"we pay your taxes" means "hey you have to be responsive to us, serve our interests".
He doesn't "have to" do anything, that includes serving any groups particular interest. The public forum are either acting like a bunch of self-entitled children or they simply don't understand politics (again I am not certain since the video is way too short). Trying to make a politician "feel guilty" isn't exactly going to work (especially if the politician is conservative lol).
But he makes so much from legalized bribery of campaign donations that he is saying no I don't care what you tax payers say my tax payer salary is insignificant in my total compensation, and he's saying he doesn't serve them he serves his corporate masters.
So in other words, he hasn't broken the law at all but merely has pissed off a few people by taking sides of a particular enterprise?
...That's called politics (and capitalism)
If people are pissed off at him taking advantage of the system, then perhaps it would be better if they give him some REAL questions, requests or criticisms? Rather than pointless rhetorical statements such as "we pay you" that serve no purpose outside of making oneself feel better...
I dunno who he is but if all of his public opponents are this stupid then I am willing to bet he will win the next election.
You'll see arrogance and obliviousness from most politicians at one time or another, but this guy from Oklahoma reaches an entirely new level on the asshole scale, claiming that because he was so successful in his business, his constituents taxes didn't pay his salary, he paid it himself.
Just for the record, Mr. Bootstraps here inherited his plumbing business from his dad (what a go-getter) and even though he criticized the stimulus, his own business got almost $400,000 in contracts tied to government funds from the bill.
And... why does it matter?
The video was way too short to put into context but whatever I will roll with it. It didn't look like an arrogant person boasting success but rather it looked much more like self-defense against an idiotic public forum that virtue signaled to him that they "pay his taxes".
I don't know who this politician is but I support him in this instance. Whether you are born rich with inheritance or born poor and forced on the public payroll it should make absolutely no damn difference to your level of criticism as a politician.
Because he's telling his constituents to his face their opinion doesn't matter, that the money THEY contribute doesn't apply to him, even though he is their Representative. Idiotic public forum?? It's a town hall. I never said he broke a law.
Now let me get this straight: If a liberal like me even IMPLIES that voters are less than intelligent for a certain decision they make, we're accused of being elitist and out of touch, and making blanket generalizations. You straight out come out and call them stupid and it's a-OK.
Out of all the things Clinton came out and voiced support of, out of anything going on in the world as a major representative of her side, who would have imagined it would be for military strikes. Considering her hawkishness and belligerence even pre election day i'd imagine a full scale conflict with Russia arising should she have won
Out of all the things Clinton came out and voiced support of, out of anything going on in the world as a major representative of her side, who would have imagined it would be for military strikes. Considering her hawkishness and belligerence even pre election day i'd imagine a full scale conflict with Russia arising should she have won
I was told this constantly, especially by Bernie voters who switched to Trump. And yet within 100 days Trump has launched a botched raid on Yemen, bombed the Syrian military (killing 18 rebels fighting ISIS mind you) and dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb in history essentially obliterating 4 square miles of Afghanistan. I suspect he'll drop bombs whenever his Generals say it's necessary, or when he needs to turn a news cycle. Trump was sold, by his supporters, as an isolationist. This is indisputable, and it's the main reason many people voted for him. Like everything else about Trump, it was a load of nonsense that could be seem coming from miles and miles away. The "Trump is more likely to keep us out of wars than Hillary" meme was pervasive and covered both sides of the political spectrum, and was based on the idea that you can believe a single thing Donald Trump has ever said.
As I was told constantly something about the nuclear codes and hints at WW3. Given the special war powers started by Bush and expanded on by Obama for 8 years and with a majority R government he surely has the freedom to act with much more aggressiveness than he currently does and as I believe Clinton gleefully would. I find his promise not to go into Syria with troops a good one.
As I was told constantly something about the nuclear codes and hints at WW3. Given the special war powers started by Bush and expanded on by Obama for 8 years and with a majority R government he surely has the freedom to act with much more aggressiveness than he currently does and as I believe Clinton gleefully would. I find his promise not to go into Syria with troops a good one.
And we are likely going to engage in hypothetical think pieces of what Hillary "would have done" every time Trump is criticized, creating a straw man that can be used for, literally, any issue. Trump couldn't even maintain the modicum of popular support he still has without the ghosts of Hillary and Obama to use as foil EVERY time something goes wrong. And, again, I guess people still take Trump's promises at face value, even though the man clearly lies more than any human being on Earth.
She came out and supported the attack. Can that be called a hypothetical think piece about what she "would have done"? It sounds pretty straightforward and logical to me.
It can be very hard at times, esp. on this thread, not to take something someone says about a group of ppl. as personal. Regardless of what 'group' we might place ourselves in, we are still each a separate enitity. Trying to look at the WHY behind the opinion someone has in order to better understand the situation is helpful, it can be hard sometimes, though. Politics, sex, and religion probably always will be tough topics in this regard
Ppl most certainly do not have to have a background in politcs to know something does not feel right to them. The key I think to us doing that on here, in this forum, is do just that, understanding, asking, and TRUELY listening to the other. Listening is sometimes one of the hardest things to do when we feel strongly about a subject, but it is one of the most helpful.
This was a tough election for so many this time around, I even started getting worried about the peaceful transfer of power.
She came out and supported the attack. Can that be called a hypothetical think piece about what she "would have done"? It sounds pretty straightforward and logical to me.
"Lies more than any human being on earth?"
You were predicting a full-scale conflict with Russia in your previous post. I'm on record as not even being for or against the strike in Syria on it's merits, only the man making the decision.
It can be very hard at times, esp. on this thread, not to take something someone says about a group of ppl. as personal. Regardless of what 'group' we might place ourselves in, we are still each a separate enitity. Trying to look at the WHY behind the opinion someone has in order to better understand the situation is helpful, it can be hard sometimes, though. Politics, sex, and religion probably always will be tough topics in this regard
Ppl most certainly do not have to have a background in politcs to know something does not feel right to them. The key I think to us doing that on here, in this forum, is do just that, understanding, asking, and TRUELY listening to the other. Listening is sometimes one of the hardest things to do when we feel strongly about a subject, but it is one of the most helpful.
This was a tough election for so many this time around, I even started getting worried about the peaceful transfer of power.
Really?? And why would that be?? Obama was so far beyond gracious is his reach out to a man who denigrated his very humanity for the previous 8 years that it was almost super-human.
I listen plenty, and I listen to conservative media far more than I do to liberal media. And I heard them positing the idea of Obama not giving up power at the end of 8 years and declaring martial law so many times it would have been futile to keep count. Instead he rolled out the red carpet for a man who perpetrated a racist conspiracy theory against him for over half a decade. So I have absolutely NO idea where this idea of no peaceful transfer of power comes from except some kind of conventional wisdom that has no basis in any actual events, and simply another example of the right-wing echo chamber leaking into the greater national consciousness.
I don't personally care what anyone says about any groups of people. Have at it. What I care about alot is the double-standard that is applied to those of a liberal bent, who are constantly being lectured about our "tone"
Because he's telling his constituents to his face their opinion doesn't matter, that the money THEY contribute doesn't apply to him, even though he is their Representative.
That's not what your video shows.
I can only go by the evidence you have given rather than your personal interpretation. The video doesn't even show the statement made against him but rather him repeating the statement. That is all we have to go on and all it does is show a statement from public opposition being small, information lacking, rhetorical and plain pointless.
Now let me get this straight: If a liberal like me even IMPLIES that voters are less than intelligent for a certain decision they make, we're accused of being elitist and out of touch, and making blanket generalizations. You straight out come out and call them stupid and it's a-OK.
I do the exact same thing to conservatives who say "that's our tax money". Making blanket generalizations are fine so long as they are backed up with actual argument.
However Short, pointless, rhetorical, feel good statements (especially on their own) are just worthless in a constructive political dialogue.
Because he's telling his constituents to his face their opinion doesn't matter, that the money THEY contribute doesn't apply to him, even though he is their Representative.
That's not what your video shows.
I can only go by the evidence you have given rather than your personal interpretation. The video doesn't even show the statement made against him but rather him repeating the statement. The statement was small, information lacking, rhetorical and plain pointless.
Now let me get this straight: If a liberal like me even IMPLIES that voters are less than intelligent for a certain decision they make, we're accused of being elitist and out of touch, and making blanket generalizations. You straight out come out and call them stupid and it's a-OK.
I do the exact same thing to conservatives who say "that's our tax money".
Pointless+rhetorical feel good statements are worthless in a constructive political dialogue.
Ah yes, I had forgotten. The definition of "constructive political dialogue" morphing into whatever form is necessary to attempt to completely invalidate the opposing side of the argument. The rules of what is legitimate shift from post to post, any single criticism is dismissed as "shutting down discussion" as the rules of what is valid and not valid fluctuate according to the whims of the person who is apparently making the rules (and changing them on the fly).
Ah yes, I had forgotten. The definition of "constructive political dialogue" morphing into whatever form is necessary to attempt to completely invalidate the opposing side of the argument.
Other side of the argument? ...Their was no shown counter argument in the video lol!
I don't know that politician, the true nature of the "issue" or even his political leaning (other than hearsay from you and another guy here which makes me guess he isn't a liberal?). So I can't really give an opinion on anything except the video.
All I saw from the video was basically a random dude defending himself against a rhetorical statement. Countering a pointless statement "we pay you" with another pointless yet corrective statement "I don't need your pay".
[Edit: The only actual decent criticism I could find of him from that video was one of the elderly men calmly saying something along the lines of "you owe XXX thousand dollars", to which he replied "I paid it back". Unfortunately the video cuts it off before the elderly man could follow through.]
Stop saying "Clinton would have done this." We have no idea how Hilary would have handled anything and we will never know. People made their choice, their choice was Trump, so what he is doing is on Trump and Trump alone. Stop bringing what Clinton would have done into this discussion, because it is meaningless.
That's simply not true, we can know with as great a certainty as possible given the circumstances that at the very least, she would have done the same.
It's also not true that what the other side would have done is not relevant. We were not given unlimited choices, we get two, and one always should be put in the context of the other if getting an accurate view of the reality of the situation is your goal.
Claims about Trump on here can go as far as he is the biggest liar on planet earth. i'm pretty sure my own inference is quite reasonable and evidence based if we are treating both sides with equal skepticism.
It doesn't matter what Clinton would have done. Revisionist history is fanfiction.
What we have is what Trump did. It happened, let's talk about that.
Did Hillary make Trump do it? No he decided (or delegated the decisions), Hillary of all the people on Earth does not control Trump. It's Trump's fault, his responsibility.
Nobody made Trump do it. Would Trump jump off a cliff if Obama did it? If he did would it be reasonable to blame Obama? No Trump's a grown ass man who can make up his own mind.
If you have something to say about what Trump did, do it. Criticizing Clinton's war lust and criticising the real policies of Donald Trump are not mutually exclusive. It is a shame that the ability to do both is so rare.
I am also not sure why you are repeating the motif of "nobody made Trump do it" as though i had ever in the least said so or even slightly implied it.
That's simply not true, we can know with as great a certainty as possible given the circumstances that at the very least, she would have done the same.
It's also not true that what the other side would have done is not relevant. We were not given unlimited choices, we get two, and one always should be put in the context of the other if getting an accurate view of the reality of the situation is your goal.
Claims about Trump on here can go as far as he is the biggest liar on planet earth. i'm pretty sure my own inference is quite reasonable and evidence based if we are treating both sides with equal skepticism.
No We Don't and it doesn't matter. If she was elected, the circumstances might have been completely different, and remember, this wasn't the first time chemical weapons were used in Syria. The Democrats and the world say on their hands in 2013, they might have sat on their hands in 2017 too. Who knows? No one.
And actually, you were given 6 choices on a ballot this time around IIRC. Just because your country decides to ignore the other 4 choices doesn't mean they don't exist. What would have Gary Johnston done? Does that matter and more than what Hilary would have done? No, because they are not making the decisions.
Trump is the one holding the trigger, he is the one responsible. Clinton does not have to share the blame with his choices regardless if people think she might have/would have/could have done.
My point stands. If getting an accurate view of the political reality is your goal, then yes, getting the full context of possible choices that had a real chance of happening, matters. If deciding on who to blame is your goal, then it's a different matter. But clearly, as stated previously, my goal is the former. What do the powerful D's see as the solution and what do the R's do. If you want to blame Trump for what he did nobody is trying to take that away despite repeated implications to the contrary, indeed, an implication seemingly central to more than one response.
When the recession happened, people didn't waste their time talking about what John McCain would have done instead of Obama, if McCain had won the election. Clinton's hypothetical decisions as president would add nothing to the debate even if we did know exactly what she would do.
We're not going to accomplish much by debating the value of events that never happened.
If you have something to say about what Trump did, do it. Criticizing Clinton's war lust and criticising the real policies of Donald Trump are not mutually exclusive. It is a shame that the ability to do both is so rare.
I am also not sure why you are repeating the motif of "nobody made Trump do it" as though i had ever in the least said so or even slightly implied it.
Because Clinton is history. Trump is happening now. You might as well bring up Donald Rumsfeld's bloodlust. No don't do that because it doesn't matter in the context of the conversation of what Trump's doing today anymore than does Hillary's bloodlust in 2006 or whatever.
Anytime we talk about Trump someone brings up Hillary. Why? Trump's making decisions now. Let's talk about that.
@jjstraka34 Agreed on Obama, I was not worried about him with the transfer one bit, as he understood it, and alot do. It was just some in congress & some in the public I heard that gave me pause to think and wonder. I am glad we have had, and hope it continues to transfer peacefully, as most certainly some places on Earth have problems with.
My point stands. If getting an accurate view of the political reality is your goal, then yes, getting the full context of possible choices that had a real chance of happening, matters. If deciding on who to blame is your goal, then it's a different matter. But clearly, as stated previously, my goal is the former. What do the powerful D's see as the solution and what do the R's do. If you want to blame Trump for what he did nobody is trying to take that away despite repeated implications to the contrary, indeed, an implication seemingly central to more than one response.
The reality is Trump is president. That is as accurate as it gets. Everything else is Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
If we're going to talk about people who aren't in power at the moment, you can't do it without discussing two things: #1 After Obama reached out in the most gracious way possible during the transition, Trump still turned around and lied about him and accused him of committing a FELONY and being engaged in a political scandal on the level of Watergate with zero evidence. Add that on top of the birther stuff. #2 Trump is constantly going back to Hillary as his foil during bad news cycles, and don't think for one second he won't pull out his Banana Republic move, because what he said at the debate still stands. He WILL try to jail his political opponent if things get bad enough, and he has that sword hanging over her head and is just keeping that in his back pocket as well.
People really just seem to clam up when the birther issue gets raised. It remains one of the most utterly heinous things Trump has done, and I've seen here that not only does no one want to defend it, no one even really wants to talk about it. Trump is THE reason a large portion of Republican base voters believe Barack Obama was some sort of Manchurian Candidate, and it is THE reason he was so successful in the primaries in the last election cycle (that and his comment about Mexicans being rapists). He peddled it for YEARS, blatantly lied about sending investigators to look into it, and also constantly insinuated Obama was only in Harvard Law School because of affirmative action. Every attack he made on Obama during his 8 years in office was tinged with a racist dog whistle that wasn't even that subtle, to be honest. That's who Donald Trump is. He has never apologized for it, never taken any responsibility for it. He simply dismissed it after 5 or so years one day on the campaign trail, revealing the whole thing to be just like the rest of his life: A fraud.
People really just seem to clam up when the birther issue gets raised. It remains one of the most utterly heinous things Trump has done, and I've seen here that not only does no one want to defend it, no one even really wants to talk about it. Trump is THE reason a large portion of Republican base voters believe Barack Obama was some sort of Manchurian Candidate, and it is THE reason he was so successful in the primaries in the last election cycle (that and his comment about Mexicans being rapists). He peddled it for YEARS, blatantly lied about sending investigators to look into it, and also constantly insinuated Obama was only in Harvard Law School because of affirmative action. Every attack he made on Obama during his 8 years in office was tinged with a racist dog whistle that wasn't even that subtle, to be honest. That's who Donald Trump is. He has never apologized for it, never taken any responsibility for it. He simply dismissed it after 5 or so years one day on the campaign trail, revealing the whole thing to be just like the rest of his life: A fraud.
He took no responsibility for the birther lie, he blamed Hillary. Again as if Hillary forced him to repeat it or something.
If there is blanket refusal from the left to discuss Clinton thats okay even if I find the rationale lacking I understand it, arguing the point when there is simply no will to discuss it in the first place isnt worthwhile.
Racism is the boogeyman of the left and accusations of this or that ism, this or that particular bigotry are as common as copper. If Trump had something objectively racist to his name we would never hear the end of it, im sure.
The way he handled the media trying to paint him as the source of that claim was gold. Getting them all in a room for a press conference dedicated to discussing it, hyperventilating at the thought of discrediting him, make them play live footage of military vets praising him, said Obama was american and walked off. Epic troll. He knows how the hyper partisan media operates and how to play it to the maximum possible extent.
If there is blanket refusal from the left to discuss Clinton thats okay even if I find the rationale lacking I understand it, arguing the point when there is simply no will to discuss it in the first place isnt worthwhile.
Racism is the boogeyman of the left and accusations of this or that ism, this or that particular bigotry are as common as copper. If Trump had something objectively racist to his name we would never hear the end of it, im sure.
The way he handled the media trying to paint him as the source of that claim was gold. Getting them all in a room for a press conference dedicated to discussing it, hyperventilating at the thought of discrediting him, make them play live footage of military vets praising him, said Obama was american and walked off. Epic troll. He knows how the hyper partisan media operates and how to play it to the maximum possible extent.
You're implying that the birther conspiracy wasn't based on race?? Then what was it?? And yeah, I guess you can say lying about something for 5 years and then abandoning it when it's required of you is "trolling". The whole point of trolling is being able to say things without taking any responsibility for them. It's why most people do it anonymously online, because they know they could never get away with it in real life, where trolling is just called "being a dick". Try "troll" your boss or professor sometime, see how that works out.....
Yes, absolutely, I deny it until proven otherwise as should anyone fair minded when it comes to very extreme claims like racism, sexism, what have you.
I probably would have done the same thing to an adversarial media tbh, one that wasn't and still isn't prepared to operate with even the pretense of objectivity. That New York Times had to apologize to their readers post election says it all in my view
Also, in a recent topic, we talked about Berkeley riots, well guess what, another violent one happened at a conservative free speech rally. What is going on??
There is a Trump supporter quoted in that article saying he would enjoy hitting anti-Trump protesters. At the very least, this entire thing was mutual. There is a another who for some reason "pursues" an anti-Trump protester for no apparent reason and then is surprised when the other side fights back.
As for what's going on?? Simple. Alot of people in this country can't stand each other anymore.
That's insane to me. The idea of wanting to hit someone let alone outright disliking someone for political disagreement. I've had friends stop talking to me over it, it's enough to make one just shut up altogether. Crazy times we're living in
That's insane to me. The idea of wanting to hit someone let alone outright disliking someone for political disagreement. I've had friends stop talking to me over it, it's enough to make one just shut up altogether. Crazy times we're living in
I don't recall I've ever hit anyone over anything in my life, except for one particular bully in elementary school, which if my memory serves me correct was a single sock in the nose. The idea of actually getting in a fight with anyone is so far off my radar I don't even really comprehend how it happens. I've never understood angry drunks either, always drove me nuts to be around those people.
As for talking....that's a different story. I will stop talking to people over things, and I at the very least will get very passive aggressive, which most people view as a serious character flaw. I always counter that it sure as hell beats just being AGGRESSIVE and actually yelling or assaulting someone.
Comments
...That's called politics (and capitalism)
If people are pissed off at him taking advantage of the system, then perhaps it would be better if they give him some REAL questions, requests or criticisms?
Rather than pointless rhetorical statements such as "we pay you" that serve no purpose outside of making oneself feel better...
I dunno who he is but if all of his public opponents are this stupid then I am willing to bet he will win the next election.
Now let me get this straight: If a liberal like me even IMPLIES that voters are less than intelligent for a certain decision they make, we're accused of being elitist and out of touch, and making blanket generalizations. You straight out come out and call them stupid and it's a-OK.
"Lies more than any human being on earth?"
Ppl most certainly do not have to have a background in politcs to know something does not feel right to them.
The key I think to us doing that on here, in this forum, is do just that, understanding, asking, and TRUELY listening to the other. Listening is sometimes one of the hardest things to do when we feel strongly about a subject, but it is one of the most helpful.
This was a tough election for so many this time around, I even started getting worried about the peaceful transfer of power.
I listen plenty, and I listen to conservative media far more than I do to liberal media. And I heard them positing the idea of Obama not giving up power at the end of 8 years and declaring martial law so many times it would have been futile to keep count. Instead he rolled out the red carpet for a man who perpetrated a racist conspiracy theory against him for over half a decade. So I have absolutely NO idea where this idea of no peaceful transfer of power comes from except some kind of conventional wisdom that has no basis in any actual events, and simply another example of the right-wing echo chamber leaking into the greater national consciousness.
I don't personally care what anyone says about any groups of people. Have at it. What I care about alot is the double-standard that is applied to those of a liberal bent, who are constantly being lectured about our "tone"
I can only go by the evidence you have given rather than your personal interpretation. The video doesn't even show the statement made against him but rather him repeating the statement. That is all we have to go on and all it does is show a statement from public opposition being small, information lacking, rhetorical and plain pointless. I do the exact same thing to conservatives who say "that's our tax money". Making blanket generalizations are fine so long as they are backed up with actual argument.
However Short, pointless, rhetorical, feel good statements (especially on their own) are just worthless in a constructive political dialogue.
...Their was no shown counter argument in the video lol!
I don't know that politician, the true nature of the "issue" or even his political leaning (other than hearsay from you and another guy here which makes me guess he isn't a liberal?). So I can't really give an opinion on anything except the video.
All I saw from the video was basically a random dude defending himself against a rhetorical statement. Countering a pointless statement "we pay you" with another pointless yet corrective statement "I don't need your pay".
[Edit: The only actual decent criticism I could find of him from that video was one of the elderly men calmly saying something along the lines of "you owe XXX thousand dollars", to which he replied "I paid it back". Unfortunately the video cuts it off before the elderly man could follow through.]
And, here is Trump in a nutshell. (Pun intended)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4414366/US-president-insists-GOLD-plated-welcome-Mall.html
It's also not true that what the other side would have done is not relevant. We were not given unlimited choices, we get two, and one always should be put in the context of the other if getting an accurate view of the reality of the situation is your goal.
Claims about Trump on here can go as far as he is the biggest liar on planet earth. i'm pretty sure my own inference is quite reasonable and evidence based if we are treating both sides with equal skepticism.
What we have is what Trump did. It happened, let's talk about that.
Did Hillary make Trump do it? No he decided (or delegated the decisions), Hillary of all the people on Earth does not control Trump. It's Trump's fault, his responsibility.
Nobody made Trump do it. Would Trump jump off a cliff if Obama did it? If he did would it be reasonable to blame Obama? No Trump's a grown ass man who can make up his own mind.
I am also not sure why you are repeating the motif of "nobody made Trump do it" as though i had ever in the least said so or even slightly implied it.
And actually, you were given 6 choices on a ballot this time around IIRC. Just because your country decides to ignore the other 4 choices doesn't mean they don't exist. What would have Gary Johnston done? Does that matter and more than what Hilary would have done? No, because they are not making the decisions.
Trump is the one holding the trigger, he is the one responsible. Clinton does not have to share the blame with his choices regardless if people think she might have/would have/could have done.
We're not going to accomplish much by debating the value of events that never happened.
Anytime we talk about Trump someone brings up Hillary. Why? Trump's making decisions now. Let's talk about that.
People really just seem to clam up when the birther issue gets raised. It remains one of the most utterly heinous things Trump has done, and I've seen here that not only does no one want to defend it, no one even really wants to talk about it. Trump is THE reason a large portion of Republican base voters believe Barack Obama was some sort of Manchurian Candidate, and it is THE reason he was so successful in the primaries in the last election cycle (that and his comment about Mexicans being rapists). He peddled it for YEARS, blatantly lied about sending investigators to look into it, and also constantly insinuated Obama was only in Harvard Law School because of affirmative action. Every attack he made on Obama during his 8 years in office was tinged with a racist dog whistle that wasn't even that subtle, to be honest. That's who Donald Trump is. He has never apologized for it, never taken any responsibility for it. He simply dismissed it after 5 or so years one day on the campaign trail, revealing the whole thing to be just like the rest of his life: A fraud.
Racism is the boogeyman of the left and accusations of this or that ism, this or that particular bigotry are as common as copper. If Trump had something objectively racist to his name we would never hear the end of it, im sure.
The way he handled the media trying to paint him as the source of that claim was gold. Getting them all in a room for a press conference dedicated to discussing it, hyperventilating at the thought of discrediting him, make them play live footage of military vets praising him, said Obama was american and walked off. Epic troll. He knows how the hyper partisan media operates and how to play it to the maximum possible extent.
I probably would have done the same thing to an adversarial media tbh, one that wasn't and still isn't prepared to operate with even the pretense of objectivity. That New York Times had to apologize to their readers post election says it all in my view
Also, in a recent topic, we talked about Berkeley riots, well guess what, another violent one happened at a conservative free speech rally. What is going on??
There is a Trump supporter quoted in that article saying he would enjoy hitting anti-Trump protesters. At the very least, this entire thing was mutual. There is a another who for some reason "pursues" an anti-Trump protester for no apparent reason and then is surprised when the other side fights back.
As for what's going on?? Simple. Alot of people in this country can't stand each other anymore.
As for talking....that's a different story. I will stop talking to people over things, and I at the very least will get very passive aggressive, which most people view as a serious character flaw. I always counter that it sure as hell beats just being AGGRESSIVE and actually yelling or assaulting someone.