Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
It’s Time for the President to Address the Nation, What Should He Say?
Personally I’d love a pimp-slapping to everyone obstructing him. Obviously he can do better but we are witnessing unprecedented behavior on the part of Democrats in congress, the media, and government in general. I doubt our President is going to take this coup lightly and I suspect it might get pretty ugly, including our President’s reactions to the non-stop assault on his family, regardless of what level of justification there may be. I expect him to fight and I hope he fights intelligently. But even if he throws wild haymakers, I want people hurt because of their actions. The opponents of democracy have made their beds, I hope there are nails waiting for them when they are forced to lie in them.
I do seriously want your ideas about what he should say. Health care, tax reform, budgets, foreign policy, terrorism, Russia, media, intelligence agency issues, Obama’s spy machine, leaks, trade deals, immigration, walls, and the lot of it. NT’s and skeptics I hope can come up with something better than resignation because that’s not happening.
So what would you like the President to say?
Published in General
Decent person eh. I’ve done more good in one year of my life than most people do in their whole lives but I’m not a decent person because I don’t think and act like you ?
Forget that line narrow line of reasoning.
How do you feel about Sec’t DeVos’ revision of the Title IX “Dear Colleague” protocols? Are these an advance of Federal powers, or a corrective to Federal overreacting?
Put another way – does one’s opinion of the man override the ancillary benefits of having some good smart people enact good smart conservative policies? I mean, I have the same low opinion of the guy I’ve had for years. But it would be bizarre to say that my personal opinion of his personal self requires me to ignore or disparage the things I’d otherwise applaud.
Perhaps, but I think both can (and should) be addressed simultaneously.
This attitude is exactly why Trump got elected. People are sick and tired of being told they aren’t decent human beings because they commit the sin of wrongthink.
Back to the original question:
“In the upcoming 2018 midterm elections, I will give my full support to the challenger in the following GOP primaries…”
The United States is a nation unique in all the world: It was the first country founded (truly) on the basis of “ideas.”
What I’m seeing from people here is a confusion regarding whether we should have loyalty to ideas or loyalty to people. Ultimately, people are the vehicles for ideas and the extent to which they either advance or hinder those ideas is the basis upon which we should be providing support.
There is a great deal of love for the stylistic aspects of Trump. I don’t understand why, but I understand that this is the case.
All I want is for people to divorce themselves from the stylistic excesses of Trump and think for a moment about the ideas that undergird his Presidency. To the extent that they exist they may be good or they may be bad – but we can never actually find that out because the style obliterates the possibility of having a genuine debate about the ideas.
This is why Trump must change or Trump must go. At least if the ideas could get a fair hearing and either succeed or fail on their own we could move forward. But the situation we find ourselves in now is intolerable.
It’s rather sad that it’s not enough to oppose Trump, or have concerns about his conservative bona fides: we must also excoriate his supporters.
As if his supporters haven’t spent their entire lives getting that from the Left.
Then the #NeverTrump crowd can’t figure out why everyone thinks they are Hillary shills.
That’s not at all what I said.
This elitist attitude against Trump supporters is the same as the attitude that a high school graduate can’t possibly figure out what Italian smoked meats are at an overpriced sandwich shop.
You said everyone who is a decent human being should oppose Trump. The implication being that people who do not oppose Trump are not decent human beings. Because if X opposes Z and Y does not oppose Z, then Y is not X. Whether or not that’s what you intended to convey, that’s how you come across.
In the age of the internet and the prospects of becoming your own editor of news, I find this entire comment odd. Are you trying to tell me that because of Trump’s profligate use of twitter you can’t find stories about how his administration is attempting to gain some sort of control over our border, wrest control of the judiciary from the hands of those who would bastardize our legal system, roll back a great number of the unconstitutionally implemented regulations of the Obama administration, and increase funding for the US military (something I am told plenty of “Conservatives” actually like)? I think some are willingly allowing the twitter issue and the Russian issue blind them from these achievements because they don’t want to admit to themselves and out loud that they might have been completely wrong about the good that could come from a Trump presidency aside from stopping her. Further, I think that they are willingly ignoring these accomplishments for the sole purpose of downplaying the fact that he did stop her (“the election is over, so beating her is no longer something to cheer”).
Okay, so let me clarify, just so others don’t also try to put words in my mouth:
Every decent person should oppose Donald Trump.
Just because you don’t, doesn’t make you “not decent human beings.” Don’t count me among those who demonize Trump supporters or anyone else. I don’t think you’re bad or evil or crazy or indecent. I just think you’re just wrong.
Wrong to stand by this man whose primary concern is his own ego and his own pockets.
Wrong to stand by this man who doesn’t care at all about the things you care about, especially limited government.
Wrong to stand by this man who will happily throw any political ally under the bus for temporary political expediency.
Wrong to stand by this man who sooner or later [expletives] over anyone who does business with him.
So I think you’re wrong. I wish you weren’t. And it’s my sincere hope that you all come around and see this man for what he actually is.
Fred, taking this argument charitably, I think it raises some additional questions.
First, you say that every decent person should oppose Trump. Ok. I’m a decent person, and I opposed Trump. But far more intelligent conservatives have, centuries ago, pointed out that opposition without alternative support gives us the french revolution and destruction. So, I opposed Trump while there was something for me to support. Right now, I can try to hold Trump accountable, I can try to guide him in the right direction… but I consider that supporting Trump. Not because I’m supporting the man, but because he’s the man who I have to support in order to support the country. If some other better Republican runs against him and has a chance of winning, I will support that person.
So, when you say that people should oppose Trump, tell me what they should support. Because opposition on its own is exceedingly foolish.
Second, you have made a whole lot of assertions about this man, and I don’t think you really have much basis for making them. At least 4 of your statements require mind reading, and I know you can’t do that. Yes, there is history and evidence to suggest that these fears may be valid. But that brings us right back to point number one. I am not saying “but Hillary,” because she’s no longer the alternative. But if I’m going to oppose Trump, I have to support something. Is there someone who you suggest I ought to support – as a decent human being – who does not carry any of those same potential flaws you’ve attributed to Trump? Because if so, I’m all ears.
Otherwise, I’ll support the good that Trump does, and oppose the bad.
You’re also missing the fact that you’ve already spent months on here demonizing Trump supporters, so trying to “clarify” by calling us “wrong” really doesn’t strengthen your position or make your argument more persuasive to those who disagree with you. He is in the White House. He is the President. This is reality and you can wish all you want for that to not be the case, but it is. The best thing is for people to attempt to guide him to make the right decisions for our country, not insult the intelligence of people who disagree with us with smarmy, morally authoritative comments about decency and a right/wrong dichotomy.
Continued from Comment #73:
So you see why your comment to Julie is so amazingly wrongheaded? There are a lot of decent people who support Trump in exactly the manner that I just described. Liking some particular nominee or policy doesn’t mean you endorse every tweet or comment. It doesn’t even mean that you endorse any other nominee or policy.
You’re making an extremely broad statement of character judgment on a massive group of people, and that is either astoundingly arrogant, or it is not at all what you mean to say. If you’re saying that, out of all the politicians in the world, no decent human being would choose to support Donald Trump over all the others, I can see where you have a point. There are a lot of people with virtually all of Trump’s positives and none of his negatives. But those people didn’t run. I can support Joe Schmo, and my support is an empty gesture if Joe’s not running.
So are you saying that any decent person, when faced with a finite selection of alternatives, should always refrain from picking any of those alternatives if none of them match his criteria for the perfect selection? That is an ethical question that I’ve never heard any person answer in the way that you’re seeming to answer it. So, let’s make it an easy analogy – what if you’re faced with choosing where a kitten is going to live. You’ve got one house with an angry drunk who loves to throw kittens out of windows and who doesn’t buy pet food. You’ve got another house with a dozen other cats, unsanitary conditions, potential disease, and also not quite enough food.
But those are your options. What does your decent human being do? Does he weigh the pros and cons and try to make the best choice out of the available options? Or does he refuse to play the game. The kitten dies, but you couldn’t, in good concience, support either of those alternatives. And you think that you’re still a decent human being?
It’s not such a far-fetched analogy. I don’t many people who love Trump. But I know a lot of people who think that he’s what we’ve got, and he’s what we’ve got to work with if we want to get anywhere at all right now. I don’t like when people make excuses for every stupid thing the man does. That’s the same crap we had with Obama. But the folks who claim that every decent human being must oppose Trump? Well… they’re just as bad.
It’s almost as if you’re suggesting that decent human beings sometimes make difficult decisions, @jameslileks. Nonsense!
Trump is not leaving office. In the real real world for really real people we work with what we got. Others go for obstruction, others for impeachment. The first loses chances , on purpose or through stupidity, to pass positive legislation. The second group are not decent people.
Exactly. As I’ve said… I don’t like Trump. But if I was into destroying for the sake of destruction, I’d support OWS or the BLM groups. If you’re telling me, as a conservative, to oppose Trump – and I don’t mean “try to help steer him in the right direction, hold him accountable, and don’t defend his crap,” I mean “oppose!!” of the sort that Fred’s peddling – then tell me what you’re supporting, and why I should also support that. Otherwise, you’re just like OWS and BLM as far as I’m concerned. Those groups are absolute trash and they are truly a scourge on our times. We don’t need a “conservative” version of that.
I think Trump is fundamentally a ridiculous person. And, judging from his personal conduct and business dealings, probably a bad one as well. I’m trying mightily to withhold judgment on it right now, but it is hard for me to not see him as fundamentally unfit for office.*
All of that said, I’m unsure what “opposing” him means at this stage. There’s no one to run against him right now, and so far I don’t see that he’s done anything criminal. If his term keeps up like this, perhaps he could be impeached for incompetence, but it’s hard to see how that happens, given that even Republicans who hate him would likely fight it tooth and nail, given what happened to the party after Nixon, who wasn’t even impeached! And Clinton, who actually did what he was accused of doing, fought impeachment and won, and they Dems paid a price, but nothing like what the Republicans did.
That said, I’m “for” him when he does things I think are good, like taking a harder line with Iran and North Korea, appointing justices like Gorsuch, and working to roll back needless regulations and bad policy, and “against” him when he does all the rest of the dumb stuff. That aside, what else can I do until 2019, when the next election season comes up? And if he doesn’t get “primaried”, and someone even worse than Hillary gets nominated, what then?
But “for” and “against” are all but meaningless terms right now. The unspoken current under this whole conversation, it seems to me, is that we voters don’t have much power–or even much to do–right now, except the normal off-year election stuff, which doesn’t amount to much. In a way that’s good, because who want to spend all of one’s time in political machinations? Just reading about it here is exhausting.
*But then again, so was Hillary, by my lights. Bernie too, probably, but he would’ve been pretty harmless, I think.
You’re implying that I haven’t applied that standard elsewhere. I don’t know how many times I have to say that I understand why people voted for Trump despite some misgivings, and I don’t regard it as a sign they’re bad people.
It’s a form of cheap grace to give Trump credit for doing the things that any Republican would have done in his place. Sure, we can and should give him credit for all of the things above, but they don’t paper over the obvious defects.
I don’t disagree with you that we need to appreciate the good things that Trump is doing. I readily admit them.
The alternate scenario that is always cited in order to provide contrast is the election of Hillary Clinton. While that certainly would have provided quite a different set of outcomes, why don’t we also look at the alternate scenario where maybe Scott Walker won the Primary and became President? If we’re going to explore counterfactuals, let’s do it, man – and in that case, Trump seems pretty dingy in comparison to President Walker’s conservative bona fides and calm, competent managerial style.
Trump is not a good person at all, he is capable of doing good things though.
The last election was not about character but desperation.
Okay, let’s do it:
CNN: “President Walker today expanded on his anti-worker policies that he forced through while governor of Wisconsin. His policies stand to cost millions their jobs and be a huge boon for rich investors on Wall Street. Joining me to talk about this are three Leftists who are going to smear anyone with an “R” next to their name and some low level “R” who no one has ever heard of and probably has no grasp of the issue to discuss it.”
PMSNBC: “President Walker nearly literally killed every blue collar worker on the White House lawn while GOP law makers stood around him clapping.”
I could go on but I am down to about 25 characters left. But at least he would sound good while getting blasted.
Cheap grace? Man, if that phrase does not indicate that there is absolutely nothing he could do to win you Nevers over, I don’t know what is. He could literally become the Serpentor of all great “Conservative” politicians and sign federal budgets equal in dollars to the one passed in 1890 and you guys would be like “meh, any Republican president would have done that.” You guys are so consumed with hate.
But nobody would care, because President Walker didn’t tweet at Joe Scarborough about the condition of Mika’s face, or blow up his allies who are attempting to pass a complicated and risky piece of legislation by calling them “mean” and thereby confirming for the observing public the pre-existing notions that leftists have about Republicans…
I could go on.
Do you know the content of my heart?
Please don’t presume to know things which you cannot.
Look, I like to play cards. I look for tells. When you say “cheap grace” in reference to some of the good things that Trump has done, you are showing your hand. You can deny it all you want, but it’s written all over you forehead man.
In general, I like a calm, competent manager. I don’t draft dodgers, playboys, or men who spend too much time on their hair (!) and I’m not a fan of serial adulterers. Morally speaking, Trump is Bill Clinton, and he looks pretty dingy compared to all sorts of people.
But. But.
Ryan is right. Opposing Trump at this point is mere destruction unless there is someone to support. Walker isn’t a choice, but it is not exploring counterfactuals to consider whether Pence might be an improvement and to argue that it would be better if Pence ascended sooner rather than later?
I’m assuming we don’t want the next president (in 2024, for the sake of argument) to be Trump-like, do we?
But if the answer to that is “no,” what is the plausible best case scenario? What problems can Trump, at least in theory, solve so a President Calm and Competent Walker won’t have to? What ground can he prepare? For that matter, what ground is he already preparing by, for example, nominating Gorsuch, extracting us from Paris, un-doing Obama-era executive orders and pushing the MSM and the pink-cat-hat brigades to reveal themselves as the ridiculous, indeed, downright Trumpish clowns they are?
I’d love to think that, had there been fewer candidates in the Republican primary, a Scott Walker or Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz could have defeated Hillary even more thoroughly. But I’m not sure it’s true. If, as I believe, Trump is a symptom not a cause, then our choices were always bound to be ugly and uglier.
How utterly convoluted. It’s more important that he not verbally attack a couple of PMSNBC stooges than to defend himself against smears against his character? Oooooooooooooooooooooooookay guy.
This shows how inverted your sense of what makes for success in politics is.
As President, should you elevate your opponents to your level? Particularly those in what amounts to “entertainment”? He does that by calling them out – and paradoxically helping his enemies by making more eyeballs turn towards them.
Trump wastes the political oxygen in the room by spending his time skinning minnows. The public only has so much attention to go around and at some point they tune you out.
If you hadn’t noticed, we sort of have the left on the ropes. They’re at the lowest ebb they’ve been at in State Houses and Governorships since the New Deal, and Trump thinks the most important thing is to insult TV hosts.
Priorities, man…