45th President of the United States, Donald Trump.

[p1stonhead]

FourWheelDrift said:

p1stonhead said:

I'm surprised he isn't using @POTUS. Is that one more of an officially controlled account that he can't get his sensitive little mits on?

He is, why not have a look.

Just did - From the easily readable English and no embarrassing rants, I'd say definitely not written by the man himself.

[5ohmustang]

SKP555 said:

Hahaha brilliant.

Now her so called healthy meal system is gone we can get proper food.

The one meat rule and no scrambled omelettes with ham will be gone. Now a man can eat like a man should.

[anonymous-user]

jjlynn27 said:

What are you on about?

You appear incapable of processing the written word.

[pinchmeimdreamin]

Merc 450 said:

p1stonhead said:

For anyone asking 'who cares about the audience for the inauguration?'

Nice to see him still tweeting, some people said he would stop when he became president.
Far from it he has hired a team of young Russian Hookers to send his tweets as he speaks them

Fixed that for you

[5ohmustang]

Leave Hillary alone!
https://youtu.be/58Quv42iE68

[TR4man]

If someone tries to assassinate President Trump, will his bodyguards try to save him by shouting "Donald duck!"?

[minimoog]

rscott said:

MartG said:

More Rebublican sponsored fkwittery

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house...

Introduced in House (01/03/2017)

American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017

This bill repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws.

The bill requires: (1) the President to terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations (U.N.), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body; and (2) closure of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

The bill prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N., (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (4) U.S. Armed Forces from serving under U.N. command, and (5) diplomatic immunity for U.N. officers or employees.

I think 5oh posted that earlier in the thread. He seemed wonderfully excited by it - that was enough to persuade me it's a bad idea...

I think 5oh the avowed patriot who abandoned his own country to go and hide in the Appalacians would like the country he has adopted to similarly hide from the rest of the world.

[jmorgan]

TR4man said:

If someone tries to assassinate President Trump, will his bodyguards try to save him by shouting "Donald duck!"?

[jjlynn27]

jsf said:

jjlynn27 said:

What are you on about?

You appear incapable of processing the written word.

It might appear that way to you. Hardly surprising. You are desperately trying to justify a lie. Only you know why.

[jjlynn27]

TR4man said:

If someone tries to assassinate President Trump, will his bodyguards try to save him by shouting "Donald duck!"?

[anonymous-user]

jjlynn27 said:

jsf said:

jjlynn27 said:

What are you on about?

You appear incapable of processing the written word.

It might appear that way to you. Hardly surprising. You are desperately trying to justify a lie. Only you know why.

I'm not desperately trying to do anything.

Stop speed reading and try and understand the narrative people engage in, you might take on-board the message a little more often.

[davepoth]

jsf said:

rscott said:

He probably should have spent more time checking their ability to spell before hiring.. might save him breaking the law by deleting official communications again!

Edited by rscott on Sunday 22 January 14:46

Are they official communications? That tweet is using Trumps own account, not the POTUS account that he now has control over.

I bet that situation is not covered by any law at the moment.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title44/...

It's in here somewhere. The language is a bit outdated but it does include electronic communications (cough-HILLARY-cough).

[rscott]

davepoth said:

jsf said:

rscott said:

He probably should have spent more time checking their ability to spell before hiring.. might save him breaking the law by deleting official communications again!

Edited by rscott on Sunday 22 January 14:46

Are they official communications? That tweet is using Trumps own account, not the POTUS account that he now has control over.

I bet that situation is not covered by any law at the moment.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title44/...

It's in here somewhere. The language is a bit outdated but it does include electronic communications (cough-HILLARY-cough).

Not sure there's any difference between his account and the POTUS one in that respect. Both are probably considered official communication channels - especially as his bio on his own account says he's president.. Should keep the lawyers busy for a few months deciding that.

ETA - he can't exactly claim not to know about legal restrictions on politicians use of electronic communications, can he...

[Countdown]

Jack Ma suggests that the US should spend less on wars and more on infrastructure

[TEKNOPUG]

Guybrush said:

TEKNOPUG said:

technodup said:

Leaving aside all the above I think the whole episode demonstrates why America is great. Anyone can become POTUS.

A businessman. A guy who has never held office, a non-politician. A guy who part self funded his campaign, even then underfunded relative to Clinton. A guy who took on the Republicans, then the Democrats, the establishment, not to mention the media, and won.

You obviously need money, and he had a helping hand there (and some questionable history) but there are plenty of truly self made men in the US.

The American dream is alive and well.

I accept not everyone will agree (or think it a reason to celebrate), but for me it's about the most level playing field there is.

45 presidents; 43 White Protestant Men, 1 White Catholic Man, 1 Black Man.

Yes, literally anyone can be POTUS.

Unless you're a woman, obviously.

I don't think being a woman was Hilary Clinton's problem. I think there were other problems.

Oh I agree, 2 st candidates for various reasons, if ever it was so. However, I do believe that electing a woman to be POTUS and leader of the free-world, any woman, would have a far greater positive effect than just giving the job to yet another old, rich man.

Still, we have 4 (maybe) very interesting and entertaining years ahead.

[p1stonhead]

Countdown said:

Jack Ma suggests that the US should spend less on wars and more on infrastructure

A fairly obvious point. Has anyone tried getting around in America on public transport other than the New York metro? It's ludicrously bad.

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

Jack Ma suggests that the US should spend less on wars and more on infrastructure

He should stand for Xi Jinping's job and put his ideas into practice. That should be as easy as giving an interview.

Getting a free lunch from Deripaska would be easier. He could smarm with Mandy for a bit, comparing expensive watches, as you do.

[turbobloke]

p1stonhead said:

Countdown said:

Jack Ma suggests that the US should spend less on wars and more on infrastructure

A fairly obvious point. Has anyone tried getting around in America on public transport other than the New York metro? It's ludicrously bad.

Better still, tax unleaded even less, 10 cents would do.

[anonymous-user]

p1stonhead said:

Countdown said:

Jack Ma suggests that the US should spend less on wars and more on infrastructure

A fairly obvious point. Has anyone tried getting around in America on public transport other than the New York metro? It's ludicrously bad.

It's an enormous country, outside the city centres public transport is not practical.

[p1stonhead]

jsf said:

p1stonhead said:

Countdown said:

Jack Ma suggests that the US should spend less on wars and more on infrastructure

A fairly obvious point. Has anyone tried getting around in America on public transport other than the New York metro? It's ludicrously bad.

It's an enormous country, outside the city centres public transport is not practical.

It's also the richest country in the world. And it's not just outside of cities.

Why isn't there any reliable public transport in LA for example? Even the BART in San Francisco is a small portion of what it needs to be.

Both of these cities are a nightmare to drive in and would be better served with some good alternative.