Response to a Series of Tweets

I had the following exchange with someone on Twitter regarding the resignation of Lt. General Flynn (Pres. Trump’s National Security adviser), reproduced here in chronological order. The other person’s tweets have a light blue background.

Flynn lied and resigned, what else is there to say? We go on. The enemy is embedding in crowds near your kids @POTUS
Would you be willing to simply "go on" were Clinton the president with a similar situation? Or would there be more to say?
If Clinton had won? Imagine today's riots in reverse: Patriots vs Islam in the streets, so she sends Army in to shoot ... who?
OK, I think you're going a tad overboard here.
I think you're face to face with a man who sold your world. Contrast your queasiness with the moral clarity of @POTUS

My response won’t fit in 140 characters, so I am using this post to respond fully, and I am using “you” to refer to the other person.

First, I have no idea what is meant by “a man who sold your world.” I'm not sure if you are referring to yourself or to the President. Second, I was not being queasy when I said you were going a tad overboard; I was trying to be diplomatic and put things as mildly as possible. I’ll rephrase in more direct terms further on, but let me, for the moment, focus on the “moral clarity of @POTUS.”

This is a man who, among other things:

I understand entirely that none of these acts is even remotely illegal, and I am not suggesting that in any way whatsoever. But I must concede your point—they make President Trump’s brand of morality entirely clear.

Finally, instead of saying “you're going a tad overboard,” let me throw diplomacy aside and say it directly: If you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton’s elections would have resulted in riots between “Patriots vs Islam” within the first four weeks of her administration; if you honestly believe that there is valid doubt as to whom she would order the Army to shoot, then I believe you are not thinking rationally.