Donald Trump’s media blitz against his Democratic opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, has largely been a media-driven exercise in hyperbole.
This is true not only in terms of the number of words that Trump has used on the air, but also the extent to which the rhetoric has been scripted and scripted to be believable.
It’s also true that the Trump campaign has largely succeeded in creating a narrative that is both inaccurate and false, and that has caused the Democratic candidate to stumble on some of his most important issues.
It is also true, as Trump himself admitted on the campaign trail, that he has not been “very smart” in his responses to the crisis.
While the president’s campaign is not without its shortcomings, it is a major improvement over the prior administration, which was mostly silent in the face of an unprecedented crisis.
Trump has, however, been largely successful in creating the impression that he and his campaign are at the center of the crisis in Washington.
The president’s media strategy has largely worked.
Trump’s statements about the crisis have largely been accurate.
Trump himself has been a relatively restrained presence on the crisis, at least as of late.
He has been less than enthusiastic in his attacks on the media and, in some cases, on Democratic candidates.
But the Trump strategy has worked.
The White House press corps has become more confident and vocal.
There has been some change in how the president has been communicating to the public, with Trump making more frequent appearances and, for the most part, addressing more people.
Trump also appears to have become more willing to make his case to the American people.
He appears to be more willing than his predecessor to make the case for his agenda, which is likely to include tax cuts and other policy proposals that will benefit his own personal fortune.
But it remains to be seen whether Trump’s message will resonate with the American public.
In his interview with The New York Times, Trump has also suggested that the crisis could be resolved without any major disruption to American life.
“It’s going to be like a normal, healthy, normal crisis, if they can just take care of the people and people’s health,” Trump said.
“You know, if we could just get them back to work and take care, you know, you have all kinds of problems, I mean, you’re having a natural disaster, a nuclear explosion, and they can get them working again, you think that’s going be a normal thing?”
Trump, however of course, also indicated that the government would not be able to handle the crisis on its own.
“They’ll have to do it on their own,” Trump told the Times.
“But they’ll be doing it on the government side.
We’re going to have to deal with it.”
This has been Trump’s strategy all along.
His strategy has been to play up the crisis and, therefore, to exaggerate its scope.
The Trump administration’s approach is not entirely clear-cut, however.
Trump and his allies are not trying to play down the seriousness of the situation.
They are attempting to present the crisis as a crisis of global proportions, and to paint the crisis with the same broad brush as the pandemic and global pandemic of 1918.
Trump appears to believe that the US is on the verge of a major global pandemics, and therefore, the US should be able and eager to use its military might to contain the situation in its own backyard.
However, the strategy does not seem to be working.
The US military has not deployed significant combat forces to Iraq and Afghanistan.
It has deployed only small numbers of military personnel to Iraq.
The number of US troops in Iraq is smaller than the number that are currently deployed in Afghanistan, but this is not necessarily a bad thing.
The vast majority of US forces are stationed in Afghanistan.
The Afghan army is more than capable of protecting the US troops deployed in Iraq, and it is an important asset in protecting the United States from the threat posed by al-Qaeda, Taliban and other extremist groups.
But as long as the US continues to be the dominant military power in the Middle East, it will be unable to protect the US homeland and its people from al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.
The United States and its allies have been able to deter and destroy al-Shabaab, but the Taliban and its affiliates have proven resilient.
The Taliban has been able, despite being defeated, to establish a foothold in the country, and the Taliban is able to use the Afghan Taliban as a proxy to carry out attacks against Western interests and civilians.
Al-Qaeda is now in control of much of eastern Afghanistan, and this threat is more acute than in 2014.
Al Qaeda is also in control in much of central Asia, which has been home to much of the global jihadist threat since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The threat from al Qaeda and the extremist groups that are affiliated with it is not a crisis confined to the