Trump Killed The Internet! (I Read It At CNN.com)

It’s going to be tough listening to this podcast today….now that DONALD TRUMP HAS KILLED THE INTERNET!

The great Andy McCarthy of National Review on the FBI Russiagate Fiasco;

Why the Flight 93 argument just doesn’t fly;

And Andrew Klavan explains why 2017 was the best year for conservatives…EVAH!

Subscribe to Behind the Blue Wall 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.

Published in: Politics
Please Support Our Sponsor!

Quip

There are 17 comments.

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

    Great guests.

    • #1
    • December 15, 2017, at 5:55 AM PST
    • Like
  2. LibertyDefender Member

    GREAT show! GREAT guests!

    @michaelgraham Michael, I think you’ve incorrectly described the Flight 93 argument. My impression is that the immoral act in the Flight 93 argument is consciously choosing to commit suicide – a mortal sin, not just choosing to kill terrorists, in order to avoid a worse outcome. In the case of Flight 93, the worse outcome was the hundreds of deaths if the plane were to crash where the terrorists wished. In the case of the Alabama special election, the worse outcome is a pro-abortion extremist in the Senate, reducing by one half the margin of the Republican majority.

    I love Andrew McCarthy’s insights and expertise, but I don’t understand why he continues to soft pedal the extreme corruption of the Department of Justice at the highest levels. “…the people should be just as upset as if the Russians did it.” “Just as upset?” Upset? Hell, the people should be outraged! This is corruption of the highest order. Can we get an Andy-McCarthy/David Limbaugh mind meld, to get David’s passion and conviction added to Andy’s analysis? Or maybe even mind meld with Mark Steyn, whose take on the Mueller investigation is outstanding.

    Michael Graham in the Morning and The Andrew Klavan Show are my two must-listen daily podcasts. Even ahead of The Three-Martini Lunch. Your assessment that “Obama was wildly more incompetent than he was corrupt” is contradicted by an elephant-in-the-room of evidence. It’s indisputable that the corruption/politicization/weaponization of the IRS, EPA, and DoJ was all from the top down. That’s corruption, not incompetence.

    GREAT show!

    • #2
    • December 15, 2017, at 7:15 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  3. Michael Graham Contributor

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):
    GREAT show! GREAT guests!

    @michaelgraham Michael, I think you’ve incorrectly described the Flight 93 argument. My impression is that the immoral act in the Flight 93 argument is consciously choosing to commit suicide – a mortal sin, not just choosing to kill terrorists, in order to avoid a worse outcome. In the case of Flight 93, the worse outcome was the hundreds of deaths if the plane were to crash where the terrorists wished. In the case of the Alabama special election, the worse outcome is a pro-abortion extremist in the Senate, reducing by one half the margin of the Republican majority.

    I love Andrew McCarthy’s insights and expertise, but I don’t understand why he continues to soft pedal the extreme corruption of the Department of Justice at the highest levels. “…the people should be just as upset as if the Russians did it.” “Just as upset?” Upset? Hell, the people should be outraged! This is corruption of the highest order. Can we get an Andy-McCarthy/David Limbaugh mind meld, to get David’s passion and conviction added to Andy’s analysis? Or maybe even mind meld with Mark Steyn, whose take on the Mueller investigation is outstanding.

    Michael Graham in the Morning and The Andrew Klavan Show are my two must-listen daily podcasts. Even ahead of The Three-Martini Lunch. Your assessment that “Obama was wildly more incompetent than he was corrupt” is contradicted by an elephant-in-the-room of evidence. It’s indisputable that the corruption/politicization/weaponization of the IRS, EPA, and DoJ was all from the top down. That’s corruption, not incompetence.

    GREAT show!

    Thanks for the very kind words–and I am a HUGE Steyn fan, will have him on the show soon. But I don’t think I get your complaint re: my “Flight 93” critique.

    I get the “don’t fly into the Capitol! Get out of your seats or else!” part of the argument. It’s either seize control or crash. But where the analogy fails is that, as I said in the podcast, killing terrorist hijackers is a moral good in ANY context. The Flight 93’ers backing Trump didn’t say “Go vote for a great candidate you’d vote for, anyway.” They’re saying “Yes, voting for Trump violates your basic standards of decency…but it must be done to save the Republic!'” It’s analogous to saying “I know it’s horrible but we must throw some nuns off the plane in order to save it.”

    Which is why some of us refused to get out of our seats.

    • #3
    • December 15, 2017, at 8:42 AM PST
    • 1 like
  4. LibertyDefender Member

    Michael Graham (View Comment):
    I get the “don’t fly into the Capitol! Get out of your seats or else!” part of the argument. It’s either seize control or crash. But where the analogy fails is that, as I said in the podcast, killing terrorist hijackers is a moral good in ANY context.

    You’re misstating the moral dilemma as I understand it. It’s not “seize control or crash (into the Capitol, presumably),” it’s COMMIT SUICIDE or crash.

    • #4
    • December 15, 2017, at 9:30 AM PST
    • 1 like
  5. OwnedByDogs Coolidge

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):
    You’re misstating the moral dilemma as I understand it. It’s not “seize control or crash (into the Capitol, presumably),” it’s COMMIT SUICIDE or crash.

    Either way you end up dead, except I’d rather not throw the nuns off the plane before going to meet my maker ;)

    • #5
    • December 15, 2017, at 1:02 PM PST
    • Like
  6. Jim Wright Coolidge

    I disagree that Flight 93 was “commit suicide or crash.” They tried to wrest control of the cockpit back from the terrorists. Once they’d managed that, they could have had options for landing safely.

    Putting yourself in harm’s way for a right cause is not the same thing as deliberately killing yourself.

    • #6
    • December 15, 2017, at 1:40 PM PST
    • 1 like
  7. Tprettol Inactive

    So… what was that interview video link regarding net neutrality?

    • #7
    • December 15, 2017, at 8:07 PM PST
    • Like
  8. contrarian Member

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):
    You’re misstating the moral dilemma as I understand it. It’s not “seize control or crash (into the Capitol, presumably),” it’s COMMIT SUICIDE or crash.

    Either way you end up dead, except I’d rather not throw the nuns off the plane before going to meet my maker ;)

    Except the nuns will die anyway too. If it saves a thousand people in the pentagon or capitol or whatever building we’re talking about, then you’re choosing not to intervene while the thousand people are killed, and for what? To keep your hands clean?

    • #8
    • December 16, 2017, at 3:32 AM PST
    • Like
  9. contrarian Member

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):

    Michael Graham (View Comment):
    where the analogy fails is that, as I said in the podcast, killing terrorist hijackers is a moral good in ANY context.

    It’s not “seize control or crash (into the Capitol, presumably),” it’s COMMIT SUICIDE or crash.

    LiberyDefender is right, but he’s not making the case as strong as it could be. There were kids on Flight 93. The men who rushed the cockpit weren’t merely killing terrorists. They were crashing the plane and killing themselves and innocent children. Maybe killing terrorists is always a good thing (although I don’t think it is, and Michael doesn’t either given what he said about capital punishment), but crashing a plane with children in it is not always a good thing.

    I get the “don’t fly into the Capitol! Get out of your seats or else!” part of the argument. It’s either seize control or crash.

    No. There’s no “or crash” in this scenario. It’s allow terrorists to crash into a crowded building, killing thousands there (as well as the occupants of the plane), or crash the plane yourself killing everyone in it.

    They’re saying “Yes, voting for Trump violates your basic standards of decency…but it must be done to save the Republic!’”

    My interpretation of this is that your idea of ‘violating your basic standards of decency’ is that it means to do something you can never morally do. If so, you built your conclusion (it’s impermissible) into the scenario. The whole point of the hypothetical is that you don’t begin by assuming it’s impermissible, but consider whether it might be a general prohibition that can be violated in certain circumstances.

    It’s analogous to saying “I know it’s horrible but we must throw some nuns off the plane in order to save it.”

    I’m skeptical of that analogy (because elections can have life or death consequences and casting a vote is nothing like killing a person), but let’s go with it. Suppose a plane will crash and kill those aboard if you do nothing, but for some reason, you can prevent the crash only by throwing nuns out of the plane – well, of course, you throw out the nuns.

    I don’t understand this view of voting some people have. I understand it’s wrong to vote for someone who you think would use their office to do harm. I don’t understand why it’s wrong based on a person’s character or past deeds – or if it is, why it would be worse than telling a lie. Surely you don’t think it’s always wrong to lie, regardless of the circumstances?

    The hosts of Liberty Files & Ben Shapiro view this as Michael does, but Andrew Klavan’s view is like mine. If my laptop were working properly I might make a podcast about the ethics involved – maybe after I replace my computer

    • #9
    • December 16, 2017, at 5:01 AM PST
    • 1 like
  10. LibertyDefender Member

    contrarian (View Comment):
    I don’t understand this view of voting some people have.

    At the risk of offending both (@contrarian) contrarian and (@libertydefender) myself, I agree with contrarian on this issue, particularly as it relates to Trump, and to a slightly lesser extent Roy Moore.

    In our two party system, outside of primaries voting is a binary choice. Either Trump or Hillary was going to win. Hillary’s election would guarantee the certain loss of civil liberties and property for hundreds of millions of Americans. It is morally reprehensible to stand aside and let the serial felon Hillary Clinton win.

    Granted, no lives were directly at stake, as was the case at the 1989 murder of fourteen female students at the École Polytechnique in Montreal, but Mark Steyn discusses an analogous moral dilemma:

    … the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate — an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The ‘men’ stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing.

    I could not stand aside and let Hillary be elected. I voted for Trump, whom I actively opposed during the primaries.

    • #10
    • December 16, 2017, at 7:30 AM PST
    • 1 like
  11. contrarian Member

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):
    Michael Graham in the Morning and The Andrew Klavan Show are my two must-listen daily podcasts. Even ahead of The Three-Martini Lunch.

    Graham at breakfast, Shapiro &/or Klavan at lunchtime, and ironically 3 Martini Lunch at dinner time.

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):
    I voted for Trump, whom I actively opposed during the primaries.

    I wanted Rubio but he’d been knocked out, so I voted Cruz on the theory he stood the best chance to stop Trump. In the general, I voted third party, but not because of Trump’s character. That just isn’t how I look at elections. I feel like we’re hiring someone to do a job. Good character is a bonus but not a requirement.

    During the election, I was listening to a lot of people who painted a really frightening picture about what Trump might do in foreign policy. I couldn’t vote for Hillary. I felt that the changes she’d make would slowly poison the country, but I had no confidence that Trump wouldn’t accidentally start a fire he couldn’t put out.

    My impression now is that Trump is willing to defer to the judgment of talented people with experience and real insight rather than acting rashly – when it concerns the military. (I wish he’d do this with communication and political strategy too, but those are trivial by comparison.) Now if I could have been convinced last October that electing Trump would not result in avoidable war, that’d have been a different story. I don’t think my concerns then were unreasonable though. He had no track record to judge against, and I don’t think that anyone who voted for ‘W’ in 2000 would have predicted Iraq and Afghanistan

    • #11
    • December 16, 2017, at 10:37 AM PST
    • 1 like
  12. contrarian Member

    LibertyDefender (View Comment):
    no lives were directly at stake

    Maybe ‘yes,’ maybe ‘no.’ It depends on how you look at it. If you’re pro-life and you believe RvW will be overturned then there is a solid argument that there were. I’ve been surprised to find in the last few years that a lot of conservatives don’t care much about the former or don’t believe the latter will ever happen. Let say for the sake of argument that we believe both. Perhaps we even think it will be largely eradicated – or at least lowered to a rate comparable to the homicide rate.

    A goal like this is entirely different from a goal of solving long-term debt/deficit issues. If you knew you could pass reforms to entitlements that would see to it that the nation would be on a safe stable trajectory by 2035, then that would be great, but if it took until 2050, that wouldn’t be too bad. It just matters that the problem is solved and a crisis is averted. With abortion, time matters because the killing is constant and ongoing. In some ways, it’s analogous to a war where every day means more casualties. How quickly you can put an end to it matters a lot.

    If Hillary had won, the setback would have lasted a generation.

    Moore is a murkier case. His seat might make no difference at all, or it could make a significant difference. We just don’t know. It depends on what happens in ’18 and if we end up losing the Senate, and it depends on whether and when there may be more vacancies in the court. There’s a scenario where the Democrats get a majority in the Senate because we’ve lost this seat, and then a spot opens up and we lose it because they won’t hold a vote until after ’20. Is that likely? Probably not. It’s possible though.

    I didn’t want to take the chance.

    Now, I wouldn’t be disappointed about Moore losing…

    • if the election had been for a house seat
    • if it’d been for governor
    • if the majority wasn’t so narrow in the Senate that this seat could make the difference next year
    • if it were just for a year and the seat came up again in ’18
    • if his opponent pledged to support Republican judicial nominees

    Besides, I thought that there was a way to keep the seat with minimal damage: the ‘elect & eject’ option. Democrats and the mainstream media are going to tie Moore around the Republicans’ necks no matter what. His losing didn’t stop that. If he’d won and been condemned and kicked out by Republicans, then they could have made a legitimate argument that they were never supporting him – just Session’s seat. It’d be potentially redemptive in a way that his losing by 1.5% is not. (Some thoughts on that from yesterday -> here)

    • #12
    • December 16, 2017, at 11:18 AM PST
    • Like
  13. contrarian Member

    Jim Wright (View Comment):
    I disagree that Flight 93 was “commit suicide or crash.” They tried to wrest control of the cockpit back from the terrorists. Once they’d managed that, they could have had options for landing safely.

    Putting yourself in harm’s way for a right cause is not the same thing as deliberately killing yourself.

    Maybe. I don’t know if they really thought there was a chance that they could land. My impression was that they didn’t. In any case, in the argument, it’s definitely assumed that you die either way. That’s really the whole point: it’s a horrible outcome no matter what. There are other analogies that make it even clearer that neither option provides a possibility of a good outcome.

    • #13
    • December 16, 2017, at 11:30 AM PST
    • Like
  14. Arahant Member

    Every time I see this thread name in my notifications:

    • #14
    • December 16, 2017, at 11:37 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  15. Michael Graham Contributor

    Tprettol (View Comment):
    So… what was that interview video link regarding net neutrality?

    D’OH!

    Here it is: https://youtu.be/w_rBFaEbHzo

    • #15
    • December 16, 2017, at 5:51 PM PST
    • Like
  16. Arahant Member

    Michael Graham (View Comment):

    Tprettol (View Comment):
    So… what was that interview video link regarding net neutrality?

    D’OH!

    Here it is: https://youtu.be/w_rBFaEbHzo

    • #16
    • December 16, 2017, at 9:24 PM PST
    • Like
  17. OccupantCDN Coolidge

    I also dislike the flight 93 analogy of the 2016 election. Not (only) for the reasons discussed in the podcast – but also for the reason that from the perspective of the passengers – the outcome didnt change. The flight still terminated in a crater. Perhaps in time, this analogy may prove to be more apt than we realize at this moment.

    There is probably a great book to be written, “Being Moral in an Immoral World” … Evangelical voters didnt vote for Trump as a moral act, they voted for him as a political act. They evaluated the known qualities of Hillary, against the uncertainty of Trump. and chose uncertainty over a known evil. Evangelicals are allowed to play politics too.

    Someone should pull together a montage video of all the wrong predictions that have appeared in the media over the last few years, and then contrast that with the facts. Pick your topic, Obamacare will save lives. Climate change. Stimulus spending vs unemployment. End of the internet… Maybe they should realize why they have no credibility left.

    • #17
    • December 17, 2017, at 7:25 PM PST
    • 1 like