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.
How Happy Do We Have to Be about Trump?
Michael Walsh of PJ Media asks “What, Exactly, Is the #NeverTrumpumpkins’ Problem?“
It’s a serious problem, it seems, because he doesn’t just call people “NeverTrumpumpkins” (is that hashtag a thing?), but “Vichycons — the collaborationist #NeverTrump crew whose views are increasingly indistinguishable from the hard Left.”
I’m not sure who he’s talking about, because I listen to some #NeverTrumpers — mostly National Review columnists and Ricochet podcasters — who remain Trump skeptics, but “Vichycons” and “undistinguishable from the hard Left”? Well, as I said, I don’t know who he’s talking about.
It’s interesting that Walsh is so concerned about the state of #neverTrumpers’ emotions. In the beginning, he asks why they’re so miserable. Then he asks what more do the “dead-enders” want?
Walsh seems to be the one with the unhealthy emotional investment in other people’s outlook.
Exactly how happy are #nevertrumpers supposed to be? Is it enough to smile several times a day, or do we need to grin like drunks on their first evening in Los Vegas?
Can we say we like some of Trump’s appointments or must we be ecstatic over every one of them?
Can we say we are glad Hilary is not president, or must we commit suicide because we chose not to support Trump before the election?
May we disagree with specific policies, or must we cast away every principle we formerly called conservative and wait for the Trump administration to hand down our ideas? I’ve been surprised at how well the Trump administration has done so far, but even Trump booster Sarah Palin knows crony capitalism when she sees it.
For Walsh, it’s not enough for Trump to become our pope (“The misguided flap over Carrier is emblematic of their total lack of political savvy and, frankly, Christian morality”). He also tells us that Trump threatens our lives (“The Tower, the hangman and the axeman tend to concentrate the mind wonderfully. Something for the #NeverTrumpumpkins to ponder”).
For this voter who couldn’t raise the pen to vote for Trump, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the transition. I’ve decided to wait for him to do something before I evaluate. I apparently think more highly of Trump than Walsh does, because however prickly and thin-skinned Trump has been at times, I don’t believe he threatens the lives of those who chose not to support him.
The late great jazz pianist and lyricist Mose Allison summed up 2016 very well with his song, “I don’t worry about a thing, ’cause nothin’s gonna be all right.”
Donald Trump is the president-elect of the United States. As far as I know, Michael Walsh has not been chosen as his enforcer. Maybe Walsh should relax and let him build his administration and grant the rest of his fellow citizens the right to evaluate it as we see fit.
Published in General
All agreed on 1. and 2. Re: 3, James, maybe he is just being a bit hyperbolic to focus some attention on this serious matter. We’ll be more powerful and successful with more hands on board, so maybe he’s just shaming the holdouts? Words do matter though, eh?
Was this intended to be a serious comment? I missed the tongue in cheek component, I guess. I’m suspect until proven to have used my vote wisely?
Val, logically you are right. Let me ask you to frame it differently:
A lot of the personal stuff about Trump has been said. A lot. I think it would be a good sign , given while Obama was on THE OTHER SIDE and many people say they want Trump to succeed, that the personal stuff hold off until he does something new to deserve criticism on a personal basis. The other stuff is old and just is like chalk on a blackboard to some of us.
If he does some new bonehead thing, go for it. Just stop dredging up old material, as it belies the want him to succeed statements.
How does that work?
@tkc1101Where are the old personal criticisms that have been dredged up? I have read most of the posts and comments about Trump here on Ricochet. I’m hard pressed to remember any after the election that meet your criteria.
Most have been in the podcasts by the management.
Your boy couldn’t get to 5%.
“How do you get to Carnegie Hall”….
It’s a start.
Any comparing people who opposed Trump to French traitors who sent people to death camps is entirely civil in your mind, right. Got it. And if you don’t want the logical contradictions in your “thinking” such as it is to be pointed out, then don’t put them in your comments for all to see.
Excellent. Well said.
My take is that politics is not bean bag. If the nevertrumpers are going to get upset because of a comic hash tag, then they have no business being in the arena. Let’s just get over this though.
Isn’t posting an article on site A an always-used way of answering another author’s piece on site B?
One man’s “meta-reality” is another man’s wacky conspiracy theory.
That seems fair.
Though the argumentative tendency in people is to always use old evidence to support new evidence (no matter how slight), after all the old evidence doesn’t suddenly go away even if we may consider it stale. I certainly know we have a whole laundry list of complaints about Obama some of it dating back quite a ways. Trump has his own now, and I just don’t think it is reasonable to expect people to forget it or not bring it up.
But, I agree people should not have the grace not to just bring it up unprompted. After all that is just picking a fight.
So, in order to “move forward” we should just ignore gratuitous attacks from sore winners?
Maybe I’m a little biased, but it seems to be the pro-Trump side that has the most trouble putting the election behind them.
I read the Walsh piece and it’s 2009 all over again.
I could find it in myself to be less skeptical of Trump if bootlicks like Michael could find it in themselves to be more skeptical of him.
Ricochet is unique in that it is a site that features not only op-ed essays by not just the contributors but the members as well. There are also personal essays and practical advice essays.
Personal affirmation is not found in every essay and sometimes personal attacks find there way into the comment section. I find some essays so well written that I refrain from commenting because there is nothing I can add other than a thank you. I find some essays so poorly premised I see no reason to comment because it would be like using gasoline to light the barbecue.
Generally my rule is to reflect before commenting based upon how deep I’m into Happy Hour. If one is seeking affirmation I would suggest Breitbart, Vox, Huffpo, depending upon your political slant. If one is seeking affirmation for conspiracy theories I would suggest Prison Planet, or for your listening pleasure Coast to Coast Radio.
I cannot control what others think or believe, and I learned a long time ago that not everyone agrees with me, even though they should.
Seems awfully indirect.
Such generalities just prolong the fog of nonsense. Pro and Anti are not uniform groups and hardly behave in unison.
My comparison between Obama and Trump had to do with the externals of their appeal and the dedication of some of their more intense followers.
As far as using your vote wisely, you’re a better judge than I am. It was a tough election, and I don’t fault anyone’s vote, particularly here, where I assume that everyone is working from an honest attempt to put their values into effect in an inherently flawed system.
Welcome to life.
I’m simply observing that there is a certain amount of “sit down and shut up” coming from the hard-line Trump supporters against people who see a responsibility to comment when Trump seems to be making decisions against “conservatism” as we formerly understood it. I’m not sure whether “conservatism” exists anymore or what, if anything, it has been/will be replaced by.
For myself, I’ve been mistaken so many times that I’m taking a loooonnnng wait-and-see approach. But I hate the thump of bodies being metaphorically pitched under the bus.
I’d be satisfied with her admitting she was factually wrong about Trump praising the Chinese leadership wrt Tiananmen Square.
Until then I have to say I praise her as being vicious and horrible.
Except, she wasn’t factually wrong:
You’re a vicious horrible person! <– praise or not praise?
The full text matters, cherry picking phrases pulled out of context doesn’t help your argument…she wasn’t factually incorrect. It was a stupid thing for him to say. He equivocated about an incident where a communist dictatorship murdered innocent people for the “crime” of speaking out. There is no room for equivocation about that incident.
Rico’s, stop.
You–all y’all–are too smart for this.
Once you’re in the guts of a post, up to your elbows, and you realize you are at fundamental, ideological loggerheads with another Rico, just stop. Let it go. Get a snack; don’t let the fact that you’re hangry move you to snark, belittling, or downright insult.
Oh, and leave football alone. For those of us that played, football analogies are relevant for any situation, any time, for any reason (and I wasn’t even that good).
Love you guys. So knock it off.
You need to paste this in a few other threads too.
I can’t keep up.
OK, but I’m stealing it then.
Far as I’m concerned, I plagiarized this off you during an AMU.
Mine didn’t have a football reference, though. I’ve never had any aptitude for sports.
I think this means that “vicious and horrible and strong” means “not praise”!