Through advertising and societal pressure we are told we need the 'next best' piece of garbage from China. Our country needs a full toilet flush on what we deem is needed, and focus on what is needed. On your deathbed, I hope one of your regrets will not be - If only I had another iPhone.
Attention spans are naturally short, and the intersection of foreshortened business cycles with "bread and circuses" sensationalistic electioneering cycles, focuses attention spans very narrowly on short-term considerations.
This dynamic closely parallels the effect of short-term planning within commercial enterprises that attempt to "fire their way to success" during periods of weakening demand. From within, it looks like nothing so much as a game of musical chairs. Owners, including shareholders, replace one manager after another, demanding that each one magically overcome the diminution in aggregate income that undergirds the demand cycle. Whomever sits in the managerial chair when the cycle happens to turn, becomes "the hero who saved the day."
It goes hand-in-hand with the casino side of the economy, the segment that prioritizes ownership replacement velocity over retained gross. Deindustrialization has reordered the hierarchical segmentation of operational priorities to replace stable ROI with accelerated capital migration.
It's largely a function of inflation resulting from desperate attempts to defy entropy. The innumeracy and limited literacy of the polity is what lends verisimilitude to the author's bleak prognostications.
The introduction of reciprocal tariffs is a tactic similar to a stock buyback, which is a deferral of equity extraction that prioritizes medium and long-term ROI over "pump and dump" looting of production architecture. Realizing the gains from ownership concentration requires a steadfast rejection of fiscal incontinence.
No bookmaker will ever give odds on the average American voter rejecting fiscal incontinence until penury comes a' knocking. The evidence for this, is the "broken record" of resecuritization we've seen since the evisceration of Glass-Steagall. Derivatives have been the "bicycle tire pump" used to perpetuate the "pump and dump" management model.
Tinkering at the margins with interest rates has accelerated the concentration of ownership that moves monetary velocity up the income distribution curve. At each reification of an entropic stage, cash once again becomes king, and the cycle continues, but the endpoint is always recession and economic depression.
Ideally, the model is "pay as you go." The issue with that is scalar; capital requirements at scale are always the driver of fiscal incontinence. It has always been thus, regardless of economic system. The historical analogue is wartime financing.
Only an existential threat from without, can restore an even temporary appetite for deferred gain. The nation has been facing such a threat for two decades, but obscuring that fact has been the focus of those invested in curation of information flows to the general public. We are at a historical nexus where behavioral science has eroded sovereignty to the point where there is very little left for the looters to extract.
President Trump's breezy CEO-style bombast, militates against a successful reorg attempt. We must ask ourselves if the "bread and circuses" orientation of the informational flow curators has weakened sufficiently for a "stay the course" message to even register in the minds of an always-fickle public made even more heedless by the "information age."
Irrational hope springs eternal. I can only hope that the author's highly-plausible assessment (and my own reluctant agreement with it) is extremely myopic.
I'd say "attention spans are unnaturally short" because our education system has been purposely and purposefully corrupted to take our collective eyes off of basic civics and citizen responsibilities (actual, palpable realities) which are imperative for a functional and successful democracy.
When one considers how this was done covertly back in the 1920s-30s via the tycoons of their day (Ford [Foundation],) Carnegie, and the Rockefellers, the main instigators got precisely what they were aiming for: a bright and shiny-consumption-obsessed, harried and boxed-in by credit/debt woes, suburban dwelling drone culture left with the inability to perceive life beyond immediate gratification & abetted and enhanced by today's now 'indispensable' layer upon layer of electronica always demanding every moment of our supposedly free time.
How and why the U.S. foreign policy monster mavens have been able to depend upon mass murder via warfare to keep this country on a somewhat even keel for these many decades since 1947, when this shitshow truly achieved 'liftoff.'
There is much in what you say, Mr. Otness, but perhaps a more accurate rephrasing of my first assertion would be that attention span is subject to natural variability. We must take that into account when considering the role of indoctrination and dependency.
The two primary variables are incentive and memory. Incentive is subject to a categorical distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic reward. Memory correlates with intelligence, and there is a distinct causal relationship associated with that correlation.
Arguably, what appears to be intrinsic, what we commonly refer to as "self motivated," is anything but. Internalization of an extrinsic reward, does not change the structure of the stimuli.
The inculcated dependency you reference, is also a function of basic human motivation. Stabilizing demand is foundational, and we can observe the methodology at every scale. Rockefeller et al were directing capital flows and they are rightly demonized for their disregard for the lives of others. That said, we have only to perceive the delight of any manager when an essential associate assumes additional financial burden; cash flow requirements have a pivotal role in disincentivizing such voluntary instability as a change of occupation represents.
I agree with your observation about the degradation of "civics" and your description of it. That said, in the context of variable capacity, it becomes a matter of engagement with complexity. This is also to your point about gadgetry. Intelligence only partially overlaps with what we might refer to as practical wisdom, often referred to as "common sense."
With increased complexity, comes increased uncertainty. This introduces relativism as a necessity for critical thinking. "Common sense" dictates rejection of any degree of complexity that cannot be understood by any particular individual; it's a function of tolerance for risk. Natural variability again becomes a defining factor.
The decline of effective indoctrination in civics, appears to be a sort of "putting the cart before the horse." Properly ordered, first comes focused indoctrination, then comes the relativistic consideration of complexity. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. What presents in public discourse, appears to be an ascendancy of relativism without any foundational indoctrination.
I would assert that the incoherence we observe is a function of deflection. It isn't that the schools have failed to provide direction, it's that they have redirected the focus of students' loyalty. "Civics" is first and foremost, a function of loyalty. Education has reordered loyalty in hierarchies of priority. Let's go back sixty years and consider the hierarchical arrangement; God, country, family, self.
Depending on extrinsic stimuli, the individual reordered that hierarchy to meet changing demands, demands such as war, famine or disease. The default, however, was (and is) a constant.
What is the current default hierarchical ordering? If it has changed (and I think we can agree that it has,) what role has mere complexity played in that change?
Everything subject to variation can be mapped within a distribution curve. We know this, and we know that what we refer to as "intelligence" is so mapped. Those tasked with indoctrination (teachers,) are numerous and subject to variability. A common misconception is that the occupation selects for only a very narrow range of distribution, one at the apex of the distribution curve.
During the sixties, import of European radicalism accelerated, taking root in the universities. College students demonstrated responses correlating with their variable intelligence. This began to "trickle down" into secondary schools in the seventies. Today, we observe it in primary schools. It is even more incoherent now than it ever has been.
I participated in that first wave of secondary school radicalism, and back then, one was expected to engage with the canon. The minimum requirement was to read The Manifesto and mindlessly regurgitate talking points derived therefrom. Full engagement required tackling Das Kapital. Again, a sorting process mapped on a distribution curve. Again, the cart before the horse.
The "horse," in this instance, is economics. When Kapital, which is not a work of economics, is consumed with the idea that it teaches economic theory, is foundational to a student's understanding, the pillar is rotten at its base. The problem with today's "useful idiot" teachers winding up children and leading or sending them onto the streets in incoherent public displays of protest, is that relativistic contrarianism becomes the ascendant hierarchical priority.
Three full generations have passed since this reordering process began. Each generation of radicals has consisted of a naturally variable population, and the result of indoctrination by a cohort percentage only describable as "useful idiots," produces...... what? We have no evidence that the quality of indoctrination has improved, and there is no compelling case for thinking that the "utility" of "idiots" has increased.
If you recall the advertising for Instamatic cameras, they were heralded as "point and shoot" devices, so named because they did not require any attention to lens focus. We look around in amazement at masses of people, now including children, incoherently "protesting" the cause celebre du jour. To your point, it is, indeed, a "point and shoot" society we live in, millions pointlessly "shooting themselves in the foot."
Collusion and collaboration are part of human behavior at all levels, and there are certainly those manipulating others. That said, no "conspiracy" is required to lower the average intelligence of any group; the progeny of idiocy is rarely genius.
A fellow I know describes the reordering of hierarchical priority as a devolution from"ready, aim, fire" to "ready, fire, and we'll let you know what you're aiming for later, if we can think something up." It rather appears that he''s not entirely inaccurate.
"Common sense" is naturally conservative, a reluctance to engage in pointlessly-elevated risk. Neither perpetual stasis nor the immoderate experimentation associated with liberal extremism, are conducive to human flourishing.
I see little evidence that common sense is foundationally prioritized in the modern educational canon. Your point about "civics" stands.
Unlike baseball where runs scored in the first few innings contribute towards the final tally in the 9th inning, what happens in 2025 will have little effect on the elections to be held in November 2026. If the markets recover and inflation is contained, and if a semblance of peace returns to the world, Trump will get the credit and Republicans will do fine. Same for the elections in November 2028. I've no idea if tariffs will accomplish the objectives set by Trump, and how long he will stick with tariffs, or if other nations fold. During the great industrialization of America in the 19th Century, when railroads were built and cities expanded throughout the nation, tariffs were in place and provided much of the financial support for our nation and for our vast industrial power. Trump's downfall in 2020 was Covid, a black swan event, and a media and Congress full stop out to remove Trump from office.
Tariffs are okay if they are replacing, roughly dollar for dollar, another destructive tax such as the income tax. Today, they aren't replacing anything. They are 100% on top of all other existing taxes, including the income tax and state sales taxes. Tariffs are simply BIG GOVERNMENT.
"It’s easy, actually: People want lower prices, not higher prices. Americans voted for lower prices, not higher prices. Therefore, what Trump should have done is to abolish all tariffs immediately, period. The American people would have rejoiced, and it would have secured larger Republican majorities in US Congress in 2026, and the election of a Republican President in 2028."
You clearly did not get the first copy of the memo in 2016.
“Higher prices guarantee Democrat victories in 2026 and 2028”
Trump 47 is a repeat of Trump 45. After having a unified Republican government (House, Senate, and Presidency) in 2017 and 2018, Trump lost the House in 2018 (leading to multiple impeachments), then lost the Senate and Presidency in 2020 (likely due to the COVID debacle orchestrated by his handing the “keys to the kingdom” to Dr Fauci).
We are about to enter a worldwide recession that will not bottom until 3Q2028 — right in the middle of election season — that has now been exacerbated by Trump’s Executive Order imposing the biggest supply chain disruption and tax increase in U.S. history. What a shame that Republicans chose as its presidential candidate a life-long New York Democrat.
Since Trump cannot be re-elected, he was a “lame duck” on Day 1. He will hand the next president a unified Democrat government in 2028. Had we chosen Ron DeSantis, he would have CUT taxes, as he’s doing in Florida, and been able to recover from the (much milder) recession during his TWO TERMS in office. But of course, Republicans have always chased the “bright, shiny object” and sucked at political strategy.
And this was one reason I favored Ron DeSantis.
I’m curious why Q3 2028? Why not Q3 2026 or 2027 and everyone has mostly forgotten by 2028?
No matter whether it happens a month from now or a year from now, voters will remember it in November 2026 and punish Republicans then. Then, if Republicans continue to insist on tariffs, voters will repeat their punishment in November 2028. Higher prices will not be easily or quickly forgiven.
It comes from Martin Armstrong’s computer that tracks global economic cycles. It predicts the bottom of the world-wide recession will be August 25, 2028.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/trade-war/trump-tariffs-liberation-day/
Thanks for the tip!
Neither am I. Should prices skyrocket in a sustained fashion then tariffs will be seen as the gift that keeps on giving for the Dems. However, I doubt they would need to roll the dice with a pure socialist or someone like AOC -- my guess is that a middle-of-the-road sensible Dem, like Fetterman or Torres or Shapiro, would be sufficient to overturn the GOP.
Yes, any Dem would win at that point.
Agree with the likelihood of your analysis, Anton. But Trump has time to correct the mistake.
This is unusually unpredictable. I have no strong guess on what will actually happen here as far as DJT is concerned. It could go either way. But I can't really be optimistic at this point.
By the way, I think you’re missing the mark here on saying we are getting higher prices due to tariffs; Although, temporarily I would say yes to that. The American people voted for lower prices and they are eventually going to get lower prices. Crude oil tanked today - meaning lower prices at the pump, and lower transportation costs, -potentially lowering food prices. The 10 year note dropped nearly 15 basis points to 4.05% - meaning lower prices on mortgages. Right there you have major expenses that are most important to American consumers. Go figure that 2 of them are excluded from the government’s CPI numbers.
When the new 34% tax on iPhones starts to manifest in the Apple stores in the coming months, let's see if the consumer is enjoying paying $1,340 instead of $1,000.
A $1,340 cell phone is not a daily necessity; food, shelter, utilities, good health, and the like are. Keep your old phone for a few extra years, and purchase a cheaper one the next time. Through advertising and societal pressure we are told we need the 'next best' piece of garbage from China. Our country needs a full toilet flush on what we deem is needed, and focus on what is needed. On your deathbed, I hope one of your regrets will not be - If only I had another iPhone.
I am in wait-and-see mode. Trump is a strategist, and if the economy turns around before the midterms, we'll see. He's pulled off bigger wins.
The essay makes fair points.
Attention spans are naturally short, and the intersection of foreshortened business cycles with "bread and circuses" sensationalistic electioneering cycles, focuses attention spans very narrowly on short-term considerations.
This dynamic closely parallels the effect of short-term planning within commercial enterprises that attempt to "fire their way to success" during periods of weakening demand. From within, it looks like nothing so much as a game of musical chairs. Owners, including shareholders, replace one manager after another, demanding that each one magically overcome the diminution in aggregate income that undergirds the demand cycle. Whomever sits in the managerial chair when the cycle happens to turn, becomes "the hero who saved the day."
It goes hand-in-hand with the casino side of the economy, the segment that prioritizes ownership replacement velocity over retained gross. Deindustrialization has reordered the hierarchical segmentation of operational priorities to replace stable ROI with accelerated capital migration.
It's largely a function of inflation resulting from desperate attempts to defy entropy. The innumeracy and limited literacy of the polity is what lends verisimilitude to the author's bleak prognostications.
The introduction of reciprocal tariffs is a tactic similar to a stock buyback, which is a deferral of equity extraction that prioritizes medium and long-term ROI over "pump and dump" looting of production architecture. Realizing the gains from ownership concentration requires a steadfast rejection of fiscal incontinence.
No bookmaker will ever give odds on the average American voter rejecting fiscal incontinence until penury comes a' knocking. The evidence for this, is the "broken record" of resecuritization we've seen since the evisceration of Glass-Steagall. Derivatives have been the "bicycle tire pump" used to perpetuate the "pump and dump" management model.
Tinkering at the margins with interest rates has accelerated the concentration of ownership that moves monetary velocity up the income distribution curve. At each reification of an entropic stage, cash once again becomes king, and the cycle continues, but the endpoint is always recession and economic depression.
Ideally, the model is "pay as you go." The issue with that is scalar; capital requirements at scale are always the driver of fiscal incontinence. It has always been thus, regardless of economic system. The historical analogue is wartime financing.
Only an existential threat from without, can restore an even temporary appetite for deferred gain. The nation has been facing such a threat for two decades, but obscuring that fact has been the focus of those invested in curation of information flows to the general public. We are at a historical nexus where behavioral science has eroded sovereignty to the point where there is very little left for the looters to extract.
President Trump's breezy CEO-style bombast, militates against a successful reorg attempt. We must ask ourselves if the "bread and circuses" orientation of the informational flow curators has weakened sufficiently for a "stay the course" message to even register in the minds of an always-fickle public made even more heedless by the "information age."
Irrational hope springs eternal. I can only hope that the author's highly-plausible assessment (and my own reluctant agreement with it) is extremely myopic.
it is a time for courage.
I'd say "attention spans are unnaturally short" because our education system has been purposely and purposefully corrupted to take our collective eyes off of basic civics and citizen responsibilities (actual, palpable realities) which are imperative for a functional and successful democracy.
When one considers how this was done covertly back in the 1920s-30s via the tycoons of their day (Ford [Foundation],) Carnegie, and the Rockefellers, the main instigators got precisely what they were aiming for: a bright and shiny-consumption-obsessed, harried and boxed-in by credit/debt woes, suburban dwelling drone culture left with the inability to perceive life beyond immediate gratification & abetted and enhanced by today's now 'indispensable' layer upon layer of electronica always demanding every moment of our supposedly free time.
How and why the U.S. foreign policy monster mavens have been able to depend upon mass murder via warfare to keep this country on a somewhat even keel for these many decades since 1947, when this shitshow truly achieved 'liftoff.'
There is much in what you say, Mr. Otness, but perhaps a more accurate rephrasing of my first assertion would be that attention span is subject to natural variability. We must take that into account when considering the role of indoctrination and dependency.
The two primary variables are incentive and memory. Incentive is subject to a categorical distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic reward. Memory correlates with intelligence, and there is a distinct causal relationship associated with that correlation.
Arguably, what appears to be intrinsic, what we commonly refer to as "self motivated," is anything but. Internalization of an extrinsic reward, does not change the structure of the stimuli.
The inculcated dependency you reference, is also a function of basic human motivation. Stabilizing demand is foundational, and we can observe the methodology at every scale. Rockefeller et al were directing capital flows and they are rightly demonized for their disregard for the lives of others. That said, we have only to perceive the delight of any manager when an essential associate assumes additional financial burden; cash flow requirements have a pivotal role in disincentivizing such voluntary instability as a change of occupation represents.
I agree with your observation about the degradation of "civics" and your description of it. That said, in the context of variable capacity, it becomes a matter of engagement with complexity. This is also to your point about gadgetry. Intelligence only partially overlaps with what we might refer to as practical wisdom, often referred to as "common sense."
With increased complexity, comes increased uncertainty. This introduces relativism as a necessity for critical thinking. "Common sense" dictates rejection of any degree of complexity that cannot be understood by any particular individual; it's a function of tolerance for risk. Natural variability again becomes a defining factor.
The decline of effective indoctrination in civics, appears to be a sort of "putting the cart before the horse." Properly ordered, first comes focused indoctrination, then comes the relativistic consideration of complexity. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. What presents in public discourse, appears to be an ascendancy of relativism without any foundational indoctrination.
I would assert that the incoherence we observe is a function of deflection. It isn't that the schools have failed to provide direction, it's that they have redirected the focus of students' loyalty. "Civics" is first and foremost, a function of loyalty. Education has reordered loyalty in hierarchies of priority. Let's go back sixty years and consider the hierarchical arrangement; God, country, family, self.
Depending on extrinsic stimuli, the individual reordered that hierarchy to meet changing demands, demands such as war, famine or disease. The default, however, was (and is) a constant.
What is the current default hierarchical ordering? If it has changed (and I think we can agree that it has,) what role has mere complexity played in that change?
Everything subject to variation can be mapped within a distribution curve. We know this, and we know that what we refer to as "intelligence" is so mapped. Those tasked with indoctrination (teachers,) are numerous and subject to variability. A common misconception is that the occupation selects for only a very narrow range of distribution, one at the apex of the distribution curve.
During the sixties, import of European radicalism accelerated, taking root in the universities. College students demonstrated responses correlating with their variable intelligence. This began to "trickle down" into secondary schools in the seventies. Today, we observe it in primary schools. It is even more incoherent now than it ever has been.
I participated in that first wave of secondary school radicalism, and back then, one was expected to engage with the canon. The minimum requirement was to read The Manifesto and mindlessly regurgitate talking points derived therefrom. Full engagement required tackling Das Kapital. Again, a sorting process mapped on a distribution curve. Again, the cart before the horse.
The "horse," in this instance, is economics. When Kapital, which is not a work of economics, is consumed with the idea that it teaches economic theory, is foundational to a student's understanding, the pillar is rotten at its base. The problem with today's "useful idiot" teachers winding up children and leading or sending them onto the streets in incoherent public displays of protest, is that relativistic contrarianism becomes the ascendant hierarchical priority.
Three full generations have passed since this reordering process began. Each generation of radicals has consisted of a naturally variable population, and the result of indoctrination by a cohort percentage only describable as "useful idiots," produces...... what? We have no evidence that the quality of indoctrination has improved, and there is no compelling case for thinking that the "utility" of "idiots" has increased.
If you recall the advertising for Instamatic cameras, they were heralded as "point and shoot" devices, so named because they did not require any attention to lens focus. We look around in amazement at masses of people, now including children, incoherently "protesting" the cause celebre du jour. To your point, it is, indeed, a "point and shoot" society we live in, millions pointlessly "shooting themselves in the foot."
Collusion and collaboration are part of human behavior at all levels, and there are certainly those manipulating others. That said, no "conspiracy" is required to lower the average intelligence of any group; the progeny of idiocy is rarely genius.
A fellow I know describes the reordering of hierarchical priority as a devolution from"ready, aim, fire" to "ready, fire, and we'll let you know what you're aiming for later, if we can think something up." It rather appears that he''s not entirely inaccurate.
"Common sense" is naturally conservative, a reluctance to engage in pointlessly-elevated risk. Neither perpetual stasis nor the immoderate experimentation associated with liberal extremism, are conducive to human flourishing.
I see little evidence that common sense is foundationally prioritized in the modern educational canon. Your point about "civics" stands.
Complete b s. ...but keep on trying .
Unlike baseball where runs scored in the first few innings contribute towards the final tally in the 9th inning, what happens in 2025 will have little effect on the elections to be held in November 2026. If the markets recover and inflation is contained, and if a semblance of peace returns to the world, Trump will get the credit and Republicans will do fine. Same for the elections in November 2028. I've no idea if tariffs will accomplish the objectives set by Trump, and how long he will stick with tariffs, or if other nations fold. During the great industrialization of America in the 19th Century, when railroads were built and cities expanded throughout the nation, tariffs were in place and provided much of the financial support for our nation and for our vast industrial power. Trump's downfall in 2020 was Covid, a black swan event, and a media and Congress full stop out to remove Trump from office.
Tariffs are okay if they are replacing, roughly dollar for dollar, another destructive tax such as the income tax. Today, they aren't replacing anything. They are 100% on top of all other existing taxes, including the income tax and state sales taxes. Tariffs are simply BIG GOVERNMENT.
Wow, how wrong can someone actually be?
"It’s easy, actually: People want lower prices, not higher prices. Americans voted for lower prices, not higher prices. Therefore, what Trump should have done is to abolish all tariffs immediately, period. The American people would have rejoiced, and it would have secured larger Republican majorities in US Congress in 2026, and the election of a Republican President in 2028."
You clearly did not get the first copy of the memo in 2016.
https://www.thomaspaines.blog/p/donald-trump-is-hoseas-whore