When the bombing he committed, which injured 29 New Yorkers but failed to actually kill anyone, Trump spoke out against Muslim terror, saying “We better get very tough, folks. We better get very, very tough.”
As Steve Sailer noted (NEW YORK TIMES Editorial Board Frontlashes Against Deplorable Bombophobes) the New York Times immediately spoke out for it:
The NYT Editorialists take time out from warning us of the constant threat of Mass Shootings by Dylann Roof types to urge everybody not to react to the bombs in its circulation zone.Which of course they were—Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and their party all support mass Muslim immigration—Trump opposes it. The New York Times went on:
Twitter erupted, which is what Twitter does. Donald Trump told a crowd there had been a bombing and we had to get tough, folks. A sideshow battle blew up over who had been quickest to call it, as if this were some game show or reality TV. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who has sequestered his reason and decency so he can flack for Mr. Trump, used the Chelsea blast to attack Hillary Clinton on Sunday TV, darkly suggesting that she and her party, and the president, were somehow responsible….
The right response to this constant, unending, low-level threat of sudden violence is to stay vigilant and reasonable, to clean up the damage, care for the injured, look out for one another, and elect leaders who will address the challenge with sanity and good judgment. And avoid the wrong responses: A police-state overreaction would be equally damaging in its own way by adding to the intolerance and suspicion that can foster radicalization, isolation and hatred.The "vigilance" they're calling for wasn't against Muslim terrorists, it was against normal American with normal ideas about Muslim immigration—and their candidate, Donald Trump.
Reason And Vigilance After The Blast, By The Editorial Board, September 18, 2016