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.
Trump Hated for Speaking the Truth
I was going to post this in Happy Warriors Ricochet group, but I think it deserves a wider audience. Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel nail it:
Throughout the impeachment drama, the press repeatedly told you that the president was a liar. They said his lies are why he had to be impeached. Donald Trump is a salesman; he is a talker, a booster, a compulsive self-promoter. If Trump hadn’t gotten rich in real estate, then he could’ve made a fortune selling cars. Most people know this.
So is lying really the reason the left despises Trump? Or could the problem be, as is so often the case, the exact opposite of what they claim? What drives them completely crazy are those moments when Trump dares to tell the truth. Think back over the last four years to when the CNN anchors have been angriest. Was it when Trump exaggerated his own accomplishments? No. They are used to that kind of lying from all politicians. What infuriates them is when Trump tells the truth. Truth is the real threat to their power.
Carlson and Patel don’t mention the Ukraine impeachment idiocy, but the same applies there. The Clinton campaign solicited foreign interference in the 2016 election by any means available. The Ukrainians probably know something about it (given its ties to Russia) and the Bidens are neck-deep in shenanigans there, given Obama’s appointment of Gropey Joe as the point-man on Ukraine to coincide with Hunter’s lucrative fake job with Burisma. Maybe the Bidens avoided outright illegality (doubtful), but there’s definitely corruption there. Does the media think we’re stupid? Don’t answer that.
No presidential candidate should be shielded from investigation by virtue of running for office — haven’t we learned that with the Russia (Hoax) Mueller investigation? How’s the FBI coming along with wiretaps and FISA warrants on the Biden campaign?
.
Published in General
I’d probably call him a snake oil-selling opportunist first and foremost, much like the current object of his affections. But to your real point, I’d have no fear of speaking my mind to that little twerp.
I’ve done nothing wrong, have not broken any of the rules of conduct here, so I don’t need policing. You authored a post, but nobody owns the thread. If you can’t handle disagreement, perhaps an open forum is not the place for you.
I’m sure you held president Obama in equal esteem for his accomplishments.
You keep repeating this as your rationale, so I’ll keep repeating the question: In what (positive) ways have the Democrats provided a check on Trump? You mean he hasn’t nuked anyone because of the Democrats? Please give specifics.
Preposterous. When have we had “women, the young, the college-educated?” I also think the polling of women is slanted because conservative women like me are refuseniks when it comes to answering polls. I’m only answering one poll of any importance, and that’s on election day. Pollsters can stuff it. See Brexit.
No, it’s really not helpful at all if you have your way. The Left is the enemy, not Donald Trump. You keep siding with them gaining power, which is thoroughly disreputable to any patriot.
I wonder if Trump’s most ardent fans realize how Trump’s behavior is what lost Republicans the suburban vote and assisted the Dems in winning the house in 2018.
Uh, I’ve been on Ricochet since December, 2010. Pretty sure I know the culture here and have “handled disagreement” (flame wars) you can only imagine.
Obama built a real-estate empire, hosted a long-running, popular TV show (I never watched, btw), and juiced the economy with tax and regulatory policy? The only thing Obama ever accomplished was getting elected, as far as I can tell. And he did it by kneecapping his opponents more than winning policy debates. He didn’t even run on Obamacare, he just took the opportunity to jam it down when he had the power.
I don’t know. I think conservatism has become pretty offensive in and of itself to a lot of people in the suburbs. But I wonder why it was that people who disliked Obama refuse to vote for McCain or Romney? Or Kasich or Rubio this last go around? Those people have votes too, and considering that the economy is a more pressing issue to them than inclusivity and niceness, I think we’d be better off working for their votes.
I think this is what happens when a political movement fails to connect with the culture. I knew of only one candidate that saw this – thankfully, many others are starting to pick up what Trumpie has been putting down.
Besides being off-topic, this argument is rubbish. The 2018 midterm loss was well within norms of previous midterm losses for incumbent presidents. And, if you’re going to blame Trump for losing the House, are you going to credit him for gaining two Senate seats (defeating four Democrat incumbent in in Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota and Florida)?
You think so? I hope you’re right, but who do you have in mind, specifically?
Much more pressing question: What will you do if he wins?
Complete nonsense, unless you can and will state which of his policies you want “checked”. Otherwise, it’s just personal dislike for Trump.
If Trump loses, we don’t have a clue and I don’t think it matters who might win. The Democrat candidates are dominated by dangerous kooks, but who knows who will actually run matters or what they would actually do. Likely just the Washington corporate and other organized interests and the direction will be more centralization and a weaker economy, but who knows? They all appear like kooks but none of them are honest enough for any of us to know what they would do. Maybe they’re just frauds and crooks and will let the economy drift, while they grab what they can, which is probably the most we could hope for.
I keep my standards for politicians pretty low, but, among them I’ve been occasionally impressed by Lindsey Graham, and Ted Cruz also seems to have pivoted a bit.
The punditry have also made some solid moves. I remember seeing Tucker Carlson years ago, and thinking he was just creepy, but in the last few years he’s really come into form. The Daily Wire team have also done very well (although they might be taking their cues from Klavan).
In my opinion, the real exciting stuff has been happening on YouTube. The lead up to Trump’s election brought a number of hilarious young people out of the woodwork to mock the Great Triggering, and even though a lot of them ranged from non political to liberal, these kids have moved steadily to the right. This is why the concern over “losing” the youth vote is not a major concern for me; the kids with backbone and rhetorical skills are with on our side, and if you put us in a room with our peers, the leftist kids find out quickly that they’re outmatched. Give us an audience and we’ll make the thoughtful liberal kids embarrassed to be associated with their allies.
Some examples of what I’m talking about:
Language warning for the one below!
There are others that I don’t follow as much, but doing very well too. I’ve watched this lovely woman’s channel grow over the last couple years – and she posts some of the funniest memes I’ve seen.
As pessimistic as you are, I am more so. For a clue, and a clue is all it is, check the Virginia situation where lunatic Democrats — but I repeat myself — are talking about calling up the National Guard to enforce gun laws. Maybe door-to-door searches and confiscation. Nothing is beneath this current crop of Democrats.
So, you want more Democrats in office (retaking the House in 2018) – people who hate America and want to destroy the vision of our Founding Fathers – just to get Trump out of office.
So sad . . .
I think the majority of “Trump skeptics” are gone, and Ricochet ‘s political posts are the worst for it. As I review the pro-Trump, posts and comments over the last six months, some are factually incorrect, some are unabashedly fans. Neither of these are reasons not to contribute on Ricochet. So why have the skeptics stopped participating? I think it is because many of the pro-Trump posts and comments take on an “us” versus “them” tone. If you’re not for us, you’re against us or you are attacking the people who voted for Trump. In other words, we aren’t just disagreeing, but you are our enemy. You are just wrong, and we don’t want to hear any disagreement. This is a tactic that has been practiced by the Left successfully for many years. However I think it impairs meaningful discussion on the Right that needs to take place. Ricochet has stopped being a place for polite political discussion of opposing views, and I would like it to return to the days when it was.
As for Western Chauv’s original post: John Goodman had a piece in TownHall that addressed the question of what makes the left foaming-at-the-mouth nuts over Trump in a way that it wasn’t—quite—over previous Republican presidents.
Goodman points out that Trump is not loathed for his conservatism, because he isn’t particularly conservative. It’s not just that he isn’t going to cut Medicare or Social Security (or, really, government spending in general) but, more to the point, he’s not socially-conservative. (If I may say so—having been there at the time—it was the purported heartlessness of social conservatives that lost suburban women and the young back in the day.)
A Quote:
“Throughout most of modern political history, Republicans have begun their debates with Democrats by saying, “We agree on goals but disagree on how to get there.”
That message sanctions the liberal’s world view. It says, “We approve of and agree with what you are trying to do. And we agree that you really are trying to do it. [my italics] We just think your lack of understanding of economics and human nature is why your programs fail.”
Trump is not nearly so kind. In saying he wants to “drain the swamp” and in asking African Americans, “What have you got to lose?” he is challenging how liberals think about themselves. He’s asking voters to change how they think about liberalism as such. There is evidence this message is paying off.”
Was/is that original Republican basis for debate mendacious or naive? “We have the same goals and we agree that you are honestly attempting to reach them…”
Obama came into office on a wave of goodwill generated by his same-goals messaging (see his DNC speech for the most memorable example) and by what he represented in his person. That Obama did not, in fact, seem capable of, or perhaps (self-)interested in consolidating the achievements of a post-racial United States, that he seems, in retrospect, to have been determined to move us smoothly backward is tragic (the deaths of five Dallas and three Baton Rouge police officers, among so many others, makes that the right word IMHO) and should have been revealing. But—given the media environment—wasn’t.
So Trump’s “What have you got to lose?” speech was brilliant. Like Reagan’s “are you better off now than you were four years ago” it asks what is, and has been for some time, a blindingly obvious question: what have all the Democrat’s activism plans and programs actually accomplished? And what does this say about their intentions?
Though Goodman doesn’t say so, I think this applies to his Pro-Life stand, too.
Trump’s, ahem, checkered past is an asset to him, at least when it comes to driving the left crazy. For one thing, his scandalous sex life has been a source of his success. Americans are interested in sex scandals, and Trump has provided plenty of them, so Americans have been interested in Trump. Thus, Trump was and remained far more famous than he would have done as a mere real estate developer and wasn’t this the sine qua non for a reality-television career?
Now president, and famously libertine, like his pal Bill Clinton, Trump cannot be dismissed as grimly religious, judgmental or anti-sex as Cruz, Rubio or any of the rest would surely have been. Conservatives can and do declare Trump’s sexual history an embarrassment, but how can Democrats do the same? Yes, of course they tried. But pussy hats, vagina costumes and angry celebrities ranting about menstruation could not possibly offend the Donald—just another fun evening at Plato’s Retreat!— but they sure did look and sound crazy to normal people.
But the Donald is now pro-life. How shall the left cope with this? Given even a bit of thought, it is painfully obvious that self-interest would’ve led Trump to be pro-choice. Just like Bill…and Harvey Weinstein and all those other Democrat predators..When declared by the Donald, pro-life has to be considered on the merits. Crazy-making indeed.
Yes, thanks for this. You get it. But, I have to ask now that you’re pro-life, did you experience “heartlessness” on the part of social conservatives, or did you just take someone else’s word for it?
Trump exposes the lies of leftists about us and about themselves, which is probably the most important effect of his presidency.
Oh, definitely took someone else’s word for it. There was one kind of whacky lady who showed up at one of our college feminist meetings back in the day, and ranted at us even though we were discussing herbal remedies for various ladies’ problems and not abortion as she evidently feared. That made a vivid impression. But I can’t think of any genuine conservative who has been other than kind and tolerant toward me personally.
I’ve read some books by right-to-lifers and other social conservatives who more or less acknowledge that the messaging has changed (improved) considerably since the 1980s and 1990s.
The difference between viewing social conservatism as “heartlessness” and viewing it as realistic acceptance of human nature is……growing up. (The old saying if you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart etc.). Liberals resent conservatives the same way teenagers resent their parents. It drives teenagers crazy when their parents set necessary limits. I can’t believe Donald Trump is the adult in the room- at least on immigration- but here we are.
Like the “Mexican rapist” thing. Part of the context is that for a week or two previous, mainstream media had been full of stories about how an insane percentage (30%?) of illegal immigrant women entering the US were pregnant due to being raped on the way by their companions/escorts. I don’t even know if that is true but it was reported. But the news reports focused on the victims. Trump just made the logical inference. The liberal children who use that as proof of his racey racism can’t face that truth.
And he regained it. Trump even mentions this in the first episode of The Apprentice (watched the clip).
As for celebrity endorsements, that’s been done for ages. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t . . .
This is a big part of it too.
Yes! I think this is incredibly important, actually. To some degree, he is also probably exposing lies of conservatives about ourselves too. Or at least, that’s what the Christianity Today editorial appeared to be aimed at: Look at the hypocrisy!
Would you be willing to overlook (in effect, “trade”) a president’s sexual immorality for genuine and lifesaving progress against abortion? We already know the answer on the other side (“we’ll tolerate rape and sexual exploitation gladly, sacrifice the well-being of any number of women if it gets us a Roe-Friendly SCOTUS!”) but it seems to me that those who accuse evangelicals of hypocrisy are missing a point repeatedly affirmed in past episodes (e.g. Bristol Palin): little babies’ lives actually are worth more than (apparent) sexual purity.
Hold that thought. I need to look up an article linked in HWs.
A lefty writer at Mother Jones gave us this challenge at the end of his article: “I would now like some good conservative to create a similar list for his colleagues.”
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/12/here-are-a-few-things-lots-of-liberals-believe-that-they-shouldnt/
We should take him up on it (we have a start in HWs if the authors are willing to share publicly).
Ooh! Where would you start?
You go first. Then, when all the arrows are used up, maybe I’ll think of something.
@cliffordbrown and @judgemental have some ideas.
I would have changed his challenge to “things Libertarians believe that they shouldn’t”.
I’ve got one!
Victim Culture is made up of self-pitying college kids.
While a tiny group of tantrum throwing crybabies have been given a lot of attention, the pity party is actually being thrown by people who want to see themselves as better than their peers. Without having to do anything, these privileged individuals – whether in the classroom, the media, or at cocktail parties – are able to convince themselves that they’re doing good works, even when they’re not doing any work.
Their lack of contact with poor people of color makes this just another opportunity to gain consequence-free virtue points.
A quote from Henry Louis Gates, over at Powerline:
“We must begin by recognizing what is new about the new anti-Semitism. Make no mistake: this is anti-Semitism from the top down, engineered and promoted by leaders who affect to be speaking for a larger resentment. . .
The strategy of these apostles of [anti-Semitic] hate, I believe, is best understood as ethnic isolationism — they know that the more isolated black America becomes, the greater their power. And what’s the most efficient way to begin to sever black America from its allies? Bash the Jews, these demagogues apparently calculate, and you’re halfway there.”
Gates wrote this in 1992.
This is comforting evidence that prominent liberals were indeed more rational in 1992. Maybe it was not completely irrational to have been one myself?
I wonder how I’d phrase this as something conservatives ought not to believe? Something like “Progressives/Liberals have always been maniacal, anti-reality, race-baiting, irresponsible socialists?”