Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election close on Sunday.

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

Talk:Donald Trump

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics USA.svg

This United States politics related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Silverbrain.png
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Information icon.svg Cover Story Nominee
This article has been nominated, among others, for random inclusion on the Main Page.
Please discuss its nomination on this talk page.
If it is accepted, its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>

New York Times article[edit]

This New York Times webpage has material that can be usefully added to the article.

Donald Trump Really Wishes He Were A Dictator[edit]

"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 — Unsigned, by: LuodiWang / talk / contribs

Add this quote?[edit]

"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] — Unsigned, by: 73.238.42.229 / talk

On the 'backward amoeba' IQ scale? — Unsigned, by: 109.150.44.156 / talk

Similar people[edit]

This section sure is odd. Any right leaning politician could be listed there. Even Adolf Hitler could be listed there according to some.[1][2][3] 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[edit]

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)

@Anna Livia 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.
@Nerdwith 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)
@Anna Livia 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.
@AMassiveGay 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)

@Anna Livia 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. — Unsigned, by: Anna Livia / talk / contribs
@Anna Livia 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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Nerd 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)

@Oxyaena 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[edit]

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. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 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, @Anna Livia? 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[edit]

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

Revolutionary airport[edit]

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[edit]