Trump’s ‘Global Statesman’ Act

[irosie91]

"Blame" for what-------he seems to me to have pulled it off well. What are you out to BLAME
him for?

He "pulled it off" largely by keeping his "mouth shut" (didn't tweet). That's not exactly a characteristic of a great statesman and it's certainly not what is expected of a POTUS. Be that as it may, Trump has over the past two years established himself as ill informed and incompetent. Once a fool opens his mouth and removes all doubt of his extant idiocy, merely being quiescent isn't going to alter things.

oh a POTUS is expected to TWEET? ------------his decision NOT TO TWEET-----was wise----
I was delighted. All things considered----the trip went well

oh a POTUS is expected to TWEET?

Not necessarily. I have no idea what silly game you are trying to play by asking that question in response to my comment (see below), but I am certain it is a puerile one.

He "pulled it off" largely by keeping his "mouth shut" (didn't tweet). Silence isn't exactly a characteristic of a great statesman and it's certainly not what is expected of a POTUS. Be that as it may, Trump has over the past two years established himself as ill informed and incompetent. Once a fool opens his mouth and removes all doubt of his extant idiocy, merely being quiescent isn't going to alter things.

A POTUS is expected communicate. Tweeting is just one way of doing that, and I don't have a problem with Trump tweeting; the problem is what he says in his tweets, not that he tweets. I have a problem with his being a man who mostly has only inane, ill informed, and/or ill formed ideas, and I have a problem, with regard to those ideas, his being too indolent and arrogant to (1) think rigorously and soundly before sharing his ideas, (2) confirm, prior to airing them publicly, the nature and extent of the sagacity, validity and veracity of his propositions and attestations, and (3) tweeting them. Were #1 and #2 not so, in general or with regard to any given idea/comment, I wouldn't have a problem with #3. Were Trump to tweet things that are substantive, accurate and important, I'd have nothing to say about his tweeting.

OH A president is obligated to COMMUNICATE---------you are OBVIOUSLY too young to remember
Eisenhower. He had one answer to ALL questions "NO COMMENT". So which president was
constantly TALKING TO YOU?
\

 

[usmbguest5318]

"Blame" for what-------he seems to me to have pulled it off well. What are you out to BLAME
him for?

He "pulled it off" largely by keeping his "mouth shut" (didn't tweet). That's not exactly a characteristic of a great statesman and it's certainly not what is expected of a POTUS. Be that as it may, Trump has over the past two years established himself as ill informed and incompetent. Once a fool opens his mouth and removes all doubt of his extant idiocy, merely being quiescent isn't going to alter things.

oh a POTUS is expected to TWEET? ------------his decision NOT TO TWEET-----was wise----
I was delighted. All things considered----the trip went well

oh a POTUS is expected to TWEET?

Not necessarily. I have no idea what silly game you are trying to play by asking that question in response to my comment (see below), but I am certain it is a puerile one.

He "pulled it off" largely by keeping his "mouth shut" (didn't tweet). Silence isn't exactly a characteristic of a great statesman and it's certainly not what is expected of a POTUS. Be that as it may, Trump has over the past two years established himself as ill informed and incompetent. Once a fool opens his mouth and removes all doubt of his extant idiocy, merely being quiescent isn't going to alter things.

A POTUS is expected communicate. Tweeting is just one way of doing that, and I don't have a problem with Trump tweeting; the problem is what he says in his tweets, not that he tweets. I have a problem with his being a man who mostly has only inane, ill informed, and/or ill formed ideas, and I have a problem, with regard to those ideas, his being too indolent and arrogant to (1) think rigorously and soundly before sharing his ideas, (2) confirm, prior to airing them publicly, the nature and extent of the sagacity, validity and veracity of his propositions and attestations, and (3) tweeting them. Were #1 and #2 not so, in general or with regard to any given idea/comment, I wouldn't have a problem with #3. Were Trump to tweet things that are substantive, accurate and important, I'd have nothing to say about his tweeting.

OH A president is obligated to COMMUNICATE---------you are OBVIOUSLY too young to remember
Eisenhower. He had one answer to ALL questions "NO COMMENT". So which president was
constantly TALKING TO YOU?
\

So which president was constantly TALKING TO YOU?

Why do you desire to make it "about me?" I don't.

 

[irosie91]

"Blame" for what-------he seems to me to have pulled it off well. What are you out to BLAME
him for?

He "pulled it off" largely by keeping his "mouth shut" (didn't tweet). That's not exactly a characteristic of a great statesman and it's certainly not what is expected of a POTUS. Be that as it may, Trump has over the past two years established himself as ill informed and incompetent. Once a fool opens his mouth and removes all doubt of his extant idiocy, merely being quiescent isn't going to alter things.

oh a POTUS is expected to TWEET? ------------his decision NOT TO TWEET-----was wise----
I was delighted. All things considered----the trip went well

oh a POTUS is expected to TWEET?

Not necessarily. I have no idea what silly game you are trying to play by asking that question in response to my comment (see below), but I am certain it is a puerile one.

He "pulled it off" largely by keeping his "mouth shut" (didn't tweet). Silence isn't exactly a characteristic of a great statesman and it's certainly not what is expected of a POTUS. Be that as it may, Trump has over the past two years established himself as ill informed and incompetent. Once a fool opens his mouth and removes all doubt of his extant idiocy, merely being quiescent isn't going to alter things.

A POTUS is expected communicate. Tweeting is just one way of doing that, and I don't have a problem with Trump tweeting; the problem is what he says in his tweets, not that he tweets. I have a problem with his being a man who mostly has only inane, ill informed, and/or ill formed ideas, and I have a problem, with regard to those ideas, his being too indolent and arrogant to (1) think rigorously and soundly before sharing his ideas, (2) confirm, prior to airing them publicly, the nature and extent of the sagacity, validity and veracity of his propositions and attestations, and (3) tweeting them. Were #1 and #2 not so, in general or with regard to any given idea/comment, I wouldn't have a problem with #3. Were Trump to tweet things that are substantive, accurate and important, I'd have nothing to say about his tweeting.

OH A president is obligated to COMMUNICATE---------you are OBVIOUSLY too young to remember
Eisenhower. He had one answer to ALL questions "NO COMMENT". So which president was
constantly TALKING TO YOU?
\

So which president was constantly TALKING TO YOU?

Why do you desire to make it "about me?" I don't.

I questioned your impression regarding proper presidential behavior. I am old. I remember lots of
presidents and their level of COMMUNICATION with DA PUBLIC------on TV, via comments then reported
in the press or in the broadcast news. I DO NOT recall a whole lot of COMMUNICATION

 

[usmbguest5318]

He "pulled it off" largely by keeping his "mouth shut" (didn't tweet). That's not exactly a characteristic of a great statesman and it's certainly not what is expected of a POTUS. Be that as it may, Trump has over the past two years established himself as ill informed and incompetent. Once a fool opens his mouth and removes all doubt of his extant idiocy, merely being quiescent isn't going to alter things.

oh a POTUS is expected to TWEET? ------------his decision NOT TO TWEET-----was wise----
I was delighted. All things considered----the trip went well

oh a POTUS is expected to TWEET?

Not necessarily. I have no idea what silly game you are trying to play by asking that question in response to my comment (see below), but I am certain it is a puerile one.

He "pulled it off" largely by keeping his "mouth shut" (didn't tweet). Silence isn't exactly a characteristic of a great statesman and it's certainly not what is expected of a POTUS. Be that as it may, Trump has over the past two years established himself as ill informed and incompetent. Once a fool opens his mouth and removes all doubt of his extant idiocy, merely being quiescent isn't going to alter things.

A POTUS is expected communicate. Tweeting is just one way of doing that, and I don't have a problem with Trump tweeting; the problem is what he says in his tweets, not that he tweets. I have a problem with his being a man who mostly has only inane, ill informed, and/or ill formed ideas, and I have a problem, with regard to those ideas, his being too indolent and arrogant to (1) think rigorously and soundly before sharing his ideas, (2) confirm, prior to airing them publicly, the nature and extent of the sagacity, validity and veracity of his propositions and attestations, and (3) tweeting them. Were #1 and #2 not so, in general or with regard to any given idea/comment, I wouldn't have a problem with #3. Were Trump to tweet things that are substantive, accurate and important, I'd have nothing to say about his tweeting.

OH A president is obligated to COMMUNICATE---------you are OBVIOUSLY too young to remember
Eisenhower. He had one answer to ALL questions "NO COMMENT". So which president was
constantly TALKING TO YOU?
\

So which president was constantly TALKING TO YOU?

Why do you desire to make it "about me?" I don't.

I questioned your impression regarding proper presidential behavior. I am old. I remember lots of
presidents and their level of COMMUNICATION with DA PUBLIC------on TV, via comments then reported
in the press or in the broadcast news. I DO NOT recall a whole lot of COMMUNICATION

Well, the truth is that no president constantly communicated with me. I didn't and don't know any of them well enough for them to have done (do) so.