Maybe, but it was my contention at the time that Bricker told his noble story of overcoming his aversion to competent leadership, was that everytime someone heard the term “Hold my nose and vote for Hillary” they thought, “Well, I don’t want to hold my nose.”
If they held their nose and voted for the country over their party’s ideology, that’s all well and good, but if they told all of their social circles about how noble of a sacrifice they were making, then they probably caused more more of a move away from hillary to those who do not feel that they have the same level of dispassionate nobility.
Yes, I believe Bricker is a human, I suppose you personally start from the aspect of “how do I counter my own beliefs” and apply logic to that.
I like Bricker, I disagree with a lot of his politics and beliefs, but he provides good debate and is often technically correct, which we all know is the best kind.
No. Bricker is far more loyal to the Republican Party than Trump is, and he actually believes the ideology their propagandists tell him to believe.
The main difference, though, is that he bothers to construct a path of rationalization to those ends that Trump does not, and that no one really has to. It’s fundamentally a process of belief and personality-cult, not reasoning.
Bricker ain’t perfect, but is more rational and honorable than 95% of posters. I see him hobbled by Catholic indoctrination, but there are worse sins. When he makes a medium misstep, he takes 10x the shit for it that a liberal/lefty takes for a head-over-ass slip-up.
(I see myself as liberal/lefty — and regret that I feel a need to declare that.)
He’s one of SDMB’s best conservatives, and I hope he never leaves the board because he just gets weary of the mob hate. (He’s nothing like Donald Trump.)
Nah, I’m a pragmatist. I start from the aspect of how to achieve the best outcomes, and work from there.
If the law is on my side, then I work to show that.
If the law is ambiguous, and can be reasonably interpreted in ways favoring either position, then I argue for why my interpretation should be favored.
If the law is not on my side, I work to show why it should be, and advocate voting or even contacting candidates for office to change the law to achieve better favorable outcomes.
Bricker, otoh, uses his twisting of motives and interpretations of arguments of others along with his knowledge of the law in order to score points for his side. It’s less productive, and turns what is a useful conversation into a banging my head against the wall slugfest to try to explain for the nth time that no, that is not what I mean at all, no matter how he twisted my words so that he can interpret them in unfavorable ways.
Aw goldurn contrary! The Counselor has to reason like a sumbitch to make his case. He makes a Jesuit logician look like Cleetus the Yokel. And do you know anybody else who has won the Silver Nitpicking Tweezer Award three years in a row! Nosir!
I like Rick. I’ve liked him for nearly two decades. His posts drive me a little batty at times, but I like him, and I find comparisons to DJT inapt and unpleasant.
Nothing like DJT, but goddamn, he’s derailing a thread about locking kids up to quibble over the possible connotations of “inhumane”, and when called on this sort of hijacking, doubles down. Fuck that bullshit.
Like most people, he’s a mix. But I find his position that the system results in the “correct” answers grotesque and incredible. Not surprising of course.
The only real way to judge him is with the passage of time and the swing of the pendulum. Somehow I think his “rational and honorable” will suffer when his team doesn’t have the upper hand.
It’s not hijacking. “Inhumane,” is a weak argument. I realize you’d rather that weak arguments be coddled by people who won’t call out weak arguments when they agree that the target of the argument’s attack is a worthy one, but I don’t share that desire.
POSTER 1: Trump is an inhumane evil dictator who eats live babies for breakfast!
ME: Um, I think there is legitimate criticism of many Trump policies, but he’s hardly a canni…
THE SMDB CROWD: WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING HISTORY’S GREATEST MONSTER??
Yeah, fuck that, man. You’re into some seriously bullshit pedantry here, supposedly attacking hyperbole but in reality engaging in far worse hyperbole yourself, and I’m not fucking interested. You’re being a douchebag.
…“inhumane” isn’t the argument. Therefore it cannot be a “weak argument.”
“Inhumane” is a word.
"Inhumane is a word with a pretty clear definition, that most of the people are using in that thread correctly, and they have posted definitions in support of their usage of that word.
You have disagreed: and have invented a definition of “inhumane” to support that position.
So it really comes down to a single word, and how it is used.
Nobody has accused Trump of eating babies.
This is really truly fucking pathetic of you Bricker. Your country needs you right now. Stop being a fucking nonce.
My bold.
Honorable? I’m still trying to look for a particular DACA thread where, no, he was not honorable, and was closer to a completely reprehensible, morally bankrupt POS sophist. (yeah yeah I realise cites help. Though I’m tearing my hear out, I’m still on it, or maybe someone can beat me to ferreting out that thread)
Continuing the honorable thing - do you feel, then, that Bricker argues in good faith more so than most dopers here? You don’t ever find that he sometimes uses obscure legal angles to support dubious ideas? (for that one - please don’t ask me to cite, because, you know what I mean on that last point, right?)
I see him hobbled by Republican horseshit.
Agreed. There aren’t too many righties here I’d esteem more.