The President of the United States of America tweeted this.

Yes, and increased browser/OS/hardware/GPS-counterchecks. Though the latter are rolling out for everyone now.

Having said that, what would a hacker do with this account that Trump isn't already doing?

...apologise?

Yes, Two factor authentication is what I meant by TSV (Two Step Verification). Still, that's available for everyone.

I believe that for accounts like the official POTUS one, they've got a number of measures in place which aren't accessable to any of us. IIRC, they've got a "hardware lock," so that only pre-approved devices can access the account, and they have a direct phone line so that if an account is compromised (say the President loses his phone, or if he screws up while trying to change the password and can't get access to it) they can immediately get the problem solved, and not have to deal with tech support hell.

I love this shit!
The Democrat controlled media can bash on Trump all day.
Trump points out that they hate him so bad yet they came to his property and it's a big deal.

Of course you wouldn't think that a president should be above childish bickering.

I like that he fights back. We don't need the media deciding what the president should or should not be doing and the media should be telling the facts and not speculation from a political party that cannot come to grips with the fact they lost the election.

Welcome back!

I said to a Facebook friend during the campaign that in wrestling parlance, he was stirring up cheap heel heat from the marks.

2020 is set in place. It's Trump v media. Regardless of who challenges him ( lol who do the Dems have)? He's going to act like a 14 year old internet troll and the red state bubba's are gonna cheer and secure his reelection

They have Liz "Woo woo woo woo" Warren. Maybe she do some kind of dance that will help them win.

Seriously who the hell is gonna run against him? They're begging tom Hanks to run.

Warren, franken?

It'll probably be Corey Booker so we can all be called racists again. Considering the 2016 republican primary was the most diverse I've ever seen (cubans, blacks, Indians, women,) I don't think it's gonna fly.

If the Democrats were smart they would at least consider Andrew Cuomo. I read in Governing magazine that he has done a pretty good job in New York but that for some reasons the progressives have never really warmed up to him.

Of course he is like Elizabeth Warren. Both from states the Democratic nominee is going to win no matter what. this is a result of having a nonexistent Democratic bench. Your major officeholders are all from fanatically Democratic states anyway.

The key for Democrats is the same as it was for the Republicans in 2016.

That is who can flip the states from Pennsylvania through Wisconsin.

If the democrats were smart they wouldn't be democrats.

The Democrats have gone from being liberals to fascists. The party has been hijacked by the deplorables of society.

Uh huh.

Go back and bold the part where I said "EVERY Stien vote ANYWHERE helped hand the election to Trump. 'Cause I'm not seeing it.

no more so than the same sort of attacks against 4 of the last 5 previous presidents - none of whom responded like a third grader.

there's a marked difference in bad conduct which takes place in a private setting, unlikely to ever gain public notice (and had it not be for a shit-ton of GOP fishing, it wouldn't have) and purposely doing bad conduct in front of the world in the most high profile manner you can think of.

Not to say bad behavior is ever okay, but when the subject is soiling the dignity of the office ON PURPOSE - trying to sneak a private blow job is not comparable to what Trump's doing.


As you well know.

remarkably, there are in fact adult, dignified, self-controlled, sane ways to "fight back" - if one happens to be any of those things.

you mean the diverse cast of folks none of you backwards fuckers would actually nominate?

Are willing to say they are equally deplorable?

If one assumes the proposition that Dems need to eschew Blue state ultra liberals and tack towards the middle (about which there's considerable debate) then in that scenario there's one very obvious candidate who could likely kick Trumps ass - Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana.
(I'm not conceding the premise that a more notoriously liberal candidate like, say, Kirsten Gillibrand or Chris Murphy is an auto-loss, just saying for the sake of argument)

the actions themselves, on a purely moral basis? Generally equivilant.
(depending on the level of agency you ascribe to Lewinsky)

In the context of the specific point about WILLFULLY damaging the office of the presidency? Not even close.

I live in Iowa. Caucused for Cruz. And be won Iowa. I did my part to stop Trump

I disagree with the notion that there is a contingent of WWE fans who believe it's all real.

If you are a subscriber to the WWE Network it would be hard to miss all the backstage scenes between the writers and the talent. Plus McMahon pulled the curtains back many years ago with the announcement that its all entertainment. You also have the numerous blogs tracking the talent contracts and storylines. Debates about who should be heel or face etc.

It's not really a secret anymore.

However, the gist of your argument for Trump is spot on. He's playing a part that he knows his fans will eat up. It's all an act

You don't try to engage in intelligent discourse with a toddler. It makes one look foolish. Why should Trump make himself look foolish?

Lol. It's like they're a party of gay Indians or something.

There's such a thing as proportionate response. Joe and Mika critiqued him over substantive policy. Trump replied with a personal attack. That's not fighting back, that's throwing a hissy fit.

It's not just the media. A fair amount of GOP officials condemned the tweet.

But.....but Hillary! But......but emails!

That will work with the old Bush 30% but I am not sure it will work with anyone else. Especially when older folks see their health insurance premiums go up 500% because of Republicare.