Trump's recent twitter activity

[BmorePat87]

Trump has recently picked his phone back up and fallen into his old ways of engaging in twitter rants. First he claims, without proof, that he would have won the popular vote, but millions voted illegally. This is a really bold claim of unprecedented and massive voter fraud, especially since he just decried recount efforts.

His spokesman then asked why reporters weren't taking his claims more seriously after they asked for evidence that wasn't 1) discredited years ago or 2) misinterpreted to the point where the original author of one study from a few years back came out and publicly stated that his report did not make any claims that this kind of voter fraud has occurred or will occur. One reported tweeted to Trump asking for evidence, which prompted Trump to start attacking the journalist online, even retweeting a teenager who said that it was on the journalist to prove that Trump's claims were false...

He then tweeted at 3am that people who burn the flag, a constitutionally protected form of free speech, should be jailed or lose their citizenship.


Which begs the question: What is he trying to distract us from this time? The last time he went on a post election twitter rant, it was at the same time that he was forced to pay $25 million to the thousands he defrauded with Trump "University".

Will there be a point when he stops trolling on the internet, or will this always be a tool he uses to distract the public?

[GMDino]

(11-29-2016, 03:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Trump has recently picked his phone back up and fallen into his old ways of engaging in twitter rants. First he claims, without proof, that he would have won the popular vote, but millions voted illegally. This is a really bold claim of unprecedented and massive voter fraud, especially since he just decried recount efforts.

His spokesman then asked why reporters weren't taking his claims more seriously after they asked for evidence that wasn't 1) discredited years ago or 2) misinterpreted to the point where the original author of one study from a few years back came out and publicly stated that his report did not make any claims that this kind of voter fraud has occurred or will occur. One reported tweeted to Trump asking for evidence, which prompted Trump to start attacking the journalist online, even retweeting a teenager who said that it was on the journalist to prove that Trump's claims were false...

He then tweeted at 3am that people who burn the flag, a constitutionally protected form of free speech, should be jailed or lose their citizenship.


Which begs the question: What is he trying to distract us from this time? The last time he went on a post election twitter rant, it was at the same time that he was forced to pay $25 million to the thousands he defrauded with Trump "University".

Will there be a point when he stops trolling on the internet, or will this always be a tool he uses to distract the public?

I addressed the voter fraud one in another thread but I agree with you 100% that he's distracting people from something.

And I only believe THAT 100% because the alternative is cocaine.  Mounds and mounds of cocaine at 2am off of a gold table.

[CKwi88]

(11-29-2016, 03:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: I addressed the voter fraud one in another thread but I agree with you 100% that he's distracting people from something.

And I only believe THAT 100% because the alternative is cocaine.  Mounds and mounds of cocaine at 2am off of a gold table.

Why not both?

[GMDino]

[Au165]

They should pass a law that the president of the U.S. isn't allowed to tweet. I think everyone in congress could agree on that.

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2016, 04:00 PM)Au165 Wrote: They should pass a law that the president of the U.S. isn't allowed to tweet. I think everyone in congress could agree on that.

I disagree. I think social media has the ability to be a fantastic way for elected officials and other members of our government to be connected with the people. That only works, however, when we elect stable people to office.

[Benton]

I don't think it's a distraction tactic. I think it's just Trump.

It's his vice. He can get on Twitter (or whatever) and say what he wants. It takes his mind off whatever's bothering him.

Some guys drink. Some guys have sex. Some guys work on cars. Trump tweets.

[Au165]

(11-29-2016, 04:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree. I think social media has the ability to be a fantastic way for elected officials and other members of our government to be connected with the people. That only works, however, when we elect stable people to office.

I think there are more opportunities for the leader of the free world to "break" things with social media than improve them. I would say the same for any president not just Trump. Most people know that social media accounts for a lot of high up people are controlled by staff members anyways, so any "good will" is normally discredited as going through the motions.

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2016, 04:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: I think there are more opportunities for the leader of the free world to "break" things with social media than improve them. I would say the same for any president not just Trump. Most people know that social media accounts for a lot of high up people are controlled by staff members anyways, so any "good will" is normally discredited as going through the motions.

There are some posts by those higher ups that are by them, and I think they should make an effort to do it more. Sure, for marketing purposes (which is what it is all about, really) the account needs to be more active than their schedule allows for and so it is farmed out to staff, but having that connection, even if it is one tweet/Facebook post/Instagram picture a day is a good thing. And that includes reading some of the stuff sent their way. Just my two cents.

[Au165]

(11-29-2016, 04:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And that includes reading some of the stuff sent their way.

This is the value I see in it. I see twitter post in regard to condolences or response to bad things to be canned and not real, but getting direct response from "the people" is as real as it gets.

[GMDino]

(11-29-2016, 05:03 PM)Au165 Wrote: This is the value I see in it. I see twitter post in regard to condolences or response to bad things to be canned and not real, but getting direct response from "the people" is as real as it gets.

Yet when Tim Kaine tweeted about the "shooting" at OSU after the school said there was an active shooter he's been raked over the coals for:

a) Attacking legal, non-criminal gun owners
b) Supporting radical Islam
c) Hating police officers

But that's the internet for you.

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2016, 05:03 PM)Au165 Wrote: This is the value I see in it. I see twitter post in regard to condolences or response to bad things to be canned and not real, but getting direct response from "the people" is as real as it gets.

Unfortunately, and this is something to keep in mind for anyone looking to contact an elected official, those don't get through. Email, mail, social media, none of that will ever cross the desk of your elected officials. Call their district office. You will get a staffer, but someone will actually be listening to you. Get enough people to call about it and they will take it to the official.

[*bfine32*]

I was unaware Trump was forced to pay $25 mil to members of Trump U.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(11-29-2016, 05:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I was unaware Trump was forced to pay $25 mil to members of Trump U.

Yeah it's been an on going court case for a while, and he settled it.  The speculation is that he settled because he can't afford the distraction while in office.  Had he not been elected, it's doubtful he would have settled, and more than likely continued to fight it.  That is trumps MO when it comes to court cases (no matter how small the case) make the other guy bleed (money).

[*bfine32*]

(11-30-2016, 02:41 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Yeah it's been an on going court case for a while, and he settled it.  The speculation is that he settled because he can't afford the distraction while in office.  Had he not been elected, it's doubtful he would have settled, and more than likely continued to fight it.  That is trumps MO when it comes to court cases (no matter how small the case) make the other guy bleed (money).

So he settled. That's a little different than being forced; unless you're open-minded. 

[BmorePat87]

(11-30-2016, 02:41 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Yeah it's been an on going court case for a while, and he settled it.  The speculation is that he settled because he can't afford the distraction while in office.  Had he not been elected, it's doubtful he would have settled, and more than likely continued to fight it.  That is trumps MO when it comes to court cases (no matter how small the case) make the other guy bleed (money).

Ignore the troll. He doesn't actually contribute to threads, he just pokes his head in to nit pick posts.

You're absolutely right that Trump's hand was forced. He would have lost even more had it gone to trial, and to prevent this and a distraction while President (it wouldn't look good if the President had to go to court to fight paying the people he conned out of money with his fake school), he had to settle. 

[GMDino]

(11-30-2016, 02:57 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So he settled. That's a little different than being forced; unless you're open-minded. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-29-2016, 04:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree. I think social media has the ability to be a fantastic way for elected officials and other members of our government to be connected with the people. That only works, however, when we elect stable people to office.

LOL and anyone that wants the job of POTUS has to be a little unstable.