Even after winning the presidential election, Donald Trump continues to use Twitter to send out bizarre and threatening messages about anything that crosses his mind. He even threatened to take away citizenship from people who burn the American flag, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that this is speech protected by the First Amendment. Now many journalists are saying that these tweets shouldn’t necessarily be covered as serious news, even if they are spoken by a future President of the United States.
Does a Presidential Tweet Fall in the Woods?
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
28 Comments. Leave new
It’s almost as if Trump is beating the cartoonists at their own game.
DanD
> Now many journalists are saying that these tweets shouldn’t necessarily be covered as serious news,
You misspelled “propagandist”
+1!
Kenneth Arrow defines information as specifically that which reduces uncertainty.
Since many of Trump’s statements relative to crucial decisions he is empowered to make do not reduce uncertainty, they cannot be received as information, but are void of information, occupying that logical space between information and misinformation commonly known as bullshit.
Trump’s statements to us do not inform on which he speaks, but they do inform us about his intentions with regard to providing and withholding information. It is a safe working assumption that by his repetition and rhetorical success in the use of distracting bullshit, that this is his intention and not inadvertent or unintentional.
To react to Trump’s distracting bullshit is to be no smarter than the bull that charges the bullfighter’s cape while being impaled.
I’m predicting that on April 1, 2017, Trump will tweet: “April Fool! I never was serious about this president thing anyhow. I resign.” (That’s assuming he isn’t impeached before then.) 😀
Mein verehrter Lehrer, while I think it safe to assume that Congressional Republicans would much rather have Mr Pence occupying the office of US president than Mr Trump, I doubt that they will vote to impeach the latter. The CIA, however, which is deeply invested in the Russo-phobic polices of the current US administration and has much to lose if Mr Trump comes to power, seems to be doing its level (?) best to see to it that he doesn’t gain the majority of Electors on 19 December…..
Perhaps I should get a TV after all ; politics in the US seems to be made for that medium….
Henri
Of course Trump continues to use Twitter.
Hmm. I could hold a press conference, and deal directly with the media, a few of whom will actually ask me tough questions.
Or. …
I can post a tweet, completely redirecting the news cycle. Why talk about Important Issues when I can get the batch of morons who comprise most of the current media talking about my Tweet about how much I hate broccoli?
Or more accurately, why would I have a press conference in which “journalists” will ask leading questions and bring up the same debunked non-scandals in perpetuity?
He is amazing though, huh? The master persuader is plays them like puppets!
> The master persuader is plays them like puppets!
Yep, just like he played all the Trump Chumps. He’s selected a climate change denier who hates the environment to run the EPA; a fast food CEO who is opposed the minimum wage to run Labor; and a man who thinks that the pyramids were grain silos to run HUD.
Are you still under the impression that he’s going to make things better for you?
“There are two types of Republicans: Millionaires and suckers”
Well I oppose the EPA and minimum wage so 2 of 3 ain’t bad!
CrazyH,
I strongly doubt Trump will make things better for me.
I strongly doubt Hillary Clinton would have made things better for me, either.
Trump, however, as we are seeing, will make things so bad, so fast, that possibly, just possibly, enough people will wake far enough the hell up to reactivate some genuine Progressive policies in this country. But if you think Hillary was going to make anything great happen, you have to tell me exactly how:
1. She wouldn’t have a Senate OR House of Reps majority.
2. The obvious tactic for the Supreme Court would be for the Republicans to block any nominees until the court fell to 4-3, leaning conservative. You only need six for the Supreme Court.
3. She got 2 million more votes than Trump. And lost the Electoral College. But (wait for it): She. Can. Get. It. Done! No. She. Can’t!
4. The vote distribution is 48.2% to 46.3% That’s 1.9%. That is by no possible stretch of the imagination a “mandate.” With 120 million votes? It’s a photo-freaking-finish. And that was her “victory” against Trump.
5. By the midterm, she would have been deep in the middle of Carter Malaise. Even more Democratic seats would have been lost in the Senate and House.
6. The market is taking off with Trump. Why? Because the greediest generation realizes that this is going to be the feeding frenzy to end all feeding frenzies. Once the locusts have ravished everything they can, the market will “correct.” The baby boomers will see their 401(k)s turn to dust. Property values will plummet. I will be laughing my ass off. After decades of never having anything more than just barely enough to get by, I will get to see a whole lot of people suddenly lose everything they took from my generation on the way up.
Oh, yes, I will enjoy that. It will almost make up for every bit of hardship I have endured along the way. Almost.
@Alex –
” But if you think Hillary was going to make anything great happen…”
I do not, and have never said she would. Trump is/was the evil of two lessers, but I didn’t vote for either one.
@Jack –
Global warming is the second biggest threat to our species’ continued survival. It’s really not going to matter how much the Environmental Protection Agency is paid if they’re not going to Protect the Environment.
Lol…doomsday hysteria and alarmism.
> Lol…doomsday hysteria and alarmism.
Seriously? You vote for a guy who’s claiming that Muslims and Mexicans are destroying the country & you think you have room to talk? You’re worried that gays rights & women’s rights are somehow harming you, personally, and you think you have room to talk? The other day you were defending a conspiracy theory on the level of the fake moon landing … and you think you have room to talk.
It is to laugh.
OTOH, if you don’t understand the very real threat that global warming poses, you shouldn’t be voting in the first place.
I mock you because you on the Left always ridicule rightwingers as chicken littles when you are worst of all yourselves. You have flawed climate models. And propaganda. And failed predictions. The idea that human beings could have much influence on the climate of the entire fucking planet is absurd on its face.
If you guys are right, why does the new data never match the models? Easy–because the models assume positive feedback–that the effects of green houses gases are amplified. This is obviously impossible as the earth would continue to heat until it was uninhabitable. But it doesn’t. It cycles which must mean negative feedback. The medieval warm period was far warmer than today and guess what? We lived through it. Enough bullshit already. You give the earth too little credit. It finds equilibrium.
And yes. I do think that people who cannot assimilate to American values are bad for America. And I believe feminists and LGBT agitators when they say their objective is to destroy marriage and family. And I do believe that family is the cornerstone of civilization. And I do want civilization to exist. Nothing here is reaching. Nothing is a “theory.” It’s all out in the open. Muslims are destroying Europe. Mexicans living in America fly their flag instead of ours. Stop being so goddam blind and dense.
And the MONEY. Why is there so much money behind global warming propaganda if it’s all about sticking it to the greedy rich who want to destroy the planet? Turner, Soros, all of Hollywood and the media and on and on! And you guys act like you’re the outsiders and rebels.
> I do think that people who cannot assimilate to American values are bad for America
Me Too! When do you leave? Do you need bus fare? Don’t let the door hit your head on the way out…
« The medieval warm period was far warmer than today …» Interesting statement, «Jack Heart», and not atypical of the misunderstanding and misinformation you disseminate on these threads. As a matter of fact, globally, temperatures during the period in question – from 950 to 1250 – seem to have been lower than they are today, even though in certain regions of the North Atlantic, they do seem to have been higher….
«And the MONEY. Why is there so much money behind global warming propaganda if it’s all about sticking it to the greedy rich who want to destroy the planet? Turner, Soros, all of Hollywood and the media and on and on! » There’s no doubt that Mr Soros has used his considerable resources in questionable ways – helping to finance «regime change» ’round the globe, for example – but you might want to consider that the Koch brothers, whose net worth is about twice that of Mr Soros, are among the principle financiers of the climate-change denial movement. The issue of anthropogenic climate change has to be decided on the basis of the relevant science – both theoretical and empirical – and there seems to be no question but that global warming exists. I note also that you are fighting the good fight against «the MONEY» and «sticking it to the greedy rich» by opposing a minimum wage of 15USD/hr, which no doubt you feel puts you on the side of the angels…. 😉
Henri
henri,
I suggest you look up Thomas Sowell, who shows that paradoxically, the minimum wage hurts those it is intended to help (much like many policies of the Left).
And as is often the case with the Left, you are being misleading here. “Climate change denial” is a gross mischaracterization. The contention is not that it isn’t happening. It is that climate change is natural and not man-made. There is in fact no proof that it is anthropogenic.
«I suggest you look up Thomas Sowell, who shows that paradoxically, the minimum wage hurts those it is intended to help» I’m quite aware of Professor Sowell and his work, «Jack Heart». There are always those who, like the dear professor, will put their talents at the disposition of the powerful, who after all, are best able to pay….
That capitalists attempt to secure the labour power of those that serve them to the lowest price possible is hardly surprising ; all of the classical economists would take such behaviour as a matter of course. Arguments to the effect that such behaviour is really in the interest of the exploited classes, whose livelihood would be threatened by a living wage, require the arrival of modern times and the PR industry….
I suggest that dear Professor Sowell doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about the welfare of the poor….
Henri
@Jack – your ignorance is nothing short of astounding.
> There is in fact no proof that it is anthropogenic.
Sure there is, but one needs to pass high school science to comprehend it. Have you ever seen a greenhouse? Do you know how they work? Do you deny that they work? The same principle applies to the Earth’s atmosphere. Do you seriously believe that 95% of the planet’s climatologists are in a giant conspiracy? Whatever for? Why hasn’t one them broken ranks?
It’s absolutely hilarious that you brought money into the discussion – yeah, there’s big money to be made from the oil companies duh? No scientist ever got rich off of government grants.
> the minimum wage hurts those it is intended to help
We were just going through this the other day, take notes this time. More money in the hands of consumers means more money going into businesses and that means the economic engine goes ’round and ’round. Less money means less business means fewer employees and that means even less business and the economic engine slows down.
«> There is in fact no proof that it is anthropogenic.
Sure there is, but one needs to pass high school science to comprehend it.» It’s not easy to keep up with the latest scientific advances, CrazyH, so perhaps we should be willing to cut our dear «Jack Heart» som slack. After all, it’s only been 120 years since Svante August Arrhenius published his pioneering Über den Einfluss des atmosfärischen Kohlensäuregehalts auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche, so the results probably haven’t as yet had sufficient time to trickle down to our beloved interlocutor’s level….
Henri
Henri – the part I find interesting is that (to the best of my memory) Mr. Ass wasn’t a denier prior to becoming infected with Trumpism.
I vaguely remember something from PSYCH 101, don’t recall the name though (perhaps a professional would)
When one makes a choice that causes cognitive dissonance, he then changes his previous opinions to justify that choice and thereby remove the dissonance. I think we’re watching that play out in real life. I worry that this probably isn’t the only example.
Care to source the 95% figure? Or was it 97%? I didn’t think so.
«Care to source the 95% figure? Or was it 97%? I didn’t think so.» As a matter of fact, it’s an easy task to find sources for the discussion, in the event one, unlike «Jack Heart», is more interested in the evidence, than in attempting (but failing) to score rhetorical points. With regard to the 97 % figure, note the following : «A 2016 paper (which was co-authored by Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton and John Cook, and which was based on a half a dozen independent studies by the authors) concluded that “the finding of 97% consensus [that humans are causing recent global warming] in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.”» (More on this can be found, e g, here….)
Henri
«I suggest you look up Thomas Sowell, who shows that paradoxically, the minimum wage hurts those it is intended to help (much like many policies of the Left).» I suggest that anyone interested in the effect that raising the minimum wage from a level which does not support a normal life has on the economy acquaint him or herself with the empirical results published by the Atlantic‘s CityLab. (I don’t of course, intend this recommendation for «Jack Heart», whose posts to these threads indicate a concern for empirical evidence no greater than that of Professor Sowell for the welfare of the poor….)
Henri
Once again, either Ted’s website or my own ineptitude managed to screw up my attempt to provide a link ; let’s try again !….
Henri