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.
The Coming Trainwreck
A deeply ugly scenario is shaping up. Consider the strong possibility that (a) Donald Trump through sheer petulance and poor judgment, has actually managed to be culpable of obstruction with respect to the May grand jury subpoena and (b) the morally deficient Twitter-slave currently running the Department of Justice under the watchful eye of the malignant buffoon who is currently POTUS is on a desperate course to indict the former president on whatever grounds possible and will do so regardless. Consider the possibility that Trump is guilty but of crimes for which no Democrat would ever be prosecuted.
The likelihood that there is a great risk to national security from the contents of the documents at Mar-a-Lago strikes me as infinitesimally small. Anything of military or strategic value has likely been vacuumed up by Chinese techno espionage, Eric Swalwell’s pillow talk or everyday leaks, embassy parties, and/or old-fashioned bribery. But the left will tell us that Garland saved us from utter disaster at the hands of our enemies. And most irritating of all will be that the mentally challenged who still believe the dossier proved Trump’s collusion with Putin will feel vindicated.
Why did Trump hang onto that material? Even conceding his authority to declassify, the bulk of that stuff is still the property of the archive. If he wanted evidence of the Russiagate hoax, for example, was it not possible to identify and summarize each relevant document and then insist on some secure handling by the archive to prevent surreptitious destruction or removal by the conspirators?
My concern is that Trump’s reasons for hanging onto that material may turn out to be not very cogent, much less exculpatory and it will have needlessly opened him up to his enemies.
The sheer ugliness of the national reaction to such a prosecution, the media gloating, the self-righteous pap from the usual suspects, and the seething rage of the right… It has not happened yet but it already seems tiresome.
I would like to fantasize that in the aftermath of this fiasco, the GOP would respectfully decline to re-nominate a wounded Trump, instead elect a strong replacement with a popular mandate and sizeable congressional majorities and then effect vengeance and even prosecute the swamp creatures to the same measure as those lowlife scum have gone after conservatives in general and Trump affiliates in particular. Would that it were a time of true, slashing defunding of the left with fun side events like stripping security clearance and barring government employment for the 51 “experts” who declared Hunter Biden’s laptop to be disinformation.
But that will not happen. There will likely be a GOP President other than Trump and a GOP Congress but the left will recede only slightly, whine continuously, persist in rhetorical attacks, and somehow impose a near-mandatory amnesia about their crimes and atrocities on the grounds that it would be “extreme” or “divisive” or “partisan” even to point out their foul, recent history much less impose accountability. And Republicans will be too polite and say that they are “looking forward, not backward” and we will limp along until the left launches its next new offensive from their unmolested sanctuaries.
Published in General
I have absolutely no idea what you are calling for.
It seems to me that supporting Trump is somehow bad because Trump is wrong this time.
Or something.
You close with a paragraph that all is lost. There is no roadmap there other than to sit back and wait to be rounded up.
Then you say that is not what you are saying.
OK, Hoss: What are my marching orders? Tell me what to do to win.
I could tell you but it would probably lead to another banning and getting a visit from the FBI. There aren’t but a few options left people and none of them involve a quiet, friendly conversation at a bloody cocktail party.
I am asking the post author.
Yeah, I know. I am kind of interested in the response too.
Ah ha!
What banning are you referring to?
Hit me up at the Sock and I will tell you.
I thought he was a long-timer here of R>.
I might if I knew what that means.
Bryan:
We both oppose the rise of the left and the dissolution of all that is good. We both voted for Trump and enjoyed how much he dismayed the forces of evil. I doubt there are many policy matters on which we differ.
However, I wanted more than the theater of “fighting back.” I want that fourth carrier.
I am not content with rhetorical jabs and the mere absence of a Democrat in the White House. Tossing red meat for the MAGA audiences is not enough, especially if it does not increase our numbers. I wanted some character–no petty, vindictive BS directed at his own people. I wanted discipline, a pose of transcendence in which he had the gravitas to selectively fight serious enemies not talking heads or MSM clowns. I wanted a fiercely disciplined, relentless campaign to present an avuncular, reassuring face to soccer moms.
Bill Clinton, uber-sex-predator and open advocate of a sexually disordered society spent millions on a radio campaign heavily across the south repeatedly reciting the mantra that “Bil Clinton supports your values” more than a year before the election. The bastard could also strike a pose when he had to. He went after his single biggest image weakness to neutralize it. In contrast, Trump made no effort to fight against the caricature his enemies plastered over him. (An old attorney friend -a politically savvy former assistant US atty–and I commiserated almost daily for weeks and months from the outset of Trump’s term that he was incapable of a pivot, of doing the work to fight perception battles, of selling the benefits of his policies to people who should have been among the most grateful. A big failure to consolidate the win.
I wanted Trump’s former aides to be grateful to have served him, not bitter at the abuse. I wanted him to conduct his fights and arguments with GOP leaders in a non-personal way, preferably behind closed doors, because those fights are normal.
Trump earned an opportunity to do more. (His judicial appointments alone were indeed a godsend.) But we need much more. We cannot get mired down in his desire to refight 2020 rather than carve out winning policy ground.
And, back to the FBI/DOJ move at issue in the OP, a belated, half-assed project to go after the Russiagate perpetrators has wound up giving the initiative to the corrupt DOJ.
Bryan, the weird inference that I want Trump to do nothing is entirely wrong. I wanted him to do much more which would require (a) the services and talents of lots of good people (many of whom are loathe to get involved based on the track record of treatment of so many) to craft far smarter strategies; (b) some larger goals that transcend the self-image of Donald Trump and (c) an intelligent affirmative use of this fiasco to regain the offensive.
I would certainly vote for Trump in 2024 as against anyone from the Stalinist-lite clownshow but my disappointment and frustration with what he continues to fail to do makes me strongly prefer that he get off the stage in favor of DeSantis or the equivalent.
That is well said but did not answer my question at all. That is what you want Trump to do.
I asked what we should do.
That is a shift. You expressly objected to the (incorrect) inference that I somehow wanted that one guy who fights back to do nothing in his current predicament. So now it is on us.
I said that allusions to armed resistance were expressly not helpful and in comment #83 I discussed the direction our actions might take.
With respect to the Mar A Lago home invasion, there is nothing we can do if there is no electoral threat to the other side. If the GOP does not take both the House and Senate, the Biden Administration will blow off every document and investigation demand with the certainty that there will not be legislative blowback–just a stalemate they will rhetorically hammer as a do-nothing Congress in 2024.
I don’t know who has standing to get us there but we need something akin to platform or a statement of principles and goals rather than just rely on the perception that Biden is a disaster of unprecedented proportions and expect a protest vote for our side. With such a statement or list our officials and leaders and candidates could be measured against that rather than their personal loyalty to Trump and their reaction to Jan 6. The 1994 Contract With America was not only useful as an offering to the voters but created the impression of a unified party of people serious about getting specific things done. We really, really need a similar impression to be established.
Dude. I had a simple question on marching orders.
Never mind. I am done.
Read this book. It paints a different Trump than one the media painted. He calls Trump a disrupter and explains why that was needed. He also discusses accomplishments I had not heard of. Bottom line…he went into the White House skeptical & unsure of what it would be like working for Trump but left believing Trump was what we needed. Yes, Trump was tough to work for if you didn’t follow the first rule of working for someone, attend to your boss’ priorities. He also explains how Trump used Twitter to give him the publicity the press wouldn’t have given him. He also admits the shortcomings but seems to see them as minor compared to the good.
L.O.L.
OK. I’ve been trying to verify that you are someone who was banned about 5 years ago, back under a new name. I really had other things planned for the weekend, but I guess I’ll have to work on removing you.
Or, you could NOT.
Funny. There are sites where all are welcome. Ricochet might be one of those. We announce some sort of conservative bias, but there’s no purity test here and–as is regularly recognized whilst we fight both among ourselves and with the few of the ‘other’ who present themselves to us, we at least know that we haven’t tried to cancel any particular point of view.
Meanwhile….
There are sites you can’t get into unless you kiss the ring.
thehumblesock.com? Your fearless leader (AKA former Ricochet member 10cents) once referred to me as one of the “treasures of Ricochet.”
I’d like to join your site. Please tell me what–short of changing my political views or general principles–I need to do.
Hello?
I’m not sure what this means? Your political views will keep you out? I don’t believe there’s any political or religious test for the Sock. Choosing the wrong fabric for your sock might, but you can never go wrong with wool.
Many sheep disagree.
True.
I thought your name was Randy, not Richard?
5 Years ago ?
Never forgive never forget ?
A permanent ban is a permanent ban. When @max was still working here, moderators didn’t even have to get involved when someone who had been banned was discovered creating a new account. He would eject them immediately. You have no idea how many times he had to do this with one famous banned member.
Hey if I get booted it’s no skin off of my back. As far as I am concerned I’m not here trying to cause problems and I pay. So if they decide to let me stay I can abide by the cocktail party rules.
Is anyone going to tell us who you are?? So many choices . . .
I would prefer to move forward. I don’t have an axe to grind here.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the quintessential moderator/bureaucrat.
… with “one” famous banned member. (How long are you going to dine out on that?)
While actively seeking other banned members to re-join.
Please. Do explain
This made me laugh. When someone was suspended (might have been me) the moderator made note that it was his BD and that was Not how he’d planned to spend it.
Okay …