Talk:Donald Trump/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 28 September 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <3>, <4>

, (new)(back)

Melania Trump: conspiracy theorist

If only this wasn't real life... Kinda sounds like a spiritual successor to Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Oooooh! Conspiracies!-DiamondDisc1(talk) 03:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The vast international conspiracy to stop Trump

As revealed by The Washington Post. In just one chart, no less! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

They forgot the 10s of millions of voters in on it. I'm going to play whistle blower. Blow the lid wide open. I was contacted by the campaign, through the OBAMA CONTROLLED post office. It arrived at my home with no warning. They sent a letter asking for my help by voting in the election. I, of course, disposed of this evidence, as I've been conditioned to do. But I still intend to be part of the great conspiracy to elect Hillary Clinton ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If God almighty himself wasn't looking down on America at this very moment, with tears streaming down his face as the Infowars moneybomb failed to meet its goal, you could have received a fence to Mexico in the mail instead. Justice denied. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump's moment of truth

“”I like to deny things. Like, I like to deny…[1]

Bongolian (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a hate page.

'Nuff said.^{— Unsigned, by: 50.205.217.207 / talk / contribs}

Have you ever considered the possibility that you resort to phrases like "'nuff said" because justifying your thoughts more fully might present problems to you? Certainly thought terminating cliches like that are sometimes warranted, but here it seems like a dodge to actually considering the details of "What is hate?" and "What makes hate wrong?"

I'd propose that, colloquially speaking, "hate" means irrational and extreme anger. Which is a huge problem if you have too much of it in your life or in your society. Here you're using it to refer to any dislike (whether reasonable or not) for something. My response, then, is that no, not nearly enough said on your part. Donald Trump is, from many, many people's perspectives an extremely dangerous candidate with really harmful ideas and presenting that here is not hurting society at large, or you specifically. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Says a person who supports a candidate whose campaign is solely built on hatred. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 16:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

A reasoned response would be a lot more convincing than, "You are wrong, goodbye". But if that's all you've got, then I suppose that's all you can give.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ikanreed @NameThatNobodyTakes @Bob MWow, sorry. Didn't know you wouldn't like me saying "'Nuff said". Didn't know that you interpret what I said like that. By the way, I'm the same person behind that other IP, except I'm on a different computer. Let me defend my case. I think this page proves that this wiki as a whole has a liberal bias. You defend Clinton in the email scandal, and you only say negative things about Trump (if you so say positive things, they are few and far between). From this article: "Trump's policies keep changing, but he has a consistent worldview, which is that everything is zero sum. If you are weak, someone else is strong. That's the kind of worldview which uses patriotism to justify xenophobia: if you're not working against other countries, then you're working against ours. If you don't want to torture Muslims, then you must hate your race. If you seek out cooperation on global problems, you must hate America by definition. To Trumpsters, compromise is admitting defeat. You can call it populism, but it has a far more accurate name and it represents a far more dangerous ideology." And a quote from Clinton's article on the email scandal: 'On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey issued a statement that said that Clinton's use of the server was 'careless', but that no criminal charges had been recommended:[178]

Comey said that the FBI could not find a case in the past that would support bringing criminal charges based upon the facts. The bureau did not find clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of materials, or indications of disloyalty to the U.S. or efforts to obstruct justice.'

More or less torpedoing the idea that blanket punishments should be applied severely and across all avenues of life." See what I mean? Clinton did indeed intentionally and willfully mishandle classified information, because, in that article, you stated a few paragraphs back that she mishandled classified information because she didn't want to get FOIA requests. That, in of itself, is violating the law by trying to avoid the FOIA act. I think I've made my point clear.96.253.73.92 (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but what's wrong with the Donald Trump article? 90.209.239.57 (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You think nothing's wrong with it because you agree with everything it says. See the last thing I said for what I think is wrong with the article.

I didn't ask what was wrong with the Clinton article. 90.209.239.57 (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Please, everyone knows that it's totally impossible not to be a die hard Hillary fan if you think Trump is a very bad guy. Everyone knows that of course everything only consists of two possibilities. And back to normal: Ironically, that's exactly the part of the article our anonymous friend has quoted but obviously not understood. --Irian (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion of the candidate - and debate about him - probably isn't really relevant as it's clear that he's going to lose. But it would still be interesting to see where you think the factual errors are on the page. You know - facts? Not opinions, feelings etc - facts? It's entirely possible that the page is factually wrong. Just point out where and people will be happy to interact with you or correct the page.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You are so deeply biased that you think this article is normal. As I said earlier, this article proves that this wiki as a whole has a liberal bias. A better name for this wiki would be LiberalWiki, not "Rational"Wiki. 96.253.73.92 (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Angry talk without any facts will not convince anyone. You only complain that you don't like the article, but as of yet, you have not even made an attempt to point out what's factually wrong with it. Until you do, noone will take you seriously. --Irian (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• surrenders* 96.253.73.92 (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not a war. We do not have a high score where we get points for driving random people away. Just take a deep breath, a step back and imagine... A world where people have discussions based on facts. A world where people actually want to hear other people's arguments. A world where people are actually willing to think about their opinions and change them, if a good argument challenges them enough. Wouldn't that be a much more rational world? A much more desirable world? Everyone can shout angrily at people with a different opinion... But does that change anything? No. You just end up with two groups of people shouting at each other - and totally ignoring what the others actually have to say, because there is only shouting left. --Irian (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I know you are but what am I? 90.209.239.57 (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Come on, as far as trolling gets, that's a lame approach. I know you can do better than that. I believe in you. --Irian (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

'A statement of fact cannot be insolent.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Other Trump scandals

Cracked has a list of 8 other scandals that Trump has been involved in, some of them we have covered.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Have I Got News for You

(UK TV comedy) 4th November 2016 has some comments on Donald Duck/Trump.

Anyone care to render Donald Trump in Socialist/Dictatorship Realism style? 31.51.113.11 (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

And the front cover of today's Daily Star newspaper. 86.146.100.121 (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I won, bigly!

-President Donald J. Trump (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

We know already, shut up.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 22:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Boring. Go back to your Russian troll house. Bongolian (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump and Hillary page

Due to the election, it wouldn't be surprising to see much more vandalism. I would support a protection of the page before crap really does happen.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 03:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it probably should have been done much sooner. Bongolian (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump conspiracy theories

Any bets on when they will emerge, and what they will be?

Will the Freemen on the land involve his non-tax returns into a justification for them not doing so? 31.51.113.162 (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Radical page redesign proposal

Two observations:

1. The page is a terribly-organized and obviously-partisan mess. These are the first seven sections: "1 Listen up, Fives, a Ten is speaking! 1.1 Teflon Don 1.2 Business acumen 1.3 Golf 1.4 Trumped-up university 1.5 Charity 1.6 Jesus turns down friend request 1.7 Rare moments". Nobody is going to be able to use this page as an objective resource when it's so bloated and so clearly biased.
2. Everyone already knows his campaign has bolstered racists, sexists, anti-LGBTQ activists, and other "deplorables". Everyone already knows about his failed businesses, atrocious comments, fraudulent activities, foreign entanglements. Yet near half of voters picked him. His promises, to them, must outweigh his drawbacks.

As such, I propose a radical page redesign: a side-by-side list of Trump's campaign promises and whether they were fulfilled. (If they were fulfilled, a brief discussion of whether that's a good thing.) For a sample, see User:FuzzyCatPotato/djt.

Here are several lists of his promises:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/22/here-are-76-of-donald-trumps-many-campaign-promises/
• http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/15/donald-trumps-top-10-campaign-promises/
• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-big-list-promises-article-1.2865483
• https://li.st/washingtonpost/here-are-25-of-donald-trump-s-many-campaign-promises-7PkpXlHb8wEOrimaBnjYWf
• http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/11/10/donald-trump-promises-mobile-origwx-bw.cnn
• http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/nov/10/donald-trumps-campaign-promises-first-100-days/
• http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-promises-idUSKBN1362AC

Trump supporters are insensitive to criticisms of Trump being Trump. Perhaps they'll listen when Trump fails to change anything. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 23:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, but I think it's important to retain a large chunk of his history and its consequences, otherwise it's all out of context. Bongolian (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The article is haphazard & needs a lot of work, but Trump's appalling attitudes to women, race & immigration should be a major focus as they have been throughout his campaign. & I really don't think Trump voters are or should be the audience we write for. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting. It is preaching to the choir then? ~ Aneris ✻ 14:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I take the Aneris viewpoint. There's little worth in encyclopedically covering Trump's history for people who already know it, or who would oppose him anyway. Better to have a resource that anti-Trumpers can use to point out how shitty he is, even from a pro-Trump perspective. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Good things about Donald Trump

1: Has an instantly recognisable profile.

Any others? 86.191.145.37 (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

2: Doesn't hate everyone -- just people who aren't DJT. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk)

3: Isn't Hitler —CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 04:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

-3: Godwin's Law Bongolian (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

4: He's not a member of the cast of the Twilight series. Nergali (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

5: He knows human children are not horses. Probuscus (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

6: Makes 'real gingers' respectable. 86.191.127.58 (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

7: You gotta admit he has a cool last name; his grandpa chose a great replacement for "Drumpf." --Bertrc (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

8: He merely associates with David Duke instead of being him. Worzelpete (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

9: Not a member of the American Nazi Party.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 23:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

10: He convinced the working/producing class of any race to vote right (pun intended)..82.161.30.183 (talk)

Funspace article?

Donald Trump and the apocalypse - and not just a play on the name. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

9/11 Truther?

Shouldn't it also be mentioned that he wants to bring out "the truth" about 9/11? He said this on infowars, apparently. ^{— Unsigned, by: Tinribmancer / talk / contribs}

He also said he was going to bring out "the truth" about Hillary's e-mails. Spoiler: he exploited the one weakness of the otherwise impervious electorate — making a lot of crazy promises. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump predictions

• He won't win a Nobel Prize at the same point in his Presidency as Obama.

Any more? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• "It is the 3rd Millennium. To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the cruelest and most bloody regime imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of technology and science, for so much has been forgotten, never to be re-learned. Forget the promise of progress and understanding, for in the grim dark future there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods."

Due to his distancing himself from NATO, Japan, and South Korea, Russia will begin to expand into its former states in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Upon that expansion, they will rile up China, who will see both their own sphere of influence threatened and an international vacuum to be filled now that the United States is declining to take as strong a stance in international diplomacy. And because U.S. diplomacy is at an all-time low under the Trump administration. A border incident along the border will escalate, until the two are involved in a land war in Asia. Mongolia will be fucked, caught between the two. North Korea decides that's a great time to go after South Korea, causing a lot of casualties, their sheer numbers not able to overwhelm the more advanced country, but still causing one heck of a bad day all the way around.

Tibet begins another period of unrest and rebellion, hoping to take advantage of the PRC's distraction to gain independence. Taiwan sees civil tensions between those wanting to formally declare independence and those who would rather not risk it. Japan and India both began a major military build up due to tensions. Meanwhile, Europe is attempting diplomatic resolutions to Russia's push into Europe but getting nowhere.

Back in the United States, the country begins to go into recession due to a combination of protective tariffs and problems with global trade caused by the war between Russia and China. The recent thaw in Cuban relations has ended as well, due to Trump being Trump. Tensions at the Mexican border escalate as well, due to Trump's beginning overtures of building a wall causing unrest among working class Americans whose homes and properties are being seized by imminent domain in order to acquire land to build a wall. Hoping to distract from the issue of the recession and imminent domain President Trump greatly increases the drone warfare in countries like Syria, causing increased recruitment for ISIL, which is flourishing in an internationally-destabilized environment. Multiple refugee camps and temporary medical aid stations are struck. Combined with an influx of refugees from Asia that aren't welcome in Europe or the United States, this begins to turn various neutral Asian countries against the United States as well.

Meanwhile, President Trump's refusal to care about more countries getting nuclear weapons, combined with yet another sense by the religious that these are the end times, leads to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. With the world more concerned about other, more dire situations, and they arrange for Palestinians to acquire a nuclear device.

That's about as far as I've gotten so far.

I'm sorry

But this had to be posted.

This, this is the President-elect of the United States of America.

That is all. (♫ Turn-off-the-lights! ♫) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump's cabinet

We really need a part of the article to talk about "drain the swamp" and Trump's picks, who are the swamp itself.Diacelium (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump and the Patriot Act

I would suggest adding that on Trump's Platform that Trump supports the re-authorisation of the Patriot Act. ToxicPeep (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald and Vladimir

Any chance of something along the lines of [2]? 86.191.125.158 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

A Tweet

“”I gave millions of dollars to DJT Foundation, raised or recieved millions more, ALL of which is given to charity, and media won't report!

—@realDonaldTrump

“”@realDonaldTrump Facts say otherwise. But hey, f*** those things, right?!

—@BenBerkon

—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 07:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Puppetry

Is Trump anyone's puppet?

Who has #actually# has the secret info on him - or is it just 'throw enough mud and some of it will stick'? 86.146.99.55 (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"Is Jeb Donald a puppet to his donors?"--JorisEnter (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

His refusal to release his tax returns only contributes to speculation that he has conflicts of interest with foreign powers. His tax returns would help to alleviate some of that speculation. Petey Plane (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, you have to keep in mind...

...that this is a guy who leaks his own scandals to the press. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What's the big deal about rax returns? Most people don't know how to fill one out let alone read it. Look whose talking really stupid shit now, and it sure isn't Donald Trump. It's the idiots who show they haven't a fucking clue what their talking about asking for Trump's tax returns. Whatever happened to the sacred right of privacy, which even Roe v Wade is based on. Conspiracy mongers in search of a conspiracy. nobs 16:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As Julius Caesar almost said - Caesar should know when to appear to be above suspicion (given that other such politicians have released their tax returns) - and the feeling that 'them who refuse to tell #may# have reason not to tell. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

How does one "almost" say something? You mean, he wrote it? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Julius heard a pleb say it in the streets, he then had the pleb beaten and executed on the spot and took the saying. Probuscus (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Julius said it first, you mean.. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Look who's back (part 2)

Joseph McCarthy wakes up in Washington and sees Donald Trump with all his connections to Russia.

What happens next? (Whether or not referencing [3]) 86.191.127.84 (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you now or have you ever been a member of an entity advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government and replacing it with Shariah law? We'll leave it to Jeff Sessions to work out the exact language and details. nobs 15:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

How would the face-off between Trump and McCarthy go - possibly with J Edgar Hoover and/or LBJ as referee(s)? 31.51.113.179 (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Guiliani

I think we're starting to see Rudy Guiliani's role amidst all the rumors and speculation about who's in/out, etc. Guiliani is functioning as a troubleshooter/utilityman. Rather than being bogged down in the day-to-day running a Department or agency, Guiliani is able to step in at a moments notice to serve in any capacity, including running a cabinet department. Similiar to roles played by Jim Baker under Reagan, or Bill Richardson under Clinton, both served in multiple posts. It was Baker, for example, who set up Don Regen as a fall guy in Iran/Contra, and Richardson who used Wen Ho Lee as the fall guy in the Chinese nuke scandal. In the Russian hacking scandal, Guiliani's been put in charge. Gulianni is essentially Trump's righthand man outside the White House. nobs 21:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The 289 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List

It's literally becoming hard to even get an overview. Please note that mousing over each insult takes you directly to the source — no crooked reporting here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty prestigious list. Shouldn't RW give it's Trump article a bit more priority? Mister showerhead is pretty thin-skinned and highly reactive so it should be easy to get some free promotion from the "Golden President".--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Those guys at the Times need to get a life. Must've been a slooow news day. If they are really that bored witn their jobs, quit. Does anybody consider this news? nobs 21:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobs channelling Trump? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Article quality

This Donald Trump article is yuge, and it only covers his candidacy/election so far. Imagine how much material there'll be after a year of the Trump administration. Probably time to think of how to arrange sub-article breakdowns. Leuders (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It needs some attention. Most of it (+ the HRC & Bernie articles) comes from editors who were obsessively live-blogging the campaigns a few months ago then lost interest or LANCB. Hence big stories like #pussygate & #watersportsgate aren't even mentioned. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, the article is quite big considering he hasn't started office yet; more content is on its way no doubt. Currently, its 223.4 kB long, perhaps consider splitting at 400kb. However, I suggest that the article says more with less because I feel the article is too long for my tastes.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 23:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Mike Flynn's call to the Russian Ambassador

Evidently Mike Flynn's call to the Russian Ambassador was an illegal wiretap, civil rights violation, and domestic spying to harass political opponents - the sort of NSA abuse Snowden warned about. It's doubtful Flynn & Trump will overlook and forget this offense a week from today. nobs 17:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bright Side?

Maybe, hopefully, this man will ruin the Republican party. Now, I vehemently dislike the man, BUT by no means do I want my country to suffer for it. Sadly, my country probably will suffer greatly (gutting the EPA, Russia stuff) but maybe the people will finally realize the Republican Party has been consistently bad for America. I wish I didn't have to wait four years to see if I'm right though. Thoughts? Asaac Isimov (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

See, this I do not understand. Trump destroyed the GOP establishment, a task Democrats and Progressive have been wanting to see for years to see. Yet critics now use the same stale anti-GOP rhetoric, and mistakenly apply all their anti-GOP stereotypes to Trump. And they could not be more wrong. And don't say, "Oh, he's more right wing, fascist, and dangerous than garden variety Relublicans", cause it simply is not true. Trump opponents outside the GOP are misreading the man, and the situation. In doing so are proving to their critics, and non-aligned moderates, how truelly uninformed and out of step they are, making it difficult for them to walk back all their fantasies when the shit hits the fan, the country is in crisis, and is looking for new solutions and leadership. nobs 07:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

There's something to this

Just saying. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I wish people around me had the same mindset; when I criticised Trump for his views on environment and global warming I got called a cuckold (an addition to my collection).--WMS (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It's getting to that point...

I really think we need to consider adding this page to "End of the world" category.Umichcynic (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Trump's CIA speech

Well put. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

4chan is butthurt again

[4]. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump and the TPP

Could count his decission to leave the TPP -I really hope TTIP follows next- as a stopped clock?. I'd like to save something of him. --Panzerfaust (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Given that most analysts count the US leaving the TPP as a win for China, you're going to have trouble convincing people that that is a stopped clock moment. Protectionism is an already tried and failed idea; you can thank Herbert Hoover for that. Bongolian (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Negation of the negation

If Trump withdraws the US from operating in the world how long before 'the rest of the world' removes the US from their calculations - and when the US does decide to interact with the world again they find 'everybody else has found new best friends'? (And the Mexicans could use their ingenuity and the theoretical wall to say 'the bucks stop here.')

Trump does seem to attract a shadow or threat of violence. 86.191.127.22 (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump's salary

If he is paying his own salary (rather than taking a 'Federal pay cheque') - are there actual or potential legal and other implications? 31.51.113.42 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he's being sued. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think 'a slightly different issue applies' - he is not acknowledging himself to be part of the 'official government system.'

He's taking $1 a year, as JFK did & I think FDR. And the lawsuits against him for his business interests will go nowhere - being he is guaranteed the Constitutional right of life, liberty, and pursuit of hapiness, in this case, operating Trump Hotels - a taxpaying entity - rather than milking the public treasury for a salary. And the idea 70 year old multi-billionaire can be bribed or willing to takes gifts is so ludicrious it'll get laughed out of court. nobs 21:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, a rich old guy being corrupt & greedy, whoever heard of such a thing? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

And don't forget 'someone' was imprisoned for not paying their taxes, rather than the more obvious reasons. 86.191.127.97 (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

How to tweet like a true statesman

To all the bad dudes out there. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Muslim ban bit in the article

It says something about dismantling Obama's legacy and enacting the Muslim ban as an example. I've been coming across sources that say the Muslim ban is only continuing and increasing what had been happening under Obama (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FTFB9GDfls, https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/). So either I'm missing something, or the Muslim ban is not actually an example of dismantling Obama's legacy. What does anybody else here think? 171.33.193.245 (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I propose a slight tweak to that bit.

Instead of "In just the first week of his presidency, Trump dismantled Obama's legacy and turned himself into the worst president in history. For starters, he actually enacted the Muslim ban in his first week in office."

I would write "In just the first week of his presidency, Trump turned himself into the worst president in history. For starters, he actually enacted the Muslim ban in his first week in office, and he is trying to dismantle Obama's legacy through a repeal of Obamacare."

Any thoughts? 171.33.193.245 (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Nah, that makes it sound like he's been doing way more than he actually has. I mean, even Obama had signed 1 more executive order than Trump currently has at the equivalent stage in his presidency, afaik. Trump is actually lagging quite hard at the moment — and he says so himself (though, he's not willing to take any blame for it). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the travel ban

Sometimes a simple infographic helps. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It implies in the images, rather explicitly, that this targetting of countries excluding Saudi Arabia and Egypt is due to Trump's business ties. Above I posted a link (https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/) that goes against that reasoning, suggesting instead that the targetting of those countries was due to the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 under Obama. Now, I am not confident which one is more right, the imgur source or the Frantzman source, I don't particularly trust sources on the internet in general, but I would like to get your thoughts on that. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

For anyone interested in Trump

This is relevant. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Quotations

Be you never so high, the law is above you. 31.49.137.221 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

'Wolf!' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

“No pasarán!” 31.51.114.125 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

List of groups Donald Trump has annoyed so far

• Women
• The CIA
• The judiciary
• Mexicans
• States where a travel ban has been imposed.

To be added to - until the 'has not yet annoyed' version is more practical.

How soon will he reverse Ronald Reagan and declare war on the fish? 31.51.113.167 (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget a number of tribes. And Elizabeth Warren given he still calls her Pocahontas.-- 194.81.33.234 (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and the international community (believe me, those numbers haven't improved internationally since). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Black people, Native Americans, Muslims, Jews, journalists, China, Schwarzenegger, Nordstrom... Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't bother. The "not yet annoyed" list is already practical: it just consists of himself. Bongolian (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@31.51.113.167 "reverse Ronald Reagan and declare war on the fish" Wasn't Bush the one who talked about peace of mankind with fish ? Or are you talking about something else ? Diacelium (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I did say until the reverse list is sufficiently small. I remember a floating/vague quote with Reagan saying we are not at war with the fish. Anyone care to get the Elf 'n' Safety (gone mad) end of 'Health and Safety' and the 'planning permission and regulations' departments etc - anyone who can #be very patient and very annoying# when they wish. 31.51.113.167 (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Should the Four Horsemen and the Last Trump be added to the 'not yet' list? 86.191.127.64 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Biblical reference? 31.51.114.125 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, or Atheist... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Reptilians

Has DT 'become' one - or is it an Invasion of the Body Snatchers type process? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump family fortune

The Trump family fortune, according to Sydney Blumental, was amassed through the Democratic party and New Deal cronyism in New York. This indeed was the source of funds when Donald left Queens for Manhattan with a $14 million loan from his father. nobs 00:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Apparently

A leading UK betting shop/bookies chain is already taking bets on Trump being impeached in his first year of office. 31.51.113.250 (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Could we please discuss Donald Trump's handshake?

• Exhibit A: http://imgur.com/gallery/wbw1Y
• Exhibit B: http://imgur.com/a/E2O9h

Does anyone you know, or have even met, shake hands like this? Genuine question. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit weird. It's basically a power trip thing though; he's trying to show dominance. The Trump-Abe handshake is much worse though. First, he was clearly shaking hands longer than Abe wanted to, a breach of even Western protocol. Second, that would be regarded as an offensive way to shake hands in Japan, where the standard is "limp and with little or no eye contact."[5]

• Exhibit C: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiitQ-5_E_Y

The really odd thing though is that about a month ago, Trump said that hand shaking was barbaric![6] Bongolian (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump and stairs

I have come across several references to DT 'having issues with stairs' - what exactly? (WP says nowt.) 86.191.125.131 (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This came from UK government officials that blamed a fear of stairs for Donald Trump needing to hold Theresa May's hand when going down a flight [7] Vorarchivist (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump lies about Sweden

See the main article on this topic: Talk:Sweden § Far-right nuts paint a false portrait of Sweden

Swede here, can confirm. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

3,000 Scientists Have Asked for Help Running for Office to Oppose Trump

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3000-scientists-have-asked-for-help-running-for-office-to-oppose-trump Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me any site calling itself "rational"

Would know that Trump has accomplished far more during his first month in office than Obummer during his eight years in office. 204.184.14.150 (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sauce?—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 21:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That does kind of depend on what actions you put in the category of "accomplished". We usually use the word in a positive sense but I don't think it has to be. So if you include "things fucked up" in the "accomplished" category then the IP may be correct. (And also Drink!)--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Presidency: or, Twilight of the Republic, Reign of Caesar Augustus Trumpus

I mean, Trump has called reporters "enemies of the people", FFS. He has invented a conspiracy of Trotskyists Obamaists tapping his phone. His supporters talk about "purging" the state. He talks about holding rallies in stadiums. He's a Europe 1930's cover band. Why is RationalWiki so shy? I mean, we'll all see each other in the FEMA concentration camps anyway. 83.56.130.45 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean it isn't like people all over the political spectrum (from lou dobbs to jimmy dore) have noticed that the press is constantly lying their asses off and deceiving people. To claim that such assholes are enemies of the people, why it's Hitlerism reborn! Burkean (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Shy? Seems to me we're blasting the man with (well-deserved) piss at full capacity! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Kinda difficult to do any real damage to his image, especially since he probably likes the water sports. Probuscus (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

What if

The Donald held a press conference and all he found when he entered the room were cardboard cutout versions of the reporters? 86.191.125.128 (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Then he'd say they were the best reporters ever. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump had Chuck Todd, Jake Tapper, Wolf Blitzer, Lester Dolt, and a reporter each from Telemundo & Univision to Oval Office for a closed door get together before his speech. Now, each of these reporters sure feel special and important now that the President of the United States has taken them into his confidence. And they sure would like to be invited back over the next four years. And which other reporters can boast the President of the United States as a confidential informant? Even Alex Jones was never invited to the Oval Office. Look for these reporters to change their tune very quickly and cut back on spewing hate. They now can boast they have reached the top of their profession. nobs`

Eurssia, Airstrip One or Oceania? 86.146.100.66 (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump's a slow learner, but he's catching on to how the Washington press game is played. It's very different from the New York media and Hollywood media world. The Washington Post is the one he'll continue having problems with, because when the American people realize the CIA has taken control of a major domestic newspaper, the shit will hit the fan. Meantime, CNN's ratings are up and the New York Times subscriptions are up, all thanks to Donald Trump. Everybody just needs to keep doing their jobs the way they've been doing it, and everybody's gonna get rich and happy, thanks to Donald Trump. nobs 16:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You guys seen this one?. nobs 02:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Help me determine something

How much of this is a product of anti-Trump bias, and how much of it is a product of the Trump administration actually being a high-intensity garbage fire? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Garbage fire. But why rely on Imagur rather than something more reliable like WaPo, NYT or the better part of the British Press? Bongolian (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly don't rely on Imgur for anything but memes. It'd be insane to treat a place like that any different.

Indeed, the point of my question was, how much of this ([LINKS TO SPECIFIC IMGUR COMPILATION]) is bias, and how much is Trump failing?

The very challenge was to determine what was the engine specifically behind said Imgur compilation — "lies on behalf of anti-Trump forces", or "The fact that the Trump administration is just one disaster after the other", preferably finding some type of ratio between the two (though "0% bias/100% Trump fail" is still a ratio).

Just to be clear. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It's been said that rather than just "thriving on chaos" (like various popular business books), Trump thrives on creating chaos. Bannon, it would seem is of a like mind, by seeking to destroy government. The advantage of creating chaos is it can become a distraction to the opponent while one is pushing one's agenda ahead… unless it gets out of hand. That's the "charitable" view of Trump, that he actually "knows" what he's doing. There are of course other opinions about that. Bongolian (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

A most worthwhile graph

http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/1329cbCOMIC-trump-protects-americans.jpg Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

More lies

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/845422234869018625 —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 15:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that Trump obviously both lives in and believes his own personal reality. Many fundamentalist Christians/Muslims/Whatever are in the same situation. But they don't (usually, and in modern times) run western democracies.

Nevertheless, Trump seems to seriously believe his own lies - or is at least unable confront them. The recent Time interview painfully shows this to be the case. This cannot end well.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Message to all the Trump haters

After tonight, it should be patently obvious Trump is running against his own GOP in the 2018 Midterms. Now, who you gonna support, Trump the RINO who's already backing off the border wall, or the GOP Congress you've been begging to impeach him who's going to cut off all your welfare, food stamps, research grants, and throw Grandma from the cliff? nobs 23:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't you mean, in this context, rhino? 86.191.125.128 (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

If your analysis is really correct it sounds like it's more a problem for a split Republican party. As a Trump lover are you going to support your party or your president?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The party, of course. Trump's a goddamn RINO. nobs 08:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll buy my popcorn then.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"Now who you gonna support, Trump (...) or the GOP Congress?" Um... how about neither? Voting Democratic still exists as an option (and, frankly, with Trump's approval rates plummeting and people in general being sick to death of the Republican Party's refusal to oppose him, a Democratic victory in the midterms seems more likely.) Also, I love that you're calling President Pussy-Grabber a RINO, even though that name is usually reserved for Republicans who are too liberal, and anybody who accuses Trump of being liberal clearly hasn't been paying attention. Because Trump is VERY conservative - most of his horrible policies are really just more extreme versions of what the GOP has been proposing for years - and even though he's (kinda-sorta-not-really) backing down from that one campaign promise, he's still a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, democracy-threatening corporatist whose supporters are white nationalists and neo-reactionaries who would rather die than let liberals have their way. "No true Republican..." ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.61.154.51 / talk / contribs}

For all you of the loyal opposition, who have consistantly been proven wrong on all your assumptions and assertions now since the United States elections, 2014, let me lay out a basic understanding of facts in the hopes you don't continue down this stream of misinformation which has landed you in the wretched helpless state you now find yourselves in.

• Donald Trump is a RINO who hails from the traditional Northeast Rockefeller Republicans, yankees, who trace their racist views back to New York City draft riots and the racism Trump's father was noted for.
• Paul Ryan, Hillary Clinton, and Phyliss Schlafly, represent the traditional Midwest origins and mainstream of the Republican party.
• Franklin Roosevelt, Governor of New York, represented the first major splintering of the Republican party's hold over the Northern states, victors of the Civil War, and the United States as a whole. He did this by forging an alliance with traditional, racist, Southern redneck Democrats.
• The Boll weevils are the Southerners who obstructed​ legislation in the House to outlaw segregation from the end of Reconstruction until the Civil Rights Act of 1965 mandated federal oversite of certain states rights' to gerrymander Congressional districts.
• The Freedom Caucus are the remnants of the Boll Weevils, in regional demographics, and legislative tactics. They entered the GOP, albeit as a regional minority, and gained limited Congressional representation from about the mid-1980s onward. After their expulsion from the Democrats in 1965 this has often been refered to by critics as the GOP's "Southern strategy." However, they remained an ideological minority.
• In 2015, the racist RINOs of New York, led by Trump, forged an alliance with the Southern Tea Party/Boll Weevil coalition. This grouping remarkably resembled the New Deal assembled by FDR & Southerners, promising jobs, big government handouts and infrastructure projects, and massive deficits.
• Traditional social and economic conservative Republicans recoiled in horror. After the nomination, Trump came to terms with the Midwest-dominated Republican establishment and mainstream represented by Ryan & Priebus, with his Boll Weevil/Freedom Caucus/Tea Party constituency in tow (something neither Boehner or Ryan could achieve).
• After assuming office, Trump could no more pursuade the hardnose Southerners into line than FDR, JFK, Boehner, or Ryan could.
• So Trump hails from the Left, Ryan from the Center, and the Freedom Caucus from the Right. In expelling them, Trump is making the GOP more centrist. Democrats should slay the fatted-calf, the prodigal son is coming home.
• In a Machiavellian sense, you could say Trump is upholding the dictum that when a Prince comes to power his first order of business is to destroy those who brought him to power because, "if they have the ability to give power, they have the ability to take it back." Bill Clinton did this when he destroyed the welfare mom's with welfare reform, the unions with NAFTA, and the Black's with the 1994 Crime Bill. Or Hitler when he killed Ernst Rohm. So he's in good company. nobs 00:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, nobs, for so expertly demonstrating the best-known debate tactic of Duane Gish. 24.61.154.51 (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Me? Look at all the crap that's been piled on since I asked the simple question back here. If you guys would pull your heads out of your asses for a minute, you'd see this is waaayy bigger than Watergate. And your all barking up the wrong tree. nobs 14:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You may be (some degree of) right about several aspects of your nepotistic banana republic over there, but calling Trump "from the left" isn't even correct within the major right-wing party of your already skewed political spectrum. While his support for some sort of federal regulation for medical care may be considered as centrist within the US (not so much in the rest of the world, though), he's been appointing several Goldman-Sachs guys to cabinet positions, he's in the process of killing the EPA and wants to repeal two regulations for every new one. Those are economical right-wing positions. Add his xenophobia, islamophobia, and mysogyny into the mix, and you have an overall pretty right-wing ideology (if you can call it that way... I don't think that his worldview is coherent enough to qualify as ideology). Plus, I haven't even touched his authoritarianism yet, and that's a trait which is usually more prevelant at the extreme ends of the spectrum (read: not center) --Imaginative username (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop for a minute and compare the Goldman guy - Trump's Treaury Sec. who is also a Democrat and major donor to Democrats - to FDRs. Let's not get sidetracked on particulars. Look at the broad coalition, beginning with the forgotten man of West Virginia coalminers.

• the racist RINOs of New York, led by Trump, forged an alliance with the Southern Tea Party/Boll Weevil coalition. This grouping remarkably resembled the New Deal assembled by FDR & Southerners, promising jobs, big government handouts and infrastructure projects, and massive deficits. nobs 15:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying that your Democrats are left-wingers either, not even necessarily in the context of the US spectrum--Imaginative username (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@nobs: I intend to vote Democratic in 2018. So, neither. I want both Trump and the GOP gone. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I linked the full 50 min. lecture at the top of my posting (highly recommended), but here is an 8 min. synopsis which may be too brutal for some from a Democratic perspective: It's Worse Than You Think by Chris Hedges. nobs 16:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I only listened to the synopsis, but that pretty much sounds like e.g. what Kyle Kulinski and other people on the actual left (in an international sense) like Bernie Sanders or Noam Chomsky say every day... except for the "Bernie Sanders sold out by endorsing Hillary" part, maybe. Disagreeing with Hillary doesn't necessarily make you a right-winger... are you sure you linked the correct video?--Imaginative username (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The guy obviously is very partisan, but you need to sift through. Virtually all his observations are 100% on the mark; many of his conclusions are atrocious (Nixon was a "charismatic" leader, for example, gimme a fucking break). He goes off the rails citing Chomsky. But his initial observations how the current problems started 20 years ago, and how both Parties are guilty, and the loss of confidence in parliamentary democracy is on the mark. Just separate his partisan barbs and scare-mongering from what he's talking about, and it's extraordinarily interesting. Like Chomsky, take it with a grain of salt. And like Chomsky, he is half-assed informed on the facts for the current mess, albeit more than most Leftists. nobs 00:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Since I'm bored and on the john

Here's a purposefully loaded and oversimplified train of thought, intended to spice up this discussion...

"Looking in" at the US political climate from a country which enjoys much smaller wealth gaps between politicians and the rest of society, and which isn't mathematically stuck in a perpetual two-party system, I had the following sophomoric thought.

Is it not true that many Americans tend to overlook the fact that basically everyone in the top 0.1% of US career politicians stand surprisingly close to eachother in person, while there is a disproportionate media coverage of the drama in politics (e.g. "jail her"-chants), as opposed to coverage of all the times when these "ruling class" people actually get along quite well (e.g. not jailing her, but their kids hanging out instead)? From a populist stand point, as a Joe Nobody, I mean.

Now, I'm no Communist, and I see mutual cooperation across party lines as a trait of democracy, not collusion (on average). Yet, disgruntled Americans on all sides appear to disagree, atleast online.

I'm seriously asking, not implying that this is the case — but aren't the US political top brass (notably Congress) all just a bunch of well-aquainted millionaires, many without term limits, who'll likely prioritize the system that rewards them in the end? And if so, how does that square with populist tickets being the current vogue (e.g. "drain the swamp")?

I'll take "You're an idiot" as an answer, in all seriousness.

I pretend to no expertise. I'm just asking. And baiting looking to spice up the discussion. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

One of my prime sources (link below) illuminates the truth of what you very clearly:

political competition between the Democrats and Republicans is over which party gets to collect the money for being the whore for the One Percent. Traditionally, the party in the White House gets most of the money, so that is where both parties want to be.

That, coupled with the fact the NSA has everybody by the balls from the Supreme Court, White House, and Congress on down, is it a wonder why no Congressional Committee, independent commission or counsel can investigate? nobs 16:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

...But why debase a perfectly servicable argument by unironically linking to Zero Hedge? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

ok, of numerous sources, would you accept Daniel Ellsberg for openers?

• one branch of government, the Executive, knows or can know every detail of every private communication (or credit card transaction, or movement) of: every journalist; every source to every journalist; every member of Congress and their staffs; every judge, at every level up to the Supreme Court? ...that could be used to blackmail them or manipulate them, or neutralize their dissent to Executive policies, or influence voting behavior? Is investigative journalism, or aggressive Congressional investigation of the Executive, or court restraints on Executive practices, really possible ... nobs 21:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Correction: That is not Chris Hedges in the first 50 min. video above, it's just posted on Chris Hedges website. It's a guy named Keller or somethin who is much more moderate, heads the 'Third Way' institute or foundation or somethin. Any, watch the first 5 mins and see if it's worth watching thru. He's the only center-left person I've heard since November who has a grasp on the situation. It is worse than you think. nobs`

Improvements for the "Trumpocalypse" Section

Now, I'm not here to disagree with the assertion in that section that King Donald the First is a terrible President, because he is. That said, I feel that the section actually covering his presidency is too small and doesn't go into enough detail about why he's so terrible. Additions I'd like to see include:

1. His attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare with a much more disastrous healthcare plan, only to majorly fuck it up and blame everything on Paul Ryan.
2. The fact that, during his first few weeks in office, MANY of Trump's associates (Michael Flynn, Jeff Sessions, Jared Kushner, etc.) were discovered to have had contact with the Russian government (and, adding onto that, the fact that the guy in charge of investigating Trump's Russian ties, Devin Nunes, is also possibly in on the whole thing.)
3. Trump's attempt to distract everyone from these developments by baselessly accusing Obama of wiretapping him.
4. Trump backing the coal industry and getting rid of his predecessor's various environmental protection laws - thus potentially screwing over the entire planet in the process - just so he can claim to have "won" some imaginary war on coal.

^{— Unsigned, by: 24.61.154.51 / talk / contribs}

Please help us expand the relevant segments with tons of good sources and snarky writing! Also: this might be the droid you're looking for. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

So you're going to let the leftwing Russophobic bigots, defenders of the military industrial complex, neo-cold warmongers, government snoopers and civil rights violators take over this page? I vote wait and see. nobs 00:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Huh? So, that's a mighty tall tower of accusatory labels stacked right on top of each other. And nobody's "taking over" any pages, nobs — I'm not Andy, you know. Also, "Russophobic bigots"? I'm not even sure what that means, but since when is Putin's Russia a beacon of democracy in the eyes of conservatives like yourself? And speaking of informing the stricken of their phobias... At any rate, I'd love to hear what "neo-cold" stands for. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

He means "wanting to restart the cold war". This is pretty much just a typical case of "don't worry too much about nobs, he's just like that" for now. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 01:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

OH, he meant it like "neo-cold war-mongers"! Right. I kinda got lost in there, considering nobs used up a good portion of his snarl words all at once in the same sentence. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

nobs: that's a ton of assumptions you have of people who agree with those bullet points. You sure want to get a discussion rolling first before accusing? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, you gotta love the fact that good ol' nobs is accusing me of being "Russophobic" and trying to re-start the Cold War when all I did was point out the objective fact that a notoriously hostile foreign government may have illegally tampered with our most recent Presidential election to favor the GOP Candidate, compounded by the fact that most intelligence agents do not trust that winning candidate with national security information. If I truly were bigoted against Russians, I would've said something to the effect of: "When Russia sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs. They're brining crime. They're rapists. I'm gonna build a great, Great Wall to keep them out, and I'm gonna make them pay for it!" Also, after months of Trumpeters obsessing of Hillary's emails, it's pretty amusing to hear one of them clucking about "government snoopers and civil rights violators" to defend a guy who most likely explicitly broke federal law and needs to be investigated (not to mention that our current Celebrity in Chief doesn't exactly have the best record when it comes to policy proposals on civil rights.) Also, at what point did I ever defend the military industrial complex? Going over my initial comment, I didn't even mention it once. It must be great living in your own little world where I say and do things that never actually happened... 24.61.154.51 (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump & Mike Flynn wanted detente with Russia. Russophobes like McCain & the Deep State want continued high levels of funding for CIA, the Pentagon, and the military industrial complex. That's why they torpedoed Flynn after 24 days. That drives Putin into Kim Jong-un's arms, and ends Kim's isolation.

The Leftist-Progressive-Obama-Hillary-Deep Stater-mainstream media warmongers want a new Cold War.

Trump replaced Flynn with a Russophobe. But the IC still isn't happy with Trump's anti-NATO rhetoric (he handed Angela Merkel an invoice for NATO services last week when she was in town). That's why they won't let go of the Trump-Russia fake news scam.

Leftist warmongers would rather risk nuclear Armageddon than a budget cut for the Deep State military industrial complex, now that the Obama/Hillary gang has taken control of it the past 8 years. And they are ready to destroy anyone with domestic spying who challenges them. nobs 15:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Never in the field of political activity have so many people been alienated by so few people in such a short time' (With apologies to Winston - but not necessarily his disapproval.) 31.49.115.137 (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I saw the header and thought this discussion was for improvements, boy was I wrong. Anyway, wow, this article is getting huge. How bout starting "Trumpocalypse" as it's own page, and leaving a pointer on this one, which I understand must cover such urgent matters as the Melania Trump RNC Convention speech plagiarism controversy. I mean, it's the Trumpocalypse, right? It's likely gonna be an epic-length episode in US history.Leuders (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

...which is why I linked to this article as — perhaps — the more relevant one for Trumpocalypse coverage. Regardless, you make a fair point, as always. Perhaps if we rename the policies article to "Presidency of Donald Trump"? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, silly me. Didn't see the "policies" page. And I foolishly assumed Trumpocalypse referred to the inevitable FBI/House/Senate/Media investigation of ties between the Trump org and Russia, and all the daily drama twists and live-blogging that it will generate over the next few months. If it were up to me, I'd reserve an article splitoff ("RussiaGate"?) as a separate page ahead of time. Leuders (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"RussiaGate"? Pffft. Let's be original. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I beg you, no more "-gate"s! After Climategate and Pizzagate, that suffix has no credibility left (in my view atleast). Whenever new "-gate"s are proposed in the wild, I always assume that very suggestion to be indicative of said controversy being the overhyped pet issue of some partisan or crank. (Save for Leuders, of course, to whom I would donate one of my livers in a flash). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh my god, there's a Gategate. What the actual fuck?—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 00:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be Livergate then. :P

Suggested other names from me would be "Russia-U.S. controversy". For those who know better, make it more specific. I myself haven't been following it since I've been confused from one person saying that Russia is a bogeyman while others are saying otherwise. XO}P --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@RBP: save the liver, but reserve a cot in your US expat dormitory for me when we go to Defcon 1. Leuders (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The roots of it is in the CIA backed coup of the democratically elected government of Ukraine (like in Chile, Iran, and elsewhere - ahhh, the good 'ol days). That's when the sanctions began, that Trump and assoc. allegedly conspired to violate. So why should RW aide in a CIA coverup? nobs 21:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Is Zero Hedge your new go-to resource? Leuders (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No. The US State Dept. looking for help to "midwife this thing". nobs 22:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You forgot to tie in Hillary and the Jews. Leuders (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yah well Chuck Grassley is blowing your whole Trump-is-a-Russian-agent conspiracy theory out of the water. Turns out, your star witness and author of the Trump pee-pee memo themselves may be unregisteted Russian agents.

The question now is, Why did the Obama Justice Department and FBI pay an unregistered agent of a foreign government to produce slanderous accusations against American citizens and President-elect of the United States?

And that's only one problem with the bullshit slanders and conspiracy theories that have surfaced in the past 48 hours that the Left has taken as gospel for the past nine months.

You guys should have known when the story was floated that the pee-pee memo was so good and so solid that the FBI considered putting its author on the payroll. C'mon, can anyone be that naive to forget the Clinton's have dismissed accusations for decades by "paid informants"? It should have been patently obvious there and then the FBI had something to hide, and the anti-Trump media was carrying the water for Obama administration conspirators nobs 01:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

This stuff must be like porn for you. Leuders (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Look at the big picture: It's a new Cold War. On one side, the limited-growth anti-consumer climate crisis advocates and anti-materialist proponents of shariah law; on the other side Vladimir Putin. nobs 11:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

An interesting presidential tweet

...considering the guy praised Wikileaks the entire election.

Also, who is he talking to? Doesn't he have staffers in the room with him? Tweeting like this makes him sound like Sauruman adressing his minions from the Orthanc balcony or something. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Every president has a problem and is frustrated by leakers. Nixon had the Plumbers (cause nobody in government would "fix leaks"). Obama rounded up James Rosen & 20 AP journalist. A leaker torpedoed the Morganthau plan much to FDR's embarassment. Leakers leaked the atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. He's speaking about loyalties. There sre good leaks and bad leaks. Leaking can be useful sometimes, like 'speaking off the record'. He's instructing his cronies roust out the traitors. A career bureaucrat or holdover appointee who keeps their head down, for now, should be safe. He's gained enough power and confidence that nows he's trying to consolidate his position. He's about six weeks behind schedule. Reagan, Carter, Baby Bush, and Clinton had government executive experience, but didn't know Washington. Obama had lots of bureaucratic and legislative experience and didn't know Washington, either. Trump has loads of executive experience, but no govrnmental or DC. Ultimately, he'll follow a roadmap familiar to Reagan & FDR, the more recent presidents he,'s most like. nobs 18:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Poe's Law

Is The Donald a living example of Poe's Law? (The Captcha is 'flip-flops' - which seems appropriate in the context.) 31.51.113.230 (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes; yes he is. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

How many internet memes have to be activated before the Trumpocalypse begins? 86.146.100.93 (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice how it even says "...AND THIRTY TWO CENTS"

https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/849226631776436225 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

An update on just how dismal this check actually was. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Shame shame shame. Trashing charitable givers. There ought to be more people like Trump willing, and able to, donate their entire salary. Shame on you. nobs 08:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

C'mon nobs, you've got a funny bone! You gotta admit that the ranger dude's face is priceless. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

ok, next time they outta call up central casting rather than gettin' somebody in from the field. nobs 11:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

100 Days

As it says in my newspaper - (paraphrasing) At least the world has survived this long. 86.146.100.119 (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"I'm not dead yet!" Bongolian (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

An original idea?

It appears that Trump may have actually come up with an original (and false) idea, that exercise (i.e. any exercise not just extreme exercise) reduces one's finite supply of energy.[8][9] Has anyone else heard of someone subscribing to this idiocy? Contrary to Trump's echo chamber, it is well-established that moderate exercise increases health and probably also longevity. Bongolian (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I already knew the Trump mindset included seeing everything as a zero-sum game — but this is just ridiculous. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump v Richard Nixon

Anyone care to start off a 'compare and contrast' piece? 86.146.99.68 (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Both do slandering campaigning. Nixon gained the title "Tricky Dick" because of it

Both have a possible scandal.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 22:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

If you ever thought you missed out on all the chaos of the 60s and 70s and wondered what it was like to live through Watergate and all the crazy shit of that time, well now you know. Although this time it's going to be 100x worse because he probably won't resign. Leuders (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a special counsel investigation has a life of its own. It has no set term or limit. It can begin with one thing and lead to another. For example, the Independent Counsel in Whitewater began investigating financial transactions and ended recommending Clinton be impeached over blow jobs. Only in America. nobs 03:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

RN did have a few years' worth of 'creative Presidenting' - and there does seem to have been an element of his underlings (or #their underlings#) following his intent rather than his explicit requests (the 'will nobody get rid of this turbulent priest' syndrome) - with Trump 'the disruption' started at the beginning. 86.146.100.119 (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The conspiracy​ started well before that. We have smoking gun with Obama's fingerprints right here. nobs 15:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone tried to start one, but it was really bad. Christopher (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

BoN comment

Small edit: I think the end of the introduction should say "taken over the Republican Party" rather than destroyed it. Much more accurate.^{— Unsigned, by: 96.236.25.201 / talk}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Tweet, tweet

Some conspiracy somewhere, diverting his odd comments - from the tubes anyone know where?

No amusement. Very sad. Very bad. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No, he hasn't "dismantled Obama's legacy" nor "turned himself into the worst President in history", however hard he may have tried

He's made a lot of attempts and made decisions that have potentially terrifying implications, but so far he has managed to change very little. The Muslim ban has been blocked and the Obamacare repeal failed to go through. Pulling out of the Paris Accords and firing Comey are both terrible decisions but by themselves didn't really leave America much worse off than it was before. He's got a ways to go before he can definitively be called worse than Jackson, Buchanan, Johnson, Wilson, Nixon, Reagan, or Dubya. 173.34.215.197 (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Well - being in office for under 5 months and already being called one of the worst of the presidents is an achievement - and he has alienated more people than most senior politicians at a very fast rate.

Question - is preferable to be the worst at something or the second worst? 31.51.113.212 (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump is not the worst because a lot of his shitty policies were turned down? The mere fact a lot of his policies were turned down, means he is the worst.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 00:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I remember how I hated Dubya and his cronies, especially Darth Vader Cheney, so much that I missed them when they left office (Bushisms probably helped). I wonder if Trump will be able to improve that. So far he's trying hard. --Panzerfaust (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I love the idea

...that after all this, he still has the guts to literally demand apologies (while still berating in the same textual breath).

Now, I'm certainly not saying Trump is definitionally undeserving of apologies. All human beings could list things they genuinely deserve apologies for. Trump is no exception (and dehumanization is the only thing here that's definitionally wrong).

What I'm pointing at here is Trump demanding apologies while giving out none himself. And — crucially — he's wronged far more people than have wronged him, that much is clear. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump's Razor

Cross posting - some mention of the above should be made and [10] is one reference. 86.191.125.235 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Rather than erroneously give Trump credit for an original idea, this should be noted as a variant of Hanlon's razor. Bongolian (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump brainworm

While considering possibilities for stories I came up with the idea - what response would Donald Trump make to the concept of MPreg? 86.146.100.51 (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump and the decline of democracy

Now for some political science:

Democratic backsliding is how democracies become authoritarian states. First talked about here in the Journal of Democracy.

• Freedom House Report stated that Trump's victory contributed to US's decline of democracy.
• Vox has an article about democratic backsliding.
• Also Russia plays a huge part in democratic backsliding.

Refugee who fled from USSR talks about Trump

We will probably have to do an article on this:

Where are the elements on the left that will speak up for democracy, against the single-party totalitarian strain that now controls the DNC? -Rob Smith

I talk to Rob Smith about how conservatives accusing the DNC of totalitarian is disrespectful to victims of totalitarian. He ignores me and keeps using suffering under totalitarian as a political football against the left.

This is sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory. Rob Smith cited a tweet and a freak fringe shooting as evidence against my words. How in the world is that response reasonable?

This is the tweet he cited as evidence:

Donald Trump refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election. That’s a direct threat to our democracy. - Clinton's twitter

The hell? How is that totalitarian?

Let's see what the experts think:

"(The Conversation) is an independent source of news and views from the academic and research community, delivered direct to the public."

• There's a bunch of results relating to "trump democracy" about Trump threatening democracy.
• There's a lack of results relating to "DNC democracy"
• Not much here for "democrats democracy".

"Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization dedicated to the expansion of freedom and democracy around the world."

• There is only one result for DNC.
• 87 results for Trump.

I couldn't search "democrats" as the search returns words about other countries and "democratic". And Freedom House really loves using the term "democratic".

So much for that supposed theory. Again I think this may be a popular belief among Trump supporters so I'm leaving link spam here so I can add it to the Trump article later. I can't believe that people think that the DNC is Totalitarianism.

• The Democrats’ Theme for 2016 Is Totalitarianism
• Democrats Embrace Totalitarian Legislation in New Platform

ClickerClock (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

More papers: How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy, On Democratic Backsliding,

W.I.P unpublished paper: Is Western Democracy Backsliding? Diagnosing the Risks <- don't use till it's finished. ClickerClock (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Houston, we read you loud and clear

Your body language, that is. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Add the quote where Trump said Hillary Clinton would make a great president?

Even more laffs from the biggest joke political or otherwise--Whocares001 (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

American Muslims are more violent and more accepting of Sharia than they really are

American Muslims are not muslims? or just dont follow the Koran? Guess its like "christians" who dont follow the bible? Most of them dont actually believe like most christians they just claim they do!--Whocares001 (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Article reminds me of Encyclopedia Dramatica website

While the article reads like an ED article, the interesting thing is not exaggerated! But it makes me wonder is it biased?--Whocares001 (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

We do not claim to be unbiased. Spud (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The above is a copout. But yes, RationalWiki is biased. It's hard to look at Donald Trump and see an honest and intelligent person genuinely interested in the welfare of the United States. (Of course, this is true of many politicians and people in general. However, the vast majority of said hucksters and idiots aren't president.) Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 07:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

While overtly subscribing to any given perspective comes with its fair share of downsides, and while neutrality remains a goal as admirable and necessary as it is elusive, a bias denied combines the worst of both. And one does well to remember — for nuance's sake, if nothing else — that the very notion of a "neutral mind" is an oxymoron of the highest proportion. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Bring back Fuckface von Clownstick

Also Cheeto Benito, Benedict Donald, Donnie Two Scoops, Agent Orange, Drumpf, and my personal favorite, the So-Called Ruler Of The United States or SCROTUS. Or do you think it is a cheap shot, unworthy of the gravitas properly appertaining to RW, to mock the morally handicapped? CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

And while we're at it, let's also bring back Tweetler, Hair Fuhrer, Trumplethinskin, and the lyin' king.Umichcynic (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

These work quite well as talkpage content. As far as mainspace goes, however — please remember to BFANJS. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Trumpery McTrumpface? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Trumpery. I like that word. Only the best words, believe me.

BFANJS? Rev, that ship sailed a few years ago. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Glad to amuse with [11] (and 'I am not commenting upon resemblances' with the image linked to - while something might be made of the last comment here).

Does this term apply too? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been disappointed that "trumpery" has had so little exposure in recent months. It's a real word with a perfectly apt meaning... FFS, RW has a blue link to Ben Steinery, so what gives? I'm tempted to see if a redirect will survive without having to explain the joke too much; it will probably need a few words in this article's lead section, if it is to make sense to a wide audience.

Those other items are trying too hard, IMO. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a term for 'apt word-ism' (being the analogue of 'nominative determinism') and/or 'apt phrase-ism'? Ethelred the Unready might be an example of the latter (Æthelred Unrad means 'Good Councilled the Bad Councilled'). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I myself was always partial to "The Giant Orange Pussy-Grabber" myself.174.199.20.42 (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

These ones? 86.146.100.86 (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The Eighteenth Brumaire question

If Trump is the Napoleon III/farce, who was the Napoleon I/tragedy? 31.49.115.248 (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Dubya. Spud (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

And to whom would he be the Napoleon I?

(Any persons answering this description not yet covered by RW should be.) 31.49.115.248 (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump needs your support

This wiki is woefully under-utilised. 86.146.100.72 (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Liberal bias

I see there's no mention of the fact that this liberal RINO is into liberal Omorashi. Liberal classlessness and censorship at work. --Elvis is King (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you just call Trump a RINO, or am I reading your message incorrectly?--Spoony (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who brags about unrighteous genital grabbing, is into rampant fetishism, and nominates liberals such as pro-homo Rex Tillerson to their Cabinet is an obvious RINO. --Elvis is King (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A reference to [12]-[13]? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It is simply the truth of the Lord. --Elvis is King (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Minor brainwarp

Donald Trump fanfic exists! 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The cabinet merry-go-round

is going faster and faster - how long will it last? 86.134.53.32 (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not so much a Cabinet merry-go-round as it is a staff merry-go-round. It's not quite as bad.

In either case, it will most likely last the rest of this administration. How long that is remains to be seen. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Slogan question

When will the 'Dump Trump/Dump Drumpf' meme appear? 86.146.100.21 (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Cover story (sticky)

Seems a bit weird to have the cover story nominee template with no cover story discussion thread.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 03:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

There was a thread [14], but you de-nominated it back then, @DiamondDisc1. Bongolian (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Crap, forgot.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 04:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Trump TV

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/trump-tv-donald-trump-quietly-10943897

Shouldn't this be mentioned here? Don't know alot about it, except that he wants to start his own TV channel with REAL "news" and that he has already hired someone from CNN...

I wonder if he's going to ask this guy to work for his channel aswell? Or maybe merge his channel with Dump TV... Tinribmancer (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The Mirror is really unreliable. Christopher (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I was looking for an English article about this, since I'm from Belgium. I actually heard about it from this source: http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/buitenland/1.3041977 Tinribmancer (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This might be relevant. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

(EC) While the Mirror source is not particularly good, I've heard the notion floated even during the presidential campaign that Trumps main/backup plan was to create the basis for his own "Breitbart'ish" media platform. In the one version of this hypothesis it was his exit strategy (using claims of electoral fraud as the immediate launchpad) from a potential electoral loss, on the other it was the main reason for his entry into the contest in the first place with the actual win being the "Plan B turning into Plan A".

I've come across such speculations in mainstream media from both political commentators and pundits and journalists. I think I even heard it raised as a possibility at a debate between a Washington reporter and a Member of the European Parliament. However, there is, to my knowledge, no firm evidence for such hypotheses, even if I don't find it entirely implausible. I personally think it would fit with Drumpf's history of bizarre, but effective promotional schemes, as well as his throw-stuff-and-see-what-sticks and used-car-salesman approach to business. Drumpf is basically a conman writ large. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)