Quote:A new report from the New York Times reveals that staffers on the Donald Trump campaign have taken direct control of the @realDonaldTrump twitter account away from the GOP candidate. Though Trump still dictates tweets to his press team, including spokeswoman Hope Hicks, they now vet and edit those communiques.


That generally seems to have meant softening what has often been Trump’s harsh and vindictive tone on Twitter. The Times piece specifically describes Hicks modulating this tweet, which in Trump’s original version ended with a more blunt “Get back to work.”

Quote:[/url]

 Follow
Donald J. Trump 

✔@realDonaldTrump
Looking at Air Force One @ MIA. Why is he campaigning instead of creating jobs & fixing Obamacare? Get back to work for the American people!
11:19 AM - 3 Nov 2016

• 
  
   
• 
   28,02228,022 Retweets
   
• 
   70,82270,822 likes
  

The report does not indicate precisely when Trump gave up direct control of his Twitter account. But previous reporting has found that tweets written directly by Trump could be distinguished from those written by his staff. In general, Trump’s own tweets have been more hyperbolic and negative.

A review of recent tweets shows none of the more vitriolic rhetoric that has generated many (arguably damaging) headlines for Trump throughout the campaign. Tweets sent over the last five days are predominantly upbeat praise for the crowds at Trump rallies, links to Trump-skewing news, and announcements of upcoming events.

Tweets sent on November 1st, though, still had strong hints of Trump’s unvarnished personal style—including the abbreviation of “Crooked Hillary” to simply “Crooked.”

Quote:

 Follow
Donald J. Trump 

✔@realDonaldTrump
So terrible that Crooked didn't report she got the debate questions from Donna Brazile, if that were me it would have been front page news!
10:14 AM - 1 Nov 2016

• 
  
   
• 
   33,54133,541 Retweets
   
• 
   81,90081,900 likes
  

Quote:

 Follow
Donald J. Trump 

✔@realDonaldTrump
Crooked Hillary should not be allowed to run for president. She deleted 33,000 e-mails AFTER getting a subpoena from U.S. Congress. RIGGED!
8:01 AM - 1 Nov 2016

• 
  
   
• 
   24,23124,231 Retweets
   
• 
   60,48560,485 likes
  

Quote:

 Follow
Donald J. Trump 

✔@realDonaldTrump
Look at the way Crooked Hillary is handling the e-mail case and the total mess she is in. She is unfit to be president. Bad judgement!
6:31 AM - 1 Nov 2016

• 
  
   
• 
   21,89821,898 Retweets
   
• 
  [url=https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=793400131525677056] 56,49256,492 likes
  

 
The Times report paints the more controlled approach to Twitter as part of the Trump campaign’s home-stretch efforts to control the candidate’s image. Twitter has been both a huge platform for Trump to galvanize his followers, and a frequent minefield. Perhaps most notoriously, Trump unleashed a week-long Twitter campaign attacking former Miss Universe Alicia Machado following the first presidential debate in September.

(11-06-2016, 09:52 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I can't imagine what a clown show it's going to be if this guy somehow wins the election.

(11-06-2016, 11:05 PM)Dill Wrote: I think he could actually paralyze the government by fomenting gridlock in Congress (dividing his own party there), and freezing both the executive and judiciary with contradictory and unconstitutional executive orders--all this exacerbated by foreign policy missteps the likes of which we have never seen before.

Fear of his personal vindictiveness will alter the culture of the executive as well, as competent civil servants are fired and replaced with toadies--or "great people" as he would call them.

(11-07-2016, 01:47 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I don't have a dog in the Trump v Clinton race, but damn that's a lot of hyperbolic conjecture. I'm surprised you also didn't say he'd invest lots of government dollars in Google's AI and drone companies, leading us into Skynet and robot world domination.

(11-07-2016, 05:32 AM)Dill Wrote: Have you been following this election? The guy has divided his own party like no candidate in history. Not a single former Republican president or nominee showed up at his convention. Any other Republican candidate could have beaten Clinton, but he shot himself in the foot week after week with reckless, needlessly offensive comments and unhinged late-night tweets. Setting a never to be equalled standard of bad taste and judgment, he brought Bill Clinton accusers to a presidential debate--and still let Hillary play him like a fiddle.

For most of his campaign he worked states where he could find the biggest campaign crowds and neglected swing states he needed. His ground game is nil, his organization chaotic. He encourages violence among his followers claiming that the press and a rigged system are the reasons why he has blown a winnable election. He calls his opponent a criminal "worse than Watergate" and promises to put her in prison if he wins, and to prosecute the women who have publicly accused him of doing what he said celebrities like him can do to women.

I don't even want to get started on the foreign policy ignorance (we "lost the element of surprise" in Mosul??), but I will mention his inability to vet information gleaned from the internet, his coziness with Alex Jones, and his abysmal lack of knowledge about the executive branch.

Why would this guy suddenly become stable, organized, and far-sighted if he won the presidency? And if you don't think he would become stable, then why do you think his instability wouldn't have consequences for all the departments of the executive under his control, whose protocols he is unfamiliar with? Why wouldn't it impede working with Congress, so many of whose members won't even speak to him. Why wouldn't it have foreign policy consequences? Will Putin and the Chinese provoke him to midnight tweets after pushing all his buttons during treaty negotiations, just as Clinton did during the debates? Will he threaten to sue foreign powers too or threaten trade wars Congress won't back him on?

If you don't think much could go wrong if Trump ordered the US military to use torture or tried to grab Iraqi oil, then I understand why you don't see much difference between Trump and Clinton and why my comments seem hyperbolic. But for those who DO see what can go wrong, a Trump presidency looks like an unending, crazy drama--just as his campaign has been--and likely to end in impeachment while Congress and Pence try and repair the policy and fiscal damage.

(11-07-2016, 05:32 AM)Dill Wrote: Have you been following this election? The guy has divided his own party like no candidate in history. Not a single former Republican president or nominee showed up at his convention. Any other Republican candidate could have beaten Clinton, but he shot himself in the foot week after week with reckless, needlessly offensive comments and unhinged late-night tweets. Setting a never to be equalled standard of bad taste and judgment, he brought Bill Clinton accusers to a presidential debate--and still let Hillary play him like a fiddle.

For most of his campaign he worked states where he could find the biggest campaign crowds and neglected swing states he needed. His ground game is nil, his organization chaotic. He encourages violence among his followers claiming that the press and a rigged system are the reasons why he has blown a winnable election. He calls his opponent a criminal "worse than Watergate" and promises to put her in prison if he wins, and to prosecute the women who have publicly accused him of doing what he said celebrities like him can do to women.

I don't even want to get started on the foreign policy ignorance (we "lost the element of surprise" in Mosul??), but I will mention his inability to vet information gleaned from the internet, his coziness with Alex Jones, and his abysmal lack of knowledge about the executive branch.

Why would this guy suddenly become stable, organized, and far-sighted if he won the presidency? And if you don't think he would become stable, then why do you think his instability wouldn't have consequences for all the departments of the executive under his control, whose protocols he is unfamiliar with? Why wouldn't it impede working with Congress, so many of whose members won't even speak to him. Why wouldn't it have foreign policy consequences? Will Putin and the Chinese provoke him to midnight tweets after pushing all his buttons during treaty negotiations, just as Clinton did during the debates? Will he threaten to sue foreign powers too or threaten trade wars Congress won't back him on?  

If you don't think much could go wrong if Trump ordered the US military to use torture or tried to grab Iraqi oil, then I understand why you don't see much difference between Trump and Clinton and why my comments seem hyperbolic. But for those who DO see what can go wrong, a Trump presidency looks like an unending, crazy drama--just as his campaign has been--and likely to end in impeachment while Congress and Pence try and repair the policy and fiscal damage.

(11-07-2016, 01:13 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Hell, Trump can't get along with the Speaker of the House from his own party.  (If you believe Trump is a Republican.)

(11-07-2016, 01:31 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Ryan is nothing more than a RINO.
If you notice some of Ryan's proposed policies are more liberal than Republican in nature and besides that, when he goes home at the end of the day, he has to listen to his Democrat Wife (whom I think actually wears the pants in his household).

(11-07-2016, 01:31 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Trump is nothing more than a RINO.
If you notice some of Trump's proposed policies are more liberal than Republican in nature and besides that, when he goes home at the end of the day, he has to listen to his Communist Wife (whom I think actually wears the pants in his household).

(11-07-2016, 01:31 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Ryan is nothing more than a RINO.
If you notice some of Ryan's proposed policies are more liberal than Republican in nature and besides that, when he goes home at the end of the day, he has to listen to his Democrat Wife (whom I think actually wears the pants in his household).

(11-07-2016, 02:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: See what I did there?

(11-07-2016, 02:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So is Trump. Your blatant misogyny is too funny. 

(11-07-2016, 04:22 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I don't call Democrats communists. I just don't agree with their way of thinking.

Quote:Trump's not married to a Democrat wife, nor is his a RINO. He does have a couple of leftist views, but that's enough to classify him as a RINO.

(11-07-2016, 04:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: She's from a former communist bloc nation, I just threw it in for the effect.



You called the man selected as the leader of the largest elected group of Republicans a "Republican in name only" for some "liberal" policies, but you're going to argue that a man who spent the first decade of the 2000's as a Democrat, openly supported the current Democratic nominee, and, before this last year, was at odds with half of the Republican platform, is not "a Republican in name only". 

You literally said that Paul Ryan is a RINO because "some of his policies are more liberal" and then said "[having] a couple leftist views" isn't "enough to classify [Trump] as a RINO".

lol, make up your mind. 

(11-07-2016, 04:22 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I don't call Democrats communists. I just don't agree with their way of thinking.


Trump's not married to a Democrat wife, nor is his a RINO. He does have a couple of leftist views, but that's enough to classify him as a RINO.

(11-07-2016, 04:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: She's from a former communist bloc nation, I just threw it in for the effect.



You called the man selected as the leader of the largest elected group of Republicans a "Republican in name only" for some "liberal" policies, but you're going to argue that a man who spent the first decade of the 2000's as a Democrat, openly supported the current Democratic nominee, and, before this last year, was at odds with half of the Republican platform, is not "a Republican in name only". 

You literally said that Paul Ryan is a RINO because "some of his policies are more liberal" and then said "[having] a couple leftist views" isn't "enough to classify [Trump] as a RINO".

lol, make up your mind. 

(11-07-2016, 05:02 PM)Griever Wrote: in his version of reality, consistency is a non factor in how he lives his life

(11-07-2016, 07:43 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You guys are acting like Hillary after she bumped her head. Both parties have people in them that don't follow the Party lines.
Mark Begich is a DINO.

Since Ryan has become Speaker, he's completely Flipped, he's opposing his own party constantly and kissing POTUS's butt..

http://www.rinotracker.us/paul-ryan-rino-of-the-year/

Then as I said, Trump might have some leftist views on certain things, but he's not a RINO.