Hasn't SHE also been filmed mocking Trump at her rallies...another person with disabilities, but his are purely mental.

EDIT: Also, is his mocking a disabled man really the most important flub he's made? Wouldn't disputing some of his policies be more to the point and make more of a difference. I mean, we already know he's a douchebag, and that's a selling point for most of his followers, not a deal breaker. Explain how his tax plan doubles the national debt, raises taxes on all non millionaires, and ends all social programs many of his followers use to live, while drastically lowering tax rates on millionaires and making it easier for them to hide money and move businesses out of the country, contrary to what he tells them in his rallies. I see this as a huge part of the problem this election, it's become all about personality, nothing of substance at all, because neither main candidate wants to discuss their plans or history.

EDIT: The following statement has been found to be inaccurate.

Um...keep in mind that she's NOT the nominee yet, people. It's another lie from her campaign, repeated by all media organizations.
A candidate needs 2383 PLEDGED delegates to win the nomination. She has 2184. Because there seems to be some question among Clinton supporters, 2184 < 2383. She's 199 short. That doesn't mean Sanders has much chance, it means the claim that "she won the nomination" is a BOLD FACED LIE that apparently 90% of Americans are gullible and ignorant enough to buy. Don't be a sucker and fall for then repeat another lie. Wait for the convention before calling her the nominee. She didn't win yet.

Yeah, I found it on urban dictionary....as I said, it's not English.
So, not only are you incredibly poor at comprehension, you're a complete douchebag....but no, I'm not unjustified, nor does it matter that you posted my private reply to you, I stand behind every word. It only goes to show you are the kind of asshole that posts private comments publicly if you think it helps you be an asshole.
EDIT: What you also failed to comprehend was I posted privately to indicate that I wasn't trying to publicly shame or lambast you for misreading....clearly the sentiment was not mutual, although you failed miserably in the attempt to shame me.
thank you come again....actually don't, I'm done with you're 12 year old girl bullshit. Fuck off, douchebag.
Smell you later, forever.

You're a vegan -and not a douchebag-. Please help ahimsa understand why everyone a bunch of us dislike them (no clue as to gender), and how your attitude will win over people long before theirs ever will.

Answer #1: I don't know what makes you a douchebag. I don't think "speaking out against" anything makes someone a douchebag. Telling me I'm an addict, a murderer, a RAPIST because I live and eat the way mankind has since before we made pictograms on cave walls? That's douchey. Trying to make your point by quoting people is no more effective than any other religious nut standing on a soap box.

Answer#2: Anyone can make a point by using hyperbole and extreme cases. Would I get pissed off if someone was using human toddlers, locked in black rooms, as a food source? Please. You do realize the issue between my view on food, and your view on food, is a mere distinction between what you and I consider sentience?

I'm against corporate food production. Corporations have a long and rich history of fucking humans over, I can only guess what they do to animals. I am vehemently opposed to unnecessary pain and suffering in any creature. Except pedophiles, rapists, Republicans, and those guys who flip you the bird when THEY have cut YOU off. We can do medical testing on them, no problem.

I guess you just will never understand, I don't particularly disagree with the message, just the messenger.

You can be described as "holier than thou", your arguments come from your feelings of elitism, superiority. Showing us how misguided and base we are. It's the reason why theists will never listen to Dawkins or Hitchens. (Conversely why atheists don't listen to theists either, truth be told.) They talk down to them as if they were idiots. They might BE idiots, but no one ever likes being called one.

You attack us and wonder why we get pissed off. THAT'S why you're a douchebag.

Elie Wiesel was talking about you, not us. We don't go around attacking vegans. We only react to their attacks on us. You are the oppressor here, the tormentor. I was fine before you started the name calling.

so speaking out against the completely unnecessary torture and murder of non-human animals makes one a douchebag? i wonder if you would have the same opinion if the victims were human beings?

"Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." ~Elie Wiesel

No problem with vegetarians.

No problem with people taking it further and working towards universal vegetarianism.

I dislike your attitude and lack of tact, not what you had for lunch. I don't dislike you because you're a vegan, I dislike you because you're a douchebag.

Eh, self-respect and self-control are not mutually exclusive. I feel much better about myself knowing that some shitbird customer never forced me to lose my cool/job. The real unreasonable douchebags? Refuse them service. Politely suggest they try their tone somewhere else. Watch them lose their shit and savour it.

F*ck that. I see some douchebag in my yard swing a wrench at my dogs, he's never leaving the yard. I don't care a whit if he has a reflective vest on. I don't even care if he has a gun and a badge, it'll be high noon at the OK corral and we'll see who aims better.
That guy damn well better be fired, and the gas company sued.
I would like to see his name and address posted. He needs to lose a few teeth and an eye himself.
If you go into someone's yard unannounced and they let the dogs attack you, that's 100% YOUR fault. I don't think that's what happened here, the dogs seemed to already be in the yard and NOT attacking until he swung the wrench, but even if it was what happened, the guy and gas company are still 100% in the wrong....and the guy is really damn lucky to be alive.
I shouldn't have watched. This kind of crap boils my blood.

Good info. Thanks.

I don't know Canadian law, but here in the US, giving your name and date of birth is "identifying yourself", but when driving you must present a license if requested, and proof of insurance. It seemed like they had some issue with presenting the papers.
You're quite right by US law, when he improperly claimed to be a 'peace officer', he was technically 'impersonating law enforcement' and that's an arrest able crime....BUT they actually SAID they wanted to arrest him for calling 911 when emergency vehicles were already there, not for impersonating a peace officer....that's ridiculous and abusive and also quite 'douchebaggy', and also likely makes the cop a liar since I don't think there is any such law denying access to 911 if emergency vehicles are present.

Sorry, he lost me when he said "we're all human beings, we deserve dignity", because douchebag power trippers with a badge don't deserve dignity, they deserve a powerful shaming and a lawsuit if they injure you in any way during their power trip. The same goes for power tripping 'freemen', 'sovereign citizens', fake 'peace officers', and 'detaxers'.
It always makes me laugh that they use so many public systems to try to 'prove' that the public systems both aren't legal and don't apply to them. For instance, if they don't have to pay for road tax because they aren't under the jurisdiction of or in league with the government, aren't they guilty of both trespass for being on what they claim is private land (because no government=no public land) AND guilty of theft for using the 'private' roadways without paying the owners?
Also, if they aren't under the jurisdiction of the police, and they have no authority, why was he CALLING THE POLICE FOR HELP?!? ...and why are they arguing in court about the legality of the court....Just duh, Robert.

Except that it's not shenanigans to lane split to the front at a light when on a bike, it's expected and legal, but it is shenanigans to jump back in front as a car just because you're butt hurt someone got in front of you, then swerve at the bike as if to kill him....and also serious shenanigans to chase him like you're Steve Macqueen because he turned your mirror slightly.
Perhaps you mean it's shenanigans to hit the douchebags mirror? I guess I can't say that's totally incorrect, and clearly didn't turn out well, but when someone tries to kill you (which is what happened as I see it), that's a fairly restrained response.
Florida is a concealed carry state, and a 'stand your ground' state as well. The biker could have shot that guy in my eyes after the first attempt to hit him at the very start, certainly when he cut him off and got out of the car, and justifiably, properly, and morally when the car started really trying to run him off the road.
(ps, I don't ride motorcycles)

They are both incredible douchebags. I'd like to see the video before this that the motorcyclist conveniently left out so we can judge for ourselves what he did to set the other guy off. That being said the other guys appearance doesn't give me much hope for any level of higher order intelligence there.

He should have smacked that IPhone right out of the attempted murder-douchebags hand, then taken his video straight to the police. That moron needs to be in prison.

Oh yeah, I'm well aware that defending yourself can easily turn into a scene from a 70's kung fu movie with multiple attackers going after you for defending yourself...no matter how out of control the female attacker may be. There are many dumb, sexist douchebags out there just itching for a fight. My point is, there's absolutely no legitimate reason you can't defend yourself against a woman who's attacking you physically....idiot douchebags don't count as 'legitimate reasons' to me, but I don't disagree they're a consideration. EDIT: That said...I don't think black Rick Astley there would give me much pause.

My brother knows even better than I, he was attacked by a random angry drunk girl on the street in Austin, she threw her drink on him and sucker punched him in the face out of nowhere, over nothing (according to him), he slapped her, and woke up 5 minutes later face down on the sidewalk with a missing tooth and a broken motorcycle helmet, some 'bro' (read 'brah') sucker punched him in the back of the head and beat him with his own helmet, then probably went home to rape the drunk girl.

That said...if a woman wants to act like her sex isn't an issue and start a physical confrontation with someone much larger, they deserve the debilitating beat down they get and their sex and/or size should not be an issue. That's the logical outcome of believing in equality of the sexes in the eyes of the law.

i have watched a few of this guys videos,and while he has great energy,passion and a penchant for sly humor,but he tends to impose his understandings as somehow being more valid and accurate.

just take his example of the role of government.
he makes a valid point,and then solidifies his position by implying his view is set in this countries original documents.

which is fair,but only to a point...he literally ignores the federalist papers,which he actually references,and it was these 200+ papers and/or arguments that debated the actual role of the federal government vs the role of state government.

@MonkeySpank he is actually right.america is not a true direct democracy but rather a democratically elected representative republic.

after he makes some valid,if fairly biased points,he devolves into the gospel of capitalism and how it is a natural extension of our democratic republic.

really dude?
name ONE corporation that is democratic in any fashion?
you can't?
maybe that is due to the very obvious and plain fact that corporations are tyrannical by their very design.

this semi-educated man is just preaching the gospel of his religion:capitalism.

and referencing lenin like 20 times?
dude...read a fucking book on the history of the soviet union.

oh jesus..now he defending trickle down economics.....
sighs..how the zealots adore their doctrine of their holy texts,even if those texts are just figments of some economists wet dreams and has been proven to be an utter and glorious failure.

sanders is a democratic socialist,not like a denmark flavor but more of a FDR flavor.you know...the most popular president in this countries history and ushered in the most prosperous era in this countries history.

i could do a play by play on this man all day,and make him cry like a pretty little thailand ladyboy who cant afford his life-changing surgery into a actual woman.

well..he does have that douchebag hair.so he may already be looking for a surgeon.

yeah..im with @MonkeySpank,this dude just needs a good cock punch.

I find it insane that you are totally willing to ignore the adult officer STARTING the interaction by being a liar and a controlling dickhead by abusing his power by issuing illegal commands, but are going to continue to lambast the 15 year old kid who just won an argument with a douchebag liar because of his knowledge for being a bit excited about it.
Would it have been more adult and better if he took the high road the entire time, perhaps. Did he have a duty to be an exponentially better human being than the person who's ostensively trained and paid over $200000 a year to be a decent human being? Absolutely not. Lets start by encouraging those in authority that we pay to be civil to be civil, then we can move on to children who've been assaulted and insulted.

No, the presumption is that an officer that responds to complaints from people with lies and abuse (lying about your rights and the law is abuse when it comes from a law enforcement officer, so are illegal commands telling you to pass on the illegal command) is somehow wrong.
We have laws in place to balance the rights between all of us, and if officers can lie about them, ignore them, and make threats and insults when informed about them with impunity, we no longer have those rights. Period.
No, he's not being a jerk checking things out, he's being a jerk by telling them to leave and not ride when that's not the law and he has no right to tell them to do those things.
Yes, citizens who don't know better had every right to complain. The officer had a DUTY to know the law before trying to enforce it. He failed miserably. He's in the wrong.
He only backed off because the kid(s) obviously knew his rights, had he not known his rights, and appeared to know the exact statute they derived from, he would almost certainly have been removed illegally.
Once again, that's a failure of the officer, a failure to know the law he's trying to enforce. That's on him, not the children, it's his JOB to know the law, a job we pay him OVER $200000 a year to do incredibly poorly.

Adults are expected to be adults, not to act like younger, dumber children than the youngest and dumbest child they speak with. Police have a sworn DUTY to do so, and we pay them ridiculously well for it. 15 year old kids, they act like kids. The cop is the jerk, he started by lying, and illegally commanding, then when corrected becomes insulting and smarmy instantly. He should have simply asked them "what's that number again" and gone to his issued computer and looked it up, then returned and offered speeding tickets if they were still riding fast, and offered the correct number if they weren't, he should NOT have reacted as he did.