# I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943 "2012-06-12T19:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 392
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7821 "2014-11-21T06:36:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have only very recently decided to wade in the same filth as the uberlibs here. > … filthy dishonesty … > … liars … sins of their fellow travelers. I don’t know who you’re addressing. I’m no “filthy dishonest uberlib” – the only reason they let me on the Ilk Bus is I’m bringing some potent Thai-stick from Kanchanaburi. 😛 I get lumped by the Republiopaths into the Lib Ilk just because I denounce their filthy dishonesty. I call you **Brickshit** because you present yourself as a very shitty person. But speaking of filthy dishonesty, have you read my post immediate above? Do you admit, despite that the 5 Republiopaths on SCOTUS announced that racial discrimination in voting is no longer a problem, that official treatment often discriminates? No? (slap) - (slap) - (slap) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7822 "2014-11-21T14:09:14Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > But weren’t you saying that you were mistaken about Bricker? He has been an asshole for a long time; it’s not my fault that I caught on before you did. You’re both n00bz. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7823 "2014-11-21T14:24:32Z")
I’m vaguely considering starting a thread called “Praise the Bricker-that-was”, in which respondents are encouraged to quote and link to past posts of Bricker’s in which he established the reputation of being a sane, rational conservative (a reputation he must still have, judging from the number of people who refer to it). Any bashing of the Bricker-that-is will be discouraged in my OP, though I’ll have no ability to stop such if it occurs. I suppose that could be avoided by starting the thread somewhere other than the Pit, but none of the other forums seem more appropriate. It will of course be very meta; there are few praises more faint and damning than “you USED to be smart.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7824 "2014-11-21T15:18:20Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh. Excuse, have to empty my drooling cup, just take a moment…Where was I? Oh! > > Do we take it that you deny suggesting, inferring or insinuating that CASA volunteers were deliberately counseling illegals on how to break the law? Gonna go for the “innocent puppy” gambit? That’s not enough to create a conspiracy, idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7825 "2014-11-21T15:26:48Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m vaguely considering starting a thread called “Praise the Bricker-that-was”, in which respondents are encouraged to quote and link to past posts of Bricker’s in which he established the reputation of being a sane, rational conservative (a reputation he must still have, judging from the number of people who refer to it). Any bashing of the Bricker-that-is will be discouraged in my OP, though I’ll have no ability to stop such if it occurs. I suppose that could be avoided by starting the thread somewhere other than the Pit, but none of the other forums seem more appropriate. > > It will of course be very meta; there are few praises more faint and damning than “you USED to be smart.” A Google search suggests that I was talking about the Brickey Shuffle as early as 2005 and ShitBricker (a la American Pie) a little later, so I won’t be able to post in your fond remembrances thread. I’ll have to stick with damnation by frank damnation. It’s kind of surprising that it took this long for him to put me on ignore, really. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7826 "2014-11-21T15:36:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not enough to create a conspiracy, idiot. Which is, of course, not the question I asked you, now is it? If you would like to make up another question to answer, you are free to do so. And it is a time-honored tactic of yours, so I cannot doubt you are capable. Lets try it again, shall we? Triumph of hope over optimism. Did you intend to imply, suggest and insinuate that CASA volunteers were counseling or otherwise encouraging illegal aliens to vote, or not? Pretty simple, really. (This could be good, you are the Nadia Comaneci of semantic gymnastics employed to evade a straight answer, always look forward to it…) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7827 "2014-11-21T16:48:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Which is, of course, not the question I asked you, now is it? If you would like to make up another question to answer, you are free to do so. And it is a time-honored tactic of yours, so I cannot doubt you are capable. > > Lets try it again, shall we? Triumph of hope over optimism. Did you intend to imply, suggest and insinuate that CASA volunteers were counseling or otherwise encouraging illegal aliens to vote, or not? Pretty simple, really. > > (This could be good, you are the Nadia Comaneci of semantic gymnastics employed to evade a straight answer, always look forward to it…) Yes. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7828 "2014-11-21T16:58:18Z")
So, then, your point is nothing more than a technicality about the precise definition of “conspiracy”? Much appreciated, hard to get through a day without a bit of your legalistic sophistry. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7829 "2014-11-21T17:02:57Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Now as to the legality, damn near every idjit on this Board knows that conspiracy to commit an illegal act is also illegal. So, unless you’d like to eat your inference that you witnessed a volunteer encouraging illegal aliens to vote, thereby committing a crime, this statement is clearly absurd. > [@elucidator](#): > > So, then, your point is nothing more than a technicality about the precise definition of “conspiracy”? Much appreciated, hard to get through a day without a bit of your legalistic sophistry. Which version of your bullshit should I respond to? And why doesn’t anyone else, on this “fighting ignorance” board, point out how fucking ignorant you are? Answer: we all know why. You’re wearing Liberal Shields. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7830 "2014-11-21T18:06:49Z")
So were these volunteers committing a crime or not? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7831 "2014-11-21T18:07:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And why doesn’t anyone else, on this “fighting ignorance” board, point out how fucking ignorant you are? Why do you feel so incapable of doing it yourself, you big girl’s blouse? ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7832 "2014-11-21T18:36:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And why doesn’t anyone else, on this “fighting ignorance” board, point out how fucking ignorant you are? In principle you’re right. But we’re only human. You insult people, misconstrue arguments, dodge and weave direct question, and then [then brag about it](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17915672&postcount=7801); that makes it very hard to support you even when you’re 100% correct. You’re not 100% correct, by the way. Obviously you did not see a conspiracy in the legal sense. But there is no reason to think that **elucidator** literally meant that CASA’s actions would support a criminal conspiracy charge. “Fighting ignorance” requires a good-faith effort to understand others’ arguments. Willfully misinterpreting them spreads ignorance regardless of how factually correct you happen to be. Incidentally, a tiny bit of Googling led me to the [Brandenburg test](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio). Do you believe that CASA’s actions meet all three prongs of the test? Since I’m fairly certain that **elucidator** ’s “conspiracy” meant “plan to incite illegal action,” and Brandenburg governs incitement in this country, it seems that someone truly interested in “fighting ignorance” would want to bring it up… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7833 "2014-11-21T19:10:20Z")
Shit, I _would_ have, if I had ever heard of it! Just a poor ol’ country boy from Waco, only Brandenburg I know about is a concertina by some German guy! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7834 "2014-11-21T19:17:54Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > In principle you’re right. But we’re only human. You insult people, misconstrue arguments, dodge and weave direct question, and then [then brag about it](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17915672&postcount=7801); that makes it very hard to support you even when you’re 100% correct. I see. But even when I was patiently, correctly, precisely responding to points, no one stepped up. How about that? > [@](#): > > You’re not 100% correct, by the way. > > Obviously you did not see a conspiracy in the legal sense. But there is no reason to think that **elucidator** literally meant that CASA’s actions would support a criminal conspiracy charge. “Fighting ignorance” requires a good-faith effort to understand others’ arguments. Willfully misinterpreting them spreads ignorance regardless of how factually correct you happen to be. > [@elucidator](#): > > Now as to the legality, damn near every idjit on this Board knows that conspiracy to commit an illegal act is also illegal. So, unless you’d like to eat your inference that you witnessed a volunteer **encouraging illegal aliens to vote, thereby committing a crime** , this statement is clearly absurd. The quoted and emphasized words from **elucidator** are reason to think that **elucidator** literally meant that CASA’s actions would support a criminal conspiracy charge. Do you seriously mean to argue that they don’t? Seriously? > [@](#): > > Incidentally, a tiny bit of Googling led me to the [Brandenburg test](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio). Do you believe that CASA’s actions meet all three prongs of the test? Since I’m fairly certain that **elucidator** ’s “conspiracy” meant “plan to incite illegal action,” and Brandenburg governs incitement in this country, it seems that someone truly interested in “fighting ignorance” would want to bring it up… No, someone wouldn’t, because it’s completely and utterly inapplicable. Would you like to know why? (1) One of the Brandenburg prongs is _imminence_. In this case, the conduct in question was months away. Brandenburg requires that the lawlessness be _imminent_. (2) Brandenburg weighed a concedely-violated criminal statute against the First Amendment. Here, there is no statute that has purportedly been violated. In other words, Brandenburg sought to punish a guy for speech that supposedly taught the duty, necessity, or propriety of violence as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform, because Ohio had a law that forbid such speech. Here, there is no law supposedly violated by the speech – the speech in question explained how easy it was to vote illegally. _Even if the speech had directly and specifically urged listeners to vote illegally_, it wouldn’t have violated a Maryland law. Voting illegally certainly does; urging others to vote illegally does not. Do you understand? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7835 "2014-11-21T19:19:33Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Why do you feel so incapable of doing it yourself, you big girl’s blouse? I’m doing it. But the inference if I’m the only one that’s doing it is that my reasons are partisan. Why don’t you do it, too? Why don’t you say, “In this case, **elucidator** is wrong, even though i agree with him politically?” ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7836 "2014-11-21T19:25:17Z")
It should be noted that Bricker has never once made a significant argument for his position other than, “It ain’t that big a deal to get an ID” and “It’s the law, cry suckaz!” He’s attempting to craft a narrative here by pretending there was a point where he was genuinely debating point by point. And remember, he outright lied about my position on the Mass. legislature flipping who assigns replacement Senators. He did it several times and ignored my asking for cites to prove it. He’s not honest, he’s perfectly willing to call a win for himself if the throws a bunch of horseshit at the wall. ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7837 "2014-11-21T19:36:29Z")
[quote=“Bricker, post:7834, topic:624943”] I see. But even when I was patiently, correctly, precisely responding to points, no one stepped up. > [@](#): > > The quoted and emphasized words from **elucidator** are reason to think that **elucidator** literally meant that CASA’s actions would support a criminal conspiracy charge. > > Do you seriously mean to argue that they don’t? > > Seriously? Imagine that I tell someone “go out and shoot orange people! There are some in the orange-people convenience store across the street! They deserve to die!” That person takes my words to heart, goes out, and shoots up the store. I would be guilty of a crime. Now, imagine that a layperson–let’s call him **delucidator** – says that I was engaged in a conspiracy and that clearly my actions constituted a crime; someone should do something. Your answer is, “it’s not conspiracy, asshole,” and nothing else. That’s not helpful. That’s not fighting ignorance. That’s not making even a token effort to figure out what was really meant, or the source of confusion. It’s spreading ignorance, with the goal of making yourself feel superior. And this has been your MO long before your tantrum in this thread. Basically, **Bricker** , you seem to treat every argument as a house of cards–if one element is slightly disrupted, the entire thing crashes down unrecoverably. _That’s not how you fight ignorance._ When elements of an argument are wrong, _isolate_ those elements; figure out whether there is a _reasonable interpretation_ of the argument that _despite_ the error; correct the _factual_ mistake; and, argue the _main point_ in good faith. > [@](#): > > No, someone wouldn’t, because it’s completely and utterly inapplicable. > > Would you like to know why? > > (1) One of the Brandenburg prongs is _imminence_. In this case, the conduct in question was months away. Brandenburg requires that the lawlessness be _imminent_. I did not know this; you stated that you had seen it, but did not know when it occurred. Is there jurisprudence defining “imminent,” or is it common sense of the judge? > [@](#): > > (2) Brandenburg weighed a concedely-violated criminal statute against the First Amendment. Here, there is no statute that has purportedly been violated. In other words, Brandenburg sought to punish a guy for speech that supposedly taught the duty, necessity, or propriety of violence as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform, because Ohio had a law that forbid such speech. Here, there is no law supposedly violated by the speech – the speech in question explained how easy it was to vote illegally. _Even if the speech had directly and specifically urged listeners to vote illegally_, it wouldn’t have violated a Maryland law. Voting illegally certainly does; urging others to vote illegally does not. Are you certain of this? Direct urging to imminently commit a crime seems like the kind of thing that could fall under a number of broad statutes, even if the particular illegal act isn’t explicitly legislated against. I make no claims about Maryland in particular, but it would surprise me if there was no attempt in at least some states to generally outlaw directly and imminently inciting a felony of any sort (notwithstanding that in this exact instance, it apparently wasn’t imminent) ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7838 "2014-11-21T19:38:56Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > And remember, he outright lied about my position on the Mass. legislature flipping who assigns replacement Senators. He did it several times and ignored my asking for cites to prove it. He’s not honest, he’s perfectly willing to call a win for himself if the throws a bunch of horseshit at the wall. You bring this up so much as if it is some badge of honor. I didn’t read the thread in question, can you link it? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7839 "2014-11-21T20:03:17Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You bring this up so much as if it is some badge of honor. I didn’t read the thread in question, can you link it? Not a badge of honor, just an easy to remember example of Bricker being a shitty lying douche. He’s done it before, years ago, but here is the most recent example from this very thread a few weeks ago, which is why I mention it, it’s still fresh and he’s still running from it. Necessarily this excludes some stuff other people were saying, so to read the whole thread click on the triangle at next to my username on the first link and it’ll take you to the thread in context. > [@Lobohan](#): > > If the Dems were the ones doing this, I’d be just as angry at them. Actually, I’d probably be more angry, since Dems have less of a delusional media than the RW does to explain away crazy beliefs. > [@Bricker](#): > > Bullshit. > > Massachusetts’ legislature engaged in blatantly obvious manipulation to remove, re-instate, remove again, and re-instate again the governor’s ability to appoint a replacement Senator, based entirely on what political party the governor belonged to. The de facto rule in Massachusetts is: the Democratic governor can appoint a replacement Senator; the Republican governor cannot. > > And you loved it. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Did I? Can you cite that? I’m pretty sure I consider that shady, although nowhere near as shady as manipulating the electoral system for lasting partisan gain. > > Consider this: You want to win because of immoral cheating. But you consider yourself the moral superior to “liberals.” > > So, in your mind, you must convince yourself that “liberals” would be just as, or more prone to immoral cheating, they just aren’t skilled enough to pull it off. > > You’re creating a delusion that satisfies your sense of superiority, while denigrating those on the other side. > > I’m not sure if you actually know if you’re doing this, or if a lifetime of sublimating your critical thinking to your church has so warped your capacity to think about things clearly. > > It’s a conundrum. > [@Bricker](#): > > Bullshit. You love it. You’ve devoted pages and pages to decrying the stuff you’re truly upset about. > [@Lobohan](#): > > You’ve fallen so far. > > People used to respect you. Your evidence that I don’t find it shady, is that I didn’t devote pages to decrying it? Interesting. > > Can I have a cite where I said I loved it, or where I showed that I loved it. Or where you sat on my lap, felt my erection, and attributed said erection to my excitement that the Massachusetts state legislature flipped who appoints replacement senators. > > Yeah, stop it Massachusetts legislature, you’re gonna give me boner-overload! I’m gonna rupture something unless you back off… no Massachusetts legislature… nooooo!!1 > > Uhhhhggg… [/blood&semen] > [@Lobohan](#): > > Bricker, why do you support raping coma patients? Since you haven’t devoted pages to it, you must love it. > > Bricker, why do you love jerking it to pictures of dead animals? You haven’t devoted pages to it, so you must love it. > > Bricker, why do you support children fighting in to-the-death bloodsports? You haven’t devoted pages to it, so you obviously love it intensely. > > Bricker, why do you support an organization that thinks the rape of children isn’t that big a deal? Wait, I think this one is actually pretty accurate… > [@Bricker](#): > > Again an obvious distinction to the majority of readers: no one is advocating in FAVOR of those repulsive actions. Plenty of people have supported the Massachusetts legislature. > > Including you. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Can you please cite that, you sickening liar? > [@Bricker](#): > > Lobohan loves it. > > Not true. We have all observed how powerful incumbency is. Once appointed, a Senator enjoys a tremendous advantage with respect to reelection. “Throw the bums out!” but not my guy. > > The series of back-and-forth votes absolutely threatened the “pendulum of democracy.” > > Voter ID laws are not sui generis. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Let’s leave your mother out of this. 😃 > > Please stop lying about my position. It’s very dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7840 "2014-11-21T20:38:00Z")
[quote=“Reyemile, post:7837, topic:624943”] > [@Bricker](#): > > Imagine that I tell someone “go out and shoot orange people! There are some in the orange-people convenience store across the street! They deserve to die!” That person takes my words to heart, goes out, and shoots up the store. I would be guilty of a crime. > > Now, imagine that a layperson–let’s call him **delucidator** – says that I was engaged in a conspiracy and that clearly my actions constituted a crime; someone should do something. > > Your answer is, “it’s not conspiracy, asshole,” and nothing else. That’s not helpful. That’s not fighting ignorance. That’s not making even a token effort to figure out what was really meant, or the source of confusion. It’s spreading ignorance, with the goal of making yourself feel superior. And this has been your MO long before your tantrum in this thread. Did you read the context of the discussion? There was no other reasonable read to it. **elucidator** brought up the fact that I had heard CASA volunteers discuss how easy it was to vote without being caught, and wondered why I had failed to report this crime. I replied that it wasn’t a crime. That’s when he trotted out the “we all know what conspiracy is,” quote. In that discussion, with him asking why I didn’t report the crime, what other interpretation is there? Explain it to me, please. You’re certainly correct that I did not patiently and attentively explain each and every error he made. > [@](#): > > Basically, **Bricker** , you seem to treat every argument as a house of cards–if one element is slightly disrupted, the entire thing crashes down unrecoverably. _That’s not how you fight ignorance._ When elements of an argument are wrong, _isolate_ those elements; figure out whether there is a _reasonable interpretation_ of the argument that _despite_ the error; correct the _factual_ mistake; and, argue the _main point_ in good faith. Really? Have you followed this thread? Haven’t I done that for pages and pages and pages? I patiently and carefully isolated misstatements, restated my clear points, and kept things focused. Did that change any behaviors? You know the answer. > [@](#): > > I did not know this; you stated that you had seen it, but did not know when it occurred. Is there jurisprudence defining “imminent,” or is it common sense of the judge? The word “imminent,” means “ready to take place, near at hand.” (\*Forest Conservation Council v. Rosboro Lumber Co., 50 F. 3d 781 (Ninth Cir. 1995) quoting Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1939). Months between the exhortation and the election cannot qualify as “imminent.” > [@](#): > > Are you certain of this? Direct urging to imminently commit a crime seems like the kind of thing that could fall under a number of broad statutes, even if the particular illegal act isn’t explicitly legislated against. I make no claims about Maryland in particular, but it would surprise me if there was no attempt in at least some states to generally outlaw directly and imminently inciting a felony of any sort (notwithstanding that in this exact instance, it apparently wasn’t imminent) I can’t find a Maryland law that does so. Maryland is a common law state, and certain types of solicitation – those that constitute a breach of the peace – were prohibited at common law. LaFave and Scott § 6.1(a), say that in addition to breach of peace: > [@](#): > > Only two special types of solicitation were clearly indictable under the early cases: solicitation to commit a forgery to be used in trial or perjury; and the offering of a bribe to a public official. A 1704 case seems to indicate that inciting a servant to steal his master’s goods was at least indictable. (Regina v. Daniell, 87 Eng.Rep. 856). In any event, the Brandenburg limitation imminent limitation applies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=391) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=393)