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.
Better late than never, “Lucretia” and I team up to review what’s going on in the news along with drinking to the confirmation of Justice Barrett, but are most interested in thinking a bit about what is “metaphysically” wrong with the election scene, with poll after poll showing a solid Biden lead against lots of sense perception—and several historical examples—that argues for a different outcome. And so this became a crossover episode of the podcast, since I decided to pin down
I want to like Henry Olsen; however, it always sounds like he is smiling when he delivers a “bad” prognosis.
I suggest you look at Darby O’Gill on youtube playing Whiskey in the Jar. Very exuberant and some good talk afterward.
Thanks for the pointer. I’ll look it up.
I think H Olsen is just too poll oriented. Maybe that’s his job but, again, why don’t we wait until the votes are in and then analyze them? Why not have someone on who looks at something factual rather than speculation. I just get so tired of all the talking about something that hasn’t happened. Now will H Olsen come on after the election and talk about the votes and how he might have gotten something wrong? No he’ll be on to speculating about the next election and talking about polls.
Two observations since I’m drinking water and not red wine or Scotch: I can eliminate the ‘hypocrisy’ over Garland vs ACB. Nowhere does it say the Senate need to have a Committee hearing and then a floor vote on a nominee….it was a given, since the GOP had the majority, that Garland was not getting 51 votes.
Obama should have pulled him and saved the time, money and embarrassment for him…when THE GOP led Senate CHOSE not to hear him–i.e. acted-— they WERE GIVING negative Consent. That’s not hypocrisy—it’s called having the majority.
Lucretia mentioned the lousy little hometown papers. My wife brought home the Monterey Herald today. It weighed 50 grams. It cost $1.50…that translates into about $13.50/lb…News aint cheap!!