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 Fascinating Mr. Trump
As skipsul notes in his engrossing post below, Trump has at least this virtue: he fights. In an email that just turned up in my inbox, a friend offers yet another insight:
Trump generates news and interest because he is genuinely funny and interesting.
Trump is the mathematical average of the American voter in terms of policy, even if he has to flip flop or contradict himself. Against Iraq but USA will win. For business, against trade. Pro life but supports PP. Keep Medicare but reduce top rates. Etc.
Our guys have moved rightward in policy over the last 10 years. But we cultivated a bland, neutral group of boring dudes. Is there a genuine wit in the Senate or House?
Look at how Rubio, Cruz used Twitter. Basically a press release tool. Trump is himself. Our guys are so bland it makes the gold plated faux billionaire seem authentic!
Yes, I know I’m really working hard to find reasons for optimism these days, but isn’t this a good one? Put Trump up against Hillary and you’re putting a genuinely fascinating candidate up against a noxious bore.
Published in General
I never doubted that Trump could beat Clinton. He’s not a shoe-in, but he could do it. And he would win with voters Republicans never got before. He’d have to with #NeverTrump, though I suspect that crowd is smaller than it appears on the internet.
If I don’t vote for him against Clinton, it won’t be because he’s incapable of winning. It will because he is incapable of serving.
This is the most depressing election cycle of my life.
“He fights.”
Against who, Peter? The pansy left that’s terrified of criticizing Islam? Oh wait, he slammed the Muhammed cartoon contest last spring and said they asked for it.
Against at the nameless villains taking our jobs? Oh yes, he’ll slap a 45% tariff on imports. Hebert Hoover and Smoot-Hawley have nothing on him.
But he’ll fight the Left? Yeah, if you imagine a man who has spent the better part of 7 decades supporting Democrats financially, including his current opponent.
At least he’ll be solid on guns. Unless he still believes what he said 3 years ago in praising Obama’s anti-gun screed at Newtown.
But then again I just “don’t get it.”
If that is to be preferred. I don’t believe that it is.
Folks, Peter never endorsed Trump. Stay calm and carry on.
Possibly but I am fairly certain that you’ll be more surprised by Trump’s collapse than I will be by any of his successes. He will have the entire Leftist media that made him turn against him and he will cave to their demands because he collapses in every interview under the slightest pressure.
The fact that he is going to rely on 1930’s style rallies and free publicity while eschewing proven data driven voter analysis to get out the vote indicates that he and his team of Nixonian retreads don’t understand modernity.
Exactly. He says he fights. His supporters say he fights. I haven’t seen any evidence that he actually does, much less that he would fight for anything I believe in.
Agree. Calling Peter a fraud is exactly the sort of thing driving me crazy. Can the pro Trump and NeverTrumpers stop casting anyone not on their side as horrible?
This is a great point. Newt fought. Trump just kind of declares other people wrong.
If I had confidence Trump would be better for the country, I’d quit my never Trump position, but he’s given me good reason to suspect he may be much worse. I see no sign that he is reformable. Did he not support the crushing of the democratic movement in China? To people who like to consider themselves conservatives, doesn’t this ring a loud alarm in your minds? That is only one of very many reasons to doubt Trumps judgment and heart.
I’m just here to post videos, eat the free snack food and smoke illegal cigarettes.
The one good thing to come out of this election cycle (and unfortunately it won’t save the country) is the unmasking of certain groups of conservatives (e.g. #NeverTrumpers)…at least I now know why we’ve been losing all this time…I honestly had no idea before. And just for the record, it is entirely possible that the #NeverTrumpers are ultimately right about Trump (although I don’t believe for a second that he is worse than Hillary), but that never was the point.
Don’t think of it as electing a President so much as renewing his show for four more seasons.
I think you and Bryan are both being a bit unfair, or at least that the group you’re referring to is a lot smaller than #nevertrump. I’ll not be voting for Trump, and it isn’t because he’s worse than Hillary, necessarily, but because I believe that his election would have more devastating effects than would hers. I believe that I’ve spent more effort on these pages explaining why that is the case than I have creating some sort of blacklist or declaring individuals to be evil or wrong or whatever. Most of the continued opposition to Trump is along those lines, though I’ll admit that folks on both sides have become frustrated and often talk past one another…
Peter doesn’t commit to anything. He never does, he pretends he doesn’t have a position and then posts the remarks and writing of others and says, “What does everyone make of this?” But it’s always clear the agenda he prefers because he puts up 10 different posts that all advocate for the thing he wants, but it’s always other people’s words so Peter can feign the look of neutral observer.
Its clear Peter is pushing the party unity line, he has not yet posted anything advocating the Never Trump position. If he were truly undecided he’d be posting the view of both sides, wouldn’t he?
In the past, my main hope in salvaging from Trump’s nomination was that his self-interest overlaps enough with Republican interests that savvy Republicans could keep him focused on those subjects, like lowering corporate taxes and enforcing our current immigration laws (which would win him more of the fame he enjoys). But that foolishly trusts Republicans to be infinitely more competent than they have proven at the national level.
So the argument left to consider is that discussed on the Member Feed these past few days: Clinton’s long history in DC politics has afforded her much more savvy and resources with which to accomplish her anti-Constitutional goals. She is the greater threat.
Even so, it might be better to take the blind bet on recouping for 2018 and 2020 than the blind bet that a despicable, lawless man will do less damage. Either Clinton or Trump could make us almost miss Obama. Neither cares in the least for the limits of authority, for truth, or for the rights or dignity of opponents.
Is disgust better than boredom? Actually, I think that as conservatives we should all want boring and capable presidents. I don’t know about you all, but I don’t want to adore the president or expect him to entertain me or anything else. I just want good, principled, conservative, constitutional governance with no fuss.
Your prediction, my prediction. We will see. Try this
http://ricochet.com/playing-to-win-request-ideas-from-neverhillary-ricochetti-viva-the-rabble-alliance/
**cough**
The sad reality is that arguing/debating/explaining on Ricochet is form of mental masturbation—it feels good but accomplishes nothing.
Good point Merina, the site which esteemed Calvin Coolidge so much it named the main membership tier after him and operates under the moniker Silent Cal Productions, now espouses the virtues of being loud and bombastic and interesting. Good Lord, irony is dead.
Did we say it’s over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!!? … time for a stupid and futile gesture on our part!
Because he is a peacemaker. You have your role in life and he has his. The role of a peacemaker is to advise caution and to seek truth on all sides in hope of finding bridges.
I have been listening to Peter on the podcasts and reading his posts for 5 years or more. It is normal for him to go back and forth on an issue while expressing his thoughts aloud. He hates to disagree with anyone and, especially in heated debates like this, is willing to play devil’s advocate in hope of eliciting counter-arguments.
As he wrote last week, he is wisely taking his time to consider (aloud) so long as he does not yet have to cast his vote. Give him time.
Peter, your gesture with this post is much appreciated. I have hopes that Ricochet can navigate to be an effective community if the GOP wins the next election, and laughing together is good medicine.
Thanks.
Do you do birthday parties or wedding receptions?
Peter was speaking about electability and the media game during campaigns. Nowhere did he propose that Americans need a bombastic president.
Peter, like the rest of us, is dealing with a very unpleasant reality. There’s no point in being for or against Trump being the nominee, now. It’s a done deal. (Barring a miracle.)
Peter is looking for silver linings now, and I don’t blame him. There’s nothing unprincipled about it.
Yes, he has all the qualities you want in a host for your reality TV show… and almost none of the qualities you want in a president.
Note:
We are keeping this up as Peter is a public figure, but this would not be tolerated of other members.Peter is not going back and forth, I don’t know what you’re reading. Everything he posts is an apology for Trump that someone else has written or that someone has shared with Peter. He isn’t exploring the Never Trump position at all. That’s why this pose of neutrality is so phony.
I second this. In fact, regardless of who wins the general election, I think it’s safe to say that we’re in for some stormy times ahead, and in spite of my previous criticism, I think that Ricochet can be an important place for people on the “right” to find support and good humor—Lord knows we’re going to need it.