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.
Close Your Eyes and Think of America
If the Republican Party is not “ride, or die” with Donald Trump in this hour, it is the end of any shred of a claim to be the law and order party, the constitutional party, the federal republic party, or the civil rights party. The Democrats think they have created what Scott Adams describes as the “two-way win”: Republicans dump Trump, they win; Republicans don’t dump Trump, they win. Only the first of those is absolutely true, but the second one is also if Republicans do not “turn as one.”
No one expects unity behind Trump, the man. But it is critical to unify behind Trump, the everyman. The Republican Party must adopt the Trump meme, above. Trump is not the target, but our constitutional rights are. But, you say, “Trump is unworthy!” I respond, “So what?!” Safeguarding the rights of good people is easy; safeguarding the rights of all is hard. As soon as you accept that it is okay to deny someone equal protection of law, no one is safe.
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts
This is a test. It is a great and difficult test. The title to this post is a formulation of the famous expression, “close your eyes and think of England.” It was an admonition to take on an unpleasant task (for some) to ensure the future of the nation. The original statement came from a lady’s diary that I will not quote and which was more explicit, but you can look it up.
Am I overstating the case? I don’t think so. Read a couple of commentaries on Powerline here and here. We are nation run by the most lawless group in our nation’s history. Every Republican candidate other than Trump should suspend their campaigns in solidarity. If that is not their inclination, if that is something that their major donors resist, that should tell you something about these people’s dedication to the rule of law. Rhetoric is not enough. It is a time for action.
Watch and see who does what. You might say, “Why doesn’t Trump do the right thing and remove himself as a distraction?” It is too late for that. Trump adopted the role of symbol, and has suffered mightily for it. The Democrats have embraced him as that symbol and continue to attack. If Trump removes himself now, the furies will be even more bold and simply expand the target list.
Close your eyes and think of America.
Published in General
The day that Trump was inaugurated, there was an article, I think in the Washington Post, attacking him for removing the bust of Martin Luther King, implying that he was racist. But Trump hadn’t removed it. It was fake news. The reporter who wrote the article couldn’t see the bust due to a door. Did Trump bring that on himself? Did he “hand ammo to the Left?” No.
If you didn’t understand, from January 20, 2017, that it doesn’t matter what Trump does, he’ll be attacked, then you (the proverbial you) are not paying attention.
Trump does bring it on himself in addition to whatever would be headed his way because he’s a Republican.
Trump just makes the Democrats’ job easier.
But what you presented doesn’t represent all of what Trump did during his political career. You point to situations where the Left exaggerated and completely invented an issue with Trump.
That’s not what I am talking about.
Do you mean the “job” of denial of equal protection under the law? None of the criticisms leveled at supporting Trump has come close to telling us how to restore civil liberty. Get another Republican elected? Not if you abandon Trump.
I don’t understand why abandoning Trump means we can not pursue the goal of restoring civil liberty.
If Republicans choose Ron DeSantis as their 2024 presidential nominee, this would not mean that Republican primary voters don’t give a hoot about restoring civil liberty. In fact, nominating Ron DeSantis might be the first significant step towards restoring civil liberty.
If we nominate Trump and Trump loses against Biden in 2024 as he did in 2020 (although we can argue that Biden only won because he cheated), how has civil liberty been restored?
Civil liberty presumably existed before Trump decided to become a Republican a few years back. Maybe civil liberty could exist again after Trump retires from politics. It will be a hard task, but nominating Ron DeSantis might be the first step on that path.
Think of it this way. By abandoning Trump we are saying, “OK. You win. You told us you wouldn’t accept our choice, so we’ll pick someone else who may be acceptable to you.” That’s called folding your hand.
But ask yourself exactly why Trump was so unacceptable. For all the damn foolishness exhibited by some at ricochet who claimed that Trump was an “existential threat” to the republic, can you point to a single judge’s ruling he ignored? No one can, to answer my own question. To me it feels like Trump or nobody. I didn’t say I think that, but my gut tells me it’s true.
We’re choosing what counterfactual we will never live. I prefer mine. You prefer yours. I hope that you are right if you are so casual about what is going on.
Not really.
It’s called nominating someone who has a decent chance of winning the election.
One reason why Trump might be unacceptable as the Republican nominee is that he will lead Republicans to yet another defeat. Obviously, this is debatable. But consider that whether through election fraud or through electoral defeat, Biden became president on January 2021 and Trump became ex-President.
If you have a quarterback who lost a football game, you do have the option of putting in another quarterback to lead the team. Sure, you can say, “Our quarterback is fine. It’s just that the refs were unfair.”
Good. But if the refs have not changed, how does sticking with your loser quarterback help you? It doesn’t.
Are Republicans hooked on losing? Is that it?
Casual about what is going on?
I don’t know about you, but I have done jury duty before, twice actually. In both cases, the prosecution made a decent case that the defendant was guilty. Yet in neither case did the 12 jurors reach the consensus required for a guilty verdict.
Why assume that all 12 jurors are going to vote guilty to these charges against Trump? All Trump’s attorneys need to do is get 1 of the 12 to say they have “reasonable doubt” as to Trump’s guilt. That’s it.
Now, that’s the job of those 12 jurors. Republican primary voters should concern themselves with selecting someone who won’t just hand the 2024 election to Joe Biden, which I think Trump would.
You missed
themy point entirely. By abandoning Trump we are letting the other side dictate our choices. And when I used the term “unacceptable” I meant unacceptable to the other side. Of course, it may be that many GOPe are on the other side. In that case, it’s game over.Good comment. Issue now is did he actually show the document to the guy in the conversation, who did not have a clearance, or just doing the usual Trump bragging and waved it around without showing him. Dershowtiz had the best insight on that issue.
Did he show the document to a guy without a security clearance? Only significant issue. Agree everything else is political crap.
Applying the Comey standard of “there was no intent to violate the law”, and you get “no reasonable prosecutor would . . . .” But, of course, this is not a reasonable prosecutor.
No. I didn’t buy that argument when the GOPe was trying to stuff Bushies down our throats and I don’t buy it now.
I think that represents an overly simplified view of the American electorate. As I see it, there are the hard core voters on the Left, the hard core voters on the Right and then there are people who either might not vote at all or might vote for one party or another based on candidate quality.
So, choosing DeSantis isn’t caving into the demands of the Left. It could be seen as considering the views of people who are neither hard Left voters nor hard Right voters.
It’s like nominating Brian Kemp instead of Herschel Walker. Neither of them are preferred by the Left, except that the Left would rather run against Walker because they can beat him. If they have to run against Brian Kemp, they fear that they lose.
I’m not aware that DeSantis promised not to run against Trump. I know that Haley did.
But even if he did promise, no one owes Trump a duty of loyalty because of the way Trump is disloyal to everyone else. Remember how Trump viciously attacked DeSantis right before the gubernatorial election in 2022? That was a nasty, childish, back-stabbing, low-down maneuver that you expect from a Democrat – not from a fellow Republican. Just one example of Trump’s disloyalty. So IF DeSantis was disloyal, Trump had it coming in spades.
If DeSantis had decided to opt out of the 2024 presidential primaries out of a sense of loyalty towards Trump, that would have short changed the voters to some extent. The Republican primary voters have been told for many years now: It’s either Trump or the Left. You choose.
Now, for the first time since the spring-summer of 2016, Republicans aren’t just choosing between the Left and Trump. They get to choose between Trump, DeSantis, Pence, Haley, Christie and others who’s names I can’t remember how to spell.
Either through election fraud or voter preference, Trump lost to Biden in 2020. There is nothing wrong with trying out a new candidate with whom we can try to beat the Left in 2024. That’s loyalty to the political causes we believe in even if it isn’t loyalty to Trump.
Also, I’m not saying that Trump should believe a putative DeSantis promise to pardon him. I’m saying that’s Trump’s best shot. Trump is likely to lose to Dementia Joe AGAIN, so he will not be able to pardon himself but DeSantis could win and might pardon Trump. Maybe Trump should be a little nicer to DeSantis.
Maybe the best way to beat an old geezer (Biden) isn’t to nominate another old geezer (Trump).
https://www.businessinsider.com/ron-desantis-wont-run-president-busy-fighting-critical-race-theory-2021-10?op=1
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/desantis-telling-donors-he-wont-challenge-trump-in-2024-per-report/
Other reports had him more cagey.
It’s not a question of loyalty to Trump. It’s a question of trust. If you switch your vote from Trump to DeSantis because DeSantis promises to pardon Trump, will he keep his word, or will it somehow be more convenient not to? After all we have been given all the reasons why we must have a more “acceptable” candidate, just like we were promised the repeal of Obamacare, et al. And if Trump is given a kangaroo trial with DeSantis looking on, where will his supporters be? What happened to all those people who voted for Biden and ended up with inflation, racial division, imposed scarcity, and war?
OTOH if Vivek says he will pardon Trump, you can take that to the bank. He stood up quickly and loudly decrying the political nature of the NYC indictment and challenging DeSantis to do the same which DeSantis initially shrugged off and Republicans who are banking on the Dem prosecutions taking Trump out publicly supported.
R “those people” will still vote for Slow Joe over Trump. No doubt.
This is where I think having a circle of friends or relatives or co-workers that isn’t monolithic is helpful.
There are lots of people who think of Trump as in a completely different category of human being compared to just about everyone else. So, even if they don’t think much of Biden, they will vote for Biden if his opponent is Trump.
I think the best analogy I can think of is the Governor’s race and the US Senate race in Georgia in 2022.
Brian Kemp was running for re-election. Herschel Walker was running for US Senate. Both ran as conservatives. Both ran as Republicans. Both ran in Georgia in 2022. Brian Kemp won. Herschel Walker lost.
Why? Herschel Walker seemed like he was in a different category of human being compared to just about anyone else. So, even though Georgia voters were willing to elect a Republican (they did elect Brian Kemp), they weren’t willing to pull the lever for Herschel Walker.
As I see it, Ron DeSantis is Brian Kemp. Donald Trump is Herschel Walker. One can win. The other will likely lose.
In the Business Insider story, in September 2021 DeSantis said he was not currently considering a run for president because he was too busy in Florida. That’s a standard non-denial denial and FAR from a promise to Trump not to run against him in exchange for Trump’s support for the gubernatorial race.
In the Mediaite story, a Vanity Fair reporter said donors were telling her that DeSantis wouldn’t run in 2024. That’s definitely not a promise that he wouldn’t run. It mentions another profile that says if he does run he will launch a full-frontal assault on Trump.
I support DeSantis because I believe his record in Florida has shown he is the most effective candidate at fighting the Deep State, something Trump failed at abysmally. And because I’m tired of the childish putdowns, the lies about DeSantis’ record, that he can’t shut up about 2020 and move forward, that he makes it easy for the Dems to get him. And that he seems to have no clear plan for what he would do (unlike 2016). Whether DeSantis will or won’t pardon Trump is a tertiary issue for me.
Is that the real goal behind this – provoke GOP to nominate the only person Burisma Joe can win against? Think about it, Trump under indictment will limit his air/debate time. It will give an excuse to keep the “big guy” in his Delaware mansion (paid for by the CCP, Burisma and anyone who bought a Hunter Biden original).
It is apparent from the comments that there is a great split amongst the readers here. Not on whether Trump or DeSantis would be a better candidate/president, but on whether we are at an inflection point in the nations’ political nature and whether supporting Trump is essential to an outcome.
Because I think the outcome is so important I sometimes fall into the argument about candidate/president and may not make a compelling case. The real argument is about the importance and meaning of US v Trump and the consequences to our nation’s future.
Pardons do not repair harm. They do not reform the system that created the need for and justified the pardon. They simply stop an individualized harm. Did pardoning Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, and Roger Stone repair the system that convicted them?
The promise of pardon is irrelevant, because the need for the promise is evidence of a grave disease. IMO if the people do not support citizen Trump against the regime and show that support in the only way that a regime fears, then a pardon becomes personally just but nationally useless.
What if the prosecutor, Jack Smith, is unable to secure a guilty verdict from the 12 jurors? Wouldn’t that be a vindication of the principle of innocent until proven guilty, a key feature of the American justice system?
It might be a start. But the process is the punishment. And even an unsuccessful prosecution –even a prolonged investigation that does not result in an indictment –has a chilling effect. Think about how the threat of lawsuits modify behavior in every day life — some good, some bad, but not neutral. In politics and civil rights we need to feel secure in expressing our beliefs and support, and not simply making ourselves a target.
I don’t see this case as a civil rights issue. I think it’s a case of jerking the government around when it tries to retrieve important government documents.
As Trump’s former Attorney General, Bill Barr, said, Trump jerked the government around. Now Trump might have to go through a legal procedure to see if he violated federal law.
Trump is not above the law and maybe these charges brought against Trump will reinforce this principle.
I think you have made my point in Comment #56. You and Barr are aligned in your thinking, I am not.