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.
In our continuing effort to bring as much ideological balance to the flagship podcast, today we bring you Bill Bennett, host of The Bill Bennett Show (conveniently available right on this site) sitting in the Long Chair®. You’d think that would be enough, that we wouldn’t need to go even further in our quest to feature all sides of the movement. But no! We go even further with this week’s guest: Mr Dilbert himself, Scott Adams. We talk about North Korea, the economy, why President Trump should stay the course, that Google memo, and more.
Music from this week’s podcast: It’s The End Of The World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine) by R.E.M.
The all new opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced by James Lileks.
Yes, you should absolutely subscribe to this podcast. It helps! And leave a review too! And for Peter’s sake: JOIN RICOCHET TODAY.
Another day at the office for @EJHIll.
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast 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.
Boll & Branch
Use Code: RICOCHET
The right sheets can take your sleep and your style to the next level. With Boll and Branch, that upgrade has never been more affordable. Go to BollandBranch.com and use promo code RICOCHET to get $50 off your first set of sheets plus free shipping in the U.S.
Killer artwork EJ. Can’t wait to listen.
That was fun.
So Trump gets credit for ISIS being rolled back by Iraq and the Kurds? Why not Obama? It was his plan to let them handle it. He gave them the weapons, air support, training, etc. To me it seems like Trump comes in at the end and takes credit not really having done very much different from his predecessor whom he criticized.
And one more thing…
Stock market is up. So what? It was up during Obama’s time too. What exactly did Trump do? I have something else we should thank Trump for if this is the case. Thank you President Trump. The Sun came up today keep up the good work.
Great art! Fantastic. Even though I suppose I’m Wally.
Anyone want to guess which conservative who has written controversial books that Bill has defended, will no longer will talk rob Bennett for next 4 years? I am going to guess Charles Murray.
Awesome getting Scott Adams on the podcast!
(Or as they call him on The_Donald, the “based cartoon merchant”.)
Obama opposed the surge. Obama took forces out of Iraq with no forces agreement, and the place went to hell. Now you want to throw him a cookie for “credit” by giving weapons to the Iraqis and Kurds, something his administration only very, very reluctantly managed to agree to?
Well. That’s like giving a guy credit for putting out a fire he just dumped gasoline on.
So instead you give credit to the guy who comes after him? My question is why does Trump get credit? What did he do against ISIS that Obama wasn’t doing on January 19th?
James, I am praying that your prayers will be answered – and soon.
I don’t know, and it’s a good question – but did Obama strike you as the sort of fellow who said “weapons free, disproportional retaliation. Kill the lot and take the town”? Trump does not strike me as someone keen to put restraints on the military so he can get good PR at the UN for being Proportional and Measured.
Thanks, Pro. Today’s podcast was a needed respite from the toll and toil. I was serious about four hours of sleep, and I was on my second pot of coffee for the show.
Don’t want to hijack the thread – there was so much in the show to discuss here – but lileks.com/bleats has the story. Lost dog, day six.
It was a joy to work with Bill and a delight to talk to Scott Adams.
No, you look to be very specifically James Lileks, right down to the chin. As for saying you aren’t Presidential material, never forget Jemmy Madison.
Funny how Bill Bennett wondered if he’s the only philosophy Ph.D. who supported Trump. I often wonder if I’m the only history Ph.D. who did so.
Don’t forget VDH.
You may be thinking of Oscar Madison.
Or Billy?
First, I didn’t give credit to anybody. Secondly, at the very least, Trump speaks to and acts in accordance with something I would describe (roughly) as huevos, which our last president clearly lacked.
As for ISIS, I repeat the above. Barry bailed on Iraq, no status of forces agreement, which allowed ISIS to grow in power. He opposed the surge when he was a Senator which was critical to creating a stable Iraq. At every turn, he’s waffled, hedged, caved, or retreated – his victories, however small, were either gained by reversing a prior policy, or finally doing the one thing everyone, everyone wanted to do, reluctantly, in case there was political blowback.
Like bin Laden.
But, anyway, I repeat myself. Sounds like you’re ready to credit Barry with whatever good outcomes occur, much like his administration did, in saying a peaceful Iraq would be that administration’s greatest achievement – when things were going well, and they started following the policy set forth by the prior administration, and not their own.
No, that’s not what he said. He said, essentially, that Trump has only been in office for about eight months, and these operations began before that. Nothing more.
After listening to Adams on a bunch of different platforms, what continually strikes me is that he is incredibly slippery and doesn’t answer any questions without reframing it first.
He spent two hours not answering direct, fair questions that were put to him by Sam Harris about the topic of Trump. He is right about viewing different movies at some level though: it’s merely a question of who is creating and who is accepting the alternate reality that is being produced.
Some people are viewing the movie through glasses that allow them to transmute fumbling incompetence as masterful dominance of a game that only some people know exists. If you need to have it explained to you that what appears one thing is actually another, very different thing by an expert, you should be suspicious.
I’m suspicious of Mr. Adams’ constantly shifting assertions regarding Trump. We’ve gone from “Trump is 98% going to win” to “I’m supporting Hillary for my own personal safety” to “Trump’s bombastic statements create contrast” to “Trump needed to get 5% of people to move to him” – none of which fits within the paradigm of “Trump is a master persuader.” Who, exactly, is getting persuaded by this? People who he already had in his corner?
The simpler answer is that Trump is chaos, and in this case the Trumpnado going through the trailer park miraculously assembled a jet. It’s an event that can probably never happen again.
Isn’t Obama’s taking credit for a peaceful Iraq in 2012 exactly the same as what Trump is getting credit for now? I have on this site given Obama no end of grief about his poor decisions in Iraq, and I have also criticized his pussyfooting around on ISIS as well. All the time I am told to ignore what Trump says and pay attention to what he does. Well in this case what he did was follow through on Obama’s policy. And regardless of what Obama said about ISIS (and much of it was stupid and needlessly timid) what he did in the end achieve his stated goals. Did it not? Is ISIS not degraded and destroyed? If we wan’t to criticize Obama maybe it should be that he could have sped the process up some, or done more to avoid the whole things. All of those I think are fair criticisms. But none of that answers the question of what Trump has done to deserve credit for this other than “sounding tough”. But then again as I mentioned I thought we were not supposed to judge him by what he says.
Yet another telling me that Trump is playing 3D chess. I don’t think so but I suppose if he achieves 3% growth and keeps unemployment low and doesn’t kill a lot more Americans in a war … it won’t matter. Maybe the Founders did such a good job that we can survive Trump and Obama. I sure hope so.
No, Jemmy was the short one. Shortest President ever. Had small hands, too. And small feet. Like Little Marco.
As a Dweeby Engineer, I have been either Dilbert or “the Wally” all my life, suck it up James.
I enjoyed the podcast, but why were the guys so incredulous at the thought that Google wouldn’t hire Pope Francis? OF COURSE Google wouldn’t hire the Pope. Google (and I suppose most of its employees) firmly believe that it is morally and ethically superior to, if not His Holiness, the Church of which he is head.
As a Political Science PhD, I supported Trump (no bumper sticker, don’t want my car keyed), I know one other in my university, and probably one other elsewhere (and a History PhD at my school), but most avowed Republican or conservative faculty here I know are adamant that they did not support, and did not vote for, President Trump.
the “style” seems to be a deal breaker with most…
Agreed. The “Master Persuader” has approximately a 40% approval rating (and that’s the high end.) That’s a lot of people not being persuaded.
By style don’t you mean character? But, hey if character doesn’t matter anymore why were we ever so against Bill Clinton? Based on his legislative successes he was one of the Greatest Republican’s ever.
as Scott Adams explained in the podcast, 5% is usually enough.
Indeed, so long as it’s the right 5%.
@Valiuth I agree about character; I sure wouldn’t let him near my daughter! (like Bill…) Not a fan of many aspects of Trump’s character; I kinda like Andrew Kalvan: vote the “psycho,” who might really might be a psych, or the “gangster” who we know is a gangster… he was my 17th preference, but I knew what we would get with Clinton (45), and wasn’t sure that the nation could absorb the damage.
Obama’s character was also deficient, but issues of sexual morality, which seems to be what we mean these days, don’t seem to be a failing of his. (As C.S.Lewis said, it is worse to be a pharisee than a prostitute, but of course better to be neither)
Clinton’s legislative successes were in a more center right country, when middle America seemed consistent, he had to deal with issues of crime (for example) rather than simply renaming them, and he was backed into them by an activist Republican congress. he was capable of triangulating; Obama didn’t want/need to, and HRC is probably not capable.