|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Donald Trump/Archive4
Trump and fascism[edit]
I remember watching a video from a leftist YouTuber discussing how trump isn’t a fascist, but rather the ultimate result of neoliberal and American propaganda manifested as a person. I’m not defending trump in any way (the guy’s a sociopathic narcissistic and a threat to American democracy), but I do feel that we should approach these topics with much more nuance and critical thinking. So with that being said, does trump truly qualify as a fascist? Rational Dude (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- My take: Trump qualifies by some definitions but not by others. For example, I would argue that Trump meets all of Umberto Eco's 14 points of "ur-fascism"
. - The main quibbles I can see with calling Trump fascist at the moment:
- A) Trump does not exactly fit the mold of any 30s fascist leader or government. (However, even the 30s governments lumped into "fascism" were quite different from each other.)
- B) A big problem here is that he was an authoritarian wannabe, not an authoritarian; he lashed out at the free press, ultimately for no gain; he attempted a weak autocoup, which failed; state violence overall (including violent suppression of the Other) was from my perspective more or less at the standard level of the US for a while, instead of the heavy levels you saw with 1930s fascist governments. So he's more a fascist wannabe by rhetoric than an actual fascist by actions (a few weak actions being the exception) in many ways. So far, at least.
- C) Isolationism is not really a core of 1930s fascism that I know of (except perhaps economically a drive towards self-sufficiency, eg autarky; and corporatism, the later a feature of the US economy well before Trump). However, a core of Trump's policies are essentially wanting the US to retreat from its position in the global order and keeping the "Other" out. Trump did not engage in territorial expansion; pretty much all the 1930s fascists did.
- There's probably plenty more quibbles that could be thought of.
- Some day, maybe, someone will come up with a term to lump together the similarities between Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Viktor Orban, and others who I see as similar ilk, which take pages from the fascism playbook, but don't quite get there; even "para-fascist" doesn't sound quite right. Arguably all three kind of have similarities in particular with the particular form of fascism that Vladimir Putin has built in Russia (and I have zero quibbles calling Putin fascist); but all implemented such in "light" forms that are varying degrees quite a bit less authoritarian than Putin.
- So as far as the "fascist" tag goes, it depends how "fuzzy" we want to be in application I guess. BobJohnson (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Is DT committed/ideological enough to be considered a fascist?
- One dividing line - 'accepting a successor': DT and some of the others can contemplate or designate a successor, while Mussolini, Putin, and some others have a more 'après moi le déluge' presentation. (The boundary is a bit woolly - Franco planned for Juan Carlos to succeed him.) Anna Livia (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I completely agree with BobJohnson. I'll say again something I've said here before. When Trump was elected, I was sure he'd resign within a year once he realized that there were checks and balances in place that prevented him from just doing whatever he wanted. I think the only reason he didn't resign was because he never realized that. He didn't seem to realize the difference between US government property and his personal property, thought he could just order the media to do nothing but praise him and, of course, declare that he had won the election in spite of the fact that he hadn't. So yeah, I do not doubt that given half the chance he would have been a dictator. And if not a fascist dictator, he certainly would have been an ur-fascist one. Spud (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I understand. While trump does have authoritarian qualities, he doesn't check off all the boxes necessary to be a fascist. Rational Dude (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I completely agree with BobJohnson. I'll say again something I've said here before. When Trump was elected, I was sure he'd resign within a year once he realized that there were checks and balances in place that prevented him from just doing whatever he wanted. I think the only reason he didn't resign was because he never realized that. He didn't seem to realize the difference between US government property and his personal property, thought he could just order the media to do nothing but praise him and, of course, declare that he had won the election in spite of the fact that he hadn't. So yeah, I do not doubt that given half the chance he would have been a dictator. And if not a fascist dictator, he certainly would have been an ur-fascist one. Spud (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Rephrasing[edit]
Perhaps 'Presently, Trump is indicted in three cases:' could be reworked slightly ('what and when), given that the situation is developing in an ongoing manner blob-wise. Anna Livia (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Terminology[edit]
Will this be the 'last (of) Trump' - and is there any mention of 'trumped up charges'? Anna Livia (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Godwin rises[edit]
This - and there are other such articles. Anna Livia (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
And another doomsayer. Anna Livia (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Trump Advent Calendar[edit]
On Day 1 this.
What else will be planned? Anna Livia (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Turning off the foghorn[edit]
What about the claim by Miles Taylor that DT might switch off the internet.
Directing to eg [1] or [2] (other options available) would probably suffice. Anna Livia (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Mens sana in corpore sano[edit]
Came across [3] and links therefrom.
What happens if (generic) POTUS' views become at a sufficient angle to reality to be problematic but not quite sufficient to justify removal on grounds of non-competence (the Salazar model not being practical). Anna Livia (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Guess the P just gets to keep their job then? Maybe the truth is just a popularity contest after all... - Rairyu75 (Talk) 17:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Relevant quote[edit]
‘Be ye never so high, the law be above thee.’ Anna Livia (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Golden Sneakers[edit]
If we have his NFT cards here, why not put this hilarious shit in it aswell? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Candle auction[edit]
How far will the bad mothing go [4]? Anna Livia (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Invasion of the body snatchers/robots[edit]
The usual sources of weird stories came up with this. Anna Livia (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- I find it weirdly believable. Chillpilled (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Will add 'Maybot' to the discussion.
- The Romans (what did they do for us?) apparently had statues with separate heads, so they could be replaced with currently notable persons. Anna Livia (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Godwin's Law[edit]
Does this count? Anna Livia (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Biased[edit]
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Why is this article so biased? Donald Trump did so many great things for this country, but this article tries to smear him as a fascist (which is a communist ideology, while Trump is one of the greatest conservatives! Can someone fix this horrible article? — Unsigned, by: Zeb Smith / talk / contribs |
What the hell are you talking about man? This is obviously the most neutral, non-partisan article on the entire website. I don't see how this article leans any particular way in the political spectrum. Every claim is 100% accurate and the article perfectly summarizes his life and presidency. 2001:4958:2D58:3301:EBD2:7850:B674:5A5D (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. If any of the claims were actually wrong then no doubt some Trump supporter would have attempted to refute them.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Circular sources?[edit]
I'm new to rational wiki but can't help but notice the abundance of bogus "sources" cited in this article, either from no publication at all, or from Wikipedia articles, which is obviously expressly prohibited on wiki pages. My question is, is rational wiki satire? Is it like the onion or BuzzFeed or is it meant to be an actual forum for debate the free exchange of ideas? And if the latter, what is the recommended protocol for making multiple edits in one sweep or is that even allowed? — Unsigned, by: Texaseliz / talk / contribs
- As to your first question, see RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? If If you have specific problems with bad citation, or lack of citations, you can raise the issue here. Bongolian (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
He won the election[edit]
To be a board member in the Hubbard Rural Fire Protection District, with two write-in votes and tied with four others; the tie was broken with a 12-sided dice roll. Huh, what election did you think I meant? Chillpilled (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- From the article, it seems that Mickey Mouse actually got 6 votes, so The Mouse actually should have been the winner. RIGGED ELECTION!!!1!1! BobJohnson (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)