Talk:Donald Trump/Archive3

Biting the bullet
Are there any other examples of the 'inappropriately greased bullet' apart from the Indian Mutiny and the General Pershing story? 86.191.20.133 (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's achievements
This header started on What is going on at CP? - and should (also) exist here.

What are his achievements?


 * Not causing WWIII yet.
 * Persuading the rest of the World to rely less on what the US/its leadership can or will do.

Others? Anna Livia (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

'The living embodiment of Poe's Law.

How soon before Godwin's Law is invoked? 109.146.55.74 (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Dating problems
I'm reading the article start to finish and it feels like there's some severe problems with dating. Like, it was written in time past but hasn't been updated for the current day. I'm kinda whacking things as I go, but it feels like it doesn't deserve it's silver brain with how these are written. 17:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Mexico/the Caribbean
No sympathetic comment on the earthquake and hurricanes.

Very sad.

Very bad.

LOSER. 109.150.43.52 (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Badmouthing the Puerto Rican governor. Bad form. 86.191.0.40 (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Next target for diplomacy
This place. Any other possibilities? Anna Livia (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

trump wasn't a heel in WWE
look, i mean, this is saying nothing about the man himself or his politics, but he was a face in WWE. Trump and Bobby Lashley (who looks shockingly like a battletoad) were supposed to be the good guys, squaring off against the evil Mr. McMahon and Umaga. the Mr. McMahon character was not only always a heel, but he was one of the most heinous, overtly evil heels the company has ever had, and the angle was designed to put Lashley over as a new top babyface. unfortunately at the time Lashley wasn't very good at wrestling and he has the head and voice of a scared child somehow attached to a frighteningly jacked meat golem, so it didn't work so well. fun fact: trump's "champion" was initially supposed to be the famed mexican-american luchadore Rey Mysterio Jr. however, Vince McMahon changed his mind at the last minute because he didn't think Trump picking a little guy would be believable. knowing what Trump thinks of Mexicans now, however, this may have been for the best.

24.220.49.58 (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Like the Roman
Will The Donald achieve what JEP feared? 86.191.0.40 (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Is Donald Trump an anti-science and anti-tech Luddite?
Here's the source that says that Trump is a Luddite when he speaks about the "age of computer":

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-technology-luddite-233067

Plus, there's a supporting source that he called computers and the Internet "a wholly mixed bag":

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2014/12/19/trump-sony-has-no-courage-no-guts-its-extortion.html

And he views digital technology such the USS Ford-class carriers' digital catapult system as "bad to him":

http://time.com/4775040/donald-trump-time-interview-being-president/

On turning his anti-tech Luddite views into policy: here's a source where he omits Internet networks from list of infrastructure goals:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2017/live-updates/trump-white-house/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-trumps-address-to-congress/trump-omits-internet-networks-from-list-of-infrastructure-goals/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.2a28406e372d

I think this warrants the fact that Trump is just an anti-science and anti-tech Luddite, and is not a fan of tech who helped him propelled into office. -- Bryan See (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Or continuing the tradition of 'the tubes of the internet.' Anna Livia (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A reasonable argument cat be made that Trump is anti-science from the ass-clowns that he appointed to e.g., NASA (Jim Bridenstine, climate change denier), DOE (Rick Perry, climate change denier, and forgot he wanted to eliminate DOE), EPA (Scott Pruitt). However it's a big leap from being anti-science to a Luddite: he's addicted to TV (Fox News) & his iPhone (Twitter): not much of a Luddite, he just uses technology selectively. The first reference you give says, "He's sort of a Luddite." Bongolian (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We all have 'bits of equipment/technology' which we are in favour of and those we are Luddite to varying degrees with (for many people the latter would include self-service machines which fight back). However with most of there is no direct impact on the future of the world beyond 'supply and demand'. Anna Livia (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Trump belongs in the Homophobes, Anti-Semites, and Insufferable assholes categories
He spoke at the Values Voter Summit and Liberty University, never mentioned Jews at the Holocaust memorial speech and said on the campaign to a Jewish group "I don't want your money" and "I bet 99.99% of you renegotiate deals", and is overall an ar$ehole.
 * —ClickerClock (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Enablers does a good job at covering the possibility that Trump himself isn't anti-Semite but he sure is cozy and complacent with other anti-Semites. 22:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

MAGA
For a site that calls itself "Rational Wiki", there's an alarmingly irrational hatred of Donald Trump on here. #MAGA 68.188.68.66 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh it's very obvious what this site is about and what its contributors seek to accomplish. The very title "RationalWiki" is the epitome of arrogant. Those who are legitimately rational can display it in their words and deeds; they have no need to drive it home. It's like when a closeted gay person makes sure that everybody knows they're 100% straight. Their ardent defence of feminism, atheism, and criticism of GamerGate and websites like YouTube suggest to me that they're some kind of fringe remnant of the Atheism+ movement. The frequency of activity here suggests to me that this site has maybe like a couple hundred or so active users. TL;DR, they're a gaggle of washed-up losers. Harmless losers, but losers nonetheless. Probably best to just ignore them and let them fade into obscurity. --23.17.210.180 (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)CLP
 * And yet you still decide to make talk posts here. 19:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Big beautiful goals
How many of DT's goals has he achieved? Anna Livia (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Check the Trump o Meter. —ClickerClock (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Blowing a Trumpet
Where are the latest bigly beautiful quotes?

What is the relationship between Trump quotes and truthiness? Anna Livia (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Buttons
What no reference yet?

'Superficial Freudian analysis' anyone? Anna Livia (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Trumps says he's a genius on Twitter
From his twitter:

A genius who doesn't know how to use ellipses properly. It's three periods not four. 23:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * His first try my ass, he ran a few cycles back but chickened out. Comrade GC (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And he uses English, like, really well.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Taking the psis on ellipses. 109.158.61.202 (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Encounters
The Donald meets this chap. Who blinks first? Anna Livia (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Due process
It's probably worth mentioning Trump's hypocrisy on legal due process, connecting his behavior on the falsely-accused Central Park Five case, and the accused wife beater on his staff, Rob Porter. Any suggestions on where to shoehorn this in? Bongolian (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The Wall
Is Trump's wall this one? 109.148.156.121 (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

So much for "Rational" Wiki
Why don't they just call this site "Safe Space Wiki" or "Liberal Snowflake Wiki" already??? 204.184.14.156 (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you need a safe space? 20:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

William Shakespeare
From Macbeth How apt? Anna Livia (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ...Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
 * That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
 * And then is heard no more. It is a tale
 * Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
 * Signifying nothing

Dinesh D’Souza
We should talk about how Trump recently pardoned Dinesh D’souza. (LuodiWang (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC))

ah, i see this is a liberal wiki
so as usual its gonna be MUH IMBREACH GUMPF HE RAYCIST FOR STOPPING ILLEGALS yadda yadda yadda i have nothing more to say and so i bid you farewell forever may you remain eternally butt hurt


 * It's nice to see illiterate children making constructive contributions to the wiki. Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Dude. You need to visit the Trumptastic Wiki. It's more your street. Dysklyver (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't take anyone who insults my intelligence while failing to properly capitalize and punctuate their sentences seriously. (Not to mention ignoring the instructions at the top of the page when they begin editing, due no doubt to their righteous fury.) 18:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You guys need to learn to ignore. 21:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.” Anna Livia (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Really Long Article
This article is pretty long, to the point that it's getting kind of difficult to navigate. Should we consider trimming it? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We can consider splitting off before trimming it. I'm not really all that confident on what information should be trimmed though, but I think at least the Russian connection part can be turned into its own article. The other sections... I'm not sure what some are about at a glance. 18:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's probably a good idea to split off some of the material. Trump franchises affiliates ("Becoming the Swamp") would be a good one to split off, as well as "The Russian connection" which is likely to grow. Bongolian (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I support creating a new page for "the Russian connection." I personally thought this article is getting a little unwieldy. Glad I am not the only one. Nerd (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You guys may wanna head over to my sandbox. I would love to have your input before I actually create that new page. Thanks! Nerd (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think decline of democracy is more generally applicable, so it should be part of the Donald Trump article. 03:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a reasonable extraction from the current article. Bongolian (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Dysklyver (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool. So "Decline of democracy" stays here. Do we have an agreement? Any other major changes you guys want? Nerd (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What about "Iran"? I think that section needs more explanation. Otherwise, I think it belongs to "Donald Trump". Nerd (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Trumpocalypse seems disjoint from the article. It should be merged to an existing subsection and probably moved to a higher spot given it implies he's president and that's more current events right now. 18:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Policies of Donald Trump is synonymous with "Trumpocalypse", according to whoever created that article. I gave the link to that main article. Nerd (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Like with the other place's' article, a large chunk of this is about the election and what happened in that period. Now this leaves us with two options; either split off the old content and keep updating this article with new Trumptastic information as it happens. Or the second option, which is to split off the new controversies into new articles and update those other articles, leaving this one more or less the same. Just be warned, the other place has 926 articles about Trump and counting... Dysklyver (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I was under impression that Policies of Donald Trump was supposed to be the "new information", and that's getting to be a huge article too. We also have Great Wall of America, though that's reasonably sized. 19:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess you could call conspiring with Russia a Trump policy. The "Moscow Mules"/"Prostrate Eight" would seem to agree. 😉 Bongolian (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

New page created. Old page cleaned up. Nerd (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Goody. Well, one more thing, the "Rhetoric begets reaction" can also be spun off into its own article, like a list of well-known attacks he has done on people. Maybe even do a side-by-side commentary on the stuff he has said, or a side-by-side actions and consequences sort of thing. 19:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I quite like that idea. Dysklyver (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea! Please check out my sandbox. Nerd (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You should nab the subsections above it: "I am the most militaristic person ever", "Assassinate Hillary Clinton", and maybe bits of subsections after "Idiocracy"? 04:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Done! Look at my shiny new article over here! Could you please clean up the lead section for this article? I think much of it has already been covered elsewhere and, in any case, it is a little too long. Nerd (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you think of the page now? I think it is reasonably sized. Nerd (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

"Trump isn't a fascist" edit war
I'm gonna reluctantly throw in my two cents by saying that I also don't think Trump qualifies as a fascist. I honestly think labeling him as such is highly detrimental to our political discourse, as fascism is a term with an actual (if vague) definition, and misuse distorts it to become meaningless. Trump ultimately fails to meet at least four criteria for what makes a fascist:

1). Economic Control -- Fascists were anti-capitalist since they viewed wealth as leading to weakness and decadence. They wanted to put the country's essential economic sectors under the control of the state, and they did so by taking over or coercing unions and corporations. Trump is a capitalist, even if he does have idiotic ideas about how trade works. He's not going to go for the pseudo-nationalization stuff that fascists did.

2). Anti-Liberalism -- Fascists always end up destroying democracy due to their belief that all citizens must have absolute loyalty to the state. While Trump demonizes those who disagree with him, he's never advocated for ending the American republic. There's going to be an election in November, and Trump won't do anything but complain if his party gets shithoused.

3) War -- Fascists are warmongers who want to overturn the world order. Trump obviously isn't this, as he criticizes America's foreign adventurism, and has been irresponsibly naive when dealing with NorK. Most of his aggressive foreign policy actions have been publicity stunts, like dropping a MOAB in Afghanistan or launching a few rockets at Syria.

4). Genocidal Racism -- Trump isn't going to commit genocide. His racist remarks are always dog whistles, and he's never expressed any desire to murder a population. Fascists always said what they were going to do beforehand, and so did Trump. There was nothing in his speeches about an American Holocaust. Frankly, with the way he treats people from every other country, I'd almost say his problem is more generalized xenophobia than it is actual racism, although that's up for debate.

Trump is a threat to democracy and a terrible influence on America's politics, but I don't think it's appropriate to call him a fascist. Using 'fascist' as an insult towards him is designed solely to elicit a strong emotional response, and it's not rooted in any reality. Call him a far-right populist. That's what he is. If we don't have a category for that, then someone should make one. Here's a Vox article if you want a prettier version of what I just said. DuceMoosolini Forum Romanum  00:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears I was wrong, as the Slate article I was basing my conclusions on says the opposite of what I thought it did. I apologize and will rectify the matter post haste.  01:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * And in 100 years time, people will be arguing over whether President Ooh-Uh Eh is a "Trumpist" for imposing trade tariffs on Martian imports... Dysklyver (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be stupid. Trump did not invent tariffs or protectionism. Nor is he alone in being skeptical of free trade. Nerd (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Children and family
We should have coverage of the Trump family members (mainly his sons) who have roles in the Trump business empire or White House, probably not separate articles but something to provide background. Not sure where is best to add this information. --Gospatric (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the general rule of "leave politicians' children alone" should maybe be disbanded in cases of flagrant nepotism and filial corruption. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If they are eighteen years of age and over and are involved in politics, it's fair game. I suggest creating a section within this article for them. If there is enough relevant information, said section can be broken off into a new article, like what we did with the Trump-Russia connection, for example. Nerd (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Government shutdown
Oh the irony:

I would be willing to “shut down” government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security, which includes the Wall! Must get rid of Lottery, Catch & Release etc. and finally go to system of Immigration based on MERIT! We need great people coming into our Country!

A shutdown falls on the President’s lack of leadership. He can’t even control his party and get people together in a room. A shutdown means the President is weak

23:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, I read the snopes article and he didn't say the above quote. However, he was critical of Obama for the government shutdown. 23:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Rare moments of sanity: TPP
Can someone also add a note stating that Trump removed the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership? I am unable to edit the article yet because of the anti-vandalism protection level.
 * Done! Nerd (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Trump's cabinet
To what extent is it the political equivalent of ? Anna Livia (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a metaphor that doesn't stand on it's own without further explanation. It's got holes?  It's got self-similarity?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Tiny pieces keep falling out of it? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is increasingly less of it and increasingly more coverage of the absence.
 * So beautiful big, so many holes.... Anna Livia (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Bizarre object
You can buy a President 'Donald Trump Chia Pet Head.' Anna Livia (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't bother with that sort of thing. Nerd (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wasn't going to - just came across it.
 * Which of and related beasties resembles the Donald most? Anna Livia (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Gigantactis gargantua seems pretty close. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I own a Homer Simpson chia pet head; I got it at a charity silent auction several years ago. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Semite
Would it not be appropriate to place Donald Trump in Category:Anti-Semites given the comments he made to the Republican Jewish Coalition (R.J.C.). When speaking to the R.J.C. he said, "I'm a negotiator like you folks, we are negotiators". He also said, "Is there anybody that doesn't renegotiate deals in this room? This room negotiates them -- perhaps more than any other room I've ever spoken in." He's basically reinforcing an anti-semitic stereotype. There is also the fact that in his speech, in 2017, on Holocaust Memorial Day, he made no reference to Jews, Judaism or anti-semitism.
 * Trump to Republican Jewish Coalition: 'I'm a negotiator like you'
 * No mention of Jews in White House's Holocaust Remembrance Day tribute

Burpelson Air Force Base
How would Donald Trump and Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper interact? 109.150.43.103 (talk)
 * They'd either be friends or tear each other's hair out. Willthenut (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Pumpkin
As there are various 'Trump-pumpkins' out there (and instructions on how to carve them) - can one be displayed here? Anna Livia (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

RationalWiki Is Run By SJWS
Whoever is making up this crap is a maniac! We can be white or male, but we don’t force us to be fat black women, because that’s all you care about, and you think it’s good to be LGBT+ when it is a sin by God. Learn the truth people! Fine, kill me, hunt me, eat my pizza, but I still touch my toy trains.
 * The above is incoherent nonsense. Go take a nap and come back when you're sober. 13:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What just happened? I'm no fan of professionally angry ideologues who like to tell other people how to think and what to be outraged about. But boy, that was some logic. Nerd (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not even wrong man, not even wrongDoublethink (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone care to do a pseudo-Freudian pseudo-analysis of the initial statement? Anna Livia (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

My resource has been deleted by Bongolian. Why?
I added this resource to the page and my resource was removed. Why? Titofrito (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would've reverted it myself. Not only is there hardly any description for the link you added("A Fan" isn't useful way to describe a video), the video itself is some random nobody's video called "12. Trump", has only 97 views at the time of the posting, has 28 subscribers, and the rest of the videos don't appear to be much quality content. I see little reason to include this video, doesn't seem to be quality enough to be posted as an external link to a page with high traffic. 01:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's funny and relevant, that's why. This guy is either really good satire or he really believes this stuff. The video shows just how crazy Trump fans really are. Titofrito (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't really need to populate our pages with crappy video references. Bongolian (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a crappy video. Titofrito (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Nerd (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and nobody is willing to tell me why it's so bad. Please, by all means, give me 4 reasons. Titofrito (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. Shut. 2. The. 3. Hell. 4. Up. 19:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add four more: 1. Your. 2. Videos. 3. Are. 4. Shit. 19:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Melania Trump
Given the number of 'body double stories' there are at various different times/in various sources - should there be some mention on RW? Anna Livia (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the number of such stories, but it passes the "I've seen people on the internet talk about it like it's true" test for conspiracy theories. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Google suggests rumors have also been covered in quite a lot of mainstream media sources, so it's definitely worth a mention. --Annanoon (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would this do for starters?
 * Even if it is only a fake-news-meme it is sufficiently within RW-criteria to be given at least a subsection on the DT page. Anna Livia (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hated too much
Why is Trump hated so much? He is not the worst person on Earth.
 * Yes, he is the Worst Person on Earth™. 19:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Instead of hating, why don't people just look at the positive things politicians do and ignore the negative?
 * Because The Worst Person on Earth has no positive qualities. He wouldn't hold that title if he did have positive qualities. 19:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well not taken your money. That is a positive thing.
 * False. He didn't release his tax returns. Bad thing. 19:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of us, we don't have the luxury of thinking happy thoughts and hoping all the bad shit goes away. We actually have to deal with it, not ignore it. 20:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

No longer an anti-vaxxer?
We should include a stopped clock moment in the article where Donald Trump supports parents getting their children vaccinated during the measles outbreak.
 * 

New York Times article
This New York Times webpage has material that can be usefully added to the article.
 * All the President’s Thugs

Donald Trump Really Wishes He Were A Dictator
"Trump can’t stop gushing over the obsequious treatment North Korean leader Kim Jong Un gets in his country." https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-dictator_us_5b23c3c3e4b0d4fc01fdb2b0

Add this quote?
"Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure,it's not your fault" [1 ]
 * On the 'backward amoeba' IQ scale?

Similar people
This section sure is odd. Any right leaning politician could be listed there. Even Adolf Hitler could be listed there according to some. What are the selection criteria? There are several people listed that look irrelevant, some minor Brits and Australians. I believe it is reasonable only to list heads of state. Trump 2020 (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Positive aspects of Trump's policies
By withdrawing/threatening to withdraw the US from various international organisations and agreements, and by adopting a blunderbuss approach with statements, Trump is enabling the transition to a post-US-as-superpower world/encouraging others to consider the possibilities of a multilateral world.

Discuss. Anna Livia (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Encouraging NATO allies to increase their spending to at least 2% of their respective GDP is sound practice. U.S. Presidents since Bill Clinton have tried to do this, but without much success. Trump for his part is not particularly diplomatic in urging allies to pay their fair share. We will see how he does.
 * Attempts at dialog with North Korea seem fine, though the results so far remain inconclusive.
 * Recently he pointed to the "global freeloading" in healthcare, which is correct because a significant portion of global research and development is done in the United States and many multinational pharmaceutical companies reap their profits in the United States. But he has not done anything about it. I mentioned this, with citations, in the U.S. section of universal healthcare.
 * Withdrawing the U.S. from the TPP and renegotiating NAFTA are in the best interest of the American people, who have suffered as a result of unfettered free trade. Many have lost their jobs thanks to outsourcing. While the "Buy American, Hire American" policy began under President Obama, President Trump escalated it. Today, many Democratic presidential candidates, such as Bernie Sanders, are openly skeptical of free trade. A recent example is the ongoing trade war with Red China and President Trump's insistence on establishing homegrown 5G internet infrastructure. (Huawei's claim that there can be no 5G without it is not true. While it is correct that this Chinese telecom giant holds significant portion of 5G patents, it is far from the only firm in this business. Samsung, AT&T, Verizon, and Ericson are some of the major competitors.) I am not a fan of Trump, but seizing the opportunity to be self-sufficient is good to see.
 * Most of this is consistent with the "America first" strategy. Furthermore, globalization seems to be transitioning back to regionalization, the historical norm. Apparent U.S., and more generally Western, decline is relative rather than absolute. The U.S. economy is enormous and growing faster than most if not all other developed countries, many of which are stagnating, but those of some other countries, especially China and India, are growing at an even faster rate. Nerd (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand - to what extent is Trump enabling the development of a multi-polar/multi-power-centre world in which the US is no longer the major player. Anna Livia (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I mentioned some of the positive aspects of the Trump administration. I'm not sure if a return to a multicentric world is necessarily positive. The world we live today is more prosperous and peaceful than any other period in human history. Regionalization makes the world more prone to armed conflict, as history shows. Be careful what you wish for. Nerd (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not all regionalism is 'bad'/likely to lead to conflict - eg agreeing on common technical standards. And sometimes knowing that 'the big guys' do not wish to get involved can have positive consequences. Anna Livia (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * knowing 'the big guys' arent going to get involved usually means you can forcibly annex your neighbours ass. its one thing stepping back or disengaging from the world stage because the un is effective and we can all agree to talk our problems out, its quite another to throw your toy out of the pram, shitting on your allies and giving the likes of russia and china exactly what they want - free reign to do as they please in their spheres.


 * if the US being a superpower, or indeed any country being a superpower, its not that they are too involved, its that they are happy to build consensus when suits them, abide by international rules that benefit them, but they can ignore all that if it goes against them. the un, or something like that, needs to function better so that all states can trust its judgement even when it goes against their interests. superpowers need to follow the rules too, and that will require more involvement not less.


 * with trump specifically, there is little i see positive with much of what you mention because it is trump. it is half arsed and short sighted blaming all ills on external forces, ignoring systemic problems or just plan exasperating them. the 'global freeloading' for healthcare thing is a case in point. its a joke. that is not the cause of the high cost of healthcare in the us. pharmaceuticals milk the us because they can. if the rest of the world paid more, it would not result in cheaper us healthcare. they sell directly to hospitals and drs who have no bargaining power. and there are no set prices that everyone pays for the same procedures. there is much variance between hospitals and between insurance packages in price. god forbid you have no insurance because oh boy will they make you pay. and thats only problems with cost - it says nothing about pharmaceuticals pushing particular drugs with incentives and dubious salesmen and adverts or prescribed medicines on the tv for fucks sake. these people fuck the us daily and you made them fantastically rich to do it.


 * i do wonder what effect on the rest of the world a buy american, hire american policy would have, on developing countries and the like, or if the effect on the us, with ever more automation, would be negligible? or if the hire american could be greatly helped by doing away with the appalling system of slave labour in the for profit prison system? i'm sure even a call centre in india pays its workers more than AT&T does the prisoners manning theirs in the land of the free


 * to be clear, outsourcing and the like is a problem, but the whole america first approach, or britain first or anywhere first for that matter, those shouting the loudest for it never seem to care to much for many of their fellow citizens and the enthusiasm dies down when products become correspondingly more expensive. and what countries are actually able to do this? this is the state of the world, and unpicking it while avoiding all kinds of chaos cannot happen by the us suddenly turning its back for the benefit of a uncertain percentage of its people. is it a positive thing if your own country thrives but the rest of the world burns? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Certain forms of regionalization or regionalism (they are not the same thing) already exist. Compare North American power standards to their European counterparts, for example. A European train will likely not be able to run in North America, hence dedicated variants have to be designed. An example is Alstom's Citadis Spirit streetcar, based on the Citadis X5 model. My point is that more fragmentation of the world is not necessarily a good thing. The fragmentation of the world would result in a situation not too different from what is going on inside and on your body right now. Microbes are constantly fighter over the right to colonize your body.
 * With regards to U.S. foreign policy, I would support a return to isolationalism. George Washington himself warned against getting entangled with foreign affairs. I'd say trade (fairly, not freely) with as many countries as possible, and when conflict arises, act like Switzerland.


 * Your argument is a little hard to read. Consider capitalization. Are you sure you are not conflating outsourcing with for-profit prisons? They are not the same thing, though both are problems that need to be addressed. But the solutions are different. One is fair trade and protectionism and the other is abolition and improved rehabilitation programs. Nerd (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * sorry i'm not great with formatting, and its not helped by my rambling and its not too much clearer in my own head - i'm not what you'd call expert in these subjects.


 * its possible i misunderstand what is meant by outsourcing. i mean production or services shifted to a foreign country to take advantage of cheaper labour and laxer employment laws. if policies of 'hire american' would mean in my mind to encourage production of goods and provision of services in the us under trump would not be to benefit for large sections of the population, that populism of this kind, by trumps ilk, that not only can offloading of the costs of labour occur entirely within the borders of us, but any measures will be selectively applied. prison labour being impressed on my mind as particularly egregious example. sorry, not labour - slavery. it is slavery and it is a huge industry, producing so many goods and services for big brands, but thats another issue. the issue was with trumps 'positive' policies ignoring systemic problems and not helping as many people as they should.


 * sorry, rambling again. i may be arguing under a misconception, and im not 100% if i am not. except on the healthcare thing. i stand by that. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

(reset) Can people please indicate to whom they are responding.

The point I was making - there will always be a shift between various world-structures (multilateral, bilateral, single large player etc) - and if there is an awareness of 'the withdrawal of US influence (or a great power in general)' then some planning can occur (look at the way some states are planning whether to withdraw from Iranian oil - or disengage from going via 'the US route'). Anna Livia (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In this specific example you brought up, fragmentation already exists. India and China will continue buying Middle Eastern oil. However, they are investing hugely in renewable and nuclear energy as well as electric vehicles. The U.S. gets most of its oil from itself and Canada is is well on its way to become a world-leading exporter. American crude oil is coming to a European, and even Asian, port near you. Europe currently gets most of its oil from the Norway, Russia, and the Middle East. But, again, Europe is trying to move away from fossil fuels. Energy independence is the future, at least for the regions and countries mentioned. Nerd (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The point was that 'various parties in the rest of the world' are being actively encouraged to consider a world in which there are several/many leaders (persons, states, other bodies) - rather than 'the slow unnoticed transition' that is normally the case.
 * No, I understand your point completely, and my example demonstrates just that. A big part of the reason why so many countries are moving ahead with renewable (and nuclear) energy is increasing awareness of climate change and energy security. Why import something when you can produce it yourself?
 * You seem to have the opinion that the withdrawing of a great power can allow for planning. I disagree. It actually incentivizes or forces it, since someone else is no longer doing it for you. Think about it. Many NATO members states will likely increase their military spending if the U.S. withdraws more troops from Europe. A great power can also introduce common standards in places under its influence. As a historical example, much of Europe today uses the Roman alphabet thanks to the influence of the Roman Republic and Empire. Without it, the linguistic situation in Europe would be much more akin to that in Asia, where a variety of scripts are used. As a more recent example, most of the world today uses the metric system in common measurements. This is thanks to French influence. Nerd (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The US has a history with isolationism as I`m sure you know, but the ultimate end result of that isolationism was Pearl Harbor, so... — Oxyaena   Harass  22:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My history knowledge tells me that is not correct. America led an international embargo of Imperial Japan following the invasion of Manchuria. Republican China was, and still is, a U.S. ally. Deprived of raw materials, Japan faced two choices, either accept humiliation and de-escalate or remove the proverbial dagger pointed at Japan's ambitions, the U.S. Pacific Fleet based at Pearl Harbor. Nerd (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Trump does something very right
Promoting vaccination against measles (and, by implication, against other diseases). Anna Livia (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump previously gave credence to antivaxxers. There's no evidence that Trump came to this new opinion for any particular reason, so "right" is like getting the correct answer on a multiple choice test by luck rather than because one actually knew the answer. Bongolian (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The boat has already sailed a long time ago after it simultaneously sunk and sailed previously, Anna Livia. "He says it as it is" my ground-pounding ass. 22:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if he is a weathercock tweeting whatever soundbite is presently blowing in the wind, some note should be made when he does promote something sensible. Anna Livia (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, the "Rare moments of sanity"/Stopped clock section. Bongolian (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No mention yet on the page - and his 2014 comment here is in favour (and 'not all at once' is not totally unreasonable). Anna Livia (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason that you don't want to add it yourself, ? Bongolian (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that there are no dates (and two DT comments) what would the best place be (and some of us prefer being the messenger/flagger up). Anna Livia (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Nobody who wants to be relevant seriously supports the antivax movement at this time. It goes without saying Trump is taking the sane majority position. Trump 2020 (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That definitely does not go without saying. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And one can have some sympathy with the 'too many vaccinations at once is potentially problematic for children' position (assuming that there are not several diseases active in the local environment). Anna Livia (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * >Sane
 * >Trump
 * Gotta pick one -RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 'No comment.' Anna Livia (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Blimpicide
Some mention of the Baby Donald blimp being stabbed perhaps? Anna Livia (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Revolutionary airport
Some mention of DT's comment on the American Revolutionary airports (whether or not referencing the Abydos helicopter). 22:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Concern troll bullshit ahead
Why do people hate him so much? He is not a horrible man. I am sure he has given to charities and does his best as a president. He may be different from his predessors but he's doing his best.
 * I don't know... I mean, it's not like he's an egocentric sociopath who flirts with and at times outright embraces authoritarianism, is a threat to the future of all life on this planet, and basically is out to enrich himself in every way possible at the expense of others... Gee, I still can't can't think of a reason to hate him... 22:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the racism.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Another, successful, Trump
This one. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi.
It's funny that people think Trump is a racist, because he never said anything racist. 94.158.156.209 (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hehehe lemme just give cops limited training and a hell of a lot of firepower. Trump did make some sexist comments though &mdash; Unsigned, by: TheFonz / talk / contribs

Note
I just created the cover abstract for Trump. Wanna look at it? — Jeh2ow Damn son!  19:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work like this: unilaterally changing an article to cover story after one day. There needs to be discussion and general consensus among interested parties first. See: RationalWiki:Article rating. Bongolian (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. Is there anyone who would like Trump to be on the cover? — Jeh2ow Damn son!  23:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I oppose gold for this page, as I did the last time this was voted on. There's too much that he can fuck up before he's finally de-elected. Bongolian (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump is a rapidly evolving issue, so by nature this article is too premature for gold. Also, I have a few issues with the organization. 00:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Cathouse
I have thought it strange that noo one mentions that his ancestors ran a brothel on the West Coast (was it in Alaska?). But this article does not contain much info on his family history so perhaps it is not relevant here. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2601:1C0:6D00:A560:B53A:78B6:75CD:5A14 / talk
 * You can read about his father here: Fred Trump. I don't think that it is known whether the grandfather actually ran a brothel or just owned a sleazy hotel that had some prostitution going on it it. Bongolian (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

On Citizen Kane
In the section on Trump's "[r]are moments of sanity", the following is written: "He once recorded an audio commentary for a film that is regarded as the greatest of all time by several critics. The name of said film? Citizen Kane, of course. You can find it on YouTube."

Given that Trump's advice to the Kane character would be to "get yourself a different woman", and that he described Kane's implosive defeat resulting from his hubris and inability to love anyone other than himself as being a "modest fall", not to mention Trump's insightful analysis on the word "Rosebud" as it relates to Citizen Kane (after describing it decently as connecting the adult Kane to his childhood, Trump says: "The word 'Rosebud', for whatever reason, has captivated moviegoers and movie-watchers for so many years, and to this day, is perhaps the single word. And perhaps if they came up with another word that meant the same thing, it wouldn't have worked. But 'Rosebud' works."), I'm not sure that we should grant him points for providing an audio commentary of the film.

Secondary sources: —MHoobin (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Crucchiola, Jordan. "Trump Revealed a Lot About Himself Through This Inaccurate Analysis of Citizen Kane." Vulture, Nov. 15, 2016.
 * Leon, Thomas. "Donald Trump Doesn't Understand Citizen Kane - Renegade Cut." YouTube, Feb. 6, 2017.
 * Loughrey, Clarisse. "Donald Trump doesn't understand what Citizen Kane is about." The Independent, Nov. 18, 2016.
 * Willmore, Alison. "How Donald Trump Totally Missed The Point Of "Citizen Kane" — And Won." Buzzfeed, Nov. 11, 2016.


 * amidst a list compromising of a variety of positions relating to governance, and policies both foreign and economic, we have an audio commentary for citizen cane. doesn't really fit does it. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Misunderstanding a film is not the best indicator of a moment of sanity. Bongolian (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus
Can something be added about his utterances on the topic?

Would anyone be able to start legal proceedings against him for inciting dangerous behaviour (given that even the companies manufacturing the products have denounced his suggestion as dangerous)? Anna Livia (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See: 2019-20 COVID-19 outbreak. Anyone can sue anyone for any reason, but it's doubtful such a case would go anywhere. Bongolian (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A mention on this page - and it would be an interesting legal 'theoretical exercise.'
 * Wonder what he would make of hanahaki disease (which is not RW-worthy). Anna Livia (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it is not possible to sue a sitting president for the anything they do in their official capacity? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump and the media
Something about his being marginalised by the social media perhaps? Anna Livia (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Potential suggestion for covfefe
Rationalwiki has an article on the rhetoric of Donald Trump. The Covfefe goof was actually, overall, a very notable tweet due to being a very visible (and meme-able) element of Trump's overall general lack of writing skills (if it was a one off mistake, it would not be notable, but it's not). This could be included as a paragraph on Trump's general abuse of proper grammar and spelling (probably in the "Idiocracy and kakistocracy" section). Some initial references to this phenomenon can be found here, here, here, and here (probably more). I've seen an article saying that mocking grammar is trite and in one sense, it is, but I think spelling and proper grammar matter tremendously when your job description pretty much is a leadership role, and one of the key elements of your job is communication skills. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also not trite when he's constantly proclaiming himself to be a super-genius. Bongolian (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Think the comment should go into rhetoric of Donal Trump article? It seems like you're talking more about that article than the parent article. 19:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I was talking about including the covfefe / grammar stuff in the Rhetoric article, not the main Donald Trump article. It belongs more in there, I think. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing insult at the beginning
It's a common practice in RationalWiki to have a juvenile insult or "nickname" for a beginning of an article. Barack Obama, Fox News, Daily Mail, The Sun, George W. Bush, Boris Johnson, Benito Mussolini (hey I see a name on there), Theresa May, Phyllis Schlafly, Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, and probably more. I get that maybe the template is too cumbersome or the insults in the template are lacking, but if you have to remove an insult to a page because it's juvenile, you'll have to justify removing the other insults (and have others agree) or you have do a case-by-case. 19:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, put it back. I don’t really give a fuck. I didn’t really think it would cause such an uproar. 19:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I just think insulting trump is a fun thing to do. EK (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume we can put the stuff back then? 20:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess so. The content removed was template that had random ones, Donald Trump/title. 21:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Trump and WHO
'He who pays the piper calls the tunes' - so possible own goal. Anna Livia (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Rocket science?
This. Anna Livia (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Montreal Cognitive Assessment test is typically given to people to measure cognitive decline. People are not usually given it unless there is already reason to believe that there may be significant cognitive decline. Bongolian (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What happens if 'a President' (whomsoever they be) becomes incompetent to govern and refuses to step down? Anna Livia (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If the person in question is Republican, the GOP will ordinarily cover it up. Otherwise it requires extraordinary means . Bongolian (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Those are particular conditions' (which, probably by definition. have to be somewhat flexible - until it is obvious that the amendment needs to be invoked).
 * But what happens if 'the President is not quite incapacitated/incompetent enough'/does things that are individually inconsequential but collectively have a destructive impact? (The UK Parliamentary system would be able to manoeuvre out of the situation more readily - an Opposition vote of no confidence or 'the Party Grandees doing a collective Geoffrey Howe' etc.) Anna Livia (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The Don and the Constitution
When the showdown happens, who will be the winner? Anna Livia (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The wisdom of Donald Trump
Came across this.

'1066 and All That' is probably more accurate. Anna Livia (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

What next
This.

'You cannot be serious.' Anna Livia (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yawn. So was Hitler. Bongolian (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Trump has wiped out ISIS, weakened Iran, and avoided endless wars. Compare that to Obama's disastrous foreign policy. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 20:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I"m sure the killing of Qasem Soleimani earlier this year will lead to a lot of peace talks and whatnot. 20:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, ISIS’ defeat clearly had nothing at all to do with the countless Muslims on the ground who sacrificed their lives in the struggle against a genocidal foe. Apparently Trump singlehandedly beat them with a magic wand or something, the same way Reagan singlehandedly took down the Soviets. Conservative “history” is laughable as always. 20:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The liberal opposition to Trump's killing of a terrorist leader sure says a lot, doesn't it... LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 20:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So why did Trump do nothing when Khashoggi was brutally executed by the Saudis?  21:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Soleimaini also played a big role in defeating ISIS, and killing him off turned Iraq towards Iran. Isis is also still around. — Oxyaena Harass  21:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ISIS is on the back foot thanks the the efforts of various Muslim groups fighting against them. Among those groups are the heroic Kurds, our allies whom Trump left to die. 21:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, some Muslims (Muslims are not a monolith after all); Turkey/Erdogan, enabled by Trump, has also liberated ISIS fighters to fight against the kurds. 22:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We agree on more things than we don't, Raven. In another life, we could've been friends. But that's an aside note, yeah, fuck Erdogan and fuck Turkey. — Oxyaena Harass  22:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

DT leaving the hospital
He was masked up, and waved as he went into the vehicle, rather than saying 'Hi guys, I am fine' or equivalent.

Body double conspiracy theory anyone? Anna Livia (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * He wasn't fucking masked up. The shit-stained whirling gyre of failure that is Trump took his mask off before he walked into the White House. The fucking ass-tuliped dick took his fucking mask off. Unreal. AceModerator 00:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well spoken! Bongolian (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that fucking grimace goblin says he is going back on the campaign trail. While currently infected with Covid-19. He's a fucking menace. AceModerator 01:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it still illegal to tie the president up? 03:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you were to convince him it was a sex game then yeah, probably. AceModerator 06:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So sex games are illegal?
 * Going to the car DT was masked up - and there might well be security reasons for the misdirection (so he left the hospital by another route etc). Anna Livia (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

DT and Bin Laden
Any comments on this latest gem?

If there was a body double why haven't there been any sightings/messages? (Is the scenario - Lord Lucan, riding on Shergar, rescued BL and they are now living in an Antarctic secret base which contains the original Amber Room, the treasure of the Templars, the switch that turns off the Internet, and have Roko's Basilisk as their SF-equivalent 'pet computer'.) Anna Livia (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Presidential Comparisons
In the opening paragraphs, Trump is compared to several past presidents: "In American terms, Trump is pretty much styling himself as the second coming of Jesus Christ Ronald Reagan  Andrew Jackson Richard Nixon, complete with his enemies lists and paranoia."

I should think it obvious to any student of history, a comparison to Andrew "The Toad" Johnson would be more accurate, and the text should be corrected: "In American terms, Trump is pretty much styling himself as the second coming of Jesus Christ Ronald Reagan  Andrew Jackson  Richard Nixon Andrew Johnson, complete with his utter inability to perform even the simplest of tasks correctly, rebuffing all negative press as lies, and penchant to blame everyone around him for his own failures."

Uniblab (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell to Donald Trump
'You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!'

(Fuller version here. Anna Livia (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cromwell was a monster though. As is Trump, but Cromwell absolutely should not be quote mined to tell another asshole off. He was one of the worst people that this world ever saw. 00:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cromwell: abolishing the monarchy, only to make yourself the totally-not-a-monarch. ElectrosPardon? 01:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Does Cromwell get dragged into 'Godwin's law comparisons and derivatives'?
 * Suggest a better way of telling DT to go. Anna Livia (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Trumpocalypse
Should there be a separate page for the post-election antics of Trump and his crew - there seems to be an increasing divergence from events outside the White House. Anna Livia (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

EvangelicalSpitOnYaTime(IfYouGiveMeThePermissionAndConsent)
I would like to know whether you all think we evangelicals are plain deluded by Trump, selfishly supporting him to save/help ourselves, or selflessly supporting him in hopes that he'll deliver America. Why the hostility, not just to Trump, but to many millions of simple, humble, normal, and often times (this is true) unsophisticated men, women, and children?
 * Firstly, why can't it be both? Evangelicals sure do like it when Trump throws around the religious rhetoric, and appeals directly to them (never mind the fact that Trump is further from a Christian than a Iranian mullah). And if they think that Trump's ranting, frenetic, and altogether unappealing attitude will deliver America, then all power to them. I'll just be sure to leave before America sinks down to a third-world country. My guess is that it'll strongly resemble Afghanistan. And why are they hoping he'll deliver America? The man's certainly not a Christian, and hasn't made any significant progress on many a promise he's touted on the campaign. How could he lack the competence to complete policy, but somehow possess the political and moral skill to "deliver America?" (Never mind what that term means, as it could conceivably represent anything.) And finally, there's no innate hostility to those who support Trump. But I am a patriot. I will do anything necessary to protect and ensure the continued success of my country. I recognize that Trump will not bring success to America, but will reduce its status and power. So I must oppose him, which necessarily means opposing at least in part his (sometimes rabid) supporters. As to your reference to sophistication, I couldn't care less how someone talks or how someone holds their cutlery, or any other measure of "sophistication." I care about competence, especially for someone occupying a position as important as President. Trump doesn't have it. As for his supporters, some may be normal. But there are also those who would happily try to derail a Biden bus, spread conspiracies about any and every public figure, and storm pizza parlors armed with AR-15s. I think it's safe to decry those thuggish brutes, and call them such. IveBeenFrank (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, evangelical support for Trump seems to mostly have come from US evangelicals. Here, most christians don't really like Trump afaik. 16:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Who next?
Who else can DT take on after the FBI and the Department of Justice - this and other sources.

If a representative of the Union of Human-Bothering Deities stated that Biden had won, what would DT say? Anna Livia (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * His own party . Anna Livia (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * And this. Anna Livia (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Alternative Universe
Anyone care to describe more of the alternative universe that DT inhabits? Latest comment here. Anna Livia (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Terrorist Leader
Following the events of 6 January 2021, the document should be updated to further reflect the premeditated attempts at overturning American democracy using a violent mob of domestic terrorists to attack the US Legislature.
 * Alrighty. Feel free to do so, but keep in mind that this is a silver article; please ensure your edit is of good quality before you submit, or expect someone else to correct its mistakes quite swiftly. -- Goatspeed. 03:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The attempted coup is covered under the Authoritarianism of Donald Trump article, but I do feel that this event is important enough to summarize here too. (I'd add it, but I can't think of a good way to do it and also not step on the stuff we have there at the moment.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The attempted coup is covered under the Authoritarianism of Donald Trump article, but I do feel that this event is important enough to summarize here too. (I'd add it, but I can't think of a good way to do it and also not step on the stuff we have there at the moment.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

DT in January
Is 'Nothing in his [Presidency] became him like the leaving it.' apt? Anna Livia (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What will the Donald do now
Given that he has been permabanned from Twitter - no chance to say fake news, stolen election 'and the effervescent rest of his musings.' Anna Livia (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely Trump TV will be his next scam and opportunity to decry every other platform as "fake news". 15:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, he still apparently has 470,000 followers at Gab. 15:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He is not amused. Anna Livia (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Mary Trump
Given his niece's comments anyone care to develop a variant of the Mary, Mary quite contrary verse? Anna Livia (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

DT and the RW search facility
Put a 'd' in the search box - and the autofill suggests 'Donald Trump' as the first item.

Anybody wish to bet when he loses this honour? Anna Livia (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The anti-Trump
Would be Jackie Weaver or her equivalent. Anna Livia (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Legal question
As the Donald cannot be tried again for inciting the riot (as the rules of double jeopardy do not seem to apply given that his 'invitation' was in the public domain before the event - and is there a US equivalent of the UK modification where if 'substantial new information' comes to legal attention the case can be reopened (this is a simplification) apply in the US?) what can be done with him now? To what extent would 'the riots or non-legal activity in Washington DC' have happened even if he had said something anodyne. Anna Livia (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Impeachment is a political process in the United States, it is not a judicial process, it's more the equivalent of getting booted out of a job. There still remains the very real possibility (as noted here) that Trump will be charged with several criminal charges, including ones relating to the riots and his attempts to overturn the election. Should this occur, they will not fall afoul of any double jeopardy rule. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Gold Nomination
Any reason why this isn't gold yet? Although there are parts that I, as a Trump supporter, obviously take issue with (like claiming he directly incited 2021's riot when he said to "protest peacefully and patriotically," actually, I take issue with a lot of it, but still, the article is well-sourced and overall a fair job. Gamers Against Weed (Over 9000 Members Worldwide!) (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sign your comments.


 * It’s been nominated previously, and the main argument against it was that the article was constantly updating. With Trump out of office, that’s not the case anymore. Christopher (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When he's dead, we'll give him his gold. Until then, there are more crimes to document. Bongolian (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, he seems to still be a relevant figure in the GOP. His story is definitely not over...-Flandres (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Will any of that be likely to shake our article lead though? Like the only thing that would probably shake up the lead is him getting re-elected. 20:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Given how volatile American politics is I'm not so sure. We are breaking precedents a lot lately. Who knows what he could still do even out of power...-Flandres (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that "people keep updating it" is a very good reason for not making an article "gold". Various reasons:  1.  In theory updates should make an article better, not worse. 2. If an article is gold people should take care with updates - not stop them 3. In the worst case scenario "gold" could be removed.
 * So if it's "gold" now then it should get that description.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've proposed gold nomination. 21:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely it should be 'Trump tan/hair gold'? Anna Livia (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Immovable objects
What will happen here? Anna Livia (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * He is also writing a book and complaining that the major publishers do not wish to publish him. Anna Livia (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Story board
One of the news feeds came up with. Anna Livia (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle, twinkle, little star
Now we know what you are.

A case of GIGO? Anna Livia (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

List of Pardons
Why dont we add a [|list] of last-minute sneaky pardons that Trump issued? It just cements on what type of moral backbone this guy has. --VokeWoke (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * All the latest POTUSes have done bunch of last minute pardons, including some questionable ones. Though Trump did go way beyond pale with some of his I admit. 09:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * its not the pardons that were egregious it was the execeutions that his administration rushed through AMassiveGay (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That was definitely more egregious true. 10:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Huh
> Claims to be rational

> Clear Orange Man Bad mentality all up and down Trump's "article".

Hit piece is more like it. The mental gymnastics the editors here do is astounding. I don't really care whether or not you ban me. You probably will, because any criticisms hurts your fee-fees. When the shit hits the fan, you're all going to be the first to lined up against the wall, "comrades". 2601:644:8D80:AB10:C190:C729:7051:9938 (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I needed a laugh today. Thanks. Kntai (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Complains people aren't rational, implies he'll have them killed for it. Yeah, totally the kind of person to sit in judgment.-- Forerunner (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't want the article to read like a hit piece, maybe Trump shouldn't be acting like a walking hit piece. If the riot from January which he instigated to overturn the results of a fair election, among tons of other things hasn't convinced you that this is a very very bad president who shouldn't be trusted, then nothing will. You're warning us about shit hitting the fan when Trump was trying to throw it to the fan several months ago by using a hate mob to target politicians, including Mike freaking Pence, who fled for their lives. Which y'know, no Democrat politician ever done in recent memory. What exactly are you scared about anyway because if you're not gonna specify why bother complaining? Why do you even care so much to comment? I know why Republicans scare me. 14:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Certain elements of the Trump crowd seem to relish the idea of being a bully and being an asshole and "fuck your feelings", and admire Trump for having these qualities. Alas, most bullies (like Trump) can't take any criticism themselves and get their little fee-fees hurt very easily, like this BoN. How ironic. And while one must take the January riot seriously, one must also note that it was a rather pathetic shit show, which only got as far as it did because the Capitol Hill Police (partially due to Angry Baby interference) really didn't take it seriously. At any rate, Facebook, being blissfully down yesterday, is back up. So I presume this BoN can go back to chatting with Russian troll farm comrades "patriots" on Facebook groups praising Trump and sowing bullshit "new Civil War" fantasies in this BoN's head. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And given that folks, this is a friendly public service reminder to help control the MAGAt population. Have your local Trumpsters spayed or neutered.Field Dreamer (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Problems
This article is too biased. Needs a complete overhaul in my opinion. Jah (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can't be arsed to provide anything a bit more meaningful than the numerous obvious lazy, stupid, inane, puerile tripe this wiki has heard, then your comment doesn't deserve any meaningful response.  02:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean this place is called "RationalWiki", so yeah, we should take the most Rational stance on trump. not too liberal, not too conservative. 11:04 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do the above remarks justify a drink?
 * Know when 'too biased' means 'disagrees with me, and I don't need a rationale.' (And - there are many flavours of liberal and conservative around the world.) Anna Livia (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does! 13:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is also permissible to create essays on RW - which might solve Jah's problems. Anna Livia (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Follow the money
Something about the accountants trumpeting that they are 'jumping ship' should be included. Anna Livia (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Last Paragraph of Intro
I dislike it; it's a polemic. Up to this point in the intro, there are fifty citations, this paragraph has none. Also, while the previous paragraphs make specific points, noting particular things said and done by Trump, the final paragraph gestures vaguely, making a series of uncited and dubious assertions. What the hell are the "flavourings of heartless authoritarianism"? That's not SPOV; it's neither scientific nor snark. Perhaps it's poetry, but then it belongs in an essay. What distinguishes heartless authoritarianism from regular authoritarianism? Is it really so difficult to think of more vicious policies that can be achieved without dictatorship? Did Trump really get "torn a new one" in 2020? Was his cruelty truly his downfall? I can't even infer what it means to "have absolute power in his words". In short, the paragraph is dubious wherever it isn't meaningless. Since every point it gestures at is addressed in greater detail and in more precise terms elsewhere in the article, I would support removing this paragraph, and will do so if nobody objects. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  02:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought "torn a new one" was like, he completely lost it at the results of that election and went off the deep end and instigate an extremely disturbing coup attempt. Anyway, uh, I did rework the last paragraph to simply talk about the end of his presidency (hopefully remains one-term) and aftermath of the 2020 election, which should be supported by an article link and shouldn't need extensive sources, I hope. 06:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks much better! I understand “got torn a new one” as “was totally and unambiguously defeated”, the implication in my mind being that he lost in a landslide.  While it wasn’t as close as some have suggested (I recall reading somewhere it was middle of the road for recent elections), I wouldn’t call it a landslide, given the margins of victory in some key states. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  13:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * He certainly didn't lose in a landslide. If popular vote determined the thing, then yes he would've lost in a landslide. He would've lost also the first time in landslide. But since land votes and can nullify millions of humans in plenty of states, Trump narrowly won, narrowly lost reelection.  18:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

But First...
I confess, I'm rather skeptical of this grand historical narrative. We got Donald Trump because of... Andrew Jackson? Really? The left wing in US politics is weak in 2016 because of the red scares, including the one under Wilson? It strikes me as a bit conspiratorial. Yes, racism has played a large role in US politics throughout its history. But nothing about the Jackson presidency, or the Nixon presidency, or Reagan, or the red scares, tells me anything about why Donald Trump was elected in 2016 (i.e. why that person was elected at that time). Nor does this provide a convincing case that the US's history is a long arch toward an inevitable Trumpian figure; again, it's conspiratorial. It's also at least partly on the level of "the Trail of Tears was a bit like Trump's policies towards immigrants". Off the top of my head, Trump's immigration policies included separating families at the border, building a wall (and, somehow, making Mexico pay for it), and the Muslim ban. Not great. But the Trail of Tears was the forced displacement of tens of thousands of Native Americans in an extended act of ethnic cleansing. Not quite the same. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  04:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean I think at the very least Regan would be relevant because Trump borrowed a lot of the rhetoric and propaganda from him "Make America Great Again!", the rhetoric about trickle down economics, etc. Give the dominant neoliberal era we live under it would make sense that Trump would be at least partially been a consequence of the birth of neoliberal movements which are credited to the policies of Regan and Thatcher. White supremacy is going to relevant to Trump's reflection of the ideology and open support from self-identified white nationalists, but yeah it doesn't exactly give a direct explanation to his success to go over the entire history of white supremacy in the United States. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC).
 * White supremacy and neoliberalism are certainly relevant to Trump's policies, beliefs, and rhetoric, but they are far from unique to him. The current presentation conflates the factors that produced the contemporary Republican platform and political landscape and the factors that produced Trump in particular, appealing to the former to explain the latter.  It would be more appropriate to present details on Reagan in the context of describing the establishment of the current US political landscape and the Republican party platform, which is sympathetic to trickle-down, anti-immigration, (pseudo-)nostalgia, etc. independently of Trump, and not as part of a grand narrative.  I think the best way to include Reagan would be to explain the connections in their respective sections.  Talk about the slogan connection in the rhetoric section, and the policy connections in the policy section.  But if every other Republican candidate holds the same core position, singling out Reagan might just be a distraction, more appropriate for an article on the Republican party, even if it was Reagan who introduced the policy. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  15:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I only think you need to start with Lyndon Johnson's civil rights initiatives and the Republicans responding with the Southern Strategy. Yes, the roots of this have a little bit Civil War politics / white supremacy / etc., but once this realignment occurred, the Republican party became a coalition of sorts between the think-tank style "small government" (sort of) oriented conservatives (William F. Buckley types, neocons, etc.), business, and the evangelicals. It is the later where populism started fermenting, in the form of Moral Majority type politics and the like, followed up by Rush Limbaugh and his unfortunately successful brand of toxic "political" entertainment which spawned a million imitators. (It's not that racist blowhards didn't exist before him, but entertainment created for that kind of crassness was "restricted" in the past. There's an argument, IMHO, that Ronald Reagan's gutting of the Fairness Doctrine in radio played a pretty strong role in setting the stage for Trump.) My inference is that 1950s-1970s Republicans tended to treat the evangelicals as the "black sheep" of the coalition (as the Barry Goldwater quote about preachers indicates, correctly indicating that they are a pain in the ass to deal with due to their absolutism). As recently as even the Tea Party, I think economics tended to dominate Republican politics (even the far-out-there ones). However from my perspective, the first major Senator to introduce toxic populism into the Republican party was Newt Gingrich, so the seeds for Trump have been sowed for a while.
 * Ultimately, Trump won the 2016 Republican primary because he stood out from the other candidates, by wanting to build a wall on the US-Mexico border and ban Muslims. Effectively, Trump gutted the wall between the neoconservatives dominating the Republican party and the populists right wing dominating media, and the populists took over for good. (It probably also helped Trump that there is a lot of discontent with the Reagan / Thatcher neoliberal order these days (as seen in partial parallel by the Bernie Sanders movement), but that's a topic for another time...) 72.184.174.199 (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * With this discussion - do not confuse (Donald) Regan and (Ronald) Reagan. Anna Livia (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that societies are in a constant state of development with everything being affected by what went before - why take Andrew Jackson as the starting point of everything bad? I'm sure you could pin something doubtful on earlier presidents if you looked for it. Or the British. Or the Romans.
 * Also, we can only draw these seemingly inescapable, straight-line cause-and-effect conclusions with the benefit of hindsight. By then all the myriad could-have-beens didn't happen and everything looks inevitable. But things could always have played out in multiple different ways.  So I am also skeptical of all grand historical narratives.  It's just stuff happening and we have a very human tendency to make a story out of it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, since all the input here seems to agree, minimally, that we do not need to go back further than the Southern Strategy to say anything important, I have removed the material about the red scares, Buchanan, and Jackson. I agree with Bob M on hindsight bias.  Ultimately, I intend to remove the rest of the section.  I think there's room for discussion of: Reagan's "Let's Make America Great Again" motto, the politicization of US media, the relationship between Trump's policies and those of the Republican party as a whole (both before and after Trump's presidency), neoliberalism in US politics, and white supremacy.  I think this can be discussed largely or entirely without appeal to causal narratives.  I have not examined the article in its entirety to see how much of this is already discussed.  The Southern Strategy is certainly significant to current Republican electoral strategy on the federal level, but I'm not how important it is to Trump, partly because I'm not sure that Trump campaigned as he did with the particular goal of winning the South &mdash; his racist rhetoric wasn't coming from a political plan, he just was overtly racist. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  01:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Update China section
Discussing trade had descended into a big trade war + answering personal phone calls with Tsai Ing-wen obviously tarnished Trump's image in Mainland China. This is not news, a long time has passed.

Dishonesty, Dunning-Kruger or what
From my usual source of offbeat stories - this.

Is a better scriptwriter needed? Anna Livia (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)