Trump Attacks New York Times, Makes Grammatical Error

President Elect Donald Trump is tweeting again. See above.

Phenomena is plural, phenomenon is singular.

Here, the New York Times is being chastised for not covering the "Trump Phenomenon" in a way that the president elect finds acceptable. That is bordering very closely on a violation of the first amendment.

Clearly, The Donald somehow managed to get his hands on his twitter account again. His handlers need to tighten up security in that area.

Here is a link to the tweet:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/797805407179866112

More like this

Here is the tweet: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/895970429734711298 Locked and load means ready to pull the trigger. Making that conditional on Kim Jong-un becoming a pacifist means Trump is going to pull the trigger. Based on this statement of policy by President Trump (when…
Its like this. Only with Trump instead of Josh, and it is real life. Yet, less like real life. Trump, remembering something about watergate, tweets: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/863007411132649473 and the Washington Post reports: Trump suggests there may be ‘tapes’ of his private…
... and loss of citizenship, which may amount to be thrown out of the country. Flag burning may be obnoxious to many, but it is a constitutionally protected act, as long as it is your flag and you do it outside. Presumptive President Elect Donald Trump has called for severe penalties for flag…
I've made the point several times now. We live in a constitutional democracy, but many of the first line (and last line) protections are not enforceable laws, but rather, agreements made among people who all want to live in and respect a constitutional democracy. But if a large enough cadre of…

Huh? How is that even remotely close to a 1st Amendment violation?

To be clear, I can't stand Trump, but assertions like that are pretty silly.

Even the grammatical objection isn't obvious. He could be referring to more than one Trump phenomenon.

Unless you're being deliberately hyperbolic?

So Anthony Freemont is our president elect. We of the science tribe better rev up our science to good advantage post haste, or we will not be doing any science at all.

Trump is currently drunk with power. There is apparently nobody exerting any significant restraint on this out of control man child, and certainly nothing within himself that we are aware of that would cause him to exercise restraint. He has not yet done anything that I am aware of to curb the violent tendencies of his followers. Why should he? Let them feel their power, let them strengthen their powers, let them create fear in the opposition. He is learning and enjoying his ability to flex his powerful new muscles.

I am fully expecting now that we are headed for full scale collapse if we don't all wake up, re-read our history books, and realize that we are on the edge of full out fascism. And we may be headed for collapse and fascism even if we do everything in our power to fight it from here on out.. Face your fears and deal with them. Feel them. Understand them. We are here. Now. Don't expect the Republican party to stand up to this menace. Academia is in shock, but some school administrators are standing up to the hatred which trump has encouraged and enabled. Churches? Well, Westboro Baptist can't be counted on for help, we know that for sure.

This is really really grim, people, and we had better start figuring out how to array the political and physical powers of science and scientists and science supporters and decent empathetic human beings against this tsunami of ignorance and hatred..

And as a post script. You know what the biggest problem with our obsession with the very real phenomenon of climate change might have been? That it caused us to take our focus off the even larger short term problem of fascism in America. And now look where we are.

Well, the good news is that this political disaster does have the possibility of getting us all to figure out how to work together and use our wisdom in ways that it hasn't been used in yet.

Peace.

qetzal:

Bordering. The note is threatening. The object of the threat is a major newspaper, one of the country's top two or three papers of record.

This is not a silly assertion.

He is clearly not referring to multiple trumps or multipole phenomena.

Jeesh.

“As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, *we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism*. That is to report America and the world *honestly, without fear or favor*…*impartially* and unflinchingly. *You can rely on* The New York Times to bring the same *fairness*, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.”
- Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the New York Times

Yeah. Sure, Arthur.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 13 Nov 2016 #permalink

I took it more as a display of self-congratulatory public autoeroticism than as a display of monkey threats.

By Obstreperous A… (not verified) on 13 Nov 2016 #permalink

Make America great again?

There was a land
A big big land
That looked for talent
who would be President.

Two runners were left
He right, she left
Battled their way
up to Election Day.

He campaigned loud
to the lost crowd
No respect for nobody
Just for the big ‘T’ only.

Her tracks were better
She was a header
A scapegoat she became
He helped make her lame.

People made notes
Both battled for votes
People were mad
Their lives went bad.

Stayed up all night
Till morning light
The shock was great
Their wounds got weight.

How could that be?
They lacked to see
The street fighter in him
Who was kicking to win.

Unbelievable, he won
to get jobs done
Lots of voters got upset
She hurt and distressed

Soon they’ll hear his voice,
Show them his choice
of men standing at his side
Ready to fight the tide.

Written by Irma Grovell
12 November 2016

Irma my wife, of whom I’m very proud, wrote this poem. We light candles all the way to a new Election Day. Laren NH, Sunday November 13 2016, 18.21 PM Dutch time

By Gerrit Bogaers (not verified) on 13 Nov 2016 #permalink

Seriously? Where is the threat in that tweet?

Unhinged claims like that just make it easier to dismiss legitimate concerns.

Off-topic.

If Trump is found guilty of something, say the Trump University fraud, and is charged for it before inauguration, does that mean he's ineligible for the presidential office?

If already president and found guilty can he then be charged, or is there some sort of "do not touch" rule?

What happens to the thousands of law suits against him right now? Are they put on hold for 4 years until he's out of office?

What would qualify as an impeachable offence? Is it one big one or can you use a series of "smaller" offences?

By Dan Andrews (not verified) on 13 Nov 2016 #permalink

As noted, it is (remotely) possible that Trump was thinking of more than one phenomenon.
(As an aside....he appears to have a better grasp of the american approximation of english than some of his notable predecessors....Dubya in particular springs to mind...).

As for the "threat"? huh?
He asserts the NYT provided "very poor" and "highly inaccurate" coverage.
I'd say this assertion would make the short list of things Trump has said and which he might stand a chance of actually providing some concrete evidence for....the most arguable part of the assertion being the qualifiers "very" and "highly".

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 13 Nov 2016 #permalink

Sure, he now deliberately cannot handle criticism, in honor of his needy flock's pathologies. The only remotely interesting thing is the claim that NYT's declining subscriptions are specifically due to their being unfair to Donny.
Where'd he get this idea? Have numbers fallen during the campaign, and 'correlation is causation'?

Donald has said far worse than this.

There are three assertions contained in that tweet: (1) people are canceling subscriptions to the New York Times; (2) the New York Times did a poor job covering Trump; (3) item (2) is the cause of item (1). (1) is a verifiable statement. I think Trump is correct on (2), but not for the reason he thinks--they should have been much harder on him than they actually were. (3) is debatable, but there is at least anecdotal evidence to support it. There is plenty of evidence that Trump hates the press, but this tweet is not part of it; everything in there is at minimum a defensible opinion.

As for "phenomenon" vs. "phenomena": I'm on your side, Greg, but I realized some years ago that this is a losing battle.

By Eric Lund (not verified) on 14 Nov 2016 #permalink