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.
Ricochet Founders® Peter Robinson and Rob Long take your questions (after they chat about current events for a few minutes).
Thanks to everyone who chimed in with the great queries. We’ll do this again in a few months. Happy end of summer!
Music from this week’s podcast: I’m Still Here by Follies (New Broadway Cast Recording)
Yes, you should absolutely subscribe to this podcast. It helps! And leave a review too! And for Peter’s sake: JOIN RICOCHET TODAY.
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.
Harry's Shave
Use Code: ricochet
Harry’s produces high-quality razors for 1/2 the price of drugstore brands. Get $5 off your first purchase by using coupon code “RICOCHET” at checkout.
What are you even talking about?
WOW! Imagine if that had come out before the election?! ?
You’re right its a problem. Its a mole hill – but a problem. He should’ve put up a montage ad of himself condemning David Duke how many zillion times over the past 25 years… It should’ve been the easiest charge to refute ever. Trump is a unique ball of dysfunction, but he’s not a racist.
Case in point.
You’re absolutely right. As I already indicated, Trump had disavowed Duke prior to the Tapper interview. Which raises the question of why, during the Tapper interview, he would suddenly decide to give a different answer.
Was it because he was fed up with answering the question?
Doubtful. Because if that were the case, why would he have spouted nonsense like this:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/donald-trump-interview-kkk-219953
Just because something is vile and objectionable, doesn’t mean it’s gonna cost you the election. Let’s face it, sometimes the public does stupid things. Example: Prior to the election of ’08, wasn’t there stuff about Barack Obama (the rantings of his America-hating preacher; his association with a terrorist like Ayers, etc.) that set your teeth on edge? Of course there was. Yet he still went on to win.
These things should have been disqualifying … but they weren’t.
I noticed during the campaign, that Trump gives different answers to the same questions – even questions he’s asked on a near daily basis. He seems to buy into the questioners premise and gives answers based on that premise – even if that answer is opposite of the answer he’d given dozens of times before.
It does tend to drive ratings for his media appearances because the audience has no idea what he will or could say, about any given topic on any given day. This becomes a problem for his opponents to nail him down to a position because he is simultaneously on all sides of almost every issue.
I think what was going on in the Trump/Tapper interview, he didnt want to give a sound bite admitting he knew David Duke. He just got stuck inside a logic bomb and couldn’t get out. Both where adamant in what they wanted and equally adamant not to give in – so you get a display of stupid. I also didnt like the premise Tapper built in the leading to the question.
Okay, here’s the problem with your theory: Nobody was asking Trump if he knew David Duke. Nobody for one split second was even wondering if Trump knew David Duke. All Tapper was asking was how he felt about receiving Duke’s endorsement. It is a question that requires no personal acquaintance with David Duke to answer.
Would Trump have needed to know Son of Sam personally in order to answer the question: “How do you feel about receiving the endorsement of David Berkowitz?” I mean, the question itself is absurd, because the appropriate answer is obvious. And it’s obvious in the case of David Duke, too.
Or at least, it should be.
Yet while Trump wouldn’t have hesitated to denounce David Berkowitz, or Charles Manson, or Bernie Madoff … quickly, automatically, reflexively! … he simply couldn’t bring himself not to equivocate when asked about one of the most high-profile racists on the planet.
You have not actually made your point, but have instead questioned the objectivity of any who disagrees with you.
Yet again, an antitrumper implies people who support Trump are somehow in thrall.
How about you prove your point instead of casting dispersions? I have not seen big attacks on antiTrumpers in this thread, but you seem bound and determined to be offensive.
Chuck Schumer……….seriously………..?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg5ZMtCmaVc
It’s been my observation that everyone who claims Trump wasn’t equivocating during his now-infamous interview with Jake Tapper last year are the same ones who think his remarks regarding the savage murder in Charlottesville last month were adequate to the occasion.
And these people are invariably Trump supporters.
In the case of the Tapper interview, they’ll insist that either A) Trump’s reply to Tapper was that of a guy who was tired of denouncing a person he had already denounced numerous times in the past (“Dude, Trump was playing Tapper like a fiddle! Can’t you see that?!”), or B) that Trump’s earpiece genuinely wasn’t working, as Trump would go on to claim the next day.
Now clearly these explanations can’t both be true. (Read them again; they totally contradict each other), but good luck getting any Trump supporter to acknowledge that obvious contradiction. I used to think such hostility to reason was the sole province of the Left. I no longer think that.
But as it happens, both explanations– both A and B — are sheer nonsense. Pure fairy tales.
Much better.
I am a Trump supporter and I think Trump sensed some sort of trap that he did not understand, and was trying to avoid it. He did poorly, but it is understandable when dealing with the media. I am OK with Trump being rather ordinary in that regard and not super glib. Also, to be honest, I would expect more of that based on his age. Goes with the reduction in fluid intelligence.
So, I don’t subscribe to A or B.
Sorry but I wouldn’t accept that explanation if the shoe were on the other foot — that is, if it was a bunch of Progressives defending their own guy for insufficiently condemning, for example, Louis Farrakhan or some other hate monger on the Left.
The thing is, I can only face the mirror each day when I know I am holding the folks on my side of the political divide to exactly the same — and I do mean precisely the same — ethical standards that I do the folks across the aisle. And I test that commitment to fairness by always asking myself one question: “If the opposition had done the same thing my allies are doing right now … and had defended themselves the way my own side is defending itself … would I find that defense credible, or a load of b.s.?”
In other words, “How would I have felt two years ago if I had seen Barack Obama doing the same thing, and offering the same explanation?”
And if the answer is “I would not have believed him,” I know I am honor bound to call out my own side for its lack of integrity. Indeed we all are.
And justifications like “You can’t bring a knife to a gun fight,” and “We tried fighting fair for years, pal! It hasn’t worked!” etc. are frankly the defenses of a scoundrel, and I can’t have my sons and daughter seeing their father behave in that manner. (And what honorable man could?)
Nothing is worth corrupting one’s soul like that. Even victory.
So you’re saying that your strawman arguments can’t both be true and are in fact sheer nonsense? Tell me more. ?
The left embraces Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
And don’t forget Reza Aslan, Maxine Waters and Linda Sarsour. (To name just three out of hundreds)
Straw man. Riiiiight. Just made ’em up just now.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/271120-trump-blames-lousy-earpiece-for-david-duke-uproar
The Obama/Trump discussion is a good reminder of how nice it can be to eat alone.
We have a winner.
@peterrobinson
Re: Viewing the dead body of a loved one
I had the same feeling Peter had when I saw the dead body of my son. I was yearning to see my boy from the moment I learned of his death. The trip to where he had been living seemed surreal and full of dread. But the moment I saw his body and felt his cold shoulder and opened his eyelids and looked into his lifeless eyes, my first thought was, “This is not my boy. My boy is gone… forever.”
But my father was cremated before I was even notified that he had died and I took his death really hard. I was 20 years younger then than when my boy died. That might have made a difference. But at his memorial service, I could not get over the regret for not having spoken to him in the months before he died.
I was with my mother when she died. She’d been in a coma for a day, but when she took her last breath, I know that something left. She was gone. I can’t describe it.