Posted on 04/11/2016 8:26:14 PM PDT by reaganaut1
Two weeks ago, Donald J. Trump said he could live with a nuclear-armed Japan and South Korea if it meant they could defend themselves against North Korea without American aid. “I’m not sure that would be a bad thing for us,” he said.
Since then he has changed his tune. After Japanese and South Korean officials raised fears of an Asian arms race, and President Obama ridiculed his remark, Mr. Trump began to say he did not actually want the two countries to obtain nuclear weapons — but that, because of American weakness, “at some point it could happen anyway.”
It was not the first time Mr. Trump has hastily added deflating caveats to his headline-grabbing trial balloons.
In a debate a month ago, he declared himself in favor of torture if it would extract information from terrorists, then issued a statement saying he would respect the law, then followed it up by saying that the law must be changed.
In a television interview on March 30, he suggested that women who have illegal abortions should face “some form of punishment,” then reversed himself in another carefully worded statement, then suggested in an interview that abortion should remain legal, then effectively clicked “undo” with another written statement.
In each case, Mr. Trump appeared to be seeking a sort of shelter somewhere between his original remark and the wave of objections it set off.
None of this seemed to matter much until recently. But the Trump style — long on gut instincts, short on briefing books — has taken a toll. His opponents have called him reckless and unfit to be commander in chief. Mr. Obama has said Mr. Trump “doesn’t know much about foreign policy, or nuclear policy, or the Korean Peninsula, or the world generally.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
When Trump loses, Trump supporters cry "Gestapo tactics" in Colorado, "establishment" in Wisconsin, and the numbers are ignored in favor of a distorted ethics.
The hypocrisy of Trump supporters reflects the policy schizophrenia and ignorance of their champion.
Now it’s the NYT - see what I mean about how the “Cruz or Lose”ers crowd is having a love affair with the leftist MSM souces???
Those attacks were a lot weaker than I expected to see from you this AM... we need more color, more cold hard facts, more confrontational, more shall we say “cow bell”?
C’mon NB, why can’t you put some more “stank” on it?
Three lines is nothing compared to the full length stem winders we are used to enjoying... and rejecting of course.
Not this, you only used TRUMP only five times in your insults and attacks, but only three sentences. Sub par for you. When blaming Trump, you need to expand your fire zone perimeter to provide for lots of maneuvering and spent ammo.
How long has it been since you did a vanity? think about it... something NOT about trump or even politics might refresh your writing wit.
And though I said it in fun... you really need to get back on your game.
We?
Other than the occasional freeper being a jerk I highly doubt anyone has attacked you personally.
Cruz has had to deal with BS attacks since Iowa.
My hope is that it makes the candidate stronger. Whomever that may be.
No matter how hard you try it still ain’t about me. What are you afraid of?
Yeah maggie that’s why he is now at 60% in New York.
That hou wont have any interesting literature to post.
There was a consistent group of posters on this site that would go out and scrounge up every negative article about Donald and post them here in a relentless fashion. It wasn't until then that Trump supporters started attacking back.
There have been questions regarding his eligibility, and other issues, but no low blow dirty attacks other than the one by the National Enquirer. There have been no real sustained attacks on Ted Cruz or his supporters.
The problem is that they have now poisoned the well to the point where a good many Trump supporters would never vote for Cruz, and vice versa.
As opposed to Trumpeteers posting threads with the National Enquirer and twitter as their sources? lol
So laugh that one off when we elect the Democrat nominee as President.
I'm not laughing. Not only are we setting the table for Hillary, we're killing Free Republic, a site I've frequented for over 17 years.
If Trump were president he’d need a full-time staff just to clean up after his gaffes and stupid statements.
Well then you know these candidate wars have been a part of this site every election cycle. This time just seems worse, but it really isn't. The main difference this time is that there are actually 2 candidates that have passionate supporters, whereas there were those that supported the Republican insider against those who wanted an outsider, any outsider.
While some people will leave, others will replace.
Nah, he’s got a bag, minimizes down time.
*eeeeww*
:P
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.