Why a Trump-Free Zone?
Enough.
Enough with the Tweets.
Enough with the endless press coverage of a man and his tweets.

We call for a 90-day moratorium on the main-stream media coverage of President Trump’s tweets to begin immediately and to being again–if necessary–on September 1, 2019.

In the meantime, President Trump can continue his tweets, but during this time-out period, the main-stream media should cover other matters of concern for the safety and well-being of all Americans. North Korea, the Middle East, Iran, global warming, the displacement of millions from their homes, immigration, prison reform and social justice come to mind. We’d settle for just half the list.

Here is one example of slippage, using presidential tweets as cover.

We are not tweet pimps. Policy development should be deliberative and inclusive, less impulsive, not in the fingertips of one man. Communicating with your supporters is one thing, interrupting the public discourse on matters of personal insult to institutions and individuals is disruptive and does not serve the public interest.

I’m gobsmacked, astounded, writeless about the state of public discourse in America. It is hostile, mean-spirited, propped up by political mannequins and the vengeful on the left and on the right. The conflagration of president and press is eroding the fundamental trust of government and the foundations of democracy.

We remind ourselves that three out of the last four presidents were elected with less than 50 percent of those who bothered to vote. The Electoral College is an anachronism, as useful as the telegraph and outdoor plumbing. Why is America not subject to coalition governments when one party fails to get a majority vote? Why are presidential elections quadrennial and not situational, say when 50 percent of voters feel disenfranchised, tread upon, put upon, exploited?

While my personal and professional assessment of Bill Clinton, George Bush II, and Barack Obama have not fallen to the level it has for Donald Trump, I’m skeptical of all politicians, worked for some, voted for others, and at one time or another panned all of them.

The assessment of Trump ranges from he-walks-on-water to he is five cans short of a six-pack. There is nothing we can add to that analysis. We don’t have the resources: more importantly, we don’t have the inclination. Like the proverbial tree in the forest that makes no sound when it falls if no one is around to hear it, any Trump-thumping on these pages would be the sound of a post falling in the blogsphere with no one around to click on it.

Besides, you have your own sources for what you think about Trump. And you are no more likely to give it up and switch to another sources than a four-year with a well-cuddled raggedy teddy bear.

The structure of the arguments for and against Trump are the same as they were for his modern predecessors, but the content is different, clashing symbols signifying nothing that the main-stream media is amplifying beyond reason.

We have determined that we at onAmericanNews are better served to be out on the plain or park or peak where seldom is heard a discouraging word, than to turn our communication skills into tools of intolerance, hate and bigotry—either for or against a man and his twitter.

PS. The hyperlink in the paragraph above is for shmoop.com. We have no way of assessing their products and services. We are not familiar with them, but did think their explanation of “Home on the Range” was interesting and full of details we were not familiar with.