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.
Trump Decides to Talk About Judge Curiel Again
Remember six hours ago when Donald Trump said he wouldn’t comment any further on Judge Gonzalo Curiel and the Trump University lawsuit? Well … he’s talking about him again:
Trump admitted to host Sean Hannity he does not care about the judge’s nationality, a significant walkback from comments made over the past few days that U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel could not oversee his case because of his Mexican ethnicity, even though he was born in the U.S.
“It’s sad,” Trump said, referring to how some have “misconstrued” his views on the judge. “I don’t care where the judge comes from. I just want to get a fair shake. We’ve had unfair opinions coming down and you wonder, what is going on?”
Don’t worry, GOP. I’m sure the new presidential Trump will be here any day now.
Published in General
What I’ve come to wonder about with respect to all of these court troubles for Trump is why he didn’t think to move to settle them quickly after he clinched the nomination. Surely that would have been the smart move. You can always make not talking about the settlement conditions part of the deal. Thus it would have just removed this issue. Did no one suggest this to him? If he is serious about this campaign how much could settlement have cost him that he didn’t want to do it?
Some people think that desiring one’s own prestige, power, and wealth equals being self interested and intelligent. If only that was true, Stalin purged the Soviet Military in 1937 and in 1941 a war began that cost the USSR 30 million men and women and destroyed their most prosperous regions in the USSR. Joseph Stalin was perhaps one of the most self interested persons in human history too.
Being self interested does not equal being intelligent and making smart moves which provide the best outcome. Self interest is only one optional ingredient in the recipe of success.
I’m curious here, and I hesitate to bring it up for fear of violating the code of conduct to spark such a debate, but if we are only one court justice away from what you fear are we close enough to justify armed revolt? How “screwed” is screwed in your opinion? Are we at the point where it is Trump or war? Is this America in 1860?
I’ll concede that sometimes Trump supporters contrast the possibility that Trump will do something wrong with the certainty that Hillary will.
However, Trump detractors have also said “we don’t know what he’ll do” innumerable times. That was my point, and it’s correct.
And even if your reasoning above leads one to the conclusion that Trump will probably appoint leftist judges, it falls far short of any sort of proof he will.
There’s a chance he’ll appoint decent justices, at least compared with Hillary.
Even if he’s a gun with five of six chambers loaded, you’d rather play Russian roulette with that than one with all six.
One is probable hell.
Two means we won’t be able to pass conservative legislation on any level (from local to federal) that won’t run a substantial chance of being declared “unconstitutional” because it “opposes history” or some such nonsense. It also means that not a single Constitutional right won’t be re-interpreted out of existence to fit leftist needs.
I’m not one of those detractors to clarify that question. You seem to have a notion that trump is indeed conservative in some sense. Let me repeat the overall point of my argument that he is not conservative in any sense, let alone can he even communicate them (and we see him failing to communicate conservatism every day).
I view him as all 6 bullets compared to the 6 bullets of clinton. trump spoke well of her for years and supported her. trump making a few comments about Mexicans being rapists and drug dealers ticking off the Left does not even come close to meeting the criteria of conservatism.
Its just one strain of leftism fighting another.
That is if one of the two conservatives or two squishes is replaced (in addition to the vacant seat being filled by a leftist). A leftist being replaced with another leftist would be a lost opportunity, but not quite as devastating.
I agree. That’ll take the House, Senate, and Presidency. Hope we get the necessary strength.
The first step – eliminating taxpayer funding – would require a blanket repudiation of any public-private relationship. No block grants to anyone. A hard sell, given the capillary entanglement of government at every level. People acquiesce to funding of a group they don’t like if it means the local library stays open.
The third plank – bringing RICO charges – would be impossible, since no one had to twist the Obama administration’s arm to get them to divert mortgage-meltdown fines to social justice organizations. Institutionalized legal payoffs seem baked into the Community Reinvestment Act at this point, and the politics of repeal-and-replace are nightmarish. Again, it would take control of all three branches and a clanking set of stones on the part of the leadership.
There’s a chance he’ll appoint decent SCOTUS justices. There’s a chance he won’t go after our guns. There’s a chance he’ll curtail immigration.
There’s a guarantee she’ll appoint awful justices. There’s a guarantee she’ll go after our guns. There’s a guarantee she’ll throw the borders wide open.
Everything else is secondary, including personal philosophy.
I’m just saying that the necessary actions have to factor in the existence of opposition, the means by which its arguments can be co-opted, and the tools that can be employed to convert the undecided. Our objective is to govern, not to rule.
Because he said a couple words? Last I checked even clinton has mouthed conservative principles before (my daddy taught me to shoot like Annie Oakley…), his actions and words for his nigh 70 year old life indicate leftism by miles compared to conservatism.
I would argue you are perhaps consciously or sub consciously omitting a ton of facts in order to entertain the idea that trump might be conservative. He is nigh as certain to be leftist as clinton is.
Unfortunately, unless we get a little bit–dare I say ruthless–we won’t be doing much of either.
When you’ve got an opponent who’s willing to bite and scratch and gouge your eyes out, you need to start thinking outside the “I’m too moral to degrade myself” box. For crying out loud, there’s a lot at stake here.
Yes, there are obstacles in our way, but if we have to wait until we have the Presidency, the House, and sixty senators to accomplish anything substantive, we’re never going to accomplish anything because we’re never going to have sixty senators.
More thoughts here.
As we have seen, control of the executive does give you operating leeway. The decision on who gets block grants is not done by congress at all places, the personnel who manage it can be transferred to Guam, an executive order specifying new targets within the legislation that has the approval of the leadership can do wonders.
If we play fair when in office, we lose. We have to play with the same reckless abandon the Progressives use on us, until they scream and we can put in place firm safeguards to stop it. As long as they count on our side being whiter than white and afraid to confront illegality by non white actors, they win.
If Trump fires all of the Attorneys in DOJ as is his right, I sure hope he tells the media to go pound sand, unlike W who sat politely and let the media create a firestorm.
Even if his philosophy isn’t conservative, some of his constituency is.
If you’ve got to choose between two leftist narcissists (which I’ll grant for the sake of argument), it makes sense to support the one who’s dependent on conservative support. Trump would have to sell people out and would face backlash, Hillary would make her supporters gleeful.
Might I ask how you know that the 40% of those votes he got were from conservatives? This is a man who has ruined his investors on numerous occasions before. From what record we have seen he has no feeling of loyalty to those who “invest” in him and I doubt he received no backlash (if such didn’t happen then he wouldn’t be getting sued right now for instance).
Not all of those votes, but some of them. If no conservatives supported him (pace those who believe no conservative could have ever voted for him), I can’t see how he would have won.
And I’m not talking “loyalty,” I’m talking leverage. If his immigration policy is anything like Hillary’s would be, he’d have no political support or capital to accomplish anything.
If he were as stupid as some people seem to think he is he would have squandered his entire inherited fortune and would be flipping burgers somewhere.
Not if you have the law protecting you (keeps supply at x while demand continually increases, thus ensuring ever higher returns) and bailing you out whenever anything bad happens (which we know he did numerous times). trump is someone who pays little to no attention and was raised in a bubble. It explains his outbursts, it also explains his many failures and ivy league education.
trump doesn’t feel any leverage to conservatives. If he did then he wouldn’t have defended transgender bathroom laws or done half the things he has done in his life or comment that his fans are so blindly loyal that killing someone wouldn’t change their support for him.
If anything trump has spoken like he has his supporters on his finger and that leverage means nothing (which after getting the required delegates he stated that he was the “leader” of the party, if anything trump thinks he has the leverage, not his supporters). You seem to be projecting hope onto him. I would caution against such.
So you are saying Hillary is more Principled than Trump and to vote for Trump because not having any principles is better than a set of principles we know are wrong and evil.
This really is the crux of the argument. Vote for the unprincipled guy who when he sometimes feels like it he does not due harm or accidentally does good to every day American values. Verses the principled candidate who is constantly against American values.
So someone who knows they are evil and acts that way or someone who does not realize they are evil and sometimes based on feelings does good because he does not know he is supposed to be evil therefor he does not always due the wrong thing?
Then again this argument to vote for Trump is all based on domestic policy. I have no doubt Hillary is more conservative than Trump on Foreign policy. Heck I would argue Obama appears to the right of Trump on Foreign policy. If we were only electing the Secretary of State (who was not under authority to a Trump president). I would vote for Hillary in a heart beat. Better a Viper than a Leviathan because there is no such thing as a Leviathan charmer.
That is the problem the president should not have this power to protect his buddies. There is nothing in the constitution that requires the Attorney General to be under the president. That is just what Washington and the first congress agreed to. Therefore it is more tradition than constitutional authority that the Attorney General is appointed by the president and serves under him. There is nothing that says congress can’t pass a law that copies what every single state in the union does. Have a independent Attorney General elected by popular vote.
Silver lining of a Hillary victory in November: the look on Hannity’s face the evening of the election. Cannot wait!
I have not read a single piece by one of those authors that does that. So when you have the time I’ll ask you to show your work.
I’m not so sure of that any more.
Well since we’re not having sex it means I’m not lying to you. Tom specifically said he was far less worried about La Raza ties that Trumps racist comment. You can ask him , Claire and Richard. They are people of honor and while I’m sure they’d phrase things differently they’d prioritize Trumps statement over la Raza in general to be true to intellectual consistency.
Only one of those things has the potential to become President. That Tom weighed the relative harms and decided one was more harmful at this particular moment in history does not mean he or any of the other editors are minimizing the potential harm from odious groups such as La Raza.
We had all three and they did none of this. Congress and Bush continued on their merry way. The GOP was active to sink the most conservative candidate in the primary. Now the conservative class actively looks to sink Trump, thus helping Clinton win. I have been told “wait” now for over a decade. When does the magic happen?
Similar to his stance with the KKK right and the alt right. They are OK with me until they become a political liability… Heck Duke is KKK…, who knew…
I disagree. I know you disagree with me about this issue. I’m going to leave it at that.
Me. I was in medical school in NO at the time he ran for governor and I actively campaigned against him to vote for a known democrat criminal. David Duke can burn in hell. Go ahead, edit me, he was the grand wizard of the KKK and if that doesn’t warrant a crispy afterlife I don’t know what does.
I agree.
I also think assoication with LA Raza is unacceptable.
You wouldn’t like NYC or any large urban area. We have parades for identity groups.