Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
But I can’t vote for Clinton anymore than I can vote for Trump, but by not voting for Clinton even though I think she causes less long-term harm to the country, I am actually helpimg Trump.
You’ve summed up my thoughts well. If Trump becomes President and the leader of the GOP, there may never be an opportunity for the conservative movement to recover within the GOP nor will there be any future for conservative leadership in the GOP.
It wil not help the GOP or the country for Trump to turn the GOP into another party of central planners.
You need to learn to be more decisive in life. Get on the ball, man.
(humor- just so you know)
This is not surprising at all.
Because of some policy thing at Ricochet? Some policy we don’t know about?
No, because I recognize the pattern. It’s nothing about Ricochet policy, but about which Member-Feed posts tend to attract recommends. All Pseud need is two more recommends, and his quote of someone else will be Main Feed.
Wait a minute – I thought the threshold was 10?
Mr Walsh will be very disappointed.
Yes, that’s what I thought.
I’ve been speaking with my team of tag writers and they’re feeling very under appreciated these days.
It’s been at 15 for a few weeks now. A threshold of 10 was clearly too low, so it was upped to 50, then knocked back down to 15. This Rudert Number may change from time to time, in search of some elusive “sweet spot”, and perhaps, if no sweet spot can be found, the feature may eventually be scrapped. We’ll see. TPTB are very into keeping this feature if at all possible, though.
When the Rudert Number changes, the change should be announced… somewhere… If not, and you think you’re above the number, please ask what’s up! Currently, keeping something off the Main Feed re-sets the recommend counter back to zero, as does editing the piece. I am not sure whether anyone has tested whether something knocked off the Main Feed once will reappear on the Main Feed if it gets another 15 recommends – someone should test this…
Oh good grief.
You hear the lady. I NEED SOME MORE RECOMMENDATIONS.
I’m out of Atlantic city casino bribe money, so I’ll owe you a pack of smokes.
Agree.
They voted for the least qualified, least liked, major party candidate in US history, and the only candidate for whom it was clear 10 months ago had little chance of winning the election. So, yes, it does seem that way.
GOP won’t stand for principles, vote for a man with no principles.
Tired of nominating RINO’s, vote for a man who’s been a Republican for 10 minutes.
Tired of the GOP making deals with Democrats, vote for the man who brags about the deals he’ll make with Democrats.
Want to beat Hillary above all else, vote for the man with the worst poll numbers against her.
Rage about Obama’s flouting the constitution, vote for the candidate who promises to do it even more.
Rage about Trump’s poll numbers while Trump leads in the latest LA Times poll.
So what? Does that mean he wins the free set of steak knives and not you?
Half a point lead in precisely one poll.
Cherry pick much?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Pretty much the NeverTrump philosophy right there.
Okay. I dared to read it.
So when do we get to read something that explains why we should vote for Trump, except, well, he’s better than Hillary? Walsh doesn’t even try to make that case. Hey! I’m all ears. How, outside of an endless series of drop dead platitudes, will Trump make America great again? All I hear is a “I’ll make America great again, cuz I’m great, so I will make America great again!” Gee, I’m sorry if I’m less than overwhelmed.
But I am persuadable. Could Mr. Walsh (whose recent book was equally underwhelming) please make an attempt to convince me?
So I took @pseudodionysius on his dare — and found nothing new. I was sincerely, if desperately, hoping for a new argument. “Hold your nose and suck it up, you snob,” isn’t working for me.
Um, what? Trump is God now? Alrighty, then but feels too heretical to countenance.
I’ve tried mightily, and in vain, to get behind Trump. The most dissuasive voice against my supporting him isn’t the #nevertrumpers, it’s Trump. Last week was a good week for Trump. If he continues down this road, I just might vote for him. But last week might have also been an outlier.
I think it apropos, at this late time, to yet again ask:
If you are a NeverTrump, is there anything at this point that would sway you the other way?
If you are voting Trump, is there anything at this point that would sway you the other way?
Short of affirmative answers on either of the above questions, is there any point to continuing to have these arguments?
One poll does not a president make.
I am not NeverTrump. I’ve repeatedly said Trump could earn my vote between now and November. He hasn’t bothered to try until the last week or so.
I assume he will revert to form soon. He doesn’t seem to want to be President, he would rather go to the rallies where everybody already loves him than try to convert any independents.
I fully agree arguments here are useless. The camps are formed. There is a third position as well — where I apparently sit. For now, I’m voting for (more likely) McMullin or (just to show how close the bottom of the barrel we are) Johnson .
The ball is — as it has been since Trump won 5 states after WI — in Trump’s court. I suspect a few #nevertrumpers might vote for Trump in their cloistered voting booth —only if Trump stops with the boorish and childish bs.
I’m not NeverTrump, but surely a montage like this with the Federalist Papers as reading material couldn’t hurt ;)
Mike, I think this is a key component of our internecine friction.
I don’t need any more than that. Throw up any negative on Trump, my assessment will be Hillary is worse.
This a visceral thing; I don’t think we can argue others out of their positions.
I view HRC as a totalitarian villain that will consciously work to undermine our Republic. In that light, Trump, while not desirable, is acceptable.
Yes. His recent speeches have hit mostly all the right notes about the issues, though not on trade. I give him credit for acting like a serious person for the first time in the whole campaign, instead of like a celebrity who was mostly looking for yucks from his rally audiences.
He came a bit closer to acting like an actual human being when he said he regretted causing pain with some of his remarks. I didn’t find him to be sincere, but still he said it.
He needs to show me that he is, deep down, a serious man who is willing to learn about the history of this country and the world, about the Constitution and the government, about economics, and about foreign relations. I still feel that his ignorance is disqualifying. I don’t expect him to become an expert overnight, but he should show that he’s learning.
He needs to show me that he is not a heartless bully who revels in insulting people as a means of getting what he wants. That he does not need to “counter punch” every time someone says something negative about him. He may be the least gracious person I’ve ever encountered. He could try to win over some of these naysayers, and show that he is not the small man he has so far proven to be.
Got it, Jack. Moral cowardice. But what if you have been sallying forth, seeing thine adversary for what he is, slinking not away from the race but making known your belief that the adversary is personally, intellectually, morally, and ideologically unfit for the office? And then, having made that case for a year, you act in a way that contradicts everything you supposedly believed?
You might say it’s necessary, but I wouldn’t call it morally courageous.