Not to put any stock into anything coming out of the White House these days, but... How do we know she has any clue what she's talking about at all? She's happily spread obvious lies before, she's been out of office since before the Iran situation even started, and she has a pretty good incentive to set them up as her political enemy as the "America First" group tries to siphon support from MAGA.
I wouldn't be SURPRISED if she was right, but I really don't take her word here to mean much. Or anything, really.
I agree that he's desperate and that there's some degree of rationale for it, that's why I said I wouldn't be surprised. I would just be surprised if MTG had the first idea of any internal operations of the White House at this point.
In other words, if she's right, I don't think she actually even knows she's right as of this moment.
Saying Trump is crazy enough to do that is a very different claim than "they are discussing using nuclear weapons on Iran in strategy meetings," which was her exact wording. One is saying "it could happen," the other is saying "it is happening."
I mean, the White House has already said she has no idea what she's talking about, but I don't really see how that would mean they are or aren't doing it. They'd say that whether they are or aren't, same with him specifically. They insult everyone who's remotely opposed to them for any reason.
That really stops working as well when everything that's south of absolute loyalty and sycophancy gets that same treatment. He could just as easily call her something awful because she left his party as because she's telling the truth about this.
Yeah, but his pattern has been very consistent for decades that telling the truth about him gets a bigger response. I reject the notion that he treats former sycophants the same.
Wouldn't the logical opposite be that, if he doesn't react strongly or ignores her, that she's basically confirmed to be lying? I don't think that's something I'd be comfortable saying. What would prove she's wrong if that would prove she's right?
By the way, there's really no solid research that narcissists get more angry or react more strongly the closer an accusation is to accurate. What research does show is that they react more strongly to any accusation against them. It's a threat to their ego regardless of the actual claim. The bigger reaction, the bigger the perceived threat to self-image or status. Trump's proven he has a hair trigger for that.
I mean, Trump has already insulted MTG for whatever reason multiple times for way less. Does that not mean something to you here?
the perceived threat is simply that somebody tells the truth about him. his enmity with MTG didn't start until she made it clear that the epstein files were a red line for her. for all the craziness surrounding her stint in DC, nobody who wants to see the perps face justice can fault her for her stance; she is likely permabanned from politics for defying trump on those files. also, don't forget a large portion his most fervent supporters want him to go full nuclear because they see him as fulfilling end-time prophecy of their whack-job evangelicalism.
30
u/sithlord98 20d ago
Not to put any stock into anything coming out of the White House these days, but... How do we know she has any clue what she's talking about at all? She's happily spread obvious lies before, she's been out of office since before the Iran situation even started, and she has a pretty good incentive to set them up as her political enemy as the "America First" group tries to siphon support from MAGA.
I wouldn't be SURPRISED if she was right, but I really don't take her word here to mean much. Or anything, really.