I wasn't talking about change, so I don't know where you got that from. I was talking about how they react and respond to those who typically aren't coming at them from a point of good faith. Now in terms of a reporter or interviewer, if they actually did their opposition homework, in terms of someone like Ben, they won't have much to throw at them, which is a problem since that's somehow their job, so it's no surprise how they go about their questioning. It's also no surprise how people like Ben respond to them because of this. While he could have handled it more professionally, it's not like what he did was totally uncalled for.
That would be perfect if Trump actually did not attack first and then response. You act as if no one has viewed his behavior before during and after becoming president. How he is the person first to start the name calling, belittling and other crap. Give me a break with this BS you are spilling about Trump, we have way to much evidence of his character for you to try to justify how he acts.
As to Ben did you see the interview. Ben has every instance to throw those quotes back at the interviewer and show how he has changed from those stance but did not. As was stated, you cannot talk about change if you cannot prove you are changed. You cannot profess to be above something if you still wallow in it. Nowhere did Ben show that he could prove his words and thus they become hollow. As always apologist like you will always turn a blind eye when someone shows you who they are instead of listening to their words. Action is way more effective then some book or a bunch of words.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Ben doesn't do a great job of explaining since he quickly goes on the offensive because he is assuming the early questions are a sign of a string of attacks to follow, in which case he wasn't really wrong. I'm not saying his answers clearly explained the questions asked of him, but because he didn't want to waste time answering them again when he has already for the most part, just not in this particular interview, he decided to go on the offensive early since he figured if he didn't, he would end up stuck on defense, and he was correct based on how it plays out.
For the most part, Ben is just using conservative logic. Instead of waiting to get pushed into a corner and using lefty spin to get out of the situation, he's preemptively attacking so he doesn't allow the interviewer to dig Ben a deeper hole as he goes. However, this interviewer knows what he's doing and doesn't back down easily like most typically do. Closer to the end you finally see Ben call him out and points out he's misquoting Ben, and the interviewer just keeps on pushing anyway, until Ben finally says enough is enough. Again, while Ben could have handled this more professionally, what he did wasn't totally uncalled for.
The fact that Ben posed a question to the interviewer and he wanted nothing to do with it, says he wasn't willing to have an honest conversation. That's a tactic as well. If the interviewer is willing to answer that first question honestly, then Ben can assume he's not simply out to get him, and will likely follow suit. Since the interviewer made it clear that he's in charge and things will be going his way or else, Ben made a judgement call and decided to play it safe, and was right for the most part. Not entirely, but mostly.
Action is more effective than words? Really? How much action vs words happened during the interview? How much more action would happen vs words if Trump was allowed to get stuff done instead of bickering over nonsense?