Analysis: The Democrats number one policy push is the complete and tot...

8mo ago Dec 5, 2025 at 2:20 PM

The Democrats number one policy push is the complete and total OBLITERATION of our great United States Supreme Court. They will do this on their very first day in office, through the simple Termination of the Filibuster, SHOULD THEY WIN THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS. The Radical Left Democrats are looking at 21 Justices, with immediate ascension. This would be terrible for our Country. Fear not, however, Republicans will not let it, or any of their other catastrophic policies, happen. Our Country is now in very good hands. MAGA!!!

0:00 0:00

AI Analysis

Machine-generated analysis of the post above on 2026-03-22. Not written by the author of the post.

Danger Level

None

Narcissistic State

Grandiose

Authorship

Uncertain

Intensity

55%

Authorship Analysis

Uncertain

Indicators:

Business hours posting (9:20 AM EST)
Structured argument with coherent flow
Correct grammar throughout
Strategic ALL CAPS for emphasis (Trump style)
MAGA!!! closing (authentic signature)

Psychological Profile

▶ State

Grandiose State

Trigger: Preemptive Attack (hypothetical Democratic electoral victory)

Sentiment

-0.30

▶ Clinical

Malignant Narcissism:

Narcissistic

50%

Antisocial

20%

Paranoid

40%

Sadism

10%

Defense Mechanisms:

projectionsplitting

Cognitive Complexity:

Complexity

55%

Parasocial Techniques:

protector framingfear-then-reassurance arcin-group validation

Fact Checks (2)

"Democrats' number one policy push is obliteration of the Supreme Court"

Mostly False

No major Democratic legislative push for court-packing was active in December 2025. Some progressive Democrats have proposed court expansion but it is not the party's 'number one policy push.'

"Radical Left Democrats are looking at 21 Justices"

Mostly False

Some progressive proposals have suggested expanding the court, but 21 justices is not a mainstream Democratic proposal. The most common proposals suggest 13 justices.

Receipts (2)

“Democrats would terminate the filibuster to achieve Supreme Court expansion”

vs.

“The Senate filibuster should be permanently eliminated”

Direct reversal. The source treats filibuster termination as a Democratic threat that would be catastrophic, using it as a warning to voters. Just ~4 months later, the same speaker explicitly declares 'It is time for the Senate Filibuster to END' — the same action previously framed as a catastrophic Democratic scheme is now an active personal demand. Same institution, same mechanism, opposite position.

View contradicting post →

“Democrats would terminate the filibuster to achieve Supreme Court expansion”

vs.

“Republican senators opposing filibuster elimination are 'weak and ineffective'”

The source (Dec 2025) frames filibuster elimination as a Democratic threat that would be 'terrible for our Country.' This candidate (Mar 2026) attacks Republican senators who oppose filibuster elimination as 'weak and ineffective' — implicitly endorsing the very action the source condemned. The position on the filibuster as an institution has clearly flipped.

View contradicting post →

Psychological Analysis: Supreme Court "Obliteration" Warning

Authorship

Posted at 14:20 UTC = 9:20 AM EST (Trump likely at White House given Oval Office meeting mentioned in adjacent post). Business hours, polished structure, correct grammar, professional formatting with strategic capitalization. Mixed signals: the ALL CAPS words and "MAGA!!!" closing are authentic Trump style, but the overall structure and coherent argumentation suggest aide involvement or at minimum heavy editing.

Psychological State

This is a preemptive attack post — constructing a future threat scenario to mobilize supporters. No specific trigger event is apparent; Democrats are not currently pushing court-packing legislation. The post manufactures urgency around a hypothetical ("SHOULD THEY WIN THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS") to maintain in-group cohesion.

Defense Mechanisms

Projection: Accusing Democrats of wanting to destroy institutions while Trump himself has repeatedly attacked judicial independence
Splitting: Pure black-and-white framing — Democrats = "OBLITERATION," Republicans = "very good hands"

Rhetorical Techniques

The post follows a classic fear-then-reassurance arc: catastrophic threat → "Fear not" → savior resolution. "21 Justices" is a specific but unattributed claim designed to sound alarming. The phrase "complete and total OBLITERATION" echoes his earlier "complete and total shutdown" formulation — a signature rhetorical template.

Cognitive Notes

Coherent, on-message, no word-finding issues. "Immediate ascension" is slightly unusual phrasing (standard would be "appointment" or "confirmation") but not clinically significant.

Danger Assessment

Eliminationist language ("OBLITERATION") applied to institutions rather than people. Framing opposition as existential threat to the judiciary is inflammatory but within standard political rhetoric bounds.

Fact Verification

Claim	Verdict	Evidence
"Democrats' number one policy push is obliteration of the Supreme Court"	Mostly False	No major Democratic legislative push for court-packing was active in December 2025. Some progressive Democrats have proposed court expansion but it is not the party's 'number one policy push.'
"Radical Left Democrats are looking at 21 Justices"	Mostly False	Some progressive proposals have suggested expanding the court, but 21 justices is not a mainstream Democratic proposal. The most common proposals suggest 13 justices.

Overall Veracity: 20%

Receipts (2)

reversal — congress (4 months later)

> "Democrats would terminate the filibuster to achieve Supreme Court expansion"

vs.

> "The Senate filibuster should be permanently eliminated"

[View contradicting post →](/post/ts_116309106577650785)

major — congress (4 months later)

> "Democrats would terminate the filibuster to achieve Supreme Court expansion"

vs.

> "Republican senators opposing filibuster elimination are 'weak and ineffective'"

[View contradicting post →](/post/ts_116309106577650785)