'COVFEFE Act' Would Make Social Media a Presidential Record (thehill.com) 322
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) introduced legislation Monday to classify presidential social media posts -- including President Trump's much-discussed tweets -- as presidential records. The Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement (COVFEFE) Act, which has the same acronym as an infamous Trump Twitter typo last month, would amend the Presidential Records Act to include "social media." Presidential records must be preserved, according to the Presidential Records Act, which would make it potentially illegal for the president to delete tweets. "President Trump's frequent, unfiltered use of his personal Twitter account as a means of official communication is unprecedented. If the President is going to take to social media to make sudden public policy proclamations, we must ensure that these statements are documented and preserved for future reference. Tweets are powerful, and the President must be held accountable for every post," said Quigley in a statement. Most people took the "covfefe" tweet to be a typo, although press secretary Sean Spicer told the media that the term was used intentionally. "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant," he said.
Already subject to relevant rules (Score:5, Insightful)
Related bill: The TRIGGER Act (Score:2, Funny)
All internal political party emails and communication will be released for public viewing to ensure no shenanigans are taking place.
Word verification: thefts
Interesting implication (Score:5, Insightful)
Twitter FB etc would be legally barred from deleting posts from government employees ?
How interesting.
Re:Interesting implication (Score:5, Insightful)
Doubtful. More likely those posts would be archived instantly by the government, with no delete option. So not really that different to what happens now, only it's the government doing it as well as citizens.
The world is a very weird place right now (Score:3)
Not only because such a bill seems to be necessary, but because it was named about the most annoying non-story of 2017 so far.
Snapchat next? (Score:4, Interesting)
The president and a small group of people... (Score:5, Funny)
"The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant." The small group are his Russian handlers.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me give you a hint: what do you think is a group of random letters, forming a word that is not in a dictionary, that have a specific meaning to the POTUS and a small group of people around him?
I just hope they changed it in the meantime. And also put in some digits and non-alphanumeric characters.
Re:The president and a small group of people... (Score:5, Informative)
The Post said Kushner suggested the use of Russian diplomatic facilities as a way to shield pre-inauguration discussions with Kislyak from monitoring. Kislyak allegedly then relayed the suggestion to his superiors in Moscow. The idea was supposedly broached during a meeting between Kushner and Kislyak during an early December meeting at Trump Tower.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/26/jared-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-russia-new-report-alleges.html [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's unsubstantiated hearsay from some unnamed person - IE Gossip.
I'm sure that the special counsel will get it straighten out in short order.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems legit to me, and I'm no Hillary supporter.
I think you're peddling conspiracy theories. What she did was stupid, not criminal. And she has paid the price for her stupidity in the court of public opinion. Nobody helps anything by trying to turn it into a crime because the bad press wasn't enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Just trying to help you protect your brand as an author, it probably helps to master simple grammar.
Still under the delusion that Slashdot matters in the real world? Tsk, tsk.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just one more example of creimer's atrocious grammar.
What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not writing great literature, I'm selling short stories and readers of short stories are very forgiving. The short story you quoted without proper citation has sold 700+ copies as an ebook.
Recording tweets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that HE's supposed to record them. That you don't understand that it what makes you ignorant. By law the president is supposed to record everything he does, all his notes, basically the entire record of his governance and then he's supposed to build a library and put all that information in this public library for the public to use after he leave office.
Do you think he's made official record of all the tweets he deleted? Because if he didn't he violated the presidential records act. The point
Re: Recording tweets (Score:2)
Secret unveiled (Score:5, Funny)
It's Orangenian for "Rosebud".
Covfefe means "execute order 66" (Score:2)
I said it before, I say it again (Score:3)
I love that sitcom about the aging wannabe-celebrity becoming US president. It's a bit unrealistic, I admit that, but it's a hoot and a half, every episode a new surprise and you never know what's gonna happen next.
Some say it's formulaic, but I can only say I'm entertained. And isn't that the most important aspect?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure anyone will laugh if he ends up dragging the US in a major war though.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure.
The key to enjoying a reality soap is to not be part of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I love that sitcom about the aging wannabe-celebrity becoming US president.
The original back in the 1980's was better. The current reboot kind of sucks.
_Official_ communication? (Score:2)
Why are his tweets deemed official? They're from the President, and many of them are tactless, Jimmy Kimmel fodder. But, he's not using Twitter to issue instructions to his cabinet. This is his personal account, and it's no more official than any other Twitter account.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, and thank goodness. Hillary was simply the most evil, vile and corrupt candidate anyone could have chosen.
Re: _Official_ communication? (Score:3)
June 12th, 2037- (Score:3)
Today, the Department of Common Sense" (DoCS) Finally struck down one of the most frivolous and wasteful government resolutions yet. On the 20th anniversary of its inception, the the Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement (COVFEFE) Act was finally struck down.
For years, the American taxpayer has been footing the bill to replicate the childish and nonsensical social media tweets of every sitting leader since the controversial and infamous Donald Trump (45). Those opposing this bill have been fighting for the past 20 years to make lawmakers understand that nothing posted on the internet ever really goes away, and the bill, by its very nature, is a terrible waste of taxpayer money in its current form.
One could speculate that this may be a direct result of the actions of one Rep. Qike Muigley III(D-Ill.) When his tweet "Underware sux haha!" began circulating attached to a picture of the Muigley with a conspicuous brown stain on his rear.
President Comancho's reaction to news?
"wut? lol OMG"
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck you. Accountability of government officials is of vital importance to our republic.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that there are millions of eyes already on Trump's Twitter account and so this "bill" (actually just a stunt) would accomplish nothing if signed into law. Well, except set up yet another government group tasked with doing something that adds little or no value.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that there are millions of eyes already on Trump's Twitter account and so this "bill" (actually just a stunt) would accomplish nothing if signed into law. Well, except set up yet another government group tasked with doing something that adds little or no value.
Not true. It would force all Presidential tweets to be archived for the public record, including tweets that might end up being deleted for various reasons. This will provide a historical record that can be analyzed by historians, researchers, and laughed at hilariously by people in 2030.... The comedic value alone makes this worth it... (grin)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. It would force all Presidential tweets to be archived for the public record, including tweets that might end up being deleted for various reasons.
Aren't there lots of people that already do exactly that? I guarantee you that 100% of Trump's tweets can be found, even the deleted ones long before he was POTUS.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that there are millions of eyes already on Trump's Twitter
The brains attached to those millions of eyes forget and eventually die, combating this problem is the purpose of archiving something.
Re: (Score:2)
The archivists searching for the 22 million missing e-mails from George W. Bush's administration aren't doing too badly either.
sPh
Re: (Score:3)
Like there is even a minimal chance that ANY of Trump's Tweets would ever get "lost". There's literally millions of eyeballs glued to that feed, and either his supporters or his enemies will immortalize any and all Tweets that could possibly be "worth it".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, but without a trusted authoritative source that archives the Tweets, you can't really trust the millions of anonymous eyeballs to provide them without tampering with them.
Re: (Score:3)
A government record would be authoritative though. It sounds better if you can cite the official US record of Presidential Tweets than Buzzfeed.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, they're not exactly overwhelmed by the volume of work. Congress is already stalled by the fact that the party in power is not quite so ideologically unified as it thought it was.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It never seemed that the GOP was ever ideologically unified. Just look at the libertarian strain of GOP compared to a mainstream GOPer.
The Democrats, however, seem like they not only want ideological uniformity but enforce it by way of excising any opposing thought like a cancer. They really don't want anyone thinking out side of what the Party wants.
For example, compare GOP 2008/2012 Ron Paul with Democrat Sanders in 2016. Both establishment parties hated Paul/Sanders but only one party was arrogant enough
Re: (Score:2)
They really don't want anyone thinking out side of what the Party wants.
And with the two-party system, can you blame them? They probably don't want to cripple themselves in the US political landscape.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I can blame them. I have more respect for the GOP because they are not so "pure" on their ideology to the point of shunning and chastising those that don't fall in line.
They probably don't want to cripple themselves in the US political landscape.
lol, fat load of good that did. Have you seen the last 8 years for democrats? They have been losing ground everywhere. Governor seats, House, Senate, Executive. Name it and they probably have been losing it.
Re: (Score:3)
California, the nation's most populous state with an economy only eclipsed by a handful of nations.
Good. Cram all the democrat politicians into one or two small areas, and leave the rest of the country for the adults who have work to do.
Heh, wouldn't the area with a bigger economy be doing more work? I mean, it's not like this can be easily tracked [democraticactionteam.org]. Cali is right there near the top of hard workers while the "welfare queen" states are NM, Mississippi, StateOfPalin, LA, WV, ND, Alabama, SD, Kentuky, Virginia, etc. Even Texas, with all the oil and oil refining we do, isn't as productive as CA. How the heck?
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny you mention the welfare queen states of the south. They got that way when the democrats were in charge. Those states' representatives and senators were in power so long in Congress, they sent as much pork as they could back home. So now there are many federal facilities, military bases, and so on that funnel that federal money to the states liberals hate the most. Blame it all on the democrats.
Re: (Score:3)
What? You're claiming Hillary is a Republican now? Tell me it isn't so.
By the way - correctly describing history isn't pointing a finger.
Re: (Score:3)
It never seemed that the GOP was ever ideologically unified. Just look at the libertarian strain of GOP compared to a mainstream GOPer.
In the past, they were all unified by the desire to cut taxes (although not on how to pay for the cuts). Now, they are not even united on that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Democrats, however, seem like they not only want ideological uniformity but enforce it by way of excising any opposing thought like a cancer. They really don't want anyone thinking out side of what the Party wants.
Sorry, you're wrong. And you're conservative. I know not just because of personal experience (I fight with Dems all the time about everything - out of fun - because we like to think both sides of issues - and we usually agree we should end up doing the most pragmatic thing - but that's my personal biased view) but they did a real study on this, and these were the common answers in a survey, separated by party:
"Republicans tend to emphasize what they view as ideological disagreement between the parties:
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's an example.
Taiwan spends 1/6 as much percentage of GDP as we do on health care. 1/6th. I've been to a Taiwanese hospital, and as a non-tax-paying foreigner, they charged me $10 to see the doc. I thought he was fine, even compared to American docs (of course he had an accent - but he even spoke english). I was expecting 3rd worldish service, and I was very surprised. But think about it - 1 / 6th!
Can you imagine taking what you pay between medical bills, insurance, your employers' insurance, and taxes, dividing that number by 6, and then paying that amount in taxes only ? Sounds amazingly awesome ... for a pragmatist. But if you're conservative or Republican, you're already making up reasons why it could never work - because I used the word "taxes". That's the definition of an ideologue, you don't believe it could ever work, despite the proof of it working right there in Taiwan. Your not willing to try to improve something because there's a hard line of ideology - anything involving taxes must be bad, and we can't try to work in that direction at all (officially, I wouldn't necessarily want to try to go as far as Taiwan, but it seems obvious we should at least be picking out what could work for us, and go in that direction).
Re: (Score:2)
Expecting 3rd world service from Taiwan shows you didn't know much about Taiwan or the people before you visited. Unless it was 30 years ago.
Republican, you're already making up reasons why it could never work
I am no more a Republican than I am a Democrat. It is pretty obvious why it doesn't work as well in the US than compared to Taiwan and it's cultural and institutional reasons. Cultural because the US has a very strong sense of individualism compared to Taiwan. In Taiwan, it is much easier to pass top down things like that because of that culture. Institutional because
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is that he was expecting 3rd world service because they charged him only 10 bucks.
however..
In Thailand I could if I wanted spend a night in a private hospital for about 20 to 50 dollars depending on the level of the room I wanted for my stay - or practically free in the government hospital.
just because you have government hospitals does not have to mean that you can't have private hospitals.. however if you have only insurance company private hospitals guess what.. they're going to cost a
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem with black and white America. Well red or blue actually. Everything is all or nothing to everyone. The idea of creating a public health system caused so much grief to those people who suddenly "couldn't chose their doctors" or {insert other thing that public system can't do here}.
For the rest of the world where public systems happily co-exist with private ones we were scratching our heads.
Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care what democrats or republicans see the other side as. In the main of what you say, republicans are for the individual while demarcates are for the group. You get more diverse opinions when you promote the individual. Also, I have this opinion because that is the interaction I got from each party when I participated in each party.In the GOP for 2008/2012 for RP and in 2016 with the democrats for 2016 for Sanders. The GOP, didn't have the same arrogance or condescension. Sure, the old guard didn't like Ron Paul but not to the point to say "we don't need you or your vote" like what I experienced in 2016. I haven't seen any study that looks into the acceptance of diverse opinions between the group. Do you have a link?
the other is battling for groups of people.
Ever see what a black conservative is called in democrat circles? They are for groups of people so long as those groups toe the party line. Same treatment for gay conservatives. They don't want different thoughts and they chastise anyone from any group accordingly. I have seen this many times over.
an ideology
If the ideology is based on individualism. I am for it too. I don't care what group you belong to because the individual is the ultimate minority to be protected.
Re:good (Score:5, Interesting)
In 2008, people were laughing at Paul, yes. In 2012, the GOP was moving to where Paul was on many issues. He was a threat with his ideas to the point that the GOP changed the primary rules so that only candidates that won majorities in X number of states can win the nomination. That change later haunted the GOP when it became clear that only Trump will be the nominee because of that rule change. He was playing the delegate game to change the platform and considering his success (ideologically speaking) since 2008 the GOP was scared (not only of Paul but the Tea party). Very similar story to Sanders. Old consistent party member (that only joined that party recently) with a clear, concise, and ideologically pure message winning the youth vote of the party threatening the old guard.
Re: (Score:3)
That change later haunted the GOP when it became clear that only Trump will be the nominee because of that rule change.
Trump would have become their nominee no matter what rules they adopted. He won twice votes as anybody else, and all but 15 states. If the Republican party didn't want someone like that as their nominee, then they shouldn't have spent the previous 8 years training their voters to respond to his kind of nonsense. You reap what you sew.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not a libertarian if you think you need to belong to a party. You're just a Libertarian and your opinion can likely be dismissed.
Who thought they were to begin with? (Score:4, Interesting)
Congress is already stalled by the fact that the party in power is not quite so ideologically unified as it thought it was.
Only the fear-mongers on the left ever claimed there was ideological unity. Anyone with a mind left could clearly see there are many Republicans who detest Trump and are part of the effort to work against him in most things. Every now and then there is real alignment but it is rare and happens in only the most clear-cut of cases (like Gorsuch, and even that became a bit iffy).
Trump's election was never a danger to anyone because he's not a God Emperor, he's just a president and in the end they can only do so much alone.
If you want real fear, actually manage to pop Trump from the stack of American leaders, because up next is Pence and there you WILL see ideological unity of the worst kind. That's the point *I* would think about leaving the country.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Consider the Republican perspective- if you were a Republican prior to the Tea Party era then even with your party co-opted you might be hesitant to leave the party, and if you and a bunch of other pre-tea-party Republicans leave to form a new party then there'll be two conservative parties that will diminish in-power much more than half, essentially ceding control of the government to the Democratic Party for as long as it takes for one of those two conservative parties to finally fold.
The problem with any
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do not underestimate the power of the prez. He alone is the ONLY person in the US who cannot be indicted on any federal crime while prez. Further, it is a matter of debate if he can be indicted on any state level crime. So it is possible that the US Supreme court could rule even if Donald shot and killed someone on 5th avenue he may not be able to be indicted. It is a matter of scholarly debate as to how the Supreme's would rule. It has never been tested. Further, I believe if congress does not extend the
Call center workers first, legislators second (Score:3)
Well, they're not exactly overwhelmed by the volume of work.
Congress is seriously overworked. You are thinking only of their secondary job, legislating. You are not thinking of their primary job, walking out of Congress and going to the nearby DNC and RNC private offices where they get on the phone and start dialing for donations. Members of Congress as essentially call center workers first, legislators second.
The party's perfectly unified (Score:2)
I'm reminded of Microsoft during the Xbox One launch where every day brought a new announcement of something horrible followed by a retraction. But that only worked because they had a viable competitor. Unlike the consol
Re: (Score:3)
The United States has the largest GDP in the world, even if the EU is considered one 743,100,000 population country.
The United States is also the only nation on the planet capable of engaging in large-scale military action anywhere on the planet with basically no notice and requiring no significant time to configure expeditionary forces.
It's certainly true that other nations may be experiencing more growth than the US, that some of these nations might at some point actually have greater absolute GDP, or eve
Depends How You Measure GDP (Score:2)
The United States has the largest GDP in the world
That depends on how you measure GDP. If you use puchasing power parity which is designed to remove the effects of the international currency markets that skew rates in a way that may have little to do with actual GDP then the EU beats the US [wikipedia.org].
However, even third place (China is first) still means the US is clearly a world power. While the trend does not seem to be a positive one for the US especially recently given your president the same could be said for the EU too.
Re: (Score:2)
Only until brexit. Then the EU will be a distant 3rd.
Re: (Score:3)
The United States is also the only nation on the planet capable of engaging in large-scale military action anywhere on the planet with basically no notice and requiring no significant time to configure expeditionary forces.
That's not really something to brag about. Self-defence, of course, but you are not the World Police and you probably shouldn't give your politicians the power to do that so easily. The fact that it takes other countries time to assemble expeditionary forces is a useful brake on hasty and unwise military action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: wasting taxpayer money -- if key details about governing and policy come as tweets, then they darn sure are important enough to properly track and catalog.
As far as the acronym, they even outdid recent NASA probes in shoe-horned spelling such that they deserve a Uranus Award: Unique References And Naming Using Stretching.
Re: (Score:2)
Coming up with a title to fit the desired acronym alone probably ate up the better part of a day for a few congressional staffers.
Re: (Score:2)
This sort of accountability is already expected for employees of corporations, so why should the president or other high level government actor be held to a lower standard?
I worked for a large financial institution and all social media communication from the companies was limited to specific employees, it was vetted and even recorded at every step. I can't see why government servants in the White House or congress can't be expected to follow the same process. If I were the CEO of a large company, I would ap
Re: (Score:2)
The more time the congress spends on pointless stuff like this, the less time is left to waste taxpayer money. Carry on.
s/waste taxpayer money/fuck us over/
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it is one of the chief things keeping him from getting things done actually.....it creates too much turmoil, and distractions from the things he promised to get through...healthcare reform, tax reform, and the wall.
I used to love watching all the news channels, MSNBC, Fox, CNN...I'd watch all the Sunday morning news shows every week.
But man, I'm so over it....this tweet, that tweet...and the press jumping on this, or
Re: (Score:2)
It's something of a sad state of affairs that news has become glorified Twitter readers.
Twitter the Worst (Score:2, Insightful)
Twitter is the worst thing to happen to public discourse since TV.
Re: (Score:3)
The old joke was that if your political views fit on a bumpersticker then you needed better views.
The new joke simply replaces, "on a bumpersticker," with, "in a tweet," or, "in 140 characters or less."
Re: (Score:2)
The old joke was that if your political views fit on a bumpersticker then you needed better views.
The new joke simply replaces, "on a bumpersticker," with, "in a tweet," or, "in 140 characters or less."
Since a tweet holds more than a typical bumpersticker, this could be viewed as progress toward more substantive discourse.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
you seem to think that using twitter is making trump a less effective leader, when in reality it is more of a symptom of him not being a leader at all. So don't blame twitter, if his twitter phone was taken away from him he will think of something else to distract himself, like say play even more rounds of golf.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone would take the fucking twitter phone away from him and advise him to just shut the fuck up
Good idea. Let's rely only on the NYT and other unbiased mainstream medias to tell us what is happening
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You think Obama directed congress to only deal with nonsense and ignore important issues? Does the name John Boehner ring a bell?
Re: (Score:2)
Obama did direct the DOJ to use "Operation Choke Point" to destroy the porn industry.
Re: And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump seems to like spending time crafting executive order that get blocked by the court
I don't understand this nor the reason it was modded up. As opposed to the courts not blocking orders from the president? We have seen that and that is why we have the first year filled with E.O.'s.
Also, the arguments why he can't have his ban are specious at best. The only way the courts would allow them is if the executive prove a negative. "Prove it isn't racist!". Instead of taking the order as is and within the confines of the text to the extent that it would be enforced, the courts use campaign rhetor
Re: And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it (Score:2)
Dude, you can't pass crap like those bans. Any President doing so would have them blocked by judicial review. They aren't constitutional. They are so clear cut and dry that they shouldn't even be part of the discussion. It's a restriction the US has self imposed as powerful as Innocent until proven Guilty.
The band aren't exactly that hard to think up. I am sure they were thought up by prior Administrations. But in those cases, the President knew it wouldn't work or atleast his advisors did. For Trump
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is good that they are under judicial review but my contention is the arguments that amount to; "prove this is not a racist order". Hard to prove a negative. It also makes the argument that "cannot discriminate based on national origin" is an enforceable foreign policy when by definition any foreign policy is discriminatory policy based on national origin. Or should we not have different policy for adversaries with a stated goal of undermining and disrupting the US government? It is easy when it is e
Re: And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it (Score:2)
The Executive can bar based on country or affiliation*. But they can't do a blanket bar without severe justification. The President can bar ppl from Canada and Mexico but without a justification equivalent to "we are at war with them", it would be overturned pretty quicky because of the economic impact to the border states. The Gov failed miserably in showing immediately threat that the ban was curtailing.
The government also can't discriminate against religion in proxy nor results. They can't say "We are
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of the "immediacy" has been set by Obama to drone civilians i.e. not a lot. Are we at war? Where are we at war and who with? How do you ban people we are at war with that fight for a religious ideology who do not uniform their soldiers? How do ensure that the recruitment of that group does not reach any prospective refugee, immigrant, citizen?
Honestly, I am glad it's in the courts but that doesn't mean I have to like the arguments but because the temporary nature I don't see an issue given the comple
Re: (Score:3)
its not because X does shit that it warrants Y shit. With that kind of reasoning you end up with a whole lot of shit ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it (Score:4, Insightful)
You think a bill sponsored by a Democrat has a chance of getting passed?
You're an optimist. I like that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You think a bill sponsored by a Democrat has a chance of getting passed?
Once the Republicans figure out that they can't come to an agreement among themselves, they will turn to Nancy Pelosi for Democratic votes to pass "must pass" legislation. This bill and a laundry list of Democratic priorities will find its way into the "must pass" legislation.
Re: (Score:3)
He could have easily made the same bill without the insult and had a good chance of it passing,
Given that he's a Democrat and such a bill is obviously targeted at the Republican President, it never would have had a chance at passing.
Although I'm in full agreement that we should expect more of our legislators than this kind of juvenile attention-seeking.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
We didn't elect you to troll the President
Hey, speak for yourself, pal.
Re: (Score:2)
Listen, both you idiots can be right. You guys can be snowflakes, AND the bill can be moronically named.
At this point I think it's just pandering to the base.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure the point is to store the words of the *politician*, not the words of everyone that talks to him or her. If the politician opts to reply to a question, then sure, make that reply part of the record - but let's not fill the record with a spam bot spewing obscenities into everybody's twitter stream. That's not really useful.
Re: (Score:3)
Right?? Because if the constituents tweet is deleted "I never saw it" works. Nobody cares about the constituents anymore, just the power consumed by the politicians. They spew bullshit, they should have to wade through it on their twitter feed. Just saying, fair is fair.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why most reasonable people don't have or use Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Point 3: Make it retroactive so he is already in violation for his deleted Tweets.
Nope, that would be ex post facto... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Point 5: Big respect for having the maturity not to turn it into a torturous acronym.
Idiots behind the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" Act, take note.
Re:Trump Library (Score:5, Funny)
When he is no longer president, Donald J. Trump can have a library where his words of wisdom are recorded 140 characters at a time.
If they only include the words of wisdom, it shouldn't take more than a single post-it note. Probably not even that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's making it really hard not to, ya know...
When someone is asking to be trolled, you can't blame anyone if they simply do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
sorry I speak arabic natively that is wrong
And Trump does not. I would totally buy that some nitwit told him "this is what this word means in Arabic," and he ran with it.
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, snowflake conservatives get all bent out of shape when somebody offers up a little well-deserved mockery of their self-importance, their willful ignorance and a level of arrogance so extreme they can't even admit to a simple spelling mistake.
Anybody doubting how far gone they are merely has to look at the video of Trump's cabinet meeting, where all the good little toadies took turns proving it's not just necessary to kiss the president's butt anymore. Now, there also has to be tongue involved.