Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Government Republicans United States Politics

Donald Trump Is Sworn In As the 45th US President (reuters.com) 1560

Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States on Friday, succeeding Barack Obama and taking control of a divided country in a transition of power that he has declared will lead to "America First" policies at home and abroad. Reuters reports: As scattered protests erupted elsewhere in Washington, Trump raised his right hand and put his left on a Bible used by Abraham Lincoln and repeated a 35-word oath of office from the U.S. Constitution, with U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts presiding.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Donald Trump Is Sworn In As the 45th US President

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20, 2017 @01:32PM (#53704191)

    Nobody rushing the stage shouting "You are the greatest monster in human history!" while blasting away?

  • by PackMan97 ( 244419 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @01:34PM (#53704219) Homepage
    He's been sworn in for almost an hour now and no nuclear war....exceeding expectations.
    • by blind biker ( 1066130 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @01:44PM (#53704373) Journal

      As a European (from Finland, and a Hitchensian socialist and anti-theist), I've felt the policies of secretary of state Clinton on my daily life, and am convinced she's a warmonger. I haven't gotten that vibe from Trump. If anything, he won't meddle in middle eastern conflicts trying to change governments, and seems in good terms with the greatest nuclear power after the USA. So in terms of nuclear war, or regional wars, I think we'll be better off.

      Again, I'm saying this as someone who's not a US citizen, nor do I share the American culture or history in any way. I'm looking out for the interests of my family and me, and am glad Hillary isn't president.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 20, 2017 @01:58PM (#53704531)

        Im Irish and from what I've seen, there has been an enormous smear campaign against him especially from CNN and all the way back to Jeb Bush who tried to destroy him and fell flat on his face. There's nothing wrong with putting your country first and America's prosperity is good for Europe. My only concern is that he has establishment enemies, liberal extremelist enemies, and radical islamic fundamentalist enemies. The secret service need to be up to the task. I believe he is a good man for the most part.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I'm Russian and the fake news media have been really unfair to this second coming of Jesus Christ mixed with Albert Einstein. I think he will bring peace and prosperity to the entire world, except evil Chyna, unlike that world war loving monster Hillary Clinton and that Kenyan muslim Hussein Obama. Also, all the protesters are paid actors hired by Soros, all REAL Americans love this hero, just look at the record breaking turnout for his inauguration! #MRGA

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nwaack ( 3482871 )
        What a well thought out and rational post. Unfortunately, here in the good ole USA that sort of thinking will immediately get you labeled as a racist, woman-hating, homophobic, deplorable dumbass by Hillary supporters. All hail the two-party system. Yay!
      • by chispito ( 1870390 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @02:02PM (#53704573)

        I'm looking out for the interests of my family and me, and am glad Hillary isn't president.

        In all the circus of ridicule and horror at Donald Trump constantly blasted by the media, people forget just much dread there was at the prospect of Hillary Clinton.

        Some people are afraid of someone who is unpresidential and a blowhard and unapologetic and probably needs to think more before speaking.

        At the polls, more people were afraid of someone who has been trying her hardest to appear presidential for the last 24 years.

        • by chispito ( 1870390 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @02:04PM (#53704605)

          At the polls, more people

          *more people in swing states

        • by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @02:08PM (#53704661) Homepage

          Technically speaking, about 3 million more people voted for Hillary than Donald. It's just that, thanks to our electoral college system, those votes were divided up such that he won.

          (Not saying his not a legitimate President because of that fact. We can argue about whether or not the electoral college should be changed going forward, but those were the rules going in and should be respected as such.)

          • Right... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @02:23PM (#53704907) Homepage

            But he won the game. And that was the point. And had it been about the popular vote. Trump would of campaigned differently, focused only on the large cities. And since he would of got almost all of the rural votes by default, he'd only have to swing a few points in a couple of cities. And he could of easily won the popular vote.

            But what point is there in winning a few million more votes in California to be popular if it doesn't help you get elected?

        • by Fire_Wraith ( 1460385 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @02:48PM (#53705293)
          There are certainly reasons to dislike, and not favor, Hillary Clinton - but I find that far more often the caricature that people think of her as is nothing remotely like the reality, in part because she's had 24 years of being turned into a target, primarily by the right, but also by the far left.

          Take the perception that she's a warmonger, for instance. I mean, sure, she's not a pacifist or a dove by any stretch of the imagination, but there's a large amount of difference between someone that's willing to entertain military solutions to international crises, and someone who actively goes looking to pick a fight. People blame her for supporting the Iraq War, which is fair - but she wasn't one of the ones pushing it, nor can anyone believably argue that she'd have chosen to invade Iraq had she been President instead of Bush-43.
          More importantly though, she is first and foremost a -rational- actor in terms of international policy. She is calm, calculated, and deliberate. She's not likely to fly off the handle, overreact, or wind up in over her head in a dispute with her prestige on the line. Consider 2008 - do you think Trump would have conceded gracefully the way she did to Obama, never-mind agreeing to work for him in a role that wasn't even the number 2 spot? I think it far more likely he would have flown off the handle, and threatened to retaliate however he could.

          I realize that some people seem to think that Trump will be different now than he has been in the past, but I have yet to see anything in his track record to give me any indication he can be someone other than who he continues to show us that he is - thin-skinned, proud, incapable of taking a slight or backing down from a confrontation. Explain to me again why this is more reassuring than someone who is an old hand at foreign policy and a known commodity?
        • by Daemonik ( 171801 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @09:58PM (#53708735) Homepage

          ...people forget just much dread there was at the prospect of Hillary Clinton.

          The "dread" you speak of was only by people who watch FOX exclusively and believe Youtube videos are real. The GOP spent decades demonizing Hillary, going so far as to put her on trial for Benghazi SEVEN TIMES. They still never found anything they could indict her for. Hell, they raked her over the coals for supposedly abusing her charity while pretending it didn't matter when Trump was accused of the same.. the GOP, defining the term "double standards" since at least the 80's.

      • by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @02:10PM (#53704683) Homepage

        The few Finns I've talked to seem rattled by Russia's annexation of Ukraine. Like Crimea, Finland was once a territory of Russia. So I expected that Finns would not be happy about having a US president that doesn't support NATO and has almost forgiven Russia for their acts in the Ukraine. Finland has been moving to join NATO for over 10 years.

        • The rest of NATO spending 2% of GDP on their military is the _last_ thing Russia wants.

          Europeans uncomfortable with the dominance of the USA should also be 'all for it'.

          Europe has rebuilt, it's not 1946 anymore. Being against paying for the defense of Europe is not the same as being against Europe having defense.

      • by lexman098 ( 1983842 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @02:11PM (#53704713)
        The republican won't meddle in middle eastern affairs? The guy who thinks the Iran deal was "bad" isn't more likely to lead to nuclear or regional wars? What planet are you living on? Nuclear war (or traditional war in general) with Russia is extremely unlikely no matter who takes office. More importantly though, we're already at cyber war.
      • by Britz ( 170620 )

        Unfortunately, politics is a little more complicated than this. We don't know what the best answer to Putin's aggression is. Giving him Crimea without any protest and ending the sanctions might make him more hungry. Finland (along with the Baltic states) could be high on his list for future aggression. Finland has an advantage over the Baltic states, though, because Finland isn't in NATO.

        Besides, what gives you a non-warmonger vibe from Trump? Have you heard him talking about ISIS or Iran? He seems ready fo

      • Absolutely agree, Hillary was endeavoring to establish a new Cold War with Russia. Over largely baseless accusations, and actions that utterly pale in comparison to what America has done to its rivals and even its allies.

        Meanwhile, folks think rich always want war. And perhaps certain wars benefited oil moguls, etc. But Trump is a real estate billionaire. Hotels, resorts, properties. War is NOT GOOD for those type of businesses. First off, tourism plummets, second their buildings are often destroyed. So I

  • by sethstorm ( 512897 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @01:36PM (#53704239) Homepage

    Less H1-b fraud/abuse, more regular employment for those that want it, and a climate where anyone can succeed - not just those that identify correctly.

    Even if one opposes him, one should be hoping for success.

    • by gnick ( 1211984 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @01:43PM (#53704347) Homepage

      Even if one opposes him, one should be hoping for success.

      Absolutely. Personally, he frightens me - I feel like he's too impulsive to wield that much power. But if he does poorly, we all lose. I wish him nothing but success (assuming that his definition of success is close enough to my own.)

      • Not impulsive at all (Score:5, Interesting)

        by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @01:48PM (#53704421)

        It amazes me that people continue to believe Trump is impulsive. There's nothing impulsive about anything Trump does; it's all extremely calculated. If I didn't know better I was say the press were in collusion to spread that myth in order to make people underestimate Trump, but as usual Occam's razor applies and the press are just full of idiots.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cryptizard ( 2629853 )
          How about when he trash talked John Lewis on MLK day because John Lewis hurt his feelings by saying he wasn't going to the inauguration? Calculated move?
          • by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @02:47PM (#53705287) Journal

            Yes, it was calculated.

            Because the press was going to spend every moment describing how "valiant" John Lewis was, and how "Heroic" a person he was and .....

            Trump disengaged it instantly with a tweet, that got everyone talking about something else ... Trump.

            And the only way to get that tweet some traction was to say something "outrageous". And ... You ... Took ... The ... Bait. He won, John Lewis is sitting out and nobody cares. Trump has won that round.

            Even if you hate the guy, if you underestimate him, you'll lose every time. That is why he won, and Hillary lost. Because in spite of all the media lined up against him, he distracted the narrative they were trying to paint. Only a few smart people can see past the buffoonery act because it is that powerful. And I believe it is an Act.

        • by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @02:50PM (#53705321) Journal

          They're not stupid. They're just smug. Liberals in general got full of smug somehow. Gone are the days of men from working class backgrounds rising to power. Smug weenies rule the left in the USA. Their strategy in the face of the current distress seems to be, "We weren't smug enough. We need to pile on more smug".

        • by randallman ( 605329 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @05:33PM (#53707059)

          "He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured."

          “An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud”

          “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists And some, I assume, are good people.”

          “Our great African-American President hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore.”

          “It’s freezing and snowing in New York – we need global warming!”

          “My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body.”

          “My IQ is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure; it’s not your fault.”

          "Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?"

          "If she gets to pick her judges – nothing you can do, folks. Although, the Second Amendment people. Maybe there is. I don’t know."

          “When Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water."

          "I’ve been treated very unfairly by this judge. Now, this judge is of Mexican heritage. I'm building a wall, OK? I'm building a wall."

          "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's, like, incredible."

          "We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated."

    • by NecroPuppy ( 222648 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @01:44PM (#53704355) Homepage

      You think there's going to be ~less~ fraud and abuse under a Trump presidency?

      He's got a Dept. of Education cabinet pick who blames a clerical error on her being VP of her mother's charity for 17 years, an HHS pick who passed laws to specifically help his stock picks (and I don't mean made it easier to trade stocks - he bought stocks and then helped pass laws that made those company's stock prices go up), and a pick for Sec State who wants to reduce sanctions on Russia so his former company, Exxon (they're tiny, you might not have heard of them), can get billions of dollars worth of investment off the ground there, also helping his stock prices.

      Shine on, you crazy diamond.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        You think there's going to be ~less~ fraud and abuse under a Trump presidency?

        He's got a Dept. of Education cabinet pick who blames a clerical error on her being VP of her mother's charity for 17 years, an HHS pick who passed laws to specifically help his stock picks (and I don't mean made it easier to trade stocks - he bought stocks and then helped pass laws that made those company's stock prices go up), and a pick for Sec State who wants to reduce sanctions on Russia so his former company, Exxon (they're tiny, you might not have heard of them), can get billions of dollars worth of investment off the ground there, also helping his stock prices.

        Shine on, you crazy diamond.

        Yes, even if all that's true it pales in comparison to what Clinton would have done.

        Did you that the "Clinton Global Initiative" just shuttered operations? I mean, who could have seen that coming? You'd think since she isn't President of the USA she would have more time for her, um, charitable work. It's almost like it was a massive scam meant to give the Clintons a slush fund to live the big life on "donations" from people who wanted to buy influence. Nah, couldn't be.

        http://www.inquisitr.com/38991... [inquisitr.com]

        • by Fire_Wraith ( 1460385 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @02:34PM (#53705091)
          Yes, just think about what terrible things the Clinton Foundation did, like:

          Raised $313 million for R&D into new vaccines and medicines;
          Helped provide better maternal and child survival care to more than 110 million people, and;
          Provided treatment for more than 36 million people with tropical diseases.

          Even worse, it spent 88% of its 2014 outlays directly on programs (rather than overhead) and that it only has to spend $2 to raise $100. A performance that poor gives it a solid "A" rating from charity watchdogs. We're all clearly better off without groups like this funneling money from rich donors to help poor people in underdeveloped countries around the world.
          Source: http://fortune.com/2016/08/27/... [fortune.com]
  • by ghoul ( 157158 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @01:39PM (#53704291)

    Now watch the the EB Green Card cap being abolished. If all the H1Bs get Greencards salaries will go up as they will start jumping around.

  • by swm ( 171547 ) <swmcd@world.std.com> on Friday January 20, 2017 @01:52PM (#53704473) Homepage

    I watched him take the oath of office.
    He looked grim.
    Or impatient.
    Or maybe annoyed.

  • Divided Country? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RoccamOccam ( 953524 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @02:04PM (#53704599)
    The U.S. is almost equally divided after every Presidential election. Why is it that this phrase is only trotted out when a Republican is sworn in?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Maybe because this is the second Republican in a row to lose the popular vote but win the electoral college.
      • by RoccamOccam ( 953524 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @02:35PM (#53705103)
        Popular vote, not electoral college results, are the only relevant factor when discussing a "Divided Country".

        Going back 32 years, the winner always take less than 54% of the popular vote (Bill Clinton only got 43% in '92). Pretty divided *always*.

      • The rules haven't changed.

        Yeah, it seems crazy that a President can win an election with fewer votes than his opponent. In programming, we call an "edge case." An edge case doesn't always require a rewrite, or throwing out the system. Edge cases are anomalies that sometimes need to be accounted for, but more often we just live with them because it's too expensive to fix them all. Can you imagine having to recount all votes nationwide, in case of a close election? It's much more manageable to recount just vo

  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Friday January 20, 2017 @02:08PM (#53704665)

    I think my major concern with the next few years is that he's a bit of a loose cannon. You don't want a loose cannon who's obviously quite sensitive when pushed on things negotiating with other countries or making impulsive decisions that are hard to undo. I doubt he'd start a war (intentionally) but I really think he has to lay off the late-night Twitter. Telegraphing exactly what bothers you to your adversaries isn't a smart move. Sure, you can argue it's all a show, but some of the anger he's displayed with the press, his critics, etc. show that it's very hard to hide his feelings and just keep quiet.

    Here's what I'm mainly worried about -- now that Trump's President, the gloves come off of every single loud-mouthed, opinionated angry citizen who loves to moan and complain. By providing an example of "acceptable" behavior via his constant personal attacks on people, I think he's going to signal to everyone that they no longer need to be civil to one another. I know a lot of people who just aren't happy unless they're railing loudly against anyone and anything. Having that be the starting point for any discussion or debate for the next 4 or 8 years is going to lead to further retrenchment of people into their respective camps. I for one can't stand engaging with people who come out swinging, looking for a fight on every little thing...it's just not a personality type I'm interested in dealing with. The world's complex enough already and life's short, so why waste processor cycles arguing pointlessly?

    One thing I did like about the Obama years was that he was a very approachable President. Even when the political rancor was at its worst, with a few exceptions he took the high road in these arguments. I doubt we're going to see that very much anymore -- it's going to be years of angry press conferences and sound bites.

  • In today's newspaper there's an article that says the new administration still has 3500 (out of 4000) political positions to fill, far more than previous administrations. Has Trump been taken by surprise by his own success?

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

Working...