Talk:Donald Trump

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

This United States politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

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.

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, (new)

Update China section[edit]

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.


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. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 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.Silver Star of David.gif J3wzus (TC) Silver Star of David.gif 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! "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! โ€” ๐—ฆ๐—พ๐—ฟ๐˜-๐Ÿญ talk stalk 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[edit]

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[edit]

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. ๐’ฎ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’๐“ƒ๐‘’ 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. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Looks much better! I understand โ€œgot torn a new oneโ€ as โ€œwas totally and unambiguously defeatedโ€, the implication in my mind being that he lost in a landslide. While it wasnโ€™t as close as some have suggested (I recall reading somewhere it was middle of the road for recent elections), I wouldnโ€™t call it a landslide, given the margins of victory in some key states. ๐’ฎ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’๐“ƒ๐‘’ 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. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

But First...[edit]

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. ๐’ฎ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’๐“ƒ๐‘’ 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. ๐’ฎ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’๐“ƒ๐‘’ 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...) (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 — his racist rhetoric wasn't coming from a political plan, he just was overtly racist. ๐’ฎ๐‘’๐“‡๐‘’๐“ƒ๐‘’ talk 01:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)