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.

[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

[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

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by 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

No, what I said was that if I choose to vote for someone that has an "R" next to their name, Pete thinks that person is a racist, and by extension, I am a racist, because Pete's quoting Atwater 50 years ago.

Atwater didn't post on this board that Republican's are racist, but you did.

"Don't believable everything you read on the Internet."

~ Abraham (a Republican so therefore must be a racist) Lincoln

[Pete F.]

John if you decide that you are a racist in theory because I posted a quote from 38 years ago it’s pretty much a true indicator that Republicans have adopted identity politics as their mantra.
Read Trump’s tweets and follow them in a historical context. You’ll see the game he plays.
http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/
Trump will lose
He’ll lose because people are just plain tired of him. Tired of his drama. Tired of his meanness. Tired of his whining & complaining, day after day.

He’ll lose because people are tired of having a bratty child in the White House.
He is not a good man.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

John if you decide that you are a racist in theory because I posted a quote from 38 years ago it’s pretty much a true indicator that Republicans have adopted identity politics as their mantra.
Read Trump’s tweets and follow them in a historical context. You’ll see the game he plays.
http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/
Trump will lose
He’ll lose because people are just plain tired of him. Tired of his drama. Tired of his meanness. Tired of his whining & complaining, day after day.

He’ll lose because people are tired of having a bratty child in the White House.
He is not a good man.size=1]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

Using your logic then you will also lose. There is nobody who whines and complains more on a daily basis. Think about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

This time next year we’ll be looking back on his racist tweets about the 4 members of Congress and thinking that was nothing compared to what happened between now and then.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

John if you decide that you are a racist in theory because I posted a quote from 38 years ago it’s pretty much a true indicator that Republicans have adopted identity politics as their mantra.
Read Trump’s tweets and follow them in a historical context. You’ll see the game he plays.
http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/
Trump will lose
He’ll lose because people are just plain tired of him. Tired of his drama. Tired of his meanness. Tired of his whining & complaining, day after day.

He’ll lose because people are tired of having a bratty child in the White House.
He is not a good man.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I won't. Because I am not a racist.

I know what I believe in, which is good people from both sides trying to make this place work. I called you out because you did what so many do, even before the Ahabish chase of the Orange Whale.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And you found someone’s opinion

I found three articles (one of which I posted) which gave the fuller transcripts of the interview and/or a link to a recording of the full interview. Every time "Liberals" quote that passage from the interview that you posted, they leave out the significant sentence that follows it. Why is that? Why do they consistently do that?

I also listened to the interview. Atwater's contention throughout the interview was that race had no longer become an important issue in Southern politics, and that what had happened was that what had evolved as the winning issues in the South were economics and national defense. That was the strategy he used for the Reagan campaign. What begins your edited quote "you start out in 1954 by saying nigger, nigger, nigger" was not a Republican campaign strategy. Atwater said it was how campaigning was done in the South in 1954, especially by Democrats. And from that very specific, concrete, approach, strategies got more "abstract," less specifically racial, until his Reagan campaign removed the racial element, coded or otherwise, and focused on economics and national defense.

He also predicted correctly that this strategy would make the Republican Party competitive in the South (before which Republicans were basically non-existent).

There are opposite opinions also, so citing a right wing opinion doesn’t make it true

What do you mean by "opinion"? I listened to the interview. I read fuller portions of the transcript. I noted that the very tiny portion of the interview that you quoted not only left out the next sentence, but a whole lot else as well. Including Atwater's "opinion" about what he was actually saying. I'm guessing he would know that better than left wing "opinions" would.

So citing a left wing opinion doesn't make it true. On the contrary, from what I see, the left wing opinion uses the time-honored technique of lying by omission.