There’s a small kerfuffle going on over in the Twitterverse over the New York Times interview with the Current Embarrassment. Maggie Haberman took exception to the rest of Twitter taking exception to the reporters’ abject stenography of the man’s usual incoherent ramblings, and her ratio is about what you would expect.
Have a look:
The tl;dr is that we expect the New York Times to dig a little deeper, to confront this fraud with questions that make it clear that he’s a fraud, and not to let him run amok through the truth. There are those who say that it’s obvious that he’s a fraud just from the transcript, but that is not the case. If it were, the NYT and the Washington Post wouldn’t keep running similarly uninformative stories about his die-hard voters who still think he’s saving us all from the hellscape of the Obama administration.
Here would be my point if I were to jump into the fracas: at no point in the last six years and especially in the last two has Donald J. Trump even once shown a grasp of legislative or policy matters. Not. Even. Once. Revealing this to us in an interview once again without any kind of followup question is really really pointless. You think you’re making it obvious that he’s an idiot, but we already know that. His followers refuse to know that. Why keep doing it?
But tweeters who are more likely to be noticed by the NYT than I are already making that point. I’ll stick to #Lichtenbergianism and my Precepts.
— — — — —
 The ‘ratio’ is kind of new intertubes-speak for the ratio between your retweets and your comments. When your comments — which usually indicate disagreement — start outweighing your retweets, you know you’ve stepped in it.