monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

You claim 2 There have ben 20 year RANDOM OCURENCES. They are far outweighed by non-20 year periods.

You have explicitly predicted 20 years of trumists based on the 20 year cycle which does not exist.

You're wrong and your prediction has no evidence to back it up. It is in short pure fantasy. It is no doubt your wish fulfilment only, it is definitely not the country's.

He's as prone to eror as you are. very prone.

I really am a trillion times smarter than you are.

First we need to determine how we measure the quality of being "smart", right? Otherwise it would just be subjective.

My IQ is 170.

As usual, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

There was no Republican candidate in 1864. Lincoln, and all of the gentlemen who vied to be his vice-presidential candidate were members of the National Union Party. There was no Republican on the presidential and vice-presidential ballots in 1864.

You are constitutionally incapable of either citing factually correct historical truths,

or of acknowledging what you do not know

what you do not know--which is nearly everything.

Ah-hahahahahahahahahahaha . . . that one always cracks me up. What a transparent lie.

You have only recently been peddling that lie, but now we'll see it forever more.

You still obviously don't understand what cycle means.

As usual, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Anyone can make stupid claims about "IQ" here, but that won't make it true.

Furthermore, so-called IQ measures enculturation, not intelligence.

Finally, no matter how intelligent someone claims to be, everyone is ignorant. Your ignorance is notably in the realm of history.

You still have not addressed, and probably don't understand that you are not talking about political cycles.

I suspect you don't understand the concept of cycles.

In advance of your usual bullshit claims,

I've shown again and again that you have not marshaled facts in support of your silly narrative.

I point out where you are wrong time and again.

Because you are delusional, you can't accept that, so you pretend it hasn't happened.

For example, this is from a charitable foundation, The Henry Ford, which is not a wiki, and therefore a much less suspect source than what you provided:
"In 1864, incumbent President Lincoln and former Democrat Andrew Johnson ran on the National Union Party ticket--so named to attract War Democrats and Border State Unionists who would not vote Republican. After a gloomy summer of Union defeats and casualty lists, Lincoln's re-election hopes seemed slim. But, finally, several Union victories gave him enough support to win the election."

A good deal of your obvious ignorance stems from your shallow grasp of almost every subject.

Of course, it also comes from your delusional beliefs.

Someone with an IQ of 170 would know the difference between fact and opinion. They would be capable of reason and have an extensive vocabulary. And most importantly they would know that nobody would ever believe their IQ was 170 if they posted the moronic drivel you post.

Your posts are testament to the fact your IQ falls well short of 170.

YOU are the one who has spent several years

Nothing you have adduced has the characteristics of a cycle. What they DO have is randomness scattered thinly amongst non20 year periods at random intervls

After talking about them for years and basing your predictions on them as evidence,

you implicitly admit you don't know what a cycle means and you have no interest in actualy finding out.

Thre of your arguments have ben yotally demolished today.

You're a poseur, nothing but.