Trump Considers Surprise Visit to London This Week

I thought that whole thing was pretty bad reporting. He didn't call out the don't be alarmed msg. That's out of context. He sent a couple prior msgs about the mayors prior statement that no refugee is a threat, then refugees will become a threat if not treated well, THEN don't be alarmed.

You may disagree with that msg, and certainly it wasn't the time for it, but in context it was a very different & more coherent msg than a Trump was being criticized for. That's the problem with twitter. It's hard to put a bunch of short statements in order, know what's connected or not with what other tweets, or discern all the things left out cause there just isn't space and the writer assumes the reader will understand what they mean. It's not a good medium for a president to be trying to have serious conversations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe he shouldn't use twitter for political messages (as the President of the United States) at all because he's proven to not be responsible with using it and this isn't an isolated incident? As you said, it's not a good medium for the POTUS when it comes to serious topics. It makes it hard to take him serious, in my opinion at least, as a political figure when he goes on rants at 3AM - serious stuff aside. Do you happen to have a link to something that shows all his tweets in order addressing this? As I don't have twitter and just searching for it now, he appears to spend the majority of his days tweeting because  what he's said about the mayor is now so far down and I am at work so not really going to sit and go through all his tweets to see exactly what was said (but would give it a fair look if you could provide a link).

And it was totally disrespectful, in my opinion, that after the terror attacks he tweeted first a news article that, if I remember correctly (and I may not) wasn't totally verified yet. Then he tweeted about how there was no discussion of guns happening because they used knives. THEN he tweeted what he should have said in the first place, which was showing his support. To me, that's inexcusable. He could have just said nothing if he wanted to wait to understand fully what had happened.

I agree that Twitter isn't a good medium for a president to have serious conversations. They why they usually don't have them on Twitter.

Tweets from politicians are usually (or should be) carefully worded and thought through by people trained to word things right (media & comms or PR people).

Trump isn't doing that. He's tweeting without giving a second thought and it's making him look like even more of an idiot than people already thought he was.

His apparent lack of empathy, especially with the Borough Market attack, is upsetting people and they're right to protest his visit (or the possibility of a visit).

He is president (blech!) but in my opinion, he isn't acting very presidential. All of this does make good TV, but I'd much rather watch this drama unfold knowing it's not real. It's more scary than entertaining when it's real life.

I just looked at his twitter feed to find the mayor tweets and now I'm questioning if he does anything other than tweet looking at the volume of them!

But yeah...He must be his own PR team's biggest nightmare...How they haven't forced him to be locked out of his twitter at this point is shocking. Maybe they just think "damage is done....might as well let him carry on.."

Texas, I really enjoy your posts because not only do you know about current events and can talk about them coherently, but you seem to view these events from the point of view of a Trump supporter, from the alternate side of the facts.  I know you have said many times you are not a Trump supporter but your interpretation of facts is so different than mine that I am happy to read them and consider them . 

The only thing I regret is that I don't have time to really hash out all the points you have raised because I am at work.  Also, I try to limit the amount of time I spend discussing politics on the internet. 

That said, I think you are incorrect about Trump staying.  The collusion thing is far from dead and is being actively investigated.  Comey's testimony didn't address anywhere near all the possible ways we will eventually prove that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.  It may take a year or so to finally come up with the undeniable evidence, but it will come.  I believe the certain evidence will eventually be found because Trump's team were so clueless they didn't even know they should be covering it up. 

Trump is clueless enough to both destroy evidence and perjury himself, and then brag about it in a tweet.  If he hasn't exactly done it yet, it's only a matter of time. 

Personally, I think speculating what the reasoning behind the visit being postponed is not worth the typing.  Both sides deny it happened and we only have a leak to confirm it.  I'm confident that the visit has been postponed though as I can't imagine any scenario where the UK wants it to happen.  Contrary to your assertion, I don't think the Europeans are impressed with a Trump visit, most of them would turn it down for themselves.  That's what happens when America 's influence in the world goes down and other's step in to fill the void, like China.  I see America rapidly becoming less great, and more of a laughingstock every day.  Even Trump sees this and mentioned it in his own cack handed way. 

Actually Texas, can you be more specific in your examples of how Trump 's attack on Khan was less ridiculous based upon the context of other tweets?  I know little about Twitter and I'm not about to go digging through Trump 's old Tweets, but I am interested in your point.  I've never heard anyone on the media say anything like that.

Actually Texas, can you be more specific in your examples of how Trump 's attack on Khan was less ridiculous based upon the context of other tweets?  I know little about Twitter and I'm not about to go digging through Trump 's old Tweets, but I am interested in your point.  I've never heard anyone on the media say anything like that.

Definitely interested as well because I am totally open to exploring the other viewpoint - I just don't use twitter myself and don't want to filter through everything he's tweeted since to get to those specific tweets and it's definitely not been covered in the news at all (did a quick google search and I don't see anything posted by liberal or conservative sources but I admit I only looked quickly because, again, I'm at work). Would be open minded if somebody could share a link showing these other tweets we've not seen because it definitely does not look good as is. The way it's come across without additional tweets is that he's taking what the mayor has said totally out of context and using it for his own agenda (which was especially unnecessary given what had happened).

I can't imagine what would be in some other tweets to make that Tweet seem okay, but I'll keep an open mind. 

Regardless, the bottom line is that Trump attacked mayor Khan in the lowest way possible, at the worst time possible and I can't see any plausible reason why except he's Muslim.  Can you imagine if the PM of a England had written nasty tweets about the mayor of NY after 911?  It boggles the mind. 

One of Trump's strategies is to slam everyone with a Tsunami of wrong stuff until we just can't keep up and this type of stuff slides by and becomes the new normal.  People have to step up EVERY time and point out that it is not acceptable.

Can't say whether or not his motivations were necessarily because the mayor is Muslim (I'm not personally sold on that because I think he is just reckless and doesn't really think about what he says/does even after the fact) but I definitely agree that if the PM tweeted anything even remotely similar about 9/11 or any US terror attack, it would have definitely faced backlash of epic proportions.

As much as I despise the guy for a whole variety of reasons, I am always willing to keep an open mind when additional facts present themselves and I will give credit when it's due.....I've just not felt like there's really been much credit as of yet.

I know Trump and Khan had some earlier clash, so it could be tied to that other than out right racism. 

What's great, or miserable depending on your point of view, was Khan's response "I'm too busy for that kind of stuff, doesn't he have something better to do ".   America decidedly less great on that day.

I know Trump and Khan had some earlier clash, so it could be tied to that other than out right racism. 

What's great, or miserable depending on your point of view, was Khan's response "I'm too busy for that kind of stuff, doesn't he have something better to do ".   America decidedly less great on that day.

I thought it was the best approach possible hah. Definitely made me giggle. While he could have just ignored it completely, I wouldn't have preferred he just lie down and take it. His response acknowledged the ridiculousness and was polite enough while also adding a slight burn

Regardless, the bottom line is that Trump attacked mayor Khan in the lowest way possible, at the worst time possible and I can't see any plausible reason why except he's Muslim.  Can you imagine if the PM of a England had written nasty tweets about the mayor of NY after 911?  It boggles the mind. 

THIS. I work with a guy that pretty much agrees with the Alt-right's attitude on non-Christians and POCs. He's sort of of the opinion that the UK is "getting the result of being too pc", but he's even perturbed by Lord Commander Marmalade's remarks. His take is "you don't go throwing dirt around like that till the dust settles and families have laid their kin to rest".

If this guy who's never been outside his home state and thinks reading makes you stupid can grasp that politics needs to wait on the police's opinion and a little respect for the families of the deceased, the individual running the nation should be able to.

I thought it was the best approach possible hah. Definitely made me giggle. While he could have just ignored it completely, I wouldn't have preferred he just lie down and take it. His response acknowledged the ridiculousness and was polite enough while also adding a slight burn

I think Khan struck a good balance. If he'd ignored it, it'd give some something to point to and say "Ha! He knows he's guilty!". If he'd told tRump to STFUH, he'd've given the same a vehicle to accuse him of being childish or similar nonsense. He just made tRump look like a bigger trashpile.

THIS. I work with a guy that pretty much agrees with the Alt-right's attitude on non-Christians and POCs. He's sort of of the opinion that the UK is "getting the result of being too pc", but he's even perturbed by Lord Commander Marmalade's remarks. His take is "you don't go throwing dirt around like that till the dust settles and families have laid their kin to rest".

If this guy who's never been outside his home state and thinks reading makes you stupid can grasp that politics needs to wait on the police's opinion and a little respect for the families of the deceased, the individual running the nation should be able to.

...but then he wouldn't make headlines LOL 

Maybe he shouldn't use twitter for political messages (as the President of the United States) at all because he's proven to not be responsible with using it and this isn't an isolated incident? As you said, it's not a good medium for the POTUS when it comes to serious topics. It makes it hard to take him serious, in my opinion at least, as a political figure when he goes on rants at 3AM - serious stuff aside. Do you happen to have a link to something that shows all his tweets in order addressing this? As I don't have twitter and just searching for it now, he appears to spend the majority of his days tweeting because  what he's said about the mayor is now so far down and I am at work so not really going to sit and go through all his tweets to see exactly what was said (but would give it a fair look if you could provide a link).

And it was totally disrespectful, in my opinion, that after the terror attacks he tweeted first a news article that, if I remember correctly (and I may not) wasn't totally verified yet. Then he tweeted about how there was no discussion of guns happening because they used knives. THEN he tweeted what he should have said in the first place, which was showing his support. To me, that's inexcusable. He could have just said nothing if he wanted to wait to understand fully what had happened.

Drudge broke the story before the rest of the US press. Some press were not happy with being scooped. Love or hate the guy, if he links to your article then it'll get a million hits and that your advertisers have to pay you for. By the time of his tweet, he'd been briefed by the national security advisor. He linked to the first avail article, which as it turns out was entirely accurate... said reports of terror attack at London bridge, 20+ pedestrians hit be vehicle, stabbing attacks near by.

I'm on my phone right now. I'll have to look later for the articles talking about his series of tweets at the London mayor that put the one he was criticized for in context. What I said is an accurate reporting of it though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Drudge broke the story before the rest of the US press. Some press were not happy with being scooped. Love or hate the guy, if he links to your article then it'll get a million hits and that your advertisers have to pay you for. By the time of his tweet, he'd been briefed by the national security advisor. He linked to the first avail article, which as it turns out was entirely accurate... said reports of terror attack at London bridge, 20+ pedestrians hit be vehicle, stabbing attacks near by.

I'm on my phone right now. I'll have to look later for the articles talking about his series of tweets at the London mayor that put the one he was criticized for in context. What I said is an accurate reporting of it though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about instead of retweeting a source though you just say "thoughts go out to London" and leave it at that? That was literally not even the *second* tweet but the third over an hour after his initial tweet. We can just agree to disagree on that because that - to me - was wrong. If after the Boston Marathon bombing, the PM tweeted saying "notice we aren't talking about gun control because they used bombs" or something to that effect, would that be appropriate? It's disrespectful to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't imagine what would be in some other tweets to make that Tweet seem okay, but I'll keep an open mind. 

Regardless, the bottom line is that Trump attacked mayor Khan in the lowest way possible, at the worst time possible and I can't see any plausible reason why except he's Muslim.  Can you imagine if the PM of a England had written nasty tweets about the mayor of NY after 911?  It boggles the mind. 

One of Trump's strategies is to slam everyone with a Tsunami of wrong stuff until we just can't keep up and this type of stuff slides by and becomes the new normal.  People have to step up EVERY time and point out that it is not acceptable.

Khan previously said zero threat from refugees. Then refugees will become a threat if not treated well. Then reports of refugees perpetuating an attack. Then, don't be alarmed (by police presence).

I don't care who you are or what your politics, you have to see the validity of calling that out.

This was primarily Trump making a point to Americans about American immigration policy. It didn't really matter who made the statements he was calling out.

Contemporaneously though, Khan was repping Labour before and after the attack blaming May for prior cuts to law enforcement & saying the best defense against terrorism is multiculturalism and progressive govt who will take in lots of refugees with little background checks & no monitoring while giving generous benefits. Now you may agree with that, I don't know, but obviously Trump does not.

And, to the extent Trump can influence UK opinion ahead of an election in order to push for a harder Brexit, that serves US interests because the US is poised to fill any trade, capital, and skilled immigration. If you think jamming stuff up with Europe is just some ham fisted lunacy, that'd be a serious underestimate. It is certainly a call for NATO to increase defense spending and a pull back of the US tolerating the free rider, but it is also definitely prepositioning to step in on Brexit. That was all on the agenda when May came over first thing to get everyone on the same page.

Again, you may hate all of that, but it's not stupid. The timing going after Khan was a bit classless, but there was an election days away as well. Still lacking in class and tact, but I get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk