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
Do Jonah Goldberg’s pants have their own Twitter account?
I think a lot depends upon what you think Trump will attempt to do. I expect Trump to sell us out and do deals with the left. We’re already seeing that a lot of Republicans are unwilling to oppose him simply because he has an R after his name at the moment.
In short, I expect Trump to be every bit as liberal as Hillary, but because he’s a nominal Republican he will be supported by at least a substantial segment of the party. In contrast, Hillary will only have the support of her own party, as republican opposition to her will be absolute.
I want to agree with you when you say that Twitter is not a place for serious business. Because I don’t like Trump anyway, and I think his use of social media is puerile and sometimes unhealthily destructive. But I think you are underestimating the importance of Twitter in the eyes of many Trump supporters. That’s how they communicate, both with their candidate and with each other. It’s simple, it’s lightening-fast, it’s endlessly scalable, and it’s free.
Now, a bunch of fuddy duddies like you and I may find it silly. But isn’t the whole point of this exercise that Trump appeals to a completely different demographic and voter segment than is traditional in the Republican Party? Perhaps we should not assume that everyone else thinks, and communicates, the way that we do.
Perhaps we should care.
Or, at least, pay attention.
In this case, Sasse tried to maneuver Trump into a discussion position that played to Sasse’s strengths. Trump parried successfully, and in a way that totally neutralized further Sasse attempts.
What makes you think that congressional Republicans will vote for Progressive bills just because Trump favors them? That seems pretty far-fetched to me, except for a handful of GOP representatives from mostly blue districts, and a couple of squish senators. That may be all that Trump needs to move some Progressive measures he wants, but he is not ideologically pure on the Progressive side and there is plenty of room to hold up things he wants in order to stop bad things he wants.
Trump likes to deal. Let’s make good deals.
Ok, but that’s the tactics of a particular thing.
What is it that Trump is winning? Overall. Big picture.
Trump wins. What has Trump won?
That’s a point I hadn’t considered. But what if he wants to use EO to nullify stupid EPA regs? Constrict immigration? Roll back Title IX? Will the GOP legislators recoil out of principle, or say “hey, that’ll work” ?
Perhaps, but what about the 2-4 SC appointments she might make, locking in lefty goals for decades. At least with Trump, he has promised conservative appointments.
Supposing he gets elected, these are probably pretty popular things the GOP legislators will be happy to sign on to. Honestly, all the things I was expecting to see when Bush and the Republican congress were in power.
Of course, using EO to cancel out Obama’s EO shouldn’t be controversial, do you think?
FWIW, I recently saw Trump being interviewed and promising not to use EOs as frequently as Obama has used them.
Well . . . yeah, but those who were interested in the substantive question were left with the impression that the respondent was more interested in snapping wet towels in the locker room than acting like a grown-up. “I know you are but what am I” is Biff-Tannen level stuff.
perhaps more Pee Wee Herman!
Regarding the substantive issues, I don’t think a discussion of those was the point of the tweets. Notice that Sasse kicked off with
so it’s unlikely that the following tweets were simple requests for clarification and discussion.
The man tried to PWN the master and ended getting PWNED on his own PWNtard.
Using a EO to Nullify EPA regs, enforce the Immigration law and roll back Title IX are all 100% within constitutional power. I cannot tell from your post if you think that is a good or bad thing. Assuming I understand you correctly, you are asking about the response of the GOP in Congress to these things.
Personally, I do not think the GOP leadership would like those things at all, as most of them seem to like a strong Executive legislating so they don’t have too.
Such is the state of our politics today. I am not sure it is much different than it was in the early 19th Century. At least no one has been beaten on the floor . . . . . . . . . . .yet :(.
Just something to think about…
When ordinary citizens use EO and EPA and Title IX knowingly in their political conversations, you know we have a long, steep hill to climb.
Ah, but who said Bryan was a citizen, eh? [narrows eyes at Bryan]
Then you’d better hope for a Republican majority, flawed as many of the officeholders are, in the Senate, and pin your hopes on such slender and broken reeds as John McCain, Rob Portman, Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson, and Kelly Ayotte.
There are 34 Senate seats up for grabs, and twenty-four of them currently belong to Republicans.
The current makeup of the Senate is effectively 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats (two of whom are “Independents.”)
All Democrats need is to take five seats away from Republicans in the 24 contested races where a Republican senator is currently in office, and to hold onto their own ten seats, or any combination of the above that adds up to a net gain of five Senate seats.
Then, it doesn’t matter whether Trump or Clinton is President.
Conservative Supreme Court picks will not be confirmed.
I was making an assumption based on his watch.
Why the frown? Right now, the prospect of an actual fistfight is about the only thing that keeps me paying attention.
That was more than a fistfight, it was a gutta percha walking stick to the head.
I disagree with you on Trump being as liberal as Hillary. I don’t think he is at all ideological in either direction. But this is mostly speculation. Where you are clearly wrong is when you say that Hillary will only have the support of her own party. She will have the media, Hollywood, and academia behind her. Second, I think you are implying, as many others have, that the left will embrace Trump if he proposes liberal policies. I don’t think they will. He is a vulgar, rich, white male racist to them; they are duty bound to oppose him no matter what he does.
She- “Then you’d better hope for a Republican majority, flawed as many of the officeholders are, in the Senate, and pin your hopes on such slender and broken reeds as John McCain, Rob Portman, Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson, and Kelly Ayotte.
There are 34 Senate seats up for grabs, and twenty-four of them currently belong to Republicans.
The current makeup of the Senate is effectively 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats (two of whom are “Independents.”)
All Democrats need is to take five seats away from Republicans in the 24 contested races where a Republican senator is currently in office, and to hold onto their own ten seats, or any combination of the above that adds up to a net gain of five Senate seats.
Then, it doesn’t matter whether Trump or Clinton is President.
Conservative Supreme Court picks will not be confirmed.”
Isn’t that all the more reason to hope for a Trump landslide, whatever his flaws, as it might come with coattails for Republicans. After all, Trump voters in the primaries did not vote out conservative Republican incumbents. If Trump commits himself to making conservative appointments, and asks his supporters to vote Republican down-ticket, we might readily hold the Senate. Further, if people are voting for change, they won’t want more Democratic senators.
That is an interesting point. I think the media loves Trump.
But they’ll have to figure out an excuse for supporting a vulgar, rich, white male. Remember, though, our media is very creative when it comes to self-contradiction.
I don’t think most of them will support him, they’ll just give him lots of air time because he is bombastic, so perhaps they might as well support him. That seems to be what has happened so far. I think they will love to hate him if he wins. We could hope he’ll get impeached and has a decent veep. That might be a way out of this dilemma. They might at least rediscover the constitution.
I don’t think they will embrace Trump personally any more than republicans embraced Clinton when he caved on welfare reform. I think the left good at doing deals, much better than the right.
Basically, I think the substantive policies under a Trump administration would be largely the same as under a Clinton administration. The only difference would be they would be treated as bipartisan compromise instead of progressive triumphs.