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 Conservatarians (aka, Ricochet Editor-in-Chief Jon Gabriel and Heatstreet’s Stephen Miller) talk with Robert A. George of the New York Daily News about Trump’s VP choice, Black Lives Matter, and the joys of improv comedy. We also process breaking news about Nice, predict convention speakers, and wonder why Obama refuses to rise to the occasion.
Intro and outro music is “Public Image” by PiL. Jon’s music pick this week is “Ha” by HTRK. Stephen’s music pick is “Cobblestones” by Say Hi. To listen to all the music featured on The Conservatarians, subscribe to our Spotify playlist!
You should also subscribe to this podcast and give it five-star, glowing reviews on iTunes.
Support Our Sponsors!
For a limited time The Great Courses Plus is offering The Conservatarians listeners a chance to stream their new Video Learning Service: The Great Courses Plus popular collection of business courses – Absolutely FREE! Go to thegreatcoursesplus.com/ricochet
Subscribe to King of Stuff in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Worst installment of a great revamped podcast team.
“Cops are d@#ks” (related by Stephen with no Chandler argot irony).
Black Americans are, by turns, victims, victims, victims and victims. A people apparently with no capacity for personal agency (a racism of no expectations).
Okay, I admit to tuning in for the other Robert George, as Robert A. is really Jason Riley without the genius and intellectual guts. I was ready to be disappointed.
However, the “hey slugger” interview has less edge than Terry Gross interviewing Lena Dunham.
We get a complete whitewash of Black Lives Matter, blank statements that institutional racial oppression is evident to anyone not willfully blind, and cherry picking of relevant crime stats that would embarrass Barack Obama.
Do we really need the metroposh factlessness at Ricochet (and The Federalist)?
I admit to adopting the full Mac Donald perspective perhaps too readily. Could really benefit from someone who confronts the ugly truths of murder, attempted murder and grievous assault rates in black neighborhoods without easy victimology, cop bashing and national conversation mongering and provides a less authoritarian game plan.
Not this episode.
But aside from that, it was pretty good, right?
Naive.
BLM is not interested in responsible criticism. It is kept alive solely to motivate black turnout at the polls. Getting the Dems elected is all that matters to them, no matter how many people of all colors get killed.
It’s just like the Economist hoping Hillary will be more careful with state secrets next time.
One despairs that people who should know better don’t.
Any substantive take on the above criticism, Jon?
I relistened to the podcast and didn’t get that at all. Police are more prone to stop African Americans in upscale white neighborhoods. Even a sitting US Senator is routinely stopped because his car is “too nice.” Unclear how that strips Tim Scott of personal agency.
Unfamiliar with the “hey slugger” reference, but I’m more interested in letting a guest share his opinion, rather than grilling him. I’m not a “60 Minutes” style interviewer; not my personality or nature.
What facts mentioned were incorrect?
Thanks for the response, Jon.
As to which facts were incorrect, I nearly spit out my coffee when Mr. George stated that certain elements at the BLM events were like the occasional Yahoo at a tea party rally and shouldn’t be held against the movement or it’s organizers.
I’m sorry, but the mass of a BLM protest marching and chanting, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” is absolutely nothing like fringies at a tea party event. Typically, fringies at a tea party event turned out to be liberal plants. The leaders of the BLM movement are thick with the above and are often heard condoning it. Not even questioning him on it was weak, to be polite.
Great podcast. Keep going.
There was a comment about Obama’s plans, generally, and that it’s a “divide and conquer” strategy. I think that’s true, but the only thing conquered are votes, meaning it’s a means to power, not a strategy to “win” anything, other than increase the size of govt and spending.
And that’s what he wants. He wants govt to be one big wealth transfer device (which it is already), and increase the rate at which anyone who works for a living has to pay for the half of the country that chooses not to.
It’s insane that this clown got voted in twice. It does not say good things about us. We’re now going to beat those two lows in presidential elections by electing either Hillary or Donald.
It’s quite possible we’re in decline. Just sayin’.
Since getting my membership, I’ve been re-listening to The Conservatarians and the production is magnificent. Kudos for going nose in to some turbulent air. I eschewed Liberal Ideology because of their abject denial and censorship of uncomfortable ideas and refusal of truth solely because of the source. Political confirmation bias and platform toe-lining is an exercise in Authoritarianism–the only thing crazier than telling time by a broken clock is ignoring the two times a day it’s right.
I’m glad I made the right choice in Ricochet.
This episode deserves The Prince award (not Purple Rain)
“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.”