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.
Agree with him or not, our guest today is a man of true grit. Former Navy SEAL and representative of Texas’ 2nd congressional district, Dan Crenshaw joins the podcast to discuss the Intel Community; the rising temperature of the conflict in Ukraine; and our very own border, which, you may have heard, has its own problemos.
Florida man Charlie Cooke is with us again, and he’s got thought on football and his governor. James defies Twitter, comes out as pro-“the” and anti-peasantry; Peter still likes what we used to call chivalry.
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.
That’s already happening because of the U.S. and NATO. And goes back a lot longer than Feb. 23, 2022.
I regret that I have only one LIKE to give this comment.
When you characterize reasonable debate and reasonable calls for justice as raving like your hair’s on fire, you’re helping the Democrats discredit the conservative side. Although, I agree with a few of the others that the Dems don’t need help to do that – nor do they need reality or truth.
Besides, haven’t you ever asked yourself why this isn’t a two way street? Why Dem raving never discredits them? They’re the party of racism, anti-science, crime, authoritarianism, and secret genital mutilation of our children. Yet we’re the backwards haters still. Geez, if you’re hair isn’t on fire then I reasonably question whose side you’re on.
I get the sentiment, but what do you think the reintegration of Ukraine’s pre-2022 losses will look like?
I’m confused. Who characterized “reasonable debate and reasonable calls for justice as raving like your hair’s on fire”? Who said “Dem raving never discredits them?” Or is this just an emotional rant a sensible person should ignore?
Some of the “20 holdouts” might be interesting to listen to, even if they damaged the Republican Party with their stunt, and made it likelier that the Democrats will regain control of the House in two years.
I have to admit, though, I’ve been seriously thinking about demanding that Matt Gaetz give back the $200 I donated to his campaign over the last two years.
Those twenty are the only reason I have any support to offer for McCarthy. They didn’t damage the party — they inconvenienced those who don’t to do or change anything, the business-as-usual cohort. They have strengthened the party, strengthened McCarthy, and elevated this session to something I have tentative hope for.
If you want Republicans who sound like Democrats, then vote Democrat, but leave us out of it.
The Russians, or at least Putin, are special in going back on a deal Russia made. Putin‘s attitude appears to be, oh yeah, that was a different Russian government, so I don’t care what they did: give Crimea to Ukraine, recognize Ukrainian (Georgian, Moldovan) borders, etc.
A good analogy would be if the US decided that, on second thought, we’re taking back the Panama Canal Zone and reoccupying the Philippines. Talking about our “historic claim” would be nonsense, as Congressman Dan points out.
Digression: “The entire existence of the USA is based on the extermination or deportation of the indigenous population is it not?” Interesting to see the extent to which conservatives swallow left-wing propaganda. The extermination myth is based on the fact that Native Americans had little resistance to Old World diseases. The settlers, white and black, didn’t want to kill them, just move them out of the way. On the other hand, Native American tribes did engage in wars of extermination: the Sioux against the Pawnee, the Comanche against the Kickapoo and Tonkawa. Well, deportation, then? A mixed bag: trade, sale, treaty, warfare. Before the settlers arrived, land (like the Black Hills) had changed hands between tribes only by warfare. The settlers introduced peaceful methods, though they sometimes behaved no better than the tribes.
Oh for the love of god. This is the second time some person on this site, has accused me of falling for leftist talking points.
Dude I am well aware of the complicated nature of history. If you were to pull your head of your butt for more 3 seconds, you would realize what you just described is no different than what the Czarist Russians did. Which was my point.
But your to full of yourself to see that.
Obviously I mean that I disagree with your characterization of certain people raving like their hair is on fire.
Also, obviously, I disagree with your assertion that raving like our hair is on fire is what drives damage to the conservative side. One because it’s rarely actually that, and two because the actual driver of damage (or lack thereof) is something else entirely.
Democrats do hair-on-fire-screaming all the time. They’re generally lying while they’re screaming. But yeah, it’s Peter Robinson who has his hair on fire, right?
Charles made a comment on how the Kansas City Chiefs fans were very hospitable and welcoming.
Being a Twins fan, I’ve been to three games at Kaufman Stadium and it’s my favorite road stadium. The people are great. They treat you as a guest, they small talk and chat you up, and love to talk baseball. It’s always a great trip.
If your team plays the Royals, a road trip is a must. It’s a great stadium, plenty of great places to eat, and lots to see.
Listening to this blowhard. What a condescending shill.
When I was home in Kansas for Christmas, Dad was talking about the Royals wanting a new stadium. I saw two games there as a kid and enjoyed the experience.
A lot of the comments on this podcast, and other “conservative” podcasts are like what I used to read in The Nation. The Russian government is misunderstood. American allies are hopelessly corrupt. The US government is nefarious.
What do you think about the U.S. government?
What “certain people” did I characterize as “raving like their hair is on fire”?
Perhaps this formulation may be more acceptable: Republicans should refrain from sounding like crackpots or fringe radicals to independent voters.
For example, there are arguments that can be made in support of, say, abolishing the IRS or the FBI or Social Security. But independent voters have never heard those arguments, so one comes across as a crackpot, to be disregarded. There are even arguments (not very good ones) that can be made in favor of abortion bans that don’t make an exception for rape and incest, but the vast majority of Americans recoil in horror. (Democratic TV ads I saw gleefully smeared all Republicans with this, possibly accounting for Republican underperformance.)
You misunderstand human nature and politics. We are not rational creatures who arrive at conclusions after carefully weighing facts and options. Instead, we leap to conclusions based on animal motives and then conduct well-rehearsed rituals of rationalization.
You cannot reason somebody out of a position they did not reason themselves into. Steak sells because it sizzles, not because it provides protein. Democrats understand this and Republicans lose.
@torywarwriter — “Oh for the love of god. This is the second time some person on this site, has accused me of falling for leftist talking points.
“Dude I am well aware of the complicated nature of history. If you were to pull your head of your butt for more 3 seconds, you would realize what you just described is no different than what the Czarist Russians did. Which was my point.
“But your to full of yourself to see that.”
Well, if you stop “falling for leftist talking points”, people will stop accusing you of it.
You misunderstand my point about Crimea. The policy of extermination and deportation in Crimea was not carried out by Czarist Russia, but by Stalinist Russia. While Czarist Russia took Crimea by force from Turkey, it largely left the Tatar inhabitants alone, to go on living their lives.
The extent to which the Czarist “Winning of the East” resembles the American “Winning of the West” is debatable. But, whatever the case, Stalinist Russia was on an entirely different level.
You didn’t name anyone in particular, but I assumed (prematurely) that you would answer similarly to the way you did here. In an environment where my earlier laundry list of leftist radicalism is actually leaving many things out, any effort spent battling teammates about abolishing the IRS, FBI, or social security, or outlawing abortion without exception (none of them new ideas), is effort that should have been spent battling the other guys – the true authoritarian radical crackpots. Even if you don’t agree with some of the ideas of some of your teammates, you can at least refrain from talking about those ideas in the worst light instead of the best light. You don’t have to agree, just don’t demagogue them.
This reminds me of how the YEC’s were treated here on Ricochet several years ago. It was pretty clear that shooting inside the tent wasn’t an issue for far too many people.
Is it your point that some ideas are so silly, they should be above criticism?
Republican candidates who take fringe positions not only guarantee their own defeat, but damage the party as a whole. This is why the Democrats are pouring money into Republican primaries, to help such candidates get nominated.
It’s interesting how many “fringe beliefs” are now mainstream thought. The idea that COVID came from a lab was called “fringe” by the “expert class.”
There’s another take: Marxists have so radicalized the left and intimidated the right that Democrats call us names, and Republicans hang our heads. Nobody wants to join the loser team. People will go with their gut and then expend barrels of ink justifying their animal decision as if they had reasoned their way to it.
Democrats are far more fringe than Republicans could even dream of being. As Peter Robinson pointed out on the latest flagship podcast (this thread!), Democrat positions lose most of the time with most of the people when considered “objectively”. But when positions are advanced by a vicious, bloodthirsty wrecking crew on one hand, and by a bunch of apologetic milquetoasts on the other — nobody joins the team that’s clearly going to get creamed.
Fringy Trump slaughtered in the primary and clinched Hillary’s Sure Thing. Why? “HE FIGHTS.” Sound familiar?
People like Dan Crenshaw will always have a bogeyman further right to blame — that doesn’t make it meaningful.
No that isn’t my point. Similar to Drew, my point is that your idea of home team “fringe” and the productive response to it is structurally self defeating. One way ratchet. Independents have never heard of ideas about abolishing the IRS? Well better, I guess, to bash those people than to explain the idea and the bigger problems it’s trying to solve.
If the 20 who opposed McCarthy and as a result got a bunch of really good concessions are “fringe,” then I stand with the fringe.
Heh, you and Pete Davidson are on the same wavelength. Didn’t expect that.
Well, to be precise, by the “expert liar class”. Like immunologist-bureaucrat Anthony Fauci trying to suppress the epidemiological views of leading epidemiologists, with the assistance of geneticist-bureaucrat Francis Collins.
Fauci and Collins really are (or were) scientific experts, but pontificating outside their area of expertise.
And lying about what they were doing within their areas of expertise, Fauci anyway.
I question whether they were ever anything but bureaucrats on the take. Both belong in Prison Orange Jumpsuits.
Trump, basically a conservative Democrat in the mold of JFK, won in 2016 because his views were not “fringy”.
For example, he was attacked by some conservatives for his wholehearted embrace of Social Security.
And most Americans are for immigration restriction. Trump’s hand would have been strengthened if he had done a referendum.
In political terms, “fringe” is defined by the swing voters you’re trying to win over. Does what you say make sense to them? If not, is it feasible to reeducate them, or do you have to work around their current beliefs — even if those beliefs are mistaken?
By Congressman Dan’s account, the concessions were not worth the cost — but I haven’t seen a conclusive reckoning.