This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | → | Archive 150 |
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[ommission of space] change "reaching a high of 49 percent and a low of 35 percent. [718]" to "reaching a high of 49 percent and a low of 35 percent.[718]" Rowboat10 ( talk) 03:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia should never allow whoever wrote this biography to be so hateful and divisive. So many lies are added to undermine and disparage a US President. Furthermore, you omit Trump’s many accomplishments. It’s sad to see how we are becoming more and more like China— information is manipulated and censured to fit the narrative that keeps making the government bigger and We The People smaller. 2601:140:9180:8660:EC99:9EFF:F08A:248A ( talk) 06:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This exceeds 100kB. Should we shorten it? Ak-eater06 ( talk) 05:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Deletion isn't the way to go. Follow WP:PRESERVE and WP:Summary style by splitting off content into sub-articles. -- Valjean ( talk) 21:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Frustratingly, if Trump runs & wins the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, this article will become overly too long, again. Right now, Biden's bios should be longer, as he's the incumbent U.S. president. GoodDay ( talk) 16:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
runs and wins: we'll cross that bridge
The Lafayette Square section isn't even long. And the other sections that checkers has suggested cutting are also all quite due weight, as explained by Melanie and SPECIFICO. I'd personally prefer more specific proposals too. –– FormalDude talk 08:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't know what they are?Let's tell 'em, remove the names nobody knows, and save 65 bytes. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
nitpicked
: I almost always look at the recent edits to see if they're improvements IMO. If they're not, again IMO, I revert them, or if I think they could be further improved then I'll do that. That's what I did here. Take these edits, for example:
yours and the two (
[7],
[8]) I made. I removed the cite after the first sentence of the second paragraph because it was about the Plaza Hotel, not the Taj Mahal, while the cite following the next sentence was about the Taj Mahal. I also removed "without much leverage" as unnecessary because the next sentence specifies how Trump financed the purchase, i.e., with junk bonds. My edits get "nitpicked" all the time, sometimes justifiably so, sometimes not, IMO—argument ensues.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 21:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
This has not been discussed since 2018 and the protests against Trump have faded away as being significant. The protests seemed to be much more relevant in the early portion of his presidency and have lacked importance overall to him as a person or really even his presidency. At this point in time, protests against him should be removed from the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
in an upset victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clintonin the same paragraph? Here's a suggestion of what we could cut from the lead:
He. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican andwas elected in the 2016 presidential racein an upset victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clintonwhile losing the popular vote
protests against Trump have faded away as being significant. They continue to get significant academic coverage, eg. [10] [11] [12]. Obviously now that Trump is no longer president, everything about him is going to fade away somewhat in terms of significance, but I don't think there's any reason to think that this aspect has particularly faded relative to the rest of that part of his bio or that a single sentence in his bio is WP:UNDUE; it was a defining feature of his administration and for years was a major aspect of how he was publicly seen. Omitting them also makes it a bit harder to understand other aspects of how he was controversial, since the constant protests are a key point of context. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
more controversial and divisive than any other recent presidentsto the body, presumably adding RS with rankings by historians, political scientists, etc. "Controversial/controversies" are terms editors, in my experience, tend to use to fudge the issues, i.e., instead of saying "accusations of nepotism", "conflicts of interest", etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
According to Collins, "If you describe something or someone as controversial, you mean that they are the subject of intense public argument, disagreement, or disapproval." [13] There is a lot of evidence that Trump's presidency was controversial in the lead:
There are many more. All of these statements are evidence that Trump's presidency was controversial. IOW it implies it was controversial without explicitly saying so. That type of writing can make for great dramatic literature. Shakespeare for example never had an impartial narrator who explained which characters were controversial or anything else about them. The viewers watched the play and made their own assessments, eagerly anticipating what the characters would do next.
Encyclopedia articles OTOH summarize the facts and the findings of experts and avoid presenting any conclusions implicitly. We should explicitly say that Trump was controversial rather than attempt to prove it.
TFD ( talk) 19:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
In the introduction, add the fact that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased income inequality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:0:A550:49C:1289:B58E:841 ( talk) 03:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Disregard opinionated claim about “worst president in history” no factual evidence or source. 2601:243:C400:53D0:F0BA:7314:3E89:B766 ( talk) 06:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is ridiculously biased article with no cited material to back it up. Not one citation until you hit sub articles.
When you look at other discussions you’ll see Bob shooting down good arguments and if you look at his other contributions you’ll see he has an extreme left wing bias. 2600:6C5E:5D7F:F073:1C81:C865:63CF:2C58 ( talk) 01:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Suggesting that Trump is considered by scholars to be one of the worst POTUS to date is fair in an immediate narrow sense.
But a slight elaboration in the spirit of fairness is in order.
First, here is the salient passage that caught my eye:
“Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.”
Again, letting that verbiage stand as is is perfectly acceptable. But I propose adding an additional sentence along the following lines:
“But Trump retains a base of popular support, estimated by Pew Research Center at around one-third of the U.S. electorate. This makes Trump potentially viable as the Republican Party’s 2024 nominee for the U.S. presidency.”
(I never voted for Trump and never would, but as an ex-journalist, (Reuters & Bloomberg), I thought I’d share my professional opinion…)
Thank you for your consideration. OllyCooks ( talk) 22:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article involving Russia should include Hillary Clinton spying update from Durham report.
Will stop donating when you come begging if we’re not going to be objective 2600:6C5E:5D7F:F073:1C81:C865:63CF:2C58 ( talk) 01:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes you do its right here /info/en/?search=Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections 2600:8805:C980:9400:B5A9:2F53:BCF2:AD94 ( talk) 15:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete the following: "Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and promoted conspiracy theories." 2601:183:867F:FAC0:9956:2C9D:CB76:6919 ( talk) 15:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Can we please remove the sentence "Scholars and historians generally rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history"? The thing is, it is bringing up a fact that is opinionated. It sort of bypasses on the line of being technically true, but brought up to give an opinion. I do not see this as acceptable because a whole article could just be full of opinions by doing this, but because they are facts it is somehow allowed. Honestly, you could put anything there and it be true. I could put "Some historians believe Trump was a great president." It is still true, but just as dishonest as the sentence that is in the article. Thank you. Master106 ( talk) 02:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Here's just a correction to the reasoning in PrimeHunter's message, "When most surveyed scholars and historians rank him os one of the worst, it makes sense to give the quoted statement." A necessary condition for it to make sense is if it has been established that the scholars and historians in the survey have been selected in an unbiased way. Otherwise it cannot be said that the survey represents the opinion of scholars and historians in general. Bob K31416 ( talk) 15:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The consensus to include the sentence was established by an RfC in September/October 2021—see item 54. In the last few weeks it has been brought up again and again, without any of the—mostly IP address or red-signature—editors with few edits citing any reliable sources. If anyone has the reliable sources to establish why the consensus should change, please present them. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:04, 17 February 2022) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Bob K31416 and PrimeHunter are kind of right. I supported inclusion of this sentence in the original RfC, but I have never thought of it in the way they presented it. We maybe shouldn't use the word generally or any definite language because all we've done is pick a handful of academic sources that say Trump's the worst and now we've put this statement in. That's is the definition of WP:SYNTHESIS. Unless there is RS, in abundant amounts that is, that says scholars and historians rank Trump low this sentence should probably be removed. I seriously think this consensus needs to be reconsidered in light of this analysis. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 04:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Cpotisch Closing this was uncalled for in the middle of active discussion. If you don't want to discuss you don't have to comment, but don't shut it down. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Well I was going to suggest changing the sentence to "A C-SPAN survey of historians ranked Trump one of the worst presidents in United States history." I think providing the source is important since RS also indicates the source of the survey. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The lead for this article is almost entirely his political opinions and political controversy from his presidency when the article is supposed to be donald trump the person in whole. I implore all of you to go read the lead for vladamir putin or george w bush. They are much more appropriate for an article about a person and still don't even miss out on the controversy. And really the article itself doesn't skip out anywhere on how bad trump is, I think the lead is just out of place for a person article, it would be fitting for an article about donald trumps political life/controversies, imo. 2605:A601:ACB3:5200:E5E6:4F97:4987:F16C ( talk) 04:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is meant to be an unbiased source of information. The following section reveals the political bias of the article's author, and should be removed. "Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and promoted conspiracy theories."
This statement not only damages this article's credibility, it damages the entire site's credibility. Always remember - the purpose of this site is to increase accessibility of information, not to convince people what to believe in. We don't run ads here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7F:9250:B9B0:8BBF:6F77:3D81 ( talk) 05:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The page is generally bias and misleading. It presents information in vague half-truths without the proper context. 2603:9000:C201:145:589F:7DB6:C395:828E ( talk) 12:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi!
I noticed while reading through the page there are sections near the bottom for propagated conspiracy theories and misogyny, etc. I feel like it is biased against him in those several sections near the end. Though nothing stated there is strictly untrue, I think many of his supporters would contend it. To solve this, I would suggest just having the direct quotes and maybe changing the title to something broader like "Controversy." If you leave the quotes open to interpretation then it would be more neutral and harder for others to argue that it is inaccurate. Thanks for considering my suggestion! Clash2022 ( talk) 15:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I
added this sentence to
Manhattan developments: The state-controlled
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China has been a tenant since 2008, initially leasing three floors.
[1]
It
was deleted with the remark that the building has had scores of tenants since 1998, not to do enough w/Trump to merit incl
. The building probably had more than scores of tenants since it opened in 1983 but most of them didn't pay almost $2 million in annual rent for three floors directly below Trump's offices and in the same building as his primary residence. The lease ended in 2019, and a new one was negotiated while Trump was negotiating with China on various tariffs and while other tenants left or couldn't pay the rent. Tenants
Gucci or Ronaldo—meh, foreign government-controlled bank—noteworthy.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 11:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to take the most neutral stance possible and fact is violations of the emoluments clause is something that is was rarely ever even discussed as a possibility forget could realistically been violated. The rule does not require a bribe be made or influenced received it strives to prevent such from ever materializing. Due to Trump's resistance to placing his business assets in a blind trust, his administration was the only modern occurence when the commission of an EC violation was actually seriously discussed in public discourse-this is the one and only way the reference to the Chinese bank becomes potentially relevant enough to warrant inclusion. The fact a discussion has materialized over whether or not this specific lease influenced Trump's presidential policies to be more favorable towards the Chinese gives credence to the argument it was only added in the first place to insinuate as much. The key word being insinuate as no reputable source exists that would outright make such a claim. To be @ Space4Time3Continuum2x: clear, it is clownish to think Trump felt beholden to the ICBC as President based on this lease. No reasonable person should draw such a conclusion but unfortunately reason all too often flies out the window when matters of contemporary politics are concerned-especially when Trump is involved. Without any other context or issues being raised, whoever the third largest tenant happens to be in one of Trump's real-estate properties, is not information that even comes close to warranting inclusion on this page. OgamD218 ( talk) 20:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Ogam, you were the one in this discussion who brought up the emoluments clause, so were you referring to yourself with "clownish" and "no reasonable person"? Trump Tower is owned by GMAC Commercial Mortgage. It has 232 units, and 231 of those are residential. Trump owns at least one residential unit but its size is 10,000 square ft., not 30,000 as he claimed until recently, and worth a lot less than the $30 million he claimed. Trump owns the one commercial unit, i.e., the retail space in the atrium and the space on the 13 non-residential floors. According to the NY Times, they generated more than $20 million in profits annually, for a total of $336.3 million since 2000. He took out a personally guaranteed 10-year, $100 million mortgage loan in 2012; the master servicer of the loan, Wells Fargo, issued a debt warning in September 2021 when the occupancy rate dropped from 85.9% in September 2020 to a lower-than-average 78.9% in September 2021. The average landlord would probably want to avoid losing their third-largest tenant under these circumstances, by offering incentives such as lowering the rent, for example. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I have already put my comment above, but I would like to respond to some opposers. The Four Deuces, says "You would need to show that the lease had received a lot of attention in reliable sources". This subject has received numerous RS over a period of years. At first I though this was going to be a WP:NOTNEWS issue, but it clearly is not. Here's a source from 2016. [2] 2017, [3] 2020, [4] and 2021. [5] This is sort of significant when it comes to RS, per WP:DUE. Some editors have concern that inclusion is like hinting that Trump is bribing or something. RS has mentioned this with concerns over conflicts of interest. I personally, see no implication of bribing in the statement. However, with all that said, I do understand maybe the argument that it's just not really significant because it kind of isn't. This really hasn't bubbled up to be much for Trump. I think whatever the result is here it's not that important. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses generic title (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Abraham Accords be mentioned in the article under the Israel section? They are arguably his biggest foreign policy achievement.-- DeathTrain ( talk) 21:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
There is more and more information coming out about Trump’s habit of tearing up or otherwise destroying documents while president, or taking them with him when he left the White House. [31] [32] [33] [34] This needs to be documented somewhere in Wikipedia - maybe not in this biographical article specifically, but somewhere. Any ideas about where we could put this information? Or do we already have it somewhere? -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I just discovered there is extensive reporting on Trump's practices at the article Presidential Records Act. BTW our article doesn't say anything about jail time or disqualification from future office. I had read that there are no enforcement provisions or penalties at all - that it was assumed the rules would be honored by, well, honorable presidents. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph on this subject to the Presidency of Donald Trump article, under the section heading “Transparency and data availability”, which I changed to “Transparency, data availability, and record keeping”. We might later add a sentence to the text of this article if the subject turns out to have staying power. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I can see you want to put this in for propaganda. You should research this thing further and see what actually happened. Jake pres ( talk) 16:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump was also democratic before 1987 2603:6081:7943:279C:4909:9D21:3C87:DE66 ( talk) 15:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Re my
"extreme pov move by editor who selectively deleted only this specific pardon from the section" and
OgamD218's
revert. Yeah, well, for once my "extreme POV" is supported not just by the
usual suspects but also by a
source from the right, first time I EVER cited the
The Federalist (website). Aside from that, the text and the cite are outdated. Trump didn't just commute Johnson's sentence (something most people support)—while his AG and DoJ ordered federal prosecutors to pursue the toughest possible charges and sentences against criminal defendants, reversing President Barack Obama’s efforts to ease penalties in nonviolent drug cases
(
NYT 2018), and a mere three months after he himself had called for the death penalty for drug dealers (
Vox March 2018). He later (a day after she appeared in a campaign video praising his leadership
, to be exact) (
NYT 2020,
CNN) pardoned the "one-time non-violent drug offender" who actually spent three years in "middle-management" of a drug operation that brought 2,000 to 3,000 kilograms of cocaine into Memphis (
Tennessean).
I just discovered that there is an actual article misleadingly called List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump. I think the best way to handle this is to move that article to "Executive clemency granted by Donald Trump" and then add whatever is missing. Johnson, for example, is only mentioned as a clemency recipient who was part of Trump's "kitchen cabinet" of influencers. Then we can cut the section in this article to the bare bones: "Most of Trump's pardons and commutations were granted to people with personal or political connections to him. He sidestepped regular Department of Justice procedures for considering pardons, instead often entertaining pardon requests from his associates or from celebrities. Trump frequently bypassed the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA), and the majority of his executive clemency grants were made to well-connected convicts who did not file a petition with the OPA or meet the OPA's requirements. Overall, Trump granted less clemency than any modern president." I copied the last two sentences from the lead of "List of ...", haven't looked up the sources yet. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I
removed this sentence: Days after leaving office, his successor Joe Biden barred Trump from receiving intelligence briefings, the first former president to be excluded from the customary practice.
[1] I’m sure that wasn’t
Soibangla’s intent but the text sounded as though Biden was just being mean to his predecessor. If we include the info it would need context—why former presidents receive security briefings in the first place,(… part of a long tradition of former presidents being consulted about, and granted access to, some of the nation's secrets. … They are provided access to secrets as a courtesy, with the permission of the current president. Typically, former presidents are given briefings before they travel overseas, or in connection with an issue about which the current president wishes to consult them, [former CIA officer] Priess and other experts say.
)
[2]
[3] and that the intelligence community allegedly had stopped briefing him after the January 6 insurrection.
[4] Should we include this?
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 18:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Relative to everything else in the articleWe disagree. soibangla ( talk) 18:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
among the top reasons for his notabilitygo put a sentence in the lead about it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 21:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
amusement. You’d need to present a considerable number of RS who say otherwise. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
From Trump's debts owed to unknown entities (not talking about Ladder Capital or Deutsche Bank) to his blabbing to Lavrov/Kislyev right after the inauguration to his tête-à-têtes with Putin to his Mar-a-Lago patio sessions he's been considered a threat to national security since before he was even elected. This needs to be mentioned. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Finally, the Committee's bipartisan Report shows that almost immediately following Election Day in 2016, the Trump transition responded to Russia's election interference not by supporting punitive action, but rather by holding a series of secretive meetings and communications with Russian representatives that served to undercut the outgoing administration's efforts to hold Russia accountable. The transition's openness to this private Russian outreach prior to taking office, so soon after Russia's interference on Trump's behalf, combined with Trump publicly questioning Russia's involvement, signaled that there was little intention by the incoming administration to punish Russia for the assistance it had just provided in its unprecedented attack on American democracy." [5]
I take it, my suggestion hasn't been implemented. GoodDay ( talk) 20:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
References
Compared to Presidency of Donald Trump, we're doing OK.
The
NBC source, dated April 15, 2021, added and removed today was also
mentioned in the
RfC. It contains a paragraph that is not supported by their linked sources: They still have not found any evidence, a senior defense official said Thursday. And the Biden administration also made clear in a fact sheet released Thursday that the CIA's intelligence on the matter is far from conclusive, acknowledging that analysts labeled it "low to moderate confidence."
The link "still have not found any evidence" links to
an NBC article written nine months earlier in July 2020, not a source for a briefing on Thursday, April 15, 2021. The linked
WH fact sheet says this unter the section title "Reporting Afghanistan Bounties": The Administration is responding to the reports that Russia encouraged Taliban attacks against U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan based on the best assessments from the Intelligence Community (IC). Given the sensitivity of this matter, which involves the safety and well-being of our forces, it is being handled through diplomatic, military and intelligence channels. The safety and well-being of U.S. military personnel, and that of our allies and partners, is an absolute priority of the United States.
That does not sound as though they're walking back much, if anything. There was a briefing by a senior administration on another Thursday, May 7, 2021. The
NY Times wrote that Afterward, some commentators treated the bare line about confidence levels as a new development that amounted to the government walking back its suspicions from 2020.
Hatted quote from NYT
|
---|
|
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I added Trump questioned the existence of the alleged
bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan and didn't mention it to Putin.
[1]
, with a reliable source (
BBC), to the article
here, see also
RfC Russian Bounties claims --
User:Chess: Another discussion will likely be necessary to workshop a better wording that may be agreed on by the participants here.
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 11:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
|
---|
|
So was the one that replaced it, unchallenged, on March 27, 2021, with the edit summary "better image". I also think that the current one is the better one for his bio. Trump's grab-and-yank handshakes made the news, e.g., NYT, WaPo, and others; this one would be the alpha-male stand-off, I think. Both images were taken by the WH photographer and released by the WH. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
22:34, 29 December 2021: User:Chess wrote: "I've been brought here by WP:RFCL to close, so here I am. Looking at the rough survey, this seems somewhat evenly divided in terms of !votes. ... I'll close with a consensus of retain, but add context. ... Another discussion will likely be necessary to workshop a better wording that may be agreed on by the participants here."
The sentence currently reads:
and never brought up Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan with Putin. [1]
I would suggest replacing this with:
Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan and never discussed it with Putin. [2] [3]
or
Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan and believed that the intelligence assessment was leaked to media to help Joe Biden's presidential campaign or to prevent the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. [4] [2] [3]
My edit was reverted here by SPECIFICO with the following edit summary: "No consensus for these changes."
Your comments and suggestions will be greatly appreciated. @ Chess:, @ Bob K31416:, @ Jack Upland:, @ FormalDude:, @ The Four Deuces:, @ GoodDay:, @ Space4Time3Continuum2x:, @ OgamD218:, @ Zaathras:, @ Firefangledfeathers:, @ ValerianB:, @ InedibleHulk:, @ Fieari:, @ Iamreallygoodatcheckers:, @ SPECIFICO:, @ LM2000:, @ Wuerzele:, @ Adoring nanny:, @ Alaexis:, @ LondonIP:, @ Neonorange:
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 19:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 20:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
"never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan", so the disputed text should be hidden until the dispute is resolved and better wording is agreed on by the participants here. - diff -- Tobby72 ( talk) 19:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I support "Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan and never discussed it with Putin." It's short and sweet and adds all the context necessary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Opposed to first proposal. The BBC source says that Trump tweeted "fake news" and "fake issue", the AP source mentions NSA O’Brien saying that Trump has not been briefed on the matter. IMO, neither one supports expressed doubts
. The
New York Times wrote that commentators had misinterpreted the 2021 briefings. Opposed to second proposal. First proposal plus speculations on what Trump believed about motivations for alleged leaks.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposal #3. The context isn't that Trump believed or didn't believe the intelligence. The WH had offered two different explanations anyway, that he didn't believe or that he wasn't briefed, i.e., he didn't know. I propose the following alternate wording to follow "Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7"
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)and did not confront Putin over intelligence information of varying degrees of confidence that Russian operatives had offered "financial incentives to reward attacks on American and allied troops." [1]
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)and did not confront Putin about an intelligence report that Russian operatives had offered "financial incentives to reward attacks on American and allied troops." [1]
there seems to be rough agreement that some coverage of the Russian bounty controversy and its relation to Trump be maintained, but that the current wording of the coverage could be altered or contextualized.It doesn't say that the context is what Trump said he believed. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
A good compromise might to just say— why don't you propose a sentence? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
No. the point is that the mainstream does not assess that those are his true beliefs, so they are UNDUE. Few to none affirm that he believes what he says. Beliefs do not appear useful, so he does not need any. SPECIFICO talk 03:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposal #5
Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties to Taliban fighters for attacking American soldiers in Afghanistan and never discussed it with Putin. [4] [5] [6]
@ Chess: One thing is for sure, the current version is against the consensus of retain, but add context. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 11:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
a biased (and frankly unreliable) narrator.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but made no progress on denuclearization.
As it is right now this reads overly negative. Trump was the first sitting president to meet with a North Korean leader at all and that should warrant a mention despite the overall talks failing in the end. As it is, it reads like his administration took three meetings for no progress at all, when the fact there were meetings at all was already notable. Suggestion:
Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, the first sitting president to do so, but made no progress on denuclearization. -- 95.91.247.87 ( talk) 11:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
This was recently discussed and resolved -- please refer to the talk archives and to Consensus #22. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Leave it alone. Was already discussed & decided. GoodDay ( talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I reopened this discussion after it was closed without good reason. In my edit summary I wrote, "premature close; active discussion with at least two new proposals pending; next lime wait several days for no discussion before closing". I mention this because there's too much of this going on and it gives the appearance of suppressing legitimate discussion of ideas that the closer is opposed to. Such suppression has also occurred by archiving. There's no reason to archive a discussion that has recently had comments, and unfortunately such inappropriate archiving has been done. Archiving is for sections where discussion has stopped for at least several days. Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
When did anybody make any progress with North Korea, concerning nuclear weapons. GoodDay ( talk) 23:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "Scholar and historians ...... American history". Insert "Trump has received criticism from the Democrat party for his actions. He has also received record support from Republicans. Remove "Many or his comment .... many as mysogynistic."
Just a note, I'm an independent, but I think the article should be as unbiased as possible. Some of your comments may not be wrong but are opinionated and have no place in an honorable, fact-based article which I know is the goal of Wikipedia. 813SDC-TES ( talk) 01:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article about Donald J Trump goes against many Wikipedia guidelines in many ways including biased sources and political opinions. Unless these standards and guidelines only apply for those that the editors agree with this should be changed into a more neutral position. Instead of saying “he said many false statements and lies” it should say something like the following “opponents of Donald Trump say that he’s made many false statements” or something along those lines. This post might not attract any attention, knowing Wikipedia but this must be changed. Jake pres ( talk) 21:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Opponents of Donald Trump sayreduces precision and introduces bias. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Jake pres, you labor under a delusion when you write: "goes against many Wikipedia guidelines in many ways including biased sources and political opinions". We have no such guideline. NPOV expressly allows biased sources and biased opinions. It is editors who must be neutral in their editing, not sources or content. I have written an essay about how we deal with biased sources and NPOV: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. It may help you understand this confusing topic. How can Wikipedia be neutral and yet have biased wordings and content? That's partially because around here "neutral" doesn't have the exact same meaning as elsewhere.
We are not allowed to present opinions as facts and word facts as opinions. There is also such a thing as factual opinions. Normally we attribute all opinions, but there comes a time when the opinions are so solidly established as fact that we just cite them without attribution. When the consensus of RS facts and opinions says Trump is a pathological, serial, liar with no connection to the concept of truth, we must not present that as some opinion which readers are free to doubt and ignore. It's one of the most solidly established facts about him.
He is not only wildly untruthful, he literally attacks and undermines the very concept of truth. He tries to create his own reality which his followers must accept, and they do. They live in a bubble. This is an old and very effective tactic used by authoritarians. This is how they destabilize society. Once such a society is destabilized, people no longer know what to believe and are at the mercy of the most powerful voice, which is the dictator in charge, the one who labels all RS as fake news. That is exactly what Trump has done and continues to do. His definition of "fake news" isn't even the proper definition. Read Fake news#Donald Trump.
Also read Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election, Trumpism, and Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. -- Valjean ( talk) 16:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I have noticed lots of far leftist opinions on this page such as "He falsely claimed" (election fraud). There is no proof that there was no election fraud, but there is actually overwhelming proof as to the elections integrity being compromised. In Georgia one of the officials at the polls even came out and showed everyone how they were changing the votes as they speak. Not to mention the mysterious trucks full of Trumps votes disappearing and stuff like that. Will add sources later, am to lazy to spend hours looking for them now. I would edit it myself, but my account is almost but not quite 30 days old, and I have around 30 edits, not 300, so it will be a while before I am able too. ypc0cnz ( talk) 17:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe Trump's praise for Putin and for Russia's invasion of Ukraine might be news, but it is news that will certainly pass the WP:10YEARTEST - moreso, say, than buying another company. My addition was reverted by Space4Time3Continuum2x. Can I get consensus to include, even if modified? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
"I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, 'This is genius.' Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine – of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. I said, 'How smart is that?' And he's gonna go in and be a peacekeeper." Trump also stated that the Russian military buildup in Russian and Belarusian territory was "the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen."Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
"We could use that on our southern border. That's the strongest peace force I've ever seen. There were more army tanks than I've ever seen, they're gonna keep peace alright. No, but think of it: Here's a guy who's very savvy. I know him very well. Very, very well. By the way, this would have never happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable, this would never have happened.". If what you posted can be considered RS, maybe we should re-evaluate the standards on that. I honestly can't believe nobody has posted the unedited quote here before... Prodigial Son ( talk) 19:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Hatted quote
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 16:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
Q: ... in the last 24 hours we know Russia has said that they are recognizing two breakaway regions of Ukraine, and now this White House is stating that this is an “invasion.” That’s a strong word. What went wrong here? What has the current occupant of the Oval Office done that he could have done differently? TRUMP: Well, what went wrong was a rigged election and what went wrong is a candidate that shouldn’t be there and a man that has no concept of what he’s doing. I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, “This is genius.” Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. So, Putin is now saying, “It’s independent,” a large section of Ukraine. I said, “How smart is that?” And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force… We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I know him very well. Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened. But here’s a guy that says, you know, “I’m gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent,” he used the word “independent,” “and we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.” You gotta say that’s pretty savvy. And you know what the response was from Biden? There was no response. They didn’t have one for that. No, it’s very sad. Very sad. |
I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, "This is genius."Losing his fight with the English language, as usual, and sarcasm isn't in his repertoire. He's Trump, retiree, currently ineligible for security briefings. His remarks are late night comedy gold but other than that they only got a brief mention as an aside to the invasion—outside of Russia, that is. If that changes, we can always add it. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Hatting quotes
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 20:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb8t-UToTxw, starts at around 45:50 seconds) Ingraham: We’re just learning that U.S. officials are looking at a potential amphibious landing now in Odessa, Ukraine. A month ago, or three weeks ago, all the so-called experts were saying that Putin was probably gonna just be content with staying in those separatist regions. But I think given what’s unfolded sadly with a lot of weakness in the United States they just decided to go for it. I mean, looks like they’re going for it and where does that leave NATO, the NATO alliance. Trump: I think that’s what happened. I think you’re exactly right. I think that’s what happened. I think he was going to be satisfied with the peace and now he sees the weakness and the incompetence of the stupidity of this administration. And as an American I am angry about it and I’m saddened by it and it all happened because of a rigged election. This would have never happened and that includes inflation and that include (video ends) The rest can be seen here, apparently too embarassing for Fox to show: https://twitter.com/JonahDispatch/status/1496695902727196675 Ingraham: We’ll continue to monitor this. We’ll go back to President Trump for a quick reaction. We have kind of a really pathetic display from the Ukrainian President Zelensky earlier today where he in Russian, he doesn’t like to speak Russian, he was imploring President Putin not to invade his country. Now we have the Ukrainian ambassador to the United Nations looking like a defeated man. Your final reaction. Trump: Well, I think the whole thing again would have never happened, it shouldn’t happen, and it’s a very sad thing. But you know what’s also very dangerous you told me about the amphibious attack by Americans. You shouldn’t be saying that because you and everybody else shouldn’t know about it. They should do that secretly, not be doing that through the great Laura Ingraham. They should be doing that secretly. Nobody should know that, Laura. Ingraham: No, those were the Russians, the Russian amphibious landing. Trump: Oh, I thought you said that we were sending people. Ingraham: No no, that would be news. Trump: And you what, that’s all we need. That’ll be next, OK? Now, we ought to protect our own borders. |
Apparently, Trump is continuing to comment on Ukraine. [44] and repeats sarcastic remarks, here. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | → | Archive 150 |
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[ommission of space] change "reaching a high of 49 percent and a low of 35 percent. [718]" to "reaching a high of 49 percent and a low of 35 percent.[718]" Rowboat10 ( talk) 03:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia should never allow whoever wrote this biography to be so hateful and divisive. So many lies are added to undermine and disparage a US President. Furthermore, you omit Trump’s many accomplishments. It’s sad to see how we are becoming more and more like China— information is manipulated and censured to fit the narrative that keeps making the government bigger and We The People smaller. 2601:140:9180:8660:EC99:9EFF:F08A:248A ( talk) 06:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This exceeds 100kB. Should we shorten it? Ak-eater06 ( talk) 05:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Deletion isn't the way to go. Follow WP:PRESERVE and WP:Summary style by splitting off content into sub-articles. -- Valjean ( talk) 21:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Frustratingly, if Trump runs & wins the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, this article will become overly too long, again. Right now, Biden's bios should be longer, as he's the incumbent U.S. president. GoodDay ( talk) 16:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
runs and wins: we'll cross that bridge
The Lafayette Square section isn't even long. And the other sections that checkers has suggested cutting are also all quite due weight, as explained by Melanie and SPECIFICO. I'd personally prefer more specific proposals too. –– FormalDude talk 08:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 10:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't know what they are?Let's tell 'em, remove the names nobody knows, and save 65 bytes. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 15:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
nitpicked
: I almost always look at the recent edits to see if they're improvements IMO. If they're not, again IMO, I revert them, or if I think they could be further improved then I'll do that. That's what I did here. Take these edits, for example:
yours and the two (
[7],
[8]) I made. I removed the cite after the first sentence of the second paragraph because it was about the Plaza Hotel, not the Taj Mahal, while the cite following the next sentence was about the Taj Mahal. I also removed "without much leverage" as unnecessary because the next sentence specifies how Trump financed the purchase, i.e., with junk bonds. My edits get "nitpicked" all the time, sometimes justifiably so, sometimes not, IMO—argument ensues.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 21:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
This has not been discussed since 2018 and the protests against Trump have faded away as being significant. The protests seemed to be much more relevant in the early portion of his presidency and have lacked importance overall to him as a person or really even his presidency. At this point in time, protests against him should be removed from the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
in an upset victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clintonin the same paragraph? Here's a suggestion of what we could cut from the lead:
He. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)entered the 2016 presidential race as a Republican andwas elected in the 2016 presidential racein an upset victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clintonwhile losing the popular vote
protests against Trump have faded away as being significant. They continue to get significant academic coverage, eg. [10] [11] [12]. Obviously now that Trump is no longer president, everything about him is going to fade away somewhat in terms of significance, but I don't think there's any reason to think that this aspect has particularly faded relative to the rest of that part of his bio or that a single sentence in his bio is WP:UNDUE; it was a defining feature of his administration and for years was a major aspect of how he was publicly seen. Omitting them also makes it a bit harder to understand other aspects of how he was controversial, since the constant protests are a key point of context. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
more controversial and divisive than any other recent presidentsto the body, presumably adding RS with rankings by historians, political scientists, etc. "Controversial/controversies" are terms editors, in my experience, tend to use to fudge the issues, i.e., instead of saying "accusations of nepotism", "conflicts of interest", etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
According to Collins, "If you describe something or someone as controversial, you mean that they are the subject of intense public argument, disagreement, or disapproval." [13] There is a lot of evidence that Trump's presidency was controversial in the lead:
There are many more. All of these statements are evidence that Trump's presidency was controversial. IOW it implies it was controversial without explicitly saying so. That type of writing can make for great dramatic literature. Shakespeare for example never had an impartial narrator who explained which characters were controversial or anything else about them. The viewers watched the play and made their own assessments, eagerly anticipating what the characters would do next.
Encyclopedia articles OTOH summarize the facts and the findings of experts and avoid presenting any conclusions implicitly. We should explicitly say that Trump was controversial rather than attempt to prove it.
TFD ( talk) 19:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
In the introduction, add the fact that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased income inequality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:0:A550:49C:1289:B58E:841 ( talk) 03:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Disregard opinionated claim about “worst president in history” no factual evidence or source. 2601:243:C400:53D0:F0BA:7314:3E89:B766 ( talk) 06:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is ridiculously biased article with no cited material to back it up. Not one citation until you hit sub articles.
When you look at other discussions you’ll see Bob shooting down good arguments and if you look at his other contributions you’ll see he has an extreme left wing bias. 2600:6C5E:5D7F:F073:1C81:C865:63CF:2C58 ( talk) 01:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Suggesting that Trump is considered by scholars to be one of the worst POTUS to date is fair in an immediate narrow sense.
But a slight elaboration in the spirit of fairness is in order.
First, here is the salient passage that caught my eye:
“Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history.”
Again, letting that verbiage stand as is is perfectly acceptable. But I propose adding an additional sentence along the following lines:
“But Trump retains a base of popular support, estimated by Pew Research Center at around one-third of the U.S. electorate. This makes Trump potentially viable as the Republican Party’s 2024 nominee for the U.S. presidency.”
(I never voted for Trump and never would, but as an ex-journalist, (Reuters & Bloomberg), I thought I’d share my professional opinion…)
Thank you for your consideration. OllyCooks ( talk) 22:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article involving Russia should include Hillary Clinton spying update from Durham report.
Will stop donating when you come begging if we’re not going to be objective 2600:6C5E:5D7F:F073:1C81:C865:63CF:2C58 ( talk) 01:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes you do its right here /info/en/?search=Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections 2600:8805:C980:9400:B5A9:2F53:BCF2:AD94 ( talk) 15:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete the following: "Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and promoted conspiracy theories." 2601:183:867F:FAC0:9956:2C9D:CB76:6919 ( talk) 15:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Can we please remove the sentence "Scholars and historians generally rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history"? The thing is, it is bringing up a fact that is opinionated. It sort of bypasses on the line of being technically true, but brought up to give an opinion. I do not see this as acceptable because a whole article could just be full of opinions by doing this, but because they are facts it is somehow allowed. Honestly, you could put anything there and it be true. I could put "Some historians believe Trump was a great president." It is still true, but just as dishonest as the sentence that is in the article. Thank you. Master106 ( talk) 02:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Here's just a correction to the reasoning in PrimeHunter's message, "When most surveyed scholars and historians rank him os one of the worst, it makes sense to give the quoted statement." A necessary condition for it to make sense is if it has been established that the scholars and historians in the survey have been selected in an unbiased way. Otherwise it cannot be said that the survey represents the opinion of scholars and historians in general. Bob K31416 ( talk) 15:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The consensus to include the sentence was established by an RfC in September/October 2021—see item 54. In the last few weeks it has been brought up again and again, without any of the—mostly IP address or red-signature—editors with few edits citing any reliable sources. If anyone has the reliable sources to establish why the consensus should change, please present them. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:04, 17 February 2022) Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Bob K31416 and PrimeHunter are kind of right. I supported inclusion of this sentence in the original RfC, but I have never thought of it in the way they presented it. We maybe shouldn't use the word generally or any definite language because all we've done is pick a handful of academic sources that say Trump's the worst and now we've put this statement in. That's is the definition of WP:SYNTHESIS. Unless there is RS, in abundant amounts that is, that says scholars and historians rank Trump low this sentence should probably be removed. I seriously think this consensus needs to be reconsidered in light of this analysis. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 04:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Cpotisch Closing this was uncalled for in the middle of active discussion. If you don't want to discuss you don't have to comment, but don't shut it down. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Well I was going to suggest changing the sentence to "A C-SPAN survey of historians ranked Trump one of the worst presidents in United States history." I think providing the source is important since RS also indicates the source of the survey. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The lead for this article is almost entirely his political opinions and political controversy from his presidency when the article is supposed to be donald trump the person in whole. I implore all of you to go read the lead for vladamir putin or george w bush. They are much more appropriate for an article about a person and still don't even miss out on the controversy. And really the article itself doesn't skip out anywhere on how bad trump is, I think the lead is just out of place for a person article, it would be fitting for an article about donald trumps political life/controversies, imo. 2605:A601:ACB3:5200:E5E6:4F97:4987:F16C ( talk) 04:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is meant to be an unbiased source of information. The following section reveals the political bias of the article's author, and should be removed. "Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and promoted conspiracy theories."
This statement not only damages this article's credibility, it damages the entire site's credibility. Always remember - the purpose of this site is to increase accessibility of information, not to convince people what to believe in. We don't run ads here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7F:9250:B9B0:8BBF:6F77:3D81 ( talk) 05:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The page is generally bias and misleading. It presents information in vague half-truths without the proper context. 2603:9000:C201:145:589F:7DB6:C395:828E ( talk) 12:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi!
I noticed while reading through the page there are sections near the bottom for propagated conspiracy theories and misogyny, etc. I feel like it is biased against him in those several sections near the end. Though nothing stated there is strictly untrue, I think many of his supporters would contend it. To solve this, I would suggest just having the direct quotes and maybe changing the title to something broader like "Controversy." If you leave the quotes open to interpretation then it would be more neutral and harder for others to argue that it is inaccurate. Thanks for considering my suggestion! Clash2022 ( talk) 15:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I
added this sentence to
Manhattan developments: The state-controlled
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China has been a tenant since 2008, initially leasing three floors.
[1]
It
was deleted with the remark that the building has had scores of tenants since 1998, not to do enough w/Trump to merit incl
. The building probably had more than scores of tenants since it opened in 1983 but most of them didn't pay almost $2 million in annual rent for three floors directly below Trump's offices and in the same building as his primary residence. The lease ended in 2019, and a new one was negotiated while Trump was negotiating with China on various tariffs and while other tenants left or couldn't pay the rent. Tenants
Gucci or Ronaldo—meh, foreign government-controlled bank—noteworthy.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 11:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to take the most neutral stance possible and fact is violations of the emoluments clause is something that is was rarely ever even discussed as a possibility forget could realistically been violated. The rule does not require a bribe be made or influenced received it strives to prevent such from ever materializing. Due to Trump's resistance to placing his business assets in a blind trust, his administration was the only modern occurence when the commission of an EC violation was actually seriously discussed in public discourse-this is the one and only way the reference to the Chinese bank becomes potentially relevant enough to warrant inclusion. The fact a discussion has materialized over whether or not this specific lease influenced Trump's presidential policies to be more favorable towards the Chinese gives credence to the argument it was only added in the first place to insinuate as much. The key word being insinuate as no reputable source exists that would outright make such a claim. To be @ Space4Time3Continuum2x: clear, it is clownish to think Trump felt beholden to the ICBC as President based on this lease. No reasonable person should draw such a conclusion but unfortunately reason all too often flies out the window when matters of contemporary politics are concerned-especially when Trump is involved. Without any other context or issues being raised, whoever the third largest tenant happens to be in one of Trump's real-estate properties, is not information that even comes close to warranting inclusion on this page. OgamD218 ( talk) 20:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Ogam, you were the one in this discussion who brought up the emoluments clause, so were you referring to yourself with "clownish" and "no reasonable person"? Trump Tower is owned by GMAC Commercial Mortgage. It has 232 units, and 231 of those are residential. Trump owns at least one residential unit but its size is 10,000 square ft., not 30,000 as he claimed until recently, and worth a lot less than the $30 million he claimed. Trump owns the one commercial unit, i.e., the retail space in the atrium and the space on the 13 non-residential floors. According to the NY Times, they generated more than $20 million in profits annually, for a total of $336.3 million since 2000. He took out a personally guaranteed 10-year, $100 million mortgage loan in 2012; the master servicer of the loan, Wells Fargo, issued a debt warning in September 2021 when the occupancy rate dropped from 85.9% in September 2020 to a lower-than-average 78.9% in September 2021. The average landlord would probably want to avoid losing their third-largest tenant under these circumstances, by offering incentives such as lowering the rent, for example. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 13:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I have already put my comment above, but I would like to respond to some opposers. The Four Deuces, says "You would need to show that the lease had received a lot of attention in reliable sources". This subject has received numerous RS over a period of years. At first I though this was going to be a WP:NOTNEWS issue, but it clearly is not. Here's a source from 2016. [2] 2017, [3] 2020, [4] and 2021. [5] This is sort of significant when it comes to RS, per WP:DUE. Some editors have concern that inclusion is like hinting that Trump is bribing or something. RS has mentioned this with concerns over conflicts of interest. I personally, see no implication of bribing in the statement. However, with all that said, I do understand maybe the argument that it's just not really significant because it kind of isn't. This really hasn't bubbled up to be much for Trump. I think whatever the result is here it's not that important. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses generic title (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Abraham Accords be mentioned in the article under the Israel section? They are arguably his biggest foreign policy achievement.-- DeathTrain ( talk) 21:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
There is more and more information coming out about Trump’s habit of tearing up or otherwise destroying documents while president, or taking them with him when he left the White House. [31] [32] [33] [34] This needs to be documented somewhere in Wikipedia - maybe not in this biographical article specifically, but somewhere. Any ideas about where we could put this information? Or do we already have it somewhere? -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I just discovered there is extensive reporting on Trump's practices at the article Presidential Records Act. BTW our article doesn't say anything about jail time or disqualification from future office. I had read that there are no enforcement provisions or penalties at all - that it was assumed the rules would be honored by, well, honorable presidents. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph on this subject to the Presidency of Donald Trump article, under the section heading “Transparency and data availability”, which I changed to “Transparency, data availability, and record keeping”. We might later add a sentence to the text of this article if the subject turns out to have staying power. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I can see you want to put this in for propaganda. You should research this thing further and see what actually happened. Jake pres ( talk) 16:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Trump was also democratic before 1987 2603:6081:7943:279C:4909:9D21:3C87:DE66 ( talk) 15:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Re my
"extreme pov move by editor who selectively deleted only this specific pardon from the section" and
OgamD218's
revert. Yeah, well, for once my "extreme POV" is supported not just by the
usual suspects but also by a
source from the right, first time I EVER cited the
The Federalist (website). Aside from that, the text and the cite are outdated. Trump didn't just commute Johnson's sentence (something most people support)—while his AG and DoJ ordered federal prosecutors to pursue the toughest possible charges and sentences against criminal defendants, reversing President Barack Obama’s efforts to ease penalties in nonviolent drug cases
(
NYT 2018), and a mere three months after he himself had called for the death penalty for drug dealers (
Vox March 2018). He later (a day after she appeared in a campaign video praising his leadership
, to be exact) (
NYT 2020,
CNN) pardoned the "one-time non-violent drug offender" who actually spent three years in "middle-management" of a drug operation that brought 2,000 to 3,000 kilograms of cocaine into Memphis (
Tennessean).
I just discovered that there is an actual article misleadingly called List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump. I think the best way to handle this is to move that article to "Executive clemency granted by Donald Trump" and then add whatever is missing. Johnson, for example, is only mentioned as a clemency recipient who was part of Trump's "kitchen cabinet" of influencers. Then we can cut the section in this article to the bare bones: "Most of Trump's pardons and commutations were granted to people with personal or political connections to him. He sidestepped regular Department of Justice procedures for considering pardons, instead often entertaining pardon requests from his associates or from celebrities. Trump frequently bypassed the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA), and the majority of his executive clemency grants were made to well-connected convicts who did not file a petition with the OPA or meet the OPA's requirements. Overall, Trump granted less clemency than any modern president." I copied the last two sentences from the lead of "List of ...", haven't looked up the sources yet. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I
removed this sentence: Days after leaving office, his successor Joe Biden barred Trump from receiving intelligence briefings, the first former president to be excluded from the customary practice.
[1] I’m sure that wasn’t
Soibangla’s intent but the text sounded as though Biden was just being mean to his predecessor. If we include the info it would need context—why former presidents receive security briefings in the first place,(… part of a long tradition of former presidents being consulted about, and granted access to, some of the nation's secrets. … They are provided access to secrets as a courtesy, with the permission of the current president. Typically, former presidents are given briefings before they travel overseas, or in connection with an issue about which the current president wishes to consult them, [former CIA officer] Priess and other experts say.
)
[2]
[3] and that the intelligence community allegedly had stopped briefing him after the January 6 insurrection.
[4] Should we include this?
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 18:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Relative to everything else in the articleWe disagree. soibangla ( talk) 18:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
among the top reasons for his notabilitygo put a sentence in the lead about it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 21:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
amusement. You’d need to present a considerable number of RS who say otherwise. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 12:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
From Trump's debts owed to unknown entities (not talking about Ladder Capital or Deutsche Bank) to his blabbing to Lavrov/Kislyev right after the inauguration to his tête-à-têtes with Putin to his Mar-a-Lago patio sessions he's been considered a threat to national security since before he was even elected. This needs to be mentioned. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 11:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Finally, the Committee's bipartisan Report shows that almost immediately following Election Day in 2016, the Trump transition responded to Russia's election interference not by supporting punitive action, but rather by holding a series of secretive meetings and communications with Russian representatives that served to undercut the outgoing administration's efforts to hold Russia accountable. The transition's openness to this private Russian outreach prior to taking office, so soon after Russia's interference on Trump's behalf, combined with Trump publicly questioning Russia's involvement, signaled that there was little intention by the incoming administration to punish Russia for the assistance it had just provided in its unprecedented attack on American democracy." [5]
I take it, my suggestion hasn't been implemented. GoodDay ( talk) 20:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
References
Compared to Presidency of Donald Trump, we're doing OK.
The
NBC source, dated April 15, 2021, added and removed today was also
mentioned in the
RfC. It contains a paragraph that is not supported by their linked sources: They still have not found any evidence, a senior defense official said Thursday. And the Biden administration also made clear in a fact sheet released Thursday that the CIA's intelligence on the matter is far from conclusive, acknowledging that analysts labeled it "low to moderate confidence."
The link "still have not found any evidence" links to
an NBC article written nine months earlier in July 2020, not a source for a briefing on Thursday, April 15, 2021. The linked
WH fact sheet says this unter the section title "Reporting Afghanistan Bounties": The Administration is responding to the reports that Russia encouraged Taliban attacks against U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan based on the best assessments from the Intelligence Community (IC). Given the sensitivity of this matter, which involves the safety and well-being of our forces, it is being handled through diplomatic, military and intelligence channels. The safety and well-being of U.S. military personnel, and that of our allies and partners, is an absolute priority of the United States.
That does not sound as though they're walking back much, if anything. There was a briefing by a senior administration on another Thursday, May 7, 2021. The
NY Times wrote that Afterward, some commentators treated the bare line about confidence levels as a new development that amounted to the government walking back its suspicions from 2020.
Hatted quote from NYT
|
---|
|
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I added Trump questioned the existence of the alleged
bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan and didn't mention it to Putin.
[1]
, with a reliable source (
BBC), to the article
here, see also
RfC Russian Bounties claims --
User:Chess: Another discussion will likely be necessary to workshop a better wording that may be agreed on by the participants here.
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 11:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
|
---|
|
So was the one that replaced it, unchallenged, on March 27, 2021, with the edit summary "better image". I also think that the current one is the better one for his bio. Trump's grab-and-yank handshakes made the news, e.g., NYT, WaPo, and others; this one would be the alpha-male stand-off, I think. Both images were taken by the WH photographer and released by the WH. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 17:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
22:34, 29 December 2021: User:Chess wrote: "I've been brought here by WP:RFCL to close, so here I am. Looking at the rough survey, this seems somewhat evenly divided in terms of !votes. ... I'll close with a consensus of retain, but add context. ... Another discussion will likely be necessary to workshop a better wording that may be agreed on by the participants here."
The sentence currently reads:
and never brought up Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan with Putin. [1]
I would suggest replacing this with:
Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan and never discussed it with Putin. [2] [3]
or
Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan and believed that the intelligence assessment was leaked to media to help Joe Biden's presidential campaign or to prevent the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. [4] [2] [3]
My edit was reverted here by SPECIFICO with the following edit summary: "No consensus for these changes."
Your comments and suggestions will be greatly appreciated. @ Chess:, @ Bob K31416:, @ Jack Upland:, @ FormalDude:, @ The Four Deuces:, @ GoodDay:, @ Space4Time3Continuum2x:, @ OgamD218:, @ Zaathras:, @ Firefangledfeathers:, @ ValerianB:, @ InedibleHulk:, @ Fieari:, @ Iamreallygoodatcheckers:, @ SPECIFICO:, @ LM2000:, @ Wuerzele:, @ Adoring nanny:, @ Alaexis:, @ LondonIP:, @ Neonorange:
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 19:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 20:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
"never confronted Putin over its alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan", so the disputed text should be hidden until the dispute is resolved and better wording is agreed on by the participants here. - diff -- Tobby72 ( talk) 19:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I support "Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties against American soldiers in Afghanistan and never discussed it with Putin." It's short and sweet and adds all the context necessary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Opposed to first proposal. The BBC source says that Trump tweeted "fake news" and "fake issue", the AP source mentions NSA O’Brien saying that Trump has not been briefed on the matter. IMO, neither one supports expressed doubts
. The
New York Times wrote that commentators had misinterpreted the 2021 briefings. Opposed to second proposal. First proposal plus speculations on what Trump believed about motivations for alleged leaks.
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 12:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposal #3. The context isn't that Trump believed or didn't believe the intelligence. The WH had offered two different explanations anyway, that he didn't believe or that he wasn't briefed, i.e., he didn't know. I propose the following alternate wording to follow "Trump also supported a potential return of Russia to the G7"
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)and did not confront Putin over intelligence information of varying degrees of confidence that Russian operatives had offered "financial incentives to reward attacks on American and allied troops." [1]
Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)and did not confront Putin about an intelligence report that Russian operatives had offered "financial incentives to reward attacks on American and allied troops." [1]
there seems to be rough agreement that some coverage of the Russian bounty controversy and its relation to Trump be maintained, but that the current wording of the coverage could be altered or contextualized.It doesn't say that the context is what Trump said he believed. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 14:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
A good compromise might to just say— why don't you propose a sentence? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 20:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
No. the point is that the mainstream does not assess that those are his true beliefs, so they are UNDUE. Few to none affirm that he believes what he says. Beliefs do not appear useful, so he does not need any. SPECIFICO talk 03:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposal #5
Trump expressed doubts about Russia's alleged bounties to Taliban fighters for attacking American soldiers in Afghanistan and never discussed it with Putin. [4] [5] [6]
@ Chess: One thing is for sure, the current version is against the consensus of retain, but add context. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 11:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
a biased (and frankly unreliable) narrator.Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 18:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, but made no progress on denuclearization.
As it is right now this reads overly negative. Trump was the first sitting president to meet with a North Korean leader at all and that should warrant a mention despite the overall talks failing in the end. As it is, it reads like his administration took three meetings for no progress at all, when the fact there were meetings at all was already notable. Suggestion:
Trump met three times with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, the first sitting president to do so, but made no progress on denuclearization. -- 95.91.247.87 ( talk) 11:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
This was recently discussed and resolved -- please refer to the talk archives and to Consensus #22. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Leave it alone. Was already discussed & decided. GoodDay ( talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I reopened this discussion after it was closed without good reason. In my edit summary I wrote, "premature close; active discussion with at least two new proposals pending; next lime wait several days for no discussion before closing". I mention this because there's too much of this going on and it gives the appearance of suppressing legitimate discussion of ideas that the closer is opposed to. Such suppression has also occurred by archiving. There's no reason to archive a discussion that has recently had comments, and unfortunately such inappropriate archiving has been done. Archiving is for sections where discussion has stopped for at least several days. Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
When did anybody make any progress with North Korea, concerning nuclear weapons. GoodDay ( talk) 23:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This
edit request to
Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "Scholar and historians ...... American history". Insert "Trump has received criticism from the Democrat party for his actions. He has also received record support from Republicans. Remove "Many or his comment .... many as mysogynistic."
Just a note, I'm an independent, but I think the article should be as unbiased as possible. Some of your comments may not be wrong but are opinionated and have no place in an honorable, fact-based article which I know is the goal of Wikipedia. 813SDC-TES ( talk) 01:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article about Donald J Trump goes against many Wikipedia guidelines in many ways including biased sources and political opinions. Unless these standards and guidelines only apply for those that the editors agree with this should be changed into a more neutral position. Instead of saying “he said many false statements and lies” it should say something like the following “opponents of Donald Trump say that he’s made many false statements” or something along those lines. This post might not attract any attention, knowing Wikipedia but this must be changed. Jake pres ( talk) 21:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Opponents of Donald Trump sayreduces precision and introduces bias. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Jake pres, you labor under a delusion when you write: "goes against many Wikipedia guidelines in many ways including biased sources and political opinions". We have no such guideline. NPOV expressly allows biased sources and biased opinions. It is editors who must be neutral in their editing, not sources or content. I have written an essay about how we deal with biased sources and NPOV: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. It may help you understand this confusing topic. How can Wikipedia be neutral and yet have biased wordings and content? That's partially because around here "neutral" doesn't have the exact same meaning as elsewhere.
We are not allowed to present opinions as facts and word facts as opinions. There is also such a thing as factual opinions. Normally we attribute all opinions, but there comes a time when the opinions are so solidly established as fact that we just cite them without attribution. When the consensus of RS facts and opinions says Trump is a pathological, serial, liar with no connection to the concept of truth, we must not present that as some opinion which readers are free to doubt and ignore. It's one of the most solidly established facts about him.
He is not only wildly untruthful, he literally attacks and undermines the very concept of truth. He tries to create his own reality which his followers must accept, and they do. They live in a bubble. This is an old and very effective tactic used by authoritarians. This is how they destabilize society. Once such a society is destabilized, people no longer know what to believe and are at the mercy of the most powerful voice, which is the dictator in charge, the one who labels all RS as fake news. That is exactly what Trump has done and continues to do. His definition of "fake news" isn't even the proper definition. Read Fake news#Donald Trump.
Also read Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election, Trumpism, and Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. -- Valjean ( talk) 16:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I have noticed lots of far leftist opinions on this page such as "He falsely claimed" (election fraud). There is no proof that there was no election fraud, but there is actually overwhelming proof as to the elections integrity being compromised. In Georgia one of the officials at the polls even came out and showed everyone how they were changing the votes as they speak. Not to mention the mysterious trucks full of Trumps votes disappearing and stuff like that. Will add sources later, am to lazy to spend hours looking for them now. I would edit it myself, but my account is almost but not quite 30 days old, and I have around 30 edits, not 300, so it will be a while before I am able too. ypc0cnz ( talk) 17:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe Trump's praise for Putin and for Russia's invasion of Ukraine might be news, but it is news that will certainly pass the WP:10YEARTEST - moreso, say, than buying another company. My addition was reverted by Space4Time3Continuum2x. Can I get consensus to include, even if modified? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
"I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, 'This is genius.' Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine – of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. I said, 'How smart is that?' And he's gonna go in and be a peacekeeper." Trump also stated that the Russian military buildup in Russian and Belarusian territory was "the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen."Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
"We could use that on our southern border. That's the strongest peace force I've ever seen. There were more army tanks than I've ever seen, they're gonna keep peace alright. No, but think of it: Here's a guy who's very savvy. I know him very well. Very, very well. By the way, this would have never happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable, this would never have happened.". If what you posted can be considered RS, maybe we should re-evaluate the standards on that. I honestly can't believe nobody has posted the unedited quote here before... Prodigial Son ( talk) 19:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Hatted quote
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 16:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
Q: ... in the last 24 hours we know Russia has said that they are recognizing two breakaway regions of Ukraine, and now this White House is stating that this is an “invasion.” That’s a strong word. What went wrong here? What has the current occupant of the Oval Office done that he could have done differently? TRUMP: Well, what went wrong was a rigged election and what went wrong is a candidate that shouldn’t be there and a man that has no concept of what he’s doing. I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, “This is genius.” Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. So, Putin is now saying, “It’s independent,” a large section of Ukraine. I said, “How smart is that?” And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force… We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I know him very well. Very, very well. By the way, this never would have happened with us. Had I been in office, not even thinkable. This would never have happened. But here’s a guy that says, you know, “I’m gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent,” he used the word “independent,” “and we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.” You gotta say that’s pretty savvy. And you know what the response was from Biden? There was no response. They didn’t have one for that. No, it’s very sad. Very sad. |
I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, "This is genius."Losing his fight with the English language, as usual, and sarcasm isn't in his repertoire. He's Trump, retiree, currently ineligible for security briefings. His remarks are late night comedy gold but other than that they only got a brief mention as an aside to the invasion—outside of Russia, that is. If that changes, we can always add it. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Hatting quotes
Space4Time3Continuum2x (
talk) 20:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb8t-UToTxw, starts at around 45:50 seconds) Ingraham: We’re just learning that U.S. officials are looking at a potential amphibious landing now in Odessa, Ukraine. A month ago, or three weeks ago, all the so-called experts were saying that Putin was probably gonna just be content with staying in those separatist regions. But I think given what’s unfolded sadly with a lot of weakness in the United States they just decided to go for it. I mean, looks like they’re going for it and where does that leave NATO, the NATO alliance. Trump: I think that’s what happened. I think you’re exactly right. I think that’s what happened. I think he was going to be satisfied with the peace and now he sees the weakness and the incompetence of the stupidity of this administration. And as an American I am angry about it and I’m saddened by it and it all happened because of a rigged election. This would have never happened and that includes inflation and that include (video ends) The rest can be seen here, apparently too embarassing for Fox to show: https://twitter.com/JonahDispatch/status/1496695902727196675 Ingraham: We’ll continue to monitor this. We’ll go back to President Trump for a quick reaction. We have kind of a really pathetic display from the Ukrainian President Zelensky earlier today where he in Russian, he doesn’t like to speak Russian, he was imploring President Putin not to invade his country. Now we have the Ukrainian ambassador to the United Nations looking like a defeated man. Your final reaction. Trump: Well, I think the whole thing again would have never happened, it shouldn’t happen, and it’s a very sad thing. But you know what’s also very dangerous you told me about the amphibious attack by Americans. You shouldn’t be saying that because you and everybody else shouldn’t know about it. They should do that secretly, not be doing that through the great Laura Ingraham. They should be doing that secretly. Nobody should know that, Laura. Ingraham: No, those were the Russians, the Russian amphibious landing. Trump: Oh, I thought you said that we were sending people. Ingraham: No no, that would be news. Trump: And you what, that’s all we need. That’ll be next, OK? Now, we ought to protect our own borders. |
Apparently, Trump is continuing to comment on Ukraine. [44] and repeats sarcastic remarks, here. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)