At this point, you might as well call #45's rule a dictatorship and have done.
Because if he even knows he's wiping his butt with the Constitution, he doesn't care. The spoiled rotten man-child wants what he wants, and he'll do whatever he has to do to get it. [or throw a massive tantrum until someone gives him it or distracts him with something shiny.]
And most of his voter base are perfectly fine with the idea of no checks and balances on the El Presidente's power.
Agreed! A lot of the GOPers left are either there because they have a valuable stake in this or are seriously in some sort of cult-love basis for the church of Trump and his voting public.
A few days ago someone posted how things must have changed when we so many years ago they almost impeached a president for denying he had an affair.
Sex offends them. Corruption does not. This is a problem.
On the bright side, the Pussy-Grabber-in-Chief cannot keep it zipped for five minutes. If he gets caught in sexual activity which displeases his supporters, they will quite likely drop him like a hot rock. I see this as one of the more plausible means by which he could be dethroned.
I dunno if that's the case even, though. Bear in mind that a lot of his "fan sites" seem like echo chambers where he can do no wrong (outside of maybe DACA, but even that received some spin). I know the other previous candidates have their share of things like this, but for Trump it's almost like indoctrination. I can guarantee you that if people found out he had something "on the side" with Melania, people will praise him for being "Alpha as f-" and make a slogan out of it.
Sure, he has his share of hooligans. What he does not have is a unified base of support. Some of the Republicans -- most of the important ones -- are quite stuffy about sex. And it wouldn't take all that many defectors to side with the Democrats in ousting him. I suspect that the Democrats, even the ones not so stuffy about sex, will take whatever charge they can get.
Yeah, but as you suggested before: the evangelicals supported this guy for his "locker room talk." In comparison, they wouldn't even touch Romney, and while Mitt wasn't puritanical, the man's clean rep was only tarnished by being Mormon.
I feel like at this point, anything that stirs people being upset at Trump will just make his fans cling to him that much harder, hence the ("drinking liberal tears" theme that seems to overcome them, even the dumb ones who think giving their money to Starbucks just to make them say "Trump" is a great idea).
I suppose if McCain and Corker and the others who gave up on the party start to show their effect, then I'd say otherwise, but in all honesty I'm mostly reminded me of the Tea Party knobs who took over the middle of the road GOP ballots during the Obama years.
...that sex offends them. They've been perfectly okay with sex when it doesn't damage Republican election chances. I suspect it's just another culture war difference. "See, the Democrats say premarital sex is okay if everyone consents and takes responsibility; we say it's a horrible thing! Well, which were *you* taught was the way good people act? Eh? I bet you weren't taught to act like you're in rut 24x7, right?"
I don't see any reason this should be a turning point. Remember,these are the same people who swarmed at the idea that Hillary Clinton was under criminal investigation. She never was, but they were happy to lead chants of "lock her up" and to insist that other people had been charged with crimes when they'd done less than she had (another lie).
I'm not sure they see this as any different from Benghazipalooza. And why should they? There's no cost, only benefit, to them.
Well, the endless political investigations of the 90s may well have led to this and Trump isn't the first. For example, the political media knew damn well Benghazipalooza was political in nature, and that should have been The Story, but it wasn't. Really, what Trump is doing isn't that different - he just doesn't have the excuse of "oversight".
(I'm sorry - I'm a wee bit cynical tonight. But 2016, because of the GOP focus on criminality, was a big turning point for me. The GOP always tried to demonize people before; this was the first time they'd deliberately tried to *criminalize* someone. So now, "OMG Trump is acting like a Republican!" makes me think "call me 5 years ago when I could be shocked by any of that except, you know, President Trump." )
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-06 11:55 am (UTC)Because if he even knows he's wiping his butt with the Constitution, he doesn't care. The spoiled rotten man-child wants what he wants, and he'll do whatever he has to do to get it. [or throw a massive tantrum until someone gives him it or distracts him with something shiny.]
And most of his voter base are perfectly fine with the idea of no checks and balances on the El Presidente's power.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-06 08:57 pm (UTC)A few days ago someone posted how things must have changed when we so many years ago they almost impeached a president for denying he had an affair.
Well ...
Date: 2017-11-06 09:18 pm (UTC)On the bright side, the Pussy-Grabber-in-Chief cannot keep it zipped for five minutes. If he gets caught in sexual activity which displeases his supporters, they will quite likely drop him like a hot rock. I see this as one of the more plausible means by which he could be dethroned.
Re: Well ...
Date: 2017-11-06 09:39 pm (UTC)Re: Well ...
Date: 2017-11-06 09:43 pm (UTC)Re: Well ...
Date: 2017-11-06 09:46 pm (UTC)I feel like at this point, anything that stirs people being upset at Trump will just make his fans cling to him that much harder, hence the ("drinking liberal tears" theme that seems to overcome them, even the dumb ones who think giving their money to Starbucks just to make them say "Trump" is a great idea).
Re: Well ...
Date: 2017-11-06 09:52 pm (UTC)Don't be sure...
Date: 2017-11-07 03:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-06 01:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-07 03:03 pm (UTC)I'm not sure they see this as any different from Benghazipalooza. And why should they? There's no cost, only benefit, to them.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-06 09:45 pm (UTC)Yes ...
Date: 2017-11-06 09:48 pm (UTC)Re: Yes ...
Date: 2017-11-06 09:51 pm (UTC)That's what I'm worried about.
Re: Yes ...
Date: 2017-11-06 11:01 pm (UTC)*sarcasm*
Date: 2017-11-07 02:02 am (UTC)Re: *sarcasm*
Date: 2017-11-07 02:40 am (UTC)Re: *sarcasm*
Date: 2017-11-08 01:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-07 06:15 am (UTC)(I'm sorry - I'm a wee bit cynical tonight. But 2016, because of the GOP focus on criminality, was a big turning point for me. The GOP always tried to demonize people before; this was the first time they'd deliberately tried to *criminalize* someone. So now, "OMG Trump is acting like a Republican!" makes me think "call me 5 years ago when I could be shocked by any of that except, you know, President Trump." )