For all the idiotic and provably false statements in his press conference…this was the worst:
I'm not ranting and raving. I'm just telling you. You know, you're dishonest people. But -- but I'm not ranting and raving. I love this. I'm having a good time doing it.
Ignoring for the moment, the clear impression that Trump is using press conferences as a therapy session — it is clear he loves the fact he can berate or bully reporters however he wants... "you, siddown, you” "you people lie”, “the BBC oh another beauty” “let me ‘splain this so you understand..." “I'm not going to tell you anything about what response I do.” etc
-- and they have to say "yes sir Mr. President"
Of course he's having a good time!
he can say or do what he wants… "you can just grab them by the pussy... they'll let you do anything you want if you're a celebrity"
That attitude, that behavior, was utterly immoral and disgusting as an individual (and yet his supporters do not care — which is even more disturbing)
Clearly he has the same attitude as president...
Now he feels entitled to grab the public by it's trust
"wow - they let you do anything if you’re president... I'm having a good time"
for all the idiotic and provably false statements in his press conference... that one comment was the most seriously disturbing aspect to me
This is a man who learned his values and fed his narcissism in a bubble of financial privileged for 70 years -- suddenly he now has the bubble of ultimate power... and he treats it as recklessly as his own trail of business disasters.
and what of the "balances of power"?
The primary checks and balance are in the hands of a fractious republican party all trying to curry favor for their personal agendas (which they confidently believe will make everything justified in the end - "once you see it from our point of view, you will agree we are right and everything is better")
"Tyranny is a small price to pay for keeping my committee chair"
But keeping that republican majority is dependent on electing republicans at the state level and that is dependent on maintaining loyalist turnout at the district level and that is dependent on controlling the "true believers" and "core base" at the gerrymandered primary level
You should be aware of project
REDMAP and of Maptitude and the algorithms used to evaluate social media attitudes and behaviors -- in this case among registered voters -- to determine how to shape the voting district boundaries to ensure that — given probabilistic turnout stats — will yield a reliable voting bloc for republicans
("gosh, it's like fantasy baseball where party officials get to choose their district’s team")
Think about that... what kind of people do you think would be the core loyalists in a district? What kind of facebook or social media behavior would you interpret as being most likely to turn out - and to never support a democrat?
(yea, you probably have seen those kinds of people on the comments boards)
And you do not need many of those people — you do NOT need even a simple majority -- you will find out that many critical primaries swing on less than 10% of the voting population (do please check the math - I've reviewed the stats in quite a few states and districts)
I'm not talking about election margins, I'm talking about how many people it takes to actually win a primary. And in many red states, once you have the primary you have the general. So if republicans control even a plurality of states’ legislature and governors office — they control redistricting and the election agendas
(personally in Texas I have been redistricted 3 times in 11 years)
Unless you assume the 8 member supreme court is willing to step in and review these issues -- oops, well, excluding Roberts striking down the voting rights amendment subsection that allowed federal oversight...
So here is the interesting question... if the checks on Trump, depend on the "balanced" perspective of the republican controlled congress…
uh oh
and every 2 years those in congress depend on the continued support of their district's "primary turnout"-base
double uh oh
and those primary turnouts typically represent a very small fraction of total, registered, party, and motivated — a congressman only needs to appeal to maybe less than 10% of ALL their constituents...
So when they claim “well, all of MY district supports this ban” — they usually mean the 10% who elected them, (and I know for a fact none of my “representatives” ever speak for me despite my perpetual participation in voting and my vigorous feedback on my views about policy.
If you were designing an algorithm for redistricting - guess which 10% of the republican base would most likely to be included as the core supporters (to keep that district in the party?)
And if you were a republican congressman - faced with a raucous crowd expressing a contradicting view — what do you expect them to do?
First, the election is 2 years away… and trump is likely to create a new crisis even as we speak. Second, if you have a contradictory view, you wont vote in the closed party primary (true in many states). Third, if you are republican, you know that anyone who disagrees is an outside agitator… no other possibility (if you are a republican). And fourth, if you just hang on you can pass the bills your campaign contributors want, and that way your future job will be secure.
Besides, if you are republican — once you pass your policy (they assume all “normal” “like-minded” people agree with) — well then, all those wrong and poorly informed people on the left will see how much better things are, so it’s all good
So although there are many different factions that will agree with a few of the same points or policy, the actual diehard supporters are a rather small minority of the public...
Ironically the electoral college and the senate were designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority — no one anticipated that customized redistricting would create a “tyranny of the minority”
so where will the checks and balances come from?
sigh, I am ranting... but I'm not enjoying this