Last updated on Wednesday, 14 November 2018, 6:30 a.m. to include an additional tweet from 12 November.
First Early Morning Monday Tweet
(3 linked tweets)
– “much was accomplished”
1. What was accomplished?
– “Never easy bringing up the fact that the U.S. must be treated fairly …”
1. What is “fair” treatment? Who decides that?
– ” … on both Military and Trade.”
Military and trade agreements represent decades of carefully crafted negotiations whereby the U.S. entered because of perceived benefits.
1. What were those benefits?
2. Are those benefits still in play today?
3. If so, what other criteria are being used to determine the policies must be changed?
4. Is there a new standard of what constitutes success?
5. If so, what is that new standard, and who decided it was the standard to be considered in lieu of other objectives?
1. Again – is money the only measurement of value to the United States?
1. In this argument, the President is linking military policy to trade policy in an effort to force other countries to the negotiating table.
The focus seems to be solely on reducing federal monetary losses regardless of secondary losses that may occur in other areas.
For example, tariffs shift costs from government to the private sector.
Additionally, if threatened by a loss of military cooperation, the logical reaction would be a rise in individual nations boosting their own military operations – which could drive prices up and/or U.S. national security less effective.
Do you agree or disagree? Why?
Second Early Morning Monday Tweet
1. What are the election laws in Florida?
2. In any body of state laws, is there a clause that states “The President of the United States will decree the winners of the state’s elections.”? (No.)
3. What official agency (Election Commission, FBI, etc.) has discovered election fraud?
4. Without such evidence, why would the President make a statement like that in the public arena? (What would he gain, and what would he lose by making an unsupported announcement like that?)
First Morning Tweet*
* Tweet added to this blog on 2018 Nov 14 when discovered it was not included in original analysis.
– “Presidential Harrassment”
Define the term. Who decides when accountability inquiries cross a line and become harrassment?
– ” … causing the Stock Market big headaches!”
A causal relationship between legal inquiries into potential misconduct by a president and the stock market may exist. However, suggesting it exists without doing the scientific studies to back up the belief is worth nothing more than saying Santa delivers gifts to good children. It is a narrative – a story – and not a happy story.
Second Morning Tweet
This tweet should be contrasted to his 3 a.m. November 10th tweet.
First Afternoon Tweet – Monday
1. Who is Charlie Gasparino?
2. Who is in the membership of the American Cable Association (ACA)?
3. Are there other cable associations in the U.S.?
4. If so, what is their opinion of Comcast?
5. What evidence does the ACA and/or Charlie Gasparino have to suggest that Comcast violates anti-trust laws?
6. Are there any legal decisions concluding Comcast has violated anti-trust laws?
Second Afternoon Tweet – Monday
I have no clue as to the President’s intended audience, nor do I understand how this seemingly private-made-public thought is supposed to influence public policy.
If that is not the purpose of the tweet, what is the purpose?
If the purpose is to influence policy, what does that policy process look like?
First Monday Evening Text