I’d like to note for posterity, that Bricker, once again, has lied about my position on the Mass. legislature.
Why haven’t the conservatives on this board taken him to task about that? Magiver, Magellan, Clothy, Shodan?
Why are you letting someone on your side lie to score points about an issue?[/meta_as_fuck]
I believe your initial claim was at best misleading, but without rigorous definitions of “eager” and “everyone” it’s not worth debating.
You’re not eager to explore the range of “eager”? Pansy.
“Eager”? “Everyone”?? 
The Brickhead would filibuster you on what the meaning of “is” is. :eek:
Of course not. It has no defense. It’s clearly and utterly unreasonable. “All liberals,” are not anything, and any criticism directed at “all liberals,” is presumptively unwarranted.
Okay, I applaud this. Hopefully you won’t post such insults again – it can only make you look foolish.
Are you not paying attention to what I’m writing?
I absolutely intend to do it again, as long as similar behavior continues from your ideological allies.
That’s my point: I refuse to concede this weapon to the sole use of the other side, and I disagree that it’s ineffective. To the contrary, on a website supposedly interested in “fighting ignorance,” its use by folks on the left incurs few social penalties. It works.
For what it’s worth, I’d be okay with letting him have one more, if he agrees that it will be the last.
ETA: Huh. And here I thought things were starting to get civil.
So it’s clearly and utterly unreasonable, and yet is not ineffective? Well, I guess that depends on the effect one wants.
How do you see this working; to what result? Are we assuming there’s a vast pool of lurkers watching this thread and being swayed by the vitriol exchanged within?
“I don’t intend to give up my right to say something clearly and utterly unreasonable and make myself look like an idiot, because others might do so!”. Brilliant stuff! If you insist, then continue to post extremely foolish statements that you admit are clearly and unreasonable and make yourself look foolish. I will continue to criticize you if you do so, and point out that you yourself say such statements are clearly and utterly unreasonable and unwarranted.
It works in making them look foolish. It works in making you look foolish when you do it. That’s the only way it works.
Your Slate article talked about “negative comments” – the ones I’m criticizing aren’t really negative (at least, negativity isn’t their defining characteristic), so much as stupid beyond belief… I wonder what Slate would have to say about very stupid comments.
But let this exchange be the cite that Bricker plans to post things that he admits are “clearly and utterly unreasonable” because he thinks it works as a debating tactic.
Your whining isn’t the same thing as winning an argument. You’ve had to generate a completely new system of scoring in order to not look like a bumbling fool.
*Oh, Bricker isn’t losing an argument, it’s because THE LEFTISTS don’t police their own, dontchaknow? *
No one who has read this thread thinks you’re not an asshole. But a few at least respected you. And you squander than respect with a months-long tantrum about how the game isn’t fair, and you’re only losing because… well something.
You’re losing because your argument is rubbish. The ignorance we’re fighting here is behind your scowling face.
Keep fucking that chicken, Bricker. You’re not hurting it. Go to town.
Started another thread (pitting him) to continue the exchange with/about Bricker.
Nope. Search in vain for the word “debating” in my comments claiming this tactic is effective.
It’s highly effective as a rhetorical tactic. It’s rubbish as a debating tactic.
But this thread is replete with reminders from liberal douches to me that this isn’t a debating society, and I’m in the wrong place if I expect civilized debate.
Then you come along, having remained tight-lipped during those exchanges, and excoriate me.
Ass.
You don’t have to sign your posts.
He should at least put a “Regards,” before “Ass.”
Anyhoo, since the Bricker-bashing is hopefully foisted elsewhere, can we return to the original topic?
Midterm turnout was already expected to be pretty low. What can we expect for 2016?
I think it’s too early to tell. Assuming Hillary vs generic GOP nominee, I think turnout will be a bit higher than a typical presidential year. To Republicans, the name Hillary is like a red flag in front of a bull, they’ll crawl over broken glass and hot coals in the nude to vote against her. There will also be some enthusiasm among Democratic women kicking up the vote. As for the minority vote, a lot depends on how immigration fares and whether racial tensions increase. If I had to bet, I’d say that voter suppression will backfire and minority voting will also be a bit higher than typical.
Ohio’s huge voter fraud investigation turns up nearly nothing.
Meanwhile, Oregon passes a “motor voter” automatic-voter-registration law. All Pubs in the legislature voted against it, purportedly because of risks to “privacy,” even though all the information used is already in the records of the DMV.
It’s amazing anyone still votes for these cunts.
Why is 145 non-citizens were registered to vote illegally in 2014 “nearly nothing?”
I grant it’s a small percentage of the registered voters in the state. But it’s an even tinier percentage of all human beings alive on earth, a smaller percentage still of all humans who have ever lived, and when you compare it to the number of atoms in UY Scuti, why, it’s positively minuscule.
The meaningful comparison would be to the margin of victory in an ultra-close election.