this post was submitted on 11 May 2025
105 points (99.1% liked)

politics

23571 readers
3173 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A foreign-supplied aircraft is pretty much guaranteed to be filled with listening devices, and won't have the protective measures that are built into the US Air Force One. Not to mention the bribery problem with planning on using it for personal use after leaving office.

all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't know why anyone thinks that Trump is more likely to spill state secrets to a listening device installed on Air Force 1. Qatar could just give him money and he will tell them whatever he wants to tell them, probably for a lot less than the cost of an aircraft. We should assume all state secrets are compromised.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

More specifically, this lets them eavesdrop on phone calls with other world leaders in flight, conversations he might have onboard, and email/cell communication onboard. All of which the Qatari government will be selling to the rest of OPEC, I'm sure.

Watch for more "gifts" like this from EU countries as they try to close the intel gap.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

True, but do any world leaders really expect privacy when they have calls with Trump? Like if you met Donald Trump for the first time, knowing absolutely nothing about the guy, how long do you think it would take for you to realize that you shouldn't share secrets with him?

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemm.ee 14 points 1 week ago

Look at this lovely wooden horse.

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Expressly forbidden by the Constitution:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

No presents without Congressional approval. We know Congress is a bunch of spineless removed, but they have not given permission. Nor should they.

[–] Archangel1313@lemm.ee 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Wasn't he already having a new one built? Are we just going to scrap that, and waste all that money?

It’s all laundering anyway. The money was never going anywhere good with this administration.

Wake up, America… Please… poke

[–] sprite0@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

two, he's having boeing make two of them

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hey jackass You're not allowed to take the Air Force One plane with you.

[–] blueeggsandyam@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

He shouldn’t be able to but he is definitely going to take it with him.

[–] BostonSamurai@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Just openly breaking policy and laws and no one is going to care never mind do anything.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Wait a 747? Isn’t the current Air Force 1 already a 747? I thought it’d at least be a chonky A380 or something.