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.
For conservatives, is the Supreme Court reason enough to vote for Donald Trump? Also, if you’re a conservative and you’re voting for neither Trump nor Hillary, are you really voting for Hillary, as so many allege?
Jay explores these questions with a brilliant colleague of his from National Review, Ian Tuttle. They also talk about Tuttle’s alma mater: St. John’s College. There, young people study the best that has been thought and written. Are they better off for it? Is their society?
Well, those are easy ones. Ian Tuttle is an exceptional thinker, and talker, as you will hear.
Subscribe to Q & A, Hosted by Jay Nordlinger 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.
Good research. Neither can I find wives leaving prior to 9/11. On a related note, however we do find in the recently declassifed 9/11 report chapter that the hijacker-handler al-Bayoumi left the U.S. the month before the September 11 attacks. We also now know that while the rest of the country was grounded from flying in the days after 9/11, 160 Saudi Nationals were allowed to immediately fly out of the country! (http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/12/u-s-cover-up-of-saudi-911-ties-probed-jw-has-secret-flight-docs/)
I have seen it several times and watched it again at your request. The quote you have in your last sentence is nowhere in the video. That is exactly the problem. Putting words into his mouth that are consistent with their expectations instead of limiting it to what he actually says. He simply says that they will follow his orders. He does not say what the orders will be. People are projecting that the orders are war crimes. I am starting to understand him. I believe he was focused on the question as a challenge to his leadership and not a question on the content of the orders.
Please go easy with that axe friend, I’m starting to get a little nervous. In many cases, where the families aren’t already being targeted, they should be, because rarely is Islamism isolated to single individuals within a family. When people die willingly through suicide in order to perpetrate mass deaths on innocent people, in the name of religious fanaticism, sometimes the only halting fear they may have is the danger and consequences to their families.
I can see that you and I are going to continue to disagree on what he meant. That’s okay. I think Bret Baier heard what I heard, hence the follow up questions. And look at comment #33. I’m not alone in thinking he meant what I think he meant. People who support him heard what I believe he plainly meant, and are defending it. Which is fine. I don’t happen to agree with the arguments.
But I want my president to make statements that are clear enough to understand without having to parse every word and which have to be walked back all the time.
Here’s one question: If he’s going to make a statement about the wives of the 9/11 terrorists flying home 2 days before the attacks, why not take a minute or have a staffer take a minute to google to see if that happened? I had forgotten or never noticed this claim before, but it’s one more instance of his making up stories and/or remembering important things that never happened.
It is the hazard of Trump being unscripted. He probably got two events confused.
Good exchange. I like that you go to hard data also. Peace.
They actually vote on laws? Seems like I hear a lot of buzz about judges’ rulings (which tend to be very consequential) but almost nothing about the Senate. Did I miss their vote commemorating “National Turnip Day?”
Judges don’t interpret laws anymore, they make the laws.