Trump asked 3 times in an hour security briefing why we can't just use nuclear weapons:
Let's not even talk about any "believability" about the "asking 3 times" -- we really don't need to listen to Hildebeast tell us that the FBI said she was "truthful" on national TV, BO sending $400 M to Iran and allowing them to get nuclear weapons in a sham deal, nor reams and reams of what is happening in BOistan.
I need to convert "What difference, at this point, does it make?" into a nice long acronym "WDATPDIM"
"W dat P dim"
It seems like people just have this really big problem understanding that NO RULES means NO RULES!
Horseshoes, hand grenades, nuclear weapons, biological warfare, killing 60 million babies, grownups, disabled people -- NO RULES means no rules! Is that really so hard? What the hell did you expect? "morality"?
My faith in a bunch of guys sitting around on MSNBC looking all serious about making a claim about Tump and "asking about USING nuclear weapons 3 times" has about a 99.99999% chance of being COMPLETELY fabricated, or possibly just bit of an "enhancement" of him asking three THINGS about the use of nukes. As in maybe "what is the process from a need to use to actual use", "if we are attacked with a nuke from say North Korea and decide to respond in kind, do Russia or China automatically do anything?" ... oh, I could go on. If I was getting a briefing like that I'd have some questions that could be called "asking about USING nuclear weapons" if you wanted to phrase it that way.
The current media push is to paint Trump as insane. I like Scott Adams on this front. Hollywood notwithstanding, how likely is it REALLY for 70ish billionaires with jets, choppers, beautiful wives and children, etc to suddenly go insane and blow up the world? Well, if you are an easily led, not much for deep thinking left leaning soul, I suppose it might "feel" likely -- Hollywood certainly likes to give you that impression in all sorts of films.
Back in 1980, LOTS if people were absolutely convinced that Ronald Reagan was going to destroy the world. They did a big made for TV movie called "The Day After" and I knew A LOT of people personally that were CONVINCED it was "all over". Reagan was a "madman" and the USSR was populated by nice folks who just wanted "peace". They were in the role of Islam today -- the youth found communism to be "the non-religion of peace" in those days.
The one thing that the left has a real tendency to do if you get them excited enough is for them to completely slip the bonds of any sort of reality and set the bar so low for a Republican that if they can walk on stage, look at the camera and even stammer out of few words, people go "What was the fuss about again"?
They set Reagan up as being so "bark at the moon, foam at the mouth, totally unaware of reality, living in old movies, etc", that walking out, smiling and saying something nice made the media look like they were clueless. Likewise, with W, he was caricatured as being a combination of Satan and Barney Fife, likely unable to even read, such an odd juxtaposition of pure evil and total incompetence was portrayed in the media that to even form a mental picture of "what to expect" was impossible. When a pretty regular looking guy walked confidently out and talked plainly and simply with the air of reasonableness, people immediately knew the media view was a complete fabrication.
Is Trump purposely putting them in a complete frenzy so that when people get serious about thinking about the election in October he comes off as totally truthful, competent and reasonable in comparison to the caricature so carefully built by the media -- let alone Hildebeast.
Who knows, NPR is still locked in on the Wrath of Khan angle -- a completely fabricated tempest that is hard to imagine any serious person having a concern about. I LIKED Ronald Reagan, I don't "like" Trump, but that isn't really important to me. I'm choosing the candidate that will be most opposed -- and I think it is clear that is Trump.
'via Blog this'