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.
David French of National Review and talk show host Greg Knapp reflect on the Mueller report 24 hours after its release to the public. They feel good that Trump is not guilty of a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government but David is struck by the vivid and deeply disturbing picture the report creates of a president who is not only an absolute, relentless serial liar surrounded in turn by thoroughly untruthful people, but also a president who is highly disorganized and profoundly weak. They are also perplexed that the Washington Post continues to malign Ben Shapiro.
Subscribe to Three Martini Lunch 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.
Published in: Politics
Your description of French is why he’s acquired the nickname Pharisee French on Twitter.
It is a matter of lower expectations for a black golfer than a president of the United States, not an uncommon sin.
I wonder what opinion David French has of Mike Pence…
Remember, it’s David French who says, in this podcast, that “Trump lies all the time.“ Taken literally and ungenerously (the way Trump critics take his statements), that statement is itself a lie.
An important distinction.
That presumes that he kind of dumb and does not know what he is doing, but I think there is enough evidence to cast doubt on that (namely, his wealth and popularity). I don’t want to misinterpret Scott Adams, who wrote a book on Trump’s persuasive skills (Win Bigly), but he definitely asserts that Trump does what he does on purpose, because (like a salesman) his intent is to persuade rather than inform.
Here is a hypothetical example: Trump says, “We’re gonna win big”. Doesn’t matter what just imagine some situation and Trump says “We’re gonna win big.” In the event, it turns out that we barely win. To people like French, the NeverTrumpers and all the people on the left who hate him, that is a lie. Not just a lie, but a LIE. And that’s baloney. Sure, Trump had no way of knowing the outcome, and he confidently stated what seemed like an outrageous prospect — and directionally, he was telling the truth. He just got the magnitude of it wrong.
He is not the first president to do this. clinton used to make up numbers for his speeches. Nobody really cared. Were there 150,000 jobs created the previous month? Did he have a hand in creating them? clinton would say, “We created 200,00 jobs last month.” All the people in the press knew that he was lying. The whole idea that clinton was responsible for those somewhat mythical 200,000 jobs is also kind of a lie. But it is not an important one and directionally, it’s sort of true. But when Trump does this “OMG! He’s an effing LIAR!”
Trump doesn’t care. And also, Trump did not lie under oath or suborn perjury. But you know who never, ever lied in any aspect of his presidency, neither in public nor in private? Jimmy Carter. Should I prefer Jimmy Carter (for whom I voted twice) to Donald Trump? I’m sorry, but I do not.
The worst form of deception came from Trump’s predecessor, the Lying Liar of Liartown himself, Barack Obama. He lied directionally. He said the opposite of the truth, broke laws (e.g. Fast & Furious, Tea Party persecution, immigration law by EO) and pretended ignorance, and that is an evil kind of deception.
So Trump’s kind of exaggeration I can take.
Assertion: a > b
Counter assertion: !(a > b)
Illogical conclusion: Oh, so you’re claiming that b > a.
If that’s not clear, I’ll put in words. Hint: Consider equality.
I am so sick of the blatantly racist phrase “white privilege”. What if we described your statement as “yellow privilege”. Then it becomes obvious that the reference to the slight tinge of one skin color vs another is an inapt adjective when used to describe a host of cultural and racial characteristics.
Similarly, it would be “problematic“ if we referred to “Jewish privilege“.
Yet that is where progressives’ logic leads.
And may explain why there is so much anti-Semitism in the black community.
After all, if socioeconomic differences between blacks and whites must be accounted for by racism and nothing else, then the still-larger differences between blacks and Jews (and blacks and Asians) must be “super-racism”.
It was tiresome.
I see no sign of Trump trying to change. He’s has been and continues to be a terrible person. Thankfully, his underlings are good people trying to do good things for this country. Hillary is an even more terrible person, but that does not make Trump a good person.
Dividing the world into “good“ people and people who are “not good“ is pretty childish.
Character is multidimensional. In terms of political character, Trump’s stubborn loyalty to the people who elected him, and to the promises he made to them, is exemplary.
For example, it definitely puts him ahead of Bush I, who broke his “no new taxes“ pledge, and ridiculed the people who believed it. Or, arguably, Bush II who, as a lame duck himself, seemed not to care what happened to the Republican Party after he left office.
Or John McCain, who spent much of his political career undermining his own party and the conservative cause — and, for that matter, with McCain-Feingold, the Constitution itself. His last political act was, out of personal pique, to break the promise he had repeatedly made to his constituents, to vote against Obamacare.