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.
Melania puts her stiletto down and makes Donald ban flavored vapes. And did the third Democratic presidential primary debate change any voters’ minds?
The intro/outro song and Jon’s song of the week is “Heavy Echo” by White Noise Sound. Stephen’s song of the week is “Some Things Last a Long Time” by the late, great Daniel Johnston. To listen to all the music featured on The Conservatarians, subscribe to our Spotify playlist!
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.
I hadn’t heard about Johnston. The subject of a really good documentary The Devil and Daniel Johnston, which I watched several years ago. A man whose mental illness was in the way of whatever talents he had. Listening to Stephen’s pick right now, oddly affecting.
R.I.P.
Another great podcast, and I loved Stephen’s riff about Malania barging into her husband’s tariff meeting holding the vaping pen.
But it was strange — and maybe a little telling — that at no point in their analysis of last night’s debate did Jon or Stephen mention Beto’s woker than woke “1619” remarks, or his unequivocal endorsement of the U.S. government paying out reparations for slavery.
They had opinions about Beto and gun confiscation (plenty of them), but were silent about Beto’s firmly held belief that America is historically, foundationally, systemically, and in all other ways rrrrrrrrrrrrracist.
Miller hit some high notes here. Really. Didn’t know he had Pat Benatar’s range.
Buttigieg’s views on abortion are extreme and completely insane. No way would I even consider voting for him. Seems he thinks it is okay for a woman to kill her child at any time and for any reason.
While I can understand Stephen’s position that “Trump is unacceptable and I will never, ever vote for him,” I can’t understand how anyone on Team Woke would be remotely considered vote-worthy. Intersectionality is a religion — a toxic one; it’s harming the culture — and it is growing by the day. And the Dems are its apostles. How can any self-respecting Classic Liberal pull the lever for one??
I don’t plan on voting for President (and I hope no one bores me with the usual “But that’s a vote for the Dems!” argument I have heard a million times before; I inevitably tune them out, as I tune out all the “But that’s a vote for Trump!” arguments I inevitably get from the other side.)
You and me both! After the Kavanaugh hearings I was close to holding my nose and voting for Trump, but I can’t do it. I cannot vote for any of the Democrats and I can’t vote for Trump, so whoever wins will win without my vote.
I won’t be voting for President unless there is a credible third alternative.
Though announced Republican candidates (think Weld or Walsh) wouldn’t get my vote in a primary (Mark Sanford? possibly) I think it’s shameful that some states are considering canceling Republican primaries. If all Republicans don’t have an opportunity to weigh in an alternative to Donald Trump, that looks like a step back to a party choosing candidates in “smoke filled rooms.”
Remember the angry cries when people believed that the “Republican establishment” was promoting a gentleman named Jeb Bush as the man to beat in the 2016 Republican primaries?
I remember.
And now an unstable rake like Donald Trump is the “establishment candidate.”
Who’s crying now?
Agreed. The options for 2020 are toxic “woke” zealotry on one side, and charlatanism and corruption on the other.
Pro-Trumpers: “Constitution. National defense. Taxes.”
Anti-Trumpers: “Trump is so yucky!”
We’ve had a “rake” in the White House (Bill Clinton), and even an “unstable rake” who nearly started World War III (JFK). In what way does Trump resemble them? Because he is alleged to have had an affair in, what, 2006?
We’ve had plenty of corruption in the White House (the Clintons, ‘nuff said) but becoming President lowered Trump‘s net worth by at least $1 billion, according to Forbes.
And plenty of charlatans (“Read my lips …” “You can keep your doctor …” “He kept us out of war …”) but Trump is remarkable in his loyalty to the working class people who elected him.
Not exactly alleged….not that this matters to me personally…but the guy is a known womanizer and all around lizard. I’ll be voting for him though. The alternatives are much worse and this time around I won’t be sitting on the sidelines. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie et al would be disastrous if they seize power.
If you could help convince a few others, it could help save the country, perhaps even the world.
While I can understand Stephen’s position that “Trump is unacceptable and I will never, ever vote for him,” I can’t understand how anyone on Team Woke would be remotely considered vote-worthy. Intersectionality is a religion — a toxic one; it’s harming the culture — and it is growing by the day. And the Dems are its apostles. How can any self-respecting Classic Liberal pull the lever for one??
This paragraph gives you the answer. You vote for the non-intersectionality-apostle.
What non-intersectionality apostle? Every candidate on the Left — yep, even Joe Biden — has guzzled the “woke” Kool Aid. Each of them either enthusiastically endorses intersectionality and groups like Blacks Lives Matter or else has made their peace with the idea of “wokeness” and just shrugs their shoulders as if to say, “This is how the world is now.”
Long story short: No one on the Left has any real problem with watching “wokeness”metastasize.
But I do.
Trump.
I’m just here for the Trumpressions™️ and the Kamala Cackle. Only you guys can make sense out of this mess.
You need to read my post from before where I said:
The options for 2020 are toxic “woke” zealotry on one side, and charlatanism and corruption on the other.
So, vote non-toxic?
Good lord. What if I had written “The options for 2020 are toxic ‘woke’ zealotry on one side, and Cancer, AIDS, Naziism, and Bubonic Plague on the other”— would you still have asked, “So, vote non-toxic?”
He certainly is yucky, but it is his total ignorance on foreign affairs that causes me concern.
Trump could do that. He had every opportunity to do that. But this latest BS with Bolton and before that Mattis and others shows me he really is just a conceited buffoon. And he isn’t going to save the world.
I think they will though. Trump won without my vote last time. He is going to have to do it again. If only he would go away.
What an odd thing to say.
With his far-flung business interests, Trump came into the White House with far more experience of the world than all but a few Presidents.
I read it. Is there not charlatanism and corruption on the “woke” side?
Without question. But politics is in many ways about free association. “What’s the first thing you think of when you hear the word (fill in the blank)?”
And the first thing I think of when I hear the word “Democrat” is “Terminal ‘wokeness’ and toxic identity politics.”
And the first thing I think of when I hear the word “Trump” is “Charlatanism and corruption.”
See #10. Trump is both less of a charlatan and less corrupt than most of his predecessors.
N.B.: You’re not a typical voter. Nobody on Ricochet is.
But you didn’t. If you now want to claim that “charlatanism and corruption” are also toxic, please try (and fail) to make that case. One problem is those (including some on this very thread) who do seem to make that astonishing assumption. Or at least they consider themselves to be so above-it-all that they can’t lower themselves to do what might be necessary to avoid the toxicity.
Now that is an odd thing to say. Have you heard the man speak? He doesn’t have a clue. You are dreaming.
Okay, so where we disagree is on the simple question of “What behavior is disqualifying for someone seeking to occupy the highest office in the land?”
And I feel that toxic “woke” zealotry … and charlatanism & corruption … are both disqualifying, while you do not.
You, presumably, feel that the second set of traits — while hardly enviable — are still not completely disqualifying.
Fine. But you have about as much chance of convincing me they’re not disqualifying as I have of convincing you they are.
And this is what is known as an impasse.
I think that’s where anti-Trumpers usually go wrong. They put too much weight on his words, and too little on his acts. For example, his negotiations with Canada and Mexico have been quite successful: they need us more than we need them.
There was a long, preposterous essay in The Weekly Standard, a few months before it folded, which actually tried to make the argument that Trump’s words are more important than his acts. I have trouble finding a tactful way to express my reaction!
Not that Trump’s words are not very clever at times, as when he questioned why the US is still in NATO. This put a scare into all the countries who were failing to meet their obligations: because NATO is much more important for them than it is for us.