The Economist Called It Correctly

Back in 2016, early in the donnie debacle, The Economist pointed out that donnie is pretty much P.T. Barnum reincarnate.

The publication pointed out that the suckers who were born every minute whom Barnum targeted with his various ruses always kept loving him even after the rat headed woman turned out to be an old man with a paper mache rat’s mask over his face.

“It’s the Barnum Syndrome” said The Economist: once a person has invested in something pretty obviously bogus, the person doubles down in the face of the bogusness becoming a an obvious fact visible to everyone.

No one wants to be snookered.

And the more often one is snookered, and the more obvious is the nature of the snooker, the more those who have been snookered avow undying loyalty to the snookerer.

In the 19th Century at a run rate of a nickel a snooker, the economic loss was great enough to induce the phenomenon.

But the actual consequences of the snooker – for example, an old man in a rat mask being offered as a rat headed woman - were not very consequential.

Declaring his loyalty to Puty put the phenomenon as it relates to here and now America in a whole different category: donnie’s snookers are threatening our country’s continued existence.

And saying that after examining the transcript of the Puty Suzerainty Ceremony he realized that “would” should be “wouldn’t” is the crown jewel to date in the history of snookerdome.

And all the snookerees are tripling down.