The Progressive Projection Project Continues

 

It is now factually and legally known that President Trump committed no crime. He did not (and as it turns out no one in his family or campaign did either) illegally conspire with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton. Trump cooperated in unprecedented ways with the Special Counsel and asserted no executive privilege to deny access to evidence. Trump, with the guidance of his attorneys, did decline to enter perjury traps set for him by the Special Counsel’s team of partisan attorneys. But the exercise of his First Amendment right to speak his innocence and declaim against the unfairness of what was happening, was no crime. He avoided indictment not because you cannot indict a sitting president, but because he committed no crime.

He was legally and factually innocent.

But that doesn’t matter. It never matters in the Progressive Projection Project. In the Project, you accuse your opponent of that with which you are most familiar — your own unlawful or unethical conduct. Are you a racist? Accuse your opponent of racism. Do you support violence? Accuse your opponent of supporting violence. Do you profit from your political activities? Accuse your opponent of profiting from their political activities. Have lust in your heart? Accuse your opponent of sexual impropriety. And so on and so forth.

The beauty of projection is its inexhaustible creative source: Mine your own soul for all the dirt to be thrown.

That is all you need to know to see what’s coming. When you hear any accusation simply ask yourself: Of which is it truer, that the accused or the accuser is guilty?

It will enlighten your viewing of the mainstream media. It will make the tedious reporting more interesting. It will inform with whom to trust the levers of power.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 50 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Mim526 (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    One wonders what David French is projecting today when he declares “the President’s word simply cannot be trusted.”

    What really disturbed me about that piece is this statement: “the lies help demonstrate why the underlying investigation was so very necessary” which he followed up with a paragraph of Russia nonsense, as though he were either unaware it had all been discussed at length and refuted in Mueller’s report or felt we had to hear it again for old times sake.

    This is the same rotten thinking that started the wheels of government turning its massive power on candidate Donald Trump: Trump is bad, therefore he must be guilty of something…we just have to find it.

    A lawyer thinks it’s okay to put the nation through the trauma of wondering if its president conspired with a foreign entity because he thinks said president is a liar in chief among a den of liars. To prove it, he’s willing to subvert longstanding DOJ policy and sic a Special Counsel on a POTUS without benefit of a crime…all based on an unverified dossier of lies and innuendo.

    The next justification for the Comey-Mueller search and destroy operation is that “No, Trump didn’t do anything wrong in the campaign (as Mueller confirmed) but he was such a bad guy that the investigation forestalled his planned future possible Russian conspiracy and saved us from a possible certain maybe disaster.” And, “Let’s impeach him before he can commit his ‘high crime or misdemeanor’.”

    • #31
  2. unsk2 Member
    unsk2
    @

    Great Post and many  great comments.

    “It never matters in the Progressive Projection Project. In the Project, you accuse your opponent of that with which you are most familiar”

    Our little disturbed Progressives do not value honesty or the truth. They have been brainwashed into believing that Truth is Relative, and that there are many shades of the  Progressive Truth just as long as what they believe to be their truth fits the Groupthink Progressive narrative. To such a person, impugning the character of one who asserts the actual truth when that truth condemns the narrative is a moral good and projecting upon those people of character an evil act is a morally righteous tactic. 

    Seeking truth and seeking truthful justice is central to the precepts upon which our Republic was founded on, and central to it’s continuing vitality. Seeking the truth leads to clarity and we desperately need clarity in these perilous times to solve our many difficult and trying problems. 

    Seeking to genuinely solve our nation’s problem is often irrelevant to Progressives; seeking total power and control is the all consuming ultimate goal for Progressives. Almost all Progressive “solutions” are just re-treads of failed Marxist ideas that have been tried thousands of times in one way or another over the last one hundred years with a near total lack of success.  That these ideas have been an a near total failure and that they have in fact led to the destruction of tens of millions of lives is of no concern to the committed Progressive, because helping people was never the real goal; power was. Indeed solving problems, and seeking the real truth to solve those problems has often been a obstacle to gaining power in the past and for that reason to the Progressive ridiculing the truth as in those who now still proclaim Trump’s guilt becomes  an absolute necessity. 

    • #32
  3. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Their inability or unwillingness to self-reflect is mind-boggling. Clueless.

    Remember, those of us that support Trump are supporting someone who has an inability or unwillingness to self-reflect.

    Most of us knew that going in.

    • #33
  4. Al Sparks Coolidge
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    One wonders what David French is projecting today when he declares “the President’s word simply cannot be trusted.”

    David French has been consistent about his views on Trump.  He’s an honorable man who I disagree with.

    There’s no projecting, he just thinks Trump is dishonorable and someone like that shouldn’t be president.  And he does so acknowledging that overall, his policies have been helpful to the conservative cause.

    I can disagree with him, but I’m not going to fault him for it.

    • #34
  5. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Well, the line at National Review today is that Trump is being saved by those around him, when they refuse to follow his orders, and it is clear Trump has no idea what he is doing.

    So in short, yeah, Trump is not a traitor, but we are going to say he still stupid.

    It is rich. Having been an actual CEO, I got talked out of “final” decisions more than once. I don’t think that made me a weak leader ,but David French sure does. The CEO way of doing things is totally lost on your typical pundit. And Mr. French, who as a JAG basically was in the shoes of any lawyer second guessing split second decisions and giving our troops reasons they could not take action, feels he is better qualified to judge Trump than the likes of me.

    Trump was innocent, and faced with a sustained effort to bring him down. Most of the people at National Review refuses to even acknowledge that, if the Corner is anything to go by. Nope, Trump getting pissed at it, Trump being talked into changing his mind by his direct reports, those are signs he is weak or irrational or something bad. In no way can they spin it in anyway positive, because Trump is a bad man, and therefore cannot do anything right.

    Well, I am here to say that successful CEOs will listen to their staff and make changes. When Jonah or David has run a multi-million dollar company that has to turn a profit, not just beg for money, they can opine all they want too about how to be a CEO. But they won’t. They will sit back, have the hard job of writing 3 articles a week and making some posts to a blog, never being called on being wrong. Never answering to a board or shareholders for their actions. What a racket.

    One doesn’t have to be a CEO. The same lessons can be learned by being the technical lead on a major development project. That’s where I learned that there are two types of control freaks: 1) the one who has to have his way, 2) the one who wants it acknowledged that it’s his decision. The latter type knows that he is the one who will take the heat for a wrong or bad decision, so he wants to be made aware of the best options. He will frequently defer to those who bring him those ideas and convince him at least one option is better than what he had in mind. Sounds like Trump is the second type, and that’s a good thing.

    • #35
  6. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Stad (View Comment):

    Rodin: It is now factually and legally known that President Trump committed no crime.

    However, the MSM and never-Trumpers will continue to say “All the Mueller Report means is they couldn’t find enough evidence that would allow Trump to be charged and convicted.” Technically, this is correct. In reality, it means a team of Trump haters, trying in the worst way to find the slightest indiscretion committed by Trump, came up with zero, zip, nada.

    Now The Donald is right back where he started, having to prove his innocence, which in many cases cannot be done. Thank goodness initial polls show voters say they’ve had enough, but the press will continue to work on changing public opinion regardless.

    This pairs nicely with the report this week that the Department of “Justice” is finally moving to end the antitrust case against Standard Oil—a case kept alive for 100 years now. If only we had one or more creative types not the kept creatures of the left, there is a dickens of a tale to be told! As to the team of Trump haters, all pecking away, a Bob Newhart sketch comes to mind:

    • #36
  7. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    Rodin: It is now factually and legally known that President Trump committed no crime.

    Taken out of context, that statement is simply not true. He was investigated for something specific. He’s been involved heavily in real estate in New York and peripherally involved in its politics as a rent seeker (in the capitalist/socialist sense).

    New York City and New York state are known for their low to medium corruption.

    It’s more accurate to say that they can’t prove anything.

    I’m a lukewarm Trump supporter. There shouldn’t have been a special counsel, and those conservatives that say, “The system worked.” makes me blanch.

    Just remember, Trump’s no saint, and he has a propensity to push the envelope.

    Exactly. Even juries don’t render a verdict of ‘innocent”, but rather “not guilty”. All that means is that the prosecution didn’t prove the case. In fact, one can believe the defendant is probably guilty and still vote “not guilty” because the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt was not met. 

    • #37
  8. unsk2 Member
    unsk2
    @

    “Remember, those of us that support Trump are supporting someone who has an inability or unwillingness to self-reflect.”

    Once, like mid-2016 I believed that, but Trump would not have been able to be as successful a President as he has given the horrendous amount strife he has to endure if he did not have an ability or unwillingness to self-reflect. 

    David French has said things like “Let’s just be clear — there is now evidence that Trump was pursuing a substantial personal business relationship with our chief geopolitical foe long after he wrapped up the GOP nomination.”  

    Such a fabricator is not a man of honor. French has leaped at any innuendo of Trump wrong doing  to jump on the Progressive bandwagon to take down Trump without fully investigating the facts.

     We keep hearing from these Never Trumper Nutters about Trump’s moral failings  and how he has dishonored the Presidency.  Compared to the last four Presidents and I include Dubya in that group, Trump has been an absolute  paragon of virtue in office. 

    • #38
  9. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Their inability or unwillingness to self-reflect is mind-boggling. Clueless.

    Remember, those of us that support Trump are supporting someone who has an inability or unwillingness to self-reflect.

    Most of us knew that going in.

    Not I, and perhaps projection. Sweet Reason may be a real thing, but in human frames it is likely another other, even self, deceiving pose. I don’t want to start any blasphemous rumors, but there seems to be a great deal of feeling in, with, and under “facts don’t care about your feelings.” A real lack of self-reflection would result in a relatively young real-estate developer burning though his grub stake and borrowed money, and then crashing without recovering. Likewise, picking the correct election cycle, in which to run, takes a high level of awareness, both of the environment and of self within the environment.

    • #39
  10. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Above Top Secret
    @CarolJoy

    Stad (View Comment):

    DonG (View Comment):
    This is a pro-active variation of the “Admit Nothing, Deny Everything, Counterattack” defense.

    When I first started work as a Federal employee, the advice I got was:

    1. Admit nothing.
    2. Deny everything.
    3. Demand proof.

    Were the people mentoring you all Republicans? Because the second or third thing any Dems would have advised was “Find some low level schmuck to stick the blame on; especially if you know the schmuck didn’t do it.”

    • #40
  11. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    This pairs nicely with the report this week that the Department of “Justice” is finally moving to end the antitrust case against Standard Oil—a case kept alive for 100 years now.

    You’re kidding.  Seriously?

    Before you know it, a President will try to end a war stopped by a truce in 1953 . . .

    • #41
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    One wonders what David French is projecting today when he declares “the President’s word simply cannot be trusted.”

    David French has been consistent about his views on Trump. He’s an honorable man who I disagree with.

    There’s no projecting, he just thinks Trump is dishonorable and someone like that shouldn’t be president. And he does so acknowledging that overall, his policies have been helpful to the conservative cause.

    I can disagree with him, but I’m not going to fault him for it.

    The main problem with people like that is they can’t seem to figure out that the choice wasn’t Trump or Cruz, or Trump or Rubio, etc.  The choice was Trump or Hillary.

    • #42
  13. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Stad (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    This pairs nicely with the report this week that the Department of “Justice” is finally moving to end the antitrust case against Standard Oil—a case kept alive for 100 years now.

    You’re kidding. Seriously?

    Before you know it, a President will try to end a war stopped by a truce in 1953 . . .

    I was going to make a joke about us recently ending a phone tax to pay for the Spanish American War, but according to this article, it originally ended three years after the war but kept being revived. Headline writers had too much fun connecting the past with the present to get the details right.

    • #43
  14. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    One wonders what David French is projecting today when he declares “the President’s word simply cannot be trusted.”

    David French has been consistent about his views on Trump. He’s an honorable man who I disagree with.

    There’s no projecting, he just thinks Trump is dishonorable and someone like that shouldn’t be president. And he does so acknowledging that overall, his policies have been helpful to the conservative cause.

    I can disagree with him, but I’m not going to fault him for it.

    I’ll fault him for a hyperbolic comment that’s not supported by his own column.  The fact he is sincere in his beliefs is little excuse for his singlemindedness in attacking Trump and the near complete absence of any writings on the negatives of the episodes surrounding the Mueller investigation.  

     

    • #44
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    One wonders what David French is projecting today when he declares “the President’s word simply cannot be trusted.”

    David French has been consistent about his views on Trump. He’s an honorable man who I disagree with.

    There’s no projecting, he just thinks Trump is dishonorable and someone like that shouldn’t be president. And he does so acknowledging that overall, his policies have been helpful to the conservative cause.

    I can disagree with him, but I’m not going to fault him for it.

    I’ll fault him for a hyperbolic comment that’s not supported by his own column. The fact he is sincere in his beliefs is little excuse for his singlemindedness in attacking Trump and the near complete absence of any writings on the negatives of the episodes surrounding the Mueller investigation.

    Excuse me.  Are you talking about David French, or Gary Robbins?

     

    • #45
  16. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    One wonders what David French is projecting today when he declares “the President’s word simply cannot be trusted.”

    David French has been consistent about his views on Trump. He’s an honorable man who I disagree with.

    There’s no projecting, he just thinks Trump is dishonorable and someone like that shouldn’t be president. And he does so acknowledging that overall, his policies have been helpful to the conservative cause.

    I can disagree with him, but I’m not going to fault him for it.

    I’ll fault him for a hyperbolic comment that’s not supported by his own column. The fact he is sincere in his beliefs is little excuse for his singlemindedness in attacking Trump and the near complete absence of any writings on the negatives of the episodes surrounding the Mueller investigation.

    Oh wait … so we have a guy that’s doing a lot that benefits us all, but that guy is just a little too icky? David French –  and his wife for that matter – are literally making me sick (get it?) of late.

    this is worthy of a post that I’m not smart enough to write. Do you have to be good to do good? I’m thinking Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino … and a bunch more movies. In that movie, the character that Clint Eastwood portrayed was a jerk and an a***** and a racist. But he did more good that any of us could ever.

    The same for Schindler, a philanderer, a liar and a thief. Is all the good he did negated by the fact that he cheated on his wife and bribed and cheated his way through life?

    David French, by having the hubris to claim that Trump is without honor, declares himself to be without courage.

    (And don’t tell me about David French’s service. I drink with service guys often and that doesn’t give him a pass. Though he and his wife have counted on it )

    • #46
  17. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    One wonders what David French is projecting today when he declares “the President’s word simply cannot be trusted.”

    David French has been consistent about his views on Trump. He’s an honorable man who I disagree with.

    There’s no projecting, he just thinks Trump is dishonorable and someone like that shouldn’t be president. And he does so acknowledging that overall, his policies have been helpful to the conservative cause.

    I can disagree with him, but I’m not going to fault him for it.

    I’ll fault him for a hyperbolic comment that’s not supported by his own column. The fact he is sincere in his beliefs is little excuse for his singlemindedness in attacking Trump and the near complete absence of any writings on the negatives of the episodes surrounding the Mueller investigation.

    Oh wait … so we have a guy that’s doing a lot that benefits us all, but that guy is just a little too icky? David French – and his wife for that matter – are literally making me sick (get it?) of late.

    this is worthy of a post that I’m not smart enough to write. Do you have to be good to do good? I’m thinking Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino … and a bunch more movies. In that movie, the character that Clint Eastwood portrayed was a jerk and an a***** and a racist. But he did more good that any of us could ever.

    The same for Schindler, a philanderer, a liar and a thief. Is all the good he did negated by the fact that he cheated on his wife and bribed and cheated his way through life?

    I guess it’s okay as long as he didn’t claim to be a Republican.

    David French, by having the hubris to claim that Trump is without honor, declares himself to be without courage.

    (And don’t tell me about David French’s service. I drink with service guys often and that doesn’t give him a pass. Though he and his wife have counted on it )

    It was the same problem with John McCain.

    • #47
  18. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Django (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Well, the line at National Review today is that Trump is being saved by those around him, when they refuse to follow his orders, and it is clear Trump has no idea what he is doing.

    So in short, yeah, Trump is not a traitor, but we are going to say he still stupid.

    It is rich. Having been an actual CEO, I got talked out of “final” decisions more than once. I don’t think that made me a weak leader ,but David French sure does. The CEO way of doing things is totally lost on your typical pundit. And Mr. French, who as a JAG basically was in the shoes of any lawyer second guessing split second decisions and giving our troops reasons they could not take action, feels he is better qualified to judge Trump than the likes of me.

    Trump was innocent, and faced with a sustained effort to bring him down. Most of the people at National Review refuses to even acknowledge that, if the Corner is anything to go by. Nope, Trump getting pissed at it, Trump being talked into changing his mind by his direct reports, those are signs he is weak or irrational or something bad. In no way can they spin it in anyway positive, because Trump is a bad man, and therefore cannot do anything right.

    Well, I am here to say that successful CEOs will listen to their staff and make changes. When Jonah or David has run a multi-million dollar company that has to turn a profit, not just beg for money, they can opine all they want too about how to be a CEO. But they won’t. They will sit back, have the hard job of writing 3 articles a week and making some posts to a blog, never being called on being wrong. Never answering to a board or shareholders for their actions. What a racket.

    One doesn’t have to be a CEO. The same lessons can be learned by being the technical lead on a major development project. That’s where I learned that there are two types of control freaks: 1) the one who has to have his way, 2) the one who wants it acknowledged that it’s his decision. The latter type knows that he is the one who will take the heat for a wrong or bad decision, so he wants to be made aware of the best options. He will frequently defer to those who bring him those ideas and convince him at least one option is better than what he had in mind. Sounds like Trump is the second type, and that’s a good thing.

    Yes. 

    • #48
  19. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Well, the line at National Review today is that Trump is being saved by those around him, when they refuse to follow his orders, and it is clear Trump has no idea what he is doing.

    So in short, yeah, Trump is not a traitor, but we are going to say he still stupid.

    It is rich. Having been an actual CEO, I got talked out of “final” decisions more than once. I don’t think that made me a weak leader ,but David French sure does. The CEO way of doing things is totally lost on your typical pundit. And Mr. French, who as a JAG basically was in the shoes of any lawyer second guessing split second decisions and giving our troops reasons they could not take action, feels he is better qualified to judge Trump than the likes of me.

    Trump was innocent, and faced with a sustained effort to bring him down. Most of the people at National Review refuses to even acknowledge that, if the Corner is anything to go by. Nope, Trump getting pissed at it, Trump being talked into changing his mind by his direct reports, those are signs he is weak or irrational or something bad. In no way can they spin it in anyway positive, because Trump is a bad man, and therefore cannot do anything right.

    Well, I am here to say that successful CEOs will listen to their staff and make changes. When Jonah or David has run a multi-million dollar company that has to turn a profit, not just beg for money, they can opine all they want too about how to be a CEO. But they won’t. They will sit back, have the hard job of writing 3 articles a week and making some posts to a blog, never being called on being wrong. Never answering to a board or shareholders for their actions. What a racket.

    One doesn’t have to be a CEO. The same lessons can be learned by being the technical lead on a major development project. That’s where I learned that there are two types of control freaks: 1) the one who has to have his way, 2) the one who wants it acknowledged that it’s his decision. The latter type knows that he is the one who will take the heat for a wrong or bad decision, so he wants to be made aware of the best options. He will frequently defer to those who bring him those ideas and convince him at least one option is better than what he had in mind. Sounds like Trump is the second type, and that’s a good thing.

    Yes.

    And of course, we can all imagine the deafening criticism if he WASN’T.

    • #49
  20. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Well, the line at National Review today is that Trump is being saved by those around him, when they refuse to follow his orders, and it is clear Trump has no idea what he is doing.

    So in short, yeah, Trump is not a traitor, but we are going to say he still stupid.

    It is rich. Having been an actual CEO, I got talked out of “final” decisions more than once. I don’t think that made me a weak leader ,but David French sure does. The CEO way of doing things is totally lost on your typical pundit. And Mr. French, who as a JAG basically was in the shoes of any lawyer second guessing split second decisions and giving our troops reasons they could not take action, feels he is better qualified to judge Trump than the likes of me.

    Trump was innocent, and faced with a sustained effort to bring him down. Most of the people at National Review refuses to even acknowledge that, if the Corner is anything to go by. Nope, Trump getting pissed at it, Trump being talked into changing his mind by his direct reports, those are signs he is weak or irrational or something bad. In no way can they spin it in anyway positive, because Trump is a bad man, and therefore cannot do anything right.

    Well, I am here to say that successful CEOs will listen to their staff and make changes. When Jonah or David has run a multi-million dollar company that has to turn a profit, not just beg for money, they can opine all they want too about how to be a CEO. But they won’t. They will sit back, have the hard job of writing 3 articles a week and making some posts to a blog, never being called on being wrong. Never answering to a board or shareholders for their actions. What a racket.

    One doesn’t have to be a CEO. The same lessons can be learned by being the technical lead on a major development project. That’s where I learned that there are two types of control freaks: 1) the one who has to have his way, 2) the one who wants it acknowledged that it’s his decision. The latter type knows that he is the one who will take the heat for a wrong or bad decision, so he wants to be made aware of the best options. He will frequently defer to those who bring him those ideas and convince him at least one option is better than what he had in mind. Sounds like Trump is the second type, and that’s a good thing.

    Yes.

    And of course, we can all imagine the deafening criticism if he WASN’T.

    and how

    • #50
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.