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.
We were going to take this week off, but the opportunity to do a special holiday weekend edition of the Ricochet Podcast with just The Founders *and James Lileks, of course) proved to be too tempting. The guys talk about Presidential tweets, what to do about health care, what they like to do on the 4th, and life in the ten years since the iPhone debuted. Enjoy the weekend, everyone.
Music from this week’s podcast: Saturday In The Park by Chicago
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.
Boom, @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.
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.
Some of the rest of us like him too. Something to do with humor and writing ability and stuff like that.
That’s what you got out of this thread?
Do enjoy. He’s quite talented.
Pity.
It is not that we are incapable of dealing with criticisms of Trump. Personally, I voted in the general for Trump because he was not Hillary. That’s it. He was my penultimate choice of candidate right ahead of “Acts of Love” ¡JEB! So far, Trump has fulfilled my expectations of not being Hillary. He has exceeded my expectations in his cabinet picks. He exceeded my expectation in not appointing his sister to the Supreme Court (yet), as he at one point suggested in the primary. Is he conservative? No. Would I prefer the perfect conservative to be President? Sure, if we happen to ever find him or her.
So, what’s the issue we’re talking about? It’s the mopeyness. Rob and James do not seem to be having fun. They seem to be slogging through these four years. Their humor has gone sour and bitter. We liked the fun and bright Rob and James. Were they like this with Obama with much more reason to be glum? Not that I remember. If they could have good humor in making fun of the situation under Obama, what is different now? The classless boob is seen as on their side? The funny thing here is that of the three, it is Rob and Peter who were raised in the upper crust and have been the upper crust in their careers. Going to Ivy League Universities and being at the heights of television and political speech-writing. I consider James to be firmly middle-class, from what I know of his background. Yet, Peter has an attitude that I characterize as, “I’m not sure I like this as an overall trend, but Trump seems to be doing the right things outside of Twitter. Let’s see where this goes.” Peter, generally the least in touch with the popular culture, seems to have the best handle and understanding of this particular cultural phenomenon.
I have never listened to the Harvard Lunch Club podcast. Maybe I should give it a listen. I certainly listen to Andrew Klavan, who is having fun with the Trump phenomenon. On the other hand, I stopped listening to Need to Know. They became unlistenable scolds. I don’t want to be driven away from the flagship in the same way. Yes, there is other content here. No, I am not going away. But the flagship is what attracted me here in the first place.
So, once again, I offer the suggestion to James and @roblong, save all Trump talk for the end of the podcast (after all sponsor messages). That makes it easier to turn off than if it’s at the beginning. You can call the feature “Trump Time.” It will be like making the podcast like it used to be, but slightly shorter.
If they need a refresher, they can listen to the segments with VDH. Or David Limbaugh.
Mark, it does help since you clarified that you were speaking of the “administration” and not just Trump. I would expand those who “care about the US” to a much larger group.
My main disagreement is the assumption that leftists/liberals/progressives (choose one) DON’T care about the US. Some may, some may not. I don’t know what beats in their hearts. They may care deeply about the US, but would like it to see it transformed into something quite different.
I tend to chafe when we start weighing other people’s patriotism. The best I can do is to sift and evaluate their preferred policies and actions – and I judge them (for the most part) to be offensive, wrong-headed, and injurious to our country.
About that – and maybe only that – perhaps we can agree.
I think that’s a wise idea – if there’s a week where the signal / noise ratio gets us salty. But if he renews the old deal to give Poland theater-defense systems, that ought to take top-of-the-show billing.
If you have encapsulated the vision of Ricochet in this post, then perhaps it is best that I do not renew my membership. If most of the podcasts on Ricochet have such differences of opinion from my own, primarily regarding Trump’s presidency, then I could turn on any news cast, listen to NPR, or talk to most of the people I’m surrounded by here in liberal New York, and I don’t have to spend good money in doing so. I was under the impression when I joined Ricochet that I was going to get edified and energized by listening to my fellow conservatives and find a sanctuary with like-minded people amid all those attacking the values that I cherish. The very first Ricochet podcast consisted of Mark Steyn, Peter Robinson, Rob Long and I think James Lileks- and I can still remember how enjoyable and encouraging it was to listen to- even with the rhino squish, Rob Long! Alas, this is no longer the case, and if all I could listen to without getting disheartened is the Harvard Lunch Podcast, then I might as well join the Steyn Club or Rush 24/7. My bad for misjudging the vision of Ricochet and thank you Eugene for clarifying that fact.
I’d like to hear that podcast. Don’t think it will happen though. Never know.
Yes semantics can get in the way. The main difference between our two points of view is one in which you seem to be confusing patriotism as removed from policy. Patriotism is a nebulous concept that can be twisted into darn near anything you want it to be. Not a criticism, just a statement of fact. Policy is the objective manifestation of how and what you are going to do with said “patriotism”. In other words, don’t tell me, show me.
The Left (see Obama on the IRS, DOJ, Bo Bergdahl, Iran, Planned Parenthood, teachers unions, as a sampling. And, since there is a word limit, I’ll stop here before my laptop gives out…).
The Media that’s biased, objectively so. Again: party affiliation, negative stories, ‘buried stories’, constant cheerleading of the newest Leftist fad…
This might be some form of, uh, er, ‘patriotism’ but it sure ain’t good for the USA.
As President Trump rumbles through some of the most consequential issues that have faced a President, its time to focus on these issues and how he should act upon them. And, this is where critical analysis should primarily aim. That’s our point. The podcast is interesting, (which is why I listen and comment on it). It could be better.
History will judge what mattered more: 1) the economy, a nuclear stand-off with North Korea, The Mid-east, relations with China, Russia, Jihadism, Nato, et al ; or, 2) some rude tweets.
Yep, prioritization matters.
As I’ve said before, there are more podcasts on Ricochet than I have the time to listen to. So I can’t personally vouch for the quality of the Harvard Lunch Club podcasts but I’m under the impression a lot of people enjoy them. I took the time to add up how much time the HLC podcasts added up to in June (4:51:04) and it’s actually more time than the June editions of the Flagship podcast (4:32:13). So you wouldn’t be short-changed by making that substitution. If you hadn’t seen my earlier comment on this, Radio Deplorable and The Classicist are also fairly pro-Trump, and I’m sure there are others. If you choose to bail, that’s your business, but you may want to sample some of these other podcasts and see if they don’t bring you some satisfaction.
And Klavan, always Klavan.
I’m not sure how much these are really pro-Trump as they really understand why Trump happened and agree with the sentiment.
I want an echo previous collar.
We had a lot of important stuff going on last week and instead of focusing on those important issues. Like Project Veritas, exposing CNN for Frauds, the Failing NYT writing on how the poor smugglers are going out of business, or something even trivial like the fall of Mosul and Iraq declaring the Caliphate dead. Stuff like that.
Issues that the listener of the podcast might want to hear about.
Klavan and I are in the same boat. We really wanted Cruz and we are settling for Trump. And Trump is delivering on enough to work.
Which time with VDH? The time you disparaged him to his face, or the time you thought better of it and didn’t engage at all, and waited until he was gone to dis’ him?
Perhaps you’ve gone back and listened and found one you’re proud of.
EDIT: But you know what? That’s my recollection. Listeners don’t need to take my word for it. They’ll judge you going forward.
@peterrobinson hurt my feelings talking about the California travel ban without mentioning my post on the issue! I attribute it to his obvious infatuation with Texas even though they are in fact Tennessee’s little brother. :)
Peter is right! I am sooooo bored with this psychosis y’all have with Trump, and am nearly to the point of not renewing my membership. While a full paying member, I’ve given up on some of the more virulent Ricochet anti-Trump podcasts, and move on to others once a Ricochet ‘cast begins to rant yet again about Trump. The anti-Trump rants won’t change him, his policies and decisions continue to be what this nation has been asking for, and frankly, I can save myself a bunch of money by going directly to individual podcasts that I don’t have to pay Ricochet for.
Why not follow Peter’s eminently reasonable approach and move on to “new”s instead of dwelling on matters of which you have no control and just potentially reduce your funding base? I for one am not asking the ‘casts to avoid a discussion of policy disagreements with the Trump administration (where they exist), but would it really be asking too much to keep the invective and snarky sarcasm out of the programs?
Arahant (View Comment):
Eugene Kriegsmann (View Comment):
For those incapable of dealing with criticism of Trump…
I have never listened to the Harvard Lunch Club podcast. Maybe I should give it a listen. I certainly listen to Andrew Klavan, who is having fun with the Trump phenomenon. On the other hand, I stopped listening to Need to Know. They became unlistenable scolds. I don’t want to be driven away from the flagship in the same way. Yes, there is other content here. No, I am not going away. But the flagship is what attracted me here in the first place.
So, once again, I offer the suggestion to James and @roblong, save all Trump talk for the end of the podcast (after all sponsor messages). That makes it easier to turn off than if it’s at the beginning. You can call the feature “Trump Time.” It will be like making the podcast like it used to be, but slightly shorter.
Arahant (View Comment):
Eugene Kriegsmann (View Comment):
For those incapable of dealing with criticism of TRump….
I have never listened to the Harvard Lunch Club podcast. Maybe I should give it a listen.
I tried the Harvard Lunch Club podcast the other day. They had on Rob Long. Rob was easier to take than the other two. It’s one thing to be even-handed; it’s quite another to be a cheering squad. Saying his flatulence smells like roses is no better than criticizing his every move. Trump ain’t Texas Tech, after all. Right @mikelaroche?
I’ll stick with Klavan and hope the Flagship improves.
I am often in disagreement with the hosts, but I still very much enjoy the podcast. They are two very bright guys from very different backgrounds who consistently produce an enjoyable conversation. They are strong supporters of Trump, though more rational about it than some I have heard. For those who need their choices confirmed in terms of Donald Trump, this might be a good place to go.
I found Mike and Todd to be an effective antidote to Rob’s fact-free bluster.
More power to ya, then. It’s why we have a variety of podcasts.