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.
Calling the evidence that the article linked in the OP thin would be an abuse of language. It’s practically nothing.
CNN has been known to run with less.
Not to mention pundits in all political camps. Or other Ricochetti. I’ve never done such a thing, of course.
OK, let’s do NATO, but not here. Franco started a post on the members’ feed with a video clip of the recent breakfast meeting at which President Trump took on NATO SecGen Stoltenberg.
I don’t pay much attention to CNN.
This is all speculation. Where did you get the impression these are facts? We certainly can’t believe Hillary herself so we have to wonder based on past performance and motivations.
So what you’re saying is Hillary won’t run?
Wanna bet?
I don’t remember; That was the long time ago time, which was a while ago.
Meh, I couldn’t care less. If she runs she’ll just harm the Democrats and lose again either in the primaries or the general. If she doesn’t Democrats continue their lurch to the left. I literally don’t care what they do. It would be interesting if there was a popular moderate blue collar Dem out there but there isn’t. Maybe Kamala Harris will run and rebuild the Obama Identity Politics Coalition. Maybe they’ll lurch to full-on socialist under Bernie. Those seem like interesting questions to me. Hillary is old and uninteresting news. The Clintons are the herpes of American politics – they’re always there and occasionally they flare up and ruin a nice time, but I don’t spend much time thinking about them because they don’t affect my life in any way.
Your essay seems to leave out the part where the valiant Hillary Clinton is saving the USA from “Hitler.”
Which although a rather tired canard, is all the Left has at this point. And a tired canard which former acquaintances on Facebook still like to use to “remind” me.
Was just asked on Sunday how I, as a former Democrat, can have gone so far to the Right that I now support Hitler?
I am waiting for another 48 hours or so to reply to that duo of accusers. After all, there could be a possibility that Trump is Hitler. (The Money Channel had a commentator who stated he was “literally Hitler.”) Being pragmatic, why waste my time replying to people who will soon be in some modern day Dachau?
But I am betting my accusers will still merrily be on FB, unperturbed by Gestapo or agents of the Long Knives. (Which is as it should be, although Goddess knows I wish they would grow up already.)
As people were pointing out the day after the election, the calendar has conspired with Hillary to give her a great campaign slogan – Hindsight is 2020, Elect Hillary. Bernie could probably use the hindsight slogan and the Democrat candidate could probably stretch it to mean elect a Democrat, remove Trump.
I think Clinton wants to run again and will if she can. Further, I think that they still have a machine which will try to help. I don’t think the system has turned on them.
I think this is about where I fall. They might clean up though. Have to see. Does not look like anything but leftist lurch right now.
Can anyone imagine if John McCain had come back to run in 2012? Or Mitt in 2016? ( well, we had Jeb which had a similar effect).
Or Cleveland came back in 1892? :) He had won it once though.
I can sometimes be an incurious git. All this time I never knew the details behind the split in Cleveland’s terms and hadn’t looked into it. I went to Wikipedia to get the right date for my quip. I learned that he won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college in his reelection bid. The list of Presidents who lost the popular vote, but won the presidency never clicked with me that one of them was in between Cleveland’s terms.
I need to study the article some more when I get more time. The 1892 electoral map has a lot of circles within the states showing that the elector votes were split. I thought Maine and Nebraska allowing electoral votes to be split was something new, but evidently not.
Seems a little vague for a campaign slogan. It would have to be explained. I was thinking that Trump could retort with something about being the forward-looking candidate, but it all gets too complicated.
People say that Trump is in Putin’s pocket but it looks more like long-term ferret-legging to me.
That is both hilarious and disturbing.
Usenet. And better Fidonet servers.
Why pay attention to any news source where a narrative agenda comes first? My favorite was the impeach Trump because he used the wrong fork at dinner campaign. Fox included.
Well, some narrative agenda is bound to come first anywhere. It’s human nature for groups of people to usually see the world in terms of the stories they’ve socially agreed to see, even if they don’t do it consciously. The question is, where do you go for the relatively more trustworthy narrative agenda?
And the other question; how much effort should you put into telling the difference between a more trustworthy narrative agenda and the dulcet tones of confirmation bias news.