The Official Former President Trump thread

[Bishop Briggs]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

I'm going to split hairs here.  #posttruth is the concept that an unverifiable opinion is as valid as a fact.

Those who believe that Obama was not a U.S. citizen despite there being no verifiable evidence are #posttruthers.

Of course no one who proposed such an unfounded view could ever hold high office in the U.S. could they?

Then again no one who proposed or supported or were willing to believe such a view could ever be considered a racist; after all it's purely coincidental that the target of such malice was black.

What a bunch of pish.  FWIW it's a legitimate position to question May's premiership if you question the legitimacy of FPTP.  Questioning the validity of the electoral college is no different.  Being unwilling to attend the inauguration of a racist/sexist/mysoginistic/xenophobe is an equally legitimate stance.

W was a service dodging, lying, right wing arsehole but there were few who argued that his inauguration should be boycotted.

 

Myths about Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement - http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/15/us/mlk-myths/

"Myth 4: He believed in equality for all

"There was one group of people King couldn't quite judge by the content of their character: women. One of the worst kept secrets of the movement is that King was a sexist.

"The civil rights community was led by male ministers who didn't grasp the concept of gender equality. Women weren't initially allowed to speak at the March on Washington until one of them wrote a letter of protest to the march's organizer. Sexual harassment and even sexual assaults were not uncommon".

 

[welshbairn]

Women were generally treated appallingly in the sixties, just look at the Kennedys, Rosemary in particular. It's like judging Ghengis Khan on his attitude to prisoner welfare.

[pandarilla]

Right wing conservatives blatantly opposed civil rights in the 50s and 60s. It's a bit rich to turn round and criticise king for not being a feminist.

[Paco]

2 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

What a bunch of pish.  FWIW it's a legitimate position to question May's premiership if you question the legitimacy of FPTP.  Questioning the validity of the electoral college is no different.  Being unwilling to attend the inauguration of a racist/sexist/mysoginistic/xenophobe is an equally legitimate stance.

W was a service dodging, lying, right wing arsehole but there were few who argued that his inauguration should be boycotted.

 

Yes, and questioning the Electoral College / FPTP would be relevant if Congressman Lewis had said Trump was illegitimate on those grounds. He didn't - he said "I don't see the President-Elect as a legitimate President. I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton".

In other words, he just can't handle it. 

If he'd said he was boycotting because of Trump's past statements, I'd have no issue. Several Democrats have already done so - nobody really batted an eyelid. It doesn't really matter. Nobody cares. Saying the winner of a democratic election is illegitimate is inflammatory. 

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

1 hour ago, Paco said:

Yes, and questioning the Electoral College / FPTP would be relevant if Congressman Lewis had said Trump was illegitimate on those grounds. He didn't - he said "I don't see the President-Elect as a legitimate President. I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton".

In other words, he just can't handle it. 

If he'd said he was boycotting because of Trump's past statements, I'd have no issue. Several Democrats have already done so - nobody really batted an eyelid. It doesn't really matter. Nobody cares. Saying the winner of a democratic election is illegitimate is inflammatory. 

I actually agree with this to be honest. Trump should be attacked for the things he personally has said and done, as unless Russia actually interfered with the process of the election itself, it doesn't make his victory less legitimate.

I'm never entirely clear how much power the President has to act unilaterally, but it is really concerning that he's so thin-skinned and impulsive.The American versions of Sir Humphrey must be sh*tting themselves.

I'm sure it's been said before on here, but if you don't have Twitter you really don't get a full impression of what a f*cking loonball Trump is.

 

[welshbairn]

11 minutes ago, Carl Cort's Hamstring said:

I actually agree with this to be honest. Trump should be attacked for the things he personally has said and done, as unless Russia actually interfered with the process of the election itself, it doesn't make his victory less legitimate.

I'm never entirely clear how much power the President has to act unilaterally, but it is really concerning that he's so thin-skinned and impulsive.The American versions of Sir Humphrey must be sh*tting themselves.

I'm sure it's been said before on here, but if you don't have Twitter you really don't get a full impression of what a f*cking loonball Trump is.

 

You don't need to join Twitter see what a loonball he is: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump

He talks about saving jobs but it's just firms hoping for political capital by announcing what they had already planned ages ago. Small cars that don't sell well in the States will be built in Mexico, medium to large and more complex electric cars will be built north of the border. 75,000 Americans lose their jobs every day, mainly to automation. He's saved maybe 800.

Edited January 15, 2017 by welshbairn

[Granny Danger]

6 minutes ago, Carl Cort's Hamstring said:

I actually agree with this to be honest. Trump should be attacked for the things he personally has said and done, as unless Russia actually interfered with the process of the election itself, it doesn't make his victory less legitimate.

I'm never entirely clear how much power the President has to act unilaterally, but it is really concerning that he's so thin-skinned and impulsive.The American versions of Sir Humphrey must be sh*tting themselves.

I'm sure it's been said before on here, but if you don't have Twitter you really don't get a full impression of what a f*cking loonball Trump is.

 

I suppose it's how you interpret "interfered with the process of the election".  FWIW I think he would have won without Russian hacking, though his recognition of Russia's activities had to be drawn like teeth.

Going off on a tangent, I wonder if we are going to see any real changes in the Democratic Party over the coming months.  I'm concerned that Clinton's ability to win the popular vote by a significant margin will be used as an excuse to ignore how poor her campaign was and how the Democrats failed to engage with a large number of voters.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

3 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I suppose it's how you interpret "interfered with the process of the election".  FWIW I think he would have won without Russian hacking, though his recognition of Russia's activities had to be drawn like teeth.

Going off on a tangent, I wonder if we are going to see any real changes in the Democratic Party over the coming months.  I'm concerned that Clinton's ability to win the popular vote by a significant margin will be used as an excuse to ignore how poor her campaign was and how the Democrats failed to engage with a large number of voters.

You'd think that they'd realise that it was a disaster, but  there will be a lot of people who are too invested in the current setup to want anything more radical. It's such a shame the way it turned out because, had Sanders won the candidacy, Trump is probably one of the only people that he potentially could have beaten. I wouldn't be surprised if both parties are looking at changing their systems to make it even harder for people like Trump and Sanders to get anywhere.

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, Carl Cort's Hamstring said:

You'd think that they'd realise that it was a disaster, but  there will be a lot of people who are too invested in the current setup to want anything more radical. It's such a shame the way it turned out because, had Sanders won the candidacy, Trump is probably one of the only people that he potentially could have beaten. I wouldn't be surprised if both parties are looking at changing their systems to make it even harder for people like Trump and Sanders to get anywhere.

I've always found it difficult to understand how the Democratic Party machine in the states works and how it interfaces with the elected representatives.  I'm not sure if the thing is run by a handful of powerful behind-the-scene types but the support for Clinton gave that impression.

One other anomaly, or at least apparent anomaly, is that there seem to be a few radical ( in U.S. terms) Democratic Congressmen and Women but few radical Senators.

[Deplorable]

8 hours ago, pandarilla said:

 

You seem to be suggesting that when black Americans are in charge of things, society goes to shit. You're not though are you? Are you?


 

That's pretty clearly what I said. It's the reality of things. Do you not agree? Take Selma as an example. At the time of the famous march which John Lewis helped lead, the city was around 50% white / 50% black. Today the population is much more geographically segregated. The racial wealth gap is massive. The public school system is 99% black, not much different than the old segregated schools. The main differences is that now Selma is 20% white and will fall below 5% in my lifetime almost assuredly. Also, the chances that black people will be the victims of violence is many orders of magnitude higher. The black political leadership has failed. John Lewis failed. He won the war, but not the peace. Trump is entirely right to call him out. Coddling the people who have failed because they were on the right side of an issue 50 years ago needs to stop if we are going to have progress.

 

Quote

And getting back to your point about conservatives being more morally astute...does that apply throughout history? Or just 21st century conservatives?

It's not about being morally astute, or about one way of thinking being right. It's that the foundations for making moral judgements are different.

[dorlomin]

11 hours ago, Deplorable said:

The most famous work is The Righteous Mind by Jonathon Haidt, a social psychologist from the University of Virginia. His basic point is that there are six foundations which form moral systems: care/harm, fairness/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Tests show that lefties heavily use their beliefs on the first two in their moral judgements, while conservatives use their beliefs on all six in somewhat roughly equal measure.

Haidt at no point would call "lefties" "retarded". And given he cleaves that way himself I doubt, nay very very strongly doubt, he would pass such a value judgement on the differing moral frames of reference. I like Haidt, he has provocative things to say. I dont agree with them all but its a good kind of stirring. 

But again my original point, it takes some truly eye watering lack of self awareness to cite Haidt, who relies heavily on the not so well respected field of evolutionary psychology, while supporting an administration that is hostile to evolution.

Another point I will raise for the wider audience.

 

The criteria you are saying we are "retarded" for not weighing heavily "authority","in group", "purity" I am out loud and proud not to weigh those values heavily in my moral world. "In group" values would have me waving union jacks and singing well known "party" songs. I walk my own path. Haidt is also a very strong critic of Trump and his authoritarianism.

[Deplorable]

29 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I've always found it difficult to understand how the Democratic Party machine in the states works and how it interfaces with the elected representatives.  I'm not sure if the thing is run by a handful of powerful behind-the-scene types but the support for Clinton gave that impression.

One other anomaly, or at least apparent anomaly, is that there seem to be a few radical ( in U.S. terms) Democratic Congressmen and Women but few radical Senators.

 

Why is that odd? You have to appeal to a broader constituency to be elected to the Senate.

[dorlomin]

9 hours ago, banana said:

Weird you mention Haidt, was watching this earlier on Social Justice vs. Truth at universities, and how the social justice mindset infests wherever it can.

Haidt is pretty clear that social justice is a very good thing. He is also clear that this is about liberalism of both the left and the right vs a small but vocal group of activists, he is very clear things like woman's rights have been beneficial to society but his contentious issue is that a over molly coddled generation is turning to institutional authority to enforce their own values and this reducing the diversity of opinion on campus.

Worth listening to this minute or so bearing in mind this is a thread about Trump. Haidt places him and the Alt Right in their place.

 

[Deplorable]

9 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

Haidt at no point would call "lefties" "retarded". And given he cleaves that way himself I doubt, nay very very strongly doubt, he would pass such a value judgement on the differing moral frames of reference. I like Haidt, he has provocative things to say. I dont agree with them all but its a good kind of stirring. 

But again my original point, it takes some truly eye watering lack of self awareness to cite Haidt, who relies heavily on the not so well respected field of evolutionary psychology, while supporting an administration that is hostile to evolution.

Another point I will raise for the wider audience.

 

The criteria you are saying we are "retarded" for not weighing heavily "authority","in group", "purity" I am out loud and proud not to weigh those values heavily in my moral world. "In group" values would have me waving union jacks and singing well known "party" songs. I walk my own path. Haidt is also a very strong critic of Trump and his authoritarianism.

You misread the context of "retarded." I should have used a word that would have made my point more clearly.

Yes, he's a lefty who tries to explain to lefties how conservatives think and reason. His research shows that lefties can't do this naturally. They consistently misread conservatives, and are thus at a disadvantage.

[dorlomin]

Just now, Deplorable said:

Yes, he's a lefty who tries to explain to lefties how conservatives think and reason. His research shows that lefties can't do this naturally.

Funny how that when you pull at the strands the point that appeared to be made falls apart. His fundamental contention is not that the left cannot understand the right but there is a need for a greater diversity of views in academia. That all humans are constrained by their innate or learned moral outlooks. His other point is that illiberalism is rising fast in the US, he is known for targeting left wing illiberalism but he cites Trump as being as big or bigger a threat, check his tweets for example.

Quote

They consistently misread conservatives, and are thus at a disadvantage.

What disadvantage? He does not place value judgements on systems of moral reasoning. He is all about diversity of political\moral outlooks being included in the discussion, he also cites right wing think tanks and church groups as being equally locked into echo chambers.

[Deplorable]

Haidt has shown that leftists can't predict conservative reactions to situations with any degree of accuracy, while conservatives can predict leftist reactions. His theory is that this is because conservatives use a wider moral foundation that includes the values of lefties, but also other values which lefties have trouble comprehending. One of his goals is to show leftist politicians how to appeal in a better way to people who are naturally conservative because of their moral foundation, but might benefit, as he sees it, from left wing policies. Hillary Clinton campaigning extensively with the mothers of criminals shot by the police is an example of this blind spot that leftists can have. At least that's what I understand his motives to be. He says he started studying this because he couldn't understand how white working class people voted for Bush over Kerry.

BTW, he's not the only person who's noticed a version of this situation and commented on or studied it. He's just the most famous in current academia.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Deplorable

[dorlomin]

4 minutes ago, Deplorable said:

His theory is that this is because conservatives use a wider moral foundation that includes the values of lefties, but also other values which lefties have trouble comprehending.

"Wider moral foundation".  Are you getting this of a blog or something. I am pretty sure Haidt would not say that "wider" unless I am missing context. "Trouble comprehending"? Do "righties" have trouble comprehending people who do not bow before authority and flags?

Quote

One of his goals is to show leftist politicians how to appeal in a better way to people who are naturally conservative because of their moral foundation,

You keep skimming over all his criticisms of your beloved Trump and his crew. You also seem to be trying to make him say things he is not. You seem to be imposing value judgements on someone who is assiduously about observation.

[Deplorable]

I'm sorry if I'm not being clear, but it appears you are arguing right past what I am saying. I don't have much training in writing and was not the best at that subject in school. 

 

[Jacksgranda]

2 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

I suppose it's how you interpret "interfered with the process of the election".  FWIW I think he would have won without Russian hacking, though his recognition of Russia's activities had to be drawn like teeth.

Going off on a tangent, I wonder if we are going to see any real changes in the Democratic Party over the coming months.  I'm concerned that Clinton's ability to win the popular vote by a significant margin will be used as an excuse to ignore how poor her campaign was and how the Democrats failed to engage with a large number of voters.

Probably, like all politicians they'll continue to blame the voters for their own failings.

[DrewDon]

Fair play to Mikey Gove for landing the first UK post-election Trump interview: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/donald-trump-interview-brexit-britain-trade-deal-europe-queen-5m0bc2tns (£). I don't feel like I am exaggerating when I say that some of Trump's responses genuinely read like they have come from the moaning man down the pub who has had one too many. Incoherent, intellectually featherweight and his speaking style is really quite strange. Full interview in spoiler. 

Spoiler

During the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Donald Trump had an insult for every rival. Marco Rubio was “little Marco” and Jeb Bush was “low energy Jeb”. These jibes were more than just debating techniques to unsettle his opponents. They were carefully designed to draw a contrast between The Donald and The Others. Because when you meet him you realise there is nothing, absolutely nothing, small-scale or low-wattage about America’s president-elect.

Donald J Trump appears like a man who has been plugged into some power source where the dial has been turned up to levels well beyond what the safety regulations would recommend. His skin glows a sodium orange, his hair is blonder than any human you will have encountered and his clothes are in primary colours so bold they make everyone else in the room seem dowdy.

Ever since a Virginia farmer called George Washington launched his bid for glory, the British have had a tendency to underestimate American presidents. Especially Republicans. When Abraham Lincoln was in the White House, our government sympathised with the Confederacy. When Ronald Reagan was commander-in-chief, the British foreign policy establishment derided him as a trigger-happy cowboy who was in danger of pitching us into a third world war.

But no Republican, indeed no president, has come to office facing anything like the level of scorn and condescension from British politicians and commentators as Mr Trump. When we talked last Friday, however, he had nothing but kind words and generous sentiments for a nation he believes will be his strongest ally.

I was invited to see the president-elect, along with my colleague Kai Diekmann, from the German newspaper Bild, because Mr Trump wanted to chat about Britain, Brexit, Europe and the world. The Trump team knew that Kai was close to German chancellors, from Kohl to Merkel, and was aware of my role as a campaigner for Brexit. We chatted, on and off the record, for an hour in his corner office in Trump Tower, surrounded by mementoes of his past successes, commercial and political.

British politicians tend to hide photographs, cartoons and front pages that chronicle their careers in the loo to appear self-deprecating. With Mr Trump, everything is on display in his glitzy, golden man cave, from admiring profiles in magazines to Christmas cards from world leaders.

And, ultra-competitive as he is, the president-elect was particularly keen to remind me that, almost alone among international figures, he had had the natural good judgment to foresee our departure from the EU.

“I sort of, as you know, predicted it. I was in Turnberry [his Scottish golf course] and was doing a ribbon cutting because I bought Turnberry, which is doing unbelievably, and I’ll tell you, the fact that your pound sterling has gone down? Great. Because business is unbelievable in a lot of parts in the UK, as you know. I think Brexit is going to end up being a great thing.”

And would he, as our government hoped, move quickly to seal a new trade deal with the UK? “Absolutely, very quickly. I’m a big fan of the UK, we’re gonna work very hard to get it done quickly and done properly. Good for both sides. I will be meeting with [Theresa May] — in fact if you want you can see the letter, wherever the letter is, she just sent it. She’s requesting a meeting and we’ll have a meeting right after I get into the White House and . . . we’re gonna get something done very quickly.”

The president-elect is much less sanguine about the future of the EU itself. A combination of economic woes and the migrant crisis will, he believes, lead to other countries leaving. “People, countries, want their own identity and the UK wanted its own identity. But, I do believe this, if they hadn’t been forced to take in all of the refugees, so many, with all the problems that it . . . entails, I think that you wouldn’t have a Brexit. This was the final straw that broke the camel’s back. . . I believe others will leave. I do think keeping it together is not gonna be as easy as a lot of people think. And I think this, if refugees keep pouring into different parts of Europe . . . I think it’s gonna be very hard to keep it together because people are angry about it.”

While he expresses admiration for Angela Merkel, Mr Trump believes that she made “one catastrophic mistake” by welcoming an unlimited number of Syrian refugees. More than one million migrants from north Africa and the Middle East arrived between 2015 and 2016. He adds that he believes the West should have built safe zones in Syria — paid for by the Gulf — to limit the surge. “I think she made one very catastrophic mistake and that was taking all of these illegals, you know taking all of the people from wherever they come from. And nobody even knows where they come from.”

There is no rancour or glee in his prediction of the break-up of the EU, quite the opposite. His demeanour is warm and genial, the flame-throwing rhetoric of his rallies and press conferences replaced with showers of compliments. He describes Jean-Claude Juncker as a very fine gentleman, and says that he has great respect for Mrs Merkel.

His pessimism about the EU is rooted in his view of it as anti-jobs and anti-growth. And it springs, as so much of his world view does, from his experience as a businessman rather than any ideological preconception.

“I own a big property in Ireland, magnificent property called Doonbeg. What happened is I went for an approval to do this massive, beautiful expansion — that was when I was a developer, now I couldn’t care less about it . . . but I learnt a lot because . . . they were using environmental tricks to stop a project from being built. I found it to be a very unpleasant experience. To get the approvals from the EU would have taken years. I don’t think that’s good for a country like Ireland. So you know what I did? I said forget it, I’m not gonna build it.”

Mr Trump’s view is that Europe is dominated by Germany, and Britain was wise to extract itself: “You look at the European Union and it’s Germany. Basically a vehicle for Germany. That’s why I thought the UK was so smart in getting out.”

Mr Trump’s hostility to the EU has been matched by his scepticism towards another pillar of the postwar order, Nato. But the president-elect was at pains to emphasise that he is committed to the defence of Europe and the West. His concerns are, principally, that Nato had not reformed to meet the main threat that we face — Islamist terrorism — and its members had relied too heavily on America. “I said a long time ago that Nato had problems. Number one it was obsolete, because it was designed many, many years ago. Number two the countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to pay. I took such heat, when I said Nato was obsolete. It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying Trump is right.

“And the other thing is the countries aren’t paying their fair share so we’re supposed to protect countries. But a lot of these countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which I think is very unfair to the United States. With that being said, Nato is very important to me. There’s five countries that are paying what they’re supposed to. Five. It’s not much.”

Strengthening US defences was at the forefront of Mr Trump’s mind during our conversation and he went into significant detail off the record about weapons programmes, procurement and Pentagon reform.

He’s no Kissinger and you’d no more expect him to discuss Clausewitz and Kennan than set fire to his own hair. But intelligence takes many forms. And Mr Trump’s number-rich analysis of defence spending reflects a businessman’s ability to cut through jargon to get to the essentials of a case.

The same Trump who uses gladiatorial press conferences and CAPITALISED tweets to hurl huge crude blocks of rhetoric at opponents is also the master of the P&L accounts and the determined negotiator who sees government as a failing corporation ripe for re-engineering.

Mario Cuomo, former governor of New York, once said that American politicians campaign in poetry and govern in prose. Mr Trump campaigned in 140-character Twitter storms and intends to govern by spreadsheet. So when I ask about, for example, Iran he makes it clear that his approach is that of a man who doesn’t want to see his country suckered again.

“Well I don’t want to say what I’m gonna do with the Iran deal. I just don’t want to play the cards. I mean, look, I’m not a politician, I don’t go out and say, “I’m gonna do this” — I’m gonna do, I gotta do what I gotta do . . . But I’m not happy with the Iran deal, I think it’s one of the worst deals ever made, I think it’s one of the dumbest deals I’ve ever seen . . . Where you give . . . $150 billion back to a country, where you give 1.7 billion in cash. Did you ever see $100 million in hundred-dollar bills? It’s a lot. 1.7 billion in cash. Plane loads. Many planes. Boom. 1.7 billion. I don’t understand. I think that money is in Swiss bank accounts.”

It is not just foreign leaders at whom he vents spleen. The invasion of Iraq, he argues, was “one of the worst decisions, possibly the worst decision, ever made in the history of our country. It’s like throwing rocks into a beehive.”

Mr Trump’s transactional approach to politics means he wants to avoid taking up fixed positions towards other leaders too soon. He intends to give them the benefit of the doubt initially. And he hopes such an approach can lead to de-escalating international tensions. Specifically, he floated the idea of reviewing sanctions on Russia if President Putin is prepared to move away from confrontation. “They have sanctions on Russia — let’s see if we can make some good deals with Russia. For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that’s part of it. But Russia’s hurting very badly right now because of sanctions, but I think something can happen that a lot of people are gonna benefit.”

Despite a strong desire to improve relations with Russia, Mr Trump was unequivocal in his condemnation of its role in Syria. He was also implicitly critical of President Obama for failing to restrain President Assad and Mr Putin. “It’s a very bad thing, we had a chance to do something when we had the line in the sand and . . . nothing happened. That was the only time. And now, it’s sort of very late. It’s too late . . . But Aleppo was nasty. I mean when you see them shooting old ladies walking out of town — they can’t even walk and they’re shooting ’em — it almost looks like they’re shooting ’em for sport — ah no, that’s . . . a terrible situation.”

Talking of Russia inevitably brings us to the allegations that the Kremlin has compromising material garnered during a Trump visit to Moscow for the Miss Universe contest. The president-elect is, unsurprisingly, dismissive of the allegations but he did express disquiet at the involvement of a former MI6 officer.

“That guy is somebody that you should look at, because whatever he made up about me it was false. He was supposedly hired by the Republicans and Democrats working together. Even that I don’t believe because they don’t work together, they work separately and they don’t hire the same guy. What, they got together?

“When I just heard it I ripped up the mat . . . If I did that in a hotel it’d be the biggest thing. They’d have me on the front page of the New York Post, right? And the other thing, I can’t even, I don’t even want to shake hands with people now I hear about this stuff.”

Despite all of Mr Trump’s expressions of admiration for Mr Putin and Mrs Merkel, he revealed that he was prepared to cut ties with both: “Well, I start off trusting both — but let’s see how long that lasts. It may not last long at all.”

Mr Trump’s conversation flows like a river in spate, overwhelming interruptions and objections, reflecting the force of nature that is the man. But it would be a mistake to think that he is all instinct and impulse. He wants to bring to governing the same calculating business style that he has brought to communicating. While he has been criticised for tweeting attacks on everyone from Meryl Streep to the civil rights hero John Lewis, he has no intention of abandoning Twitter because he believes it gives him a direct connection to the American people.

“@realDonaldTrump I think, I’ll keep it . . . so I’ve got 46 million people right now — that’s a lot, that’s really a lot — but 46 million — including Facebook, Twitter and ya know, Instagram, so when you think that you’re 46 million there, I’d rather just let that build up and just keep it @realDonaldTrump, it’s working — and the tweeting, I thought I’d do less of it, but I’m covered so dishonestly by the press — so dishonestly — that I can put out Twitter — and it’s not 140, it’s now 280 — I can go bing bing bing . . . and they put it on and as soon as I tweet it out — this morning on television, Fox — ‘Donald Trump, we have breaking news’.”

Breaking news is one thing we certainly won’t be short of with President Trump in the White House.

"It’s a lot. 1.7 billion in cash. Plane loads. Many planes. Boom. 1.7 billion. I don’t understand."