Plan B Forum

so are a lot of Drumpf's Twitter followers:

Because Donald Trump is the president of the United States and the most famous person on the planet, one wouldn't think he would need to employ a bot to boost his Twitter following. It appears, however, he might have done just that. As screenwriter John Niven pointed out Tuesday morning, Trump's Twitter account saw an unusual spike in followers over the weekend, many of which appear to have been created artificially.

Trump currently has 31 million followers and, sure enough, if you browse through them you will find an unusual number of tweet-less, picture-less accounts that joined the service in May 2017. If you're still curious, you can enter Trump's handle, @realDonaldTrump, into Twitter Audit, a service that assesses the authenticity of one's followers, and find that only 51 percent of Trump's are real.

This isn't the first time someone has pointed out that a good portion of Trump's Twitter following is fake, but what's interesting is that its fakeness seems to be increasing. In January, journalist Yashar Ali ran an audit on Trump's Twitter account and found that 68 percent of his then-20 million followers were real. Now he's at 30 million followers, but only 51 percent are real, which means of 10 million followers Trump has gained since January, about 8.3 million are fake.

In April 2016, when Trump was beginning to gain traction as a serious candidate to at least win the Republican presidential nomination, the former reality TV star had a mere 7.58 million followers, only 8 percent of which were fake, according to FiveThirtyEight. It's not surprising that as Trump's global profile has skyrocketed in the past 13 months, so too have the number of bots attached to his Twitter account—but it's astonishing how much the percentage of his followers that are fake has risen.

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tw ... ake-617873

Fake President, fake followers. Makes perfect sense to me.

I've wanted to make some observations about Trump's tweeting for awhile, and (as I'm sure you can tell) I have some time on my hands this morning, so I thought I would do so now...

The first thing that really gets me is the assertion that Trump, and his spokes minions, and his talking-head cable news minions, and rank-and-file hardcore Trumpanzees, and even some mainstream news types (hell, I even heard the generally clear-thinking Jake Tappert say it last week) repeat as an article of faith:

"Twitter enables Trump to bypass the media and speak directly to the people"....

This is so self-evidently and demonstrably false, it leaves me scratching my head every time I hear it...

Simple math proves this...

Apparently, Trump has something like 16 million real Twitter followers... (But even if the number were closer to the phony 30 million figure, my point would still hold...)

That's a small fraction of the US population, it's a small fraction of the US adult population, it's a small fraction of the 35-40 percent of those who polls show support Trump, it's even a small fraction of the 62 million or so who actually voted for him...

Every other person who isn't a part of that small fraction of the population that follows him on Twitter learns about what he tweets from guess where?

The media...

Trump's tweeting doesn't "bypass" the media at all...

Far from it...

Trump is in fact 100% reliant on the media to spread the content of his tweets...

And through this process, far more damage than benefit is involved for Trump...

On the one hand, the tweeting enables him to say every damn fool thing that comes into his head without there being any reporter on hand to question him about it...

But the mainstream press doesn't just repeat his controversial tweets, (they pretty much ignore the non-controversial ones for the good reason that they're not newsworthy) they analyze them, fact-check them, and basically tear them apart (given the content, that's exactly what they should be doing as journalists)

So what the overwhelming majority of "the people" get from Trump's tweets aren't his unchallenged version...

They get his tweets analyzed, fact-checked and torn apart...

Not really sure how that helps him...

Also, President's have always had the ability to issue statements that they couldn't be questioned on directly by the press simply by issuing a statement...

The difference is that for those kinds of statements, there are procedures in place where several people get to review what's going to be released and exercise some collective in-put about the wisdom of saying what's going to be said...

Twitter for the first time enables a President to release statements directly without any pause for reflection or input from anyone else...

So in Trump's case, we have a very mercurial, thin-skinned, shoot-from-the-hip President who is able to blast out statements willy-nilly with no thoughtful reflection or advice from anyone else...

That doesn't seem to be working out real well for him either...

(If Richard Nixon had had Twitter, he'd have never made it to 1974)

So the fair thing to say would be, yes Twitter enables Trump to communicate directly with no input from anyone else, and that's a terrible thing for him....

So Trump doesn't really use Twitter to communicate to "directly to the people" (because as I've pointed out, the vast majority of "the people" aren't following him on Twitter)...

He uses it to communicate directly with his most hardcore Trumpanzee followers, and to reinforce the fears and prejudices that many of them have, in order to keep them in his corner...

And he never tweets anything that would challenge those fears or prejudices, even when he's forced to say them in other forums:

Last summer, when Trump finally came out and admitted that Barack Obama was indeed born in the United States, he did so in a one sentence statement at the end of an infomercial for one of his hotels...

No tweet about it...

When after hemming and hawing for several days, Trump finally said that he "denounced" David Duke, he did so curtly in an interview...

No tweet about it...

When Trump has denounced anti-semitism, he's done it in speeches and interviews...

No tweet about it...

When Trump said that Caitlyn Jenner would be welcome to use the ladies room in Trump Tower, that was a response to an interview question...

No tweet about it...

When Trump has been compelled to respond to attacks that don't fit his anti-Muslim, anti-Latino narrative, (like the attack in Portland by the white supremacist against three men who were defending two Muslim women, Or the van attack against Muslims in London) after a delay of a day or two, either the White House or some cabinet department issues a low key denunciation...

No tweet about it...


I could go on and on illustrating this pattern...(maybe I already have... )

And of course this is a guy who has no problem tweeting for days about a Broadway play or a comedian who's made fun of him...

For Trump, Twitter serves two real purposes; to throw red meat to his most ardent followers, and to use as a dog whistle for the true bigots and racists among them...

A wink, wink, nudge, nudge that says, "Yeah I had to say that, but you know if I really believed it I would have tweeted it to you"

Trump's tweets imagined as official WH statements

(CNN)President Donald Trump's tweets look nothing like the statements customarily made by commanders in chief. But they are the most direct window into the President's thinking.

So a new Twitter account is automatically transforming his social media outbursts into official-looking press releases from the White House. The bot checks Trump's account every five minutes before putting them on official-looking White House letterhead and posting the statement to social media.

The account was created by Russel Neiss, a St. Louis-based activist and technologist.
Trump's Twitter usage is a constant reminder of how different he is from past presidents and the traditional, carefully orchestrated pronouncements typically associated with the office.

His tweets represent Trump at his most authentic and defiant, lashing out when he feels he is under attack, and appeared to reflect a belief that only he, and not his staff, is qualified to speak in his own defense.

Here's a recent example:



Here's the link to the twitter account:

https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot

Believe it or not, one of those Trump twitter followers is Hen.

I can tell when he's tweeted by the gales of laughter from her, with the inevitable; "Come and see what the daft twat has tweeted now!!!!"

I'm glad that we can be of service!

Gob wrote:Believe it or not, one of those Trump twitter followers is Hen.

I can tell when he's tweeted by the gales of laughter from her, with the inevitable; "Come and see what the daft twat has tweeted now!!!!"

That's a good point...

Of those 16 million "real" Trump Twitter "followers" by no means can it be assumed they are all hardcore Trumpanzees...

There are probably several million at least, who are following his tweets just for the humor value...

Trump defends his use of social media in a series of tweets

"My use of social media is not presidential - it's modern day presidential," he tweeted on Saturday.

Earlier in the week, the president launched a crude personal attack on Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough.

His tweets were condemned by Democrats and Republicans alike, despite the White House springing to his defence.

Mr Trump's aides have previously expressed concern over his tweets.

But the president said on Saturday that social media gave him the opportunity to connect directly to the public, bypassing the mainstream media, [There's that Big Fat Lie again] whose content Mr Trump regularly labels as "fake news".

"The FAKE & FRAUDULENT NEWS MEDIA is working hard to convince Republicans and others I should not use social media," he tweeted, adding: "But remember, I won the 2016 election with interviews, speeches and social media."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40471536

Good luck with what you're trying to do there Donald...

Il Boobce is obviously trying to misstate the issue (as he does with so many issues) by attempting to claim that all the criticism he is receiving is somehow related to his using social media to communicate per se...

Of course that's not the issue at all...

Presidents have always used the most modern communications platforms available to them...

FDR with radio, subsequent Presidents with television, then cable television, emails, Youtube, etc....

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and that's not what Trump is being criticized for...

Obama used Twitter; if Twitter had been around when Ronald Reagan was President, I'm sure he would have used it...

(Reagan was particularly big on using as many communication platforms as possible to get out his message; he was the one who started the tradition of the Saturday weekly Presidential Address...His were on radio, but I'm sure that if Youtube had been available at that time, he'd have been on Youtube)

But if Mr. Reagan had been using Twitter, he'd have been using it to advance his policy objectives...

He wouldn't have been sending out tweets like:

"Another lie from Bad Wig Boy Sam Donaldson. BAD GUY!"

or:

"Crazy Mary McGrory attacks R again. What a nutjob. SAD"...

The issue of course, isn't about Trump using modern communication platforms...

It's about all the crazy/stupid/toxic/undignified/self-obsessed garbage that he's communicating...

It wouldn't matter if was using smoke signals, or semaphore, or telegraph lines...

It's the content that he is rightly being slammed for, and it's the content that has brought his sanity into question, and proves his fundamental unfitness for the high office he holds...

Nice try Crazy Don....

...and AM Joy is basically calling for civil war, or at least dissolution of America as we know it. she wants Black Power, that is all.....

if you don t believe me, watch her show that aired yesterday and the show that is airing now.....

close to treason.

not a cunt hair away from it.....

I watched some of today's show and missed the black power bit. Do you have a transcript or a video link?

wesw wrote:...and AM Joy is basically calling for civil war, or at least dissolution of America as we know it. she wants Black Power, that is all... if you don t believe me, watch her show that aired yesterday and the show that is airing now... close to treason... not a cunt hair away from it...

I checked MSNBC online and YouTube for a followup on Reid's comments. I couldn't find anything close to what you're railing about. Please provide a link.

I did, however, find a vid of your boy, WWE's "Dastardly Don," wrasslin' with a CNN logo. Honestly, I feel Lord Dampnut has gone completely bonkers. Our president, he's certifiable.

On Meet The Press this morning, HHS Secretary Tom Price attempted to pull what has become a standard deflection ploy for Administration officials forced to deal publicly with Trump's nutcase tweeting...

Blame the press for covering the crazy, rather than blame The Mad King for engaging in the crazy...

Chuck Todd was having none of it:

I love that term, "in all due respect." (It was one of my father's favourites.)

Did you ever notice that the last thing you'll get from that person is the respect that's due?

Insanity IS contagious... and the kingdom is crumbling.

Insanity IS contagious... and the kingdom is crumbling you get it from your children.

Saw quite a few cars with that bumper sticker back in the day.

wesw wrote:...and AM Joy is basically calling for civil war, or at least dissolution of America as we know it. she wants Black Power, that is all.....

if you don t believe me, watch her show that aired yesterday and the show that is airing now.....

close to treason.

not a cunt hair away from it.....

So I see our resident Civil War Boy, the one and only person around here who keeps repeatedly raising the prospect, is yet again accusing somebody else of calling for one...

I listened to most of Reid's program on Saturday while I was getting some paperwork done, and then watched a little bit of her program on Sunday...

Except when she's talking about Trump, there's almost nothing I agree with her about. Like Maddow, she frequently cherry picks stuff out of context, misrepresents and mischaracterizes to make her points; but also like Maddow she's not vicious and she's a very intelligent and well-spoken advocate for her POV.

Speaking of mischaracterizing...

I think I know what wes is getting at...

Joy is a strong advocate of the political view that to win back power the Democrats shouldn't focus on winning back working class white voters, but instead on driving-up turnout of minority voters. (She's made this argument a number of times)

I think this a politically fool-hardy false choice, (if the Dems want to win back Congress they have to do both) but from seeing her program on a regular basis I think it's pretty obvious that her motivation for advocating it is ideological, not racial.

She's a hardcore progressive, and she's worried that trying to win back disaffected working class whites will mean the party won't be as purely "left" as she would like it to be. (She's right about that, but if the party took the type of uncompromising left-wing stands she wants to see, it will have a zero chance of winning back the House. Hardcore progressive candidates will not win marginal House districts.)

But advocating an ideologically motivated politically wrong-headed election strategy sure as hell ain't "treason"...

Or even "close to treason"....

I'll tell you what does sound "close to treason":

I ll take riots in the streets and a few years of civil war and a bit of Darwinism in action rather than suffer another 4 yrs of the Parties' rule

You really should make that your sig line wes...

It's "with" all due respect. Not "in".

One of the most bizarre experiences I had in Montucky was when a district court judge dressed me down for using that phrase in oral argument, while brandishing some blog post his court reporter had found on the internet claiming it was basically a way of saying 'fuck you' to someone. This judge actually accused me of disrespecting him, was all irate and butt hurt about it, and dressed me down in front of his court reporter and the clerk of court. I admit I was so shocked and upset (no judge had ever admonished me, nor ever did again) that I left the room in tears.

The next day I sent the judge links to oral arguments from the SCOTUS, where just about every counsel and the Solicitor General of the US use the phrase regularly during the course of arguing a case. I also pointed out to him that I was taught oral argument in the same moot court tradition that prepares lawyers to argue at SCOTUS - Georgetown has a program specifically to prep attorneys for SCOTUS arguments.

He never apologized for being an asshole to me, but he did mumble something about it 'maybe being an eastern thing' and never said another word to me when I used the phrase in court. One of my colleagues started using it all the time just to push his buttons and in solidarity with me, lol. There's no accounting for ignorance, I suppose - I'm still getting over some of the redneck behaviors I witnessed in the judiciary in Montana, most of it racism and sexism and old boy corruption - but that incident took the cake for sheer stupidity.

Not everything you read on the internet is true, and I'd like to think judges are smart enough to know that. Alas, no such luck.

Because of the sensitivity around the issue, when addressing the court I use the phrase only to deride the other side, not to refer to the judge's opinion -- e.g., "With all due respect to counsel's argument, [s/he's an idiot]." Sort of the legal version of "bless his/her heart."

It's so weird that there is any sensitivity around the phrase - again, it's routinely used in the SCOTUS and apparently also federal courts in general, because I've listened to numerous oral arguments where it was used by counsel in addressing the judges. I've heard it frequently in my experiences in D.C., Massachusetts, Maine, and even Arizona, which is 'out West'. I've rarely heard it used outside a legal context at all, and until this podunk Montana law school educated judge presented me with the blog post (entirely non-legal) his CR had found in some obscure corner of the interwebs, I wasn't even aware that people even used it outside of a court context, or that there was any controversy about it. Seems to me anyone who has risen to the rank of judge shouldn't have such thin skin, and/or should be aware of the longstanding nature of the phrase as used as a term of respect in our court system - but I've certainly learned in recent years that a lot of my expectations of those in our profession were naive at best.

Ah well.