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.
Nice cleavage shot, SE. Just what I wanted to see atop my R this morning…
It used to be fine with me that women used their looks and teased us men a little. But that was when they weren’t abject hypocrites.
Now it annoys me, because they want it both ways. They want to attract male attention ( and female envy?) while they condemn it and lament ‘sexism’ and demand to be taken seriously. In a very real way, these women are prudes and scolds (Megan Kelly) while parading their own sexual charms before us at every possibility.
It’s sad to watch the men who fall for their tactics. They don’t even know how much they are being manipulated. Womanipuplated, actually.
“Ohh, she’s hot! I’m going to listen to her!”
Cleavage?
Attempted cleavage?
S E Cupp had a Pauline Kael moment there when in one breath she declared herself a conservative Republican and in another declared she does not support President Trump and of the people she hangs with, none of them have a favorable opinion of him.
Over 70% of Republicans support Donald Trump. Who are the people she’s hanging out with?
PS I like SE Cupp but does do the snark and the “I’m hipper and smarter than you” schtick a bit too much.
Another comment on SE Cupp. What, as yet unrealized, rights have gays in America not gotten?
I know, right? Also, her referring to single, non-home owners being ineligible for certain tax breaks as being a “punishment” is right out of the leftist rhetorical playbook.
So, if I understand her stance correctly, Republicans getting behind Trump on trade and immigration will be the death of the GOP due to their abandoning core principles. But the GOP must abandon the core principle of the biblical definition of marriage (to be more in line with Trump, by the way), and otherwise cave in to the whims of children who would never vote for an icky Republican anyway, if it’s to survive.
I’m not really a Republican, but if I were, I don’t think I’d be taking advice from Ms. Cupp. It’s too slap-dash and inconsistent to be well thought-out.
Further on the whole “how can Republicans appeal to Millennials” shtick…
I’m actually disappointed to hear Jon ask this question. This has been a perennial subject of discussion for my entire life: how can Republicans expand their support among the younger generation.
The answer today is the same as it was in 1980: Wait until they get married, have kids, and grow up. Young people don’t stay young, and as they mature, most of them will stop being vapid leftists. If this weren’t the case, the GOP would have ceased to exist decades ago.
Trying to out-Democrat the Democrats to appeal to the immature is a quixotic quest.
I really can’t believe I have to explain this.
I didn’t get that from the interview. I took it as the clearing out of these specific, targeted breaks that inevitably gain traction politically, because a politician can sell it to a constituency. I know they were discussing how to appeal to millennials was part of this discussion, I just didn’t get the “let’s do this for the millennials because we need their vote” vibe.
We do need *more* of their vote. What we need to do is defang the ability of the gov’t to have this much control over us, to the point where we start voting for politicians who give us things we want, financially, that others may or may not get.
I regret to admit that my comments are based entirely on visual appearance, since I have not even listened to the podcast.
From what you guys are saying, though, I haven’t missed much…
This was the first suggestion she had in response to Jon’s question about how to appeal to millennials.
I’ve long been in favor of clearing out these targeted tax breaks, even though I’d be disproportionately affected, for exactly the reasons you give. My objection is to her labeling any tax breaks as “punishment” toward people who don’t qualify. This is pure leftist demagoguery. If she can’t make a case for this policy change without using such rhetoric, she’s not the deep thinker she pretends to be.
O Mama, you missed Ms Cupp’s deepest philosophical insight: “Love is love.” Wow. How could anyone not feel moved by such a profound insight. Aristotle must be hanging his head in shame for having missed this knee bending revelation. I mean:
Holy Knit One, Purl Two Batman!!!
I view Ms. Cupp in balance. I have no idea where she came from and no idea where she is heading.
Ha, Mike — I am sorry that you spent your time so unwisely, but I hope you have learned at least something from this.
I also am glad to provide the catty service I did with my snarky comments on Ms Cupp’s lovely and modish appearance. (Rrowr!)
Personally, I find Ms Cupp somewhat unbalanced.
@Terry Mott.
Regarding the gay marriage discussion and millenials, it was an interesting juxtaposition of decrying the penalties that single adults have and then decrying opposition to gay marriage. My take is much of the sanctioning of marriage in law comes down to financial privilege. If two men (or a man and a woman) want to publicly declare their lifelong commitment to each other they are fine to do it. Yes, there are tax and legal rewards for that but is that’s not why they make the commitment is it?
So fine we now have gay marriage, should we now remove the tax advantages of marriage (or was that one of the unspoken goals all along)?
Sarah Elizabeth, BTW. I mustered the energy to check for the inert multitudes who are wondering.
The unspoken goal is to punish Christians and undermine traditional morality and the nuclear family structure. Full stop. This is dressed up as “compassion”, “social justice”, etc., so as to appeal to the immature, but one of the main agenda items of the left has for decades been to undercut all non-governmental institutions such as church, marriage, community organizations, etc. (this was part of the CPUSA manifesto as early as the 1920’s, IIRC). This is of a piece with that long-term agenda.
One of the counter-offers during the gay marriage debate was to legally recognize a “civil union” that would give all the tax and legal benefits of marriage while leaving traditional marriage a separate institution. That wasn’t good enough. Nothing is ever good enough. They demanded that marriage be redefined, so as to rub it in the face of the hated “Christianists”.
P.S. Re-reading the above, it comes across as a rant by a fundamentalist Baptist or something. While I am a proud Christian, I’m really a political libertarian. As such, I wouldn’t cry if the government got out of marriage completely, but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize the assault on traditional morality that has found its recent home in the marriage “equality” movement. Only a moral people can remain free, after all, and so I believe that the leftist attack on the religious Right is a threat, both direct and indirect, to limited government republicanism. I disagree with many of the religious Right attempts to legislate morality, but the much greater threat to liberty is found on the left, as always.
I didn’t make it all the way through the interview before I shut it off in disgust. I had Ms. Cupp down as “mostly ignorable” based on her appearances on “Red Eye.” I’ll be dropping the adverb from now on.
The goal is “acceptance” of sexual depravity. Full stop. Gays, abortion, trans… whatever. Acceptance of sexual depravity. Full stop.
I think you can drop the “sexual” motif of your thesis.
They’re pushing full acceptance of all depravity. Abortion on demand, The divinely sparkly MS-13, Hamas.
It seems they’re looking for a world of the clockwork orange – while they’ll stay safely isolated in their gated communities, behind walls, armed guards and dogs.
Not even acceptance is enough. They require we celebrate it. I was called homophobic by a “liberal” friend for not being a fan of Will and Grace, back when it was new. I never said anything against the show. She just asked if we watched it, and I said, “Not really.” That was enough to convict me of wrongthink. We weren’t watching much TV of any sort, but that didn’t matter. Since we didn’t set aside every Tuesday (or whatever) night to celebrate the brave gay characters, we were homophobes.
I keep remembering Bob Hope’s joke that he’d just flew in from California, “where they just made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d better get out before they make it mandatory.” That line isn’t as funny today, because there’s little exaggeration left.
Really good interview and SE had thoughtful answers (minus her ongoing obsession with the joys of homosexuality). SE has one of the few “anti-Trump conservative but not insane about it” shows going on cable right now. Good Fox alternative and there are some nice visuals too. She brought over Andy Levy from Redeye too.
And….she lost me.
Thanks. That one took me from legitimately wondering why I should pay attention to her to understanding why I shouldn’t. “Be glib and oversimplify” isn’t a recipe for an intelligent discussion.
During the same sex marriage debate someone very close to this web site told me that if the Republican Party didn’t change and get more liberal (at least socially) we were all doomed.
Ask that same person what he thinks of Trump and the first reaction is, “Well, he’s certainly not a conservative!”
Everybody wants a big tent until they get one.
As others have pointed out, the only example S.E. Cupp gives of Trump diverging from conservative ideas is on protectionism. The secret is, Donald Trump is a conservative Democrat, in the mold of JFK — though Trump’s sex life is less sleazy by several orders of magnitude.
Conservatives in the liberal media are like the team that plays the Harlem Globetrotters: their job is to make the other side look good. If they ever accidentally won a game, they would be fired.
In other words, being anti-Trump is job security for these people. If S.E. Cupp started defending Trump, she would probably lose her job.
On another subject, the problem with the strict hard-line approach to North Korea is that it doesn’t recognize the fact that the founding Communist generation is long gone. Some of the same people attacking Trump today also attacked Ronald Reagan for talking to Mikhail Gorbachev. Young Kim wants to hold onto his dynasty, but it’s reasonable to assume he would also prefer to lead a country that’s not a poverty-stricken hellhole. Singapore and China are both examples of possible ways forward for him: it’s no accident the summit was held in Singapore.
I am with S E. I am a Conservative and a Republican and I do not support Trump.
We have left Fox, and are at MSNBC and CNN. It would be great for there to be a conservative news Cable TV network, which is not beholden to Trump. Trump is an acquired taste that is not indigenous to Conservatism. A conservative non-Trump station could out-draw FNC in a matter of time. This is an incredible market opportunity for the Koch brothers, or a conservative with money who hasn’t drank the Trump Kool-Aid.
Some in Ricochet say the same about me.