The 3 authors...I kid you not.
Posted on 09/24/2016 12:15:41 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
HIGH POINT, N.C. — Donald Trump’s week began in the wake of explosions in New Jersey and New York. It ended in the aftermath of shootings and riots. For a candidate whose strategy relies on painting a dystopian view of the nation - often based on inaccurate and questionable claims - the tragedies yielded a trove of political opportunities.
Shortly after the first bomb went off -- Trump boasted that he had been ahead of newscasters in calling it a “bomb” -- he seized upon the terrorist act as justification for some of the most disputed things he has said since announcing his presidential bid.
Terrorism wouldn’t have happened if others had opposed the Iraq war as he did, Trump said, even though he had said at the time in a radio interview he supported the war. The problem increased because Hillary Clinton has “been silent about Islamic terrorism for many years,” Trump claimed falsely. Trump called for profiling people, but insisted he “never” suggested targeting Muslims, even though he held an event specifically to propose a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” and has called for “surveillance of certain mosques.”
Often the game seems to be “Pan Trump.”
I believe more and more that Trump is divinely driven, a flawed sinner yet coming under greater and greater control by the Holy Spirit.
This is what the gotcha-meisters are seeing and trying to destroy.
Why are you posting all this crap to FR?
Articles like these seem timed to coincide with the debate (e.g. “Mr. Trump, the NYT says .....”).
I’ll never post again.
The 3 authors...I kid you not.
You could have done it privately.
I’m through.
This is exactly the sort of article that the MSM published about Ronald Reagan in the weeks leading up to his election victory on November 4th, 1980.
It only takes one leftist writer from the fifth-column Washington Compost for an article to be one continuous lie.
It all sounds good to me.
In the Liberal Webster, definitions depend on whether the word is used by someone who is part of US or part of THEM.
At best... these are quibbles. Empirically Islam has become more and more of a problem of tyranny towards the West. Poised against this is the continued desire of the USA to be a liberal (in the older sense) democracy.
If a way can be found to assure that someone who says he or she is Muslim will not cause unacceptable trouble to the USA, then Trump would be the first to want to use that way. He is not hating Muslims for the sake of doing so. But Trump is not going to assume that we have the way until we demonstrably do. This is, I believe, the distinction which will pick apart this quibble.
Since Sharia stands against the Constitution, a deft handling of that condition could help here. If we let you in, you have to agree to behave in accordance with the Constitution. If we catch you undermining it (as through Sharia) then out you have to go.
It’s PAJAMA BOY !!!
Maybe these should be tagged with [Barfulous Media} but I believe it does help to understand what the enemy is claiming, so that we may prepare to address it.
There’s a difference between morale killing and understanding propaganda.
OMG! I have more male in my little finger than those three puffs have together.
Panic! Run around, scream snd shout!
There lies began on their reporting after the Soviet rebellian.
I see they took advantage of the ‘buy one pair of glasses ..get a second pair free’ sale
And therefore what?
Two pajama boys and their “Daddy”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.