Fair enough. But there were only 4 posts between Bo’s and yours, and only 1 was about you, and he didn’t call you a nitpicker, so forgive me for being confused about the “crowd” you were talking about. I thought you were implying that Bo had called you a nitpicker, and that the crowd would follow. I guess we’ll wait and see if that happens.
I have no idea if it rankled or not; I wasn’t in that thread. I would say it would rankle no matter who you are defending. Remember, this is not law school, you are not the professor and we are not your students. So lose the attitude.
Edited to add that other lawyers on the board manage to explain legal points without your attitude.
Can you give us a précis of how he is acting like a law professor?
I’m curious how you take this new way of looking at Trump as far as what it says about your party’s base voters. If we accept your current premise that Trump, by spewing hate and making idiotic promises, was just pandering to his base voter and isn’t how he’s going to govern, what does that say about the base Republican voter he was trying to motivate into voting for him?
In which sense are you using the term “base”? 
Second. Over the clothes, though.
We need to get you a “liberal hypocrisy” smilie, save you a lot of typing.
You want a précis and not a summary précis, whatever that is?
It says a couple of different things.
(In my opinion, anyway).
First and most obvious, it resonates with the small percentage of voters that agree with the literal message of the hateful rhetoric. (“Yeah, those Mexicans are rapists! There wasn’t ever a Mexican that wouldn’t rape a white woman if he thought he’d get away with it!”)
More broadly, it emanated with a swath of voters who concluded that there was a “real message,” that involved Trump saying outrageous things to show his separation from the main stream of political discourse. (“He doesn’t mean all that stuff.”)
Finally, I suspect it says about a small percentage that they were moved to conclude that their dislike for Clinton outweighed their dislike for Trump. (“I know he’s saying hateful stuff, but he’s an idiot and won’t be able to do any of it; she will be good at implementing her ideas and I dislike those ideas.”)
In my opinion, again.
No, you didn’t post it out. You tried to hand BigAppleBucky a shovel so he could dig himself deeper into a hole.
Pointing it out would have been “We’ve recently touched on this in two other thread. Conflict of interest laws do not apply to the POTUS and Veep.”
It’s not a bad summary; it’s just factually incorrect. Are you suggesting that BAB knew that what he was writing was wrong, but he wrote it anyway? What evidence do you have for that?
Again, you didn’t point out the errors. Where in your post was the word “error”? If that was your intent, to point out the errors, you failed miserably at it. You, a lawyer, failed to communicate effectively with your words.
I corrected his error. You were just an asshole about it.
Please stop being an asshole.
Bricker Pitty Party!
Be an adult, counselor. Whinging that the system is against you sounds awfully… liberal.
I suppose I could have done that… but I don’t remember those prior discussions. Was I a part of them?
Yes, that’s what I am suggesting. BAB might not have known the law, but he could certainly see that Guliani said that the conflict-of-interest laws don’t apply, since he posted those words from Guliani. And a fair summary of that statement is NOT that “Trump can do whatever he wants,” regardless of whether the conflict-of-interest laws apply or not.
That’s partly true, in the sense I agree I did not use the word ‘error.’
But it’s not true in substance, because it’s possible to point out an error without using the word ‘error’ or even any of its synonyms. I pointed out the error by repeating the contradictory statements and asking one was a fair summary of the other.
Please stop trying to play the Liberal Hypocrisy card. It’s just another way you try and score points for whatever fucked up tally you have in your head about this, and most of the time it’s not applicable at all. You end up looking like a douchebag.
I keep asking Dems to remember “what is your goal?” with regard to what they will do and how they will interact with their fellow citizens over the next few years. Bricker, what is your goal? And since you’ve acted basically the same way for the 11 ½ years that I’ve been posting on these forums, how is your conduct doing as far as helping you achieve that goal? From my point of view, it’s doing miserably, since people keep telling you that you’re a dick and you haven’t really changed anyone’s mind about anything. Isn’t there some pithy maxim about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
Your actions show, however that you don’t care, that you are sure that you know better than we do what kind of help we need and what fashion that help should be delivered in, because you’ve been doing the same thing for at least 11 years now. :rolleyes:
ETA: I see that most of the discussion has moved past this point, so I’ll drop your past conduct for now. I’d rather have the discussion about Mr. Trump’s administration’s failings.
But please, Bricker, stop being an asshole.
Mocking.
Again.
There were repeated denials that conservatives were mocked on the SDMB when they argued factually. The general rebuttal was that factual argument was met with factual rebuttal. I found myself unable to reliably search for counter examples, since it had not been my practice to identify those counter examples as mocking.
Now I can.
“Be an adult,” is not a cogent rebuttal to any point I have made here.
I don’t think it went that far. I think it was more like “I know he’s saying hateful stuff, but he’s an idiot and won’t be able to do any of it; still, I fucking hate that cunt and don’t want her to be president.”
The hate for Hillary Clinton transcended political parties. I know people of voting age who have grown up hating her, people born into multiple generation Union families, who’ve never worked a non-union job in their lives. People really hate her; they get that same look in their eye that Marilyn Quayle used to have (maybe she still does; I dunno. I haven’t seen her in a while).
This isn’t a rebuttal. It’s a complaint about my pointing out the use of inconsistent standards.
My goal is to read posts like this directed at me:
But most especially this:
Well, you’re still acting like a petulant child, so there is that.
Of course it is. You’re mewling about how unfair you’re being treated. Which is rich, coming from a guy who thinks poor people having a hard time voting is cool.
When the system is against them, you think they should buckle up and persevere.
When the system (the SD libs) is against you, you break down and petulantly complain. Boo-fucking-hoo.
Children boo-hoo.
I should note, that I do not actually grant that you are actually being unfairly targeted. You’re a shitty person, and you’ve got Ted Cruz level unlikability. It draws ire.
Well, you’d read posts like those more often if you weren’t so busy trying to score points and being an asshole.
You list 3 things, not a couple. And I don’t think your use of the word emanate in the second one is proper.
Do you see how nitpicking can be annoying as hell?
Why in heavens name would Trump court such voters by saying what he did if they were such a small percentage and he would, in turn, turn off a huge number of voters by saying such things? Seems like that kind of plan would only work if the number of voters you got by saying those things far outweighed the number of voters you lost by saying them.
And it did work. Trump gambled and pandered to the hate-filled, divisive, scared, angry people of the Republican party, thinking that they would outnumber the intelligent, reasoned, and principled Republicans who wouldn’t stand with him. And he was right. I think that is the big takeaway we learned about the Republican party with his election. That the true face of the Republican party base is who Trump bet they were.
That’s unfair. I’m sure Jesus loves Bricker. Ted Cruz, not so much.