Trump and Clinton react very differently to terror incidents. That tells us how they’d act...

[DonViejo]

Trump and Clinton react very differently to terror incidents. That tells us how they’d act as president.

By Paul Waldman September 19 at 12:41 PM

When important events occur during the presidential campaign, we can get some sense of how the candidates would act if they were in the Oval Office. They don’t have the ability to do anything about a financial crisis or a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, but at least we can watch what they say and what instincts seem to be driving them. Over the weekend, a bomb went off in New York and another was located in Elizabeth, New Jersey and detonated by a bomb squad robot; officials now believe that the same individual, who is now in custody, might have set both devices. So how did the candidates react, and what does that say about what their presidencies might bring?

In the statement Hillary Clinton gave this morning, she mentioned that she has been part of the decision-making process on fighting terrorism in the past, stressed the importance of the federal government working with local law enforcement, and called for an “intelligence surge” to combat terrorism. But this was the heart of her message:

“Let us be vigilant, but not afraid. We have faced threats before. If you see something or you hear something, report it immediately to local law enforcement authorities. I know we will meet this new danger with the same courage and vigilance. We choose resolve, not fear. We will not turn on each other or undermine our values. We’ll stand together because we are stronger together in the face of this threat and every other challenge.”

You’ll notice how she worked her campaign slogan in there at the end. And how did Donald Trump react? He called into Fox & Friends this morning to take credit for the fact that while other politicians were doing what officials almost always do in cases like this — speak carefully at first about the incident — he told a crowd that the device in New York was a “bomb” as soon as he heard the news. In this case that turned out to be true, but Trump wanted praise, as though saying so demonstrated his extraordinary and unique genius. He actually mentioned that Clinton had used the word “bombing” in her initial statement, but nevertheless preened, “What I said was exactly correct. I should be a newscaster because I called it before the news.”

-snip-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/19/trump-and-clinton-react-very-differently-to-terror-incidents-that-tells-us-how-theyd-act-as-president/?utm_term=.725993960564&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1

[Satch59]

1. Night & day...

Also...Trump talking about police knowing where the terrorists are or saying the "evil thug will probably get room service" is such an insult to law inforcement... Did he even praise the amazingly swift and coordinated effort our government law enforcement did?

Such an empty vessel...

Let's see him expound on any concrete ideas in the debates...OMG...

[NastyRiffraff]

2. It absolutely shocks me

that ANY thinking human being can actually support this standing column of shit. "Deplorable" is way too tame a description of him.