Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Binary Choice for Me but Not for Thee

 

I blew off some steam a few months back stating I didn’t want to read thought-pieces about “The Conservative Case for Joe Biden” from our commentariat and thought leaders. I need to release a little more steam.

Let me get my biases out of the way: I loathe Joe Biden. I have since my early teens in the late ’80s. The guy who will tell you he’s always smarter than you are, like talking to you is a favor, and yet all of his ideas are dumb, but to him they’re brilliant thinking. I saw a person on the message board I moderate tout Biden’s time on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as a plus and when asked for one good idea he had, even with googling, he couldn’t come up with one.

The man who will casually slime opposition with accusations of racism or sexism. False modesty only comes out when he wants a vote, then he tells the person in front of him what he or she wants to hear with a personal anecdote of questionable truth to give you that “I’m one of you” feeling. If the next person asks the opposite question, Biden will do the same thing. In fact, 2020 Joe Biden is running against 1993 Biden and because we have the historical recall of a gnat, no one in our media seems to realize it.

We’ve seen the editorials by now: Certain columnists with National Review, Commentary, Dispatch, Bulwark, if you still think they have any morality, the Lincoln Project, Peggy Noonan, George Will, et al., telling you it’s not a binary choice. Vote Biden because he has…something that’s not Trump, which, seems like a binary choice. There’s the occasional “you don’t owe your vote to anyone” contrarian who is voting for someone who can’t win just to posture that he or she is an individual. Oh, that’s cute, you wrote in someone that’s getting as many Electoral Votes as I am, and I’m just as impressed with the person who doesn’t vote because they don’t really have a voice. If I vote for Mickey Mouse, is that a powerful statement or a waste of my responsibility? Why is it different if I write in Mitch Daniels who will probably get fewer votes?

I don’t find the arguments bad, I find them to exist in a cocoon of sorts. Yes, four years isn’t a long time, and we will have another election, and Flight 93 is a tad histrionic for my tastes. But Democrats are saying “we want to change the system so Republicans can’t win elections” and the reaction seems to be “pish posh, Joe Biden isn’t as prone to bluster and will show them the better angels of their nature.” The entire argument of the anti-Trump Republican is that Trump lies, but don’t believe what the Democrats say, especially because Joe Biden, who has never sniffed the hair of the truth, seems reasonable.

40 percent of what you want is better than zero. But I’m a transactional voter, not one involved in hero worship.

But here is where I start to get angry. Four years also isn’t a short amount of time. If Biden wins, no one in the commentariat loses anything. milquetoast conservatives will still put out their columns, and those who overrate themselves uniquely contrarian will still be paid by the publications that employ them. I left my job in 2019 for a career change in a growing economy. In 2008, the department heads where I worked were corralled into a meeting the day after election day in anticipation of higher taxes where they could cut “overhead.” Overhead where I worked was support staff. If you’ve never had to sit through people being marched out by building security with a Human Resources professional giving false comfort with “don’t worry, we’ll box your stuff up and ship it to your home,” I envy you.

It’s easy to be the “party of ideas” when all you have to generate are ideas. Republicans in 2016 were scared to use political capital to get those ideas done. That’s why Paul Ryan had to get out, that’s why Republicans were voted out. Ideas people will say “suburban women don’t like that Trump’s a poopy head” but your rank and file voter was like “where’s that healthcare plan you had been planning since day one after ACA was passed” which ironically is what the ideas shop is bagging on Trump for, and last I checked, domestic policy mostly resides in Congress. We found the experts hired to do jobs of cleaning out agencies of excess were prone to the same excess and eventually the administration started hiring better.

But the ideas people weren’t being asked for their ideas, and Donald Trump would leverage his political capital far more than he should have on Free Trade, on Justice Reform, on other issues that were not the pillars of conservatism. Experts were upset that their expertise wasn’t expertly being experted by the hoi polloi who had started to take positions after consultant class failure. Normal people are coming into my country club? Use the old china and make sure they only get 15 minutes in the pool and have it scrubbed.

People paid for what they think don’t have to face a market where what you can do matters. They’re paid for supposed brilliance. Some consultant who stumbles on an election he’s not supposed to win 35 years ago is elevated to a Svengali who can tell you how to repeat that magic and buys bigger houses for the next three decades because of it. People like me have to think of a way to fudge qualifications on a resume to make middle age seem appealing to an employer in one of our “approved” industries if one party gets to regulate industry instead of allowing business to operate.

I’m still low man on the totem pole at the new job. I can’t afford to not work for four years if the recovery stagnates underneath taxes and regulation and a great reset and “more fair” hiring which as a white old man means I’m picked last for kickball.

I already have one party that doesn’t care if I live or die, I don’t need two.

That, in essence, makes it a binary choice for me. I don’t like Trump all that much save for attacking the garbage media, but I have more disdain for people who I thought agreed with me on most things that also think the most vacuous politician for the past 40 years will be a good lesson for all us in moral character. Especially those who will blame the voter for the laziness of a party that coasted on being loyal opposition, merely stating the case for their ideas versus actually trying to put them in action, and finding out all along no plans were made.

You can tell me the Republican Party will be better if Trump loses. I have my doubts. I will tell you that I was told Tom Price had a health care plan that would be ready on day one and saw a bunch of House Republicans scared by a media class with no interest in their success.

But then again, we might not have to worry about it. We’ll conserve all these new rules put upon us.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 40 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. RushBabe49 Thatcher

    Yep, yep, yep. And I have been in that “marched out the door with HR” situation more than once, so I really do feel your pain on that one. One time, the person who marched me out the door was my immediate supervisor, and she had a big grin on her face. Shortly thereafter, she got the same treatment.

    • #1
    • November 1, 2020, at 11:38 AM PST
    • 9 likes
  2. Stad Coolidge

    Jeff Hawkins: “The Conservative Case for Joe Biden”

    There is none. It might as well be “The Christian Case for Sharia” . . .

    • #2
    • November 1, 2020, at 12:07 PM PST
    • 19 likes
  3. Gossamer Cat Coolidge

    Epic rant. Loved every word. I got sick of the GOP chattering class after 2012. I’m even sicker of them now. I was more than a little upset with those in 2016 who didn’t want Hillary but couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Trump. You can hold yourself above the fray when it involves petty bickering – not when it is life or death. Agree with every word about Biden. Trump’s boasting may be distasteful and tiresome but Biden is a flat out liar. On everything.

    • #3
    • November 1, 2020, at 2:07 PM PST
    • 14 likes
  4. Mark Camp Member

    If Trump wins again it will be a second example of confirmatory evidence that Murray Rothbard was right. The cause of liberty, justice, freedom, truth, and virtue, all of which are abstract ideas, can be won if and only if those who believe in them turn to pragmatically populist messages, and recruit the concretist-thinking victims of elitist oppression like Jeff by abandoning all appeals to abstract ideas, and simply showing them how they are being concretely abused by the intellectual elite who abstractly hate all liberal ideas.

    • #4
    • November 1, 2020, at 3:51 PM PST
    • 5 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  5. Stina Member

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    If Trump wins again it will be a second example of confirmatory evidence that Murray Rothbard was right. The cause of liberty, justice, freedom, truth, and virtue, all of which are abstract ideas, can be won if and only if those who believe in them turn to pragmatically populist messages, and recruit the concretist-thinking victims of elitist oppression like Jeff by abandoning all appeals to abstract ideas, and simply showing them how they are being concretely abused by the intellectual elite who abstractly hate all liberal ideas.

    I can’t tell if this is bitter sarcasm or agree that maybe abstract reasoning for the purpose of abstract thinking was a bad idea.

    Abstractions are only a good insomuch as they bring about positive/good solutions to the concrete world.

    Agreeing that the abstract emotion of “anger” is bad thing to hold onto is only useful insomuch as it reduces murder rates. Changing hearts and minds should come with concrete change.

    If the abstract ideals are bring about bad concrete fruit, then there is something wrong with the abstract ideas. Not something wrong with reality.

    • #5
    • November 1, 2020, at 4:02 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  6. Mark Camp Member

    Stina (View Comment):
    If the abstract ideals are bring about bad concrete fruit, then there is something wrong with the abstract ideas. Not something wrong with reality.

    This is a fundamental truth that concretists don’t understand about abstract ideas.

    I’m delighted to see it in writing, and especially to see it written by someone I’d erroneously assumed to be a dyed-in-the-wool concretist.

    A correct abstract idea absolutely determines every aspect of reality that it covers. Therefore, if someone puts forth an abstract idea that is not consistent with reality, there isn’t something wrong with reality, and what is more, there isn’t something wrong with his thinking abstractly (which is the only way of thinking rationally) as the concretists always claim.

    It is that his abstract thinking was flawed. His concrete conclusion was wrong because one or more of (a) his abstract premise, (b) his concrete premise, or (c) his logic was incorrect.

    • #6
    • November 1, 2020, at 5:15 PM PST
    • 2 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  7. RushBabe49 Thatcher

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    If the abstract ideals are bring about bad concrete fruit, then there is something wrong with the abstract ideas. Not something wrong with reality.

    This is a fundamental truth that concretists don’t understand about abstract ideas.

    I’m delighted to see it in writing, and especially to see it written by someone I’d erroneously assumed to be a dyed-in-the-wool concretist.

    A correct abstract idea absolutely determines every aspect of reality that it covers. Therefore, if someone puts forth an abstract idea that is not consistent with reality, there isn’t something wrong with reality, and what is more, there isn’t something wrong with his thinking abstractly (which is the only way of thinking rationally) as the concretists always claim.

    It is that his abstract thinking was flawed. His concrete conclusion was wrong because one or more of (a) his abstract premise, (b) his concrete premise, or (c) his logic was incorrect.

    The result of not remembering that Human Nature Never Changes.

    • #7
    • November 1, 2020, at 5:20 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  8. Stina Member

    Mark Camp (View Comment):
    I’m delighted to see it in writing, and especially see it written by someone I’d erroneously assumed to be a dyed-in-the-wool concretist.

    Ha ha. I AM pretty close to full on concrete, but not due to a lack of abstract thought.

    I do think abstractly, but high school beat the value of it out of me with really ridiculous abstract questions whose answers seemed too obvious to merit more than 1 sentence (and I needed 500 words).

    Let’s go with well blended. I push back on you a lot because i think you can tend to be a bit too abstract.

     

    • #8
    • November 1, 2020, at 5:23 PM PST
    • 1 like
  9. Mark Camp Member

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    If the abstract ideals are bring about bad concrete fruit, then there is something wrong with the abstract ideas. Not something wrong with reality.

    This is a fundamental truth that concretists don’t understand about abstract ideas.

    I’m delighted to see it in writing, and especially to see it written by someone I’d erroneously assumed to be a dyed-in-the-wool concretist.

    A correct abstract idea absolutely determines every aspect of reality that it covers. Therefore, if someone puts forth an abstract idea that is not consistent with reality, there isn’t something wrong with reality, and what is more, there isn’t something wrong with his thinking abstractly (which is the only way of thinking rationally) as the concretists always claim.

    It is that his abstract thinking was flawed. His concrete conclusion was wrong because one or more of (a) his abstract premise, (b) his concrete premise, or (c) his logic was incorrect.

    The result of not remembering that Human Nature Never Changes.

    I didn’t understand this. 

    (If I thought you was one of thems, it wouldn’t bother me so much; I don’t understand anything that them others say. But I’ve always assumed that you was one of us’ns. The abstract tribe, I mean.

    • #9
    • November 1, 2020, at 5:27 PM PST
    • Like
  10. Mark Camp Member

    Stina (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):
    I’m delighted to see it in writing, and especially see it written by someone I’d erroneously assumed to be a dyed-in-the-wool concretist.

    Ha ha. I AM pretty close to full on concrete, but not due to a lack of abstract thought.

    I do think abstractly, but high school beat the value of it out of me with really ridiculous abstract questions whose answers seemed too obvious to merit more than 1 sentence (and I needed 500 words).

    Let’s go with well blended. I push back on you a lot because i think you can tend to be a bit too abstract.

     

    There is hope for you, Stina. It is clear that high school almost succeeded in beating it out of you, but yet there is a smoldering ember of abstractness burning secretly in your heart. If I think of it, I shall try to fan this flame in future Conversations. If I forget this important mission, please remind me; I was always the absent-minded professor, and in the last two decades have gotten even more forgetty.

    • #10
    • November 1, 2020, at 5:33 PM PST
    • Like
  11. Jeff Hawkins Coolidge
    Jeff Hawkins

    I took it is a crack, but I’m not oppressed by these elites (hell with my education I’m considered “elite”), I’m done with the purity of principles needing to be the argument versus, I don’t know, putting principle into action.

    No it’s a matter of the thought leaders/elite are 1) not buying what they selling and 2) abandon the tribe for being tribal, as if leading us to water and being mad we want to drink

    I’m in deepest darkest blue Los Angeles. You hear the faux “I’m a social liberal but economic conservative” line all the time. It’s of course not true because to fund the social programs, you need to raise taxes. Thought leaders bought this, stating the real problem was the moral majority types were keeping us from selling our message to young people. Then with Mitt it was the class problem which turned into a race problem and not being able to talk to common people. Now the problem is we don’t go to cities, and yet, in addition to Republican leadership not stumping here for a guy like Joe Collins (running against Maxine), the thought leaders will retweet something but not come out here and make a speech about how this is an example of what we want.

    What are Republicans going to say, that they’ll turn the city around by eliminating city union jobs, enacting school choice and pissing off teachers unions and de-regulating utilities and eliminating bureaucratic red tape…all of which pays for the social programs/unions. All whilst being called racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, classist, etc. Cutting social programs for economic fiscal responsibility?

    Most of my friends leaving for Texas (Austin, of course, not “Racist parts”) is for the cheaper living tax wise, but they hope to flip it blue. I’m not sure “proof the principles work” is enough.

    We need to speak to the youth but here comes people calling those trying Candace Owens a grifter. How about you help her instead. Are there grifters? Sure (Jacob Wohl). But even Ben Shapiro screwed up when he was younger

    It’s not all about “making your case” you also 1) have to put those principles in action and 2) tear down the barriers that prevent them from being getting through and our elites want to eliminate the voices that are uncouth. You improve reception to the product by showing the product works, and our elites are too busy trying to get rid of salesmen they don’t like that are overdelivering with a weak hand.

    Protect the other areas from the dark blue cities, eventually the cities will kill themselves and only then will they be willing to listen.

    • #11
    • November 1, 2020, at 5:49 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  12. Stina Member

    Jeff Hawkins (View Comment):
    I’m in deepest darkest blue Los Angeles. You hear the faux “I’m a social liberal but economic conservative” line all the time. It’s of course not true because to fund the social programs, you need to raise taxes.

    Even with not talking about social programs, but the social licentiousness, it doesn’t work. When people are in turmoil, they get government involved. Just what kind of stable life is a mom of multi-fathered brats going to have? And heaven forbid she can’t afford the birth control cuz she needs to feed them and she gets knocked up again?

    Just what, exactly, is that going to get us?

    More government? Free birth control and government subsidized abortion.

    If you have the majority of people engaging in social pathologies that lead to ruin, you get more people voting for more government. It’s why social liberalism and fiscal conservatism do not fit together in their most pure of abstractions.

    You cannot advocate purely for social liberalism and expect pure fiscal conservatism on the flipside.

    • #12
    • November 1, 2020, at 6:18 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  13. Hang On Member
    Hang OnJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    If the abstract ideals are bring about bad concrete fruit, then there is something wrong with the abstract ideas. Not something wrong with reality.

    This is a fundamental truth that concretists don’t understand about abstract ideas.

    I’m delighted to see it in writing, and especially to see it written by someone I’d erroneously assumed to be a dyed-in-the-wool concretist.

    A correct abstract idea absolutely determines every aspect of reality that it covers. Therefore, if someone puts forth an abstract idea that is not consistent with reality, there isn’t something wrong with reality, and what is more, there isn’t something wrong with his thinking abstractly (which is the only way of thinking rationally) as the concretists always claim.

    It is that his abstract thinking was flawed. His concrete conclusion was wrong because one or more of (a) his abstract premise, (b) his concrete premise, or (c) his logic was incorrect.

    Abstract ideas determine reality? You have it completely backwards.

    Abstractions are useful if they can be tested and reality is always much more complex than abstractions. Abstractions are a means of simplifying so reality can be dealt with. There is no way for an abstraction to deal with every aspect of reality because not every aspect of reality is known a priori. 

    • #13
    • November 1, 2020, at 7:19 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  14. Gary Robbins Reagan

    Stad (View Comment):

    Jeff Hawkins: “The Conservative Case for Joe Biden”

    There is none. It might as well be “The Christian Case for Sharia” . . .

    That is great. Wrong, but very catchy. Good job.

    • #14
    • November 2, 2020, at 9:29 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  15. Kevin Creighton Contributor

    If he wins, Biden wants to shut down the online sale of guns and ammunition. This is my livelihood, so there is no way, NO WAY, I can ever support him. 

    • #15
    • November 2, 2020, at 9:45 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  16. Henry Castaigne Member

    Kevin Creighton (View Comment):
    If you’ve never had to sit through people being marched out by building security with a Human Resources professional giving false comfort with “don’t worry, we’ll box your stuff up and ship it to your home,” I envy you.

    Being the one marched out sounds a little more stressful to me.

    • #16
    • November 2, 2020, at 10:14 AM PST
    • 2 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  17. Ekosj Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Jeff Hawkins: “The Conservative Case for Joe Biden”

    There is none. It might as well be “The Christian Case for Sharia” . . .

    That is great. Wrong, but very catchy. Good job.

    You have chosen truth over facts. You and the Marxists will be very happy together.

    • #17
    • November 2, 2020, at 10:16 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  18. Henry Castaigne Member

    Stina (View Comment):
    Even with not talking about social programs, but the social licentiousness, it doesn’t work. When people are in turmoil, they get government involved. Just what kind of stable life is a mom of multi-fathered brats going to have? And heaven forbid she can’t afford the birth control cuz she needs to feed them and she gets knocked up again?

    This is why need genetic engineering and sex robots.

    • #18
    • November 2, 2020, at 10:18 AM PST
    • Like
  19. Stina Member

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    Even with not talking about social programs, but the social licentiousness, it doesn’t work. When people are in turmoil, they get government involved. Just what kind of stable life is a mom of multi-fathered brats going to have? And heaven forbid she can’t afford the birth control cuz she needs to feed them and she gets knocked up again?

    This is why need genetic engineering and sex robots.

    No.

    That is a ridiculous conclusion that deifies man and his inventions.

    • #19
    • November 2, 2020, at 10:20 AM PST
    • 1 like
  20. I Walton Member

    I think most Republicans are underestimating what a Biden win means. Sure he’s inept and will be replaced sooner or later in his first four years, but these Democrats won’t go away in 4 or 8 years. They might be replaced by Republicans or some other party, but the Federal Government will be so entrenched that it won’t go away until centralization and bureaucratic stagnation gives rise to an ever narrowing body of folks who run things into the ground. In the mean time what will the Chinese do? We can’t be sure. Too many people are underestimating what it means to have half of the income of this massive economy going to government where professional bureaucrats make the rules, i.e. laws that they then follow until they change them. All levels, of course, but government deeply shaped by giant trading companies. Many will want to return to some sort of status quo anti, but we’ve passed that option if we fail to make major changes in the next four years.

    • #20
    • November 2, 2020, at 10:26 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  21. Suspira Member

    Jeff Hawkins: Certain columnists with National Review, Commentary, Dispatch, Bulwark, if you still think they have any morality, the Lincoln Project, Peggy Noonan, George Will,

    I do think many of these columnists “still have any morality.” Their arguments are legitimate. Why sneer at their concerns? The fracturing of the right is the worst aspect of the Trump era, hands down. Whether the president prevails or Biden toddles past the finish line first, we need all our troops aiming in the same direction. 

    Let’s emulate Lincoln and put malice aside.

    • #21
    • November 2, 2020, at 10:27 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  22. colleenb Member
    colleenbJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Gossamer Cat (View Comment):

    Epic rant. Loved every word. I got sick of the GOP chattering class after 2012. I’m even sicker of them now. I was more than a little upset with those in 2016 who didn’t want Hillary but couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Trump. You can hold yourself above the fray when it involves petty bickering – not when it is life or death. Agree with every word about Biden. Trump’s boasting may be distasteful and tiresome but Biden is a flat out liar. On everything.

    The only thing I’d add about the lying is not only did good ol’ Joe call his opponents racist and sexist but he literally lied about the poor man who was in the accident where Joe’s first wife and his daughter died. Gosh I think everyone was sympathetic enough about that tragic circumstance but then you have to lie about the poor man who was involved and was not at fault. Shame, shame, shame. 

    • #22
    • November 2, 2020, at 10:51 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  23. Jeff Hawkins Coolidge
    Jeff Hawkins

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Kevin Creighton (View Comment):
    If you’ve never had to sit through people being marched out by building security with a Human Resources professional giving false comfort with “don’t worry, we’ll box your stuff up and ship it to your home,” I envy you.

    Being the one marched out sounds a little more stressful to me.

    It is, but by then I had so much seniority (and was a sucker in that I never said “no”) that I’d be consulted on who we could go without. Until I went to the next firm, where one day you were talking to someone and the next you found out the entire department had been let go because it was the 15th and they didn’t want to pay then for another cycle.

    • #23
    • November 2, 2020, at 12:07 PM PST
    • 1 like
  24. kedavis Member

    Wonderful post.

    • #24
    • November 2, 2020, at 12:20 PM PST
    • 1 like
  25. Hang On Member
    Hang OnJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Jeff Hawkins: “The Conservative Case for Joe Biden”

    There is none. It might as well be “The Christian Case for Sharia” . . .

    That is great. Wrong, but very catchy. Good job.

    So the Conservative Case for Joe Biden:

    1. Joe Biden will pack the Supreme Court. Conservatives should look forward to all those left-wing activists on the court. It really is a conservative’s dream come true.
    2. Joe Biden will finally enact Medicare for all. All those conservatives in “think tanks” have not been able to come up with a health care plan, so it’s just a good thing to have the government nationalize 15% of the economy. It will be grand. I look forward to the entire medical service being run like the VA under Obama.
    3. Joe Biden will enter back into the Paris Accords. This will be an entirely good thing as American politicians (maybe even a few conservatives) can dip their fingers into the slush funds the Partis Accords creates.
    4. Joe Biden will enter into warm relations with Beijing. Anything Beijing wants, Joe will deliver. No one should ask why. You might wind up in a concentration camp in China.
    5. Joe Biden will re-enter into the Iran deal so that the US can pay yet more money to the Iranian government so they can develop nuclear weapons and empower terrorist organizations around the world. This will be great for neocons who are always looking for reasons to fight more wars.
    6. Joe Biden will welcome all illegal aliens wherever they come from. Americans should be replaced by immigrants just like that great conservative genius Bill Kristol says. Who needs Americans anyway?
    7. Joe Biden will welcome more refugees – and he’ll be sure to create a lot more with his wars. That many of these will be Islamic terrorists, just never mind. It’s been much too quiet since Trump has been President. We need more terrorist acts here in the United States, as far as these conservatives are concerned. It means yet more wars, military interventions. And everyone knows Islam is a religion of peace, right?
    8. Joe Biden won’t raise their taxes. He’ll raise somebody else’s taxes. Whoever has the money to pay a lobbyist will not have his taxes raised. That will be great for conservative Never Trumpers.
    9. Joe Biden isn’t icky, unlike Trump. And all those icky Trump supporters showing up at Trump rallies being superspreaders of the Covid virus. All those prols.

    That’s a stab at the conservative case for Biden. Other ideas welcome.

    • #25
    • November 2, 2020, at 12:27 PM PST
    • 7 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  26. Henry Castaigne Member

    Stina (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    Even with not talking about social programs, but the social licentiousness, it doesn’t work. When people are in turmoil, they get government involved. Just what kind of stable life is a mom of multi-fathered brats going to have? And heaven forbid she can’t afford the birth control cuz she needs to feed them and she gets knocked up again?

    This is why need genetic engineering and sex robots.

    No.

    That is a ridiculous conclusion that deifies man and his inventions.

    I am not deifing anything. I am limiting the traits and conditions that breed poverty. I am recognizing that man is so fallen he needs sexual outlets and that the low I.Q. and the unfit among us need their genetic deficiencies ameliorated. 

    In other words, I want sex robots and genetic engineering because people are terrible.

    • #26
    • November 2, 2020, at 12:29 PM PST
    • Like
  27. Henry Castaigne Member

    Hang On (View Comment):
    Joe Biden will finally enact Medicare for all. All those conservatives in “think tanks” have not been able to come up with a health care plan, so it’s just a good thing to have the government nationalize 15% of the economy. It will be grand. I look forward to the entire medical service being run like the VA under Obama.

    That’s kinda unfair. There were think-tank people with ideas and policies to replace the ACA. They were ignored by Republican Congress-critters.

    • #27
    • November 2, 2020, at 12:33 PM PST
    • Like
  28. kedavis Member

    Suspira (View Comment):

    Jeff Hawkins: Certain columnists with National Review, Commentary, Dispatch, Bulwark, if you still think they have any morality, the Lincoln Project, Peggy Noonan, George Will,

    I do think many of these columnists “still have any morality.” Their arguments are legitimate. Why sneer at their concerns? The fracturing of the right is the worst aspect of the Trump era, hands down. Whether the president prevails or Biden toddles past the finish line first, we need all our troops aiming in the same direction.

    Let’s emulate Lincoln and put malice aside.

    Except that might mean that the 0.1% or less of elites, need to get on the right track of what’s actually made some differences, not that the 99.9% need to follow the elites right off a cliff.

    • #28
    • November 2, 2020, at 12:35 PM PST
    • Like
  29. David Foster Member
    David FosterJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    re the Abstract vs the Concrete: reification is the fallacy of misplace concreteness, of treating the abstraction as if it were the real thing. People operating under this fallacy fail to realize the all abstractions have limitations, and that there may be other, more useful, abstractions which could be applied to the same set of phenomena.

    An example: the corporate strategy consultant with a recent MBA for whom the position of a company or business unit on the 4-box BCG matrix (cows, dogs, question marks, stars) is more ‘real’ than the actual characteristics of that business.

     

    • #29
    • November 2, 2020, at 12:54 PM PST
    • Like
  30. Jeff Hawkins Coolidge
    Jeff Hawkins

    Suspira (View Comment):

    Jeff Hawkins: Certain columnists with National Review, Commentary, Dispatch, Bulwark, if you still think they have any morality, the Lincoln Project, Peggy Noonan, George Will,

    I do think many of these columnists “still have any morality.” Their arguments are legitimate. Why sneer at their concerns? The fracturing of the right is the worst aspect of the Trump era, hands down. Whether the president prevails or Biden toddles past the finish line first, we need all our troops aiming in the same direction.

    Let’s emulate Lincoln and put malice aside.

    This was poor grammar on my part, the morality part was only about the Lincoln Project

    • #30
    • November 2, 2020, at 1:54 PM PST
    • Like