Trump is like Meth for Republicans

[Pete F.]

Yesterday I trotted out my theory that Donald Trump is a symptom of where America is as a country, not a cause.

Reader E.P. wrote in to take the other side of that:

I go back and forth as to how much Trump is a symptom vs. a cause. You're certainly right that a healthy republic wouldn't let him get anywhere near the presidency. On the other hand, I'm reminded of a quote whose origin I can't seem to find: "A man may drink because he is wretched, but he becomes even more wretched because he drinks." Trump has taken a sick culture and made it even worse.

I see Trump as a symptom so powerful that it becomes its own cause, kind of like a political hard drug. Let's pretend that Trump is political meth. (Heroin is a more timely analogy, but meth is perhaps more closely associated with rural whites and—like Trump—it makes you want to fight people.)

Despite their electoral successes, Republicans in 2015-16 were feeling more and more isolated and culturally marginalized, so in a moment of weakness, they took a hit of meth. It made them feel invincible, so they took more. It even appeared to have helped them succeed when they won the 2016 election. Three years in, though, the Republican party looks like . . . someone who has been doing tons of meth for three years. It's not pretty.

If you're deep into meth addiction, you've probably lost your job, friends, family, and self-respect. All you have is the meth. This makes you cling even tighter to the very thing that has ruined your life, because despite its terrible long-term effects, every hit (tweet) gives you another burst of that sweet, sweet power that first drew you to the drug.

The meth doesn't fix your old problems. Whatever problems you had before you got hooked on it, they get bigger. But the meth also creates new problems in entirely different categories, too. Again: The analogy with the Republican party here seems pretty on point.

Was the GOP's metaphorical descent into meth addiction inevitable? I don't think so. What if Chris Christie hadn't suicide-bombed Rubio in that debate? What if the Access Hollywood tape had come out during the primaries? What if Hillary had made one more trip through the Midwest? A lot of things could have changed. Maybe the party would have ended up with a less destructive addiction, like political caffeine pills. Or maybe it would have gone straight to Fentanyl and been dead by now.

From The Bulwark
So maybe the truth is that Trump is both symptom and aggravating factor.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Yesterday I trotted out my theory that Donald Trump is a symptom of where America is as a country, not a cause.

Reader E.P. wrote in to take the other side of that:

I go back and forth as to how much Trump is a symptom vs. a cause. You're certainly right that a healthy republic wouldn't let him get anywhere near the presidency. On the other hand, I'm reminded of a quote whose origin I can't seem to find: "A man may drink because he is wretched, but he becomes even more wretched because he drinks." Trump has taken a sick culture and made it even worse.

I see Trump as a symptom so powerful that it becomes its own cause, kind of like a political hard drug. Let's pretend that Trump is political meth. (Heroin is a more timely analogy, but meth is perhaps more closely associated with rural whites and—like Trump—it makes you want to fight people.)

Despite their electoral successes, Republicans in 2015-16 were feeling more and more isolated and culturally marginalized, so in a moment of weakness, they took a hit of meth. It made them feel invincible, so they took more. It even appeared to have helped them succeed when they won the 2016 election. Three years in, though, the Republican party looks like . . . someone who has been doing tons of meth for three years. It's not pretty.

If you're deep into meth addiction, you've probably lost your job, friends, family, and self-respect. All you have is the meth. This makes you cling even tighter to the very thing that has ruined your life, because despite its terrible long-term effects, every hit (tweet) gives you another burst of that sweet, sweet power that first drew you to the drug.

The meth doesn't fix your old problems. Whatever problems you had before you got hooked on it, they get bigger. But the meth also creates new problems in entirely different categories, too. Again: The analogy with the Republican party here seems pretty on point.

Was the GOP's metaphorical descent into meth addiction inevitable? I don't think so. What if Chris Christie hadn't suicide-bombed Rubio in that debate? What if the Access Hollywood tape had come out during the primaries? What if Hillary had made one more trip through the Midwest? A lot of things could have changed. Maybe the party would have ended up with a less destructive addiction, like political caffeine pills. Or maybe it would have gone straight to Fentanyl and been dead by now.

From The Bulwark
So maybe the truth is that Trump is both symptom and aggravating factor.

Or maybe E.P., and you, are wrong. On second thought, both of you ARE wrong--wayyy off.

[JohnR]

There are some truths to this, skipping the meth part. Because that "skipping the meth part" is just to make sure that the Anti-Trumpers and the left can feel better about themselves by placing yet another label on the people that they look down on. Ya know, deplorable and all.

Some simply want someone that fights, and are holding their nose.

Some are very concerned where this country is going, the leftward push against, Law, Justice, and Enforcement and against individual liberties.

The leftward push to consume resources to then redistribute among everyone.

Many people remember how the left, initially with Top Cover from Media, then full and open collaboration, has called every R since Regan; Hitler, Racist, Murderer, War Monger, et all.

John McCain. Terribly maligned by Trump before and after McCain's death. Absolute pure meanness by DJT. Called by the Left Pols and Media a hero, maverick, master politician, the last of the "let's get both sides to work together". Just 8 years earlier y'all were calling him Hitler, Racist, Murderer, War Monger, et all.


Mitt Romney, not the best man for the left or right, but a rather honorable guy (for a politician) that could govern in the center, was exorcised for having a list of qualified women to have in his government. He was laughed at for calling Russia the USA's current most dangerous Geo-Political foe. Most everyone in NatSec circles knew this to be true, including Obama. Y'all laughed at Horses and Bayonets. Then y'all ran Romney out of town.

Now the current crop of Pols are tripping over themselves to move politically left - it is like a drunken Frat sackrace to the left with pols falling, tripping, pushing each other left. Free healthcare for all, we'll tax the rich and the MiddleClass, Open Borders and Open Citizenship for all, RAISE YOUR HANDS!!! We'll just raise taxes on everything to get it done. And it will be GREAT! With Glitter, and Unicorn Farts, Democratic Socialism, Tofu, and Quinoa Dust!!

We'll trample the Constitution (where it doesn't serve us) as we retire that old document! We'll make everything before Woodrow Wilson Racist and every white male after racist! The Patriarchy! You didn't build that! Abolish ICE! No More Police! (Insert Howard Dean screaming here)

And you think it is because Trump is the conservative Meth? And he has addicted the right? Nahh. Some love him in the same way of the Bernie Bros loved Sanders. Many others simply hold their nose because the alternative presented by the Left.

I didn't vote for him last time but I'm really thinking about it this time.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Some simply want someone that fights, and are holding their nose.

And what exactly is Trump fighting for? I can see if you're stimulated by the souless rush of reality TV then Trump must be really addicting. But he's fighting for what again?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

And what exactly is Trump fighting for?

America

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

And what exactly is Trump fighting for? I can see if you're stimulated by the souless rush of reality TV then Trump must be really addicting. But he's fighting for what again?

He fights the Media (disastrously and poorly) and he fights the increasingly left Dem Political Machine - both no longer checks on liberty. Do you think people like him because the mediocre TV sheeit?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

He fights the Media (disastrously and poorly) it?

seen the ratings at cnn and
msnbc? i’m not saying i like what he does, because i don’t, but much of it works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. . . . ‘We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘Nigger, nigger.’”

Lee Atwater 1981
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. . . . ‘We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘Nigger, nigger.’”

Lee Atwater 1981
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

????

So I want to be absolutely EFFING clear here. Are you implying that if someone does not follow your tune, that they are racist?

Answer Pete, and be crystal clear, leave no room for doubt.

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by JohnR

????

So I want to be absolutely EFFING clear here. Are you implying that if someone does not follow your tune, that they are racist?

Answer Pete, and be crystal clear, leave no room for doubt.

John
That’s all the Liberals have got.
They’ve got nothing to stand on.
It’s the Obama playbook.
Everyone that disagrees with them is a Racist, bigot, homophobe, and what ever else phobe they can come up with.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnR

????

So I want to be absolutely EFFING clear here. Are you implying that if someone does not follow your tune, that they are racist?

Answer Pete, and be crystal clear, leave no room for doubt.

That’s pretty islahomoracaphobic of you John.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by JohnR

????

So I want to be absolutely EFFING clear here. Are you implying that if someone does not follow your tune, that they are racist?

Answer Pete, and be crystal clear, leave no room for doubt.

This is just PeteF. doing his ghetto impersonation of the man he loathes. Trying his hardest to inspire his base while simultaneously grasping at Spence’ imaginary straws. Not really making a point but hey,it’s Sunday.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

I don't need the surgically precise yet subtly nuanced explanations of Ronnie and Chris ; ) - I need Pete's clarification.

No, I want to hear what Pete says. A chance to walk the statement back, or double down.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I don't need the surgically precise yet subtly nuanced explanations of Ronnie and Chris ; ) - I need Pete's clarification.

No, I want to hear what Pete says. A chance to walk the statement back, or double down.

I'm not sure anyone here has taken the 3 seconds to understand what Atwater was saying.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure anyone here has taken the 3 seconds to understand what Atwater was saying.

We can’t all be as smart as you, Spence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

We can’t all be as smart as you, Spence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Has nothing to do with intelligence it's about effort.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Has nothing to do with intelligence it's about effort.

We can’t all be as motivated as you, Spence
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure anyone here has taken the 3 seconds to understand what Atwater was saying.

Did you? I took a bit more than three seconds. And Found that Pete's quote, by selective editing, implies the exact opposite of what Atwater was saying. Typical leftist, lying trick.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...really-say.php

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by JohnR

????

So I want to be absolutely EFFING clear here. Are you implying that if someone does not follow your tune, that they are racist?

Answer Pete, and be crystal clear, leave no room for doubt.

No John
What I think is the current Republican Party is playing the same identity politics card game they have accused the left of for years. Just the suit they picked is Aces not Spades.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No John
What I think is the current Republican Party is playing the same identity politics card game they have accused the left of for years. Just the suit they picked is Aces not Spades.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And you're doing that by posting a misleading, selectively edited quote?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And you're doing that by posting a misleading, selectively edited quote?

he says we’re all racists, john calls him out, and he rolls
over like a dog and denies it.

cutting taxes is racist? are there different rates based on skin color?

nothing more
loathsome or cowardly then calling someone a racist and then denying it. grow a pair and own it.

liberals want to abort blacks out of existence, and those that get through the abortion gauntlet, are crippled by making them
addicted to welfare. but that’s not racist.

that’s why all
the liberal, urban cities are thriving. because liberals are looking out for those folks.

i look at cities like bridgeport, and i say these people are americans and deserve better. liberals say they deserve more of the same.

and i’m the racist. gotcha.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Did you? I took a bit more than three seconds. And Found that Pete's quote, by selective editing, implies the exact opposite of what Atwater was saying. Typical leftist, lying trick.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...really-say.php

Woa, powerlineblog, you really brought out the experts there

Reading his full remarks it's pretty clear what he was saying, you don't have to make race a front line issue when the dog whistles are already there regardless if it's intentional or not.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

liberals want to abort blacks out of existence, and those that get through the abortion gauntlet, are crippled by making them
addicted to welfare. but that’s not racist.

Yea Jim, that's exactly what the plan is

that’s why all
the liberal, urban cities are thriving. because liberals are looking out for those folks.

Most large cities skew to be more liberal and most are doing pretty well these days.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Woa, powerlineblog, you really brought out the experts there

So you have no answer, other than your usual kill the messenger response. The article clearly parsed what Atwater said, and he didn't leave out the critical words that the leftists commentators did. Leaving out important sentences in order to mislead about what was really said is a strong indication that you are intentionally lying. And there were other articles that pointed out that lying trick and also corroborated what powerline said.

Your depending blindly on who you consider "experts" is an admission that you can't trust yourself. Didn't your "experts" say that Hillary was absolutely without a doubt going to win? Weren't they claiming that Mueller would prove that Trump conspired with Russia? Didn't they say that by now the economy under Trump's policies would crash?

Reading his full remarks it's pretty clear what he was saying, you don't have to make race a front line issue when the dog whistles are already there regardless if it's intentional or not.

Atwater did was not saying what PeteF's edited quote implied. That was pretty clear in his full remarks. Your creepy "dog whistles" notwithstanding. You seem to hear those whistles when they are convenient to promote a lie. You'd think that everyone else could here them. Maybe leftists act and think like dogs.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Atwater did was not saying what PeteF's edited quote implied. That was pretty clear in his full remarks. Your creepy "dog whistles" notwithstanding. You seem to hear those whistles when they are convenient to promote a lie. You'd think that everyone else could here them. Maybe leftists act and think like dogs.

What do you think Pete F was implying?

Dogs are man's best friend by the way. Same goes for women.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Yea Jim, that's exactly what the plan is



Most large cities skew to be more liberal and most are doing pretty well these days.

margaret samgers reasons for launching planned parenthood are well known. more black babies are aborted than born in NYC. in CT, the largest cities are in collapse, and all any liberal proposes, is more of the same. bill clinton kicked millions off welfare, and they went back to work, and he’s a liberal icon. anyone who
proposes that today is a loathsome racist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

margaret samgers reasons for launching planned parenthood are well known.

Yes, to allow women access to birth control. Put some time in and you'll quickly see you don't know what you're talking about.

more black babies are aborted than born in NYC.

Maybe you should look at their access to contraception as well as national numbers.

in CT, the largest cities are in collapse, and all any liberal proposes, is more of the same.

New Haven is still doing surprisingly well. Plenty of blame to go around but I think one of the biggest issues CT has faced is that NYC and Boston became more desirable places for young people to live in the last 20 years. Has less to do with politics than just mega trends.

bill clinton kicked millions off welfare, and they went back to work, and he’s a liberal icon. anyone who
proposes that today is a loathsome racist.

Clinton's welfare reform was a bipartisan deal during a booming economy, what happened to those people when it crashed?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, to allow women access to birth control. Put some time in and you'll quickly see you don't know what you're talking about.


Maybe you should look at their access to contraception as well as national numbers.


New Haven is still doing surprisingly well. Plenty of blame to go around but I think one of the biggest issues CT has faced is that NYC and Boston became more desirable places for young people to live in the last 20 years. Has less to do with politics than just mega trends.


Clinton's welfare reform was a bipartisan deal during a booming economy, what happened to those people when it crashed?

i grew up in west haven, bordered new haven. new haven is a sh*thole, and sinking fast. so i have no clue what you’re referring to, maybe you tied a sweater around
your neck and enjoyed hot toddies on yale campus, most of the rest of the city is disgusting.

you’re saying abortions are due to a lack of
birth control. who are these millions of women who can’t get condoms? they all live in the alaskan bush? weak, weak argument.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure anyone here has taken the 3 seconds to understand what Atwater was saying.

What Pete implied was that The Republican Party is backhandedly subjugating Black people, ergo Racists. And if you support the Republican party you are actively and/or passively Racist. Because Atwater (in many, many ways a Jerk) said that since the N word is verboten, the Rs will just need to economically shackle Black people. Like Joe Biden said, "Those Republicans wanna Putchya Back in Chains".

This is great, by this logic, we need to raise the Debt Limit and keep borrowing and spending so that EVERYONE will be an economic slave. Parity At Last.

I will need to remember that when I am at the polls and picking between Ds and Rs (I do both BTW) and remember when I pick "R" that Pete is calling me a racist.

[Pete F.]

Interesting that you would choose who to vote for because of something someone said 30 plus years ago
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device