Tag Archives: Twitter

It’s official: Trump has blown himself apart

After the latest and “greatest” Donald J. Trump tweet-storm — this time regarding his immediate predecessor as president of the United States — I am compelled to ask a simple question.

Can someone explain to me as if I’m a 5-year-old why in the name of all that is holy did 62 million Americans vote for Trump as president?

Trump now says Barack Obama wiretapped the new president’s offices at Trump Tower in New York. He once again offered no evidence. No proof. Nothing to substantiate a single idiotic word he sent out via Twitter.

What’s more, then we get U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican — and former GOP presidential opponent of Trump, saying he is “worried” about the president’s moronic accusation.

What the hell does that mean, senator? Worried? About what?

I can’t tell if he’s worried that the president would resort to such idiocy or he’s worried that there might be something to what he has alleged.

“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” Trump said in one of his tweets.

President Obama, of course, has denied any such thing ever occurred.

At issue, in case you’ve forgotten, is whether the Trump campaign had any improper or illegal contact with Russian government officials during the campaign or immediately afterward — and before Trump took office. Did they talk about the sanctions that the Obama administration had leveled against the Russians because 17 U.S. intelligence agencies believe they sought to influence the outcome of the election?

Trump now has flipped his beanie. His butter has slipped off his noodles.

Some of us out here warned about Trump’s temperament, his judgment, his fitness for the job he won. The very idea that the president of the United States would launch this Twitter tirade and accuse his predecessor of breaking the law is — all by itself — enough to disqualify this individual from holding any public office.

Then again, I thought so way back when he said Sen. John McCain was a “war hero only because he was captured” by the North Vietnamese and beaten to within an inch of his life while being held captive during the Vietnam War.

My question still stands: How did this clown win a presidential election?

Twitter becomes a disgusting weapon

This is one of the things I hate about Twitter.

It can be used for disgraceful purposes, such as what a Chicago man did the other day. Fortunately, it cost him his job.

Daniel Grilo went on Twitter to make a disgusting commentary on the widow of a Navy SEAL who (a) had been killed in combat and (b) had been invited to hear Donald Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress.

The president called attention to Carryn Owens, wife of slain SEAL William “Ryan” Owens. She stood and cried while the audience cheered for her. I guess Grilo didn’t like it. So he posted something utterly distasteful about what he had witnessed on television. He tweeted: “Sorry Owens’ wife, you’re not helping yourself or your husband’s memory by standing there and clapping like an idiot. Trump just used you.”

That’s the bad news. The good news — from my standpoint — is that the financial firm for which he was set to start work dismissed him.

I hate a lot of things about Twitter … although I do use it myself. I have fired off more than 14,600 tweets over the years, but I have sought to avoid the kind of personal insults that we too often read on this social medium.

We all get 140 characters to say whatever it is we want to say. I try to be more discreet than the idiocy fired into cyberspace by the likes of Daniel Grilo.

Grilo did apologize to Mrs. Owens and to the president in subsequent tweets. I’m sorry to inform you, dude, the damage was done and as an old friend once told me, “You cannot unhonk a horn.”

Feeling a bit self-conscious

I am feeling a little self-conscious about one aspect of this blog I write.

It involves the way I distribute it. I use several social media to disseminate my musings about this and/or that. One of them is Facebook.

This week a young man with whom I am acquainted complained about the politicization of Facebook. He told he has grown weary of all the back and forth, give and take, the jousting over political matters on a social medium that — as he understood it — isn’t intended for such discussion.

“It’s supposed to be a place where people ‘congregate,'” he told me.

True enough.

I mentioned to him that I distribute my blog through Facebook and other social media; I don’t think he reads the blog, so perhaps he learned something about what I do in my “spare time.” The blog does produce its share — or more than its share, perhaps — of comments from those who spend a lot of time reading other people’s posts. They engage each other. They take me to task for my posts; others of them endorse whatever I am saying. They argue with each other, they get under each other’s skin.

I choose essentially to stay out of that kind of repartee. I prefer to post the item on my blog and then fire it off on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn,Google and Tumblr.

I don’t intend to politicize Facebook with these posts. I merely intend to get as much exposure as I can for my blog, which I enjoy writing immensely.

This exercise, which I pursue multiple times a day, is a form of therapy for me. It keeps me engaged in public affairs and the news of the day.

Sure, my blog content is mostly about politics and public policy; it’s also about slices of life and life experience — including retirement and grandparenthood. And, yes, I enjoy writing about our adorable puppy, Toby.

Perhaps my sharing this fit of self-consciousness will help clear my head — and my conscience.

Actually, I feel a bit less self-conscious at this moment than I was when I began writing this post.

See? The “therapy” works!

Trump declines to mingle with ‘the enemy’

We might have seen this one coming.

Donald J. Trump announced today he won’t attend the annual White House Correspondents Dinner, an event that attracts noted journalists, assorted celebrities and politicians — and usually features a blistering bit of self-deprecation and jabs at others from the president of the United States.

It’s a whole lot of fun for those who attend. At least it’s supposed to be fun.

Trump, though, will forgo the event. “I will not be attending the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner this year. Please wish everyone well and have a great evening!,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

Is anyone surprised? Really? I didn’t think so. Trump, after all, has labeled the media the “enemy of the people.” Why would he want to mingle with such “dishonest” individuals and organizations?

The president has gone on the warpath against the mainstream media, going so far as to ban certain media organizations from attending routine White House press briefings. He has called them “fake news” outlets. He has accused the media of making stories up, of hiding their sources and attribution.

It is all — if I may borrow a term — “unpresidented” of the president to say these things about the media.

However, the White House Correspondents Dinner has been notable at many levels for many years. Perhaps the most notable event occurred in 2011, when then-President Obama joked about Trump — who was in the audience — concocting all sorts of conspiracy theories, starting with whether the president was born in the U.S. of A. Trump, at the time a mere real estate mogul and reality TV celebrity, took the ribbing stone-faced

What we didn’t know at the time, of course, was that earlier that day Obama had approved the commando mission to kill Osama bin Laden, who was holed up in a Pakistan compound. The president  carried on as if he didn’t have a care in the world.

The dinner, which occurs on April 29, will no doubt include plenty of barbs tossed at the president from the podium.

I’m willing to consider taking bets on whether Trump unloads via Twitter in response when they start flying at him. That shouldn’t surprise anyone, either.

Media are ‘the enemy’? Seriously, Mr. President?

The unique aspect of social media forums — such as, say, Twitter — is that no matter how quickly you take something down the original expression remains embedded in the public mind.

Donald J. Trump tweeted a statement declaring that the “media is the enemy of the American people.”

The president deleted it almost immediately. But … oops! … it’s still out there.

Thus, we’ve gotten another look into the weird mind of our nation’s head of state.

The media aren’t the “enemy.” Trump might believe it simply because media representatives are asking sometimes-difficult questions. His senior White House political strategist, Steve Bannon, has encouraged the media to “keep quiet” and has called the media “the opposition party.”

What neither of these men quite get — or so it appears — is that the media are part of the American fabric. The Constitution guarantees a “free press” that shouldn’t be shackled or silenced by government pressure or coercion.

Yet that seems to be part of what is happening now with the new president, who’s been in office less than a single month.

Trump’s critics have lamented what they consider the “danger” that the president  presents to our democratic system. I am beginning to believe a president who blurts out ill-considered statements about the media being the “enemy” of Americans is painting a frightening picture for the country he purports to lead.

Mammoth court fight awaits Trump

Here is where we stand regarding that ill-considered ban on refugees.

It appears headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, thanks to a unanimous ruling this afternoon by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a lower court’s suspension of Donald Trump’s executive order banning refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.

Clear as mud, yes?

The 9th Court ruled 3-0 to uphold the suspension ordered by U.S. District Judge James Robart, whom Trump called a “so-called judge” in criticizing his decision.

What about the politics of the court? Judge Robart is a George W. Bush appointee; the three appellate court judges were picked by Presidents Carter, Bush 43 and Obama. It looks like a bipartisan rejection to me.

Now the highest court stands ready to ponder this controversial executive order. It has a vacancy, meaning that eight justices are on the job. Four conservatives and four liberals. What happens if the Supremes issue a tie vote? The 9th Court ruling stands. Trump’s executive order is negated.

The 9th Court ruling takes aim at the provision in the order that bars people with visas from re-entering the United States, which the judges ruled is unconstitutional.

According to The Associated Press: “The appeals panel said the government presented no evidence to explain the urgent need for the executive order to take effect immediately. The judges noted compelling public interests on both sides.

“‘On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination.'”

Trump, of course, responded with a tweet. “SEE YOU IN COURT,” the president said via Twitter.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, whose state has sued the president over his executive order, responded: “Mr. President, we just saw you in court, and we beat you.”

The fight has just begun.

Is there no end to POTUS’s sophomoric tweets?

I get that Donald J. Trump is proud of his daughter.

Moreover, I also understand that he wants her to succeed to the fullest.

But for the life of me, I do not get why the president insists on using Twitter in the fashion he uses it. Now he says Nordstrom is treating Ivanka badly and he has taken to Twitter to make his feelings known.

The president has a full plate of issues to consider. You know, things like war and peace, the economy, getting his Cabinet picks confirmed by the Senate. Small stuff, right? Um, no. They’re real big!

So why is the president taking on a department store company because it no longer wants to market Ivanka Trump’s brand of products?

Honestly, I am tired of commenting on this baloney. I feel I must protest, given that the social media maven happens to be the president of the United States of America, the guy who governs the country of which I happen to be a taxpaying citizen.

Someone coined the term “diplomacy by Twitter.” That’s a dangerous practice. The president shouldn’t use this social medium to communicate foreign policy. He shouldn’t use it to criticize federal judges. He shouldn’t use it to boast about crowd sizes and poll numbers or blast those who dispute them.

The presidency is an office that compels maximum respect and dignity. Its current occupant clearly — in my mind — is denigrating the decorum that this high office commands.

Gorsuch stands up for his judicial peers

I am beginning to think more highly of Neil Gorsuch.

The man whom Donald J. Trump has nominated for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court has put the president on notice, saying that Trump’s tweets about the federal judiciary are “disheartening” and “demoralizing.”

It’s tempting — for me at least — to wonder if Trump is going to withdraw Gorsuch’s nomination because he had the gall (and the integrity) to speak in favor of his federal judicial peers.

Of course Gorsuch is correct. The president’s petulance performance via Twitter has been beyond the pale and below the high standards of respect the presidency should demand.

Trump clearly demands that others respect the office. I submit that he should respect it, too. Perhaps he should respect it more, given that his behavior — or misbehavior — reflects directly on the office to which he was elected.

Trump’s tweets have been in response to a federal judge’s decision to strike down the president’s temporary refugee ban. The president has chosen to demonstrate his anger through this social medium — acting like, oh, a teenager who’s just been told his car isn’t as cool as the other guy’s.

Now a judicial gentleman has taken the president to task.

Good for you, Judge Gorsuch.

Founders got it right, as Trump is demonstrating

Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison … wherever they are, must be enjoying what they are witnessing in the country they helped create.

They are possibly witnessing a supreme test of checks and balances as they intended for them to be used.

Donald J. Trump, the nation’s 45th president, is setting up a yuuuge fight with the federal judiciary. That would pit two of the three co-equal branches of government against each other.

Trump issued an executive order that bans refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries. He cited national security as his reason. He seemingly wants to ban Muslims from entering the country and is using “extreme vetting” procedures to find the bad guys among the refugees who are fleeing their native lands for the Land of Opportunity and Freedom.

A federal judge has ruled that the executive order is discriminatory on its face. A federal appeals court is considering whether to uphold the ban or side with the judge.

Trump, meanwhile, is embarking on a social media campaign to blast the judge who issued the order staying the president’s order, thus possibly enraging other federal judges — namely the eight individuals who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court who might be asked to issue the final ruling on the president’s order.

Thus, a showdown may be born.

The founders established an “independent judiciary” for the best reason possible: to protect federal judges from political coercion. They serve as judges for life. They are supposed to interpret the U.S. Constitution without pressure or coercion from politicians.

But wait! Trump is seeking to apply that very pressure by badgering the judges. He called the federal jurist who struck down the ban a “so-called judge”; he said the nation should “blame” him and the federal court system if a bad guy sneaks into the nation.

Trump is using Twitter to make his specious case against the federal judiciary.

All the while, the founders are looking down while patting each other on the back. “Yep,” they might say to each other, “this is precisely what we had in mind.”

Trump draws bead on another federal judge

Let me see a show of hands: Has anyone out there ever seen or heard a president of the United States attack individual members of the federal judiciary?

I didn’t think so. Me neither.

Donald “Smart Person” Trump is setting a new — lower — standard for behavior.

A judge in western Washington state, James Robart, has stopped the president’s ban on refugees from certain countries. The Department of Justice is seeking an injunction against Robart’s ruling. That’s all normal reaction.

What is quite abnormal has been the president’s Twitter tantrum, calling Robart a “so-called judge” and saying if “anything happens” because a criminal sneaked into the country, we should blame the judiciary for it.

You’ll recall how as a candidate for president, Trump took on U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel because of his Mexican heritage. Curiel is presiding over a case involving Trump University. Trump said the judge couldn’t adjudicate the matter fairly because “he’s a Mexican, OK?” Actually, the Indiana-born jurist is as American as Trump.

Trump needs lesson on presidential behavior.

Trump as a candidate behaved disgracefully. Now that he’s president, he is expected to conduct himself with dignity and decorum. He isn’t. Trump continues to launch into these Twitter-borne tirades against a duly appointed federal judge.

Indeed, it is reasonable to question whether the president is trying to coerce another member of a co-equal branch of government into doing his bidding.

I believe such activity — if it’s ever alleged — would be illegal. As in against the very laws the president took a solemn oath to defend and protect.