this is a good example of why i brought up the issue of trump mocking the reporter's disability as being questionable. if you read your article is says "they would be fired if they voted for Obama", it does not state they were actually fired as you claim. you may see this as a minor discrepancy amidst all the other evidence, but it is the same type of discrepancy wrt the claimed mocking.
being accurate with what happened and believing what you think happened are not always the same thing.
the reason i bring it up is that being inaccurate and making false claims delegitimizes the truth as to why trump should never even have been allowed to be nominee for the republican party, never mind win the presidency. every misrepresentation of the truth, no matter how small, becomes an excuse for hte "other team" to point and say hey they're lieing, they're no good! it leads to the type finger pointing and disdain we've seen over the past few pages.
if there is no respect for evidence, no matter how unpalatable the alternative may be, then we may as well just fabricate everything.
You and I see the mocking incident differently. I don't know why that is so hard for you to comprehend. This is the third time I've said this, hopefully it sinks in this time: If we can't agree on the basic premise of each other's arguments, which we don't, move on. I think I've clearly stated my reasoning, so have you. We've reached different conclusions. Let it go.
https://courthousenews.com/man-says-boss-carried-out-threatto-fire-him-for-voting-for-obama/
Sorry, my link didn't contain the information on the specific civil case I was talking about. Since intent in wrongful firing cases is very difficult to prove, I realize it's in no way conclusive. So I'll edit my initial post and remove that specific claim.