@JoJoFromJerz
The bar is “it could be worse, we could be getting nuked.”
Sentiment analysis of Trump's tweet linking nuclear threats to market drops: 62.14% confronting vs 25.10% supportive, highlighting public backlash and themes.
Trump: "You want to see a stock market go down? Let a couple nuclear bombs be dropped on us or frankly any place else, and then you'll see a stock market that goes down. So the stock market has not gone very much at all. It's gone down a little bit. Much less than I thought. And frankly the gas hasn't gone up as much as I thought."
Real-time analysis of public opinion and engagement
What the community is saying — both sides
many replies call him “insane,” a “malignant narcissist,” and demand impeachment or invocation of the 25th Amendment to prevent catastrophic decisions.
critics say his moral calculus is driven by market moves, treating human lives and foreign policy as variables that matter only insofar as they affect portfolios.
accusations that he and his circle manipulate markets or short-sell on advance knowledge to cash in while ordinary Americans suffer.
respondents point to comments that he expected gas and market pain and didn’t care, framing it as a deliberate, callous trade-off.
some fear he’s either capable of authorizing violent acts (including nuclear use) or could orchestrate/allow a false flag to advance political or financial aims.
a minority downplay the rhetoric as damage-control, call him “not wrong,” or admit they’re waiting to buy the dip, treating the episode as a trading opportunity.
several replies express bafflement and anger that a segment of supporters continues to accept or excuse his behavior despite repeated contradictions and harms.
and urging invocation of the 25th / impeachment because his words are described as dangerous, incoherent, or delusional.
dangerously normalizing apocalyptic scenarios and potentially escalating real-world risks.
, mocking the idea that market fluctuations matter if a nuclear attack were real.
, noting ordinary Americans bear the burden while he benefits.
by elites who would short stocks ahead of violence and profit from chaos.
and therefore acted to prevent greater harm.
, repetitive “frankly/stock market” tics, and evidence of poor communication or cognition.
to reframe subsequent economic numbers as trivial (anchoring bias).
, for leaders to step in, and for someone competent to replace or check him.
and arguing that actual use of nukes is implausible and therefore the rhetoric is bluster rather than policy.
Most popular replies, ranked by engagement
The bar is “it could be worse, we could be getting nuked.”
Saying ‘you should be happy with the plummeting stock market cause at least a nuclear bomb wasn’t dropped’ is beyond unhinged.
So the bar is nuclear bombs or higher gas prices? That’s where we’re at?
https://t.co/kQdYk33tZN “The man is crazy. He has a mental problem. He really does…I am always impressed by his ignorance.” Trump’s too stupid to understand alliances or adversaries. He's an idiot that should go back to running real estate, not the free world.
I know if a nuke were to drop my first thought would be, "There goes the stock market!"
No, 🤡, you thought Iran would be like Venezuela. You didn’t even think it would impact the stock market, gas prices, or even the Strait of Hormuz.
Found something wrong with this article? Let us know and we'll look into it.