Presidential Tweet Thread

[Il Duce]

The media's job isn't to filter anything, and when they do, it is agenda driven.

An ambassador's job isn't to negotiate in spite of the president. An ambassador's job is to serve as an envoy to the president.

I think this is an area of clear difference of opinion. I think the press/journalism - if not the media writ large - do have as a part of their job to provide context and background. I think that's key part of journalism. I accept the criticism that it is frequently done poorly and I understand if you're on the right you might feel there is constant bias and belittling of your positions by the press - something I think Scott Spicer stated affectingly in his 2nd press conference. But I just don't see journalism as being done responsibly when you just say 'here's what person X said, here's what person Y said - good luck figuring it out.'

Similarly I think ambassadors and the state department at large frequently have a complicated task when it comes to negotiation and relations. Frequently embassies have to keep back-channels and communications separate or adjacent to other public communications. The President similarly needs the ability to have a public face on some issues and at least some measure of private assurances. I get that the line on where that becomes obfuscation and dishonesty can be tricky - but I still think it's necessary. I'd point to something like the Cuban missile crisis as a well documented scenario where public vs private communication, intentional and unintentional signals were critically important.

As an aside but still germane I think that's one of the reasons Manning's betrayal of his country and the IC was so damaging and unforgiveable in my view. His disclosure of state department communiques made that private communication senior leaders rely on to make decisions and communicate privately public - inflicting significant harm on diplomatic efforts worldwide. Further, from that point on those communications were moved from the secret level (and systems) to the top secret level (and systems) greatly reducing the access of battlefield commanders and decision-makers to state department insights and efforts. It's of course an exaggeration to put the majority of the disconnect between state dept efforts and the military on Manning but that douche definitely contributed - and that does cost lives.

 

[Marauder06]

Because they didn't vote for him* - so he'd be sympathetic to decreasing their turnout.

*Or most didn't, I think the figures I saw were 8% of the African American vote and about 20% of those making less than 150% of the poverty line. But definitely 3 caveats to that which are - just because you're African American doesn't mean you're in poverty, President Trump received a higher percentage of the African American vote than Mitt Romney, and I imagine the numbers on poverty line voting are very speculative - something very difficult to get from exit polling, you really have to rely on demographic extrapolation. Still, even with all that I think the point holds.

Right. And (numerically, not per capita) there are more poor whites than poor blacks in the US.

President Trump's whole campaign was designed to appeal to the working-class poor- Make America Great Again. Without the "poor" vote, Mr. Trump doesn't take the electoral vote and never becomes president. No poor whites = no President Trump. So President Trump wouldn't want to suppress the poor vote. But if he's engaging in voter suppression (which I dispute), and he's not suppressing the poor, and the two options are "poor and minority," then he must be suppressing...

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I think it's crazy that any American citizen wouldn't want voter fraud investigated to the fullest extent. Of all things, our vote is our most important duty and obligation as a citizen. To attempt to disrupt or manipulate the process and outcome should be treated along the lines of treasonous acts. Fraudulent voting claims should be investigated, where evidence is found, idividuals should be charged, tried and if convicted, and a heavy lengthy sentence, to avoid future behavior. There should be no question to this, and it is eyebrow raising to me, that anyone would question that process.

I get an unfounded claim, but their has been several reported incidents of voter fraud. They should be investigated, to the fullest extent of the law. From little Johnny using his dead grandpa's identity, to political parties and everything in between. If there is smoke, look for the fire, if/when the fire is found, figure out who started it, etc.

 

[nobodythank you]

I think this is an area of clear difference of opinion. I think the press/journalism - if not the media writ large - do have as a part of their job to provide context and background. I think that's key part of journalism. I accept the criticism that it is frequently done poorly and I understand if you're on the right you might feel there is constant bias and belittling of your positions by the press - something I think Scott Spicer stated affectingly in his 2nd press conference. But I just don't see journalism as being done responsibly when you just say 'here's what person X said, here's what person Y said - good luck figuring it out.'

Similarly I think ambassadors and the state department at large frequently have a complicated task when it comes to negotiation and relations. Frequently embassies have to keep back-channels and communications separate or adjacent to other public communications. The President similarly needs the ability to have a public face on some issues and at least some measure of private assurances. I get that the line on where that becomes obfuscation and dishonesty can be tricky - but I still think it's necessary. I'd point to something like the Cuban missile crisis as a well documented scenario where public vs private communication, intentional and unintentional signals were critically important.

As an aside but still germane I think that's one of the reasons Manning's betrayal of his country and the IC was so damaging and unforgiveable in my view. His disclosure of state department communiques made that private communication senior leaders rely on to make decisions and communicate privately public - inflicting significant harm on diplomatic efforts worldwide. Further, from that point on those communications were moved from the secret level (and systems) to the top secret level (and systems) greatly reducing the access of battlefield commanders and decision-makers to state department insights and efforts. It's of course an exaggeration to put the majority of the disconnect between state dept efforts and the military on Manning but that douche definitely contributed - and that does cost lives.

Like for the first two paragraphs. The last I am still unsure about. The issue of Snowden and Manning, to me, is a tricky one and a bit of a gray area. I think context is great, but as you mentioned, journalism as of late has failed in that department miserably. Furthermore, the established media has been caught in more than a few lies, half truths, misrepresentation (whatever your choice) when delivering a news story. Instead of delivering accurate and contextual information, they are rushing to be first no matter how outlandish the report and speculate things to death. Total agree with the second paragraph though. The Cuban Missile Crisis is an excellent example of how back channel communication can be more effective than public communication.

 

[Ranger Psych]

You don't have to be right, you just have to be first, to get ratings.

 

[Etype]

I agree with your post at large, with the below caveats-

...do have as a part of their job to provide context and background. I think that's key part of journalism.

Context and background are not the same as a filter- the word in question was filter, no playing bait and switch.

When the media filters content, it is most often done to obscure context.

Similarly I think ambassadors and the state department at large frequently have a complicated task when it comes to negotiation and relations. Frequently embassies have to keep back-channels and communications separate or adjacent to other public communications.

This is always the case. Lying in the line of duty isn't dishonesty, it's honor.

 

[Il Duce]

Right. And (numerically, not per capita) there are more poor whites than poor blacks in the US.

President Trump's whole campaign was designed to appeal to the working-class poor- Make America Great Again. Without the "poor" vote, Mr. Trump doesn't take the electoral vote and never becomes president. No poor whites = no President Trump. So President Trump wouldn't want to suppress the poor vote. But if he's engaging in voter suppression (which I dispute), and he's not suppressing the poor, and the two options are "poor and minority," then he must be suppressing...

The exit polling for 2016 shows a pretty clear margin for the poor favoring HRC. Here’s some decent charts but you can find the same with any google search: http://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11/#by-income-clinton-led-only-among-voters-with-a-2015-family-income-under-50000-a-group-that-included-36-of-the-voters-in-the-exit-polls-4

Poverty and low income in urban areas is heavily concentrated in minority groups. Here’s one source, but again – not controversial data: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-poverty-well-being/poverty-demographics/

If you look at Republican voter suppression efforts (if you believe those exist – if not voter fraud/voter integrity efforts) the impact is concentrated most heavily on the urban poor – again dominated by minorities. This I think is a decent summary article of the dozens out there: http://billmoyers.com/story/voter-suppression-laws-working/

Granted, most of the voter suppression information is reporting – not academic research. And, there are a huge number of factors that impact turnout – not the least of which is the appeal/faults of the candidates themselves.

I don’t think it’s an unreasonable assessment to say the President is broadly supportive of Republican efforts in this area given his appointment of key RNC leaders to his staff, his statements on voter fraud, and his direct electoral benefit from those efforts.

If you disagree that’s cool, other than the demographics of poverty none of it is settled science by any measure. But, I’m definitely surprised by your incredulity at my position. I feel like my work is getting me in the neighborhood of a solid B or B+ in your poly sci class...

 

[Il Duce]

Like for the first two paragraphs. The last I am still unsure about. The issue of Snowden and Manning, to me, is a tricky one and a bit of a gray area. I think context is great, but as you mentioned, journalism as of late has failed in that department miserably. Furthermore, the established media has been caught in more than a few lies, half truths, misrepresentation (whatever your choice) when delivering a news story. Instead of delivering accurate and contextual information, they are rushing to be first no matter how outlandish the report and speculate things to death. Total agree with the second paragraph though. The Cuban Missile Crisis is an excellent example of how back channel communication can be more effective than public communication.

Yeah, I'm definitely a hard partisan when it comes to Manning and Snowden. When I calm down I can see other perspectives but their actions really cut to the heart of things I believe in and take very seriously in my job. I'm an MI guy, I'm not kicking in doors or facing fire on the drop zone. I feel like we have to give our contribution in the integrity of what we collect, analyze and disseminate - all the while protecting those sources and methods. To me when you betray your oaths to protect that information you not only put the guys in the fight we're supposed to be working for at risk but you dismantle the reputation, effort, and thankless work intelligence folks do across the force.

I'm a committed liberal and have supported the Democratic party for a number of years. But I took myself off all the mailing lists and stopped all contributions after the Manning commutation. Maybe I'll be back but it is just something that's very personal to me.

At the same time, I found a way to vote for HRC despite the email scandal. I'm sure I differ on a lot of the interpretation of what happened but at it's core there were many of the same values at stake. It's definitely something I think about when I'm taking my hypocrisy meter out on myself.

You've been very consistent in your posts on distrust of government secrecy. I think that's a valid position - even though it's not one I share. I think I was way too harsh on an earlier post in condemning your views on Manning and Snowden and I meant to apologize back then but I'll take the opportunity to do so now.

 

[nobodythank you]

Yeah, I'm definitely a hard partisan when it comes to Manning and Snowden. When I calm down I can see other perspectives but their actions really cut to the heart of things I believe in and take very seriously in my job. I'm an MI guy, I'm not kicking in doors or facing fire on the drop zone. I feel like we have to give our contribution in the integrity of what we collect, analyze and disseminate - all the while protecting those sources and methods. To me when you betray your oaths to protect that information you not only put the guys in the fight we're supposed to be working for at risk but you dismantle the reputation, effort, and thankless work intelligence folks do across the force.

I'm a committed liberal and have supported the Democratic party for a number of years. But I took myself off all the mailing lists and stopped all contributions after the Manning commutation. Maybe I'll be back but it is just something that's very personal to me.

At the same time, I found a way to vote for HRC despite the email scandal. I'm sure I differ on a lot of the interpretation of what happened but at it's core there were many of the same values at stake. It's definitely something I think about when I'm taking my hypocrisy meter out on myself.

You've been very consistent in your posts on distrust of government secrecy. I think that's a valid position - even though it's not one I share. I think I was way too harsh on an earlier post in condemning your views on Manning and Snowden and I meant to apologize back then but I'll take the opportunity to do so now.

Don't get me wrong, I can totally see and agree with the stance against releasing classified information that could get people killed. I also agree that there are secrets that sometimes need to be kept for valid national security reasons. Out of all the information leaked, the information about the spying on American citizens, without due process, is what troubles me the most. The rest I could likely be persuaded given a logical and valid argument. I also recognize that the "government" and the workers are two separate entities trying to work in harmony with each other. Afterall, GS employees are humans and citizens too.

As to your comment on Republican voter suppression efforts, I don't believe there is a conscious and active effort to suppress any votes. However, in order to remove that possibility and end the argument, the Republicans would be smart to just make a special grant to all the states for free ID cards on the condition that they (the states) are to accept said IDs as valid for elections. Then the issue of voter suppression would finally be laid to rest. At least from a voter ID/fraud perspective. This is one of the areas that Republicans could easily fix a problem, but choose to stagnate.

I don't recall the posts you are referring to, but no worries. I appreciate the words nonetheless. In the same vein, thank you. My feelings toward government secrets stems from working as an LEO and seeing how precarious the line between safety and rights can become. For those in power and for the citizenry. It begs the question, at what point is your duty, justified by the oath taken, to the citizens or the government?

 

[Gunz]

You don't have to be right, you just have to be first, to get ratings.

Exactly.

Ratings and revenue increase proportionate to the amount of fear, panic, titillation or outrage a media outlet can generate. This isn't anything new. Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst wrote the playbook.

The media routinely engages in what I call "selective editing" to either drive their agenda (i.e. the agenda of whomever owns that particular outlet), or to denigrate the agenda of the opposition (i.e. those whom the owner of the outlet considers the opposition).

By tweeting, the POTUS does an end run around all the media filters (especially those who oppose him), and can talk directly to his recipients. With Trump's outspokenness that's not necessarily always a good thing...but in our polarized society it's a smart tactic.

 

[DA SWO]

Don't get me wrong, I can totally see and agree with the stance against releasing classified information that could get people killed. I also agree that there are secrets that sometimes need to be kept for valid national security reasons. Out of all the information leaked, the information about the spying on American citizens, without due process, is what troubles me the most. The rest I could likely be persuaded given a logical and valid argument. I also recognize that the "government" and the workers are two separate entities trying to work in harmony with each other. Afterall, GS employees are humans and citizens too.

As to your comment on Republican voter suppression efforts, I don't believe there is a conscious and active effort to suppress any votes. However, in order to remove that possibility and end the argument, the Republicans would be smart to just make a special grant to all the states for free ID cards on the condition that they (the states) are to accept said IDs as valid for elections. Then the issue of voter suppression would finally be laid to rest. At least from a voter ID/fraud perspective. This is one of the areas that Republicans could easily fix a problem, but choose to stagnate.

I don't recall the posts you are referring to, but no worries. I appreciate the words nonetheless. In the same vein, thank you. My feelings toward government secrets stems from working as an LEO and seeing how precarious the line between safety and rights can become. For those in power and for the citizenry. It begs the question, at what point is your duty, justified by the oath taken, to the citizens or the government?

Just put a photo on the EBT cards, problem solved.
Give a State ID card to everyone else on their 18th Birthday (update card every 5-10 years)

 

[TLDR20]

Just put a photo on the EBT cards, problem solved.
Give a State ID card to everyone else on their 18th Birthday (update card every 5-10 years)

That would do it in my opinion.

As long as ID's are free, and easily accessible, I have no issue with voter ID laws. If someone has to pay a single penny, it is not ok with me.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

Just put a photo on the EBT cards, problem solved.
Give a State ID card to everyone else on their 18th Birthday (update card every 5-10 years)

Wasn't this idea part of the whole, "let me see your papers" slippery slope, and those opposed immediately did the Nazi Germany comparison?

 

[DA SWO]

Wasn't this idea part of the whole, "let me see your papers" slippery slope, and those opposed immediately did the Nazi Germany comparison?

It's a state ID, not a Federal ID.
There is a difference.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

So what's next?

It's a state ID, not a Federal ID.
There is a difference.

Thank you.

 

[Etype]

The exit polling for 2016 shows a pretty clear margin for the poor favoring HRC. Here’s some decent charts but you can find the same with any google search: http://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11/#by-income-clinton-led-only-among-voters-with-a-2015-family-income-under-50000-a-group-that-included-36-of-the-voters-in-the-exit-polls-4

Poverty and low income in urban areas is heavily concentrated in minority groups. Here’s one source, but again – not controversial data: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-poverty-well-being/poverty-demographics/

If you look at Republican voter suppression efforts (if you believe those exist – if not voter fraud/voter integrity efforts) the impact is concentrated most heavily on the urban poor – again dominated by minorities. This I think is a decent summary article of the dozens out there: http://billmoyers.com/story/voter-suppression-laws-working/

Granted, most of the voter suppression information is reporting – not academic research. And, there are a huge number of factors that impact turnout – not the least of which is the appeal/faults of the candidates themselves.

I don’t think it’s an unreasonable assessment to say the President is broadly supportive of Republican efforts in this area given his appointment of key RNC leaders to his staff, his statements on voter fraud, and his direct electoral benefit from those efforts.

If you disagree that’s cool, other than the demographics of poverty none of it is settled science by any measure. But, I’m definitely surprised by your incredulity at my position. I feel like my work is getting me in the neighborhood of a solid B or B+ in your poly sci class...

Polls also showed Hillary winning by a large margin- polls are inaccurate at best.

Polls are taken mainly in urban centers, poor whites live in rural areas. I would also argue that they wouldn't want to stand around and entertain a pollster's questions.

 

[Salt USMC]

By tweeting, the POTUS does an end run around all the media filters (especially those who oppose him), and can talk directly to his recipients. With Trump's outspokenness that's not necessarily always a good thing...but in our polarized society it's a smart tactic.

Speaking directly constituents is one thing. This is incredibly problematic when the President puts out tweets that are abject lies, or are incredibly misleading. Additionally, his communication staff provides enough spin and top cover that would make Baghdad Bob sit up and take notice. Isn't this a big, big problem? I mean, part of the media's job is to hold powerful people to account. If the President and his staff are lying to your face on a daily basis, shouldn't there be some organization (or organizations) out there saying "WTF?"

This fact alone is the biggest puzzle for me. Opponents of the mainstream media accuse news outlets of undue bias and falsehoods, but then openly embrace an administration that spits out unfiltered bias and falsehoods. It kinda seems like they're just trading one set of biases for another.

 

[Etype]

Speaking directly constituents is one thing. This is incredibly problematic when the President puts out tweets that are abject lies, or are incredibly misleading. Additionally, his communication staff provides enough spin and top cover that would make Baghdad Bob sit up and take notice. Isn't this a big, big problem? I mean, part of the media's job is to hold powerful people to account. If the President and his staff are lying to your face on a daily basis, shouldn't there be some organization (or organizations) out there saying "WTF?"

The number of lies and misleading statements Trump puts out are a big dip from the status quo.

Are you upset that he lies less than his predecessor or rival, or would you like to see politics become a completely honest forum?

 

[Il Duce]

Polls also showed Hillary winning by a large margin- polls are inaccurate at best.

Polls are taken mainly in urban centers, poor whites live in rural areas. I would also argue that they wouldn't want to stand around and entertain a pollster's questions.

HRC did win the national vote within the margins of those polls - it was the state polls that were more significantly off. Even then, it was a very close electoral race - less than 1% in the key states.

Polls are inexact and have their problems. But just blanket dismissal of polling is the same as the blanket dismissal of science - it seems to be used much more to cherry-pick what you want to be true, or dismiss what you don't want to be true.

 

[Etype]

HRC did win the national vote within the margins of those polls - it was the state polls that were more significantly off. Even then, it was a very close electoral race - less than 1% in the key states.

Polls are inexact and have their problems. But just blanket dismissal of polling is the same as the blanket dismissal of science - it seems to be used much more to cherry-pick what you want to be true, or dismiss what you don't want to be true.

And by that logic, you have determined that poor people support Hillary, although the polling is only a representative sample of urban areas; meanwhile knowing that the poorest of the poor in the US live in rural areas.