back to article Loser Trump is no longer useful to Twitter, entire account deleted over fears he'll whip up more mayhem

Twitter on Friday permanently deleted President Trump's personal account, @realDonaldTrump, over fears the election loser's tweets could incite further mayhem in America. "After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted …

Page:

  1. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge
    1. croc

      Re: An elephant in the room

      Yeah, that was a dumbass move... She should've known better.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: An elephant in the room

        Yeah. Pelosi should have known better. The orange fuckwit will be sopissed off if he finds out the US military gave him a Fisher-Price activty centre instead of the launch codes 4 years ago.

        1. CuChulainn

          Re: An elephant in the room

          That reminded me of... Dilbert.

          https://imgur.com/gallery/IrcBR0P

          1. David Shaw

            Re: An elephant in the room

            @CuChulainn: on-message with Dilbert, who's sensible creator is now suggesting that The Orange Idiot should resign immediately, amongst other relevant points. SA previously supported/interpreted bigly for right-pondians.

            He's a bit worried about FOS

            link here: http://www.scottadamssays.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Episode-1248-Scott-Adams-President-Trumps-Final-Scorecard-Vatican-Blackout.mp3

            or at least 'twas there a few minutes ago, no guarantee that it will be there later. Scott is worried.

        2. Mike the FlyingRat Bronze badge
          Boffin

          Re: An elephant in the room

          Too many commentards here that are probably on their last functioning brain cell.

          One must look beyond the 'Orange Man Bad' mantra and take a more holistic approach.

          Pelosi is more evil than Trump. She is a swamp dweller who believes she is beyond the rules. You need to remember is that Trump was elected in response to Obama and his ilk. Trump's real vice was in believing that he could drain the swamp and openly attacked the professional politician.

          Pelosi knows Trump won't do anything and raised the 'issue' of nuclear codes as a way to make Trump seem more deranged. Not hard after his speech, but post Congress approving the Electoral Votes, the next two years are going to be rough. What Pelosi wants is Trump to not be able to run in 2024.

          So when you look at the facts and see the larger picture... you learn to see the true motives.

          1. Lars Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: An elephant in the room

            I have no problems allowing Pelosi the pleasure of telling Trump his balls are being cut and all that is left is the tiny mushroom.

            On the other hand we also know he is nothing like the stable genius he wants you us believe.

            He has managed to lose both houses and the WH in just four years, is that something he actually understands himself.

            He made me happy though.

          2. Wellyboot Silver badge

            Re: An elephant in the room

            How would America vote if someone along the lines of Václav Havel1 managed to raise the $Billions needed for a campaign?

            1Anti communist writer with a belief in local civic democracy who spent years in prison for his principles and was willing to give unpopular pronouncements on national domestic problems during his 14 years as Czechoslovakian and then Czech President.

          3. Robert 22

            Re: An elephant in the room

            Drain the swamp? In Trump's universe, this means getting rid of people who have any combination of ethics and competence.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: An elephant in the room

      Yet the article doesn't state the outcome of that discussion.

      Does he still have the access to still up shit?

      1. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge

        Re: An elephant in the room

        Does he still have the access to still up shit?

        Twitter? No.

        Push the red button? Well the briefcase has to be nearby and he has access to the "biscuit". So, yeah. He still can launch the nukes.

        When it comes to Donald, there is a very, very fine line between "going down fighting" vs "going down fighting AND taking everyone else with me". I think I am more afraid of the latter.

        1. veti Silver badge

          Re: An elephant in the room

          You're forgetting: whatever else Trump is, he's also a massive coward.

          That's why his most recent tweets are all positively designed to be read out in court when he's charged with sedition.

          Pressing "the Button" would no doubt be fun, but it would also expose him personally to considerable danger. He's not going to do that.

          1. katrinab Silver badge
            Mushroom

            Re: An elephant in the room

            I don't think The Button is hard-wired to an actual warhead. Flying a nuclear warhead to hit a particular target requires a bit more skill than just pressing a button. My guess is that The Button sends a verified command to a team of highly skilled fighter pilots who would carry out the orders, or not, as the case may be.

            1. chivo243 Silver badge
              Thumb Up

              Re: An elephant in the room

              Dr. Strangelove? Even back then it wasn't just pressing a button, codes were sent, verified and re-verified in triplicate on the delivery plane.

            2. smudge
              Facepalm

              Re: An elephant in the room

              My guess is that The Button sends a verified command to a team of highly skilled fighter pilots who would carry out the orders, or not, as the case may be.

              There is no "Button". The case contains authentication codes to provide assurance to the recipients that the orders to launch have originated from the President.

              And fighter pilots don't fly nuclear missiles :)

              1. Dan 55 Silver badge

                Re: An elephant in the room

                But Trump still fired commanders at the DoD and replaced them with yes men.

                So... do you feel lucky?

                1. mevets

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  That was mainly to make sure the military didn't interfere with his plans to start a civil war. Who is he going to nuke? Russia, uh, no, his boss told him not to. Gina, no his other boss told him not to? SF, ok that is a possibility.

                  Really the only targets for the `great orange jobbie` are in the USA, which while nobody deserves that sort of attack, some places ore more deserving than others. 49.5%.

                  1. First Light Bronze badge

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    Iran, hello! Iran, Iran, Iran. He wants desperately to nuke Iran.

                    1. rcxb Silver badge

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      > He wants desperately to nuke Iran.

                      His only objection to Iran is that they made a deal with Obama. Trump had an easy path to escalate hostilities to all-out-war with Iran when they retaliated for Solemani's assassination, but instead he signaled his cowardice and lied to the US public claiming no US soldiers were injured to defuse the situation instead.

              2. Sgt_Oddball Silver badge
                Mushroom

                Re: An elephant in the room

                Not any more... But there was a time where strike aircraft were designed for just that *cough* Tornado *cough* but they were more for tactical nukes to strike at military targets rather than saturation bombing.

                Nuke icon. Obvs.

              3. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese
                Coat

                Re: An elephant in the room

                And fighter pilots don't fly nuclear missiles :)

                Indeed. Maj TJ "King" Kong was a bomber pilot

            3. W@ldo

              Re: An elephant in the room

              Sorry, it's moronic to even think a president, ANY president, can unilaterally initiate a nuclear strike. There is a procedure for any such action and you would have to also have consent from others that are not politicians.

              Go back to your Netflix binge watching and Twitter is my life--what is funny is folks on twitter will run out of Trump stuff and need to find another target. Eventually, you will start consuming your own.

              1. vtcodger Silver badge

                Re: An elephant in the room

                You folks can find a lot of information -- much of which is certainly correct -- on US nuclear security procedures and interlocks at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link. Might want to read it.

                1. Xalran

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  Except maybe for NK Phat Kim and the Iranians, the Two Man Rule applies in all the other countries that have Nukes.

                  It's a basic safety so that an unhinged president ( lets say : An Orange Clown in a White House ) can't vitrify the world.

                  At this point in time, if The Orange Clown request a nuclear strike, no commanding officer in the Army, the Air Force or the Navy will follow the order, because they know it's an illegal order given by an unhinged loser.

              2. smudge

                Re: An elephant in the room

                Sorry, it's moronic to even think a president, ANY president, can unilaterally initiate a nuclear strike. There is a procedure for any such action and you would have to also have consent from others that are not politicians.

                Depends on what you mean by "consent".

                The President is the Commander-in-Chief, and no one has the power to legally disobey or not carry out any orders that he gives. This was discussed at length early on in Trump's presidency, when a nuclear exchange with North Korea looked very possible. On TV in the UK this morning, we had an American political academic asserting that this is still the case. The system was designed in the Cold War to enable retaliation against the Soviets in the few minutes that may have remained for everyone.

                If you equate "consent" to "folllowing orders without thought or question", then you are correct. However, most people would say that "consent" requires some form of positively "opting in" or "agreeing".

                One would hope that anyone in receipt of such orders from Trump over the next 11 days would question them. However, it is undeniable that that would undoubtedly lead to a court martial. And I would guess that with the military's need to maintain discipline and not have every order questioned, the outcome of that court martial would not be as straightforward as you or I would hope.

                1. W@ldo

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  Sorry, the protocol does not work that way. It is not disobeying to not provide the consent needed to trigger nuclear response. Your BBC propaganda station(s) (note, you have state controlled media) are full of bad information. .

                  1. smudge

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    Your BBC propaganda station(s) (note, you have state controlled media) are full of bad information

                    And presumably the Washington Post also?

                    "Anyone who attempts to contravene a valid, authentic and legal (in the sense of whether the strike package was legal, and all off-the-shelf nuclear strike packages are pre-vetted for legality to some degree) order would be doing so illegally and risk the charge of mutiny. Now, if POTUS ordered a nuclear first strike out of the blue against China or Russia, there would be questions about legality. But if, for example, he ordered a limited nuclear strike against targets in Iran, such as the hardened and buried Fordow enrichment facility, or a complex in North Korea, it would be very difficult to argue that the president did not have the legal right to do that out of the blue if he or she deemed it in America’s national interest."

                    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/08/there-is-no-legal-way-stop-trump-ordering-nuclear-strike-if-he-wants-expert-says/

                    1. jmch Silver badge

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      There is also a grey area around whether the nuclear strike is an act of war. If its retaliatory (soviet era scenario), its a response to a de facto war.

                      If it's a first strike, it could be illegal if construed as an act of war, since although POTUS is commander in chief of the military, the military is subservient to the civilian government, and the only US body that can legally declare war is Congress.

                      1. John Jennings Bronze badge

                        Re: An elephant in the room

                        'and the only US body that can legally declare war is Congress.'

                        And how did Korea, Veitnam, and every intervention since work out then? Since Korea, there have been plans placed upon POTUS desk for the use of Nukes.

                    2. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      And you quote as your source a vanity newspaper owned by an exceptionally sleazy multi-billionaire who hates Trump with a real passion. In fact even more than the lovvies at the BBC and the Guardian

                      The Washington Post ceased to be a serious non-partisan newspaper almost 20 years ago. Take this from someone who read it daily for the previous two decades.

                      You do know that they wrote pretty much the same kind of garbage stories about Reagan in the early 1980's. Will a deranged Ronnie Press the Button. Except back then they were almost all in fringe looney outlets like The Nation. Because back then both the NYT and the WaPo actually had real reporters who knew what the f*ck they were writing about. Not the intellectually third rate liberal arts majors who went to the right colleges and have the right woke credentials which is all the NYT and WaPo hires nowadays. And who wrote the worthless story you quoted.

                      Many big scholarly books have been written on this very subject over the last 60 plus years. The President does not have absolute discretion, in fact almost none, and very much by deliberate design. Its a complex interlocking decision chain. As it was when it was the General Secretary of the CPSU on the other side.

                      1. First Light Bronze badge

                        Re: An elephant in the room

                        It's rich calling Bezos an "exceptionally sleazy multi-billionaire" as opposed to - the exceptionally sleazy, deranged, malignant narcissist, faux-billionaire tax-cheat, insurrectionist grifter Prez.

                  2. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    Under law, BBC is independent from the gov't. If you've seen "Yes, Minister" (you probably haven't), there's an episode or two there that humorously let you know there's still some influence; but the gov't does not run BBC in any meaningful way.

                    People are not worried about the president unilaterally using the nuclear football etc. based on anything from the BBC; this stuff with the nuclear football is widely presented to the public as the president pushing a button, the nukes launch (of course this is silly, even if it was having a machine launch the nukes with no verification, a button is not enough to tell how many to launch and what to launch them at); and since the description of even what it really looks like, what it does, and how it works in any sort of detail, are secret, there's no actual information to say "Well, no, here's how it really works." (I would assume like you do that it involves launch codes and humans in the loop, but there's not a document to point to to tell people "here, read this.")

                    1. Weylin

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      Richard Sharp, the BBC's new governor is a former advisor of Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson.

                      1. 45RPM Silver badge

                        Re: An elephant in the room

                        You know, I run teams of developers who write software for… well, never you mind what they write software to do. But one of those developers used to write games for the Atari 400/800, Vic20 and Speccy. It doesn’t follow that that he’s bringing those skills of game design to the more serious work and rather more powerful hardware that he’s writing software for now. Everyone has a past.

                        The BBC certainly isn’t fault free - but, if anything, I’d say that it’s leaning rather too rightward to accommodate climate change denying, trump supporting wingnuts. That said, on the key issues, it’s broadly correct - it can still be trusted to fact check the news.

                        The editorial is a bit iffy though, granted!

                        1. Combustable Lemon

                          Re: An elephant in the room

                          > You know, I run teams of developers who write software for… well, never you mind what they write software to do.

                          But i want to know now, you've gone and made it all mysterious.

                        2. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: An elephant in the room

                          I feel that one sure-fire of telling the BBC is relatively impartial is the Left complaining it's too right wing and the Right complaining it's too left wing. So, fairly balanced then - ish.

                          1. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: An elephant in the room

                            Ooh 2 downvotes. That'll be one from the left and one from the right :)

                    2. HelpfulJohn

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      Not true.

                      I saw, in the wonderful documentary "White House Down", *exactly* how the "Nuclear Footballs" work. For a start, they aren't shaped like *real* footballs, they are not spherical but are more like USAlien handballs in that they are little suitcase-like portable PC's with internal modems or WiFi. They have voices and little screens and cute buttons. At least I think I remember one of them having a nice, gentle lady voice. Maybe I'm conflating that with the P.O.S. robot ladies in my supermarket?

                      I suppose it is appropriate that they are more USAlien handball shaped as they are intended for use by USAlien Presidents and those guys have possibly never even seen a real football.

                      Anyway, it doesn't matter whether the President launches a strike as the other, slightly saner guys can blow up the missiles while they are in-flight using the robotic tri-headed doggy, Cerberus. Unless they didn't have the funds to repair it after the documentary?

                      Maybe the new President should look into that one?

                      .

                  3. Tomato42

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    you spelled "deep state gubbimint" wrong

                    I know that the past 50 years of Republican propaganda ingrained in you "government service == bad", but that's because for those 50 years Republicans made damn sure to make it so, not because government actions are inherently bad

                    I'll wait 2 weeks for your reply, as I'm sure that so wholehearted opposition of government projects means you use carrier pigeons for your communications, not the DoD developed Internet

                  4. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    Fox has been trump's propaganda channel far more effectively than any state run channel could ever be.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      All MSM in the US is highly partisan.

                      It ceased to be news anymore after the major consolidation of networks that Bill Clinton made possible.

                      Now it's just entertainment and propaganda.

                      1. HausWolf

                        Re: An elephant in the room

                        You mean since reagan allowed the fairness doctrine to go away. It use to be that at the very least a half hearted attempt to present both sides of an argument had to be made.

                2. Wellyboot Silver badge

                  Re: An elephant in the room

                  An out of the blue order to launch1 would result in a lot of Generals2 having a WTF moment and an instant conference call to NORAD.

                  As said above any generals present can give their military opinion but that is all, (faced with a direct order from their commander in chief they can only obey, resign or mutiny) there is no process for ratification by any other body as the system was designed over 50 years ago to guarantee a sufficient nuclear response would launch in the time given by ICBM early warning systems.

                  Having said that, to reach a position in the joint chiefs all will have served under half a dozen incumbents and know fully the possible implications required in defending the nation will attempt a delay (to at least warm up the rest of the military if nothing else) and removing a sitting president takes as long as is needed to get 15 cabinet signatures on a Section-4, 25th amendment letter, everyone has a point where self interest takes priority.

                  1At whom? pre programmed missiles will be aimed at countries with similar and they'd ruin his property portfolio, picking new targets will require some time to generate comfirm & program into the weapons.

                  2or Admirals for the subs

                  1. James O'Shea

                    I'd like to play a nice game of chess

                    Not NORAD. NORAD's the defense guys. They have no links to the subs, the bombers, or the land-based missiles, despite what you might have seen in Holyweird pieces of fluff like War Games. NORAD's only comment would be. to say that there weren't any inbounds detected at this time.

                    It used to be that if the headquarters of SAC, in Omaha, Nebraska, got removed from the command network, launch authority would go to whoever had duty as Alice in the Looking Glass aircraft, but Alice is grounded now that there are no more Looking Glass aircraft; instead. launch command authority goes to the US Navy's TACAMO ('TAke Charge And Move Out') aircraft of which one is over the Atlantic and one over the Pacific at all times; another bit of Holyweird fluff, By Dawn's Early Light, was set in the days when Looking Glass still flew. James Earl Jones was Alice, Martin Landau was the president, and the Russians were obnoxious. In the absence of inbound vampires (hostile missiles are 'vampires' in USN-speak) the TACAMOs will probably request authorization before giving the order to launch, and no one man, not even the president, can authorize a launch by himself unless there's an emergency, where 'emergency' is someone at the National Military Command Center in Washington saying something like "Vampire, vampire, many vampires inbound, confidence is high" and NORAD confirming that, TACAMO won't give the go order without at least two members of National Command Authority saying so. The Prez is just one. The Veep is another, as is the SecDef, the SecState, and either the chairman or all, I can't remember which and can't be arsed to look it up, of the Joint Chiefs. Does anyone actually think that any of them would go with the Prez on this? And this is the one thing that he _can't_ just order, even as commander in chief. And if he just fires the Joint Chiefs, etc, when they won't back him, TACAMO isn't going to take orders from substitutes when there's no emergency. He could fire the guys in the TACAMO aircraft, but they'd just return to base, and their reliefs would also just sit on their hands. What's he going to do, fire the entire USN? The land-based missiles, bombers, and subs will sit unless they get Emergency War Orders from a valid, authorized, source: TACAMO or NMCC or a valid substitute. What is likely toi happen is that someone at NMCC calls the Veep and asks about the 25th Amendment while someone else calls the Marines at 8th and I in DC and a Marine battalion goes and sits on DJT until President-for-less-than-two-weeks Pence (or, if Pence is fired, Pelosi...) tells them to let him up.

                    1. Wellyboot Silver badge

                      Re: I'd like to play a nice game of chess

                      That's a good explaination of how the chain of command & launch verification process works. A lot of thought (over many years) has gone into ensuring there are no grey areas or shortcuts around nuclear weapon deployment.

                      I think everyone agrees a launch order would lead to the 25-A in short order.

                      1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                        Re: I'd like to play a nice game of chess

                        A lot of thought (over many years) has gone into ensuring there are no grey areas or shortcuts around nuclear weapon deployment.

                        Yup. "Right lads, this is Mark 39. He's a 3-4 Megaton device, but don't worry, it's packed with features to ensure it can't be armed or detonated without proper authorization. Watch what happens when I enter this obviously wrong code.. 0000000"

                        Oops.

                        But this is a great read-

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_Control_(book)

                        Albeit somewhat alarming at the number of potential near misses & lessons learned the hard way. The story of the Damascus Titan incident it centers around is a fascinating mix of heroism and near farce.

                        But then there's politics. Pelosi's statement was embarassing given the checks & balances around nuclear weapons safety, including how the chain of command fits in. So in the absence of a functional President or VP, authorisation would pass to her.. which is almost as scarey.

                    2. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

                      Re: I'd like to play a nice game of chess

                      +1

                      "There may be one finger on the trigger, but there are fifteen fingers on the safety catch" (anon)

                      That's from a thread that on pprune at the moment that has come to discuss the same.

                      https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/637927-trumps-swansong-possibly-war-iran-2.html#post10963562

                    3. This post has been deleted by its author

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: An elephant in the room

                    Wrong. Any member of the US armed forces can disobey an "unlawful" order? If the President ordered the Sec Def to order the Joint Chiefs to attack Britain without any provocation detected, they can and would refuse to comply with the order. Period. Generals are not monkeys in the US. Maybe that is not the case in GB.

                    If on the other hand a massive launch of Nuclear missiles were detected coming from China or Russia (0.0000 percent probability that would occur) and he authorized a launch, they would obey, except for a handful. Numerous tests over the past decade have shown that some launch crews in the missile silo have refused to launch even when they believe it was an actual attack happening, knowing that by turning the key it will be the end of human civilization.

                    The Democrats have been saying the "sky is falling" since before Trump was in office that he was a danger and might launch WMD's. It has not happened in the past four years and it won't happen in the next two weeks. And if you really believe it, then you have been bought and sold by the propaganda machine. Nancy Panic "Karen" Pelosi is just trying to continue to divide the country because she wasn't successful the first go around impeachment.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: An elephant in the room

                      Nurse! He's out of bed again!

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021