Post updated throughout the day and final submission at 2:30a.m., Saturday, November 10, 2018.
4 morning tweets, 7 afternoon tweets and 2 late night tweets
First Friday Morning Tweet
No explanation is provided. No description is provided. All readers know is that Donald J. Trump has made a proclamation about “mass migration” through the “Southern Border” of the United States.
What is “mass migration”? Is it more than one person? Is it 5 people? 10 people? 11 people? What is “mass migration?
Which “southern border”? Hawaii? Puerto Rico?
Why has the president proclaimed something? Why has the president not gone through legislative channels if this proclamation is intended to become policy? Congress writes the laws. The President signs bills into law (or not).
Second Friday Morning Tweet
Brian Kemp (R), Georgia’s Secretary of State at the time of the November 6th election, competed with Democrat Stacey Abrams for Georgia’s Governor.
Why is the president commenting on a state’s electoral process and outcome?
Is it the president’s job to decide electoral outcomes for states? Who decides the electoral outcomes in state elections?
Third Friday Morning Tweet
Again, the president is commenting about electoral processes at the state level. These elections are close, and as expected in close elections, have resulted in uncertain outcomes. As is standard in such cases, votes are being re-evaluated as electoral processes are considered.
Next he plants a comment that may cause either confusion (as there is no logical association between Russia and state elections in 2018 that has been made public knowledge), or he is trying to divert blame away from himself towards phantom operators. In either instance, is it responsible for the president of the United States to publicly suggest that another country interfered in U.S. elections when that is untrue?
Why does the president choose to plant misinformation about Russia with regard to U.S. 2018 midterm elections?
Fourth Friday Morning Tweet
Democrats sent “their best Election stealing lawyer” – Who? Which law schools offer courses in “election stealing”? How does one begin to claim an expertise in “Election Theft”?
“they” – Who? Who are “they”? Election workers/officials typically are comprised of people belonging to several political parties.
“they miracuously started finding …” – It is not miraculous. Word choice to imply disbelief. No facts to support that disbelief.
“I am sending much better lawyers to expose the FRAUD!” – How does he know he has “much better lawyers”? Why is he claiming FRAUD! without there having been any sort of investigation to substantiate that allegation?
First Friday Afternoon Tweet
“Jeff Flake(y)” – The president of the United States is engaging in school-yard bullying behavior. Children taunt children by taking a name and turning it into something else. Is this appropriate behavior for one who holds the most important elected office in the United States?
“doesn’t want to protect the non-Senate confirmed Special Counsel” – But he does. Senator Flake announced yesterday that he and Senator Chris Coons plan to seek a unanimous vote to protect the (special counsel) Mueller investigation following the exit of Attorney General Jeff Sessions from the Department of Justice. The president is not stating the truth.
Well – Wait. Apparently the president understands that Flake has announced his plan to protect Mueller – but he is doing so to “protect his (Flake’s) future”.
Senator Flake announced in October, 2017, that he would not be seeking reelection in 2020.
Is a person not seeking re-election therefore “unelectable”? Yes. That would be true. A person is unelectable if they are not running for an elected office.
But no – the president says he would be “unelectable” for the ” … “crime” of doing a terrible job!” – How does the president determine what constitutes doing 1) an excellent job, 2) a good job, 3) a bad job or 4) a terrible job? What are the criteria he uses to determine the quality of work completed by Senators? Is it the president’s job to make that determination, or do voters make that determination? Was Senator Flake elected to represent Donald Trump’s interests, or was he elected to represent the interests of the people in Arizona?
Then the president lands where he began. He becomes the bully again, and calls Senator Flake names. In a tweet. With the entire world reading along …
Second Friday Afternoon Tweet
The president is apparently confused. Elections are decided by the final count of ballots. At state levels, this is not always an immediate process. Were he to think back to the year 2000, there was confusion in Florida over the outcome of their votes for president. Does the name Al Gore sound familiar? But that’s another election … happened decades ago … but as I recall, they found “Republican votes” then, Mr. President.
Third Friday Afternoon Tweet
Gubenatorial candidate Gillum conceded the night of the election, believing that all possible votes had been counted, as did Bill Nelson. Civil people are gracious and admit defeat when they believe they have been defeated at the polls.
Would they have conceded had they known that a significant number of votes had not been counted?
Is the Country embarrassed? How does the president know? What is the source of the country’s embarrassment? Who has measured this embarrassment? How great is the embarrassment? Are Americans usually embarrassed by messy elections? Is America that fragile?
Can Democracy – a political theory – be embarrassed? Can a theory have feelings? Or do the individuals who advocate or oppose a theory have feelings? Which among those two groups, advocates for democracy and opponents against democracy, be more likely to label the messiness of democracy as “an embarrassment”?
Fourth Friday Afternoon Tweet
Which reader of this tweet has immediate access to the number of votes for Trump in Florida for the 2016 election? Is that statement something that is instant knowledge for anyone?
Average Jane and Joe haven’t a clue as to what the numbers were in some county down in Florida, while those in the know are able to easily verify the facts or lack thereof in this tweet. Should readers of this tweet believe that because this president says that people in 2016 were “probably getting ready to do a number”? No. Here’s why:
What people? Who were the individuals working that county in 2016? Are are the people working in 2018?
He doesn’t specify any one person, or any group of persons. He uses a conspiratorial “they”. This immediately tells us he has no factual foundation for his claims.
This is a nonsense tweet.
Fifth Friday Afternoon Tweet
“for helping to expose the potential corruption” –
Phrases used to frame the electoral process in Florida in a negative light.
How will the president respond should the final outcome be in favor of his preferred candidates?
Will he still be tweeting about “Election Theft” then?
“The WORLD … ” – Evidence?
Sixth Friday Afternoon Tweet
“SIGNATURES DON’T MATCH” – Has the federal government sent handwriting analysis experts to Arizona to determine whether hundreds of thousands of signatures match? Match to what, exactly? Who is making the determination, and what are they using for comparisons?
Can a handwriting analysis of hundreds of thousands of signatures be completed for a state when, in another state, they are still counting votes?
“Call for a new Election?” – One might call for a new election, but it would be a waste of time. We do not get “do-over” elections.
“We must protect our Democracy!” – Battle cry. For whom? Who is he trying to incite into action? What action is he trying to incite?
Seventh Friday Afternoon Tweet
The president shares international news.
He claims this news is insulting. Who should feel insulted? Why?
At what point did Europe begin to have concerns about U.S. aggression?
First Late Friday Night Tweet
This tweet and the next require context.
Friday’s news outlets basically showed Trump flip-flopping about his choice for acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker. He said on cameras that he didn’t know Whitaker. News outlets pulled out clips from October where Trump claims to know Whitaker. A quick Google search “does trump know whitaker” provided the following examples of the coverage of the presidential
Second Late Friday Night Tweet
Here Trump name-drops. This suggests that he discussed Matthew Whitaker with the listed individuals. It suggests those individuals, and many more, think “highly” of Trump’s appointee.
When did Trump have discussions about Whitaker with each of those individuals? Did he have discussions with them about Whitaker? Or did Trump ask for Whitaker’s job application to see who his references were? The point is this: Trump does not disclose the process by which the appointee was selected. Should we accept his conclusion about Whitaker? Why or why not?