Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

I guess he treats women different. He ridiculed and trolled me all the time.

 

the fact that you believe this is evidence I am an "equal-opportunity" ridiculer and troller. I do not distinguish between men and women on this forum. I am not a sexist.

For you to pull the Woman Card™ is, frankly, kind of sad and pathetic. But I imagine that some of the more chivalric types will now leap to your defense and protect your honor. Enjoy this new opportunity I have now afforded you. You can thank me later.

 

oh yes, and the obligatory Severo Happy Feet dance . . . that should cheer you up!!

 

Moja right EB

The President Who Stood Still on Jan. 6 - WSJ
Even as the riot raged at the Capitol, Trump wouldn’t tell his supporters to stop.

No matter your views of the Jan. 6 particular committee, the details it’s laying out in hearings are sobering. The most horrifying to this point got here Thursday in a listening to on President Trump’s conduct because the riot raged and he sat watching TV, posting inflammatory tweets and refusing to ship assist.

Mr. Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution, and he had an obligation as Commander in Chief to guard the Capitol from a mob attacking it in his identify. He refused. He didn’t name the navy to ship assist. He didn’t name Mr. Pence to examine on the security of his loyal VP. Instead he fed the mob’s anger and let the riot play out.

In the 18 months since, Mr. Trump has proven not an iota of remorse. On Thursday he claimed to be vindicated by a invoice to make clear the Electoral Count Act. “Mike Pence told me, and everybody else, there was nothing he could do,” Mr. Trump wrote. “If so, how come the Democrats and RINOs are working so hard to make sure there is nothing a VP can do.”

Character is revealed in a disaster, and Mr. Pence handed his Jan. 6 trial. Mr. Trump completely failed his.

 

I would rephrase that to "Trump has never shown an iota of remorse his entire life."

Trait of a sociopath.

 

right, it's the WSJ EB, so...

there seems to be an effort to start moving away from Trump (from the right media).. good luck

 

I don't know about sexism but you do rub me off the wrong way when you do things like incessantly defend a professor's right to hold a classroom job after telling her Asian students that them coming here is bad for America. Like that's like a weird hill to die on.

 

I'd love to see him lose in the primaries! Regardless, I wouldn't vote for any other Republican next election. It's getting too far right. The far right hate groups and world leaders are embraced by them. I mean the majority of them brushed off the coup when it came to voting to impeach him. They chose a man over Truth and Democracy. They can't change that story later. They showed their true colors. Not only that, I'm so sick of their loose gun stance and their hate spewing bigotry. When it comes to taking action, all they do is vote NO then criticize Biden. They vote NO on any proposals to attack inflation, domestic violence against women, healthcare, etc....

 

Me just asserting it's fine and you asserting it's not doesn't make for much of a good debate. Except that you always sound crazy with the over-the-top invective. So, let's not go back and forth on it. What the American people think of it isn't really relevant, but I'd be happy to look at any polling you've seen on people's opinions on the Steve Bannon conviction. I googled and came up empty.

That has occurred to me. But I think there would still be a check on Congress' power, because they'd have to bring their criminal indictment to the courts for trial. And right now, the imbalance of power tilts hard away from Congress. They have ceded wide latitude to the president and their checks on the presidency just failed spectacularly, while the Supreme Court has also gobbled up a lot of their power by naming itself the arbiter of what laws are allowed under the constitution. And then, because it is such a large body and so exposed to the election cycle, it's own will to act is mostly fractured and timid. Congress is by far the weakest of the 3 coequal branches of government, and the House weaker than the Senate. Putting one more arrow in their quiver would hardly tip the whole system over. Alas, it's all academic anyway.

 

wow mojorgeman! in my 20 years posting here this has to be the least self-aware/most hypocritical post ive ever seen!

 

I can only imagine what he said. LOL.
I put that dude on ignore long ago.
The cult is real.

 

you completely miss the context of that professor's comments

 

and beyond that professor's comments . . . academic freedom implies the right to engage in subject-related discussion, in many cases regardless of the position being taken. It is at least theoretically possible that someone could mount a genuine and sincere defense of "naziism," say, and be completely within one's rights as regards academic freedom to hold those discussions. I believe something like this is occurring and has occurred with at least one individual academic who has tried to explore and examine the idea of pedophilia as a sexual orientation. That person has essentially been hounded out of academia. I think that's unfortunate. And my thinking that that being unfortunate (him being hounded out of academia, that is) is most definitely NOT A DEFENSE OF PEDOPHILIA. Just as my defending Amy Wax is NOT A DEFENSE OF SOMEONE'S MISTAKEN INTERPRETATION THAT AMY WAX TOLD "HER" ASIAN STUDENTS THAT COMING HERE IS "BAD FOR AMERICA."

If you look carefully at the Amy Wax argument that we were discussing here, you would notice (if you were open-minded and actually READING her comments rather than jumping to conclusions) that she framed her comments as an "if" "then" proposition. Which is simply a logical form. It would be like me making the proposition "If" the moon were made of cheese, "then" we would be able to eat the moon.

But all of that escapes you in your apparent zeal to criticize what you clearly don't understand. And then attempt to drag me down with your misunderstanding by accusing me of being on "a weird hill to die on."

 

Why can't he hold that position though? It's debate and discussion, not get annoyed with people for having different perspectives than us.

This is one of the things that really bothers me in general. it seems when someone has a radical idea they are attacked because the idea disagrees with a lot of people. It's not just about politics but you see it in everything, especially sports. People are so quick to condemn someone for their opinions.

This is the very nature of cancel culture. If we're truly liberal we should attack the logic, not the person.

 

There's not a large sample size, but I haven't seen him be sexist towards you or anyone.

 

There is a difference between allowing someone to hold a certain opinion and respecting said opinion. I can respect a difference of opinion on a debate between "is healthcare as a commodity a inelastic or elastic demand product?" I can't respect an opinion that suggests a teacher has a right to employment for a job that teaches over a group of students with an ethnicity said teacher just stated to said students is bad for the country they live in.

So now "cancel culture" apparently is merely "not respecting an opinion". I thought it would be him being suspended or banned for a comment or me reporting a comment to a mod which I don't think I've ever even done in my addictive career to this message board.

 

He's become so deluded he can't even recognize bad satire from reality.

 

here is the original January 18 post from the CHE F.I.R.E. thread that includes what Amy Wax said:

 

That's your opinion. I asked him several times to stop. Anyway, I don't have to read his crap anymore with him and his tag team juveniles trollers on ignore. Problem solved.

 

I wake up late this morning and see that there’s nothing for me to do here.

@StupidMoniker i get that it’s tough having people like mojoman on the Republican side. But perhaps the reality is that they are not worth defending.