My theory? Pelosi has consulted a behavioral psychologist about Trump's NPD, and decided it's better to trigger a public explosion of narcissistic rage than to coddle him hoping he won't do more harm. That's why she pwned him in his own office + is triggering him at every oppty.
The shutdown dynamic is fascinating: Trump needs a steady stream of attention + adulation ("narcissistic supply"). The crowds + attention he's received as a candidate + Prez* are, for a narcissist, the Platonic Ideal of Supply -- like a junkie finding God's Own Heroin Stash. 1/
He watches Fox News for the same reason: to supply the endless praise (dopamine hits) that narcissists need. But his failure to secure the promised Wall is harshing his Fox News buzz, as ppl like Ann Coulter + Mark Meadows criticize him for failure: foxnews.com/politics/conse… 2/
He NEEDS the Wall to keep his crowds from turning on him, and he NEEDS his crowds -- again, not for reelection, but more immediately, for Narcissistic Supply. He NEEDS it.
So Pelosi denies it to him. Not just because it's crappy policy, but because she finally has his number. 3/
And she piles on, pwning him right in the Oval (HIS OWN HOUSE), dismissing his manhood, LAUGHING at him (!) -- literally the most painful insults a misogynistic narcissist can experience. (Google "narcissistic injury.") It causes him real pain.
4/
And now, by denying him the most visible pulpit any American has, the live-televised State of the Union address, where he can be seen commanding the attention of the entire Congress and most of SCOTUS, Pelosi again is denying him his "fix." Trump needs his adulation? Pelosi: 5/
Trump's in a bind. He NEEDS narcissistic supply. Without the wall, he'll lose it. So he tries a shutdown to get the Wall, but that's making his approval numbers plummet: narcissistic injury where he hoped for Supply. So he looks hopefully to the SOTU -- and is blocked.
6/
It's all perfectly calibrated to send a narcissist into a tailspin, which is why I think Pelosi's doing this on purpose. She's MANAGING him. She's figured him out and is purposefully driving him towards a very public breakdown, aka "narcissistic rage."
7/
"Narcissistic rage" is VERY ugly. It's when the narcissist turns against the very people he had been cultivating as a source of Supply. Those the narcissist "loved" are now his enemies. Often, they get slandered/beaten/murdered -- for the crime of not stroking his ego enough.
8/
When the raging narcissist has access to the nuclear button, the idea of provoking his rage is terrifying. But it's also the point when those around him realize with a shudder that they've been living with a monster. It's when the narcissist's victims suddenly SEE. 9/
I don't think Pelosi's trying to make Trump mad at her per se. I think she's trying to make him so desperate that he turns against his own people for not loving him enough to protect him from her, for not loving him despite her, for his poll numbers dropping. 10/
I think she wants him to turn against Fox News. I think she wants him to start screaming AT (not to) the people at his rallies. I think she wants him to make enemies within his own inner circle. And she knows that, Trump being Trump, he'll do all those things very publicly. 11/
And I think she'll succeed. I think his mask will fall in a very public way, and that even his unshakeable 30% base will suddenly wake up and go, wait, WUT? They may consider him a tragic hero + blame libtards for driving him crazy -- but they'll still SEE that he's crazy.
12/
You know the zombie-movie trope where someone sees their spouse/child turned into a brain-eating monster, and sadly shoots them in the head? I think that's Pelosi's plan: to drive Trump to behavior so outrageous that even his enablers say, "it's time to put an end to this." 13/
I can't think of another reason why Pelosi would be trolling Trump in ways so clearly designed to irritate and exacerbate his narcissism. It's a dangerous strategy. It also may be effective. I just hope we don't all die, popcorn in hand, watching the amazing show.
Holy HELL, @bootbarn. My wife and I went into your Tualatin, OR store, + as we entered a family of five was leaving – none masked. Then the employee who greeted me (quite cheerfully!) had her mask under her nose...
1/
@bootbarn Then I counted six other maskless customers + another employee with a mask half-off.
We left immediately.
Because we're not stupid, we respect the law, and we don't want to die.
2/
@bootbarn Oregon law requires masks. I understand that some people see going maskless as a political statement, but it's the LAW.
And science is science. If my vet said I needed to mask to keep my animals safe from an infectious disease, I'd wear it. Because science is f*cking SCIENCE.
3/
Context thread:
• The defense bill is DOUBLE the COMBINED costs of COVID stimulus + infrastructure + Build Back Better. (Where are the deficit hawks like @Sen_JoeManchin?)
• And it's unnecessary: U.S. defense $ exceed Russia + China + the next 9 countries COMBINED. ... 1/
@Sen_JoeManchin Some will argue, as @BroadbrainTV does here, that it's ok because "the defense bill is a jobs bill." And that's sort of true: the defense industry accounts for at least 800,000 jobs and 10% of U.S. manufacturing. is.gd/Brn8g0 ...
2/...
@Sen_JoeManchin@BroadbrainTV But as a job creator, defense sucks. About 14MM people work in manufacturing; at 10% of total manufacturing, defense should employ about 1.4MM, but actually employs about half that, because defense toys' materials, research, etc. are expensive compared to labor cost. ...
3/
The Taliban weren't involved with 9/11. A council of 600 senior AfPak Muslim clerics – essentially the Taliban's governing body – expressed dismay at the 9/11 attacks and offered to expel bin Laden from the country.
The Taliban acknowledged that 9/11 violated Islamic law – but remember, bin Laden initially denied being behind the attacks. At the time, even the U.S. only labeled him a "prime suspect," stopping short of saying we were sure he did it.
That uncertainty was VERY significant.
2/
Muslim ethics require protecting guests from their enemies – UNLESS the guest has done something to bring trouble on the host. The Taliban COULDN'T surrender bin Laden without evidence he was behind 9/11 (ie, committed a crime while in sanctuary). usip.org/publications/2… 3/
Today's testimony by Capitol Police officers about the Jan. 6 insurrection is making me rethink the Boston Massacre, which in hindsight sounds more like 1/6 than a righteous revolutionary act.
1/
Eight soldiers guarding a government building were surrounded by 300-400 angry "patriots" hitting them with clubs, rocks, chunks of ice, oyster shells, lumps of coal; many in the crowd taunting the soldiers to fire, others warning them that if they do, the crowd will kill them;
2
; the crowd close enough to hit the soldiers with clubs; one witness testifies Crispus Attucks actually grabbed a soldier's bayonet (which, true or not, means they were CLOSE).
A stick thrown from the back makes a soldier fall down + drop his gun; he retrieves it;...
3/
.@RadioFreeTom's written an interesting thread here, but I keep thinking back to this old discussion where he said that conservatism's main feature isn't standing for things, but standing against them:
@RadioFreeTom That's the classic Buckleyesque statement of conservatism that all '80s college students (including both Tom and I) learned: that a conservative is someone who "stands athwart history, yelling Stop."
I just read the Anglo-Saxon/America First Caucus statement of (so-called) principles, and it's clear that the writers used "Anglo-Saxon" only because "Aryan" already was taken. It's the Racist/Nativist Caucus.
Here are some thoughts about "our" "Anglo Saxon" roots: 1/
Immigrants and invaders. Germanic ones. Nothing "native" about them.
"Saxon" = "Germanic." "Anglo" = "the subset of Germanics who ran England for a while."
2/
And those foreigners arriving unwanted on British shores didn't respect the culture they found when they arrived: there was "hostility between incomers and natives... violence, destruction, massacre, and the flight of the Romano-British population."
3/