# Post x_299530651776999400 - Post ID: `x_299530651776999400` - Platform: X (Twitter) - Posted: 2013-02-07T19:50:47.000Z (UTC) - Deleted: no - Repost: no - Canonical URL: https://trump.fm/post/x_299530651776999400 - Analysis page: https://trump.fm/post/x_299530651776999400/analysis - Audio narration: https://static.trump.fm/audio/x_299530651776999400.mp3 (a synthesized voice reading the post text, not a recording) ## Post text > Democrats try so hard to mock &, belittle Republicans—&, the Republicans just don’t fight back—no energy! ## Engagement - Likes: 0 - Reposts: 311 - Replies: 0 - Views: unknown - Metrics collected: 2026-02-01T01:33:24.920Z (UTC) # Analysis _Machine-generated by trump.fm on 2026-02-18T04:37:32.898Z (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 February 2013 post reveals Trump developing core themes that would later define his 2016 presidential campaign. Posted five days before Obama's State of the Union address amid Republican struggles with sequestration and Obama's second-term agenda, Trump criticizes Republicans for failing to 'fight back' against Democratic attacks and lacking 'energy'—a proto-version of his devastating 'Low Energy Jeb' attack from 2016. **Psychological dynamics:** The post employs displacement defense, redirecting aggression from Democrats (the ostensible antagonists) to Republicans (criticized for passivity). This establishes Trump's grandiose positioning as superior to both parties—he possesses the combative energy Republicans lack. The splitting defense creates binary categories: aggressive Democrats vs passive Republicans, with Trump implicitly occupying a third position as the strong observer. **Personality expression:** High agency motivation (power-seeking), low agreeableness (willing to attack own party), and the dominance/submission evaluative framework that became his signature. He casts himself as the fighter who sees what weak Republicans cannot. **Historical significance:** This represents early brand development for Trump's political identity. The 'energy' criticism became central to his hostile takeover of the Republican Party, resonating with a base frustrated by establishment weakness. The post tests themes three years before formal political entry, suggesting strategic positioning or genuine frustration that later found political expression. **Clinical notes:** Moderate narcissistic features with immature defenses (projection, splitting, displacement). No cognitive concerns; language is clear and punchy, consistent with 2013 baseline. # Comprehensive Psychological Analysis: February 7, 2013 Post ## Context and Timing Posted February 7, 2013, at 2:50 PM EST, five days before President Obama's February 12, 2013 State of the Union address. This was a period of significant political tension: - **Obama's second inauguration** had occurred January 21, 2013, with an assertive progressive agenda - **Sequestration crisis** looming, with automatic budget cuts set to begin March 1 - **Gun control debate** intensified after Sandy Hook massacre (December 14, 2012) - **Immigration reform** and minimum wage increases on Obama's agenda - **Republican Party** struggling to find effective messaging against Obama's momentum The political environment featured Democrats in an offensive posture following Obama's re-election, while Republicans grappled with internal divisions and ineffective opposition strategies. --- ## Level 1: Dispositional Traits (Big Five) ### Extraversion: 0.85/1.0 **Dominant facet: Assertiveness** - Direct public criticism of political actors - Confident pronouncement on political dynamics - Public engagement with partisan conflict ### Agreeableness: 0.15/1.0 **Dominant facet: Low modesty, low trust** - Willing to publicly criticize own party - Harsh judgment of Republican performance - No diplomatic hedging or softening ### Conscientiousness: 0.4/1.0 **Mixed presentation** - Observant of political patterns (achievement striving) - Impulsive expression (low deliberation) - Informal writing style suggests low orderliness ### Neuroticism: 0.65/1.0 **Dominant facet: Angry hostility** - Frustration with Republican weakness - Emotionally reactive to political dynamics - Exclamatory tone signals agitation ### Openness: 0.3/1.0 **Rigid evaluative framework** - Binary thinking: strong vs weak, fighters vs passive - Conventional values: dominance hierarchy - Closed to alternative interpretations of political strategy --- ## Level 2: Characteristic Adaptations ### Agency Motives: 0.9/1.0 **Power and dominance seeking** - Establishes superiority through criticism - Evaluates political actors on strength/weakness dimension - Positions self as alpha observer **Evidence:** - "Democrats try so hard" (acknowledges Democratic power moves) - "Republicans just don't fight back" (criticizes submission) - "no energy!" (claims to identify what's missing) ### Communion Motives: 0.1/1.0 **Minimal affiliation or care** - No solidarity with Republicans despite partisan alignment - No empathy for political challenges - Criticism serves self-elevation, not group support ### Cognitive Schemas **Self-schema:** The strong observer who sees what weak establishment politicians cannot **Others-schema:** Binary categorization—aggressive Democrats vs passive Republicans, both inferior to self **World-schema:** Politics as combat arena where dominance determines outcomes --- ## Level 3: Narrative Identity ### Protagonist Role **"The Fighter" / "The Truth-Teller Who Sees Republican Weakness"** Trump casts himself in the role of the energetic combatant who recognizes what establishment Republicans fail to understand: politics requires aggressive fighting, not genteel debate. ### Identity Claims 1. "I possess the energy Republicans lack" 2. "I understand political combat dynamics" 3. "I'm not constrained by establishment weakness" ### Narrative Sequence: Contamination A good situation (Republican political position) is contaminated by Republican weakness and passivity, leading to Democratic dominance. **Structure:** - Setup: Political conflict between parties - Contamination: Republicans fail to fight effectively - Current state: Democratic mockery goes unanswered ### Contrasting Other **Weak, passive, "low energy" Republicans** who fail to match Democratic aggression This establishes Trump's differentiation from the Republican establishment three years before his presidential run. --- ## Level 4: Clinical Indicators ### Malignant Narcissism Assessment (Kernberg Framework) #### A. Narcissistic Features: 0.5/1.0 (Moderate) - **Grandiosity:** Implicit claim of superior political insight - **Belief in being special:** Positions self as seeing what establishment Republicans cannot - **Need for admiration:** Public pronouncements invite validation - **Entitlement:** Assumes authority to judge party performance - **Lack of empathy:** No consideration of Republican strategic challenges #### B. Antisocial Features: 0.2/1.0 (Low) - Minimal in this post - Criticism is within normal political discourse bounds #### C. Paranoid Features: 0.3/1.0 (Mild) - Perception of political combat ("Democrats try so hard to mock & belittle") - Vigilance to dominance dynamics - Not elevated to clinical concern #### D. Ego-Syntonic Sadism: 0.1/1.0 (Minimal) - Criticism of Republicans contains implicit satisfaction - But primary affect is frustration, not pleasure in humiliation **Overall malignant narcissism score: 0.28/1.0** - Moderate narcissistic features without full malignant constellation --- ### Narcissistic Dynamics #### Trigger Type: Narcissistic Injury (Vicarious) **Source:** Democratic mockery of Republicans + Republican failure to respond Trump experiences vicarious narcissistic injury through identification with Republican weakness. Democrats' successful mockery triggers frustration because it reveals Republican (and by extension, conservative) submission to liberal dominance. #### Narcissistic Rage: Present (Moderate) - **Intensity:** 0.4/1.0 - **Proportionality:** 0.6/1.0 (somewhat proportionate to political frustration) - **Target:** Republican Party establishment, not Democrats **Note:** The displacement is psychologically significant—rage targets Republicans for *failing to fight* rather than Democrats for *attacking*. #### Narcissistic State: Grandiose - Expansive judgment of political landscape - Implicit superiority: "I see what they don't" - Self-positioning as possessing the "energy" Republicans lack --- ### Defense Mechanisms (Vaillant's Hierarchy) #### 1. Projection (Immature, Level 2) **Evidence:** Projects own combative energy onto Republicans, criticizing them for lacking the fighting spirit he possesses Trump attributes to Republicans the *absence* of a quality he values in himself—aggressive combat readiness. This is inverse projection: rather than attributing his unacceptable impulses to others, he criticizes others for lacking his valued traits. #### 2. Splitting (Immature, Level 2) **Evidence:** "Democrats try so hard... Republicans just don't fight back" Binary categorization with no nuance: - **All-aggressive:** Democrats (active, trying hard, attacking) - **All-passive:** Republicans (reactive, weak, no energy) This black-and-white thinking collapses complex political strategy into a simple dominance hierarchy. #### 3. Displacement (Neurotic, Level 3) **Evidence:** Redirects aggression from Democrats (the ostensible antagonists) to Republicans (criticized for passivity) The psychologically safer target is Republicans (in-group), not Democrats (out-group). Attacking Republicans allows Trump to: - Establish alpha status within conservative coalition - Avoid direct confrontation with Democrats - Position himself as superior to establishment Republicans **Defense constellation:** Primarily immature-level defenses (projection, splitting) with some neurotic displacement. This pattern is consistent with narcissistic personality organization. --- ### Cognitive Status Assessment #### Language Production - **Syntax:** Simple compound sentence with clear structure - **Vocabulary:** Common political terms, no sophisticated language - **Coherence:** Logical flow from Democratic action to Republican reaction to Trump's judgment #### Complexity Score: 0.4/1.0 Typical Trump baseline: punchy, direct, emotionally immediate communication without elaborate argumentation. #### Baseline Deviation: None This represents Trump's standard 2013 Twitter voice. No markers of cognitive decline or linguistic degradation. #### Markers Present: None - No word-finding difficulty - No paraphasias - No tangentiality or derailment - No confabulation - No temporal confusion **Assessment:** Language production is normal for subject's baseline. Simple sentence structure reflects communication style, not cognitive impairment. --- ## Authorship Attribution Analysis ### Timestamp and Location Analysis **Posted:** February 7, 2013, 19:50:47 UTC = **2:50 PM EST** **Likely location:** New York City (Trump's primary residence in 2013, where Trump Tower and Trump Organization offices were located) **Time context:** Mid-afternoon, business hours—typically associated with aide-written posts ### However: Strong Authentic Trump Indicators Despite business hours posting, multiple markers suggest authentic Trump authorship: #### Stylistic Markers (High Confidence) 1. **Ampersand usage:** "mock &, belittle" and "belittle Republicans—&" (informal abbreviation) 2. **Double-hyphen em-dash:** "Republicans—&" and "back—no" (not proper em-dashes) 3. **Exclamation point:** "no energy!" (emotional emphasis) 4. **Combative tone:** Direct political attack with emotional charge 5. **Stream-of-consciousness:** Observation → judgment → exclamation #### Thematic Markers (High Confidence) 6. **"No energy" critique:** This became Trump's signature attack ("Low Energy Jeb" in 2016) 7. **Republican weakness complaint:** Consistent with Trump's later campaign theme of GOP establishment failure 8. **Combat framing:** Politics as fight requiring aggressive response #### Content Markers (High Confidence) 9. **In-group criticism:** Trump regularly attacked Republican weakness 10. **Dominance hierarchy:** Evaluation based on strength/weakness, not policy 11. **Emotional reactivity:** Frustration evident, not calculated messaging ### Aide (Scavino) Contra-Indicators An aide-written post would likely feature: - ✗ Proper punctuation (em-dashes, not --) - ✗ Complete words ("and" not "&") - ✗ More measured, professional tone - ✗ Event announcements or campaign messaging - ✗ Grammatical correctness throughout **Authorship Score: 0.95/1.0 (Trump himself)** **Confidence: High** **Conclusion:** Despite mid-afternoon posting time, the stylistic authenticity, thematic consistency with Trump's later signature attacks, and emotional reactivity strongly indicate authentic Trump authorship. The "no energy" theme is particularly diagnostic—this phrase became central to Trump's 2016 campaign, suggesting genuine preoccupation with Republican weakness that predated political calculation. --- ## Rhetorical Analysis ### Rhetorical Devices Employed #### 1. Parallel Structure "Democrats try so hard to mock & belittle" - Doubled verbs create rhythmic emphasis - "Mock" and "belittle" are near-synonyms, intensifying through repetition #### 2. Antithesis (Contrast Structure) "Democrats try so hard... Republicans just don't fight back" - Binary opposition: active vs passive - Asymmetric effort: "try so hard" vs "don't fight" - Implicit value judgment: effort + aggression = good; passivity = bad #### 3. Em-dash for Dramatic Pause "Republicans—& the Republicans just don't fight back—no energy!" - Creates emphasis before key indictment - Isolates the criticism for maximum impact #### 4. Exclamation (Emotional Intensifier) "no energy!" - Signals outrage, not mere observation - Invites emotional resonance with frustrated conservatives #### 5. Loaded Language "**No energy**" - This phrase carries specific connotations: - Physical vitality (masculine dominance) - Political weakness (submission) - Moral failing (lack of will) This became Trump's signature attack: "Low Energy Jeb," "Sleepy Joe," etc. The dominance framework where "energy" = strength = fitness to lead. ### Propaganda Techniques #### 1. In-Group Criticism for Alpha Positioning Attacking one's own coalition is counterintuitive but strategically powerful: - Establishes independence from establishment - Claims superior insight - Positions self as truth-teller willing to speak hard truths - Resonates with base frustrated by Republican weakness #### 2. False Dichotomy Politics reduced to binary: **fighters vs weaklings** No acknowledgment of: - Strategic considerations - Institutional constraints - Policy substance - Electoral calculations #### 3. Implicit Solution "Republicans need energy" → "I have energy" → "Republicans need me" The criticism contains its own answer: Trump himself as the energetic fighter Republicans lack. ### Assessment **Rhetorical sophistication: Moderate** The rhetoric is not intellectually complex, but it's emotionally effective. Trump employs simple contrasts, loaded language, and binary framing that resonates with audiences frustrated by establishment Republican ineffectiveness. The "no energy" frame is particularly brilliant in its simplicity—it's visceral, memorable, and difficult to rebut (how does one prove one has "energy"?). --- ## Archetypal Analysis (Jungian Framework) ### Primary Archetypes Activated #### 1. The Warrior (Primary) **Evidence:** - Combat framing: "fight back" - Evaluation based on combat readiness - Frustration with passivity - Aggression as virtue Trump positions himself as the Warrior archetype—always ready for battle, frustrated by those who avoid conflict. #### 2. The Trickster (Secondary) **Evidence:** - Disrupts in-group loyalty (attacks own party) - Violates political norms (public criticism of coalition) - Speaks "forbidden truth" (Republicans are weak) The Trickster breaks rules and reveals uncomfortable realities. Trump's willingness to attack Republicans publicly violates party loyalty norms, marking him as operating outside establishment constraints. #### 3. The King/Judge (Evaluative Role) **Evidence:** - Pronounces judgment on both parties - Establishes standards (energy, fighting spirit) - Occupies superior position above the conflict Trump doesn't position himself *within* Republican ranks but *above* them, evaluating their performance from a position of authority. ### Shadow Projection **What Trump projects onto Republicans:** Weakness, passivity, submission—the very traits narcissistic personality structure most fears in self. **Psychological function:** By identifying and attacking these traits in Republicans, Trump disowns them in himself, maintaining grandiose self-image as strong, energetic, combat-ready. ### Mythological Narrative **The Strong Man Disgusted by Weakness** This is an ancient narrative: the warrior/king who sees his people failing and must intervene to restore strength. It appears in: - Roman generals disgusted by Senate weakness - Revolutionary leaders attacking establishment - Populist strongmen criticizing elite ineffectiveness Trump taps into this archetypal narrative, positioning himself as the strong outsider who sees what weak insiders cannot. --- ## Order and Chaos Dynamics ### Positioning on Order/Chaos Axis **Trump's role: Order Attacker → Chaos Agent → Order Restorer** 1. **Order Attacker:** Attacks existing Republican establishment order 2. **Chaos Agent:** Disrupts party loyalty and hierarchies 3. **Order Restorer:** Implies need for *proper* order (energetic fighting) to replace failed order (weak passivity) ### Asymmetric Application **Who gets order?** - Implicitly: "Real" conservatives who fight - Later explicitly: "Forgotten Americans," "patriots" **Who gets chaos?** - Weak establishment Republicans - Later: "RINOs," "Never Trumpers," traditional GOP elite ### Grievance Mapping **Primary grievance:** Republican weakness and submission to Democratic attacks **Intensity:** Moderate (0.45/1.0) **Blamed party:** Republican establishment leadership **Grievance structure:** - Democrats attack (expected, even respected for trying hard) - Republicans fail to respond (contemptible weakness) - Result: Conservative humiliation ### Hierarchy Dynamics **Trump's intervention in Republican hierarchy:** This post represents an **attack on existing hierarchy** (Republican establishment leadership) and implicit claim to **superior hierarchical position**. **Status elevated:** Trump himself (possesses energy/fighting spirit establishment lacks) **Status diminished:** Republican Party leadership (weak, passive, "no energy") This is proto-populist positioning: the outsider who claims superiority to failed elite. --- ## Danger Assessment ### Eliminationist Language: Absent ### Dehumanization: Absent ### Stochastic Terrorism Pattern: Absent ### Violent Imagery: Absent **Danger Level: None** This is standard political criticism without violence-adjacent rhetoric. The "fight back" language is metaphorical combat framing common in political discourse, not literal violence advocacy. **No elevated concern.** --- ## Longitudinal Context and Pattern Analysis ### Historical Significance: HIGH This February 2013 post is **historically significant** as an early articulation of themes that became central to Trump's 2016 presidential campaign: #### 1. "Low Energy" Attack Pattern **2013:** "Republicans... no energy!" **2016:** "Low Energy Jeb" (devastating primary attack on Jeb Bush) **2020:** "Sleepy Joe" (attack on Biden) The "energy" critique appeared **three years before Trump's campaign**, suggesting: - Genuine preoccupation with dominance/submission dynamics - Early brand development for political positioning - Testing themes that later proved electorally effective #### 2. Republican Establishment Criticism **2013:** Republicans "just don't fight back" **2015-2016:** Campaign built on attacking GOP establishment weakness **2016-present:** "RINO" attacks, party purification efforts This post foreshadows Trump's **hostile takeover** of the Republican Party by attacking its core leadership. #### 3. Combat Framing of Politics **2013:** Politics as fight requiring aggressive response **2016:** "Hitting back harder," "counterpuncher" identity **2017-present:** Constant combat posture ### Pattern Consistency **Comparison to 2013 baseline:** Entirely consistent Other February 2013 posts show similar patterns: - Short, punchy commentary - Political observations - Exclamatory tone - Simple sentence structure **Comparison to later periods (2015-2016):** The themes crystallize and intensify but remain structurally consistent: - 2013: "no energy" (descriptive) - 2016: "Low Energy Jeb" (personalized attack) **Trajectory:** This post represents **early brand development** for Trump's political identity, testing themes that would later define his presidential campaign. --- ## Psychological Summary ### Core Psychological Dynamics This seemingly simple political tweet reveals sophisticated psychological positioning: 1. **Displacement defense:** Aggression redirected from Democrats (ostensible enemies) to Republicans (safer target), establishing Trump as superior to both 2. **Grandiose narcissistic positioning:** Implicit claim of possessing the "energy" and fighting spirit establishment Republicans lack 3. **Alpha status claiming:** In-group criticism serves to elevate Trump above Republican hierarchy, not strengthen coalition 4. **Proto-Trumpian brand development:** The "low energy" theme that became devastating 2016 attack weapon appears here in nascent form ### Clinical Significance: Moderate **Narcissistic features:** Moderate (0.5/1.0) - Grandiosity and superior positioning - Lack of empathy for Republican strategic challenges - Implicit entitlement to judge party performance **Defense mechanisms:** Primarily immature-level (projection, splitting, displacement) **Personality traits:** High extraversion, very low agreeableness, elevated neuroticism (angry hostility) **No cognitive concerns:** Language is clear, coherent, and consistent with baseline ### Political-Psychological Significance: HIGH This post is more significant **historically** than **clinically**. It documents Trump developing the political brand identity that would later: - Destroy establishment Republican primary candidates (2016) - Reshape Republican Party in his image (2016-present) - Establish "fighter" identity central to his appeal The criticism resonated because it articulated genuine base frustration with Republican weakness in the Obama era. Trump identified a psychological need (desire for aggressive fighter) and positioned himself as fulfilling it. --- ## Contextual Research Sources - [Reaction and Analysis to President Obama's 2013 State of the Union | Brookings](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/reaction-and-analysis-to-president-obamas-2013-state-of-the-union/) - [2013 State of the Union Address - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_State_of_the_Union_Address) - [Transcript: Marco Rubio's Republican Response - ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-marco-rubios-state-union-response/story?id=18484413) - [Barack Obama: Domestic Affairs | Miller Center](https://millercenter.org/president/obama/domestic-affairs) --- ## Confidence Levels - **Authorship attribution:** High confidence (0.95 Trump authentic) - **Psychological interpretation:** High confidence (clear narcissistic dynamics) - **Clinical assessment:** Medium-high confidence (limited by single-post snapshot) - **Historical significance:** High confidence (documented connection to 2016 campaign themes) - **Danger assessment:** High confidence (no concerning elements) --- ## Notes for Longitudinal Database **Tag this post for:** - Early "low energy" theme emergence (2013 vs 2016 comparison) - Republican establishment criticism pattern - Combat framing baseline - Narcissistic defense mechanisms (displacement, splitting, projection) - Political brand development pre-campaign **Cross-reference with:** - 2016 "Low Energy Jeb" attacks - Other 2013 Republican criticism posts - Early political positioning tweets **Research questions generated:** - When did "energy" critique first appear in Trump's Twitter? - How did this theme evolve 2013-2016? - What correlation between Republican weakness complaints and Trump's own political ambitions timeline? ## Authorship Analysis **Self-Written** (score: 95%) ### Indicators - Posted at 2:50 PM EST (business hours but consistent with authentic Trump) - Combative, emotionally reactive tone - Hyphen usage instead of proper em-dashes (--) - Exclamation point for emphasis - Stream-of-consciousness complaint style ## Psychological Profile ### State **Grandiose State** **Trigger:** Narcissistic Injury — Criticism (Democratic mockery of Republicans; Republican passivity triggering frustration) **Rage:** Intensity 40% targeting Republican Party establishment - Proportionality: 60% Sentiment: -0.55 ### Clinical **Malignant Narcissism:** - Narcissistic: 50% - Antisocial: 20% - Paranoid: 30% - Sadism: 10% **Defense Mechanisms:** - projection (immature) - splitting (immature) - displacement (neurotic) **Cognitive Complexity:** - Complexity: 40% **Parasocial Techniques:** - In-group criticism to establish superiority within conservative coalition - Implicit positioning as the energetic fighter Republicans need - Frustration signaling that resonates with base frustrated by establishment weakness ## Tags - Republican criticism (100%) - weakness complaint (90%) - low energy theme (85%) - combat framing (70%) - displacement defense (60%) - alpha positioning (75%) ## That day _From trump.fm's machine-generated digest of the day, not his words._ **Brand-Building on Business Hours: Trump Runs the Supply Machine While Taking Aim at GOP Establishment** Trump spent the day working through a massive backlog of supporter replies — dozens of brief "thanks" messages — while weaving in pointed political commentary. The sharpest moments were a coordinated three-tweet attack on Karl Rove as a "total loser" who wasted hundreds of millions in the 2012 election, and repeated jabs at the Obama administration over a leaked drone strike memo. He also used Ed Koch's recent death to resurface his own Wollman Rink triumph. The overall mood was confident and transactional, with one notable flash of intimidation toward a critic and a rare moment of concession to another. Full digest for 2013-02-07: https://trump.fm/date/2013-02-07/analysis ## Citation - APA: Trump, D. J. (2013, February 7). Democrats try so hard to mock &, belittle... [Social media post]. X (Twitter). trump.fm. https://trump.fm/post/x_299530651776999400 - MLA: Trump, Donald J. "Democrats try so hard to mock &, belittle..." X (Twitter), 7 Feb. 2013. trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/x_299530651776999400. Accessed 9 Oct. 2026. - Chicago: Donald J. Trump, "Democrats try so hard to mock &, belittle...," X (Twitter), February 7, 2013, archived at trump.fm, https://trump.fm/post/x_299530651776999400. ## 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/x_299530651776999400 - Analysis as JSON: https://trump.fm/api/analysis/x_299530651776999400 - All citation formats: https://trump.fm/api/cite/x_299530651776999400 - Same day: https://trump.fm/date/2013-02-07 - The record alone, without the analysis: https://trump.fm/post/x_299530651776999400.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`._