From what I can see of his additional tweets they don't make any further coherent argument. I understand the substance of his underlying argument, and if he tr

From what I can see of his additional tweets they don't make any further coherent argument. I understand the substance of his underlying argument, and if he truly wanted to be effective, he wouldn't be doing so with the way he's approaching this, which is to be unnecessarily vague and inflammatory. It doesn't help that twitter is such a poor communication medium, especially prone to misunderstanding. If he wanted to have the greatest impact, a reasonable approach would be to write an articulate argument in a non-inflammatory way in the form of an opinion article in the New York Times. Why? Because the Times is the mouthpiece of the US establishment, and reaches precisely the community that he wishes he could influence. And because by making it non-inflammatory, and instead fact-based and logical, people will have a much harder time dismissing it. If you are powerful and truly want change, you owe it to yourself to use your big brain to come up with an mechanism to effect that change. Sitting around shit-talking on your overpriced social media site is not that mechanism.