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.
Even if it doesn’t normally win popularity contests, we like to keep things candid (but fun!) on the Ricochet podcast. And even if it cost US attorney general Bill Barr some popularity points, we still want to hang out with him! He’s just published his memoir One Damn Thing After Another, and the gang do what they can to get at all the damn things. Barr proves still-adept at handling himself when things are coming in from all directions.
Rob also talks Ukraine and reassess the way history repeats itself; Peter applauds Elon Musk’s latest undertaking; and James wonders about the “groomer” conversation. Plus, shoutouts to Saint Augustine and Jenna Stocker–just cuz they’re awesome Ricochet members!
Music from this week’s podcast: You’ve Got to Stand for Somethin’ by John Mellencamp
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.
If memory serves you have never given me a citation of a court case. The benefit of a court case is that the claims of each party are subjected to cross-examination before a neutral decision maker.
A Heavy-Weight Boxer once said that every fight plan changes when you first get hit. Cross examination is critical for determining truth.
Please provide me with a citation of an actual court case, not some dog and pony show put on.
Barr did investigate. He found that there was nothing there.
I linked you to a site that detailed every case, its status, links to the charging documents etc…you ignored it, each and every time. I’m not interested in Gary’s dog and pony show: Demand evidence, ignore evidence given, demand information, ignore information given, demand arguments, ignore arguments. I’m only writing this now to point out you aren’t sincere and aren’t interested in facts that don’t support your prejudice.
@garyrobbins — Here’s a little empirical data for you to consider: compare the number of “likes“ your comments get, to the number on comments disagreeing with you. I suspect you are, pretty much, alone in your extreme TDS.
You are Ricochet’s Lowell Weicker, and I value you for that. Remember how he described himself, as a “[something] in the punch bowl”?
@garyrobbins — Inadvertently, you strengthen the case for a stolen election in 2020. Because anyone who believes as you do would feel ethically obligated to engage in any and all forms of election fraud to keep the (in your mind) uniquely evil Donald Trump out of power.
I mean, you say you would vote for Ilhan Omar instead of voting for Trump.
P.S.: You have to be deeply lost in TDS to imagine that a) holding a peaceful rally, and b) ordering rioters to go home, constitutes an attempt to “overthrow the government”.
It only bothered me for a short time, but he has never been educational.
It would have been sufficient to NOT claim that everything was hunky-dory, which serves as a cudgel being used against actual investigations and the people who support them.
One reason I stopped listening to Hugh Hewitt is that his “long chats” tend to be about 10 minutes.
Also, his one-podcast-and-no-chat web site costs more than Ricochet.
Also, Hugh is one of those people who think their 40-years-ago government work make them still a good resource today.
Barr couldn’t have done any real investigation in that time period.
This is really stupid rhetoric. It has nothing to do with what I said. Just listen to the first 10 minutes.
You can do what you like, and I would listen to David Mamet on some other podcast, but not with Hugh Hewitt. It just encourages him.
This is some great big problem? I don’t think so. Mamet said some very intelligent things about the United States of America right at the beginning. I would say he’s uniquely contributive to better thinking.
You are making a separate, gratuitous point.
I’m afraid Gary wins this round. An argument that is not actually presented cannot prove anything. It’s not enough to say that somewhere there is an argument that, had it been presented, would have won.
One of the most common errors I have seen in argumentation is when one of the parties simply assumes everybody knows what he knows.
Even Rush Limbaugh made this mistake. I remember him during the Clinton scandals, sadly stating that the American public evidently doesn’t care about Clinton’s misconduct. In reality, the American public, vastly less well-informed than Rush, only had vague notions of what Clinton had done, mostly that it was something like “lying about sex”.
I don’t think you have that right, Vince’s point seems to be that the argument, the evidence, etc, HAVE BEEN presented to Gary, more than once, but he just ignores them and pretends it didn’t happen. That’s not the same thing.
Good point. Even before they are eventually converted to Democratic machine voters, if they ever are, they already help the Democrats run up their population numbers.
It reminds me of how Southerners wanted to count all the slaves, to give more power to their owners. The fact that they settled for the three-fifths compromise suggests they tacitly admitted Southern Congressmen were not going to be actually representing the interest of the slaves.
Vince makes an assertion, without even a link to support it; Gary denies it; and we’re supposed to believe Vince on faith. How about one (1) good example?
Given his past behavior, why would you believe Gary over Vince?
Gary needs to argue like he’s on the Internet, not like a lawyer. You aren’t trying to win at any cost, here.
Also, there is nothing worse than a lawyer with high rhetorical ability who hasn’t either studied the subject or assessed the reality of the situation. It’s very difficult to deal with.
I’m actually highly sympathetic to Gary’s view, I just don’t agree with it. The ground truth is not what Gary has in his idealistic head.
Who says I do?
Point is, Vince should be able to refute Gary easily, but doesn’t do it. I’d like to believe him …
You expect Vince to re-post all that stuff again, just because Gary claims he didn’t see it? I think by now, most people understand that’s a waste of time.
I cannot believe I renewed my Ricochet membership because I had to express my disagreement with Peter Robinson of all people! Peter is someone I respect immensely and he is, IMHO the best long form interviewer in the business today. Listening to this podcast however I was surprised to hear him say Trump is a patriot. I cannot disagree more. I cannot think of a single instance where Trump has sacrificed for the country. He has always acted in what he sees as his self interest even when nation suffers as a result. This is true from the time he faked bone spurs to avoid uniformed service to Jan 6th, 2021 and to today. There are many words with which you can accurately describe Donald J. Trump, patriot is not one of them.
I wrote, “How about one (1) good example?” Or even just a link? When Vince fails to do so, this strengthens Gary’s argument that the material doesn’t exist.
If Vince’s intent was to preach only to the converted, then he might as well have not bothered to comment at all.
Becoming President has cost Donald Trump over $1 billion, according to Forbes. This is a typical pattern, of course: Democrats go into politics to get rich; Republicans, to get poor.
This is not money spent on the campaign itself, bear in mind. Rather, by becoming a Republican candidate he unleashed a vast army of slanderers to tear him down and reduce the value of the Trump name.
Not to mention an army of corrupt Democratic prosecutors and Congressmen who not only want to destroy him politically, but put him and his children in prison if they can. None of this happened before he became a Republican candidate, you will note.
After Trump was elected, he could have betrayed Republican voters and pandered to liberals; for example, by naming Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. If he had, there would have been a positive lovefest.
Similarly, Trump harvested a vast amount of hate because he refused to betray his voters on immigration. He could easily have said he gave it his best shot, and thrown in the towel, getting “strange new respect” from the liberal media. But he never did.
The quote works better when you get it right:
“Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face”.
Mike Tyson.
[I’ve also heard it quoted as “punched in the mouth”]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YULytWUaKR0
Well, I would vote for Trump over Ilhan Omar, AOC, Cori Bush and Lia Thomas.
And Rob is one of the Co-founders of Ricochet. Not bad. Not bad at all.
You keep thinking like it’s the 70s. This is the wrong analysis.
Well, we are finally going to get the court battle we have all been waiting for when the Dominion cases go to trial.
I looked for it and could not find it. Thanks.