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.
The Resurgent Gathering
A year ago, friends suggested I put together a conference of ideas for the conservative movement — something where actual conservatives get on stage and discuss ideas, not where people pay money to claim their ideas are conservative. I took up the challenge and the Resurgent Gathering comes to fruition on August 2-5, 2018, in Austin, TX.
Don’t take my word on it. The agenda is below. I’d love to see you there.
You’ll see one open slot. That was where EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt was speaking until, umm, he could not come anymore.
Breakfast and lunch are included in the registration cost on the 3rd and 4th. The Sheraton Hotel in Austin, TX where we are having the event, is offering a hotel discount as well.
Resurgent Gathering, August 2-5, 2018, Austin, TX
August 2
6:00pm Welcome Reception
August 3
8:00 – 8:45 am BREAKFAST
8:15 – 8:45 am Susan Molanari of Google in conversation with Erick
9:00 – 9:30 Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas
9:30 – 10:00 Carly Fiorina, Chair of Unlocking Potential
10:00 – 10:30 OPEN
10:30 – 10:45 BREAK
10:45 – 11:30 Breakout Session
Using Facebook For Grassroots Organization=
11:45 – 12:45 pm LUNCH
12:00 – 12:30 1789 Alliance and Erick Erickson
1:00 – 1:30 Congressman Dave Brat of Virginia*
1:30 – 2:00 Warren Davidson, Congressman from Ohio
2:00 – 2:15 Ajit Pai, Chairman of the FCC
2:15 – 3:15 Ajit Pai and the Koch Institute
3:15 -3:30 Break
3:30 – 4:00 Facebook in Discussion with Erick Erickson
4:00 – 4:30 Chip Roy, Candidate for TX21
4:30 – 5:00 Wrap Up
August 4
8:30 – 9:15 am BREAKFAST
9:15: – 9:30 Welcome
9:30 – 10:00 State/Local Initiative Panel
10:00 – 10:45 Senator David Perdue of Georgia
10:45 – 11:00 BREAK
11:00 – 11:45 Breakout Session
Google Grassroots
11:50 – 12:20pm Senator Ted Cruz
12:20 – 1:15 pm LUNCH
12:30 – 1:00 Koch Representative in conversation with Erick
1:15 – 1:45 Matt Krause, Texas State Representative
1:45 – 2:15 Mark Walker, Congressman from North Carolina
2:15 – 2:45 Secretary of Energy Rick Perry*
2:45 – 3:00 BREAK
3:00 – 4:00 ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
TPPF
4:00 – 4:30 Doug Ducey, Governor of Arizona
4:30 – 5:00 Host conversation (to be revealed)
5:00 – 5:30 Resurgent Presentation and wrap up
August 5
9:00 – 10:00 am Fellowship Message and Breakfast
*final confirmation forthcoming
Published in Meetups
It’s next Thursday at 8pm.
Got it. I’ll be carpooling with Janeane Garofolo. Are you and Pamela Anderson still staying at Mindy Kaling’s country place?
Thank you for that last note and link!
And I agree with what you state here @bethanymandel. Ricochet allows for differing perspectives. It is not a bubble.
Let’s face it … we’re a divided Country, we’re a divided Party. We’re a divided website.
No one prohibits ideas being posted (within the CoC). HW or TPTB. And all posted ideas get discussed and tested. Sometimes with sarcasm, derision and even disdain if called for. That’s okay. As you say … “those perspectives are valuable and that dialogue is so important”.
Besides, it would be an awful boring place without this dynamic, right?
So … I’m going to be like my good friend, Phil Robertson …
Happy Happy Happy …
#mindreading
I’ll be commuting from the fundraiser/orgy at Nancy Pelosi’s.
Same here. Its amazing that people think the negative reactions are all about Trump, when the reasons either precede Trump, or simply came into the open as a result of Trump.
That said, if I got free tickets I would try to attend portions of the event, if only to hear Ted Cruz, Greg Abbot, and Dave Brat.
Except it does seem that all the new contributors are coming from the same school of pundits casting themselves as dispassionate umpires.
I just wish there were more team players added.
All of a sudden the same people who were advocates of various Republican Presidents and candidates are mocking advocacy for the current administrations goals as basically cultism. I truly don’t remember right-leaning pundits distancing themselves from Bush, McCain, or Romney in the same manner they are of Trump. So that’s something I find interesting.
I guess you’ll just have to go to Fox, Talk Radio, American Spectator, American Thinker, The Claremont Review of Books, The Federalist, TownHall, RedState, The Daily Caller, American Greatness, American Renaissance, Taki, and VDare to find pundits who say nice things about the President all the time.
I remember a lot of poking gentle fun at Bush, McCain, and Romney from the right. If I can be forgiven for saying so, though, their personalities were just too bland to have “cult of personality” mockery make sense for them. However, remarks like Bush was far more tonally conservative than he was actually conservative, for example, were commonplace, and common knowledge. The right felt pretty free to roll its eyes at these guys.
The right seems to have lost a way of poking gentle fun at the current president without it being immediately construed as ungentle fun by others on the right. It’s very true, of course, that there’s been plenty of mockery of Trump that’s ungentle. But it’s very rare for a politician to have no amusing foibles, and the expectation that being noticed noticing them means being written off the list of “team players” can be rather stifling.
I’ve criticized every President in my lifetime when they’ve done something stupid (and they’ve all done many stupid things.) Trump is the first Republican President in my lifetime that a huge swath of Republicans have refused to criticize when he does something stupid and refused to tolerate other conservatives who criticize when he does something stupid.
Having lived in Chicago through both of Obama’s terms, the way Trump supporters react to the mildest criticism of Trump is very evocative of the way Obama supporters reacted to the mildest criticism of Obama. Yet one more way that Trump is a creation and a reaction to the Obama presidency.
As a fellow resident of Chicago, I could not disagree more. First of all, we have Republicans criticizing a Republican president, but using the same approach they used when criticizing Obama. Imagine if we saw Democrats treating Obama just like GWB. During GWB’s presidency, GOP folks criticized him, but generally without the assumption of bad faith used when critiquing a democrat. There is no giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, or even giving his supporters much benefit of the doubt. Erick Erickson was outraged that evangelicals supported Trump.
Further, it was like disagreeing with the One was unthinkable. Hell, even making fun of Obama’s appearance was racist. I call Trump the Orange Overlord in the HW group fairly often, and I have yet to see someone flipping out over the the jokes on Trump’s appearance, or manner of speaking.
Last but not least, have you ever considered that people in the Republican Party might not think what Trump is doing is stupid? Maybe people like what’s going on?
Did we actually have a meetup at that tiki bar? It feels like I am talking someone else than the person I met. Then again, MFR is completely different IRL than online.
I believe you sincerely believe this, but I don’t think it’s nearly as true as you think. I think that, because you believe this, it’s difficult for you to give those you regard as insufficiently supportive of Trump the benefit of the doubt. Since lately you’ve come across on Ricochet as someone quite unwilling to give the insufficiently Trump-enthusiastic the benefit of the doubt, that’s pretty alienating to those who perceive themselves labeled by you as insufficiently enthusiastic.
Not being terribly enthusiastic about a politician isn’t the same as not giving him the benefit of the doubt. Becoming alienated from a group of people (in this case, Trump supporters) because they’re mercilessly and unfairly judging others over what is, in the larger scheme of things, a fairly minor difference (difference in enthusiasm over one politician) is not abnormal human behavior.
So what outsiders to the Trump Club see is club insiders being unwilling to give them the benefit of the doubt.
OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
If so, you’re getting an insider’s pass that outsiders to the group simply don’t get. Outsiders making “Orange Overlord” type remarks have often been flagged.
I’m still the same person. From where I sit, your online persona at Ricochet has changed considerably since then, but I think really it’s more like who you treat as outsiders has changed. I’m now in your outgroup, and as the saying goes, “I can tolerate anything except the outgroup.” Before, all Ricochetians registered as being in your ingroup, just by being Ricochetians. Now, only HWs do. Which is understandable, but has changed how you perceive and treat Ricochetians you “used to know”.
With that much psychoanalysis, MFR, I hope you are in-network for my HMO…
In more seriousness, the criticism to which I am referring reminded me very strongly of the criticism directed at Obama by the same pundits. This felt very jarring, as I could not see the disaster in the making. I started off much more critical of Trump, even after the election. but I started appreciating his accomplishments. It appeared as if many pundits and people I respected were not seeing these arguments. I have tried to give the benefit of the doubt to Trump-skeptics, especially when not talking about the Donald. After all, I thought Donald Trump was going to lose and drag the GOP off a cliff in 2016. This goes a little less for pundits or podcasts, because I have no real personal connection to them.
If people are flagging jokes about the president’s appearance, I need to holler at some people. That is incredibly silly. Trump is a godsend for comics. His style is eminently parodiable. I snicker every time I see picture of Trump as a munchkin for funny political memes.
I do not doubt that you are the same person. I was referencing you having a different persona online than IRL, and musing that A-Squared may also be different in person vs. IRL.
There were never any days when I looked at everyone on Ricochet as allies. My social conservative leanings meant that I drew in group and out group lines during the SSM debate – not deliberately, but over time. However, there are a very limited number (countable on one hand) of normal Ricochet members (pundits are another matter) I would consider in my “out group” here on Ricochet. If you think that I look on your posts with suspicion / disbelief, want you to leave Ricochet, or have a personal dislike of you, I am happy to report you are mistaken. Same for A-Squared. I do not think a binary model describes human interaction very well – there are plenty of people who are neither close allies or enemies.
Since Happy Warriors is the most active group on the site, I have become friends with some of the HW and I interact with them regularly. Many of them I liked before getting involved with HW, like Boss Mongo. It does not mean that I have no Ricochet friends outside of HW, or only read HW-written posts. Being in a fraternal organization does not mean you regard everyone outside of the Elks etc as an alien presence.
Lot to unpack here, but let’s just say your experience on Ricochet is obviously fundamentally different from mine. It is entirely possible that within the HW group, you are allowed to make the occasional criticism of Trump since everyone in that group is a full-fledged Trump supporter, but when HW group interacts outide the group on the site, all I see is condemnation of any criticism of Trump and being incredibly quick to call people “NeverTrumpers” as a way of dismissing anything they say.
There is almost a refrain that “now is not the time for principles” on the site now. On its face, that means it doesn’t matter what Trump does, they will support it. One member routinely gets very angry at what he believes is people telling him that he has sold out his principles to support Trump. That is certainly a valid argument, and I know some people do think evangelicals have sold out their principles by so vocally supporting Trump, but that anger hides anger at other conservatives for not selling out their principles to blindly support Trump.
People on Ricochet have argued that it is time to adopt the worst tactics of the left (because they do it). They have argued that it is time to abandon the Rule of Law and let Republican politicians get away with any crimes because Democrats get away with crimes. People have argued that it is to time to abandon the role of umpire calling balls and strikes and put on a jersey.
Links for any of the bolded statements?
Cont.
If you don’t see a fundamental difference between the ardent Trump supporters and the ardent supporters of any other Republican President, then I don’t think you are looking very hard. If you don’t see any simililarities between the ardent Trump and the ardent Obama supporters, then I don’t think you are looking very hard.
Yes, that was me in the Tiki bar. That night I focused on saying good things about Trump, and I have a lot of good things to say about Trump. He has far exceeded my expectations in his first year, and I’m happy to say so.
And I also think he has done a lot of stupid things. I just don’t see a lot of HWs willing to admit publicly that anything Trump does is stupid. They always pull the 4 dimensional chess argument. He is a genius far beyond the ability of us mere mortals to comprehend. If it looks like he is doing something stupid, it’s all the incredibly complex plan to achieve nirvana in that only someone with his brilliance can understand. To put it mildly, I don’t think Trump is the type of intellectual genius that comes along once a millenia.
More importantly, I think it is vital that his base be willing to criticize Trump when he does something stupid. The reason we have the list that Gorsuch came off of is because Trump joked about putting his pro-abortion sister on the Supreme Court. The reason Trump walked away from his deal with Schumer and Pelosi on the DACA was because people started burning their MAGA hats on twitter. Trump is not perfect, and Hillary will not suddenly be President if we acknowledge that.
Seriously, you’ve never seen anyone say any of those things?
We don’t have a great search function, but I know who said most of those things, when I have some down time, I will consider going through their individual comments one by one until I find them. Since we don’t have a decent search function, it will take days for each one, but since so many people on here to not believe that people actually say these things, it’s probably worth my time to prove people wrong, recongizing that it won’t do any good. Extremism in defense of Trump is no vice.
And in your description of the “bubble” here upthread, everyone does this?
Not psycho-analysis — I can’t analyze your psyche. Presentation-analysis.
Some of us, one way or another, and whether accurate or inaccurate, get an earful about how we present to others on this site. Others don’t. If you were wondering, though, about the impression outsiders might have, well, I can only speak for myself, but I also know I’m not alone.
As A-squared said,
Your hollering will not stop the flags, unfortunately. And to keep peace on the site, the mods have and likely will continue to redact the worst jokes. Else, experience has taught us, we’ll have unhappy Happy Warriors on our hands. Sure, it’s not all HWs, and I’m glad it’s not. But that dynamic is present.
Anyhow, thanks @omegapaladin, for your helpful and reassuring reply. Outsiders to any group don’t have final say on “how things really are” at Ricochet. They can, however, honestly report on how things seem to outsiders. Good-faith communication between insiders and outsiders can be constructive for both sides, and I think you and I have had that here, and I’m grateful.
I never said everyone said these things, I said someone said these things (except for the “now is not the time for principles” comment, which has been said multiple times and is ultimately the driving force behind the opposition to the OP – a conference focused on conservative principles. )
In other words, it’s not a bubble then?
Also, I humbly suggest that your premise that all HW’s refuse to say anything negative about President Trump is a falsehood. Like you, I find the search function here to be mostly useless, so I’ll have to paraphrase @max on this … “I don’t choose to join in on the condemnation of the President here, because the rest of the you already do such a great job of it.”
That doesn’t mean that we don’t ever criticize an action of the President or that we always jump on someone who does. That is a demonstrable falsehood.
There’s also the fact that some of us HWs have altered our assessment of “stupid”. I criticized Trump’s tariff talk until recently. I’m no longer doing so because I no longer think I know enough to say it’s stupid.
And then there are topics where my ideas of what is stupid bear no resemblance at all to NTs’ ideas on those topics. I think a great deal of the heat in these “fail to criticize Trump” accusations are simply because we either agree with Trump on the topic, or his methods’ success give us pause.
I believe you, @columbo. But might it be that, when you have a safe space where you can vent criticism without having to worry about whether it gives “aid and comfort” to those Ricochetians (or nonmember readers of Ricochet, if on the Main Feed) who aren’t supportive of Trump, the criticism is likely to take place there, in the safe space, where outsiders do not see it? Is it possible you are more leery of expressing the same criticism in a place where all Ricochetians can see it?
If so, the Ricochetians who cannot see it cannot be blamed for not having seen it.
Here’s the problem: Define “stupid.” Is “stupid” anything you disagree with? Is “stupid” anything that violates some sort of “conventional wisdom” that’s been in play so long that it spoiled on the shelf?
“Stupidity” in politics is judgment that’s usually seen only in greater hindsight than what we’re afforded here less than 2 years into a presidency. And it’s not always something that’s even on the radar at the time it’s done.
A few weeks back I wrote an unpromoted piece about the contemporary reactions Reagan received on a summit the President had with Secretary Gorbachev. In hindsight they didn’t hold up very well. But into today’s political climate, just like back in 1986, even a “wait and see” see attitude is dismissed as absolutely unacceptable. Lines must be drawn and summary conclusions made.
That’s the irritation among the factions here. This “I’ll support him when he does things right” attitude comes with an expectation that all judgment can be made now. Well they can’t. And one shouldn’t conflate or mischaracterize general support of the President as cult worshipping, being the victim of a giant con job or general ignorance.
I agree with you they can’t. That said, people make the best guess now that they can in deciding which aspects of Trump to root for. After all, rooting for someone (or not rooting) is a here-and-now activity, and can’t be delayed until all the results are in.
When I’m expected to have an opinion on Trump, I would love to be able to answer, “My opinion is ask me my opinion ten years from now.” That would, after all, be an honest expression of what I really think. It’s not, however, an opinion that seems satisfactory to most people, whether they oppose Trump or support him. Opinions, after all, are often related to rooting for or against, and opinions which do neither seem to strike many people as pretty useless.
If I were pressed to render a judgment on something in the here-and-now, I would have to judge, to the best of my ability, in the here-and-now. It would be impossible to do otherwise. And we’re all in that boat. So, when we hear one another’s opinions on these things, it makes sense to judge them as provisional estimations, simply because that’s the best any of us can do.
My answer is, it doesn’t matter how you define stupid, every President does something you consider stupid. Your definition of stupid is obviously fundamentally different from my definition (and should be), but I highly doubt that Trump is so perfect that he has never done anything you consider stupid, and if that is true (that Trump has never done something you consider stupid), I would argue that says more about you than it does about Trump.
But Midge, if that’s what you believe then they how you should answer. To supply any other one is a lie, both to you and to the person you’re having an exchange with. Providing an answer that is “satisfactory” to anyone other than yourself is disingenuous.
Are you afraid that telling them that their rush to judgment is rash or immature or simply too emotional? To do so is not a violation of the code you’re entrusted to enforce.
Where I’ve taken the most grief on this site is not because I’m a Donald Trump supporter, it’s because I’m a supporter of Donald Trump supporters. Too many of us have begun to act like inquisitors. “Do you condemn ‘X’ in the name of all that is Holy in the Church of the Conventional Conservative Wisdom?!?” In many ways we have become paralyzed in our canonization of Ronald Reagan. (As much as the Democrats did with their Roosevelt and Kennedy idolizations.)
We have created our own “reservation” on certain issues and to stray is considered blasphemy. And blasphemy is never a “wait and see” proposition.
It seems to me that at a bare minimum, this thread is a good example of the HWs jumping on someone for merely being someone who does criticize Trump.
Since you asked me for evidence, can you provide a link of HWs supporting criticisms of Trump?