Thanks for the response; it’s good to have that information.
Please identify what you consider to be “the other half.”
The entire post in question (quoted below) appears to be an expression of your mistaken belief that I was, at some point in the thread, claiming that posters are obliged to follow commands issued by other posters. Of course I never said or implied any such thing. But you appear (in the post below) to be unalterably determined to believe that I did.
If you remain so determined, then I guess we’ll just have to leave it at that, as I can’t see any way of breaching your mental fortress of erroneous ideation.
But if you have now realized your error, I’d be happy to answer your question about “the other half,” if you’ll only identify it.
In my fantasies he is spending time on his own to fundamentally rethink the morality/ethics/utility/validity of American conservatism and the conservative movement since the post-WWII era.
Ha ha ha ha! Good one!
It’s also possible that he’s decided that defending Trump on the basis of “Everything Trump does is fine because it’s not illegal” is just not worth it.
That or he got an inkling early on that a lot of what Trump did and does *is *illegal. Or perhaps he’s realized that just because it’s not illegal doesn’t mean it’s not unethical, such as the way McConnell runs the Senate, and he now has no way to defend Republican actions.
I never understood his staunch conservatism, because if you weren’t in a political thread he came across as someone who was thoughtful and compassionate, and that never seemed to square with the Republican party of the last decade or so. I gave up on interacting with him in any political discussion though; his expressed view that my opinion about what was right was worthless because I wasn’t a lawyer rather put me off.
My guess it’s all down to his Catholicism and the abortion issue.
I could picture him wanting to crow about recent state legislation but being restrained by having to admit it would all be struck down as unconstitutional unless SCOTUS displays a right-wing partisan bias, contradicting his position that judicial overrides have always been purely a liberal path to cheating the system.
He never had a problem with contradicting his positions.
True enough, but maybe this time he couldn’t quite convince himself that the fault was ours and not his.
You can accuse Bricker of a lot of things, but refusal to change his mind isn’t one of them. He came around pretty early (that is, before Obama) to the position that the Constitution protects SSM, for example. He’s been fairly outspoken in his refusal to support Trump.
Considering what fate befalls other Republicans who decline to blow the orange trombone, I hope this doesn’t indicate foul play.
That’s right-in the middle of his many attacks on Democratic candidates he never hesitated to respond with “Yeah, he’s bad too” when it was pointed out that Trump was a much worse fuck-up…then continue with the attack on Democrats. He was always happy to extensively go over the mistakes of Democrats, and mention in passing the mistakes of Republicans if someone else brought it up first-a real even handed dude, that Bricker.
A long while back Bricker started a post where he linked to an article about some magistrate judge; the judge was Hispanic and otherwise matched Bricker, and he couldn’t but help remark on how good looking the guy was.
So, I’m pretty sure Bricker identified his real life persona, which would be a way to figure out what happened to him, if one we so inclined.
There is an email address in his profile.
He’s a Republican, of course he is partisan. That’s what partisans do. That he was willing to mention even in passing that his preferred political party had flaws or made mistakes is to his credit. That he didn’t do it enough to please you is I guess is bothersome to you. But it neither surprises nor bothers me.
I get the annoyances with his kinda lawyerly debate-style( hyper-focus on strict legal definitions rather than commonsense ones and a love of gotchas among other things )and occasional partisan crowing. But I always thought he was a decent sort and, when not feeling grumpy and hyper-partisan, a valuable contributor on legal matters.
I get the annoyance, but not really the hate I suppose.
Well, sure, but my way is a lot more time-consuming and a lot less likely to be successful.
Heh, crazy bump. I’d thought you were only insufferable in the Game of Thrones threads, but turns out it’s in the Pit, too! 
Just about word for word I agree with this.
His near-complete lack of participation in Trump/Russia threads at least indicates lines he didn’t want to cross publicly.
You misspelled “reasonable and generally correct.” 
As for Bricker: he was often extremely annoying in setting up what he confidently believed were “gotchas,” but of course his intelligence was always interesting. Hope he’s okay.
There is a non-zero chance Bricker is Bob Barr. 
Seriously, my pull-it-out-of-my-azz guess is he was appointed a federal judge by the Dotard’s. Not that I think this is what happened, but if it turns out to be true, I want claiming rights.
Well, me and anybody else in this thread who guessed that. But they don’t count.