Bill: It’s an interesting thought experiment to imagine how FDR, JFK or Reagan would have handled Twitter.

When Obama-mania was at its peak and his oratory constantly celebrated, I looked up some of FDR’s fireside chats and listened to them. There was a communicator. He didn’t drone on and on either. The chats were mostly 9-15 minutes long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B02snWuq4E

The idea of reaching the people directly with Twitter is a good one. The way Trump does it just appears to be an early morning vent for all the petty vengeance, cruelty and pique that marinates his awful character. He should stop and put his twitter account into the hands of someone who at least knows what “Presidential” sounds like.

However, making such an accusation at 4:30 AM in several 140-characters-or-less tweets with “wire tapping” in quotes is a bizarre way to go.

Given Trump’s history of polemics, conspiracy-mongering, and vindictiveness, it seems he is practically begging not to be taken seriously.

But maybe that’s me. Does anyone think Trump’s tweet-from-the-hip approach is working now that he’s President? My impression is he is wasting time and losing momentum with it.

The GOP controls the government at the “highest levels”. How about governing? You’ve got it all and the window is closing way earlier than it should.

The NYTimes and Bloomberg News both knew days ago that Susan Rice had instructed the un-masking of the names of Trump personnel whose conversations were recorded on fishing expeditions that had nothing to do with Russia. But they sat on the stories because they hate Trump.

At what point are you going to admit that Trump’s tweet was, for all practical purposes, correct?

More importantly, at what point are you going to recognize that the prior administration, and its hold-over minions who are still in the intelligence services, have been spying on American citizens for political purposes?

It increasingly appears that the deep state is a criminal conspiracy, run at the highest levels, which will stop at nothing to gain power — and you want us to “talk about issues we want to move forward on instead … and build support for them?”

It is far too broad to say direct = indirect, and then again too broad to assume/imply indirect and intentional = incidental and unintended.

I’d like it to be investigated, as I wouldn’t put it past the obama administration (maybe not obama himself).

However, we need proof.

BUT, given this roundabout nonsense, it sure seems team trump is stretching to make his tweets based in some minimal reality.

“A lot of people need to be stood against a wall and shot. Political cleansing, not ethnic.” – Frog

…But in re-evaluation, based upon the above statement, it will no doubt fall on deaf ears, seeing that he’s evidently given up on any serious debate, and democracy itself..

Guess we are supposed to take him “seriously” not “literally”.

What folks who repeat this meme (usually as an excuse) don’t understand is that when they say such outlandish things, they get taken neither seriously nor literally, but foolish.
.

“Just reach across the aisle to the Left, Big Maq. You’ll lose your hand.” – Frog

You missed my point.

It is not just blindly “reaching across the aisle” for no purpose.

It is about preparing the ground beforehand.

It is about making the case for our ideas.

It is about respecting what our democractic system was founded on.

It is about building broad support for our ideas and legislation.
.

IF we can only cheerlead our side and not see how uncritically doing so affects our ability to get our message out and convince those who can be, then we will not get very far whatsoever.

IF we want a “WIN!!!” we need broad support. There are no two ways around that fact! (That is, if we are interested in retaining a democracy).
.

As the AHCA failure shows, you cannot just try to quickly force something through the system, with very little prep work for getting support.

As obama and the dems now must realize, relying on executive action or party line votes alone, to bypass the deliberative process, does not provide lasting change.
.

I agree with the HFC that the AHCA was far from what the GOP were campaigning on, in implication and in principle.

However, I don’t agree that one has to have 100% of their ideal before reaching agreement on legislation. It can never be 100% ones own way in a democracy. This is very much what Reagan was addressing in the quote I provided above.
.

But, I also think that we must be far more strategic about how we behave.

Cruz’s filibuster on the debt increase is spot on for principle, but a failure tactically. There was no real prep done.

trump’s frequent tweets are worse than distractions. It sets attention on what he says, yes, but it matters greatly what that attention is about.

IF we all know that the msm are against trump and the GOP, is it “smart” whatsoever to give them the kind of issue that they can spin at will for a great length of time (cough… obama wiretap… cough) – i.e. without providing a clear explanation and reasonable amount of (if not irrefutable) proof? Especially when it is in your own power, as POTUS, to do so if you have it?
.

Back to my questions with this Nunes stuff:

“If the WH has such “clear evidence” to support trump’s claims, what in the world would lead them to pursue this (bass ackwards) approach (with Nunes) rather than just releasing it to the investigating committees (or to the leadership of those)?

Why such a roundabout way to deal with this?”

This doesn’t make much sense – that is, assuming IF one wants to provide clarity and prove one’s case.

And, if that is the wrong assumption, what purpose does this whole issue serve? Is there something to hide?

Why not talk about issues we want to move forward on instead? And, build support for them?
.

So, Frog, rather than setting up a strawman about “reaching across the aisle”, etc, why not reflect on these questions?

Or, can trump do no wrong in your eyes?

Or, is your answer to it all really f**k democracy and principle, I want what I want!?