that is incredibly notable because as brianna was saying, it s been this long-standing practice of strategic ambiguity. basically, that means that the white house will say, china, don t do this. we don t want to see you do this, but they wouldn t exactly spell out what would happen if china were to do that. and the president, of course, did that today, saying the u.s. military would be involved in this. so, yes, afterward, you did see some of the president s aides try to walk this back saying he wasn t articulating any kind of change in his policy, but it is a policy difference for him to come out and say explicitly they would do that. not just that they would provide arms to ukraine or arms to taiwan and weapons to taiwan like they are doing with ukraine, but saying they would go one step further, john. of course, it s a statement the president has come close to saying before. he articulated it very bluntly with no clarifications, no caveats. you can have aides walk it bac
gun laws, most of the people would not be armed. he went there with mind set of slaughtering as many black people as he could, he did, 10 people were murdered, a horrific crime. media almost turned it to a political issue, not just political. i suspect most of the people who were murdered that day most of their families, came to the u.s. long before many of our ancestors did. what does that have to do with immigration and replacement? he wrote about it in his so-called manifesto, he wrote about a lot of sick things. including his hatred for the jews were behind everything, i have not heard media in america talk about his antisemitism. they talk about replacement theory. and why is that? why is it? because there is a big chunk of the democrat party even elected democrats, in the media including new york times, anti-semitic. america cartoon new york times ran with president trump holding a leash, at end of the leash was netanyahu, this was an accident. i suppose not covers
of the people would not be armed. mind set of slaughtering as many black people as he could, he did, 10 people were murdered, a horrific crime. media almost turned it to a political issue, not just political. i suspect most of the people who were murdered that day most of their families, came to the u.s. long before many of our ancestors did. what does that have to do with immigration and replacement? he wrote about it in his so-called manifesto, he wrote about a lot of sick things. including his hatred for the jews were behind everything, i have not heard media in america talk about his antisemitism. they talk about replacement theory. and why is that? why is it? because there is a big chunk of the democrat party even elected democrats, in the media including new york times, anti-semitic. america cartoon new york times ran with president trump holding a leash, at end of the leash was netanyahu, this was an accident. i suppose not covers holocaust was a an accident, they
that is incredibly notable because as brianna was saying, it s been this long-standing practice of strategic ambiguity. basically, that means that the white house will say, china, don t do this. we don t want to see you do this, but they wouldn t exactly spell out what would happen if china were to do that. and the president, of course, did that today, saying the u.s. military would be involved in this. so, yes, afterward, you did see some of the president s aides try to walk this back saying he wasn t articulating any kind of change in his policy, but it is a policy difference for him to come out and say explicitly they would do that. not just that they would provide arms to ukraine or arms to taiwan and weapons to taiwan like they are doing with ukraine, but saying they would go one step further, john. of course, it s a statement the president has come close to saying before. he articulated it very bluntly with no clarifications, no caveats. you can have aides walk it back time and