Analysis: Just like it was in 2016 where FoxNews, the shrinking Wall S...

3y ago Dec 18, 2022 at 1:09 AM

Just like it was in 2016 where FoxNews, the shrinking Wall Street Journal, and the no longer readable or salvageable N.Y. Post, we’re strongly against me and my candidacy for President. They did phony stories and put out phony polls. They said I couldn’t win, and I WON BIG. They had their “pets,” like low energy Jeb, but how did that work out? Not good for them. Then I did even better the second time around, getting MILLIONS MORE VOTES, but BAD things went on. This field is much weaker, WATCH!

0:00 0:00

AI Analysis

Machine-generated analysis of the post above on 2026-03-20. Not written by the author of the post.

Danger Level

None

Narcissistic State

Grandiose

Authorship

Self-Written

Intensity

60%

Authorship Analysis

Self-Written

Indicators:

Grammar error ('we're' for 'were')
Stream-of-consciousness structure
Characteristic nicknames ('low energy Jeb')
ALL CAPS emphasis pattern
Evening posting time at Mar-a-Lago

Psychological Profile

▶ State

Grandiose State

Trigger: Narcissistic Injury — Abandonment (Murdoch media properties (Fox, WSJ, NY Post))

Rage: Intensity 50% targeting Fox News, WSJ, NY Post (Murdoch empire)

Proportionality

40%

Sentiment

-0.50

Mildly Hypomanic

Grandiose confidence about future victoryRapid topic shifting within single post

▶ Clinical

Malignant Narcissism:

Narcissistic

80%

Antisocial

30%

Paranoid

50%

Sadism

30%

Defense Mechanisms:

devaluationsplittingdenialprojection

Cognitive Complexity:

Complexity

40%

Cognitive Markers:

perseverationtangentiality

Parasocial Techniques:

Shared grievance narrativeInsider knowledge framing ('WATCH!')Us-vs-them bonding against media

Danger Assessment

None

Gaslighting Detected:

Implicit claim 2020 was stolen ('BAD things went on')
Dismissal of legitimate polling as 'phony'

Reality Distortions:

Implicit claim 2020 election was stolen
Characterization of all critical media coverage as 'phony'

Fact Checks (3)

"Fox News, WSJ, and NY Post were strongly against his 2016 candidacy"

Half True

These outlets were skeptical early in 2016 but Fox gave substantial airtime and the NY Post endorsed him. WSJ editorial board was more consistently critical.

"He got MILLIONS MORE VOTES the second time around"

True

Trump received ~74.2M votes in 2020 vs ~63M in 2016, roughly 11 million more votes.

"BAD things went on (implying election fraud caused his loss)"

False

No evidence of fraud sufficient to change the 2020 election outcome was found by courts, DOJ, or state officials including Trump appointees.

Receipts

No contradictions with other posts detected yet.

Psychological Analysis: Post ts_109532007012797091

Context

Posted 2022-12-18 at ~8:09 PM EST (Mar-a-Lago). This places it in evening hours — consistent with authentic Trump posting but not the classic late-night window. Trump had announced his 2024 candidacy roughly a month prior (Nov 15, 2022) and was facing skepticism from traditional conservative media allies.

Content Analysis

The post is a grievance-laden attack on Fox News, Wall Street Journal, and New York Post — all Murdoch properties — for perceived insufficient loyalty to his 2024 candidacy. He frames this as a repeat of 2016, claims vindication through past victory, alludes obliquely to 2020 election fraud ("BAD things went on"), and dismisses the 2024 Republican field as weak.

Authorship

The post reads as authentic Trump: stream-of-consciousness structure, characteristic nicknames ("low energy Jeb"), grammatical error ("we're" for "were"), emotional escalation, ALL CAPS emphasis on key words. The evening timing is plausible for personal posting. The grammar error is particularly telling — an aide would not make this mistake.

Psychological Dynamics

The post is triggered by perceived betrayal from media allies. The Murdoch empire supported Trump through most of his presidency but began hedging after 2020. This constitutes narcissistic injury from abandonment/disloyalty. The response pattern is classic: (1) devalue the source, (2) invoke past triumph, (3) threaten future dominance.

The phrase "BAD things went on" is a compressed reference to his stolen-election narrative, inserted without elaboration — suggesting it has become a perseverative fixture requiring no explanation for his audience.

Defense Mechanisms

Devaluation: "shrinking," "no longer readable or salvageable," dismissing outlets
Splitting: Media allies become enemies; no middle ground
Grandiosity as defense: "I WON BIG," "MILLIONS MORE VOTES"
Denial: Implicit denial of 2020 loss via "BAD things went on"

Rhetorical Techniques

The post follows a contamination-then-redemption arc: enemies opposed him → he won anyway → they betrayed him again → he will win again. The closing "WATCH!" functions as both threat and promise, a signature move creating anticipatory tension.

Fact Verification

Claim	Verdict	Evidence
"Fox News, WSJ, and NY Post were strongly against his 2016 candidacy"	Half True	These outlets were skeptical early in 2016 but Fox gave substantial airtime and the NY Post endorsed him. WSJ editorial board was more consistently critical.
"He got MILLIONS MORE VOTES the second time around"	True	Trump received ~74.2M votes in 2020 vs ~63M in 2016, roughly 11 million more votes.
"BAD things went on (implying election fraud caused his loss)"	False	No evidence of fraud sufficient to change the 2020 election outcome was found by courts, DOJ, or state officials including Trump appointees.

Overall Veracity: 50%