Will The Trump Tweet That Starts World War III Have A Typo?

Donald Trump just sent out a tweet and deleted it. The tweet quoted Julian Assange favourably, and insisted that the Russians didn't give the DNC's hacked emails to Wikileaks. Why did the president-elect delete the tweet? Did he suddenly realise that it looks rather un-presidential to contradict your own intelligence agencies so publicly? No, Trump had simply spelled Assange's name wrong.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The original tweet:

Trump quickly fixed the tweet, changing "Assuage" (which, of course, is a real word that means to satisfy an appetite) to "Assange" (which, of course, is also a real word that means megalomaniacal arsehole).

This is starting to become a pattern with President-elect Trump. A few weeks ago, he rather infamously tweeted that China had stolen a US Navy drone, calling it an "unpresidented" act. And while plenty of people poked fun at Trump about the slip up, it shows that there's absolutely no filter between Trump and the rest of the world.

We all make mistakes. But when you're the most powerful human on the planet, those mistakes (even minor ones like typos) can have major consequences. Trump's Twitter has the power to start a war and move markets in whichever direction he pleases.

Just look at what Trump did yesterday after criticising General Motors. Trump was ranting about a Chevy car that he said was made in Mexico (most are made in Ohio, but that's a whole other issue) and threatened the company with a "big border tax." GM's stock immediately plunged following the tweet.

Which leads me to the central question of this post? Will the tweet that inevitably leads us to a very real diplomatic standoff with a near-peer adversary contain a typo? And will Trump bother to delete it and try it over again? It would be pretty embarrassing if the tweet that starts World War III contained a spelling error or two. And it definitely wouldn't look good in the post-apocalyptic pile of bricks that they will call the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library, Museum, and Fallout Shelter.

Just a thought. Guess we won't know until it's too late.



    How about everyone gets off his back until he starts being the president and he actually does something wrong. Obama lied to get people to vote for him and he did the exact opposite of what he said he'll do as soon as he got into office. He hardly got the vitriol that Trump is getting now. Obama was as two faced as you can get.

      What did Obama lie about? What was the thing he did that was the opposite of what he said he'd do?

        nothing to see here, look over there, dont feed the trolls

          Peepee (sadly) doesn't fit the accepted definition of 'troll' - or if he does, he's a very regular and persistent one. No, Peepee is just the comment section's token Lib-Nat spruiker and all-round nice guy, so it doesn't come as any great shock to see him on the pro-Trump bandwagon as easily as he usually rides the pro-Abbott one. Maybe Peepee is George Brandis ;-)

        Look it up. I haven't got time.

          Right. Well that's a convincing argument.

            He's been educated by Trump on this matter: Fabricate a lie or hyperbole, then say it in a vociferous, belligerent tone. Blind followers and partisan drones will lap it up without checking facts, then spread it virally. Everybody else will know that's a cynical lie, but as long as enough mentally lazy people (or smart ones, who stand to profit from it) end believing the lie, you win the argument! You don't even need to go over 50% of an established base, just close enough, knowing that your party has the means to manipulate the outcome with outdated technicalities.

        Chose not to close Gitmo. Was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and is the only president in history to be at war every day he was in office. Let America's large banks get away with the biggest financial scam in history. Dude's no saint.

          No replies to your statement. Interesting when libs get backed into a corner with facts.

          None of those are lies. The only one that comes close is Guantanamo, but the Republican-controlled Congress and the Pentagon actively fought Obama each time he tried to close it, including an attempt in the first year of his first term to shut the facility down and move the prisoners to American soil, which was blocked by Congress.

          It will remain a black mark on his record for not being able to accomplish it, but it wasn't a lie. There was no intentional deception, he fully intended to close the facility and made several attempts to do so. He may well not be a saint, but that wasn't what was being talked about.

          Last edited 10/01/17 2:42 pm

            Ok how about his claim for the most transparent presidency? Under Obama, the US govt set a new record of withholding FOIA requests, and also used the Espionage Act to prosecute more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined. Tell me that wasn't a two-faced lie.

            Last edited 10/01/17 10:45 pm

              Alright. Sorry for the long reply but you raised a few issues there that need a bit of discussion.

              There's a few problems with the FOI claim. The first is that it goes on raw numbers when percentage would be more valid, given that the number of requests during Obama's presidency reached and continued to exceed record levels with double-digit growth each year. It's natural that more requests will have correspondingly more rejections.

              The second is that the figure is useless on its own: FOI rejections are done for several reasons including inability to find records, requests refusing to pay for copies or improper requests (eg. the forms were filled out in gibberish or couldn't be understood). Only part of the requests are denied on exemption grounds (eg. when an agency rejects the request for security reasons). When you look at full exemption rejections across both Bush and Obama presidencies, you find that the rejection percentage during Obama's entire first term was less than the rejection percentage during Bush's final two years in 2007-2008 (Wasike B, FOIA in the age of Open Gov 2016). While overall rejections were high in the second term, exemption rejections were only slightly higher than 2007-2008 levels and certainly weren't record numbers.

              On the other hand, he has taken several steps to increase transparency. He reversed the Bush administration's Ashcroft memorandum (one of the worst attacks on FOI since the act's introduction in 1974), and issued new guidelines ordering the presumption of disclosure instead of the opposite under his predecessor. He also advanced two law changes to the FOIA, the most recent of which was the FOIA Improvement Act signed in in mid 2016.

              Transparency is much more than just FOI as well. Obama's administration introduced the Open Government and Open Data initiatives, significantly increasing public access to operational records and financial data from every government agency without the need for FOI requests in the first place. This affects the statistics because those would previously have been successful FOI requests, but are now excluded. In whole, even factoring the increase in FOI exemption rejections, government information is both more available and more accessible than in any prior administration.

              Regarding the Espionage Act, the numbers claim is technically correct: out of 11 uses of the Espionage Act since its introduction, seven occurred during the Obama administration. However, two cases (Stephen Kim and Jeffrey Stirling) were not whistleblowers, they simply leaked classified intelligence on North Korea and Iran (respectively) to the media. Of the remaining five cases, two were inherited from the Bush administration and were already underway and out of the administration's hands by the time Obama assumed the office.

              This leaves three uses of the Espionage Act against whistleblowers during the Obama administration, up from two during the Bush administration. It also specifically only examines the use of the Espionage Act, and ignores other methods governments have historically used to silence leaks, including administrative sanctions and charges of theft of government property (as most publicly used in 2002 against a DEA agent who leaked information to British press). So yes, it's still the highest use of the Espionage Act out of any presidency, beating the previous administration by one, but not nearly as bad as the original claim.

              Both of the things you raised (increase in FOI exemption rejections and increase in use of the Espionage Act) are bad things that the Obama administration should be criticised for, and I'm also critical of them both. But objectively, they're fairly small factors in the overall issue of transparency, especially compared with the fairly significant legal changes and initiatives introduced during Obama's presidency.

              To use an analogy, if five people are pushing a cart forward and one is pushing backward, and the cart is ultimately moving forward, it's perfectly fair to criticise the fact one person is pushing backward but I don't think it's reasonable to characterise the effort nor the result entirely by that one person.

              For the record, I think vigilance like you're doing is important and should be encouraged. I just think the conclusions you came to are selective and don't represent the full body of available facts. Please don't take my response as critical of you, only your conclusion.

              Last edited 11/01/17 10:16 am

                Well said mate, thanks for the thorough response.

      Peepee - how did I KNOW you'd be on the 'Drumpf apologist' side ? :-)

        I'm not on anyone's side but I'm saying wait till the guy actually does something. For all we know, he won't do anything. I just hope he rips up the TPP agreement. Hilary would of kept it.

          He hasn't stopped doing shit, none of it good, and he hasn't even got the job yet.

            He just opens his mouth (or twitter account) and drivel comes out, stupid dumb drivel.

      How about everyone gets off his back until he starts being the president and he actually does something wrong
      I think he's done a few wrong things.
      1. Conflicts of interest
      2. Nominate cabinet and secretary positions despite clear conflicts of interest
      3. Nominate a chief diplomat with no diplomatic experience
      4. Nominate a recent (2013) miltary serviceman as Sec Defence, despite this being against The National Security Act of 1947 (must be retired at least 7 years)
      5. Nominate a creationist with no Education experience as the Sec. Education
      6. Nominate a Sec. Energy a man who forgot what the DoE was, and wants to abolish it
      7. Rush vetting of appointments, despite ethics committee not fully vetting due to lack of nominee-supplied evidence
      8. Call out companies on Twitter for moving jobs outside of america (in the Toyota case it;s actually from Canada to a planned site under construction in Mexico - he got both the source and destination locations wrong) impacting shares to the tune of AUD$8B+ in market capital
      9. Call out companies on Twitter for cost of projects that started well before Obama (JSF, AirForce 1) impacting share prices
      10. Repeatedly deny Russian hacking of government and DNC, include other sovreign states in tweets about recent hack (China) potentially impacting relationships and the intelligence agencies who are confident and have proof Putin organised the hack to impatc the election
      11. Tweet about increasing nuclear arsenal, weakening any previous anti-nuke deals
      12. Flip-flop on his Mexican wall - it can also now be a fence in some places

        Look, we all know he talks shit but I doubt he'll do anything, period. Anyway, he's been voted in and there's fuck all we can do about it, so all this grizzling is for nothing. Relax people.

          Scrutiny and criticism are part of the responsibilities of democracy. Leaders don't magically gain free rein simply because they were elected, they remain beholden to the people they represent every day they're in office. No elected leader of any country has been immune to this and Trump is no exception. He will be scrutinised and criticised for the entirety of his term, just as all his predecessors have been.

          While I agree that he shouldn't be held accountable for things he hasn't yet done, there are several things he has done in preparation for assuming leadership. Those things can and should be subject to public scrutiny.

      Again, You seem to be of the belief that since trump has been elected, He is someone now exempt from any criticism what so ever.

      Like i have said in your previous idiotic comments. Did you afford obama the same privledge?

      Trump is getting vitrol for the things he has said, Not because he has lied (Which he has already)

      Last edited 09/01/17 2:37 pm

        Yes he talks shit, yes he's a dickhead but I think everyone is carrying on a bit too much. All this doom and gloom reminds me of the Y2K2 bug and what happened there. Sweet fuck all. Also, Presidents are just puppets for all the Power men behind the scenes. Trump will have to toe the line or he'll be bumped off.

          Oh I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is bumped off fairly sharpish by his 'own' side (the alt-right and the fascists) anyway, with the aim of making it look like a 'hit' from the left and/or Islam. No doubt anyone but an idiot will see through it for what it is, but 'post truth' and the voter base that got him there (and are in for disappointment if he stays) means there will be a lot of angry Americans when it happens. He'll end up a 'martyr' for the alt-right, which is totally not what he was expecting (he got into this for his own egotistical, greedy reasons, being waaay too stupid to know what was at stake or the forces he set in motion) ...

          Last edited 15/01/17 4:40 pm

      It's sort of fitting considering Trump used the 'show us your birth certificate' non-sense as a stepping stone to political relevance. I understand that you don't like hearing it, but he has been knee deep in this sort of slime for a long time. This is the arena he chose.

      Also like it or not this is extremely relevant. No matter how it seems from the language used in this article this isn't about him being good or bad it's about the fact that the Trump brand is inflammatory. He's making statements on behalf of the entire country now and that really clashes with the way he behaves on Twitter. The US is very dependant on the international community sucking up to it. If he alienates that community it's going to have serious ramifications. As over dramatic as it sounds, yes, those ramifications could include war.

    What's sad, is that he will no doubt survive any catastrophe he starts and still be in charge afterwards, tucked up safe in a nuclear fallout shelter while the rest of us dig through the pile of shit he created.

    People need to be watching Doofus ... I mean PEOTUS and his inner circle very carefully. It would be child's play to buy up stocks he hammers with his tweets when they dip? And then sell when he talks them up again in his flip-flop ways. In fact if I actually had spare cash to invest, it's a strategy I might follow myself - except of course for me its not a conflict of interest nor a 'strategy' I'll have an 'inside angle' on like his peeps will. "Hey Eric, you want some cheap Haliburton stock ?" "Yes dad" "Ok, watch this tweet - I'm gonna hammer 'em !"

      Hey, anyone wanna short-sell Toyota? Watch this tweet...

    Hillary Clinton pretty much promised war with Russia which would have been WW3. I'm less inclined to think that Trump will start WW3. He may, he just has less chance than Hillary would have. But he'll probably start a civil war which would be just as bad in the long run.

      If anyone can start WW3 over a tweet, it's Trump.
      Between the former Chief Diplomat of the US and the guy who tweets insults to war veteran's families and beauty queens, I think Trump has the greater chance of starting WW3.The man has:
      a. Indicated he will use every tool at his disposal to eliminate ISIS
      b. Indicated the US needs to use Nukes since it has them
      c. Not ruled out the possibility of nuking Europe to eliminate ISIS
      d. Indicated the US should have used nukes to get oil in the past (despite radioactive oil bing bad)
      I look forward to the updated doomsday clock update.

      On the other hand, evidence that Russia has hold onto dirt on Trump suggests that they want an easily manipulable puppet head on the American chair. I'm not sure what is worse, but I believe that the possibility of war is a public enough issue that could have discussed and negotiated until possibly reaching at least a tense agreement. A highly emotional and narcissistic ignoramus going to lengths to protect the only thing he's ever shown truly caring for, his brand, can happen behind scenes without anybody ever knowing the true impact of the Russian agenda.

    Is there a plugin that replaces pictures of Donald Trump with something else? You know, something in the vein of Stop Tony Meow.

    Nobody will start WW3 with a tweet, because despite what some hyperbolic tech journalist thinks, international politics doesn't revolve around social media. Idiotic reactionary selling of shares is one thing - mobilising armies is another entirely.

    Nobody wants war right now, despite the rhetoric.

      Nobody wants war right now
      I think you'll find history is full of people thinking that, right up until there's some sort of act of war or coup. Like the Falklands War, numerous invasions during WW2, the invasion of Kuwait, and a dozen coups, China building military runways on islands, the list goes on.
      because despite what some hyperbolic tech journalist thinks, international politics doesn't revolve around social media
      Yeah, but some nations don't have open lines of communication, and some other states are looking for any reason to go to war.
      Before social media it was press releases, and sometimes even meetings on neutral ground. It's a bunch of pissing competitions, and games of military chicken.
      The cold war was basically a whole heap of "nobody wants war right now despite the rhetoric" Sure there was no Twitter, but there was media, dodgy translations, and quotes out of context like "we will bury you"

        The Cold War never went hot - because despite the political posturing and media hype, neither the US nor the USSR actually wanted a war, particularly a nuclear war... despite having multiple opportunities and points where it seemed (either obviously or disclosed after the fact) that war was inevitable. It never happened though.

        Trump will wave his dick around, China will respond in kind, and nothing will change. Why go through the expense of a war when you can keep exporting cheap electronics?

          It nearly did a number of times, through false alarms, and accidental training scenarios being left in computers. Reading up on some of those near misses is bloody scary, especially reading that the Soviets gave control of nukes to field commanders, to retaliate.

          Now being dismissed as all fake, you had reports of Pakistan threatening Israel with nukes the other week. http://gizmodo.com/pakistani-minister-tweets-nuke-threats-israel-after-r-1790486395
          Who knows how the Cold War would have played out without the modern internet, twitter, fake twitter accounts, fake news, and mainstream media fact checking issues.

          Why go through the expense of a war when you can keep exporting cheap electronics?
          To make people rich via the Military–industrial complex?

            That's my point - it never went hot because cooler heads prevailed. Nobody really wanted to start a nuclear war. If a false alarm triggered a launch event, nobody would probably know after the event.

            Social media wouldn't change anything - nobody goes to war over a tweet. That's ridiculous. They have better reasons to go to war. That's overstating the power of what is essentially shitposting.

            The military industrial complex benefits from smaller conflicts like Iraq or Afghanistan. Full scale mobilisation with modern war will almost certainly have a loser, and no company wants to be on the losing side. There's no big conspiracy behind the curtain - a world war is awful for everybody, and even worse if you lose.

              In several nuclear near-flashpoints during the Cold War, the cooler heads that prevailed were the US president and Soviet premier (eg. Kennedy and Khrushchev) and would have gone to conflict if not for their specific intervention. Do you really imagine Trump would be able to exhibit the same level of cool-headedness if he were in a similar position?

                He probably won't get the option. We don't really know what Trump will do - all we've seen is the political caricature he used to get into office. Political rhetoric and actually pushing the button is a totally different thing,

    "Assange" (which, of course, is also a real word that means megalomaniacal arsehole).

    Wow Gizmodo, new low.

    Obviously this repeated pattern can't all be typo's. The new precedent can't spell for shit.

    Last edited 10/01/17 2:16 am

      I dunno, watching Dueterte in the Philippines makes me wonder how many translation mistakes, misunderstandings, context issues, and misquotes a president can get away with.

    "Assange" (which, of course, is also a real word that means megalomaniacal arsehole).

    I am no Trump supporter but I find it odd how quickly opinion on Assange has shifted in left-leaning media.

      They only liked him when he was saying stuff that benefited them. The media's commentary and stance (across the political spectrum) on Assange is very insightful.

      It's not just left media, right media and Trump himself have done the same but in reverse. In 2010 Trump said he thought Assange should get the death penalty, but all seemed forgiven as soon as Assange had dirt on the Democrats. On the other hand Trump gave glowing praise to the CIA only two years ago, but now the Russian campaign is exposed he insists the CIA are incompetent jokes.

      It seems he'll change his allegiances and loyalties at the drop of a hat. It certainly doesn't paint the picture of a principled man.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now