• We're a fun, friendly, and diverse group of planners, placemakers, students, and other folks who found their people here. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! Use your email address, or register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Moderator
Messages
12,231
Points
37
I'm operating under the assumption that those of you who identify as Democrats accept that it was your party that got President Trump elected.

You did that by nominating an insanely machiavellian major party candidate. You and the press conspired to knowingly nominate a documented pathological liar and criminal on a grand scale.

Your nomination of Hillary was an intentional giant FU to the rest of us. Hillary appealed to you - in part - because you are mad at the rest of America. Hillary was the personification of your disdain for those of us deplorables. I can't blame you though, as you've been spoon fed a media diet of hate, identity politics, and envy for most of your lives.

Because of YOU, we now have our first man-child president.

Karma can be either a teacher or a punisher. The cool part is you decide which. Lately it looks like you are doubling down on your anger. Let's see how that works out.
Perhaps...indirectly...this led to Trump's election, but the RNC/repubs/conservatives failed miserably by permitting the actual nomination of Trump.

They are directly responsible.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,571
Points
37
Perhaps...indirectly...this led to Trump's election, but the RNC/repubs/conservatives failed miserably by permitting the actual nomination of Trump.

They are directly responsible.
Can you imagine if we had President Rubio or President Kasich? What a different place we would be in.

I'm operating under the assumption that those of you who identify as Democrats accept that it was your party that got President Trump elected.
I think the Clinton nod was because it was her "turn". It was exactly what is wrong with politics. Giving someone a chance because they had been there long enough. She was a fatally flawed candidate, but it was her "turn". Both parties do it. McCain was given a turn. Unfortunately almost any D could have beat Trump at that time, except for Clinton. She was / is the personification of what Independents and Moderate Conservatives hate - a liberal who speaks over them, and continues to berate them for their beliefs.

I think if the D's go after anger and try and speak like Trump about Trump, they lose. Trump is not going to lose when you go down to that level. Policy. Intellect. That will win. He is terrible at debates because he actually has to know about a topic. Which he knows very little about any topic. Push for more debates. Push for public townhalls. Get away from the rally environment and show him what a statesman (or stateswoman) really means.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,060
Points
41
Unfortunately almost any D could have beat Trump at that time, except for Clinton. She was / is the personification of what Independents and Moderate Conservatives hate - a liberal who speaks over them, and continues to berate them for their beliefs.

I think if the D's go after anger and try and speak like Trump about Trump, they lose. Trump is not going to lose when you go down to that level. Policy. Intellect. That will win. He is terrible at debates because he actually has to know about a topic. Which he knows very little about any topic. Push for more debates. Push for public townhalls. Get away from the rally environment and show him what a statesman (or stateswoman) really means.
I think that is the irony of all of this... The Clintons were the dominate liberal political family for so long and Hillary was not beaten by Trump, she was beaten by the American people who are sick of the current system. There is no one who is really surprised by Trump's actions, personality, lack of diplomacy, or character... yet they still saw him as a better alternative than the status quo.

If the liberals run someone who really wants to change the system not with extremist liberal ideology but more of a moderate tone and they take the approach that you referenced, it would be the largest landslide to unseat a sitting president in history. The biggest question is will the democrat voters nominate a moderate and someone that all people can get behind?
 

Suburb Repairman

moderator in moderation
Moderator
Messages
7,303
Points
29
That's why I'm starting to pay a bit more attention to Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He's got solid charisma, but he also seems to have found a way to wrap more moderate ideas in the language of progressivism. I think he kind of "gets" what happened with midwestern voters and knows how to respond. I've long thought someone coming from a municipal executive position might have good transferable skills, and would be more apt to govern as a technocrat that surrounds him/herself with experts. And I really, really like the idea of someone that isn't a septuagenarian running things.

I also like that he has military experience, but without being in a more political role within the military (i.e. a General or Admiral). He's even still a reservist, which I feel keeps him in touch with on-the-ground needs and issues. Plus, he is legitimately smart without seeming cocky about it, and has shown some willingness to make tough/controversial decisions in South Bend as well as try new reforms.

Whether he is my pick is up for debate and will be for some time, but I do hope that he influences and shapes the platform for whoever is nominated.
 

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Moderator
Messages
12,231
Points
37
I need to look into Mayor Pete more too, as I was commenting to my wife that a good mid to big city Mayor skill set is surely scalable to the Presidency level.
 

Gedunker

Moderating
Moderator
Messages
10,933
Points
31
BOOT
EGG
EGG

I say this as an humanist, but it is somewhat reassuring to hear someone talk about christianity and progressivism as opposed to the evangelical right wing conservatism that seems recently to have sucked all the air from the room.

For the first time in my life, I actually donated to a presidential campaign. I hope Mayor Pete can keep it up.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
11,372
Points
33
Reflections on recent posts:

I agree McConnell is slightly more dangerous, but the pair are a dangerous duo. McConnell got tRump to delay his border closing, so he has 'forced' clout.

I guess nobody saw the "He's Not My President" bumper stickers and shirts during the Obama years. They were prevalent in this area.

It's not about policy it seems, it's about marketing yourself which is something tRump can do.

Yes, the D's screwed it up with HRC royally. If she would have won however, it would be the R's going after investigations, et cetera. Same thing, Different name but with more decorum.
 

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Moderator
Messages
12,231
Points
37
Yes, the D's screwed it up with HRC royally. If she would have won however, it would be the R's going after investigations, et cetera. Same thing, Different name but with more decorum.
Yep.

But I think the Left are more willing/able (by a plurality) to explicitly concede the reality of the sameness of the times.
 
Last edited:

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
5,436
Points
19
Yes, the D's screwed it up with HRC royally. If she would have won however, it would be the R's going after investigations, et cetera. Same thing, Different name but with more decorum.
I didn't vote for president at all. I left it blank. I voted for every other election, local or otherwise, but just left that spot open. I felt both candidates were useless and both equally corrupt and slimy. I didn't want to feel in any way responsible for the election of either of those people.

As far as the "nomination" of HRC goes, that was largely rigged in her favor. I was pro Bernie Sanders, not because I supported a lot of his policies, but because he seemed to be the most reasonable candidate of the bunch.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,571
Points
37
As far as the "nomination" of HRC goes, that was largely rigged in her favor. I was pro Bernie Sanders, not because I supported a lot of his policies, but because he seemed to be the most reasonable candidate of the bunch.
It was her "turn". Bernie needed to wait. The DNC did everything in its power to make sure Bernie didn't get the nod. That is pretty clear after the fact.

I wonder if the large 20+ candidate D field will be a good thing or a bad thing. Large primaries generally move the candidates to the left or right further. The worst thing the D's could do is to go too far left. If the candidates don't recognize the need to nuance the green new deal, healthcare for all, and other large policy matters, they are going to lose again.
 

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
5,436
Points
19
It was her "turn". Bernie needed to wait. The DNC did everything in its power to make sure Bernie didn't get the nod. That is pretty clear after the fact.

I wonder if the large 20+ candidate D field will be a good thing or a bad thing. Large primaries generally move the candidates to the left or right further. The worst thing the D's could do is to go too far left. If the candidates don't recognize the need to nuance the green new deal, healthcare for all, and other large policy matters, they are going to lose again.
Oh it is crystal clear, and it was very clear even during the nomination process. That's why HRC lost, because those who were pro-Bernie, or any other reasonable Dem. candidate refused to back her.

The large field is stupid. Because it will just serve to further divide the party. It'll fracture into various sub groups and the end result will be the same. They need a single blockbuster candidate. The issue is, most of theirs are wet blankets.
 

giff57

Corn Burning Fool
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
5,386
Points
31
I'm operating under the assumption that those of you who identify as Democrats accept that it was your party that got President Trump elected.

You did that by nominating an insanely machiavellian major party candidate. You and the press conspired to knowingly nominate a documented pathological liar and criminal on a grand scale.

Your nomination of Hillary was an intentional giant FU to the rest of us. Hillary appealed to you - in part - because you are mad at the rest of America. Hillary was the personification of your disdain for those of us deplorables. I can't blame you though, as you've been spoon fed a media diet of hate, identity politics, and envy for most of your lives.

Because of YOU, we now have our first man-child president.

Karma can be either a teacher or a punisher. The cool part is you decide which. Lately it looks like you are doubling down on your anger. Let's see how that works out.

I'm not registered with either party, but I completely agree, and unless the Ds pull their heads out of their collective asses they will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
13,221
Points
33
Now that I'm back in Arizona I can drop my R registration and go back to I. Arizona allows I to vote in either primary.
 

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
24,342
Points
46
Trump’s ‘truly bizarre’ visit to Mt. Vernon
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/10/donald-trump-mount-vernon-george-washington-1264073

he couldn’t understand why America’s first president didn’t name his historic Virginia compound or any of the other property he acquired after himself.
“You’ve got to put your name on stuff or no one remembers you.”
So how many towns, streets & schools are named after Washington ?

The president’s disinterest in Washington made it tough for tour guide Bradburn to sustain Trump’s interest during a deluxe 45-minute tour of the property which he later described to associates as "truly bizarre." The Macrons, Bradburn has told several people, were far more knowledgeable about the history of the property than the president.

He could have built the place better, he said, and for less money.

“His supporters don't care, and if anything they enjoy the fact that the liberal snobs are upset” that he doesn’t know much history,
 
Last edited:

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,060
Points
41
I support the teachers and I agree that they are underpaid, however I am not pleased that the upcoming protests in our state capital on May 1st have resulted in several school districts in the area being shut down for the day. Parents are left scrambling to either get the day off of work (which won't happen in my case) or having to pay a serious premium for child care since it is a last minute demand. One person that my wife knows is a single mom said that this is going to result in a significant financial burden on her because she missed the window to request a day off in a couple of week, and it is going to cost her more than she makes in a day to pay for child care for her elementary school aged 3 kids.

What are your thoughts?
 

gtpeach

Cyburbian
Messages
1,932
Points
14
I support the teachers and I agree that they are underpaid, however I am not pleased that the upcoming protests in our state capital on May 1st have resulted in several school districts in the area being shut down for the day. Parents are left scrambling to either get the day off of work (which won't happen in my case) or having to pay a serious premium for child care since it is a last minute demand. One person that my wife knows is a single mom said that this is going to result in a significant financial burden on her because she missed the window to request a day off in a couple of week, and it is going to cost her more than she makes in a day to pay for child care for her elementary school aged 3 kids.

What are your thoughts?
I mean, I get it. But I think the fact that it is so disruptive is part of the point, right? A protest isn't going to be very effective if it doesn't cause some sort of disruption/inconvenience.
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
4,524
Points
25
I mean, I get it. But I think the fact that it is so disruptive is part of the point, right? A protest isn't going to be very effective if it doesn't cause some sort of disruption/inconvenience.
They're disrupting and inconveniencing the wrong folks. Mskis' wife's acquaintance has eff-all to do with teacher salaries.
 

gtpeach

Cyburbian
Messages
1,932
Points
14
No idea...and I imagine Mskis' example is probably a consequence the teachers did not consider.
I bet some of them realized it would happen. The thing is that in order to make their point, they have to be willing to disrupt anyone that utilizes their services. That's how they emphasize how important and valuable their roles are.

If I was a parent in that situation, I would be super annoyed, too. But it also kind of drives their point home that people are in that situation.
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
4,524
Points
25
If they pay property taxes (directly or indirectly) they have quite a bit to do with teacher salaries.
Really? I pay property taxes, and I have no input on teacher salaries. I could e-mail my state rep and my state senator about it if it was an issue I felt strongly about, but that would not accomplish anything. [Side note for some perspective from Georgia - several of my relatives are public school teachers or administrators, and I've never heard a complaint from them about salaries. Experiences vary by user, of course.]

On a slightly related note to teacher salaries (in the vein of folks willingly going into a professional field where they know they'll feel underpaid), my Masters degree is in historic preservation - the prof who was the head of that program at the time started the first day of the Introduction to HP class with (paraphrasing) if you think you're getting into this field to make a lot of money, the door is over there. :D
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
13,221
Points
33
On Mskies note, that's exactly what they want. You have a lot to do with teacher salary. It's called voting and angry letters to your rep. Gotta make that wheel squeak!

I'm not so much about teacher salary. Like Bubba said, it's a low paying job and they know it going in. I'm more about politicians actually supporting the education system rather than saying they do it. That and maybe some reform of the system. Every politician promises to support education, but when it comes time none of the money goes that direction and we just pass stupid bills restricting teachers rights to protest (at least AZ does). AZ has charter schools on damn near every corner. It's a plague. They are supposed to support the education system by giving parents options, but for the most part it takes public money away from the pot that public schools use and creates substandard and mostly unlicensed education services. To put it blunt, it just puts public money in the pocket of private people and under educates the kids that go through. Most kids going to charter school are the dropouts or kids of unconcerned parents. There are a couple that pull off decent specialized education and of course all the private schools that provided great education are no "charter" schools to supplement their income.

My other problem is the organization of schools. If teachers want more money in their pocket or in the classroom then we should consolidate school districts. Kansas has 105 counties (we could go into consolidating counties, but that's another problem). Kansas has 309 school districts serving about 500,000 kids. My county had something like 3 districts serving a small 800 square mile county. I'm not saying cut the schools. I'm saying that one 800 square mile county could be run by one district. Maybe the bigger cities need more, but the rural areas not so much. Think of the money saved with only one comptroller doing whatever comptrolling is.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,971
Points
29
If you ever find yourself curious about how some evil non-woke bastards think, give this podcast a listen.


Comrade Party Members, if you are afraid of being caught listening to wrongthink by agents of the Party's, denounce me in a vociferous counter-counter revolutionary diatribe below. If you use at least five intersectional pejoritives I'll send you a PM with a link containing instructions on how to bypass the Corporate Comrade's Great Firewall and punisher of wrongbrowsing.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,971
Points
29
So, Julian Assange is now in custody and I honestly don't have any strong feeling one way or other. Without enough facts I can't really come down on either side of the traitor vs. government transparency activist. Either way he's clearly a deeply flawed human.

My gut tells me he was a rapey Russian operative, or at least Rusosympathetic. The articles I've read bends me towards the view that this was all a grand operation where the Russians exploited the anarchist/anynomous/anti-US hacker community. Its the lack of any anti Russian or anti Putin leaks coming from Wikileaks, and the completely coincidental timing of the releases that bend me towards that side.

In a related note, why do all of the traitor Bradley* Manning's photos in these Assange stories look like Homer Simpson shot him with the makeup shotgun set to the 1970's Glamor Shots setting?

*Before you bother to correct me or scold me for being an antitransgendist, please note it will fall on deaf ears. This is only about that guy. Traitors don't deserve the benefit of my civility. People struggling with their identity deserve and receive my compassion. But fuck that douche whistle.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,060
Points
41
Really? I pay property taxes, and I have no input on teacher salaries. I could e-mail my state rep and my state senator about it if it was an issue I felt strongly about, but that would not accomplish anything. [Side note for some perspective from Georgia - several of my relatives are public school teachers or administrators, and I've never heard a complaint from them about salaries. Experiences vary by user, of course.]

On a slightly related note to teacher salaries (in the vein of folks willingly going into a professional field where they know they'll feel underpaid), my Masters degree is in historic preservation - the prof who was the head of that program at the time started the first day of the Introduction to HP class with (paraphrasing) if you think you're getting into this field to make a lot of money, the door is over there. :D
The influence of teacher pay is a complicated topic because there are people who will vote on a single issue, but most people will take a range of issues into hand, or just vote for a party. I personally vote based on a range of issues and unfortunately, there are some who support higher teacher pay who are in opposition to several other issues that I support. So in this context, I don't have a voice.

On Mskies note, that's exactly what they want. You have a lot to do with teacher salary. It's called voting and angry letters to your rep. Gotta make that wheel squeak!
The problem is that it is political and it should not be and other than voting, none of it will matter. People here will follow party lines regardless of what the letters say or the number who attend the protest.
I think it is about several things. At one point a few years ago, NC was one of the worst states for teach pay. Currently they are 29th in the US and 2nd in the South East where teachers make an average of almost $54,000. Last year NC was ranked 37th with a teacher pay of just more that $51,000.

I'm not so much about teacher salary. Like Bubba said, it's a low paying job and they know it going in. I'm more about politicians actually supporting the education system rather than saying they do it. That and maybe some reform of the system. Every politician promises to support education, but when it comes time none of the money goes that direction and we just pass stupid bills restricting teachers rights to protest (at least AZ does). AZ has charter schools on damn near every corner. It's a plague. They are supposed to support the education system by giving parents options, but for the most part it takes public money away from the pot that public schools use and creates substandard and mostly unlicensed education services. To put it blunt, it just puts public money in the pocket of private people and under educates the kids that go through. Most kids going to charter school are the dropouts or kids of unconcerned parents. There are a couple that pull off decent specialized education and of course all the private schools that provided great education are no "charter" schools to supplement their income.

My other problem is the organization of schools. If teachers want more money in their pocket or in the classroom then we should consolidate school districts. Kansas has 105 counties (we could go into consolidating counties, but that's another problem). Kansas has 309 school districts serving about 500,000 kids. My county had something like 3 districts serving a small 800 square mile county. I'm not saying cut the schools. I'm saying that one 800 square mile county could be run by one district. Maybe the bigger cities need more, but the rural areas not so much. Think of the money saved with only one comptroller doing whatever comptrolling is.
That is one of the issues that make charter schools a preferred option for many. Our county is a single school district with almost 160,500 students. They don't have a good grasp on the needs of the students because they (central office) is so removed that they have no idea what happens in the classrooms.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
11,372
Points
33
I was discussing Green Initiatives with a small group of high school students today. One topic was solar and wind power options.

I had to bite my tongue. I wanted to ask them to study windmill noise links to cancer...
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,060
Points
41
This morning at church, our group had a discussion about illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities. Apparently, Trump has decided to release all illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities, which has resulted in several concerns from mayors and representatives.

Personally, I think that we need to simplify the immigration process, but I also think that cities should follow the federal law regarding arresting illegal immigrants. I understand why people want to come here, but I think that the federal government has created too many barriers to do so legally. However, I also think that just because you don’t agree on a law, that does not give you the right to not follow it.

What are your thoughts?
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,571
Points
37
This morning at church, our group had a discussion about illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities. Apparently, Trump has decided to release all illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities, which has resulted in several concerns from mayors and representatives.

Personally, I think that we need to simplify the immigration process, but I also think that cities should follow the federal law regarding arresting illegal immigrants. I understand why people want to come here, but I think that the federal government has created too many barriers to do so legally. However, I also think that just because you don’t agree on a law, that does not give you the right to not follow it.

What are your thoughts?
Trump just finds way to try and win points not solve problems. Sanctuary cities are not going to take illegals. Most define themselves as a city who is not going to enforce immigration laws. That could be due to staffing or ideology. Either way, they aren't asking for more immigrants.

With that said, that "solution" does nothing but put more costs onto the US taxpayers to fund the transportation of these immigrants. That money would be better spent in funding schools or infrastructure in Central America so those people stop wanting to come to the US.

Our immigration system is broken, but so is our government. Solving problems has become much more about optics than actual solutions. More judges and a more streamlined process would be a start.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
11,372
Points
33
More judges you say? Don't worry, McConnell has changes the rules for appointing judges again (which he changed before during the Obama years). The "blue-slip" rule just gets thrown around or ignored.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,060
Points
41
In honor of Tax day, let me ask you a question. Would you support simplifying the tax code and doing away with all deductions and lowing the brackets? What are your thoughts?
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,571
Points
37
In honor of Tax day, let me ask you a question. Would you support simplifying the tax code and doing away with all deductions and lowing the brackets? What are your thoughts?
A simple tax code with one number would change the world. No exemptions. No pass through.

If you make X, you pay Y.

If your business makes X, it pays Y.

I think the problem will be that both D's and R's don't really want that to happen. R's don't want corporations to have to pay their fair share, and D's don't want it to be harder to be able to raise taxes when needed. With a simple tax number you can't sell that one party is "lowering" your taxes by creating a new deduction.
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Messages
26,269
Points
51
If we made taxes using the 'if you make X, you pay Y' formula, it would remove the government's ability to influence policies in a non-compulsory/punitive way through deductions and exemptions. So when citizens, for example, get a deduction for installing solar panels, or other home improvement which could reduce our nation's carbon footprint, they are given the option to do so, as opposed to simply passing a law which would compel everyone to do so. It's a way to preserve individual freedoms.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,571
Points
37
If we made taxes using the 'if you make X, you pay Y' formula, it would remove the government's ability to influence policies in a non-compulsory/punitive way through deductions and exemptions. So when citizens, for example, get a deduction for installing solar panels, or other home improvement which could reduce our nation's carbon footprint, they are given the option to do so, as opposed to simply passing a law which would compel everyone to do so. It's a way to preserve individual freedoms.
But that isn't true. You could actually provide rebates. There isn't anything that stops the government from providing incentives and rebates after the fact.

What it would do is end a lot of financial firms and accounting firms grasp on two months of the year. Which would in turn put a lot of people out of work. Which is a hard thing to sell, even if it is the right thing to do.
 

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
24,342
Points
46
DtrUMP -

Even had to offer his opinion / option on the Norte Dame Cathedral fire -

“Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!”
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/15/trump-notre-dame-cathedral-fire-1276441


“If you hit that with tons of water from above, that’s going to collapse the entire structure and make the situation worse,” said Wayne McPartland, a retired New York City Fire Department battalion chief. “If you miss, you might hit civilians in the street.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/15/trump-encourages-france-to-use-flying-water-tankers-for-notre-dame-fire.html
 
Last edited:

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,060
Points
41
If we made taxes using the 'if you make X, you pay Y' formula, it would remove the government's ability to influence policies in a non-compulsory/punitive way through deductions and exemptions. So when citizens, for example, get a deduction for installing solar panels, or other home improvement which could reduce our nation's carbon footprint, they are given the option to do so, as opposed to simply passing a law which would compel everyone to do so. It's a way to preserve individual freedoms.
Or perhaps they can take away oil and gas subsidies which will help make solar panels more cost effective.






On a side note, can we petition for Twitter to just shut down operations until Trump is out of the WH. People need to stop following this guy and give him the attention that he craves. Downfall is to obtain that attention it makes the US look like idiots.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
13,221
Points
33
On the tax thing I think we should simplify the hell out of taxes. Start with income tax. You make X your rate is Y. Everybody pays something, even if it's just a token dollar. No deductions, no nothing. Then make sure it is known that this tax will pay for general budget. Next tax things like you feel. Tax gas, but be clear where that money goes. Tax cigarettes, but say where it goes. Need to raise a tax, raise it, or find a new thing to tax. No raising gas taxes to pay for general budget if it's marked for new roads (not that it actually happens). Need to an incentive for something, provide a physical rebate check funded by something. It's not about party or anything else. It's just about budgeting, but having a clear budget that most people could understand would be scary. How could I stay elected if I can't blame the other party for your problems?

On the pres statement, when will he learn to say simple things like, we feel for you, let us know if you need help or something about the heartbreaking loss of such a treasured building.
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Messages
26,269
Points
51
Two weeks ago Trump called the Mueller report "honorable" and declared it was "a total exoneration." If that's the case, then why has he spent the last several days in overdrive attacking it? I do wish he would make up his mind.
 
Top