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.
A Little Too Much Reality in the Show?
Watching the parade of porn stars, reality TV contestants, and former Playboy models lining up to lambaste the President of the United States, as well as the daily trove of stories of wife beating, naked nepotism, gambling, and official corruption among his cabinet members and White House staff, I was reminded of a story Bill Buckley once told.
He had been nominated by the Nixon Administration to serve as one of our delegates to the United Nations. The FBI called around to his friends and colleagues, and one, William Rusher, groaned that he had already answered all of their questions when Buckley had been nominated for an earlier assignment. The agent replied: “I know, but it is my duty to ask whether Mr. Buckley might have done anything since 1969 to embarrass the president.” The sly Rusher responded, “No, but the Nixon Administration has done a great deal to embarrass Mr. Buckley.”
Imagine the FBI interviews with nominees like Gov. Nikki Haley or Gen. James Mattis. “Have you done anything that could embarrass President Trump?” It’s mind-bending. They are honorable people with stellar careers and he is a failed casino magnate, serial adulterer, swindler of ambitious naïfs (see Trump University), sexual predator, and all-around louse. Yes, he’s the president, but is he even capable of embarrassment?
You might say that Trump isn’t pretending to be a saint, and that he’s tough and strong and ready to be “our” son of a b—- (to paraphrase FDR’s supposed description of a Latin American despot), but it’s not quite that cut and dried. Trump maintains his innocence, which is where things get confusing.
Trump vehemently denies the accusations of groping and affairs, but this week it seems that the elaborate and expensive efforts he has undertaken to conceal his behavior are unraveling a bit. The resulting prurient press party was entirely predictable.
Stormy Daniels alleges that she had an affair with Trump. At first, the world yawned. But since then we’ve learned that Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen paid her $130,000 in hush money in October 2016. (Such nice lawyers Mr. Trump hires!) That may be a violation of campaign finance laws if Trump did not report it as an in-kind contribution. Beyond that, it reveals the contempt with which Trump treats the public. There was no affair, but Cohen had a sudden urge to make a charitable contribution to Stormy? And now Trump is suing Daniels for breach of the confidentiality agreement – in the amount of $20 million – though the official Trump position is that the agreement doesn’t exist. Got that?
Some are attempting to link this to the #MeToo movement – women must speak “their truth,” lawyer Gloria Allred explained – but it’s a safe bet that Stormy is thinking finances, not feminism. Mr. Trump, who stresses that winning is the only virtue he upholds, should admire that.
The same cannot be said of Summer Zervos, one of the 16 women who accused Trump of groping after the release of the Access Hollywood tape. If you recall, Trump claimed that all of the women were lying and that he would sue them after the election. Zervos, who was a contestant on The Apprentice, has now received the go-ahead from a judge for her lawsuit to proceed. She said he groped. He called her liar. She is suing for defamation. Trump’s lawyers had argued that his depiction of Zervos as a liar was “political speech clearly protected by the first amendment.” The judge rejected that argument, and citing the Paula Jones precedent, noted that no president is immunized against suits for purely private acts. This could open the door to sworn depositions, and possible further suits.
And because character is destiny, yet another Trump acquaintance, Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, is also attempting to invalidate her secrecy agreement. Thanks to Donald Trump, we’ve learned that the gossip magazines have a practice called “catch and kill” for stories they want to suppress. The parent company of the National Enquirer apparently performed this service for Trump, paying McDougal $150,000 for the rights to her story.
Nevertheless, McDougal seems ready to tell her tale, and Daniels will tell hers (including allegations of threats emanating from Trump world). And perhaps, just perhaps, as they settle in this weekend to watch “60 Minutes,” the party of family values will wonder whether they really wanted to sign up for all this.
Published in Culture, Politics
Yoo hoo, George, I’m over here behind those straw men you’re addressing. I guess I don’t really blame you for dressing them down, though. Those straw men sure do like spreading hatreds reflecting the big cavern in their straw chests where we humans usually keep our hearts.
And quibbles, well, I was talking with JoeP and we were doing OK until you decided to enter the fray with a quibble of your own which was not only misstated but also misapplied.
If Joe is okay with you and the others, that is all to the good. He must be a swell guy, and one I’d like to shake hands with one day.
I am no longer that kind-hearted man, not when people are constantly abusing fine people for the indefensible “crime” of stating that the emperor has no clothes, that he is engaged in activities that only feed his sexual desires and ego-building sycophancy.
I’d rather talk to, and hang out with, people like Mona and Joe any time, than the people I just denoted, who will never under stand the priorities of living a good and decent life. Good-bye.
George. Put up or shut up. Where did I abuse Mona? Even once, let alone constantly?
Thanks!
Attention: All ‘conservative’ ACA apologists or excusers. link
This is a tweet storm from the guy that found the Gruber videos. The left and the media are all lairs and this is an existential war. Trump is their Monkey Wrench From Hell.
Not ideal, but here we are.
Nothing is preventing you from hanging out with Mona and Joe. But since they write columns and make comments on a discussion board, it is unlikely that they won’t deal with critics dishing out criticism. C’est la Vie.
Obviously, if you read what I wrote, you understand that I don’t mind dealing with people who are truly interested in intelligent conversation. What I will refuse to deal with, anymore, are people who just lash out at others because they disagree. This is not grown-up dialog. It is vituperation.
Let’s try this. Much earlier in the thread, someone observed that “America’s culture is past the point of no return.” According to your response, ” . . Trump defenders are one proof that it is true.”
Do you consider that vituperative?
ANALYSIS: True.
This is a fair question. And I hope you show considered judgement in evaluating my answer.
If it were not true, it would be vituperative. Consider what I wrote: “Trump defenders”, as opposed to Trump supporters. I dare say not even the biggest Trump defender can say with a straight face that this is not a nasty man. Hugh Hewitt, for example, is a Trump Supporter, even a defender sometimes. Yet he wrote in the Washington Post that Trump says and does cruel things. What I was talking about are the people who will not admit that. All Dennis Prager, for example, can muster is that some of his tweets are silly. It goes beyond that. Plus, some Ricochetti who defend Trump no matter what will then go on to attack me, and others, who fail to see it their way. That is vituperation. And, I believe, one proof that our culture has lost its way.
Out of respect, I read your answer. Carefully. My interpretation is that you want to separate those to whom you meant the statement to apply from those to whom you did not mean it to apply. All well and good.
I’ll just note that there was no “yes” or “no” to my question, and that, as to a certain segment, you consider the statement justified. That’s vituperative, and I’ll speculate that the reason you are getting a degree of pushback here is that you’re missing the double standard in some of your comments. My first post in this thread attempted (somewhat humorously, I hope) to bring that out, but IMO you just can’t attack people and then criticize them for attacking other people.
No. He has been clear about his opinion any political leader’s private life should affect one’s views.
This indicts Prager, how?
You and Mona think you know what is wrong with this country. Go on. Please.
Why not? I guess I can admit that it all a matter of perspective. What you can an attack I would see as being descriptive. If I were to step outside my condo, and a woman happened to be walking, and I overheard two guys saying to each other: “Wow, get a load of that dog that just walked by!”, would I be justified in turning to those guys to say: “You know, you guys are pretty rotten to say that”?
Similarly, if I read people always attacking Mona, for calling out Trump, or saying she should be expelled from Ricochet – which some have said – I think I am justify in saying that these people are not nice, or even good, people.
If John McCain is being ripped for allegedly doing wrong things to a former spouse, when that same person will justify Trump’s behavior, I feel justified in saying that I do not want to have anything to do with this person.
Finally, what bothers me most of all is that these exercises in loosey-goosey morality depend on votes cast. If McCain cast the right votes, and said the “right” things, as in playing ball with Donald Trump, all would be forgiven.
Sounds good to me.
Why is she cogent?
Karen McDougal, I must say, was a fine choice. She would have been in my top 5 back when I was vaguely aware of such things. That’s all I’m qualified to say.
I still get to keep the extra money in my paycheck, right? There’s no porn star tax, is there?
Listen to the Michael Doran interview on the Andrew Klaven Show. Our government is just rotten. That’s how Trump got elected.
One really wonders what Murray Rothbard is wrong about.
Now listen to Richard Epstein on The Libertarian podcast. We are ruled by criminals and/or stupid people. Is Trump so bad? I think not.