>>9622220 pb
well, maybe. but also, maybe not at all.
Trump has done very little to this point.
Q came here to tell us that Huma and Podesta would be locked in 2017. Then it became a very broad story including getting rid of the bad, overall, and getting the good put in.
But there have been many cases of areas that aren't Q areas where Trump is not taking the side of the good. Things aren't getting better.
There are plenty here who say that oh, yeah this is 4D chess, and they're gaining ground when we're in charge, but that's intentional, because we've got a doozy of a big switcheroo right at the end, where all the bad guys go away, and things become great.
Your specific take is that it becomes 1890s again. Ok, maybe. We're actually not seeing that Trump actually wants that. We really don't know. The way it's been working is Democrats want 100% of something terrible, and they want it immediately. Trump is unable to keep them from getting nothing, but he doesn't give them 100% right away. This is fairly typical of GOP Presidents. They don't give the Democrats what the Democrats want quite as quickly as the Dem would take it themselves. These aren't victories.
Trump wants to win. Wants to win big. I mentioned a week ago the Nixon 72 campaign and Trump has tweeted twice - once on "Silent Majority" and the other "Law & Order". Those are 2 core Nixon 72 campaign messages, and Nixon won with a huge landslide.
He's setting himself up against an opponent, opponents, that look much worse than him. Smart politics, but on the ground, it's pretty fucking awful. So, Trump's political strategy is basically, let the awful run free and look good in comparison. But for me, "let the awful run free" tend to make things worse on the ground.