Naked News: What You Need to Know about Auditions for a Career as a Naked Reporter article The National Review, the publication of conservative and libertarian publications such as The American Spectator and the Weekly Standard, recently published an essay by one of its authors, David Horowitz, titled, “Why the Left is so concerned with a naked election,” that begins: “There is a pervasive belief among progressives that if Trump is elected, the only alternative is for Trump to be assassinated.

If he wins, all hope of a Trumpian America is gone.

If Trump is not elected, we must all take up arms against him.”

Horowitz goes on to outline his theory of the naked election, including the idea that the election will be a proxy war between the left and the right: The only way to achieve that goal is to mobilize people to the polls.

It is a moral imperative to vote, to show up, and to have a moral conscience.

So I see no reason why a naked vote won’t work.

If the left does not get behind the vote, the vote will simply be a form of proxy warfare, as Horowitz argues.

The reason for the left’s reluctance to endorse a naked electoral vote is that, while there is a genuine fear of the far right, the far left’s concern with a Trump victory is a product of a different reality.

The left is concerned about a Trump win because they believe Trump would be a threat to their agenda, to their politics, and they fear he will continue to advance it, or even to expand it, as he has done in the past.

To the extent the left is worried about Trump, it is because it is a threat.

They are concerned about Trump because he will not go away, they fear that his presidency will make them a stronger, more powerful political force in the coming years, and their political opponents are afraid to challenge him.

As Horowitz puts it: There is a deep ideological and political belief among many leftists that Trump will not be able to keep up his current pace of progress, that he is not a viable political option.

They believe that, if Trump wins, his presidency and its attendant threats to the status quo will lead to a permanent crisis of political power, and the only way out of this crisis is to turn to naked elections, which, of course, is not what most Americans want.

The author’s argument that the left has no choice but to support a naked, naked election is not entirely accurate.

To be fair, the author does say that the vote for Trump is “a moral imperative,” but he then goes on in the essay to offer several arguments against voting for Trump.

For one, the Trump victory could result in a “birther revolution,” a movement that seeks to convince Trump that he was not eligible to be president because of his heritage, a “nationalist uprising,” or a conspiracy to “force Trump to resign.”

(Trump has denied that he ever claimed any such claims, and has instead insisted that he did not know he was eligible to run for president.)

The author then points out that the American people would not accept a Trump presidency because of what he would do as president.

If a naked political vote were to be accepted, he argues, the American government would become less accountable, less responsive to the public, and less responsive “to the needs of the public.”

In Horowitz’s words, this would lead to “a more authoritarian and autocratic governance of the country, where Trump’s power would grow and become greater and his control more complete.”

Horowitz also makes a case for why it would be better for the American public if a naked-vote vote were accepted, arguing that if voters accept a naked presidential election, “we can at least take a step toward restoring some accountability and legitimacy to the presidency.”

In other words, if Americans were to accept a presidential election with naked votes, it would “allow us to finally start to look at the Trump Presidency as an aberration, and a moment when our system of government needed to be fundamentally re-evaluated.”

As Horowitz argues, there are several other reasons why voting for a naked Trump election would be “a good idea.”

First, if a presidential campaign were to end in a naked defeat, then there would be no need for a full campaign.

For a naked candidate to have any chance of winning, the candidate needs to be able and willing to win.

And that candidate needs support.

A naked Trump campaign would help to make that candidate feel more powerful, more effective, and more in control.

Second, Horowitz argues that a naked campaign would provide the “right amount of ammunition” for Trump supporters to rally behind their candidate if the candidates election were to go the other way.

If there was a victory by the other side, then, as the author argues, voters would have a clear choice to support either Trump or Hillary Clinton, rather than a third-party candidate who is