• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who was the target audience and why do you think so?

Whom do you think is Trump's main intended target audience for the OP tweet? Why do you think so?

  • Congressional Democrats

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Congressional Republicans

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    11
His tweets are how he gets his crazy out.

I fully agree that there is a left bias in most media outlets and really the only exception are those who have a right bias. Unbiased journalism has been a unicorn for a very long time.

It's not like he's not getting coverage, though. It's not like he doesn't have the same tools every other president has had in the form of press releases, statements, and a podium no news agency will let him stand at without a camera. He is the most powerful man in the world. Some people like that, some are in fear of it every day. One thing no one is doing is ignoring him.

The tweets do work in his favor sometimes and sometimes they burn him. He can't stand anyone clipping his phrasing to fit in a news update or possibly skewing things away from his perspective. He NEEDs to make noise and for everyone to hear him. I get that he enjoys making the sharks circle and that the more he puts everything in front of everyone, the more they just hear noise when people attack him.

The man does come across as literally insane sometimes. And if he really thinks that wall in the pic is pretty, this is one of the times he comes across as insane to me.

To the bolded... because he tweets. He forces the media to cover what he believes is important, much to the disdain of Leftists.

If his tweets were a suicide mission, Leftists would encourage them.
 
To me the fence is indeed aesthetically pleasing. Aesthetics are a plus.

I even liked some of the prototype walls, and could count it as good to employ people to build them and to manufacture the materials used to build them.

The problem here is that process matters as much as actually having a physical barrier. A process built on a bulwark of lies and xenophobia needs be rejected.

Security is a worthy goal. Barriers built on a foundation of xenophobia are not security.



(Edit: But this is a matter for another thread. Sorry, Xelor, for going off topic.)

What is xenophobic about protecting your border when 30 million have invaded, and Democrats promised border security 32-years ago, but failed to make a tiny step in that direction, and in fact have done the opposite of what they promised?

Nothing.
 
Of course it was for his own supporters' ears. He has rarely made an effort to reach out to anyone else. Pleasing a narrow base might be a neat way to squeeze through in a tight election but it's a tactic not policy. Running the country is very different - it takes policy. This is something Trump has never grasped.
 
To the bolded... because he tweets. He forces the media to cover what he believes is important, much to the disdain of Leftists.

If his tweets were a suicide mission, Leftists would encourage them.

That assumes the far left has that much foresight and organization.
 
That assumes the far left has that much foresight and organization.

They’re Leftists, they don’t need “organization” to do what they’ve been doing for decades.
 
What is xenophobic about protecting your border when 30 million have invaded, and Democrats promised border security 32-years ago, but failed to make a tiny step in that direction, and in fact have done the opposite of what they promised?

Nothing.


Nothing is inherently xenophobic about protecting one's border. It's in the presentation, and Trump's presentation is xenophobic. The ends do not justify the means ... especially when the means are stoking hatred which will make us more insecure than a lack of a border wall ever did.

That's a lie that Democrats failed to take even a tiny step in that direction. If Democrats hadn't taken steps in that direction, there wouldn't be barriers in the process of being built or maintained. Trump has bragged about walls already being built and repaired ... but what he's bragging about is things which were already in the works before he took office. So he is bragging about things Democrats helped to do. When he tries to get credit for a promise kept, he is taking credit for things Democrats helped to do while he was still out there calling Obama a Kenyan who wasn't legitimately president.
 
Last edited:
To me the fence is indeed aesthetically pleasing. Aesthetics are a plus.

I even liked some of the prototype walls, and could count it as good to employ people to build them and to manufacture the materials used to build them.

The problem here is that process matters as much as actually having a physical barrier. A process built on a bulwark of lies and xenophobia needs be rejected.

Security is a worthy goal. Barriers built on a foundation of xenophobia are not security.



(Edit: But this is a matter for another thread. Sorry, Xelor, for going off topic.)
Off Topic:
Blue:
De gustibus non disputandum est...What Trump depicted doesn't at all strike me as aesthetically pleasing.

The fencing shown below (they surround homes in DC) is, to my eye, about as aesthetically pleasing as security fencing can be.


y9mxmw84


ycorky49



Red:
It's fine. It's not as though I don't post off-topic remarks. I understand that folks on DP are more given to treat discussions/debates here as though they are spoken rather than as written ones...I don't know why folks do that, but I see they do. In any case, given that predisposition, it's typical that one's and others' remarks may spur unrelated thoughts, and I am willing to indulge them briefly[SUP]1[/SUP] (a few posts of back and forth on it) so long as the diversion and divergers return to the original topic.

I appreciate your noting that your remark is off-topic. Doing so makes clear that one's remarks aren't intended to be taken as pertinent to the thread topic.

Note:


  1. [*=1]It's just as well that I am so willing for I can't change the behavior and the here, unlike in forensic debate where going off-topic will result in one's losing the round/debate, there's no consequence to going off topic. Structured debates aren't the only settings that enforce topical discipline. Scholarly debate (the publishing of papers in journals), Edge.org, and Massive Science, symposia, conference sessions, lectures and seminars are others wherein going off-topic presumably wouldn't be tolerated, but I can't say for sure because I can't think of an instance wherein discussants/debaters in such forums make off-topic remarks. (The closest to it that I've seen is someone making a remark that is off-topic, however "adjacent" it may to some seem, and the audience responds with a chuckle but otherwise don't respond in substance to the comment.)
 
Back
Top Bottom