I just noticed that Bricker dropped this turd in a GD thread:
It is, of course, Republicans who are eager to treat blacks, and aliens, and liberals as sub-human. Calling them out for their despicable views would be like a newspaper posting “Dog bites man.”
But good-spirited humans do get annoyed—particularly these days—and sometimes, out of anger, call despicable Republicans “animals.”
So in jumps Bricker: “Tu Quoque! It’s OK for my friends to call blacks, aliens and liberals sub-humans. Because one time, one Democrat insulted us!” The link points to Nancy Pelosi suggesting that humans should be treated as humans. I’ve no idea whose side Bricker takes or whether he thinks asahi refutes Pelosi or vice versa. I doubt he could think beyond “Tu quoque! Tu quoque!”
He’s unwilling to offer a position on the OP question he responded to: Is U.S. mistreatment of alien children humane? He’s just happy he got a chance to cackle with one of his stupid non sequiturs.
Resolved: The non sequitur, the Whataboutism, the changing subjects when uncomfortable makes Bricker’s mode of “dialog” seem increasingly similar to Trump’s.
Bricker has multiple flaws in his reasoning, on which I blame a heady intoxication of Catholicism and Republicanism, but he’s not a tosser of word-salads like Trump, nor does Bricker tend to go for the chest-beating knuckle-dragging approval-grunts of the mob that passes for modern populism and which got Trump elected.
True enough: Bricker’s own self-praise is enough for Bricker. Considering that’s about all he ever gets (or deserves), that prolly works out okay for him.
Bricker understands the law. You might even say that he irrationally adheres to the very letter of the law in 99% of circumstances (possibly in detriment to his own morality and/or opinion), even when the law might be kind of shady. Trump doesn’t understand any law other than “What I want, goes.”
The difference is is that Bricker and people like him start from the aspect of “this is what I want”, and then find ways of twisting logic and/or the law to get those results, then justify it by it being based in the law as twisted.
Trump gets other people, like Bricker, to do the twisting for him to get what he wants.
He likes to use the Socratic method when posting. I find that kind of irritating much of the time, but fish gotta swim and birds gotta fly. Still, I generally like reading his legal analyses, especially when one of the lawyers on the liberal side is posting as well-- someone like Richard Parker, for instance.
The real numbnut and all around Trump apologist in that thread is Urbanredneck. Which is not in the least surprising.
He supports the use of torture and, given the choice between your children receiving health care from your own federal government or your children dying, Bricker would rather see your children die. For ideological reasons. ** Bricker** is not a good person. But he’s not Trump-like, because Bricker automatically believes what the Republican Party tells him to and Trump doesn’t.
I disagree with Bricker on almost everything, but I’d take him over you any day, septimus. The SDMB is supposed to be about fighting ignorance, and you’ve done the opposite of that by spreading your idiotic Shakespeare conspiracy-theory horseshit all over this board.
Not sure that follows given that Bricker didn’t vote for Trump. If there were more Brickers that held their nose and voted against their normal interests/party, Hillary would be president.
Used to be, “Republicans are right!” He has abandoned that in favor of “You guys are wrong!”.
However, he can be credited with his own rhetorical version of the Dad Joke. It is formed as follows: he takes something you say, twists it in a balloon-animal fashion into a perfectly absurd proposition, and then offers you the opportunity to make a fool of yourself.
The form: “So, you believe [absurd proposition] is reasonable and valid. Right?”
My son, the Err Apparent, will call today, and I will use the Bricker Formula for my Dad Joke. In his honor.