The issue is what matters, not the adherent.

This is why cancel culture thrives.  People can't separate issues from personality, art from artist, etc.  Personality discredited, issue invalid.  Artist shamed, art banned/burned/scorned.

Well said.

---

No, let me reframe this discussion, because your confidence annoys me.

Tucker is THE most watched show on all of cable network television. Even though he offends different groups at different times, he has a MASSIVE following.... more than double his competitors. Advertisers are getting twice the bang for their buck by airing on his show. So, if a company is not choosing to put their product on his show, it's not because of the lack of views. It's because there is an alternative pressure that's coming from somewhere else. Now, I know you like to believe that it's the people that put pressure on advertisers, but you yourself say that Americans don't successfully boycott anything, right? So, it's not the people that are creating that pressure. Where's it coming from, Marty?

Advertising on Tucker Carlson's show is not a good look.  He offends too many people.  A lot of companies don't want to be associated with the views he expresses.  It's that simple.  There are a million other ways for them to advertise.  There's no reason they would pick his show, with all that controversy.  It's not that there would be any kind of successful, organized boycott.  It's just unnecessary controversy that they don't want to deal with.  Why offend people if you don't have to?  

How would you answer the question you posed?

Stop right there and explain to me how this Imbev/AB fiasco came to be using that exact same logic please.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

No, let me reframe this discussion, because your confidence annoys me.

Tucker is THE most watched show on all of cable network television. Even though he offends different groups at different times, he has a MASSIVE following.... more than double his competitors. Advertisers are getting twice the bang for their buck by airing on his show. So, if a company is not choosing to put their product on his show, it's not because of the lack of views. It's because there is an alternative pressure that's coming from somewhere else. Now, I know you like to believe that it's the people that put pressure on advertisers, but you yourself say that Americans don't successfully boycott anything, right? So, it's not the people that are creating that pressure. Where's it coming from, Marty?

Advertising on Tucker Carlson's show is not a good look.  He offends too many people.  A lot of companies don't want to be associated with the views he expresses.  It's that simple.  There are a million other ways for them to advertise.  There's no reason they would pick his show, with all that controversy.  It's not that there would be any kind of successful, organized boycott.  It's just unnecessary controversy that they don't want to deal with.  Why offend people if you don't have to?  

How would you answer the question you posed?

Who cares if he offends people. Dylan Mulvany offends people, and you were trying to buy stock because you believed people won't follow through with their boycott. Bud can advertise with who it wants, right? What difference does it make? They are just expanding their demographic, right? Oh, that's right... except for when you're told that person can't have that view. Who tells you that? Why don't you ever think outside your bubble?

You want to know the answer to my question? Here it is: There is more profit in controlling the narrative than there is in convincing people to buy your product. This is true whether you're a business "selling" a product or a politician "selling" a policy. Control the market via market capture and policy regulation. Control the narrative via censorship and distraction. Profit.

Tucker has attacked the senior brass at the DOD, Pfizer, the January 6th narrative. Nothing he said with regards to these criticisms were wrong as far as I can tell. They were certainly obnoxious. There is some spin at times... I seriously doubt he's capturing the whole truth of the issue, but where do you find that? Look around, Marty... the only opinions are not attacked as far right is whatever pro-government position that's currently held by Democrats. Name a single right-wing issue that isn't attacked as absurd. 

Yet... and here's the kicker... congress still passes laws ALL the time. Which ones? We have no [BLEEP] idea. Who do they benefit? Not us. We don't even know about them. We know about transphobia, though. Yea!

---

Advertising on Tucker Carlson's show is not a good look.  He offends too many people.  A lot of companies don't want to be associated with the views he expresses.  It's that simple.  There are a million other ways for them to advertise.  There's no reason they would pick his show, with all that controversy.  It's not that there would be any kind of successful, organized boycott.  It's just unnecessary controversy that they don't want to deal with.  Why offend people if you don't have to?  

How would you answer the question you posed?

Stop right there and explain to me how this Imbev/AB fiasco came to be using that exact same logic please.

I think you put your finger right on it.  It's the same thing.  Pointlessly antagonizing a whole bunch of potential customers.

---

Advertising on Tucker Carlson's show is not a good look.  He offends too many people.  A lot of companies don't want to be associated with the views he expresses.  It's that simple.  There are a million other ways for them to advertise.  There's no reason they would pick his show, with all that controversy.  It's not that there would be any kind of successful, organized boycott.  It's just unnecessary controversy that they don't want to deal with.  Why offend people if you don't have to?  

How would you answer the question you posed?

Who cares if he offends people. Dylan Mulvany offends people, and you were trying to buy stock because you believed people won't follow through with their boycott. Bud can advertise with who it wants, right? What difference does it make? They are just expanding their demographic, right? Oh, that's right... except for when you're told that person can't have that view. Who tells you that? Why don't you ever think outside your bubble?

You want to know the answer to my question? Here it is: There is more profit in controlling the narrative than there is in convincing people to buy your product. This is true whether you're a business "selling" a product or a politician "selling" a policy. Control the market via market capture and policy regulation. Control the narrative via censorship and distraction. Profit.

Tucker has attacked the senior brass at the DOD, Pfizer, the January 6th narrative. Nothing he said with regards to these criticisms were wrong as far as I can tell. They were certainly obnoxious. There is some spin at times... I seriously doubt he's capturing the whole truth of the issue, but where do you find that? Look around, Marty... the only opinions are not attacked as far right is whatever pro-government position that's currently held by Democrats. Name a single right-wing issue that isn't attacked as absurd. 

Yet... and here's the kicker... congress still passes laws ALL the time. Which ones? We have no [BLEEP] idea. Who do they benefit? Not us. We don't even know about them. We know about transphobia, though. Yea!

I wasn't trying to buy stock in Budweiser.  And Dylan Mulvaney is a good example of what I'm talking about.  Bud shot itself in the foot.  

Tucker has attacked all the people you cite, but he also attacked his own bosses and his own co-workers.  He was popular, but he couldn't pull in the advertising revenue commensurate with that popularity. He had no friends at Fox to defend him.  He was deeply unpopular there.  And the discovery process in the Dominion case revealed that Tucker Carlson is a big phony.  He supports Trump in public but he hates Trump in private.  He supports stolen-election theories in public but in private he says he doesn't believe them.

I don't see why you're having such a hard time grasping this.  Does everything have to fit into your grand conspiracy theories where powerful dark forces are conspiring to take over the world and control our thoughts?  Have you ever seen the movie "The President's Analyst?"  That's right up your alley.

---

Stop right there and explain to me how this Imbev/AB fiasco came to be using that exact same logic please.

I think you put your finger right on it.  It's the same thing.  Pointlessly antagonizing a whole bunch of potential customers.

I think you missed the point on this.  AB didn’t antagonize potential customers, they insulted their core customers.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I think you put your finger right on it.  It's the same thing.  Pointlessly antagonizing a whole bunch of potential customers.

I think you missed the point on this.  AB didn’t antagonize potential customers, they insulted their core customers.

Correct.

---

Who cares if he offends people. Dylan Mulvany offends people, and you were trying to buy stock because you believed people won't follow through with their boycott. Bud can advertise with who it wants, right? What difference does it make? They are just expanding their demographic, right? Oh, that's right... except for when you're told that person can't have that view. Who tells you that? Why don't you ever think outside your bubble?

You want to know the answer to my question? Here it is: There is more profit in controlling the narrative than there is in convincing people to buy your product. This is true whether you're a business "selling" a product or a politician "selling" a policy. Control the market via market capture and policy regulation. Control the narrative via censorship and distraction. Profit.

Tucker has attacked the senior brass at the DOD, Pfizer, the January 6th narrative. Nothing he said with regards to these criticisms were wrong as far as I can tell. They were certainly obnoxious. There is some spin at times... I seriously doubt he's capturing the whole truth of the issue, but where do you find that? Look around, Marty... the only opinions are not attacked as far right is whatever pro-government position that's currently held by Democrats. Name a single right-wing issue that isn't attacked as absurd. 

Yet... and here's the kicker... congress still passes laws ALL the time. Which ones? We have no [BLEEP] idea. Who do they benefit? Not us. We don't even know about them. We know about transphobia, though. Yea!

I wasn't trying to buy stock in Budweiser.  And Dylan Mulvaney is a good example of what I'm talking about.  Bud shot itself in the foot.  

Tucker has attacked all the people you cite, but he also attacked his own bosses and his own co-workers.  He was popular, but he couldn't pull in the advertising revenue commensurate with that popularity. He had no friends at Fox to defend him.  He was deeply unpopular there.  And the discovery process in the Dominion case revealed that Tucker Carlson is a big phony.  He supports Trump in public but he hates Trump in private.  He supports stolen-election theories in public but in private he says he doesn't believe them.

I don't see why you're having such a hard time grasping this.  Does everything have to fit into your grand conspiracy theories where powerful dark forces are conspiring to take over the world and control our thoughts?  Have you ever seen the movie "The President's Analyst?"  That's right up your alley.

Huh. That's interesting. What's this [BLEEP], then?

It's going down the toilet bowl now for sure. I think their stock hit continues to rise as they were at a $6.5B loss as of yesterday or the day before. 

Not sure how much it really matters though if they're primarily backed by one of the world's, if not, the world's largest asset group in Blackrock. Blackrock has over $10T in assets. They have more money behind them than most countries do at the moment. 

In the grand scheme of things, Budweiser could fall off a cliff tomorrow and Blackrock won't skip a beat. They'll just flip their assets over to a new brand and company and allow them to use their old facilities, equipment, etc. 

It's pretty interesting and disturbing. They can push any narrative they want behind the scenes and still make out on top by playing both sides. While it's encouraging to see a lot of people voting with their dollars, it's also disheartening to see a ton of hardworking people potentially losing their jobs.

On March 14, Budweiser stock closed at $60.45.   As of this moment, pre-market, April 14, it will open at $64.34, which is a gain of over 5% for the last month.

I think in another month or two, this will all be forgotten, except for the executives at BUD, who will institute greater controls on how advertising gets approved.

I can't make a connection between BUD stock and Blackrock.  The largest investor in BUD is Dodge and Cox Stock fund, which owns 1.46%.  Only 6.3% of shares are owned by institutions.

Marty, you got me thinking about this... what if, knowing the temperament of the US public, investors have picked up a new way of gaining cheap stocks. Manufacture public outrage... the public sells their stocks, investors pick up stocks, the storm blows over. Profit.

I've thought the exact same thing since the big Tylenol case a couple of decades ago.  These things blow over.  I see it again and again, but I never have the nerve to jump in.

I went and looked at the BUD stock this morning, thinking maybe I could get a discount, but nothing's happening.  No discount.

In the first post, you are explaining why this isn't going to hurt Budweiser. In the second quote, you were saying you were looking to pick up Budweiser on the cheap. Are you rewriting history?

---

I don't understand the brouhaha about it. I've never participated in any boycott of any product. If I like the product, I buy it. I remember when the left wanted to boycott Chic-fil-a. That went nowhere, because they make great chicken sandwiches. I doubt this will go anywhere. You either like Budweiser or not. Who cares who endorses it? Dylan Mulvaney is not some evil person as far as I know. I really don't give a crap about culture wars except for wishing both sides would just shut up and leave us all in peace.

There's this gem, too. You admit at every turn the PEOPLE don't do anything to businesses, but then you pretend like these businesses care about people's opinions. Why would they care if there are no reprisals, Marty? It's just optics. You love to throw out conspiracy theory, like out here talking about aliens or some [BLEEP]. It's basic strategy that's only possible because corporations have become far too powerful. This should be obvious to you, but you're too busy gaslighting yourself on their behalf.

---

Tucker emerges after the firing.. Posted at 8:01pm lolol

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status...Czybw&s=19

---

Tucker emerges after the firing.. Posted at 8:01pm lolol

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status...Czybw&s=19

I like a lot of what he said there.  There are important things that are simply never debated, including the things he listed.  What is not clear, to me, is if changing who is in charge of government changes those things.  Most things change over time, on their own.  But being conservative means believing that there are some things that the government will never be able to willfully change, and there are other things that the government could possibly change, but only at great cost, meaning they should not try to change them.  So yes, have a debate about those things, but it would be more of an academic debate, not a political one.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Tucker can be entertaining, but how much of a fake is he? He bad mouths Trump harshly. Later he is kissing up to him. SMH
To add more, he gets into conspiracy land.

---

Tucker can be entertaining, but how much of a fake is he? He bad mouths Trump harshly. Later he is kissing up to him. SMH
To add more, he gets into conspiracy land.

Two sides to every story, dude.. I'd love to see a behind the scenes footage video between Tuckers old producers and Tucker for his nightly content. Dude coulda been handcuffed to one idiology for all we know. 

Guess we'll find out soon if he continues his M-F nightly monologs on Twitter. Could be a completely different person..

---

I don't understand the brouhaha about it.  I've never participated in any boycott of any product.  If I like the product, I buy it.  I remember when the left wanted to boycott Chic-fil-a.  That went nowhere, because they make great chicken sandwiches.  I doubt this will go anywhere.  You either like Budweiser or not.  Who cares who endorses it?  Dylan Mulvaney is not some evil person as far as I know.  I really don't give a crap about culture wars except for wishing both sides would just shut up and leave us all in peace.

There's this gem, too. You admit at every turn the PEOPLE don't do anything to businesses, but then you pretend like these businesses care about people's opinions. Why would they care if there are no reprisals, Marty? It's just optics. You love to throw out conspiracy theory, like out here talking about aliens or some [BLEEP]. It's basic strategy that's only possible because corporations have become far too powerful. This should be obvious to you, but you're too busy gaslighting yourself on their behalf.

I'm just telling you what's being reported.  Here's what the Wall Street Journal, which is also owned by Murdoch, is reporting:
================================================================
Tucker Carlson’s Vulgar, Offensive Messages About Colleagues Helped Seal His Fate at Fox News - WSJ

On Monday, Mr. Carlson’s famously combative stance toward members of Fox News management and other colleagues caught up with him, as the network abruptly announced it was parting ways with him...

The private messages in which Mr. Carlson showed disregard for management and colleagues were a major factor in that decision, according to other people familiar with the matter. Although many portions of the Dominion court documents are redacted, there is concern among Fox Corp. executives that if the redacted material were to become public, it would lead to further embarrassment for the network and parent company.

Within Fox’s management, reservations had been mounting about risks Mr. Carlson presented for the network, people familiar with the matter said. Some of the people pointed to concerns that the populist firebrand had come to believe himself bigger than the network—a cardinal sin in Fox Corp. Chair Rupert Murdoch’s empire—and was increasingly operating as his own island.

On air, Mr. Carlson had turned up the volume on commentary that had expanded beyond a conservative viewpoint on politics into more of an attack on marginalized groups. His show, more than those of his prime-time colleagues Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, frequently landed the network in hot water, particularly with advertisers.

In recent years, battles between Mr. Carlson and Fox management got so bad that former Trump aide Raj Shah was appointed to be his internal advocate and an intermediary between Mr. Carlson and Fox’s communications department, according to people familiar with the arrangement and filings in the Dominion case.

The Dominion court filings are filled with examples of him disparaging colleagues, from calling for the firing of Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich for fact-checking Mr. Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election to complaining about the network’s news coverage, including the decision to call Arizona for Mr. Biden on election night.

Inside Fox News, there has been a growing sense that Mr. Carlson couldn’t be managed, and viewed himself as untouchable, people familiar with the company said. Legal documents also revealed Mr. Carlson was unafraid to run roughshod over those whose views or actions he opposed.

While Mr. Carlson’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” was popular, it was also repellent to blue-chip advertisers. Top-tier marketers tend to steer clear of content they deem too controversial, and the show was sometimes the target of advertiser boycotts. As advertisers have fled prime time, some have shifted to airing commercials on Fox at other times.

The lack of advertiser demand meant the commercials in many cases weren’t being sold at a premium or at a rate commensurate with its audience size, which meant it wasn’t providing a financial windfall to the network, people familiar with the network’s operations said.
=============================================================================================================
In other words, while he was a complete [BLEEP] hole, he wasn't as valuable as his audience size would seem to indicate.  

---

Or... maybe... if you would stop just digesting everything put in front of you and use your brain, you would consider that "blue-chip" advertisers pull their funding until he is removed because he reports on things they don't like, and controlling the narrative is ultimately more profitable. In an Ayn Rand capitalism, I have no problem with the idea that greed is good. This goes out the window when you have multiple subsidiaries, control of political regulation, and a disproportionate influence on the narrative via the media. If you don't think that's where we are with our corporate structure, you don't know anything about the world, man. Our corporations are out of control. They have virtually no accountability and unlimited wealth, for all intents and purposes.

How much Tucker do you actually watch. The dude has a seriously punchable face, and he's obnoxious. Conceded. But when you get to the root of what he's saying, how much of it is untrue or bad?

---

Or... maybe... if you would stop just digesting everything put in front of you and use your brain, you would consider that "blue-chip" advertisers pull their funding until he is removed because he reports on things they don't like, and controlling the narrative is ultimately more profitable. In an Ayn Rand capitalism, I have no problem with the idea that greed is good. This goes out the window when you have multiple subsidiaries, control of political regulation, and a disproportionate influence on the narrative via the media. If you don't think that's where we are with our corporate structure, you don't know anything about the world, man. Our corporations are out of control. They have virtually no accountability and unlimited wealth, for all intents and purposes.

How much Tucker do you actually watch. The dude has a seriously punchable face, and he's obnoxious. Conceded. But when you get to the root of what he's saying, how much of it is untrue or bad?

I don't watch any pundit-shows at all.  I don't listen to political talk radio or TV.  I don't need someone telling me what to think, and I don't get off on people reinforcing my opinions, especially when I have to watch commercials in between them telling everyone what to think.  

So I can't comment on how much of what Tucker Carlson says is true or untrue.  What I don't like about him is what has been revealed in the Dominion case, and that is, that he doesn't believe what he says he believes.  He's a phony.  That is a proven fact.  He's just telling people what they want to hear, and doing it for the money.  He's like Al Sharpton.  Same deal.

---

Or... maybe... if you would stop just digesting everything put in front of you and use your brain, you would consider that "blue-chip" advertisers pull their funding until he is removed because he reports on things they don't like, and controlling the narrative is ultimately more profitable. In an Ayn Rand capitalism, I have no problem with the idea that greed is good. This goes out the window when you have multiple subsidiaries, control of political regulation, and a disproportionate influence on the narrative via the media. If you don't think that's where we are with our corporate structure, you don't know anything about the world, man. Our corporations are out of control. They have virtually no accountability and unlimited wealth, for all intents and purposes.

How much Tucker do you actually watch. The dude has a seriously punchable face, and he's obnoxious. Conceded. But when you get to the root of what he's saying, how much of it is untrue or bad?

I don't watch any pundit-shows at all.  I don't listen to political talk radio or TV.  I don't need someone telling me what to think, and I don't get off on people reinforcing my opinions, especially when I have to watch commercials in between them telling everyone what to think.  

So I can't comment on how much of what Tucker Carlson says is true or untrue.  What I don't like about him is what has been revealed in the Dominion case, and that is, that he doesn't believe what he says he believes.  He's a phony.  That is a proven fact.  He's just telling people what they want to hear, and doing it for the money.  He's like Al Sharpton.  Same deal.

You didn't listen to him talk, and you claim you don't listen to anyone who talks about him. Then you also say that what you've read about him is bad, without it clicking for you that even that information is going through a filter. 

Help me understand how he is such a liar to you. From what we have so far, we know he thought Sidney Powell was a liar. He exposed her on his show. He was the first Fox News analyst to speak against her. He never said anything in support of her after his interview with her. All he said is we don't know the status of the machines. Unless you have something else that came out later, that doesn't seem like lying. His text also show he was mad at Fox brass for calling AZ too early. How is that lying? What else is there?

I think all pundits are corrupt at some level. It's too hard to avoid the money factor. I just don't see anything special about Tucker compared to anyone else. Where is the clamoring to get them fired? The biggest difference about Tucker is that advertisers started withholding, but he isn't more controversial than Dylan Mulvaney or Colin Kaepernick, right? He's not more controversial than Jeanine Pirro, right? So why do they want him off the air? If you actually listened to him speak, you might understand why advertisers don't like him. I don't believe it's because he's any more or less controversial than anyone else. He's just willing to attack his sponsors. That's not a bad thing.

---

Tucker offered $100 million, 5 year contract..

https://twitter.com/patrickbetdavid/stat...XNb5A&s=19

---

Not sure if anyone caught the most recent text message from Tkr Carlson that was entered into evidence, but I find it a bit disturbing. I'm sure some of you will not since I've seen dozens of posts here wishing harm or death on people some of you happen to disagree with. LOL

https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-c...ext-2023-5

Here is the text in question:

“A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living [BLEEP] out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: this isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be. The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?"

and other texts entered into evidence from TC:

On Fox News’ Arizona call:
“We devote our lives to building an audience and they let Chris Wallace and Leland [BLEEP] Vittert wreck it,” Carlson texted in a group conversation with Ingraham and Sean Hannity roughly two weeks after the election. Vittert was a Fox News reporter who was frequently criticized by Trump, and he left the network in April 2021 for NewsNation.

On Trump:
“What he’s good at is destroying things,” Carlson texted producer Alex Pfeiffer on November 5. “He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong.”
“I hate him passionately,” Carlson texted Pfeiffer on January 4, days prior to the riot at the U.S. Capitol. He added, of Trump’s presidency, “We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest. But come on. There really isn’t an upside to Trump.”


On election denialism

On November 5, in response to his producer Alex Pfeiffer, who had written that “I really think many on ‘our side’ are being reckless demagogues right now,” Carlson wrote, “Of course they are. We’re not going to follow them. The sun will rise tomorrow and we want to wake up intact. I always think that.”


A couple of texts from Rupert Murdoch in evidence: 

On calling the election for Biden:

“I hate our Decision Desk people!” Murdoch emailed former New York Post editor Col Allan on the day the election was called. “And pollsters! Some of the same people I think. Just for the hell of it still praying for Az to prove them wrong!” Later that day, he emailed his son Lachlan, writing that Fox News “should and could” have called the election for Biden before any other network. “But at least being second saves us a Trump explosion!”


On how to handle Trump postelection:

“The more I think about McConnell’s remarks or complaint, the more I agree,” Murdoch wrote in an email on Biden’s Inauguration Day. “Trump insisting on the election being stolen and convincing 25 percent of Americans was a huge disservice to the country. Pretty much a crime. Inevitable it blew up Jan. 6th. Best we don’t mention his name unless essential and certainly don’t support him. We have to respect people of principle and if it comes to the Senate, don’t take sides. I know he is being over-demonized, but he brought it on himself.”

---

His first text, I don't see anything wrong with. He saw a video of an antifa punk getting destroyed by 3 others. I'm pretty sure a lot of us thought the same thing. Does the antifa kid deserve to get the hell beat out of him? Don't know..My first question is, what did he do to deserve it? Did he burn down a business? Was he causing mayhem like the rest of the antifa mob? Did he burn down a church? Or did he kill, execution style, someone like they did David Dorn? If you don't want the smoke, stop setting the fires.

Tucker also appealed to his own common sense and humanity in that text, saying the kid most likely has loved ones and he would be no better than the mob attacking him for wishing ill will..

So I don't see anything wrong at all with the first text at all..

As far as the second text, I couldn't give 2 [BLEEP] about Chris Wallace, he's trash.

The third text, I couldn't give 2 God damns about what he thinks of Trump! He's entitled to his opinion just like the rest of us. The only difference is the much larger platform to express his opinions.

The majority of us sat there for months and months as we watched our nation burn to the ground because of these antifa punks. Autonomous Zone.. And how many of our 'Democrat Leaders' either enticed those riots or absolutely said NOTHING to de-escalate them?!? Damn near all, so they can [BLEEP] off too.

You don't cry foul when you haven't washed the blood off of your own hands first..

---