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.
The Raptor’s Eye
A couple of days ago I watched a replay of the historic and catastrophic (for the Democrats) June 27 debate between President Biden and Donald Trump. While viewing the debate I saw something that I wondered if anybody else had noticed. And that was the look on the ex-president’s face at one point in the evening as he watched Biden immolate his and his party’s electoral chances
Trump tilted his head and sharply focused his eyes on the floundering Biden in an expression that reminded me nothing so much as a bird of prey preparing to swoop down on its intended victim. Most of us have seen the tightly focused and ruthless stare raptors have while watching various nature shows, it’s the look an eagle has on its face just before it stoops to rend and devour its prey.
Apart from predation though, that cold, hard look may also demonstrate vigilance and calculation, which are essential for any national leader, especially the leader of great power like the USA, for navigating the shark tank of modern-day geopolitics.
Trump’s focused stare during the debate hopefully shows that Trump — if he manages to take back the White House — will probably have office hours that are more convenient for America than President Biden’s 10 A.M. 4 P.M. work day.
Published in Elections
Good eye.
Trump’s demeanor at the debate had nothing to do with him. Both CNN and the Biden campaign thought it was an excellent idea to mute his mic when the President was speaking. Otherwise it would have been a repeat of his 2020 performances in the debate: obnoxious, badgering and bullying.
Was that “the raptor’s stare” or just a man who was pissed off because his mic wasn’t on?
At 78 years of age Donald Trump is who he is. Unchained from CNN’s technical grasp he’s going to be the same person he ever was, which is exactly why there’s a large portion of us on the right who are unenthusiastic about him being the nominee.
A person who changed quite a bit, and continues to change.
From rich to broke to rich again; from Democrat to Republican; from Ivana to Marla to Melania; from builder to showrunner to POTUS; from shaving Vince McMahon’s head to brokering the Abraham Accords.
The understated, winning debate performance with the instinctively perfect head tilt and response at the critical moment indicates a sharpened, more disciplined persona.
Next, he must up his game on VP selection, thinking more this time about succession. The Most Famous Person on Earth is a tough act to follow.
To many of us, the post-Reagan/pre-Trump GOP was an uptight citizen’s brigade. A post-Trump GOP will have a difficult time retaining his 75 million voters.
Especially if they keep up with the repudiation.
That’s not change. He was, is and shall ever be an opportunist without principle. None of those things reflects anything but his belief in doing whatever it is he thinks benefits Donald Trump.
He was a Democrat in NYC because the machine runs that town and he was purchasing access and power. He’s a Republican now for the same reason.
He has had three marriages because loyalty is a one way street that has to benefit him. I have almost as many kids as Donald Trump but they all have the same mother.
Yes, Donald Trump has had many careers. He’s also screwed a lot of people in those careers along the way. But whatever brings him that temporary adoration is what he’ll do.
Again, not necessarily of his choosing. Some times political success is just dumb luck and failure on your opponents part. Trump didn’t maneuver Hillary into campaigning in California when she should have been in Wisconsin and he didn’t make the Biden camp demand the CNN mute his mic during Biden’s ramblings and incoherence.
Which is what happens when you build your political party around personality instead of principles. It’s not a selling point.
I was recently admonished because the author I was quoting used a not so veiled abbreviation for a well known, and in this degraded society of ours, commonplace crudity. I pose this question to you in all good faith and as a member of the staff: will I be “redacted” again for quoting your crudity or is the phrase you used no longer considered in poor taste? I am aware it is in general usage; so is the one I copied. Your assistance in enlightening me would be genuinely appreciated.
@michaelgallagher, thank you for this post and the sharp observation which prompted it. I have a difficult time trying to understand the Never Trumpers who seem be with us in full force in being sure we are constantly reminded of the former President’s many pecadilloes and blemishes, as they have every right to do, of course. However, I am left to wonder what exactly they plan to do when election time comes around– I’m so old I can clearly remember when we used to refer to it as “Election Day”!– and the choice is between something just one level above a completely non-functioning person, physically and mentally, and a former President who had one of the most successful Presidencies in American history. I guess it’s because I am almost completely without all the nuances and brilliance of the “elite” but my decision is really quite simple, like me. It was exactly as simple in 2016 when the Democrats nominated one of the most thoroughly corrupt and dishonest candidates in our history.
@JimKearney, thank you for this excellent comment. I agree with all of it but have to note it saddens me to have to agree with your last sentence but I think it is spot on. What will that leave for our nation’s future but for the Marxists to have another clear shot at destroying America?
The general rule is if you can hear the word on prime time television in 2024 it’s more or less acceptable. There is a filter on everything that is typed in the comments. Had you not used an asterisk in the word you used the redaction would have immediate.
Under that test the word I quoted, not used as I do not use crudity or profanity, e.g., p[ ] o[ ] in any of my writings, here or anywhere, should not have been redacted. My Lady and I continue to be astonished at the acts shown on TV, not just the words. I am not advocating for a lowering of standards in making these observations; as old-fashioned as it my sound the use the following kind of language, as one might expect from an old person like myself, I am appalled at what I see and hear on television these days.
I still await a clear reason for the redaction (and warning!) when a member of the staff, no less, uses language like that which you employed. If you do not care to give one, that is certainly your prerogative.
I’m registered as an independent voter now, so post-Trump I’m open to splits in both parties (but not those which open the door to the Left as happened in Britain yesterday.)
I’d like to see a new or reformed major party combine fiscal conservatism and a tough, traditional stance on crime and immigration with full recognition and representation of social liberty: personal individual freedom of behavior legally favored over traditional faith-based morality.
A significant % of GOP voters (not registered party loyalists) want this. If the religious right doesn’t stop banning and shunning social issue dissidents, my second choice would be to vote for a revival of moderate JFK-style Democrats taking the responsibility to excommunicate the Far Left squaddies from American political life.
He did what he had to do. Reagan changed affiliation, too. I just wish they both hadn’t taken on the right wing position on reproductive rights to further their chances of winning the White House. Call it compromised principles or a pragmatic conscience, it is what politicians do.
Or maybe he wasn’t always as lucky in love as some of us, but kept trying. I admired Ivana and despite the divorce they raised great kids. The Marla affair was the type many men would have had on the side without commitment, but not him. Melania is highly intelligent in addition to being a world class beauty. Someday, who knows, Barron could wind up being a giant in more ways than one, he certainly inherited some unusual genes. In so many ways Trump has led a larger-than-life existence, made his mark.
Au contraire, it’s a fundamental selling point in our media age. You’ve probably sat in control rooms frustrated by some incredibly ordinary non-personality droning on. Trump is many things, not boring.
Principles — political principles — are worth debating. As I said, Trump’s conversion to “pro-lifer” was just a little too convenient. He probably convinced himself it was principled. Now his position on reproductive rights is a search for the right “undo” button — like the poor red state women with unplanned pregnancies. For that, he deserves to lose votes. Hopefully not the election. [side note: Wisconsin’s new decision to reopen mail-in ballot boxes was a direct outcome of a judicial election fought over the abortion issue.]
Trump’s stance on immigration and trade, however, stayed with him over the decades. He cares deeply about the displaced American working class, and he created thousands of jobs over the years. Trump came to befriend and care about the construction workers his dad forced on him. And he kept on creating jobs. One of my former students won an editing Emmy in a job Trump created.
Sure Trump used his TV show to showcase his ego and his boss image, but America needed an iconic businessman tough enough to say “you’re fired!” in an age when HR risk-aversion impedes just dismissals. Hell, most of the other businessmen portrayed on NBC are killers.
Jim, be reasonable. How many people on Ricochet think that the word we redacted and the phrase EJ used are in the same league? And the fact that you were quoting someone else does not mean it is OK on Ricochet. Tell me, if someone quoted a piece of Kevin Hart standup comedy and it included half a dozen examples of the F-word, do you think the Ricochet membership would say that is legitimate, because they are simply quoting someone else?
Seems like the famous “seven dirty words” still have impact. All hail George Carlin, king of linguistic comedy!
No reason to get too “P.O.’d” about limits in one of the few public spaces where most folks and the editors make an honest effort to ensure courteous use of language.
I believe the mike muting was a blessing in disguise for Trump. It kept the debate focused on who was speaking, and letting Biden speak was something he should’ve done in 2020 . . .
Mea culpa.
However, I still consider it crude to use on a public forum a description of a bodily function designed to eliminate waste whether everyone does it or not and I have the right to say so. Shame the person who did will never admit it as I did. By the way, to further prove my bona fides as a product of the Stone Age, who is Kevin Hart?
He is an extremely popular and profane comedian. He actually can deliver some funny stuff on broadcast TV. Freed from the shackles of broadcast TV standards, such as in a live comedy concert, he is far less funny because his live audiences roll in the aisles just hearing him curse non-stop.
As long as I’ve been alive, a politician who constantly changes his political stances has been considered unscrupulous, an opportunist, a charlatan. Those are not pluses.
Depends on how many times he flips back and forth and in which direction. Ronald Reagan changed. Once per opinion and in the right direction. The one thing that has not changed about Trump is that he loves America. How many Democrat politicians can we say that about? They love graft. And as for most of the Republican politicians, they never say they changed their minds, but how do they vote? Trump has a history of results. He managed things that Republican Presidents had been talking about for decades. Yes, he also made mistakes. There is the possibility that he will not do so again. At least, not the same mistakes.
I know Trump is honest. Not to say that he doesnt bloviate, exaggerate and even lie, but I know he’s honest. Because of all the recent presidents, I think he’s poorer leaving the White House than when he got in.
Excellent point.
Or, in meme form:
EJHill
That is what worries me quite a bit. Trump right now looks good compared to Biden, but how will he fare against the likes of Gavin Noisome and Michelle Obama? I wanted DeSantis or Vivek Ramaswamy who, given his supposed tech background, might make a good choice for dealing with the problems surrounding AI. Trump is the classic example of the saying “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.”
I hope your anger toward Trump doesn’t prevent you from voting in November.
Look what’s going on across the aisle right now. Joe Biden’s cognitive condition was laid bare during the debate and a lot of people are yelling “Coverup!” at the press, at the White House, and at anyone who has had any extensive exposure to the president. And you might ask yourself, “How does that happen?”
Simple. Once you’ve convinced yourself that the alternatives are untenable then you start building a protective bubble around “your guy.” You start out by helping to delude others and then you start deluding yourself. You abandon your principles and keep telling yourself that the other guy is so bad you’re actually committing a principled and ethical act. But it’s just enabling.
I refuse to build any comforting lies around Donald Trump. People have tried to reassure me by saying he really has a solid plan this time and point to the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” as proof. And then, Trump comes out just yesterday and says he doesn’t know what it is, doesn’t know who’s behind it and he doesn’t have anything to do with it.
”He’s changed. He’s disciplined. He has a plan. He’s not hostile to the Constitution. He has ‘proof’ of widespread election fraud. Stormy Daniels was ‘a youthful indiscretion.’” They are lies we tell ourselves. They are lies I am not participating in.
From rich to broke to rich again; from Democrat to Republican; from Ivana to Marla to Melania; from builder to showrunner to POTUS; from shaving Vince McMahon’s head to brokering the Abraham Accords.
The understated, winning debate performance with the instinctively perfect head tilt and response at the critical moment indicates a sharpened, more disciplined persona.
Next, he must up his game on VP selection, thinking more this time about succession. The Most Famous Person on Earth is a tough act to follow.
To many of us, the post-Reagan/pre-Trump GOP was an uptight citizen’s brigade. A post-Trump GOP will have a difficult time retaining his 75 million voters.@JimKearney, @ejhill
Yes, somebody has told him to pay attention to Napoleon’s (?) old maxim about not interfering while your enemy is making a mistake. He’s been remarkably restrained over the last few weeks.
@kedavis, @jimkearney
If Trump makes it into the White House again, voter retention will depend on how successful his time in office will have been, and on his anointed successor.
@JimKearney
One of Frederick Douglass’s four boxes to the rescue? Though this being the 21st century, a digital variety may be more acceptable. Also, don’t forget about Irish Democracy.
@jimgeorge, @jimkearney
I’m afraid JFK-style Dems or Bill Clinton-style Dems will be the out crowd in the Democratic Party for quite a while. The Left seems to be in almost full control of the party’s kiddy car for now. What the Dems need is a most thorough beating to knock some sense into them. But even that may not help them. Idea-wise, they’ve run out of gas and have nowhere to go. Going forward, they have to get more radical, which will implode on them sooner or later. Going backwards will be an admission that their current radicalism is a failure, and would mean adopting policies that the Party’s Left would regard as unacceptable neolithic-level conservatism. It’s conceivable that the Democratic Party could break apart and become two separate, smaller parties. One party would be the Second Coming of Bill Clinton in terms of policy. In contrast, the second party would be a smaller, far more radical organization with a younger Beria Bernie figure at its head.
Agreed. Whether a voter is a committed Democrat or a committed Republican, they can look at the recent debate and conclude that when the opposition candidate says something that is untrue, it is a damn dirty lie. But when their candidate says something untrue, it is a harmless and charming exaggeration. The truth, really – just wrapped in a wee bit of hyperbole to keep things interesting. It seemed to me that it was a gross lie when Biden talked about the unemployment rate under Trump, and a gross lie when Trump talked about the inflation rate is under Biden. But many people will say only one of them is really a lie, and which one that is depends on which party the viewer supports.
Donald Trump’s advantage in that debate was that he didn’t look like he might be getting a ride home in an ambulance.
Traditionally, democrat voters have to be “in love” with their candidates in order to vote for them, and have rarely criticized them. Republicans, by contrast, were rarely afraid to criticize the people they vote for because it was more of a practical matter and they didn’t need to be emotionally involved with their leaders. That is why I always subtract about 10 points from the approval ratings of democrat politicians, since their base is much more likely to overlook their faults and pretend that their leaders can do no wrong.
With the rise of Trump, however, republicans have been sliding into the “how dare you criticize” mode along with democrats. I remember when George W. Bush was at the height of his popularity, but conservatives routinely criticized him for his excessive Federal spending and lack of border enforcement. I was even at an event in D.C. where a somewhat hostile National Review audience questioned the President’s brother Jeb about George’s laxness on immigration issues.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing Donald Trump over issues where he is deficient, whether you are going to vote for him or not. That is the only way constituents can keep their leaders honest and accountable. I have been chastised by friends or on Ricochet in the past for criticizing Trump, yet I am 100% going to vote for him. Some of the people who have chastised me made it known that they would consider voting for Robert Kennedy Junior, or would absolutely not vote for any other republicans for President unless it was Trump. And yet they would think I am the disloyal one for rocking the boat.