Tag Archives: Twitter

Unity, Mr. President-elect, bring us unity

Donald J. Trump is having the time of his life as he taunts those who oppose his election as president of the United States.

He went on yet another Twitter rant with a message that belies his pledge to be the president “of all Americans.” Imagine that.

He wrote: “Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don’t know what to do. Love!” 

There you go. Such grace. Such class. Such a striving to make good on his promise to “unify” a divided nation.

I guess this latest example strikes right at the heart — in my view — of this guy’s temperamental unfitness for the job to which he has been elected.

He blasts out these tweets, using the social medium to inject himself into the middle of foreign policy discussions being conducted by the individual who still is serving as president and commander in chief.

This latest lack of decorum only serves  to inflame the anger of those who need little reason to be angry that this guy won the election.

The unity you profess to seek, Mr. President-elect, cannot be found in these childish messages.

Trump stretches unconventional approach

Donald J. Trump’s campaign for the presidency was unconventional.

His transition into the office he has won is even more so.

We often hear it said that “We have only president at a time.” Trump, though, is using his Twitter account to suggest something that borders on the otherwise.

The United States this past week abstained on a United Nations Security Council vote that condemns Israel over its settlement building on the West Bank; U.S. policy for years has been to veto such a resolution. Thus, the Obama administration broke with longstanding U.S. policy.

Then in comes Trump to tweet that the United States was wrong to abstain; that the U.N. is a “sad” organization.

The point here is that presidents-elect traditionally have let the current president conduct foreign policy. They wait relatively quietly while they prepare to take office; then they are free to change whatever policy they wish.

Trump isn’t waiting for Inauguration Day. He’s blasting the daylights out of President Obama whenever he sees fit using his Twitter account.

My wish would be for the president-elect to hold his fire until he becomes the president. Americans actually do have just one president at a time.

Donald Trump’s time is coming on quickly. Until he takes the oath of office, he ought to keep his trap — and his Twitter account — quiet.

‘Baby daddy’ quits post on Trump team?

Leave it to Twitter to knock someone flat on his face.

Jason Miller quit suddenly this past week as communications director in Donald J. Trump’s new presidential administration. He offered the usual “spend more time with my family” reason for quitting a key job in a new administration.

Then comes this from another Trump transition aide: “Congratulations to the baby-daddy on being named WH ­Comms Director!” That’s what A.J. Delgado wrote on Twitter, adding that Miller is the “2016 version of John Edwards,” referring to the former Democratic U.S. senator and presidential candidate John Edwards, who had an extramarital affair that produced a daughter.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/transition-adviser%e2%80%99s-tweets-add-intrigue-to-trump-aide-jason-miller%e2%80%99s-sudden-resignation/ar-BBxyRYw?li=BBnb7Kz

The Washington Post reports that Delgado deactivated his Twitter account, which leads me to believe that what he wrote has more than a grain of truth to it.

Is this important? I suppose it is if you want your presidential administration to be free of the kind of scandal that brings down other presidential contenders. Consider, too, that Edwards — who ran as the Democrats’ vice-presidential nominee in 2004 on a ticket led by John Kerry — came within just a few thousand votes in Ohio of actually becoming vice president of the United States.

So, you don’t want your chief spokesman — in this case Miller — speaking for a president when he is lugging around some potentially explosive baggage.

Trump insists that he uses Twitter to communicate policy issues in real time. Others within the president-elect’s circle of advisers apparently use it as a not-so-secret weapon.

More nukes for U.S.? Sure thing, Mr. President-elect

Let’s go back a few decades.

Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama had many differences of opinion on a whole range of issues.

They all agreed, though, on one key matter: They all wanted to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world.

Then along comes Donald J. Trump to announce to the world — via Twitter, of course — that he wants more nukes, not fewer of them.

The response from his pal, Russian President Vladimir, was equally disconcerting. Hey, no prob, said the Russian strongman.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/russia/311618-putin-trumps-nuke-talk-nothing-special

Putin takes no great concern over Trump’s assertion that we need to boost our nuclear arsenal, apparently disregarding the notion that we already can destroy the world with what we have.

Trump already has let it be known that a new nuclear arms race with the Russians is no big deal, that the United States can outlast ’em in Moscow.

Trump’s new press secretary, Sean Spicer, said the president-elect’s tweet was meant to warn the world against nuclear proliferation.

Oh, boy. Conducting foreign policy discussions via Twitter is truly for the birds.

‘Unpresidented’ isn’t a word, Mr. President-elect

aalghwi

Donald “I’m, Like, a Smart Person” Trump has done it again.

Or maybe someone on the president-elect’s staff has done it.

A tweet went out with Trump’s name that contained a curious non-word. It stated: “China steals United States Navy research drone in international waters — rips it out of water and takes it to China in unpresidented act.”

Unpresidented? Hmmm.

Trump’s tweet referred to the hijacking of a U.S. drone craft by the Chinese navy.

The “unpresidented” reference has drawn plenty of scorn around the social media universe.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/unpresidented-trump-tweet-on-china-sets-off-deluge-of-mockery/ar-AAlGn8g?li=BBnb7Kz

Of course, it’s a non-existent word, and that forces me to wonder …

Either the president-elect is decidedly less literate than most of us have believed him to be, or someone on his staff — one of the “best people” he has pledged to hire — fits that description.

Someone has to yank the Twitter gun out of this guy’s hand.

Whoever it is — Trump or someone on his staff — these idiotic messages are not acceptable.

Cool it with the Twitter account, Mr. President-elect

twitter-logo-bird

I know that Donald J. Trump wouldn’t ever heed this bit of advice from little ol’ me, mainly because he likely won’t see what I’m about to say … but I’ll offer it anyway.

Cease and desist with the constant tweeting, Mr. President-elect. You’re the Big Man now and you ought to pick your battles with a lot more care and caution.

A story in the Washington Post illustrates just how much damage this fellow — Trump — can do to someone who objects to some of his policy pronouncements.

The story talks about how, when he was running for president, Trump responded to a woman who challenged whether he was fair to women. Trump tweeted that the woman was a “plant” and called her an “arrogant young woman.”

Good grief, man! She was a citizen, a potential constituent making a comment about things he had said.

Here’s the story:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/this-is-what-happens-when-donald-trump-attacks-a-private-citizen-on-twitter/ar-AAljS3f?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Since his election, Trump has used his Twitter account with amazing result.

He told the world about how he talked with the president of Taiwan — a nation with which we have no diplomatic ties — roiling relations with the People’s Republic of China and causing potentially devastating friction between the two great nation; he called for cancellation of an order for a new Air Force One jetliner to be developed by Boeing, causing the aircraft manufacturer’s stock value to plunge; he called a union leader a “liar” after the leader challenged Trump’s assertion that he had saved more than 1,000 jobs in Indiana.

Trump, of course, defends his use of this particular social medium, saying it’s the way people communicate these days.

Uh, Mr. President-elect, you ain’t like the rest of us. You are about to possess immense power to influence global events. You are going to be the Top Dog, the Big Magilla, the Main Man. You’ll inherit a Twitter account set up for the president of the United States.

How about using it wisely? Use it with discretion. Be circumspect and careful. How about traveling along the high road at all times?

The new president ought to leave the incessant tweeting and other cheap social media banter … to shlubs like me.

OK, so let’s just burn the Constitution, too

burning-flag

The fictional TV husband, Ricky Ricardo, once had the perfect answer to a ridiculous assertion that his wife, Lucy, had made.

“I have five words,” Ricky said. “Aye, aye, aye, aye, aye!”

That’s my response this morning to this latest gem from Twitter twit in chief Donald J. Trump, who writes: “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”

What in the name of all this holy and sacred is this guy thinking? Or, better yet, is he thinking — at all?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/donald-trump-flag-burning-penalty-proposal/index.html

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice in the past quarter century that burning Old Glory is a form of political expression. Thus, the high court said, it is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

For those who buy into every ridiculous utterance that flows out of the president-elect’s mouth, here is what the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Or “abridging the freedom of speech.” There it is, Mr. President-elect. It looks pretty clear to me.

This guy needs the mother of all reality checks.

He once told a TV interviewer that women should face punishment if they obtained an abortion. He backed off that nonsensical assertion not long afterward.

Now this? He wants to punish folks who burn the flag to protest government policy?

Before you accuse me of being soft on those who do such things, I feel the need to restate something I’ve said over many years. Those who seek to sway public opinion in favor of whatever point they make could not do anything more to turn that opinion against them than burning a flag.

Moreover, as one who once served in the Army and went into a war zone when ordered to do so, I take a back seat to no one in my love of country and its symbols. No one should burn a flag in my presence.

That said, it is a legal act that the Constitution protects under the very first amendment the founders wrote into our nation’s governing document.

It must stay that way.

Read the Constitution, Mr. President-elect. You’ll learn a thing or three about how this nation functions.

More and more from President-elect Tweet

trump-twitter

Tempting as it is, I believe I will refrain from engaging one of my baser instincts.

I won’t mess with the name of the next president of the United States.

His name is Trump … Donald J. Trump.

He relies heavily — perhaps too much so — on one social media platform, Twitter, to put out pithy and often inaccurate messages.

The temptation is this: Do I refer to him henceforth as President Tweet?

I am leaning against doing such a thing. President Obama’s name has been turned into unrecognizable versions of his given moniker. Truth be told, I have been subjected to a kind of bastardization of my own last name. When I was a kid, my runnin’ buddies would twist my name into, oh, “Cantaloupe,” or “Ka-knuckles.”

Trump himself has attached pejorative descriptions to his foes’ names: Lyin’ Ted, Crooked Hillary, Little Marco, Low Energy Jeb. They’re all real knee-slappers, yes? Does the president-elect, therefore, deserve a healthy dose of his own medicine?

Nah!

Then again, if he continues to rely on Twitter as a primary source of communication with the nation he is about to lead, the president-elect just might tempt me beyond my strength.

Total strangers become foes, even enemies

social-media-icon-signs-ss-1920

One of the downsides — and there aren’t many of them — of writing a blog is that I might be guilty of turning total strangers into enemies.

I post these musings on my High Plains Blogger website. I then transmit them via several social media outlets: Twitter, Facebook, Google and LinkedIn. My aim, of course, it to maximize exposure for this blog with the hope of getting those with whom I’m connected on all those sites to share these messages with their friends and social media acquaintances.

That’s straightforward enough, don’t you think?

But then something happens. My friends/”friends” on Facebook start tangling with each other. They read what is circulated on that social medium and respond to it. Then someone else reads the response and responds to that; it’s quite often — if not mostly — a negative response. That draws a rebuttal, which then attracts another reply.

On and on it goes, too often to no good end.

I do not like getting ensnared in this back-and-forth. I prefer to stay — if you’ll pardon the high-minded tone — “above the fray.”

I put the stuff out there, having stated my piece. Then I let others have at it.

Now, if someone asks me a direct question that requires a direct answer, I’m inclined to answer it. But I don’t always respond. I also might respond to an insult, which I do get occasionally.

The upshot of this is that while I (more or less) regret the hard feelings that erupt on occasion from those who respond to my blog spewage, I won’t back off from sending this stuff out there.

It provides great therapy, even if it comes on occasion with a bit of angst over the anger that boils up.

***

I made what some might consider to be a strange reference in this blog post. I describe my Facebook contacts thusly: friends/”friends.”

I do that to delineate between actual friends and those who I know only through Facebook. I have a number of folks out there who I consider to be — if not friends in the classic sense — friendly acquaintances. Truth be told, my actual friends amount to a tiny fraction of those with whom I have a friendly relationship.

There are others I know only because we’ve connected on social media. Those are the “friends” to whom I refer.

So, there you have it. To my many friends/”friends,” I say: Peace be with you.

Cyber bullying must stop … no kidding!

melania

Melania Trump said what?

She wants to make cyber bullying the top priority of her potential first ladyship?

Oh, the irony. The lack of spousal awareness. This is amazing!

Trump’s major solo speech today highlighted what she wants to do in case her husband Donald gets elected president next week.

Cyber bullying is her target. It’s got to end, she said.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/melania-trump-says-she%e2%80%99ll-fight-cyber-bullying-as-first-lady/ar-AAjREmA?li=BBnbcA1

OK, she can start at home. With her husband.

Donald Trump has used his Twitter account to call broadcast journalist Megyn Kelly a “bimbo.” He has used it also to allege the existence of “sex tapes” involving former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, about whom he has said many other unflattering things … also on social media.

She said this, among other things: “Our culture has gotten too mean and too rough, especially to children and teenagers,” Trump said Thursday afternoon in Pennsylvania.

Melania Trump, quite naturally, made no mention of her husband’s cyber-bullying history.

Trust me on this: The irony cannot possibly be lost on many of us who understand just how much her husband has contributed to the coarsening of political discourse.