Replies

What is your point?

There is not one of these supporting the “killed49-released1” story.

It’s not too shocking that some pig stuff might be used to help control Moslems, but the fact remains none of them support what Trump originally stated and implied again today.

That looks stupid. He should stop wildly “tweeting” (sounds so gay, anyway) whatever the hell he wants shooting off his mouth; it’s a waste of time, anyway. What the hell does he do between all those tweets, campaign-like “rallies” and MaraLago visits, anyway?

There is not one of these supporting the “killed49-released1” story.

That is true, but all of them confirm the use of pigs and pigs blood as a weapon against Muslims during the Phillipne insurrection.

Whether or not the killed 49 story is true is irrelevant to the point that pigs were used as a weapon against Muslim terrorists.

It might have been calculated to knock the "Trump supports the Nazis in Charlotte" Narrative off the evening News.

Something I have noticed about Trump's methodology is a tactic I have used on occasion myself. Say something that is not quite true, and your opponent will go to a lot of trouble looking it up and reading about it just so they can say "Ah Ha! I caught you! You are wrong about this particular point! " In the meantime, they've learned the salient facts of what you wanted them to learn.

By exaggerating, you forced them to look more closely at the information you wanted out there.

Now people are going to be looking this up and finding out that it does have a basis in truth, even though these specific details may be exaggerated.

And it might get the media off the "Trump supports Nazis" bullsh*t they are spouting now. To the salient point here, the details of how they were used as a weapon don't really matter, do they?

It take it as a given that the story was exaggerated, but it's core message survived. Pigs blood deters Muslim murderers.