# Post ts_116340751005894827

- Post ID: `ts_116340751005894827`
- Platform: Truth Social
- Posted: 2026-04-03T12:22:58.971Z (UTC)
- Deleted: no
- Repost: no
- Canonical URL: https://trump.fm/post/ts_116340751005894827
- Analysis page: https://trump.fm/post/ts_116340751005894827/analysis
- Audio narration: https://static.trump.fm/audio/ts_116340751005894827.mp3 (a synthesized voice reading the post text, not a recording)

## Post text

> With a little more time, we can easily OPEN THE HORMUZ STRAIT, TAKE THE OIL, & MAKE A FORTUNE. IT WOULD BE A "GUSHER" FOR THE WORLD??? President DONALD J. TRUMP

## Engagement

- Likes: 38,377
- Reposts: 8,214
- Replies: 5,999
- Views: unknown
- Metrics collected: 2026-04-05T17:01:34.196Z (UTC)

# Analysis

_Machine-generated by trump.fm on 2026-04-03T12:33:11.481Z (UTC): a model's reading of this post, not his words. Its psychological terms describe the language, not a clinical assessment of him._

## Summary

This post reduces an active military conflict—now in its fifth week with nearly 2,000 deaths—to a real estate pitch, openly advocating the seizure of Iran's petroleum resources ("TAKE THE OIL") and framing it as "easily" achievable. The language is maximally grandiose with zero acknowledgment of military complexity, international law, or human cost. The word "easily" functions as compressed denial of reality, while "FOR THE WORLD" rationalizes resource seizure as altruism. The pun on "GUSHER" reveals relish in the prospect.

Clinically, this exemplifies the intersection of narcissistic grandiosity and antisocial features within the malignant narcissism framework. The subject displays fantasies of unlimited power and wealth, complete disregard for legal and moral constraints (Geneva Convention prohibitions on pillage), and ego-syntonic pleasure in dominance. The narcissistic state is purely grandiose with no vulnerability or reactive anger—this is supply-seeking performance, not injury response.

The post is particularly notable for its timing: three days before Trump's self-imposed April 6 deadline to destroy Iranian power plants. Combined with the previous post threatening "Bridges next, then Electric Power Plants," it suggests an escalatory trajectory where war aims are expanding from military objectives to resource extraction. The casual conflation of military force with business opportunity—a pattern dating to Trump's "take the oil" rhetoric from 2011 onward—has now moved from hypothetical commentary to active-conflict policy signaling.

## Psychological Analysis: Post ts_116340751005894827

### Overview
This post openly frames an active military conflict with Iran as a business opportunity, reducing the fifth week of a shooting war—with nearly 2,000 Iranian and 13 American deaths—to the language of a real estate pitch. The subject proposes seizing another nation's petroleum resources ("TAKE THE OIL") and characterizes this as "easily" achievable, deploying the metaphor "GUSHER" with apparent relish. The triple question marks (???) are likely a typographic error for exclamation marks, given their placement in what is clearly an emphatic, not interrogative, construction.

### Authorship Attribution
The post timestamp converts to 8:22 AM EDT, consistent with either Trump or an aide during business hours. However, the ALL CAPS passage, the stream-of-consciousness structure, the pun on "GUSHER" (in self-aware quotation marks), the triple question marks (probable typo—?/! are adjacent on mobile keyboards), and the openly predatory content all point strongly to authentic Trump composition. Aide-written posts tend toward polished event announcements and avoid casually proposing resource seizure of sovereign nations during active hostilities. The formal sign-off "President DONALD J. TRUMP" has become routine in his recent posting style and does not distinguish authorship.

### Multi-Level Personality Analysis

**Level 1 — Dispositional Traits:**
- **Extraversion (high):** Assertive, excitement-seeking. The post radiates enthusiasm about military-commercial conquest.
- **Agreeableness (extremely low):** Zero concern for the populations affected, international norms, or allied objections. "TAKE THE OIL" is maximally disagreeable in its naked acquisitiveness.
- **Conscientiousness — Achievement Striving (high):** Frames everything through deal-making and profit.
- **Openness — Values (rigid):** The worldview is zero-sum: resources exist to be taken by the powerful.
- **Neuroticism (low in this post):** No vulnerability, no anxiety. Pure grandiose confidence.

**Level 2 — Characteristic Adaptations:**
- **Agency motives:** Power and wealth domination. The post is a fantasy of unlimited extraction—military power converted directly into financial gain.
- **Schema:** The world is a resource pool; strength entitles you to take. Other nations' sovereignty is an inconvenience, not a constraint. "Easily" reveals a schema in which complexity and resistance are dismissed as trivial.

**Level 3 — Narrative Identity:**
- **Protagonist role:** Dealmaker-conqueror. Trump positions himself as the figure who alone sees the profit in the situation—a recurring identity claim.
- **Redemption sequence:** War (bad) → oil seizure → fortune (good). The contamination of war is redeemed through profit.
- **Identity claims:** "I see opportunity where others see crisis." "I am the dealmaker who turns conflict into wealth."
- **Contrasting other:** Implicitly, previous leaders who did not "take the oil"—a complaint Trump has voiced since at least 2011.

### Clinical Indicators

**Malignant Narcissism Assessment:**
- **Narcissistic features (marked):** Grandiose belief in ability to "easily" accomplish what the Pentagon's own assessments would characterize as extraordinarily complex. Fantasies of unlimited wealth extraction.
- **Antisocial features (marked):** Explicit advocacy for seizing another nation's natural resources during wartime—a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 33) and the Hague Regulations (Article 47). Complete absence of remorse or concern for civilian populations.
- **Paranoid features (absent in this post):** No persecution narrative; pure grandiosity.
- **Ego-syntonic sadism (moderate):** The relish in "TAKE THE OIL" and "MAKE A FORTUNE" during active hostilities suggests pleasure in dominance, though the sadism is economic rather than explicitly violent.

**Narcissistic Dynamics:**
- **Trigger:** Supply-seeking. This post is not reactive to a specific injury but is a grandiose performance for the audience—projecting omnipotent control during an ongoing conflict that has real costs and constraints.
- **Narcissistic state:** Purely grandiose. No vulnerability whatsoever. The war is going well in his framing, and he sees only profit ahead.
- **Rage:** Absent. This is exuberant grandiosity, not anger.

**Defense Mechanisms:**
1. **Distortion (pathological):** The extraordinary complexity and human cost of opening the Strait of Hormuz by force, let alone seizing Iranian oil fields, is distorted into something that "easily" yields a "FORTUNE." This grossly reshapes reality to match grandiose inner needs.
2. **Rationalization (neurotic):** "FOR THE WORLD" provides moral cover for what is openly described as resource seizure. Framing theft as altruism.
3. **Denial (pathological):** Complete denial of the military, diplomatic, legal, and humanitarian complexities. The word "easily" is the denial compressed into a single adverb.

### Cognitive Markers
- **Complexity:** Low. Three-clause structure with simple syntax. Consistent with Trump's baseline posting style rather than evidence of decline.
- **Triple question marks (???):** Most likely a typo for "!!!" given the emphatic (not interrogative) context. Supports mobile-device composition and authentic authorship.
- **"GUSHER" in quotes:** Shows metalinguistic awareness—he knows it's a pun/metaphor. This is a positive cognitive indicator.
- **Coherence:** The logical flow is intact within its own framework, even if that framework is divorced from geopolitical reality.
- **Baseline deviation:** None significant. The style is consistent with Trump's posting patterns throughout the Truth Social era.

### Archetypal Analysis
- **Primary:** King/Tyrant. The post claims sovereign authority to seize resources by force. The King builds; the Tyrant extracts.
- **Secondary:** Trickster. Reframing a devastating military conflict as a money-making scheme disrupts the expected moral framework of wartime leadership.
- **Shadow projection:** Minimal here—the predatory impulse is not projected onto others but openly embraced. The shadow is made conscious and celebrated.

### Order/Chaos Dynamics
- **Positioning:** Order restorer through force—"OPEN THE HORMUZ STRAIT" implies restoring the global shipping order that Iran disrupted.
- **Asymmetric application:** Order (trade flow) restored for "THE WORLD" (the in-group); chaos imposed on Iran through resource seizure.
- **Grievance intensity:** Low—this is not a grievance post but an opportunity post.
- **Hierarchy:** Explicitly restructuring: US dominance over Iranian resources, justified by military power.

### Rhetorical Techniques
- **Hyperbole:** "easily," "MAKE A FORTUNE," "GUSHER FOR THE WORLD"
- **Appeal to greed:** The entire post is structured as a sales pitch for war
- **Euphemism:** "TAKE THE OIL" is blunt but "GUSHER FOR THE WORLD" euphemizes resource seizure as global benefit
- **Pun/wordplay:** "GUSHER" operates on two levels—an oil well that flows freely and slang for something wonderful
- **False simplicity:** "With a little more time" and "easily" compress an enormously complex military-diplomatic challenge into trivial terms

### Fact Verification

| Claim | Verdict | Evidence |
|-------|---------|----------|
| "We can easily open the Strait of Hormuz" | **Mostly False** | The Strait of Hormuz is 21 miles wide at its narrowest point and is defended by Iran's extensive anti-ship missile batteries, naval mines, fast-attack craft, and coastal defense systems. The US Navy has long assessed that fully securing the strait against a determined Iranian defense would be an extremely complex, costly, and time-consuming military operation — not something achievable 'easily.' While US naval superiority is significant, Iran's asymmetric capabilities in this confined waterway make 'easily' a gross mischaracterization. The ongoing five-week conflict has not yet achieved this objective. |
| "We can take the oil and make a fortune" | **Mostly False** | Seizing and operating Iran's oil infrastructure would require a sustained ground occupation of oil-producing regions (primarily Khuzestan province), enormous military and logistical commitments, and would face fierce resistance. It would violate the Fourth Geneva Convention's prohibition on pillage (Article 33) and the Hague Regulations (Article 47). Previous US experiences attempting to secure Iraqi oil infrastructure demonstrate the difficulty and cost of such operations. The characterization of this as a straightforward path to 'a fortune' ignores military costs, reconstruction expenses, international sanctions risk, and the likely global economic disruption. |
| "It would be a 'gusher' for the world" | **Mostly False** | Iran's oil production capacity is approximately 3.5-4 million barrels per day, significant but not world-transforming. Seizing Iranian oil fields would likely cause massive global market disruption, spike prices in the short term, invite sanctions from trading partners, and face opposition from OPEC+ members. The net effect on global oil markets would more likely be negative (instability, supply disruption) than the positive 'gusher' framing suggests. Reopening the Strait of Hormuz itself would benefit global shipping, but that is distinct from seizing Iran's oil. |

Overall Veracity: 20%

## Receipts (6)

### major — foreign-policy (5 months earlier)

> "Seizing another nation's petroleum resources is a legitimate and desirable foreign policy objective"

**vs.**

> "Trump has demonstrated bold and unprecedented leadership in advancing peace around the globe"

The source claims Trump is 'advancing peace around the globe,' while this candidate claim endorses seizing a sovereign nation's petroleum resources as a 'legitimate and desirable' foreign policy objective. Forcible seizure of another nation's resources is the antithesis of peace advancement — same entity, same domain (foreign policy), directly opposing postures.

[View contradicting post →](/post/ts_115522288424489358)

---

### major — foreign-policy (5 months earlier)

> "Seizing another nation's petroleum resources is a legitimate and desirable foreign policy objective"

**vs.**

> "Will lead to further Peace all over the World"

The source claims a UN-backed peace initiative will lead to 'further Peace all over the World.' This candidate advocates for seizing a sovereign nation's petroleum resources by military/coercive force — an act of aggression that is the antithesis of promoting world peace. Championing peaceful global leadership while also calling for forcible resource seizure from another nation represents a clear contradiction in foreign policy stance, not merely different aspects of the same broad topic.

[View contradicting post →](/post/ts_115567457865630938)

---

### major — foreign-policy (5 months earlier)

> "Seizing another nation's petroleum resources is a legitimate and desirable foreign policy objective"

**vs.**

> "Trump is a 'President of peace' — a peacemaker whose defining foreign policy role is ending conflicts"

The source frames Trump's defining foreign policy identity as a peacemaker who ends conflicts. Advocating for seizing another nation's petroleum resources via military force (opening the Hormuz Strait, taking oil) is an inherently aggressive, conflict-initiating posture — the direct opposite of a peacemaker role. These are not different aspects of the same topic; they describe fundamentally incompatible foreign policy orientations.

[View contradicting post →](/post/ts_115577034428518924)

---

### moderate — foreign-policy (5 months earlier)

> "Seizing another nation's petroleum resources is a legitimate and desirable foreign policy objective"

**vs.**

> "Trump will continue making peace deals, ending wars, and saving lives"

The source frames Trump as a peacemaker who ends wars and saves lives. Advocating the seizure of another sovereign nation's petroleum resources is an inherently aggressive act — one that would provoke conflict rather than end it — presenting a genuinely contradictory foreign policy posture.

[View contradicting post →](/post/ts_115522240748429827)

---

### moderate — foreign-policy (5 months earlier)

> "Seizing another nation's petroleum resources is a legitimate and desirable foreign policy objective"

**vs.**

> "Trump is a champion of peace or acts in service of peace"

The source frames Trump as a champion of peace via hostage diplomacy. Advocating for seizing a sovereign nation's petroleum resources by force is inherently an act of aggression, directly at odds with a peace-champion characterization. Not a clean reversal, but the posture is antithetical — peace vs. armed resource seizure.

[View contradicting post →](/post/ts_115577039288167821)

---

### moderate — foreign-policy (4 months earlier)

> "Seizing another nation's petroleum resources is a legitimate and desirable foreign policy objective"

**vs.**

> "He has been stopping wars and excels at foreign relations"

The source claims Trump excels at 'stopping wars' as a foreign policy strength. Advocating for seizing another sovereign nation's petroleum resources is an aggressive act that would likely initiate or escalate armed conflict, directly contradicting the posture of a peacemaker/war-stopper.

[View contradicting post →](/post/ts_115593240147764609)

## Authorship Analysis

**Self-Written** (score: 85%)

### Indicators

- ALL CAPS passage with emotional intensity
- Triple question marks (???) likely typo for exclamation marks — suggests mobile composition
- Self-aware pun ('GUSHER' in quotes) consistent with Trump's rhetorical style
- Content openly advocates resource seizure — too provocative for aide composition
- Stream-of-consciousness sales-pitch framing

## Psychological Profile

### Traits

**Big Five:**
- Extraversion: 90%
- Agreeableness: 5%
- Conscientiousness: 60%
- Neuroticism: 15%
- Openness: 20%

Strongest facet: Assertiveness (Extraversion) and Achievement Striving (Conscientiousness) dominate; Agreeableness is near-floor with zero tender-mindedness or modesty

**Motives:**
- Agency: 95%
- Communion: 5%

Primary drive: power

### Narrative

- **Role:** Dealmaker-conqueror who transforms military conflict into profit opportunity
- **Arc:** redemption
- **Contrasting:** Implicitly, previous leaders who failed to 'take the oil' — a recurring Trump complaint since 2011

**Identity Claims:**
- I see profit where others see only cost
- I have the power to reshape geopolitical reality through deals
- Military conflict is a business opportunity when I'm in charge

### State

**Grandiose State**

**Trigger:** Supply Seeking

Sentiment: +0.65

**Mildly Hypomanic**
- Elevated, expansive mood — enthusiasm about wartime resource seizure
- Grandiose ideation — 'easily' achieve complex military objectives, 'MAKE A FORTUNE'
- Pressured speech quality — ALL CAPS, compressed syntax, excitable punctuation

### Clinical

**Malignant Narcissism:**
- Narcissistic: 85%
- Antisocial: 80%
- Paranoid: 10%
- Sadism: 50%

**Defense Mechanisms:**
- distortion (pathological)
- rationalization (neurotic)
- denial (pathological)

**Cognitive Complexity:**
- Complexity: 25%

**Parasocial Techniques:**
- Inviting audience to share in imagined wealth ('FORTUNE', 'GUSHER FOR THE WORLD')
- Projecting omnipotent control that reassures followers during wartime uncertainty
- Using dealmaker persona to make military conflict feel manageable and profitable

## Danger Assessment

**ELEVATED**

### Indicators

- Open advocacy for seizing a sovereign nation's natural resources during active warfare
- Framing war as profit opportunity potentially encourages escalation beyond military necessity
- Approaching self-imposed April 6 deadline for infrastructure strikes combined with expanding war aims (from military targets to resource extraction)
- Potential violation of Fourth Geneva Convention Article 33 (prohibition on pillage) and Hague Regulations Article 47
- Casual dismissal of complexity ('easily') suggests insufficient deliberation about escalation risks

## Fact Checks (3)

_The model's verdicts from 2026-04-03._

> We can easily open the Strait of Hormuz

**MOSTLY FALSE**

The Strait of Hormuz is 21 miles wide at its narrowest point and is defended by Iran's extensive anti-ship missile batteries, naval mines, fast-attack craft, and coastal defense systems. The US Navy has long assessed that fully securing the strait against a determined Iranian defense would be an extremely complex, costly, and time-consuming military operation — not something achievable 'easily.' While US naval superiority is significant, Iran's asymmetric capabilities in this confined waterway make 'easily' a gross mischaracterization. The ongoing five-week conflict has not yet achieved this objective.

Sources: US Naval Institute analysis of Strait of Hormuz defense challenges; Pentagon assessments of Iranian anti-access/area-denial capabilities

> We can take the oil and make a fortune

**MOSTLY FALSE**

Seizing and operating Iran's oil infrastructure would require a sustained ground occupation of oil-producing regions (primarily Khuzestan province), enormous military and logistical commitments, and would face fierce resistance. It would violate the Fourth Geneva Convention's prohibition on pillage (Article 33) and the Hague Regulations (Article 47). Previous US experiences attempting to secure Iraqi oil infrastructure demonstrate the difficulty and cost of such operations. The characterization of this as a straightforward path to 'a fortune' ignores military costs, reconstruction expenses, international sanctions risk, and the likely global economic disruption.

Sources: Fourth Geneva Convention Article 33; Hague Regulations Article 47; US experience with Iraqi oil infrastructure security 2003-2011

> It would be a 'gusher' for the world

**MOSTLY FALSE**

Iran's oil production capacity is approximately 3.5-4 million barrels per day, significant but not world-transforming. Seizing Iranian oil fields would likely cause massive global market disruption, spike prices in the short term, invite sanctions from trading partners, and face opposition from OPEC+ members. The net effect on global oil markets would more likely be negative (instability, supply disruption) than the positive 'gusher' framing suggests. Reopening the Strait of Hormuz itself would benefit global shipping, but that is distinct from seizing Iran's oil.

Sources: EIA data on Iranian oil production capacity; Historical analysis of wartime oil market disruptions

Overall Veracity: 20%

## Receipts (6)

### major — foreign-policy (5 months earlier)

> Seizing another nation's petroleum resources is a legitimate and desirable foreign policy objective

_Apr 3, 2026_

vs.

> Trump has demonstrated bold and unprecedented leadership in advancing peace around the globe

_Nov 9, 2025_

The source claims Trump is 'advancing peace around the globe,' while this candidate claim endorses seizing a sovereign nation's petroleum resources as a 'legitimate and desirable' foreign policy objective. Forcible seizure of another nation's resources is the antithesis of peace advancement — same entity, same domain (foreign policy), directly opposing postures.

[View contradicting post](/post/ts_115522288424489358)

---

### major — foreign-policy (5 months earlier)

> Seizing another nation's petroleum resources is a legitimate and desirable foreign policy objective

_Apr 3, 2026_

vs.

> Will lead to further Peace all over the World

_Nov 17, 2025_

The source claims a UN-backed peace initiative will lead to 'further Peace all over the World.' This candidate advocates for seizing a sovereign nation's petroleum resources by military/coercive force — an act of aggression that is the antithesis of promoting world peace. Championing peaceful global leadership while also calling for forcible resource seizure from another nation represents a clear contradiction in foreign policy stance, not merely different aspects of the same broad topic.

[View contradicting post](/post/ts_115567457865630938)

---

### major — foreign-policy (5 months earlier)

> Seizing another nation's petroleum resources is a legitimate and desirable foreign policy objective

_Apr 3, 2026_

vs.

> Trump is a 'President of peace' — a peacemaker whose defining foreign policy role is ending conflicts

_Nov 19, 2025_

The source frames Trump's defining foreign policy identity as a peacemaker who ends conflicts. Advocating for seizing another nation's petroleum resources via military force (opening the Hormuz Strait, taking oil) is an inherently aggressive, conflict-initiating posture — the direct opposite of a peacemaker role. These are not different aspects of the same topic; they describe fundamentally incompatible foreign policy orientations.

[View contradicting post](/post/ts_115577034428518924)

---

### moderate — foreign-policy (5 months earlier)

> Seizing another nation's petroleum resources is a legitimate and desirable foreign policy objective

_Apr 3, 2026_

vs.

> Trump will continue making peace deals, ending wars, and saving lives

_Nov 9, 2025_

The source frames Trump as a peacemaker who ends wars and saves lives. Advocating the seizure of another sovereign nation's petroleum resources is an inherently aggressive act — one that would provoke conflict rather than end it — presenting a genuinely contradictory foreign policy posture.

[View contradicting post](/post/ts_115522240748429827)

---

### moderate — foreign-policy (5 months earlier)

> Seizing another nation's petroleum resources is a legitimate and desirable foreign policy objective

_Apr 3, 2026_

vs.

> Trump is a champion of peace or acts in service of peace

_Nov 19, 2025_

The source frames Trump as a champion of peace via hostage diplomacy. Advocating for seizing a sovereign nation's petroleum resources by force is inherently an act of aggression, directly at odds with a peace-champion characterization. Not a clean reversal, but the posture is antithetical — peace vs. armed resource seizure.

[View contradicting post](/post/ts_115577039288167821)

---

### moderate — foreign-policy (4 months earlier)

> Seizing another nation's petroleum resources is a legitimate and desirable foreign policy objective

_Apr 3, 2026_

vs.

> He has been stopping wars and excels at foreign relations

_Nov 22, 2025_

The source claims Trump excels at 'stopping wars' as a foreign policy strength. Advocating for seizing another sovereign nation's petroleum resources is an aggressive act that would likely initiate or escalate armed conflict, directly contradicting the posture of a peacemaker/war-stopper.

[View contradicting post](/post/ts_115593240147764609)

## Tags

- resource_seizure_advocacy (95%)
- war_as_business (90%)
- grandiose_omnipotence (85%)
- iran_conflict (90%)
- strait_of_hormuz (85%)
- international_law_disregard (80%)
- supply_seeking (75%)
- false_simplicity (70%)
- take_the_oil_continuity (80%)

## That day

_From trump.fm's machine-generated digest of the day, not his words._

**Good Friday in two registers: infrastructure targets at dawn, benedictions by dusk — and total silence on a downed American jet.**

Trump posted seven times on Good Friday — a light day by his standards, with a normal night's sleep behind it. The morning was the aggressive part: he named Iran's bridges and power plants as the next targets, floated seizing Iranian oil outright, and announced JD Vance as a "fraud czar" with raids aimed at Democratic states and a pointed warning to Somali-Americans. By afternoon the oil talk had shrunk to a four-word aside, and by evening he had switched entirely to holiday blessings, a jobs report, and an Easter video about Christ's humility. What he didn't mention is the loudest part of the day: an American fighter jet was shot down over Iran with a colonel still missing, a second aircraft was lost, Iran hit Gulf oil facilities, oil spiked, and 23 states sued him — none of it drew a word. The mood never turned angry or frantic; the striking thing is how calmly the most alarming things were said.

Full digest for 2026-04-03: https://trump.fm/date/2026-04-03/analysis

## Citation

- APA: Trump, D. J. (2026, April 3). With a little more time, we can easily OPEN THE... [Social media post]. Truth Social. trump.fm. https://trump.fm/post/ts_116340751005894827
- MLA: Trump, Donald J. "With a little more time, we can easily OPEN THE HORMUZ..." Truth Social, 3 Apr. 2026. trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_116340751005894827. Accessed 9 Oct. 2026.
- Chicago: Donald J. Trump, "With a little more time, we can easily OPEN THE HORMUZ...," Truth Social, April 3, 2026, archived at trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/ts_116340751005894827.

## For agents

- Site overview: https://trump.fm/llms.txt
- API specification: https://trump.fm/openapi.json
- MCP server: https://trump.fm/mcp (search and fetch tools, no auth)
- This post as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/posts/ts_116340751005894827
- Analysis as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/analysis/ts_116340751005894827
- All citation formats: https://trump.fm/api/cite/ts_116340751005894827
- Same day: https://trump.fm/date/2026-04-03
- The record alone, without the analysis: https://trump.fm/post/ts_116340751005894827.md?analysis=false

_Markdown view of a trump.fm page. Post, analysis, date, feed, contradictions, search and about pages answer in markdown at their URL with `.md` appended (`/index.md` for the home page), or when sent `Accept: text/markdown`._