Talk:Donald Trump/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 19 November 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <2>, <3>, (new)(back)



If he becomes Republican candidate how many headlines after the election will read 'Last Trump'? (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ain't happening now.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

2016 Presidential Run? (also Orangutans)[edit]

So I believe I've heard recently that apparently Trump is "considering" running for president in the upcoming election. While we can all assume that this likely won't lead anywhere, he has apparently hired an exploratory committee and such. Anyone else got anymore information on this, and is it worth adding to the article? Also, should the little war between him and Bill Maher, where Bill had made fun of the whole birther position of Trumps by making a similar unjustified claim that he was the son of an orangutan? Apparently Trump either attempted or actually did try to sue him for that, though I'm not sure of the outcome. Nergali (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I just saw on the news that Trump has official announced that he is running for president... how long do you give it until he quits? Nergali (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

He'll have thrown the towel in (again) by September. Perhaps even August. BicyclewheelModerator 21:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I dunno, I kinda hope he wins the nomination, so the Democrats will have an easier job at winning. Not that most of the other Republican candidates won't have that same effect. (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
In the run-up to D-Day in 1944, the allies appointed brash extrovert General Patton to run a fake invasion build up in Southeast England. There were phantom regiments, fake vehicles, fake radio and telegram messages, the lot, on a massive scale, all to deceive the Germans into thinking the landings would happen in the Pas de Calais. Meanwhile, in Southwest England, the quieter Eisenhower got on with the real landing plan. What I'm saying is, Trump is Patton. Who's Eisenhower? Who's not revealed their hand? BicyclewheelModerator 15:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
It might have been nice at the start to have a blustering load mouth like Trump to drown out the stupid crap other candidates said during this time. Which hasn't happened, as other candidates have publically shoved their feet in their mouths, and made the GOP as a whole look even worse as he goes even further off the rails while gaining in the polls. The thing is Patton was a general in wartime which was good at following orders working towards the common good in a larger plan, it was his job, while Trump has none of the noble qualities imparted to Patton with a long history of doing the opposite. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
And come to think of it, comparing the others to Eisenhower is like [insert humorous comparison of choice]. BicyclewheelModerator 16:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I actually see Trump as being more comparable to Doug McArthur S.H. DeLong (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Nah, Trump is more like one of the higher ranking Nazi-generals (really bad) whereas the one we should be looking out for is probably a Rommel-like figure; still bad, but dangerously competent and reasonable good at appearing less bad than he is. Who would that be? Kasich? Rand Paul? Jeb? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I would say Kasich is the one that most like Rommel. He sounds like he is a pragmatic choice and the only sane one of them. Rand Paul is too much of a Libertarian, to win the Republican Party's nomination. Bush, due to his brother's legacy will never get the nomination. The Republicans do not want another potential screwup with a Bush. S.H. DeLong (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't count out Jeb yet. I'm betting he's trying to do what Mitters did last time around: Suck up to the right wing while avoiding to sound too obviously nutty (e.g. like Trump) and I'm not sure it's bound to fail, considering that the Bush name has been in the process of being whitewashed in that peculiar subgenre of right wing historical revisionism ever since Dubya left office (mostly through "It wasn't really his fault"-claims about Iraq and the Great Recession). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the Donald is like Goldwater and Reagan all rolled in to one... Except with even less charisma. He will probably win the second or third time he runs for the nomination. Let's hope his opponent is not some Carter-like figure who pandered too much to the wrong kind of crowd... (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Comparing Reagan to Trump? Nothing could be more degrading to the former and more flattering to the latter. Vulpius (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I think everyone has it wrong. Trump isn't equal to any general, or anything. He's making things worse for the GOP, not better. He's their Old Yeller, but they can't bring themselves to put him down. We can't say he has no charisma, because he does, just not the kind that appeals to us. To the rabid people that follow him, he's the most charismatic person alive, and that's a terrifyingly big group. He's a wild card, not anyone's puppet, and he's absolutely mad. He's the Tea Party candidate, and acts like their group. He's brash, rude, doesn't give a shit about anyone else, and they love it, because that is exactly what they are. He's not like other candidates, or like any generals. I hate to say this, because well duh, but the best comparison is Hitler. I mean, he's highlighted a specific set of races, has all of his followers blaming them for the nation's problems and inadequacies, is promising to make the nation great again, has super racist followers, was considered a joke by his own party but is starting to scare the shit out of them because he's gone off the rails and won't listen anymore, and has already caused hate crimes. As our own page on Godwin's Law makes clear, it's not supposed to be used to shut down legitimate comparisons, but to discourage overdoing it and losing all sense of proportion. He's not like late-stage Hitler, but it's scary how his rise so far is mirroring Hitler's rise. Maybe I'm wrong and he'll fall apart, or maybe the American people will, for once, not disappoint me and show him the door, but I can't help but see the similarities. Especially since a lot of his followers are literal Nazis. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hitler was not seen as a joke by his own party. But thaen again, parties in the Weimar Republic worked different from US parties... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd always heard that he was kicked into his seat in government because they figured he'd be harmless there. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hitler was the unquestioned leader of his party, the NSDAP. However, his party had to say jack shit until 1933. According to the constitution, the chancellor was appointed by the President on his say-so but the diet could kick out any chancellor they did not like (I don't know whether the latter ever happened, the former happened quite a lot). At the time of Hitler's rise, the President was a WWI general well into his eighties of the name of Paul von Hindenburg. His advisers made him replace chancellors in ever shorter succession once he had kicked out Brüning for the "crime" of him (Brüning) not hating the social democrats enough. At some point in time Hindenburg's advisers noticed that the reactionary/classical conservative strength in parliament was wearing thin and they did not want to rely on support from the Social Democrats (see above). Hence they sought to use the NSDAP in order to put a conservative / reactionary into power. The problem was: Hitler had the party under his full control and he was not going to support any government he was not the head of. Hence Hindenburg's advisers came up with the plan to make Hitler chancellor but fill his cabinet with old style reactionaries. They called this "framing" Hitler. One even said: "In a few months Hitler will be so pressed to the wall that he squeaks". We all know how it really turned out. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the Nazis only had 3 cabinet ministers in their first 1933 coalition: Chancellor (Hitler - the face of the government), Interior (Frick, responsible for organising elections, but not controlling the police) and Hermann Göring was minister without portfolio, but at the same time Minister of the Interior of Prussia (and controlling its large police force). A few months later, Joseph Goebbels joined the cabinet in the newly created position of Minister of Propaganda. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation of how politics worked in the Weimar Republic! Not even sarcasm, that's pretty neat that people flew in with it. However, I also have to say, for the first time in my life, I am upset that I totally called it. Registry system for all people of a race he hates? I'm pretty sure everyone's gotta admit that that's about as Hitler as it gets. It's not psychic powers, it's being a cynical, miserable human being that can spot the worst in everyone. Yay me. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, just here again to gloat a bit about how much I called it. I remember, back in August, people were calling Godwin when you compared Trump to Hitler, and saying he'd drop out in a few weeks. Being a miserable bitch has its advantages. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The N-word[edit]

No, not that one. As a narcissist, the Donald risks joining the august company of historical characters like Caligula,Wikipedia's W.svg Nero,Wikipedia's W.svg and Commodus,Wikipedia's W.svg all narcissists at the pinnacle of imperial power.Wikipedia's W.svg Googling [Trump narcissist] turns up plenty of public mention. Should this be tucked into the article somehow? (just asking) CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Trump a new Reagan?[edit]

Bill Maher seems to think so (won't link to youtube video, as most editors here hate them, even if they are from well known public figures). In his words (roughly) Reagan was laughed out of the primaries the first time round in 1968 and still not taken very seriously in 1976 but by 1980 he took over first the GOP and thaen the country. Do y'all think sth. like that could happen again with Trump-a-Trump? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sleep habits[edit]

I've found a claim about Trump's sleeping habits that, if true, would say a little about his mindset and lot about his state of mind:

Trump deliberately only sleeps 3 hours a night to stay ahead of the competition -- he doesn't understand how someone who sleeps more can compete with those who get fewer hours.

Then again, there are quite a few things he doesn't understand... --Kitsune Inari (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Supposedly the amount of sleep one "needs" is highly dependent on the individual. At least that's what I have heard... However Science marches on and this may well be outdated information Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
As a wrestling nerd, I tend to believe this. The old joke is Vince McMahon tailored his entire life around his idol/friend Trump (he even 'ran' for office through his wife, Linda), and he's famous for denying himself sleep. SLEEP IS THE COUSIN OF DEATH, DAMMIT— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Please sign your contribution on talk pages by repeating the "~" symbol four times. Like this ~~~~ Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought his habits were to put his hair in a cage at night so it wouldn't attack him in his sleep. I guess he only keeps it there for three hours. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Trump isn't first place in the polls any more...[edit]

Or is he? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

According to a quick glance of Google News, Carson is 1st.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Should we update the article accordingly? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see, why not.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


I'm not sure how missional this might be, but Trump's feeble attempts at charity are certainly scamalicious on several fronts, and have been documented by The Smoking Gun[1] and The Business Insider[2] and The Nonprofit Quarerly.[3] Bongolian (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The F-word[edit]

If Trump were running in Continental Europe, he would already have been dubbed a neo-fascist by at least parts of the mainstream Anglophone press. How far do you think he'll have to go to get the same label in America? Termagant (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Never. Unlike Europe as a whole America took a major rightward shift in the 1970s under nixon and then Reagan in the 80's, leaving Trump not entirely far off from the norm. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
But Jean-Marie Le Pen and Marine Le Pen are routinely called fascists by mainstream American liberals, and Trump is lifting pages from Mme Le Pen's playbook. Do you need to be both a wingnut and a citizen of a country with a history of fascist rule? Termagant (talk) FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 04:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

So much for that. We finally woke up and noticed. This talk section is actually interesting. Back in August, nobody was taking Trump seriously as a candidate on here, and the idea of calling him a fascist was absurd to many people. This article was much smaller, too. But, now everyone with a brain is saying it. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The really scary thing[edit]

So I will link this here before it maybe gets taken down for copyright interesting isn't it? According to Keith Olbermann, Trump is a nice guy in person as opposed to his public persona... Now who's the act? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm uploading it to my Mega account right now, so even if it'll disappear, you'll be able to get it from me.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Better list[edit]

Could we devote more time to explaining about him and the pros (lol) and the cons rather than this slightly immature name call? We can keep the name calling, but more facts would be great.Andrac25 (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Andrac25

But immature name calling is what the internet excels at makes America great. :) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 10:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Why Trump is the most "militaristic" person ever[edit]

I just watched this video of The Late Show, and it brought up some interesting things about Trump that I was unaware of before, such as him believing that his time in a military-themed boarding school somehow gave him more training than most people who go through the military, that he always felt like he was in the army, and that at one point he gave one of his teachers a black eye because he disagreed with him. ( Is any of this information worth mentioning in the article? Nergali (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't Donnie not the first one to question John McCain's war record?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Is there a better source than a late-night sketch comedy show? Or is that the only thing left that passes as analysis these days? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Trump in the "fascism" category.[edit]

Not sure I agree, and the best reason why is nicely articulated here: "...he is not principled enough to be a Fascist. He strikes me more as a nativist-populist. That is, some one from the right wing, angry about various aspects of the present, longing for a golden past, and focused primarily against his own government, but not equipped with a set of adamantine principles to be put into practice..." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If he rejects liberal democracy and wants to usher in a one party state, then he'll earn the label. Until then, he's a nativist. ChrisAmiss (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree. We need to be careful of overusing labels. Just as conservatives overuse accusations of communism, so can we overuse accusations of fascism. Gooniepunk (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Nigel Farage[edit]

... disapproves of Donald Trump's latest outburst. (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart's non-stop fellating of Trump[edit] gets it right. Barnum & Baily must have taken over (following Andy's timely death), given the amount of logical back flips, backpedals and good 'ol lying going on at that site; all in the name of deifying Trump. I really need to start on the website page, because that site is a goldmine of silliness. Protip for anyone checking it out for themselves: writer John Nolte. He's really, really stupid.--Petey Plane (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Trump and the UK[edit]

If he gets elected having been banned-by-petition from the UK what would happen next? (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

He has not been banned. Parliament debated the question, as the petition called for, but it's the Home Secretary, not Parliament, that decides who can enter the country. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Anti-diplomacy by petition? (And the website crashed as part of the petition process) (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Who Else Thinks He's On Drugs?[edit]

I'm partial to the idea he's on cocaine or meth. Maybe both. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

He says he sleeps four hours a night. You do the math. Vulpius (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Bipolar meds. One of the common side effects is sun sensitivity, which could explain the heavy use of bronzer. Leuders (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
He might also be a shaved rabbit and eats so many carrots he has transcended sanity... -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I feel like the four hour thing would mean that he wouldn't be so high-energy. I feel like he might be compensating with narcotics. That's not to say he's not on bipolar meds, too. Donald Trump is exactly the type of person that would be on a drug cocktail. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Bankruptcy hijinks[edit]

Could we somehow integrate this note about his bankruptcies being an insidious money-making scheme here somewhere in the article?--Kugelschreiber (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Incestuous relationship with Ivanka[edit]

So what do you think? Did they or didn't they? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

meh. What's your point? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
there are plenty things trump does and says that really are awful without jumping on an innocent but not-really-that-creepy sounding compliment. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
It's fascinating that no one cares, as long as they don't explicitly admit that it happened. She doesn't seem traumatized, so people are willing to look the other way, as long as they remain coy about it. What about the photos?! Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 03:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
There's no proof at all posted there of him shagging her or even wanting her to shag (clumsy compliments about her beauty don't count). That's complete horseshit.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 14:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Leave this one for ED. Leuders (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
What about the photo... you know they did it, or wanted to. Who else takes a photo like that, unless that thought's in their mind? Or maybe that's just how my mind works. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Renaming the page Donald Drumpf?[edit]

Think this might be a fun idea. Make the current a redirect and change all instances of his name to Drumpf, but leave it as "aka Donald Trump" at the intro. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 01:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Oliver is great and all, but i don't know if enough people watch him to rename the whole page. I like it being an official AKA though. Petey Plane (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
So long as we link to it I think it should be fine. Our page on ISIS is called DAESH, which I'd wager a similar amount of people would understand the connotations of. The point of the Oliver piece was to point out how empty the Trump brand really is and then have a hand at rebranding him with something closer to reality. I feel like that's something we could help. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"No fun allowed". Typhoon (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong with Fuckface Von Clownstick? Vulpius (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Nein! Bongolian (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Doch!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 11:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 11:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Ohh! Pizzameister (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Best not rename articles based on one comedian's throwaway joke. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Not yet. Leuders (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, it looks like the piece is gaining a lot of traction and attention. Plus it doesn't seem to be so much a throwaway joke as an attempt at re-branding Trump, and if it catches on... Well, y'all know what to do. - Kitsunelaine 「SJW Illuminati shill.」 21:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Nein. брэндэн (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Silver Lining[edit]

Trump getting the nom may prove to Republicans that the electorate is sick of religious nutjobs. Not sick of nuts entirely, obviously, but I haven't heard trump whinge about sticking prayer in schools, and hey, he doesn't oppose abortion (even if he is living proof of the need for abortions to be legal in the 300th trimester).StickySock (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

As much as i hate to say it, i'd much rather Trump be president than Cruz or Rubio.Petey Plane (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Same for me. Trump, as opposed to Rubio/Cruz, does not appear to have much of a religious agenda to push.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you underestimate the power of self delusion in this voting block. The fact these idiots are vying for the top spot in a country with the military power to end the world, instead of a village idiot competition, stupefies me. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Well I think he may teach the average American that xenophobic isolationism is the wrong path to go like how Dubya taught the average American religious zealotry and neoconservatism have more problems than solutions.--Owlman (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I fear not taking Trump seriously is almost as bad as taking him seriously... Pizzameister (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Is starting to crack?[edit]

Trump's water may be getting too heavy for even his fawning toadies over at Even John Nolte, possibly the stupidest right wing pundit there is (and that's saying something) and the site's biggest Trump apologist, is starting to hedge his bets. It's very much great fun seeing Breitbart's desperate attempts to obfuscate their past support as their Chosen-One deviates from their anti-intellectual, nativist worldview, once He realized He'd have to start running a national campaign.

Petey Plane (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Not even a physical attack on one of their own reporters by his freaking campaign manager can make Trumpbart quit the guy.

Petey Plane (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

And Ben Shapiro has resigned from over their handling of the assault on reporter Michelle Fields by Trump's campaign manager. >TFW your site has become too much a dumpster fire for even a crazy person like Shapiro... Petey Plane (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"I Guarantee You There's No Problem"[edit]

Is this going to be a guarantee he can actually deliver on, or will it be just another unfulfilled campaign promise? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Preview of the next Republican debate
Megan Kelly - "Mr. Trump, could you please go into more detail about your plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, better know as Obamacare."
Donald Trump - *points to dilznick* Petey Plane (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Not to be racist, but[edit]

I wonder how many black men will vote for Donald Trump, not so much because they want to eliminate Hispanic competition for unskilled jobs, but because they respect Trump for being so "gangsta" in his approach (including flaunting his wealth and putting women in their place)? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Are your posts some kind of performance art? Typhoon (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, you are actually being racist.Petey Plane (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not prejudiced, but... (talk) 15:56, 6 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
This articcle does exist for a reason and your post seems to fit that article.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 15:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I wouldnt quite put it MRE's way, but it could conceivably be a voter winner by tapping into the racism of one group by targeting another racial. White folk arnt the only group with its racists. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I think MRE is out to prove some kind of point. I very much doubt anybody actually holds such views as he claims to do... Pizzameister (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


What are the specific problems with this page that it doesn't merit a Bronze? The page on Jerry Falwell is rather modest but still has a Bronze. Bongolian (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree, this page should even be a candidate for silver at this point.Petey Plane (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Looks like a bronze!ClickerClock (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

About David Duke[edit]

Technically saying David Duke has endorsed Trump is incorrect. In August 2015 Duke said: "I’m not endorsing Donald Trump, I believe that the discussion on the immigration issue is a legitimate discussion. It’s a good thing." "I have not endorsed [Trump] either informally or formally, but I do endorse the [immigration] conversation,” Duke added. “And I appreciate the fact that these issues are being raised."

Also the part about Duke's support coming from a perception of fighting Jews also seems incorrect.

"Trump has made it very clear that he’s 1,000 percent dedicated to Israel, so how much is left over for America?" "This is the reason why I have not endorsed Donald Trump, because I really have to evaluate these things,” "But I really think the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are completely under the sway of the Zionists who are ultimately damaging America and damaging the world."

I would like to remove these parts I have an issue with because of these quotes. I found these quotes here:

Cyberpink (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The first part is correct, but he told his sheep followers that Trump is the best guy running. That's pretty close to an endorsement. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Just change it to "all but endorsed", because that's essentially what he did.Petey Plane (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Saying "all but endorsed" sounds a bit wrong to me. It seems like an uncareful reader might take it as the mistake I want to correct. The word endorsed should be removed as far as Duke concerned. Cyberpink (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
"'I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action,' Duke said on his radio show. 'His candidacy is an insurgency that is waking up millions of Americans. It is your job now to get active.'" [4] I'd call that an endorsement. --Ymir (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The full quote is "I'm not saying I endorse everything about Trump, in fact I haven't formally endorsed him. But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action". It's some praise not an endorsement. Cyberpink (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
You (and Duke) are engaging in semantic hairsplitting. If you tell people to go vote for someone, that's as much of an endorsement as it gets, vis a vis the electoral process. Duke is simply saying he doesn't agree with every single one of Trump's positions (which is unsurprising, as for all of Trump's other faults he isn't a raging anti-Semite), and also throwing that in there to allow doing what you're doing: trying to lead people off into the weeds into linguistic arguments. "Duke technically didn't endorse Trump; he just praised Trump and told people to vote for him!" --Ymir (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Endorsements are more official while praise is not. The difference is not very large but they are still different words which can cause confusion leading to them being used incorrectly. It's like how President Obama supports but has not endorsed Mrs. Clinton. When you say "throwing that in there" do you mean putting the quote in the article? That doesn't seem necessary. Cyberpink (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Possible image for inclusion in article under authoritarianism section. It's fairly self explanatory and I feel it should be noted somewhere the irrational lengths some people will go to smear someone they don't like. Recommend someone investigate to see if this really is a BS supporter before its included. — Unsigned, by: / talk 02:33, 17 March 2016‎ (UTC) Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

As for the statement of Trump not being an anti-Semite... Well he has gone to a room full of Jews and blathered about how he "doesn't need their money" and how they "know how to make deals" which is probably at least close to anti-Semitic stereotypes... Pizzameister (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

He said that to a lot of people, Jews or not. He prides himself in not being in the pockets of any lobby group, be they Jewish or not (despite letting others pay for his campaign, if I'm not entirely mistaken).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC) 17:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that for all of Trump's faults, he isn't an anti-Semite. But, trying to say there is a difference between and official endorsement and "I do support his candidacy" is hair-splitting. "All-but-endorse" is an appropriate take on Duke's position.Petey Plane (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ivanka Trump fashion line[edit]

Ivanka Trump fashions, financed by the Don, of 838 items surveyed not one was manufactured in the U.S., most all in China, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. I'll get you a link. nobsLewinsky 2020 05:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Point of order[edit]

And please don't misunderstand, I'm not defending this piece of shit whatsoever. But I suggest U allow Trump's words and actions speak for themselves without exaggerations and distortions. For example, Donald Trump is not being accused of assault as the TOC in this article implies. Numerous, numerous examples in all sorts of media abound (like he threatened to "incite" riot as an NBC reporter said, said nice things about Kim jong il or questioned Mitt Romney's faith, to name a short list). All of these are outright, blatant, biased attack distortions which directly into the hands of his sympathizers. Let Trump rise and fall on his own words and actions. Critics need not reveal their bias and discredit themselves in dealing with Trump, they are only manufacturing the very thing Trump supporters are rebelling against. nobsLewinsky 2020 14:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Very good point.Cyberpink (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Under "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody!"[edit]

First I would like to point out that the title quote is an exaggeration. He was saying he his supporters like him a lot. Also the hand raising and swearing thing can also be interpreted as a joke. Can anyone find a video of it because I'd like to hear the "Don't forget you all raised your hand, you swore," and "Bad things happen if you don't live up to what you just did" parts. They can be said jokingly. Hyperbolic humor is something he seems fond of using. However, I'm not asking for the section to be removed (it should get a new title though) if it can get more support.Cyberpink (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I re-wrote to make it seem less like the crowd or trump were purposely mimicking Nazi's. The point of the optics of the moment stills stands, and Trump has done nothing to distance himself from authoritarianism. And exactly isn't Trump hyperbolic? I don't know if you could define something as hyperbolic, what that is the person's standard mode of behavior. Petey Plane (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hyperbolic still applies when it is a standard mode of behavior. When a person uses sarcasm a lot they are called sarcastic. Also I don't think the optics are enough to support that Trump is fascist. I'm sure any rally can look like a Hitler rally. It's the words that are really important and I don't think they were serious.Cyberpink (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough on the hyperbolic point, but you say Trump wasn't serious. When exactly is Trump serious? He throws out these statements with the same inflection, tone and seeming intent that he does with his so-called serious statements. Trump has repeated numerous times that, as president, he would change libel laws in order to sue the media that writes things about him he disagrees with, ban immigrants based on their religion, use actual torture on detainees, murder the family members of suspected terrorists, and have mass deportations of at least 11 million people from the US within 1 year (or approximately 32,000 a day who would need to be rounded up across the country). That sounds pretty authoritarian/fascist to me. Or was he just being not-serious about all that? RW isn't NPOV and the point speaks to a larger pattern of behavior that should be obvious to even a casual observer. Petey Plane (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so contrast Trump's bluster with the cutting-edge, decisive issue millions of voters are occupied with in the Democratic primaries - marijuana legalization. Hillary is swaying voters with promises to legalize marijuana. Newsflash: Only Congress can legalized marijuana. No fucking way will a Republican Congress send a bill to Hillary's desk to legalize marijuana. Unless Hillary can bring with her 22 new Senators & 30 House members, which no one. thinks likely, there is no possible way she can deliver this promise. Like Trump, Hillary is talking out of her asshole, telling her idiot supporters the blatant crap and lies they want to hear. And like Trump, she's a deliberate, deceptive liar banking on the stupidity of voters, and she and he with his promises both know it. So what is the difference? nobsLewinsky 2020 02:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
OK... i'm not sure what that has to do with the point at hand. Take it to the Hillary or Bernie talk pages. Petey Plane (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
My point is not that Trump does not have authoritarian tendencies. I found a video about the swearing and the "don't forget you raised your hands" part sounds very joking. It's a different tone than he uses in the rest of the video and in other rallies and debates. It is possible to tell when he means something and when he doesn't. Cyberpink (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
"My point is not that Trump does not have authoritarian tendencies." I gave 5 examples of authoritarian policies Trump has proposed.Petey Plane (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I know that. I didn't disagree with those. I never said he wasn't authoritarian. I just disagree with the specific section I brought up.Cyberpink (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
"My point is not that Trump does not have authoritarian tendencies." "I never said he wasn't authoritarian." Petey Plane (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
It makes a weird sort of logic that he doesn't have the tendencies, he's a full blown authoritarian, like calling a rapist a creeper with rapist tendencies that keeps trying to hold people's drinks . -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how those quotes contradict. "My point is not that Trump does not have authoritarian tendencies." I was saying I agree that he's authoritarian. I guess tendencies was ironically poor word choice.Cyberpink (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


Is whining about us whining about Donald Trump. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

A comedian?[edit]

I'm Russian, and in Russian Internet everybody understands that all of Trump's "political" actions and statements are simply jokes and he is not a politician but a master troll who trolls the fuck out of America. It's fairly obvious that he doesn't even want to be a president - he just wants to have fun and laugh at idiots who take him and his statements seriously. Why don't you understand that this guy is simply a joker and a troll? (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately half of America doesn't seem to have caught on to this yet, and if people treat him like an actual candidate, so must this wiki. Madattak (talk)
Most American conservative political candidates are regarded as complete jokes internationally, then they get elected. (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem with political jokes is that they get elected.-DiamondDisc1 (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You know who else was a political joke back in the day? Withoutaname (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This page deserves at least a silver at this point.[edit]

Just sayin, it's dense. Petey Plane (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's been changed to bronze!-DiamondDisc1 (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually agree with you on this.-(Ir)RationalWikian 22:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Trump compared to ethnic nationalists[edit]

Whereas ethnic nationalists in other countries go, "After all these centuries of massacres and genocide against us, it is a miracle we're still here!" Trump says (this is a paraphrase of a video I once saw), "We're getting ripped off on these deals. It's a miracle we're still here!" (And that's not a condensation. He really expressed it in two consecutive sentences like that.) Seems kind of tame in comparison, yet it seems to achieve much the same effect among voters.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 23:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Can we quit it with the "third grade level" stuff?[edit]

The Flesch-Kincaid test is not reliable.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 00:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Cover Story (sticky)[edit]

I think this should be a cover story because:

1: It is very thoroughly written.

2: This article cites lots of sources.

3: This article has several things in common with current cover story articles, like page length, quality, and accuracy. -Di@m0ndD15C1 23:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

No, this should be an exception. It would stroke The Donald's yuge ego if it went gold. Bongolian (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you think he actually knows about this wiki? -DiamondDisc1 02:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You never know: he's been obsessive about keeping his ego well-protected to the point of his responding to slights made against him on twitter by anonymous users — I know this second-hand. Bongolian (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) is an interesting point you're making...however we shouldn't let Donald Drumpf Trump influence this wiki's actions. -DiamondDisc1 (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

A further point as to the non-goldness of this article. It's constantly being rearranged, often with no explanation as to why. It's not very stable. Bongolian (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Because it's kudzu. The danger of hosting it here is that Trump is so deliberately irrational. This covers his campaign and rhetorical techniques, and it's already huge. It's no different than news outlets doggedly trying to debunk all his lies. You need a library of congress to do that.. Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Good point.-DiamondDisc1 (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll be de-nominating this article.-DiamondDisc1 (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


We cucked /r/The_Donald! oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Trololololo Petey Plane (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't use Chrome for a long time, but don't they add these search abbreviations automatically.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 16:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
But... but... the alt-right rage tears. Petey Plane (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
They're sweet as ambrosia.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 19:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

trump was a babyface in WWE[edit]

i mean, yeah, the man has undergone the mother of all heel turns, but during his WWE run he was in the corner of the babyface bobby lashley against the evil mr. mcmahon, who was consistently a heel all throughout that era, and umaga.

funfact: initially, trump's "guy" was supposed to be rey mysterio, arguably the most famous luchadore of all time. however, it was changed to bobby lashley because vince thought fans wouldn't believe trump would choose a little guy like rey. given trump's recent comments on hispanics, this has taken a more ironic turn. (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


The article is in nice shape, but I have some concerns about the bottom. The VP list, while funny, doesn't add anything which hasn't already been mentioned already, and the "Drumpf" stuff reflects poorly on the objectivity of the wiki. "Trump is a racist chucklefuck so that gives us a free pass."

I'm also concerned about the f-word. It puts the article in the weird position of defending Trump's hysteria. (See at the bottom, the mockery of the The_Donald sits right next to a mention of Mao's Red Guard.) Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Relevant quote?[edit]

'If you stare into the abyss long enough it will stare back at you.' (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Nah... it's such an overused quote. And it's hardly specific enough. Thanks though. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the Reverend. That quote is not particularly enlightening in this case. Nerd (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

229[edit] The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Great website[edit]

Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 00:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


DT wants to construct a wall against the Mexicans - but not the Canadians.

Some Brit illegal immigrant attempts to 'acquire and use a gun against' DT - with no comment about 'illegal immigrant dangers' from DT in response.

To borrow a quote 'Are you thinking what I'm thinking?' (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, the GOP's led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he's got something else in mind. And the something else in mind — you know, people can't believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that Donald Trump is acting the way he acts and can't even mention the words 'radical Western terrorism.' There's something going on. It's inconceivable. (talk) 17:42, 21 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

The IP is referring to a series of (UK) Conservative Party election posters of a 'slightly nasty' nature. (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump's advisors[edit]

Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Even Maddox thinks Trump is PC[edit] Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Nostradamus quatrain[edit]

Are there any appropriate Nostradamus quatrains? (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

“In the world there will be made a king,
And the great wall against them who are born imperfect.
The cities are troubled by sudden change,
Tents are pitched by people of foreign tongues.
Secretly enemies will be placed as a threat,
And old adherents found to plot sedition."
Leuders (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
You people should be consulting the world expert. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
What is the quatrain with 'the mouth full of blood' btw? (talk)
I hope it's the one where John Hogue got punched in the mouth! Aaaah... Nah, I kid. He doesn't deserve that. Let's say, the one where he brushed his gums too hard. Lol. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
This one perhaps
The trumpet shakes with great discord.
An agreement broken: lifting the face to heaven:
the bloody mouth will swim with blood;
the face anointed with milk and honey lies on the ground.

Any more? (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh Jesus, what's that smell
—Nostradomus, probably
ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Irony meter[edit]

Woody Guthrie as the voice against racism? Lulz. (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Some are able to learn from the errors of their past (Woody Guthrie), and some aren't (Donald Trump).
Later, Guthrie said, "A young Negro in Los Angeles wrote me a nice letter one day telling me the meaning of that word [nigger] and that I shouldn't say it anymore on the air. So I apologized." He next "tore all the nigger songs out of his songbook."
—From the same LA Weekly article[5]


Why should Donald Trump's dad have to say he's German rather than Swedish so that jews can boycott him for a totally arbitrary reason? (He's German, he made it happen! Rabble Rabble!). This in the same breath as they say that Trump should be admitting black tenets in the midst of unprecedented racial violence in the 60s, much of it committed by blacks? His dad attended a klan rally? Or they kinda sorta think he did? And he lied about his address to avoid a witch hunting press? Oh, murder! Kinda like those hollywood folks who were concerned about working people in the 30s and attended bread instead of bullets meetings because they really approved of everything communists did. Sarcasm. And what's will all this thousands of students in the lawsuit. One girl was represented and her lawyer wanted to drop it because they had nothing whereas many people went to Trump U to go on and be successful. Also amazing that Trump is a racist for pointing out that a judge's mexican heritage, and his ties to groups like la raza (an avowed racist organization) might compromise his impartiality in the case (ya think?), especially when said case was so weak that those who brought it to the fore wanted to drop it. Next story, the violent abuse of women by Corey Lewandowski. Burkean (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Power Monkeys[edit]

There is a DT thread in the UK comedy series Power Monkeys [6]. (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Who deleted his father's racism?[edit]

In the endless revisions of this page, someone for some reason deleted all reference to his father Fred's overt & documented racism (KKK membership, housing discrimination, deceiving of Jewish clients). This is quite relevant. See the Woody Guthrie lyrics regarding the father and tell me it isn't also about the son:

I suppose
Old Man Trump knows
Just how much
Racial Hate
he stirred up
In the bloodpot of human hearts
When he drawed
That color line
Here at his
Eighteen hundred family project

Beach Haven ain’t my home!
I just cain’t pay this rent!
My money’s down the drain!
And my soul is badly bent!
Beach Haven looks like heaven
Where no black ones come to roam! No, no, no! Old Man Trump!
Old Beach Haven ain’t my home!

Donald did inherit his father’s racism, and was probably actively coached in his father’s racism, and worked with his father to perpetuate it
—Will Kaufman, the professor of American literature and culture at Britain’s University of Central Lancashire [7]

WTF? Some people are courageous enough to overcome their parents' racism, others just decide they can profit from it. Bongolian (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I deleted it. Sorry, but you need more evidence. No one can seem to agree whether Fred was attending the rally or just happened to be in the vicinity. Changing his name was standard practice in the days following WWII. And the housing can be written off as real-estate dickery (in fear of white flight, most likely). The article was full of hearsay like this.
Calm your tits, you sound like my mom. I want to believe everything horrible! Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The quote from professor Kaufman and the washington post source warrants mention in the article, assuming no counter-source is found. Bongolian, I support your re-addition of the stuff into the article, pending an actual source from Plutoniumboss and not just conjecture. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Heh, yes. Let's pad out this article which is already longer than the ones on Lenski, anti-vaccination, and the Bible. Plutoniumboss (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, I have redone Fred Christ completely. Should be more accurate/relevant now. Bongolian (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Now that the Guthrie lyrics are gone, I kinda miss them! Maybe we should use them in an rquote box, on the side.

I don't think Fred Trump is deserving of a whole article, but it does speak to the legitimacy of the Trump enterprise. (They're all grifters; even Ivanka steals her clothing designs from other companies.) Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I do think the Fred section did show Donald's nascent racism, and I think Donald's racism is currently rather underplayed in the current page. I will leave this for someone else to change if there is agreement. Bongolian (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I won't push the matter. Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Putin pwned Trump[edit]

There's an interesting blogpost on Talking Points Memo[8] about how Trump's only sources of loans are Deutschebank and Russian oligarchs connected with Putin. Two of Trump's main advisors (Paul Manafort and Carter Page) are connected to Putin. If nothing else, this explains Putin's endorsement of Trump. Trump's fawning fleet of Republicans seems unconcerned that Trump's been pawned by a former KGB agent. Bongolian (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

With the hard-on they have for Pootie-Poot, they won't be too concerned about that, since they see him as a fellow authoritarian doing things they only dream of such as actively persecuting gays.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 03:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC) 03:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that that is a bit of a stretch to suggest he is a pawn but he has had connections to the mob as well.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC) 03:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I used "pwned" (leet for "owned"), not "pawned". It's a bit different than pawned. To what extent Putin might be able to control Trump so long as his taxes remain unreleased.
I thought you might have but you said he may be "pawned by the KGB" above.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC) 03:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Also worth considering is whether Putin orchestrated the Russian hacking of the Democratic Party's computer in order to aid Trump. Bongolian (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I am still skeptical since everything seems to be blamed on Putin. I am mostly hesitant because I remember everyone accusing NK of hacking Sony but Russia is far more capable and has hacked the US in the past. Regardless, Trump has a clear bias towards Putin.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 03:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
So you think Angela Merkel is better? Do you think the UN entertaining the notion of armed conflict with Russia is a good idea? What other world leaders should Trump be looking to to try and build an international coalition? Erdogan? Justin Trudeau (lulz)? It is amazing for you guys to be complaining about Putin when our government has been helping some of the most violent radical lunatics who make Putin look like Mickey Mouse for Christ sake. And I don't just mean Obama but Bush too. Do you really think Obama has given aid to people better than Putin? Even if you think Putin is as bad as Stalin (FYI, he isn't), isn't normalizing relations with Russia a much better way to help combat isis, not to mention help build a more stable europe, and world? Isn't the world a more stable place when America and Russia are getting along? Doesn't having a stronger relationship with Russia help improve our position with China? I'll just end with a quote from one of rationalwiki's favorite politicians. "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." Or at least he should be. Burkean (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
^ Finally a source of reason and sanity in this discussion. Putin isn't responsible for a ton of problems, he didn't orchestrate the hacking of the DNC, and he isn't the evil bastard Western media makes him out to be. Trump would also be better in international relations as a whole than Hillary Clinton. Why? He wouldn't actively be working to overthrow Assad, he would help the Kurds out more, and he wouldn't try to provoke Russia like Obama and Clinton have and would. PBfreespace (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@Burkean I don't want any leader to be biased towards any nation, leader, or corporation. I don't actually find Trump's foreign policy (assuming what he is saying is true) to be that objectionable. I think NATO is anachronistic to the modern era and w/o reform and inclusion of Russia it should be abolished. I dislike the way the world is structured with the US's global hegemony being the only thing keeping everything together. Obama is currently trying to arm Vietnam despite our pledge to not give weapons to human rights abusers, except, of course, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Columbia, and Honduras. Trump's previously said he wanted to carpet bomb ISIL and the media freaked out except Obama's drone program, which Clinton oversaw as secretary of state, had a 90% civilian casualty rate.
There is a lot to appreciate about how cooperative Putin has been. He allowed us to use Russia's airports when we invaded Afghanistan which helped us send supplies to critical areas. Putin also supported our intervention on Libya until we committed to removing Gaddafi which was not approved by Congress or the UN and likely caused Putin to veto UN sanctions against Assad. Putin also helped us negotiate with Assad in order to remove and destroy his chemical weapons cache. He also gets points from me for granting Snowden asylum and I do appreciate the DNC leaks. Despite this, you can still criticize his attacks against the press and political opponents, his corruption, his encroachment on Ukraine, and his fearmongering about LGBT people.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC) 03:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


USA Today published an analysis of all of the Trump lawsuits: 4056 in 3 decades or about 1 lawsuit every 2.5 days![9] They also reported which side won when it could be determined: rather poor outcomes overall (contrary to what the bullshit factor himself would have you believe) which would give a sane person the idea that it might be better to try to avoid these suits where possible. Bongolian (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Racism again[edit]

As I said earlier, I think the current incarnation of this page substantially downplays Trump's long history of racism. Now there's a new New York Times opinion piece by Nicholas Kristof detailing Trump's racist behavior over time.[10] I think there should be a separate section on his racist activities. Bongolian (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think a few of those incidents are mentioned over at the Fred Trump page; but I agree that there should be a separate section on his racist activities. Now the fun task is to find out how to condense all that racism into just one section... – AOAPJM (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Leading quote removal[edit]

About these edits: Could we please verify that Trump actually said what this snapshot says? There are just so many fake quotes out there, you can never be too careful. – AOAPJM (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Secure the border is not the same as Donald Trump's anti immigration and trade rhetoric overall[edit]

Mitt Romney and historically the Republican Party since Dwight D Eisenhower have been anti illegal immigration. The Democratic Party, regardless of what the union vote wanted, have generally been pro amnesty to a greater extent than the Republicans (take for example Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale). These positions do not correlate, however, to wanting more guest worker passes either for low skill or high skill workers. The Republicans had supported worker passes until Donald Trump won the nominations. Donald Trump is anti both legal and illegal immigration, and secure the border really only refers to illegal land immigration from Mexico only. I do not mean this necessarily as a defense of his positions, just where they stand historically. Objective (talk)

Let me see if I understand you. Trump's position is further to the right than "Secure the border", so that term doesn't apply. Isolationist, then? Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Is not 'further to the right' in the Atlantic ocean? (Ban those pesky high-tech Atlanteans with all their stores of gold etc now!') (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Genghis Khan is the classic 'further to the right of' hook... but he disbelieved in borders. (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Not exactly are argument in favor of open borders, is it? Burkean (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
But in much of central Asia at the time the only borders would have been the Great Wall, the Himalayas and "wherever the too cold for comfort/food availability" cline was' (and in much of Europe border=money generating (for the rulers) customs post" - unless you were smuggling wheelbarrows).

What is the logic behind Genghis Khan = right wing (as most 'well known right wing politicians' would never have drunk kumis/been able to ride fast all day for weeks on end/been happy with a diet of mutton for breakfast, mutton for lunch and, for a change, mutton for tea)? (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Genghis Khan didn't see borders...only fronts. I'm in favor of open borders though. PB (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


That is a very serious charge for a sarcastic statement and we shouldn't engage in such ridiculousness. I am going to remove that section unless someone can justify it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you actually able to tell when The fountain of bullshit is being sarcastic? ;-) Bongolian (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Reform Party candidacy[edit]

So I think his Template:Wp is relevant since he ran on very similar issues like free trade. He says he left the party due to David Duke, Pat Buchanan, and Lenora Fulani joining and that it was full of conspiracies.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


There was a suggestion early in the campaign that Trump might be in the early stages of Alzheimer.

  1. For how silly Trump is now see A day in the life of a buffoon.
  2. For how even Pat Robertson is critical of Trump see Pat Robertson: Donald Trump Shouldn’t Let the Devil Distract Him From Talking About the Economy Robertson blames the devil.

Does Trump have a progressive condition that got worse since the start of the campaign? Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it something similar to Saint Ronnie?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 14:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC) 14:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Maggie's friend had a sense of humour (and they were both involved in films). Does Trump? (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't though of this about Trump but, if true it would certainly explain a lot.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Almost by definition, Trump could not have a sense of humor: 1) he lacks any empathy 2) he thinks he's better than everyone else. Humor primarily belongs to the oppressed; oppression is an alien concept to Trump. Bongolian (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Can jokes have a sense of humour? (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
In a sense, yes. Compare a joke about a rich man's foibles vs. the same joke about a poor man. The first joke may be funny but the second joke is more likely to be cruel. For a real world example, compare the French film Le Dîner de Cons ("Dinner for Cunts", erroneously translated as "The Dinner Game") vs. the American remake Dinner for Schmucks. The very funny original film made the tormentors the butt of the jokes, whereas the awful remake did the opposite. Bongolian (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Kathleen Parker sure thinks so. "After a brain injury, I suddenly displayed some behavior similar to Donald Trump’s" Vulpius (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The Atlantic article[edit]

This article has some information that might be worth adding, but I'm not sure where. Also, anyone feel like digging more into this "Journal of American Greatness"? --Ymir (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This has got to stop[edit]

The article is filled with falsehoods about Trump. People reading it can see it was written by left wing loons.

Either don't make this website political at all (only cover science), or stop the left-wing political bias.Schizophrenic (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Please list these falsehoods and provide reliable sources. And no, Breitbart, WND, and 8chan are not reliable sources. --Ymir (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we could benefit from being less political, but I'm not sure where the actual errors are in the article. It looks well referenced to me. So I'm guessing you are more knowledgeable and can point out where the mistakes are.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Schizophrenic Yeah, 'cause the content of the article has nothing to do with the type of person Donald fucking Trump is? Jesus. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Schizophrenic "falsehoods" as in plural. You have given only one example (his characterization of Hispanic immigrants, which was not a direct quote) that can easily be justified based on Trump's actions and statements. Please give more examples of the supposed falsehoods that you believe this page is filled with. Also, insulting all of the people editing this page as "left-wing loons" is probably not the best way to get your proposed edits much consideration. Petey Plane (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

"Hispanic people are lazy and come here to get welfare and commit crime. Also they're stealing all our jobs." -- Trump never said this. He only said some Hispanic people are bad, criminals and lazy (in every population there are some bad people). The article also accuses Trump of racism, but no evidence is provided.Schizophrenic (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Beast has the direct quote: “I love the Mexican people … I respect Mexico … but the problem we have is that their leaders are much sharper, smarter and more cunning than our leaders, and they’re killing us at the border,” Trump said. “They’re taking our jobs. They’re taking our manufacturing jobs. They’re taking our money. They’re killing us.”
This is linked to from the article. But I agree the article should be edited to reflect what the article said. Arguably what actually said is worse than what we have quoted. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
He wants to build a wall to keep out the Mexicans (and getting them to pay for it) and he says Muslims should be barred from entering the USA: to many people this has the appearance of being racist.

Various senior Republicans are urging members of the party not to vote for Trump/announcing that they are ceasing and desisting from supporting DT. Does this make them left-wing loons?

And RW uses snark across the spectrum, so affects a form of neutrality.

Which definition of loon [11] is being used? (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

65 countries have border fences/walls, and many more are now building them. Are all these countries 'waycist'?Schizophrenic (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
It is not the fence per se, it is the pretext for the fence (Trump's, "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."). All countries have the right to defend and regulate their borders. Bongolian (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The wall itself is not a problem, it's Trumpster's rethoric around it (how in the name of Arceus would he have Mexico pay for it?!?!).--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 18:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 18:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
And all those 'security experts' arguing against DT?
Walls face two ways - the 'to-be-Scots' might well have been in favour of Hadrian's Wall/the Antonine Wall as the Romans effectively admitted that was as far as they would go (and the camps would keep the people who wanted to buy the to-be-Scots' goods in identifiable places). And why not build a wall against the Canadian-tree-invasion as well? (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
What, Canadian Ents are preparing to attack?!--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 16:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 16:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
A wall can be an accepted and acceptable dividing line when there is no geographical equivalent (Offa's Dyke versus the Icelandic Plate.
P'raps DT has come across [12] and [13]. (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll comment here. Firstly, the US already has a massive border wall with Mexico which was built by... Bill Clinton. This wall was expanded by Bush but he stopped construction because ot cost way too much. Then Obama heavily armed the border police and gave them various sensors and drones. Secondly, any nation that has built a wall is racist, period. Thirdly, Trump could theoretically get Mexico to for such a wall or, at least, punish them for their emigration policy by seizing remittance pay like Obama did to Somalia despite suffering a drought in 2011.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

/r/EnoughTrumpSpam and /r/Skeptic don't dislike[edit]

oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

We should add something on Donald Trump loving the poorly educated[edit] -- (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Already in there, Champ. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump staffer makes face as Trump calls Hillary a bigot[edit]

She facially expressed for the best of us that day. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

How come this article isn't considered Gold yet?[edit]

Show your cards, guys and dolls. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It has insufficient coverage of Trump's racism. I think there should be a separate section, and some of the Fred Trump material could be used. Bongolian (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It has to be our strongest Silver article, then. I'd support Gold right now, for the record. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I changed it to silver, because people didn't seem to accept gold. But I would seriously support gold.-【DiamondDisc1】 (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
It isn't gold because I wrote half of it, and it's tainted by association. (Kidding! Kind of.) Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I have added a smidge more on his racism (the "prehistory"). I would support gold. Bongolian (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The butterfly syndrome[edit]

Some mention of the latest psychiatry-at-a-distance analysis of DT anyone? (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Um, by who, when? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

There was an article in today's The Times (London) but see also [14].

How should [15] be classified? (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Page 3, Kevin Dutton and see [16]. (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no mention of "butterfly syndrome" on any of those pages. The second of your links is a satire site. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a mention in the article of Hannibal Lector - a reference to the picture on the novel The Silence of the Lambs - and might as well link tropes. (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, buddy, pal, the problem here is you're not being coherent. You want some mention of... something... in the article, but you're doing a very poor job of expressing what that is and why. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Should there be a mention of the Oxford don's 'analysis' of DT? (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so you linked to Oxford Don, but not his analysis. What exactly what the analysis? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
That DT scores 'rather higher on the psychopathy scales' than most of the usual suspects rounded up (including Hannibal L). (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Slowly but surely we're getting somewhere. How can we cite that they said that, and what objective credibility or lack thereof is there to the claim? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────A don from a world-renowned university talking within their field can be treated as a probably creditable witness. Probably needs input from other RWers now. (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Steve Bannon, CEO of the Trump campaign, made millions via the grayzone practice of WoW gold selling[edit]

Jesse Jackson and Donald Trump[edit]

Anybody see this one yet?nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 19:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Not so surprising. Once upon a time in the not-so-distant past, Trump was Democrat and kept his racism better hidden. Jackson's PUSH was one of many non-profits that Trump promised but never delivered fund to. Bongolian (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
In this 2025 commentary Jackson argues, "on right and left, among Republicans and Democrats, more and more are unwilling to accept politics as usual. Too many people are left out of that arrangement. The two major parties will have to change, or they are likely to be changed by voters who have had enough." He appears to be arguing for insurgency; is he content with the status quo in 2016, or does he want a return to the good old days of the 1990s when superpredators were the hot botton issue.
Jackson makes a good point : both parties have to change. Everyone can see the GOP is changing. The fight over Wasserman-Shultz and the Superdelegates was a fight over the Democratic establishment's refusal to change.nobsGary Johnson for Rehab! 19:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm starting to feel compassion for you, Rob. You're no run-of-the-mill concern troll, I see you actually buy into this stuff. At your age, you ought to be a little bit more savvy about optics and political judo. Plutoniumboss (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Any resemblance[edit]

...between DT and the second image on [17]? (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

...No? Though, there might be some similarity between Trump and these fishes, if you kinda squint. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
A new form of political analysis - finding the animals the politicians resemble (excluding 'spineless amoebas and slime moulds'). (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Check out these secret photos from his wig plantation. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Also his lip blowfish farm: Newest Hobby: Putting Donald Trump’s Mouth On Pufferfish. Bongolian (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
And this urinal. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Does Boris Johnson have part shares in the wig plantation? Alternatively 'invasion of the (bodysnatching) wigs.' (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that where Geert Wilders got his? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a SF story here (possibly going via the bodysnatchers/[18]/[19] . (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

End NY fundraising, Trump foundation told[edit]

End NY fundraising, Trump foundation told Currently this is breaking news. Clicking on this link later should reveal more. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Answer - tax politicians' verbiage. (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If Trump were to resign as The Republican presidential nominee what would happen?[edit]

Would Pence run against Clinton or would they appoint a bigger gun like Ryan or Cruz, or perhaps another option? — Unsigned, by: Mercian / talk / contribs

And if Trump and Clinton were to both resign just before the election? (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Is resignation from the ticket even possible at this point? Or would he be able to resign in some states but not in others? Also, who could possibly force him to? He won't do it on his own accord, that's for sure. I am not the Ombud's man 17:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
And people said Bernie/Hillary divided the Democrats, threatening a Democrat win... Can you imagine what would happen to Republican voter unity if Trump somehow got ousted against his will!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Possible general cases - candidate X suffers 'major health incident/accident'; candidate Y discovers they were an infant cross-border adoptee and candidate Z has 'an excess of problem history.' (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
It is not really possible at this point for Trump to effectively resign. Trump is already on the ballots of all states. It's not going to change. The US has a quaint history of electing dead people who remain more popular than their still-living opponents even post mortem:[20] why not vote for Trump "resigned" or not? Some fringey GOP leadership types are concocting an alternate-reality Hail Mary Pass in which 1) Trump "resigns" 2) Trump still wins 3) the electors in the electoral college vote en masse for whomever they're fantasizing about. Bongolian (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The three examples I gave are 'the most likely (but with no specific persons in mind).
Would they have to mummify a dead-when-elected president and/or consult a necromancer, and/or have a court case to decide what happened next (as not standard 'vice president succeeds)? Would give a whole new meaning to Zombie Politics. (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The octopi[edit]

... complain about the comparison.

Anyone care to support the 'Octopussies against Trump' campaign? (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"Grab'em by the pussy"[edit]

The Washington Post reports: Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005. Oops. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is what he wrote in one of his awful books, fantasising that the creepy things he says & does to women are actually what they do & say to him. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Weasel, I'm not the least bit sober right now. I want to tell you that I love you like a beautiful baby son. And, that — this is true — as I opened that very link you just gave and started reading, mouth wide open, the literal crescendo of Wagner's Die Walküre (as rendered by the London philharmonic orchestra) just arrived in my headphones. And what a display of cerebral pyrotechnics it was to combine the two, my Lord (oh, and lots of rum). Press button, receive bacon, and read Trump's words once more. All I can say is that I'm getting that book, and I'm reading it all in this voice. Signed, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
If he wins, I will play this song. If he loses, I will play this. What have you done, America? Do you really want Earth's greatest country to go down the toilet on which an orange orangutan is sitting, constipating? Nerd271 (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
May I suggest a more fittingly apocalyptic "Donald wins!" theme? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
It should come a surprise to no one, but there may be forced-feigned gasps of shock and horror from some of his supporters. The Phoenix Excrementi will remain oblivious. Bongolian (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Am I the only one who was deeply concerned about how that pencil dick show host and Trump were talking while aboard the bus (especially) in the context of how they instantly acted towards that woman? I'd say it was like watching two cougars race each other for the antelope, if only it wasn't more like watching two awkward pandas attempting to wingman each other into getting the out-of-reach stick of bamboo. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Par for the course of Trump. The real problem is not Trump but his die-hard supporters. Kelly Ayotte was supposedly "forced" into taking back her same-day "Absolutely!" that Trump was an appropriate role model. She's apparently still voting for him. By the way the short asshole is part of the Bush clan. Bongolian (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The supposed anatomy of a "short asshole" amuses me. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Great bit of Whataboutism in Trump's response. Speaking of whataboutism responses to criticisms of Trump - where is Nobs on this?— Unsigned, by: Bob M / talk / contribs

Passing obligatory mention of UK TV series Are You Being Served? (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)