He’s a troll. He dresses it up with pomposity, but he’s a straight up troll and he does it by nitpicking, ignoring other people’s points, and distracting diatribes on secondary issues because he apparently has no fucking life whatsoever so he can outlast the well adjusted who have things to do and people who love them. He’s one of the Dope’s HPCFs (high post count freak) who is granted status simply for always being here.
Nonsense. “Troll” gets way overused here. Whatever other problems his posts sometimes have, that’s a ridiculous way to describe him.
That’s precisely the sort of response I’d expect from a [del]HFCS[/del] HPCF.
.
I see people getting upset about this all the time, but in my experience most of the time it goes something like this
OP: [or post in the thread]: X cannot be legal.
Bricker: Actually, if you look at Y court case, you’ll see that X actually is legal.
Other Posters: Why are you obsessed with legalities when X is morally wrong?
Nope.
To the extent that payments pursuant to the contract are made after the inauguration. . . maybe.
Pointing out that as long as the parade keeps moving, no one has to quarter the troops.
Often I find that he’s the only one talking about legality when the conversation is on the morality or impact of the topic.
As others have mentioned that isn’t that common. What’s approximately as common as your scenario is:
[cite that something is legal]
“But what if the court eventually rules that it ISN’T legal? If you were really committed to your moral point of view you’d stop at nothing to implement what’s right! I bet you’d support skirting the law in any way necessary for the greater good. YOU’RE A WANNABE DICTATOR!”
That isn’t very common either. What’s more common is trying to shift the framework toward discussing what is legal whether or not it is moral, even when no one is claiming that the law is firmly resolved in their favor. Then, as an advanced tactic, if someone objects, ask them what they’re going to do and invoke the aforementioned “wannabe dictator” gambit.
IMHO this is part of a much broader problem.
Many people have a tendency to assume that if something/someone is good/bad, then it’s/they are good/bad in every single aspect. Similarly, if they agree/disagree with something, then they also agree/disagree with every single argument or bit of evidence which supports their conclusion.
This is bad enough when it’s just their own shoddy reasoning. But they also project this on other people. So if someone offers an opinion about one argument in favor of one aspect of an issue, these people will then extrapolate that this person must also approve of all other arguments/conclusions/positions which align with that same “side” of the issue, even though there’s no logical basis for this.
(manson1972 alluded to something similar as applied to Bricker, in post #84 above.)
Well, my experience is different so I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ll just note that it’s extremely common for people to say things like “he’s a known felon” when what they really mean is “I believe he could be convicted of a felony if he was tried”. The first statement is a clear assertion of a legal claim.
Actually, yeah, this has the ring of truth, except for leaving out the part where this proves that voter ID is totally legal and Constitutional.
Right then Bricker. I shall rephrase Measure for Measure’s hypothetical in a way that I believe will provide your fine legal mind with a bit more of a challenge:
A 2014 written contract between Trump and Putin emerges, where Putin agrees to provide secret support for Trump’s Presidential bid in exchange for the US engaging in trade wars with its allies, suspension of additional economic sanctions on Russia, and acquiescence to closer ties with North Korea. Who would have created the more successful Broadway musical of this event; Rodgers and Hammerstein or Leonard Bernstein?
That depends on whether one or the other of them were in the room where it happened, the room where it happened, the room where it happened.
Anyway, it’s a trick question. Because those guys were all dead in 2014, none of them could have scored any such musical. The most any of them could do is decompose.
New York mogul and a tyrant walk into a room
Not really foes, as it goes
They emerge with a contract, ties to No. Ko.
And a presidential row in tow. So:
No one else was in the room where it happened
The room where it happened
The room where it happened
No one else was in the room where it happened
The room where it happened
The room where it happened
No one really knows ‘bout the art of the deal
How the lies sound so real
And the health care’s repealed
We just assume that it happens
But no one else is in
The room where it happens.
Nice. 
So the answer to “Rodgers and Hammerstein or Leonard Bernstein?” is now clear: neither.
It’s Bricker, with help from Lin-Manuel.
I’m still waiting for your response in the child detention thread about what to do about people with previous run-ins with ICE who may also have legit asylum claims. Feel free to answer that any day now.
Put them in the chorus. IANAL.
Regards,
Shodan
Bravo.
::throws flowers::