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.
Where Were You on June 9, 2022?
On the ninth day of the sixth month, in the year of our Lord Two Thousand Twenty-Two, the American House of Representatives convened a television show about a political protest some years earlier. The clips from this show will be used as “facts” for elections in 2022 and 2024. These clips will be used by Democrat campaigns, of course, but more to the point, they will be used by the state-run media to condition voters and vote managers. The more people in on the next steal, the less work each plotter involved must do.
I cannot rate the show very highly. It has terrible pacing and features weak performances from the usual crew of identical new faces who for some reason keep showing up on our screens. It wasn’t like this in the old days. It used to be that a show needed some strong performances and tight writing to get popular. There was a kind of platinum age of television heralded by the beloved but now-unwatchable “Babylon 5,” which was a watershed in long-arc, multi-season plotting of a broadcast series. Shows followed in different genres: “The Sopranos,” “Battlestar Galactica,” “Dexter,” “Game of Thrones,” “Breaking Bad,” “Better Call Saul.” This current offering from the House is poorly done. It’s amazing it got greenlit.
I never watched the Sopranos until these days. I’m midway through the fourth Season.
Published in General
One of the schemes he favored was shaming Trump into taking some kind of cognitive test outside of the 25th amendment. I think it was something Laurence Tribe thought up. He makes this pitch that you can just look at Trump and see he has these severe cognitive problems. Then he votes for Biden.
Can’t you just see Laurence Tribe and Gary walking into the oval office saying you did the right thing Mr. President. lol
But do you have any evidence that Biden’s FATHER had Alzheimers? Well, do you?
(And, has that evidence been cross-examined? Well, has it?)
I wouldn’t agree with the person but I could potentially understand a Republican voting for one of the other Democrat candidates if he really hated Trump. The trouble with Biden was that he was everything they claimed Trump was; mean, beholden to foreign governments, susceptible to mental decline, etc. Don’t tell me you’re full of principles by voting for a guy fulfilling your claims about Trump.
I hope everybody learned their lesson that Scoop Jackson is dead and he’s never coming back. I can’t think of the guys name, but the senator from New York that was an academic, he’s a better example than Scoop Jackson.
I think over half of those principles first guys voted for Biden and the rhetorical gymnastics they do every day on Twitter is embarrassing.
*Daniel Patrick Moynihan
You probably mean Daniel Patrick “Pat” Moynihan.
Oh, and Ronald Reagan is dead too.
Right. Mitt Romney won’t endorse Mike Lee. He’s effectively going along with the Evan McMullin scam in that state. Another genius from principles first. He’s going to vote Democrat if he gets in.
The latest Byron York podcast about the January 6 committee is very good.
OK folks, I’m going to say this, then I’m out of this thread:
I don’t care what Gary thinks. I don’t care what Gary says. Gary has no influence on me, I don’t read the vast majority of Gary’s posts, I don’t think about Gary when he’s not addressing me directly on a post in which I accidentally fall over him, and I don’t tailor my remarks to what Gary does. If there were an actual “ignore” button on Ricochet I might press it for most of Gary’s comments, but–in the absence of same–I’m perfectly capable of removing myself from his sphere of argumentation, and his painfully repetitive comments, on my own. So when (see comment #240) Gary’s presence intrudes–out of the blue and yet again–on a comment thread in which I’m involved, I simply choose not to engage. (This particular comment actually references one of my earlier comments.) Lord knows, if you go back and look there are many, many, other comments on this thread where people go beyond simply offering a response to one of his comments, where people mention Gary, and where people “at” Gary, mostly because–I feel sure–they’re irritated that he hasn’t fulfilled their fever dreams and given them more room to bitch at him, and they’d like to provoke him back into the conversation so they can do so.
Really, people. I can’t understand the dynamic here, where so many of you piss and moan about the absence of an ignore feature so that you can ignore–let’s face it–Gary, and yet you can’t restrain yourself from introducing his name, his opinions, what you think of his opinions, why you’re so fed up with them, and why you’re irritated that he won’t respond to your “atting,” onto a thread where he hasn’t engaged much, and not at all in the last 48+ hours.
In the words of the wise old Buddhist saying, “Why are you still carrying [Gary] on your back?”
Give it a rest, please.
Unfollowing….
Who’s Gary?
In real life I avoid people like Gary. I’d like the privilege to do that here where I pay for access.
You mean like a block button?
In real life I avoid people like Gary. I’d like the privilege to do that here where I pay for access.
Yeah.
Believe me, I understand that desire, but when the guy said that he is “literally terrified“ of Trump, I realized that he is a sick puppy. I’m going to use the scroll bar from now on when I encounter his posts or comments regarding Trump because I am somewhat afraid that his condition is contagious. Well, not really. It’s just that he isn’t worth my time.
The whole point of a block user command is to avoid wasting time.
I do too, but I enjoy engaging them online.
I am in full understanding and sympathy with She’s rant. There is way too much reference to this person who is as random as any one of us.
This person stands as a kind of shortcut, and is a staunch defender of people we revile. He is very active on the site and there is a long history, so references to ‘him’ as a personification of a position is understandable. Still I cannot argue with She either.
And I still think it’s important to not let certain peoples’ assertions go unchallenged, because of new members who show up from time to time. Silence is often seen as assent.
I told Gary to shove off, which was not successful (imagine!) and then I asked him to please refrain, and guess what — he has refrained.
I understand that it can take a while to catch up to the context of a thread, but it seems poor form to keep soliciting comment from somebody you “would rather ignore”, and then complain that he’s not saying more.
I am hardly without fault in any of this. Just sayin’
I think my track record shows I’ve tried to be more constructive about this, but the cognitive thing really pushes my buttons.
Trump never had cognitive problems in that sense.
Biden obviously had cognitive problems in that sense.
It’s so bad that he very literally should never say anything outside of a Teleprompter.
I have tried to suggest to him how to improve his pitch. There is definitely a certain type of Trump critic that is worth listening to, but it’s not a very big percentage.
The only Trump critics worth listening to are the ones who can be shown that they were/are wrong, with evidence. And of course, then they aren’t Trump critics any more. :-)
I don’t agree with this. ie @AGHamilton29 and Bill Barr.
I listened to the latest bill bar interview on uncommon knowledge and he says the same thing I say. Every single institution is failing. He doesn’t even think the FBI is the worst. So many of the people that hate Trump just are in a fantasy about this stuff.
The President can be impeached for wearing a brown belt with black shoes. They can even be convicted for such sartorial abuses. They can also commit felony obstruction of justice and not be impeached, or if they are impeached not be convicted. We have seen both extremes in the past 30 years with both Clinton and Trump. I know plenty of people who think that Bill Clinton’s felony obstruction of justice should not have lead to impeachment and were happy with his acquittal. I also know people who think that was a major turning point in the degradation of our political system. It is similar with Trump, you think that his “dereliction” on January 6th is worthy of his removal from office, as is your right. I disagree, as is my right.
I’m not going to get in a big argument about this. From what I can tell from the people that have the ability to read all of that Federalist Paper you know what, the Founders never intended for impeachments to start unless they knew that public opinion was already behind them. Conviction in the Senate likely.
Having the head of the Justice system and a bar card holder lie under oath is not ideal and it’s way worse than general lying about sex. The public didn’t get it.
In other words, it wasn’t supposed to be used as a tool of political harassment. The whole country is supposed to be upset in unison about something the president did. Reportedly that’s all in there.
Bravo. Voting is also subjective to this degree — you’re allowed to vote however you wish. I can be a Marxist liquidator of Kulaks and vote for anybody I want based on that alone. And that’s okay. I can also not be enthusiastic about convincing boys to be girls, and girls to be whores, and vote for anybody I want to based on that alone.
“Hate” [read ‘hatred’] is not a crime. You are allowed to hate whomever you want for whatever reason you want, fair, unfair, or despicable. Anything other than that requires thought police — which is where we are. “Hate crimes” are an abomination to the rule of law — not the actions, but the categorization!
We are now confronted with the new version of blue laws in which anything insufficiently blue, or too white, is bad and now punishable by federal trial and sentencing. It is not true that I have no racist bone in my body. Every damned one of us feels a more powerful affinity for in-group people than we do for out-group people, as well as for those who share culture and traditions. Various government and employment laws prohibit *acting* unfairly based on personal preferences, and this is *right and good*. At the same time, we have until recently been allowed to retain our own attitudes, preferences, affiliations (in balance with the rights of others) and so forth.
The libertarians are right to pull their hair about my italicized “allowed” throughout. We were supposed to be better than this. All of it. Through being LEFT ALONE.
My memory is more vague on this one.
The other thing they did wrong with Trump is the investigating needs to be done bi-partisan and largely public and it needs to be finished before you actually impeach.
Yup. Elected leftists said they would impeach him before he even took office.
There isn’t a shred of logic or understanding of civics in that. Voting Democrat is like empowering Stalinists.
Nope. It’s all the language of power.
If you installed a browser extension called “CSS Override” and then enabled the style entry below, you would not see his comments.
.comment-author-garyrobbins *:not(blockquote) p {
background-color: #2b2b2b;
}