Yes, his pairing of ‘losers’ with ‘evil’ is certainly a master stroke. You are right…it will resonate with his electorate. But then, just about everything he utters or tweets resonates with those folks, so this is just par for the course after a hard day of wordsmithing gems like ‘evil losers’. 
You might try reading the full post rather than just the title.
This quote from up-thread works well as a response here…
…as does this one.
I have to disagree. IMNSHO, it has caused a great amount of anger, not terror. Any time a terrorist attack occurs, it incites anger and the terrorists are too damn stupid to realize that their goals aren’t happening.
Full post the 1st:
Full post the 2nd:
Summary: “Lay off Mr.Twump!”
Their goal is to further divide the muslim world from the rest of the world.
Their goal is for the western world to oppress muslims in their countries.
Their goal is for us to come to them, and fight on their territory.
Their goals are being realized quite well, unfortunately, we have many who are supposedly on our side assisting them with their goals by responding to the terrorist attacks with anger.
That about right?
He doesn’t even have to open his mouth. As long as he can get his diminutive digits onto a smartphone he can shit-tweet out ever random thought that passes through his head while his brain tries to forceably evacuate itself through his colon at 3 am.
Actually, the suicide bomber does not seem to have “failed at death”. He killed himself and took twenty-odd people with him, as well as gaining publicity for himself, which if he were able to express an opinion now he’d probably consider that a win. Furthermore, dismissively referring to terrorists as “evil losers” isn’t simply obtuse, it is dangerous. If you refuse to understand your enemy you’ll never defeat him; or, from Sun Tzu’s most oft-repeated proverb, “If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles… if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.” Defeating radical Islamic terrorism–a simple phrase that your hero-in-chief seems peculiarly unable to speak–means understanding how and why people become radicalized, particularly self-radicalization in liberal Western nations away from the cultural influence of Islamic governments. Dismissing them as “evil losers” is like classifying a serial killer as a “stupid vandal”.
As far as Trump speaking in “speaking in clear, comprehensible, language” on the campaign trail or elsewhere, I’d like to see evidence that he is capable of speaking in complete, intelligible sentences for the span of a couple of minutes without the help of a teleprompter, because the available evidence suggests otherwise. For instance, on the topic of the nuclear triad and the role of nuclear weapons–one of the most important policy issues not just for the United States but for the world–Here is what Donald Trump had to say. Not only was he not “clear” or “comprehensible”, he comes off as being either stupidly ill-informed or dangerously obsessed, or perhaps both. And frankly, the people who supported Trump don’t want clear language or comprehensible positions or policy; they want to project their own needs and desires into his trash word salad of jumbled vocabulary, which is why so many Trump boosters are upset that the proposed AHCA bill will remove coverage because they didn’t interpret his mishmash stream-of-consciousness rantings as meaning that. We’re told that we are supposed to take Trump figuratively but not literally, but in fact, there is nothing to take that you couldn’t get from a four year old trying out random new words without any context or definition.
But please, provide counterexamples of Trump’s masterful speaking abilities and “clear, comprehensible language”. This I want to see, because all I’ve seen is TelePrompter Trump and Gibberish Free Association Trump. I want to see some Eloquently Knowledgeable Trump.
Stranger