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.
Jonah Goldberg is a leading conservative critic of Trump and Trumpism. Therefore, there is a big target on his back, and front, and everywhere else. And yet he stands and delivers.
With Jay, he talks about Assange. Putin. The American Right. National Review. The National Enquirer. Hillary. The Trump Train. Anti-Semitism. The GOP future. Etc. He and Jay talk it all out, or most of it out, or a great deal of it out.
At the end of the podcast, Jay says that Jonah’s stance against Trump, and for conservatism, has been a comfort to him, personally. Many others can sing that tune. Listen to Jonah sing on this lengthy, though fast-moving, heart-to-heart podcast.
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.
I also need to say, I work in academia. Given where I am, if I was going to “go along to get along,” I’d be a Democrat.
One of the reasons I may vote for Trump is the very fact that a conservative #NeverTrump faction exists. There is no serious liberal #NeverHillary movement, or if there is, it’s not because of her crimes, but because she’s not Bernie Sanders. If a President Trump exceeded his authority, Republicans and Democrats might unite to stop him, while Democrats would never oppose President Hillary.
Hillary deserves more criticism than Trump, but he deserves much too, and it must go on.
goldwaterwoman:“I pretty much agree with everything he says yesterday, today and tomorrow. If he changes to get more votes, I’ll change too. I want to defeat Hillary Clinton and the dirty Democrats. Period.”
I think I can honestly say I would die for G-d and probably for my country if the circumstances demanded it, but I can’t imagine having this much faith in the words of any mortal being, ever, much less one in public life, still less DJT.
Must be a Protestant thing.
Criticism of Trump has gone on and must in the future, especially if he is elected President.
But there is no point to criticizing him now to other conservatives and Republicans with less than two months to go before the election.
The only purpose such criticism can possibly serve is to demoralize potential Trump voters – which obviously serves the interests of Democrats, not conservatives or conservatism.
Would you feel the same way about Likud’s nominee for PM if the Labor Party came out 100% in favor of the Palestinian “right of return” and those were the only two viable parties in Israel?
Would you support the Likud nominee virtually no matter what if he was the only barrier to Israel losing its Jewish identity because some Jews misguidedly insisted upon clinging to “universal values” of equality and open borders?
No, but we have coalition governments here. I would support the party I thought most likely to be brought into the government and strengthen a coalition that would keep the Likud nominee from following the Labor position.
You evaded the question, in which I eliminated that option for you. Try again.
Americans don’t have the coalition option. Once you understand that, you’ll realize that @goldwaterwoman‘s position is not “a Protestant thing.”
@freesmith, The religious poke was a snarky thing on @podkayneofisrael‘s part, though I did kind of laugh at it. It’s something Ann Coulter would write, actually.
As an American, I’ll personally exercise a choice apart from Clinton or Trump, but the stark terms you’ve presented for this fellow writer are not what face you or anyone else. Gracious goodness.
What I described to you is pretty much the way I calculate for whom to vote.
As to the hypothetical you propose, if my Bubbie had beytzim, she’s be my Zaydie.
Maybe forcing the binary approach on every case is a Protestant thing after all ;)
Really?
What do you think is the maximum number of asylum seekers, refugees and legal immigrants a Clinton administration would accept into America?
If “Citizen’s United” and “Heller” are overturned and the Fairness Doctrine is re-imposed, what is mainstream conservatism’s action plan to counter-attack in a country whose demographics are being deliberately changed to make that opposition politically untenable?
With a Clinton administration what do you think is more likely: that primates like Harambe will get full civil rights protections or that an unborn human will?
Under a Clinton administration’s Department of Justice and Department of Education how far will the Left go – and no further – to turn our schools and universities into leftist seminaries and re-education camps?
What new things, other than health insurance, will you be forced to purchase by the government?
Goodness gracious indeed!
Not every case, my friend – this case. My hypothetical is an analogy in this particular political discussion. I’m trying to bring the American situation home to where you live.
Maybe evasion is a Jewish thing.
I think @freesmith that a Clinton presidency will further damage the United States. I think a Trump presidency will further damage the United States for different reasons while erasing much that was in opposition to a liberal agenda and with Republicans’ full support. This is simply how I see it.
Regardless, as I said on another thread, I think that people who feel that the end of the republic is coming with a Clinton election or a Trump election might find comfort in some history. These are not the bleakest times. Though our immigration system has run amuck, this is not even the period in which our borders have been the most porous, or in which we have had any where near the flood of foreigners arriving on our shores on a daily basis, or even when we’ve had the most progressive court.
You and I have common ground, I think, in that we both oppose Clinton. Let’s unite on what we can to kneecap her power. Yes!!! Hillary is awful! I will show up with you all day long to vote a Republican down ballot. I will! I will! I’ll even bring a six-pack if you’re still mad I disagree with you on Trump. ;)
I’ll bring a second six-pack and raise you a bottle of slivovitz.
I don’t know what “slivovitz” is, but cool. :) I’ll drink just about anything except poison. ;)
Yes, @loislane, we do share that common ground. Let’s see if we share something else.
If Trump wins, Hillary loses.
If Trump loses, Hillary wins.
I don’t believe there is any other possible outcome to this election. There is no other scenario where Donald Trump not winning/losing also leads to Hillary Clinton not winning/losing.
Agreed?
@freesmith, If you want me to say that the most likely outcome if Trump loses will be that Hillary wins, okay. That’s true. Sure. Yes.
But this is exactly why you should get down on your knees and thank Evan McMullin for entering the race.
There are millions of people who are completely ambivalent about the top of the ticket now because they are not animated enough by hate of Hillary to pull the lever for someone they think might be *as bad* or *worse* for some pretty rational reasons.
However, if you have someone they can vote for, these people will still show up at the polls and split their tickets with McMullin at the top and center right candidates on the down ballot. (They are lost to Trump already.)
After all, if my one little vote is such a big deal, whatever number of people Evan can pull back into the cycle is a bigger deal. Because whatever you think about the powers of Ms. Clinton, she is much, much worse if this is a wave election and she is unchecked by Congress.
We can agree on that last bit, too, can’t we?
We agree on that last bit.
Unfortunately, McMullin is no threat to any electoral votes which lean Hillary; he is only a spoiler for Trump’s Electoral College chances, so he increases the odds of a Clinton victory.
(How much campaigning do you think he’ll do in California, Oregon or Washington? Zero. How much in Utah or Idaho?)
You’re open-minded. I urge you to listen to Andrew Klavan’s podcast from yesterday, in which he interviews Kimberly Strassel, the author of “The Intimidation Game.” You will gain a better understanding of what the Left is capable of even in a state with a Republican governor.
Then imagine those same fanatical, anti-democratic forces, people who really exist here and now, working in a United States where the executive branch and the judicial branch are under their control.
Who you gonna call – Ghostbusters?
You are not hearing what I am saying. McMullin voters are not going to vote for Trump anyway. He will inspire people who would otherwise stay home to go vote. This is why the down ballot is at risk. People will not vote for Clinton OR Trump, so other Republicans will get wiped out. You want to get these folks to go to the polls despite their feelings about the main race.
If McMullin actually gets enough of these people to win a state, then Trump is truly beyond winning or the “push to the House” strategy is not just fantasy.
I haven’t listened to the podcast yet, but I will. Thanks. I work in academia, so I am well versed in the current trends in our culture that are focused on curbing free speech.
The same argument used for Hitler in 1933.
By no win we mean it doesn’t matter who wins, in other words both are disasters. Why would we personally endorse it? We won’t.
To many of you act like politics is a sports team, and are shocked when many of us remind you that we did not swear our lives to the Republican Party.
Democrats: Why won’t you support Hillary? Trump is a nightmare!
Conservatives: Because she will be a disaster.
Republicans: Why won’t you support Trump? Hillary is a nightmare!
Conservatives: Because he will be a disaster.
Both: Shut up you self righteous jackass!
You two are damfine lookin’ guys, but Stephen Hayes is more handsome than either of you. Own it!