Let's see, take out the garbage, clean the dog run, click on something posted by John Lott.
Well, I clicked on one, anyway, and here is what I read:
“Trump’s top staffer doesn’t believe his boss is a white supremacist. Many Americans disagree. Acting White House Chief of staff Mick Mulvaney left no equivocation: “The president is not a white supremacist.”
And I stopped there and closed it.
Really? Whose opinion is that going to change. It's like saying Nixon is not a crook. Or worse, Nixon saying I am not a crook. Or Haldman saying Nixon is not a crook.
Just laugh, ridicule the person making the charge (tell him his combat boots looked better on his grandmother), and go on to something serious. You cannot get sucked into the Maelstrom.
Does either ridicule, or factual refutation, make the greatest impression on the low-info voters watching CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC/MSNBC?
If ridicule and sarcasm were the best weapon why do neither POTUS , Levin or Lott utilize it?