I am, unfortunately, a little overly sensitive and quick to anger right now. This can, however, be a unique opportunity, because when people say something that makes me angry I have the opportunity to recognize it, understand why that is, and not treat others that way.
So, for instance, one of this week's talking points is that what Trump did was no different from something Obama proposed. Now, this is a falsehood, just short of a brazen lie, but thinking about it, I think that I should find it objectionable even if it were true. Because the implication of such a statement is that people who oppose Trump's actions are hypocrites.
Unless your goal is to make people more angry and irrational (which sometimes is the goal), this is rhetorically counterproductive. People will not like you if you imply that they are hypocrites.
More to the point, it is not a particularly valid line of argument. Forcing people to confess to some real or imagined past error as a condition of acknowledging the legitimacy of their current grievance only serves to de-legitimize the grievance itself by undermining the person making it, as well as shifting the center of the discussion away from the correctness or incorrectness of the action in question.
This is important because Trump supporters are hypocrites par excellence. If you attack them for supporting Russia when Trump started advocating them despite opposing Russia in the past, you will make no headway. Better to privately note their hypocrisy and untrustworthy nature and stick to confronting them on the issues themselves.
