Talk:Donald Trump

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fear of giving offense

Trump shows no more fear of giving offense than early American patriot Patrick Henry, who said of the momentous questions facing the nation in his time:

For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. [2]

Should we add this to the media section? --Ed Poor Talk 16:20, 14 February 2016 (EST)

"Unlike most other candidates,"

There is nothing before this sentence that indicates that Mr. Trump is a candidate for anything. The article is locked (...at least for me), but the intro needs a few words about the fact that he is running for something, or the passage lacks context and does not make sense. GerryV (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2016 (EDT)

Trump & Jehu

I see by doing a little internet search that I am not the only one who has seen a possible parallel between Donald Trump as president and King Jehu of N. Israel (2 Kings 9-10) IMHO very entertaining stories (black humor). Jehu methinks exterminated the Baal priesthood & gave Baal worship in N Israel a fatal blow, tho Jehu was quite ungodly & continued the idolatry at Dan & Bethel (perhaps done in the name of YHWH). http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/05/14/trump-is-gods-choice-for-president/. You may compare other internet postings and the series on ChristianChat http://christianchat.com/christian-news-forum/132268-cruz-trump-josiah-jehu.html. Imagine Trump with a repub congress impeaching in mass all the federal judges who have legislating abominations from the bench, like Jehu got rid of Baal priests. (Thunkful2 (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2016 (EDT))

Ha! I missed this comment before, but I can see that. "His campaigning is like the campaigning of Jehu, for he campaigns furiously!" It looses something in "translation," but he does seem the type. --David B (TALK) 23:39, 19 January 2017 (EST)

religious affiliation?

Do we have any information on what church or denomination he is in.

Presbyterian.[3] PeterKa (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2016 (EDT)

New image

Which of these three images of Trump does anyone think should be uploaded to this article?[4][5][6] All three of these images have a much higher quality, give a much more lifelike image of Trump, and are all more recent that the current one, so we should definitely replace the current one. I am just having trouble deciding which one, of the three, is the best. I personally like Trump's facial expression in the middle image, but I also like the American flag backgrounds in the other two. In addition, it might be worth noting that the third image is currently being discussed on Wikipedia for becoming the new article image, but it will take several days, at least, for it to be changed (however, the current image at the top of this article is also at the top of the Wikipedia article). --1990'sguy (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2016 (EDT)

Nobody's responded, so I will request for the middle one to be uploaded. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2016 (EDT)
Alright, I've uploaded it. --David B (TALK) 00:35, 17 September 2016 (EDT)

Undermining his legitimacy

In addition to claiming that Russia influenced the election, some are pointing out that Trump didn't get the popular vote - as if this implies

  • he's not really the president;
  • he shouldn't be; or,
  • he simply has no mandate

Should we include this (implied) argument in the lede? Or create a section on detractors? --Ed Poor Talk 13:38, 18 December 2016 (EST)

The flawed arguments of naysayers would be better placed near the end of this entry, wouldn't it?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2016 (EST)
It probably would be a good idea to mention and refute it, but I agree with Mr. Schlafly--let's not give it prominence. It's funny how they had no problem getting Obama without popular vote, but now that it isn't working in their favor, they get all mad. --David B (TALK) 17:16, 18 December 2016 (EST)
Obama had the popular vote. But 4 Presidents didn't, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford Hayes, Benjamin Harrison and GW Bush. And I guess now it's 5. I think it makes more sense to just point out that a popular vote is NOT required to win the election. The framers created the electoral college on purpose. Pretending that he did win the popular vote or that millions of "illegals" voted just makes conservatives look bigoted. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter. --Unsigned comment by User:KarateElf
KarateElf, all that ignoring the fact that illegal immigrants did vote (in violation of federal law, which forbids non-citizens from voting) and calling conservatives "bigots" for pointing out that fact only serves to put your argument on quicksand. Northwest (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2017 (EDT)
We wait for investigation to see who actually got the popular vote after counting & excluding the votes of non-citizens illegally cast in this election. (Thunkful2 (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2016 (EST))
And when that's done, it'll show that, when the votes from illegal immigrants, those who illegally voted multiple times, votes from those in prison (who forfeit their right to vote when they go to prison for their crimes) and votes from "the dead" - all of which would have voted Democrat - are removed from the equation, Hillary will have far less votes than first claimed, which will give Trump both the electoral college and the popular vote, thereby pulling the Democrats' and other detractors' last flimsy argument out from under them. Northwest (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2016 (EST)
Despite being a rather stupid debate, the popular vote doesn't matter one iota, I have trouble seeing why anybody is talking about it. Russian intervention in the election is now looking like a near certainty, although it could be anything from a lot to almost nothing. I think it is tangible enough thing that we start to look a bit biased if we don't at lease mention it.
Good point. If popular vote doesn't matter, it doesn't. Also, try to sign your comments with the button above, Kent.--Abcqwe (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

Added discussion

After reading this I wonder if anyone may question Trump's judgement. I never did trust Trump, and I still hold that he said all the conservative things he needed to say just to get in office and not because he really cared. Now that he's going to be our president in two weeks, I am both curious and apprehensive what he'll do. --KommissarReb (talk) 2:20, 4 January 2017 (EDT)

All I can say is that we'll see what happens. I hope Trump appoints a truly pro-life nominee, but let's not forget that if he doesn't, it would be equally the fault of the "pro-life" groups who are pushing him to appoint PLINO justices when they should know better. These groups seems to have a lot of influence in this (but I could be wrong). --1990'sguy (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2017 (EST)
Most politicians are expected to appoint people who supported them during the campaign. If a candidate did not draw support from, say, Latinos, it is not a historic example of discrimination if none of the cabinet are Latino. Trump wants the best people in these jobs and is not under some law that says, "You must appoint a woman and Latino cabinet secretary."JDano (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2017 (EST)
So has the National Right to Life Committee been infiltrated by opponents, or are they staffed by incompetents who do sloppy research? And why doesn't CP have an article on them? RobSMake Exxon Great Again 07:21, 20 January 2017 (EST)
I heard a few days ago that Donald Trump was planning on replacing Obamacare with a different form of healthcare. He said on 60 Minutes that he would try to keep some aspects of Obamacare. Because of this, he's already facing opposition from Republicans that want absolutely no healthcare at all. I'm actually kind of proud of Trump for this, my relatives and I have high hopes for him. I hope he'll have good luck facing the kingmakers in the GOP.
I also heard that Trump was going to ask Congress for 10 billion dollars to build the wall he proposed. Apparently, he can't get Mexico to pay for it like he promised. I support the idea of more efficient border security, but I fear what this'll do to our economy. --KommissarReb (talk) 9:33, 20 January 2017 (EDT)
Trump can get Mexico to pay for the wall--it just won't be in the form of a direct payment. Also, national and border security, preserving the rule of law and national identity and sovereignty outweigh any economic downturn that could result from this (also, Trump could create many jobs through this). --1990'sguy (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2017 (EST)
Does the Mexico Government even have the money to pay for such a wall? Private businesses based in Mexico probably do, but I don't know how Trump would get them to help fund the wall. Maybe via tarrifs or something? --KommissarReb (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2017 (EDT)
Maybe tariffs. Leaving or changing NAFTA would be a big deal. Trump has other options as well, but we'll see what happens. Hopefully Ryan won't balk on the wall. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2017 (EST)

Donald Trump's religious beliefs

I don't agree with the conclusions and premises made in the article about Trump's religious beliefs. In fact, I would like to see them removed. But if they are removed, I would like to see them removed in an orderly way. It may be called for that the person or persons who added them be reprimanded or restricted from editing the Trump article. Accounting for the sources cited may be an appropriate first step, but that orderliness doesn't mean I have the energy to go through the whole process of reversing the conclusions where it is called for and confronting the parties involved at any given time. That shouldn't be taken as me agreeing with the opinions presented in the article; it may be that I'm hoping to remove them soon. VargasMilan (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2017 (EDT)

I didn't have time to do any major revision, but I did remove a section because Jesus did not repudiate the Mosaic Law. He merely gave higher standards (eye for an eye, love your enemies, etc. etc.), The person who wrote the content I deleted didn't understand this matter. Conservative (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2017 (EDT)
I added additional content and tried to improve the existing content. I agree with Conservative's edit, but I don't think any other information should be removed. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2017 (EDT)
Here is another source: "Yes, Trump Goes To Church. He Goes To My Church. Here's What Happens When The President Sits Next To You." PeterKa (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

Edit request

Under the section "Media", can the "three times a day" phrase be removed? Without a source (and I have not heard that frequency), that seems unreasonable. It still gets the point across without it. A lad insane (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2018 (EST)

We are approaching a milestone in GOP and conservative history

Ronald Wilson Reagan‏‎ (391,528 views) Donald Trump‏‎ (390,855 views) RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:17, 5 September 2019 (EDT)

The allegation that the Kurds didn't fight on the Allied side in WW2 is probably wrong

"The Kurds DID fight on the Allied side in WW2! They helped break the seize following the 1941 pro-Nazi Coup d’etat in Iraq and were part of the (pro-Allied) Iraq Levies. By 1942 Kurds made up 25% of the force. By 1943, 10 of the 44 companies the Iraq Levies were Kurdish."
Information obtained from the talk page of the article Trump downplays U.S. alliance with Syrian Kurds, saying ‘they didn’t help us in the Second World War’
--James2 (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

Remark on Ecclesiastes

The book of Ecclesiastes is often misrepresented by using it merely as a quotation source (like "there is a time for ..."). It is deeply religious while totally anti-fundamentalist.--James2 (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2019 (EDT)

I have no idea what that even means. The point of Ecclesiastes is that it's futile to put our hope in, or find meaning in, earthly things, and that the entire meaning of life is fearing God and obeying Him (see the last two verses of the book). --1990'sguy (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2019 (EDT)
And it's anti-stupid, i.e. atheist. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:30, 14 October 2019 (EDT)
The book is unique in that it appears to be written by one author with perhaps the exception of the second epilogue. That epilogue was perhaps a compromise towards the religious authorities to get it into the cannon but it nevertheless rightfully belongs to the book because ... no spolier: If one has enough time one should read it on one weekend. --James2 (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2019 (EDT)
That's a load of BS. Most books of the Bible have a single human writer, and the content of Ecclesiastes is unified and, thus, doesn't contain compromises (which also suggests it wasn't God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2019 (EDT)

A vote from the House: Guess who sided with the president on the side of the Democrats?

Resolution against Trump's policy to abandon the Kurds was passed with huge bipartisan support. From 197 Republican members 129 voted yes, 60 no, 3 present and 5 did not show up. That's a huge Republican majority. And from 234 member of the Democrats 225 voted yes and 9 did not show up. Guess how was among those who didn't vote against the president? (Not Rep. Tlaib but: ....) [7] --James2 (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2019 (EDT)

The GOP establishment is strongly globalist on trade, foreign policy, and foreign worker visas. We've known that for a long time. That's why the GOP rejected 16 other candidates in 2016 and nominated Trump -- they had enough with the elite consensus. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2019 (EDT)

It is more interesting who missed the October 16th vote against the president on the side of the Democrats, in alphabetical order:

  • Tulsi Gabbard: also missed the vote on October 18th but voted on October 17th, missed the vote on July 17th on the disapproval of arms exports to Saudi Arabia, missed 21 votes in 2019 so far, voting records
  • Al Lawson: Rep. from Florida, also missed the votes on October 17th and 18th, voting records
  • Ilhan Omar: she voted on October, 17th and 18th but not on 16th, not on Syria. Most interesting since she and Trump otherwise are warring with each other. She missed a vote only twice, one on the (anti Putin) "Europe energy security" bill and one on including Puerto Rico disaster relief, voting records
  • Collin Peterson, Rep. from Minnesota: missed the vote on Syria, but voted on October 17th and 18th, missed only one vote in 2019: the equality act that amends protections given under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity, voting records
  • Bobby Rush: he voted on October 17th, missed the vote on October 16th (Syria) and 18th, was one of 17 who voted against the anti-BDS bill, voting records
  • Tim Ryan: he voted on October 18th, but missed the votes on October 17th and 16th (Syria), in 2019 he missed 17 votes so far, voting records
  • Jackie Speier: she missed the vote on October 16th (Syria), but voted on October 17th and 18th. She also missed to vote on July 17th on the disapproval of arms exports to Saudi Arabia, and one including Puerto Rico disaster relief and on (anti Putin) "Europe energy security" bill and one other vote in 2019 (her mother lost many extended relatives in the Armenian Genocide), voting record

Two members couldn't vote because of a serious illness:

Most members (perhaps as many as six) of the group of seven mentioned before seem to have "missed" their vote(s) on purpose.--James2 (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

"on the side of the Democrats." HA! Don't you mean the neocon warmongers? Let's be clear about your frame of reference. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:46, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
Don't you think that Rep. Omar and Rep. Speier missed to vote on purpose? Omar dislikes Syrian Kurds and Christians more than she dislikes Trump. And Rep. Speier whose mother is of Armenian heritage can't get over the past even when this time it were the Syrian Kurds that protected the remnants of Christianity in the region, the people who speak Aramean. Erdogan, Trump, Omar and Speier are on the same side, the Syrian Kurds and the Syrian Christians on the other. --James2 (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
I don't know that there are really "sides" in this war. Obama was on the side of al Qaeda. Trump terminated that alliance. One or the other, either Turkey or Iran, will emerge as the dominant force in the region. Trump sided with the NATO ally Turkey. What Trump did is no different than what FDR and Truman did to Poles who fought with us against the Nazis. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:44, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
Obama wasn't on the side of al Qaeda. It is true that under his presidency bin Laden was killed instead of being captured and so it was impossible to interrogate him and find his Saudi backers. Obama did a favor to the Saudis. That was wrong and a let-down to Western values. But what Bush did was much much worse, he initiated a war in Iraq instead of capturing bin Laden. And after the war Bush dissolved the Iraqi army. And the soldiers who knew nothing but fighting and didn't receive any help then joined the ranks of ISIS. And Al Baghdadi was in American captivity in the torture prison Abu Graib and was released as a terror mastermind in 2004 and eventually became the head of ISIS. ISIS is the product of Bush's incompetence. And the Syrian Kurds were those who fought against ISIS and lost more than 10000 of their soldiers. And now that they are exhausted Trump abandons them. Shame on you Trump and Bush. Destroyers of Syrian Christianity! --James2 (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
(a) Obama armed the groups in 2012 that became ISIS in 2014;
(b) Bush fought a war of prevention, not retribution (i.e. killing bin laden. Bin Laden was under house arrest by Pakistani allies who could not (i) kill him, (ii) try him, and (iii) extradite him.
(c) "Obama did a favor to the Saudis. That was wrong..."; Saudi Arabia is an ally. Turkey is an ally. Why the double standard being applied to non-state actor allies, the Kurds?
(d) ISIS is the product of Obama, Brennan' and Hillary Clinton's machinations. Gen. Michael Flynn paid a terrible price for opposing it.
(e) The Kurds are neither a untied or monolithic entity. There are Syrian, Iraqi, and Turkish Kurds. There are Sunni Kurds and Shia Kurds. There are secular and religious Kurds. There are pro-democratic Kurds and pro-caliphate Kurds {And we haven't considered the political views of Kurds in the diaspora of former Soviet Republics, Western Europe, or America, which follow the same sectarian divisions). The Kurds, in fact, harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his chemical weapons lab (which Colin Powell wrongly attributed to Saddam in his famous UN speech) under the protection of the American No-fly Zone of Northern Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan. What baffles me is, why do globalists and warmongers now promote nationalism among the Kurds, if nationalism is indeed such a destructive force? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:38, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

Here's the facts: Obama created ISIS. Then he armed the Kurds when the "JV team" got out of hand. Then the Kurds used U.S. arms to commit terrorist attacks on a U.S./NATO ally, Turkey. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:45, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

It is well documented that it was Erdogan that armed the Syrian Islamist rebels and channeled them trough his country. He took over the newspapers and imprisoned the journalists that reported the facts. Turkey is our ally, but Erdogan isn't. He's the greedy destroyer of secularist Turkey. Neither is prince bone-saw of Saudi-Arabia our ally. They're only Trump's allies along with Kim Jong-un and other dictators. Thank God you have a term limit of 8 years. So in the worst case we have 5 more years of Trump. And I believe in America that it can survive that time. But it will be a dark time.--James2 (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
The war against al-Qaeda wasn't a war of retribution. It was a war of defense but Bush botched it and created ISIS by dissolving the Iraqi army without reintegration of its soldiers into civil life. And they then joined ISIS. In one thing we agree, the killing of bin Laden was shameful. But you're the first American conservative who criticized that. And on top of the immortality of killing a captive it deprived the U.S. and the world and the people of Saudi Arabia of information about his Saudi backers.--James2 (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
"Syrian Islamist rebels" - you mean anti-Assad forces, don't you.
And when you add the names Trump, MBS, or Kim jong-un to this discussion., you are just spewing Democrat hate. No question about that.
And you are dead wrong if your think American conservatives lauded the murder of Bin Laden. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:16, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
To your post before: ISIS started as al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2004. Only their name change and break with al-Qaeda occurred later.
To your recent post: My post was imprecise. I haven't read from any American conservative who criticized it. That of course doesn't mean that ordinary American conservatives didn't have the same feeling as you expressed here. But where are these websites of real conservatives?
I've checked the article about bin Laden on Conservapedia. What you've written here is written there. But it was you in 2018.--James2 (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
  • 30 July 2012. Shortly before the murder of Gadaffi, and while captured arms from Libya were being shipped to the Turkish-Syrian border in preparation for an assault on Assad. The Guardian reports,[1]
these were not average members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba’a, or “strangers”, after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden’s time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.

They try to hide their presence. “Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags” ...

...[they] are working closely with the military council that commands the Free Syrian Army brigades in the region. “We meet almost every day,” he said. “We have clear instructions from our [al-Qaida] leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations” ...

“The FSA lacks the ability to plan and lacks military experience. That is what [al-Qaida] can bring. ...

“In the beginning there were very few. Now, mashallah, there are immigrants joining us and bringing their experience,” he told the gathered people. “Men from Yemen, Saudi, Iraq and Jordan...

“[Al-Qaida’s] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state,” he replied. “Those who fear the organisation fear the implementation of Allah’s jurisdiction...

The "Free Syrian Army" was never more than arms trafficers, based in Switzerland, with more than about 60 people involved. Makes me seriously wonder about the "Syrian Democratic Army" we hear about today.

Check out Abbottabad raid or Muslim agenda of the Obama administration. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:55, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

Doesn't that imply Erdogan's guilt of endorsing the Syrian Civil War? He's not an ally of the West, he's an enemy of the West and secular Turkey. His proxy lost the elections in İstambul twice and Erdogan faced opponents from his own camp. All the West had to do is ignore him. But what does Trump, he pays tribute to him and consolidates his reign like Chancellor Merkel did in 2015.--James2 (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
The 50 or so American soldiers at the Kurdish-Turkish border were safe. Even if you assume that the Syrian Kurds only acted for themselves: The Syrian Kurds had an interest to protected them because they knew that Erdogan wouldn't dare to lay a hand on U.S. soldiers. Only after Trump cowardly withdrew the American forces, the Turkish forces had the courage to fire "warning" shots at them. Now the U.S. soldiers are deployed to Iraq, a place much less secure where your "allies" have the habit of detonating bombs. Trump destroyed the honor of the American military in the eyes of the Kurdish and Turkish people. He made the life of the former American soldiers in Syria much more dangerous. Speak softly and carry a big stick. Trump does the exact opposite. Barking "I will destroy the Turkish economy"(??) after giving ground to Erdogan a few days earlier. Is there any better way to endorse him? Trump is so weak against foreign strongmen. He can only be harsh against Americans and their allies. --James2 (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Brennan started the Syrian war.
  • 21 June 2012. New York Times reports "C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government...[weapons] are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar."[1][2]
Then you have more recent reporting:
Erdogan courted Washington’s top think tank luminaries on Tuesday night in an effort to rehabilitate his image and criticize the Obama administration’s policies in Syria. During an off-the-record dinner at Washington’s high-end St. Regis Hotel, a defiant Erdogan ripped the American media’s coverage of his administration’s policies and bashed the White House’s support for Kurdish fighters in Syria. Washington sees the Kurds as their most valuable proxies in the ground battle against the Islamic State, but Erdogan views them as terrorists aligned with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, a militant group struggling for autonomy. Kurdish militants have been tied to several recent bombings inside Turkey. “He kept coming back to that issue: Terrorists are terrorists — there are no good ones” Foreign Policy magazine, march 2016
Obama, Hillary, and Brennan armed ISIS. Obama, Hillary, and Brennan than armed the Kurds. Trump had nothing to do with this insanity. Trump put a stop to it. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:27, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
Obama derangement syndrome!
Erdogan is the bloody [not yet, but he wants to introduce the death penalty and then it will be that, too] dictator who incarcerates tens of thousands of his opponents, silences the media and the buddy of Islamists. Erdogan is even in his own words an enemy of the West and secular Turkey, read what he had to say:
"Democracy is like a train: when you reach your destination, you get off"
"You cannot be both secular and a Muslim! You will either be a Muslim, or secular! When both are together, they create reverse magnetism [i.e.they repel one another]. For them to exist together is not a possibility! Therefore, it is not possible for a person who says "I am a Muslim" to go on and say "I am secular, too." And why is that? Because Allah, the creator of the Muslim, has absolute power and rule!"[8]
Obama in contrast is the former president twice-elected by the American people with well over 50% of the popular vote. This hatred towards Obama - mainly expressed in the birther movement - is insane. Get over it and elect a real conservative (from "conservare" = lat. to preserve). I didn't like Obama's drone war and the harsh sentence of Bradley Manning and hoped during the campaign that Trump would be better that he would be a second Nixon in the good way. How wrong I was.
Nixon's personal failures were so tragic as his plans were so good: Basic income and medicare for all were his projects! That's not socialist, real capitalist economists endorsed that plan. A true conservative who cares for the people not only for the rich like the Hollywood actor after him.[9] --James2 (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2019 (EDT)
Obama war crimes have nothing to do with the birther movement. You are sounding increasingly like a liberal/Democrat/communist troll incapable of a rational policy discussion. 18:09, 21 October 2019 (EDT)

Campaign mode

Isn't it detrimental when a president is in constant campaign mode during his/her first term? Perhaps it would be better to allow only one term. And at the next election the people of the U.S. should decide whether to honor him/her with the right to preside the Senate (together with the current vice president) for the next 4 years. --James2 (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2019 (EDT)

Bill Clinton wrote the How To manual on the permanent campaign. It's how he survived impeachment. Baby Bush's slide in the polls was a result of his inability to read the manual. I've never seen Melania as a guest on the Ellen Show, while Mr. Michael Robinson Obama was a permanent fixture.
As to presiding over the Senate, the VP never goes to Capital Hill, unless he needs to be on hand for potential tie-breaking vote, which is rare. It's strictly a ceremonial post that's occupied usually by freshmen Senators so they get to learn parliamentary rules and procedures by the Senate Parliamentarian who tutors them over their right shoulder while a lone Senator comes to floor to rage on some important minority issue while everyone else is in an important committee meeting. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:09, 20 October 2019 (EDT)
1st. Why do you enter into such nasty side-topics? I've read a former post from you that was so moderate (Republican party being a big tent,...) and at odds to that meritless imputation: Mrs. Obama mustn't be called a "Mr." as long there is no solid proof (DNA) to the contrary: Women can have quite a muscular body. Or do you think the female sports athletes are disguised men, too?
2nd. I'm not so familiar with Bill Clinton's time. But he's certainly not an excuse. Neither is his (in-)fidelity towards his wife, his (dis-)honesty before court, his (in-)decency towards young female employees a defense for anybody.
3rd. With a one-term presidency for every future president the office-holders could better serve the country. In the Roman republic, the reign of the consuls was limited. Sulla sullied the republican traditions. After his downfall the Romans missed to create new safeguards and eventually Rome slipped into Caesarism.--James2 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
Learn some simple decorum in discourse. I cited the NYT for my assertions. You responded with Obama derangement syndrome, essentially calling me a racist. You sound like Susan Rice. If you wanna get down and dirty, you're playing with one of the best. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 16:08, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
Jake Sullivan to Hillary Clinton, Feb. 12, 2012, "Al Qaeda is on our side in Syria." The Guardian reported on July 30, 2012, “[Al-Qaida’s] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state.” [1]
1st Obama didn't intend to arm ISIS as Bush didn't intend to create ISIS. That's part of the Obama derangement syndrome. Obama possibly had a weak spot towards Shiite Iran and the Sunni Muslim brotherhood president Morsi but definitely not to the Wahhabi/Salafist side. These sides are at odds to each other. Obama chose one side, and it's not the ISIS side.
2nd. The even more nasty form of the Obama derangement syndrome than the birther movement is the insulation that his wife would be a man. This taints the rightful criticism and invalidates it. -- Libya was such a horrendous error. At least after Bush's Iraq war everybody knew what the result of forced regime changes would probably look like and he did it nevertheless, perhaps driven by Cameroon. Only in Syria he finally stopped - but only after the defeat of Cameroon in the House of Commons.
3rd. Don't compare everything with Obama or Clinton. Compare for example with Theodore Roosevelt.--James2 (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
DIA document, issued by Gen. Michael Flynn, August 12, 2012:
THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHICH] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME…[1]
Then the corrupt Obama criminal regime tried to frame Flynn up on bogus charges, calling him a Russian asset, to shut him up. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:08, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
1st. Supporting Saudi Arabia and Wahhabi fighters had a long tradition that dates back to Jimmy Carter. It was Obama that was reluctant to that ideology but he was too pliable. But with the help of the House of Commons he finally said no to regime change in Syria. Erdogan and the Saudi rulers were not amused.
2nd. Flynn wasn't a Russian asset, he was Erdogan's asset. Read his op-ed on election day 2016. And he did it for money. --James2 (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
"If he [Gülen] were in reality a moderate, he would not be in exile [the U.S.], nor would he excite the animus of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his government." Erdogan's poodle for $500,000.
Flynn disclosed that he had received payments from Inovo BV, a Dutch company owned by a Turkish businessman with ties to Turkey's president and that Inovo reviewed the draft before it was submitted to The Hill. Neither General Flynn nor his representatives disclosed this information when the essay was submitted. --James2 (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
So Obama harbored someone who staged a coup against an NATO ally. With friends like that, who needs enemies? RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:27, 25 October 2019 (EDT)
ODS once again:
1st. Obama didn't "habor" Gülen. Gülen is a lawful resident of Pennsylvania since 1999.
2nd. The Turkish government requested an extradiction but presented no evidence that he was involved in the military coup attempt. And it is very unlikely since Gülen and the military are at odds with each other (read about Ergenekon).
3rd. It is likely true that the Gülen movement wanted to topple Erdogan after their mutual fallout in 2013, but with civilian methods: Prosecutors tried to investigate his corrupt familily. Sadly Erdogan prevailed.
Erdogan, Putin, Bin Salman, Jong-un, birds of a feather. The one thing I really like about Obama is that all these crooks dislike him and he dislikes them. Since this month it is sad truth that Trump is obviously on their side, he he gave in to Erdogan AND invited him to Washington. On which side will your heart be on November 13th, 2019? On the side of those who protest against Erdogan and Trump or on the side of Erdogan and Trump? (As you write here you cannot say that you don't care about that - I'll try to say it in neutral words - "historic event" for American conservatism.)--James2 (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
Oh, so any legal resident of the U.S. can conspire to overthrow a military ally of the US, and Obama DOJ is powerless to do anything about it. I'll have to remember that.
You don't seem to be able to distinguish between policy and personality. I'll put you in the category of false messiah worshipers. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:41, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
The American law authorities said that they didn't receive evidence. It appears to me that for you Erdogan's words count more. Are you really an American conservative? (I'm not since I'm not living in America and I wasn't born in America.) I'm astonished that the American right would dislike the American left more than a self professed Islamist: "Democracy is like a train: when you reach your destination, you get off". "You cannot be both secular and a Muslim! You will either be a Muslim, or secular!" (BTW "secular" stands as a code word for Turkish Laicism.[10])
Guess where the late ISIS leader sought refuge? In Idlib, controlled by Erodgan's Islamist allies, near the Turkish border. And who provided most of the foreign information: the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, even after Trump's betrayal.[11] Trump thanked Erdogan that his military didn't shoot down U.S. helicopters. What an unremarkable ally! --James2 (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
"American law authorities..." - Who? The people being criminally investigated right now? The Gulen organization were mega-donors to the Clinton Foundation - that's why they were being protected. Obama's "law authorities" sold out a NATO ally for cash. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:19, 27 October 2019 (EDT)
It's $62000 to a PAC for Clinton. Seems to be that he favoured Mrs Clinton over Mr Trump. Money donations are like "free speech" according to the (in-)famous SC ruling: The left is also critical about that. But this amount is quite tiny in comparission to the huge sums involved in the elections and also only a fraction of the sum Turkey paid to Flynn. --James2 (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Again: Gülen and the Turkish military doesn't go together. Look at the Ergenekon trial. It was a plot of the Gülen movement in cohorts with Erdogan and his AKP against the military that was the watchdog against the rise of the Islamists. Thanks to his doings they failed to prevent a Turkish PM who thinks Democracy is like a train: when you reach your destination, you get off .... --James2 (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Second again: Obama was elected president twice by the American people (365 electoral votes and 53% of public vote in 2008, and 332 electoral votes and 51% of the public vote in 2012). That doesn't necessarily mean that he was a good president. But to trust Erdogan more than Obama is strange. In my country nobody of the right and nobody of the left would side with Erdogan against the other side without solid evidence (except perhaps our foreign minister against our defence minister).--James2 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
A $62,000 donation from a foreigner - more than the median per capita income of American citizens - is "insignificant", but enough to keep someone from being deported for foreign interference in a U.S. election. I suppose in communist reasoning, that make sense.
Then after being paid-off to avoid deportation, the Obama DOJ arrests and prosecutes an American citizen (Michael Flynn) who wants to defend the NATO alliance, and protects a foreigner who bribed Hillary Clinton and proceeded to attempt a coup against a NATO ally.
Again, in communist/leftist reasoning, I suppose that is perfectly justified and makes sense. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:26, 30 October 2019 (EDT)
Let's set it in perspective: Flynn received $500,000 from Turkish government for personal use. How much salary did he receive on a yearly basis as a lieutenant general? O-9 (in 2019) approx. $180,000. $500,000 / 180,000 = 278 %.
In comparison the $62,000 received the PAC in order to spend it for campaigning. How much money did Clinton campaign burn? 1.4 billion. $500,000 / 1.4 billion = 0.036%
So you want to equalize 0.036% with 278% and equalize money for a campaign with money for the personal pocket? That's a double impossibility.
And you never engage in the tough question: On which side will your heart be in two weeks? On the side of those who protest against Erdogan and Trump or on the side of Erdogan and Trump (and recently also Rep. Omar)? --James2 (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Bynote: A legal resident living in the U.S. for 20 years (now) / 17 years (in 2016) is a foreigner? And Erdogan is not an Islamist? That flexibility cannot be conservative.
Editorial note: Do you agree to move that section to my talk page? It's getting too long. --James2 (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
I'm not "equalizing nothing". That's all in your head. But just for kicks, factor a $500,000 ($400,000 above fair market value) bribe paid to the Clinton's in U1 deal, and graph it out for me, please, in your equation. I'm not sure I could do it right. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 17:42, 31 October 2019 (EDT)
Neither the Clintons nor or the Bidens nor the Bushes nor the Obamas are the real issues here. It's about the quasi-subservience of the Trump team to Erdogan and his ilk with the most despicable example of Flynn who did it for Erdogan's big pay-check.
This former lieutenant general effectively abandoned the flag with impunity while a former private with courage and honour - who erred in his course of action (but who am I to judge him about that?) - got a dishonourable discharge and was even convicted to 35 years. And the former president waited for the last day to communicate this disgraceful sentence: That was chicken!
The ethnic cleansing of the Kurds and several minority groups including the Assyrian people going on right now in Northern Syria with the quasi-blessing of Trump is a disgrace. Only Islamists and their enablers like Rep. Omar can like this. Trump is the best example for the need of a one-term limit: He would have been a good president if he could have focused on his work as American president and not in his re-election campaign. After his inauguration, America and the West needed him as American president not a president-candidate. --James2 (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
I think your off base. A discussion of Turkey requires revisiting Cold War politics, not trashing Trump or Erdogen. Gen Michael Flynn stood up for the NATO alliance and a traditional NATO ally . He was rewarded by Robert Mueller with a plea deal and Turkey moved closer to the Russian camp (i.e. purchased a Russian missile defense system designed to shoot down American and NATO missiles). You're way off base trying to make this an issue about Trump or Erdogen. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 11:56, 2 November 2019 (EDT)
The ethnic cleansing of the Kurds and several minority groups in Northern Syria instigated by the current Turkish government is against the first article of the NATO treaty. The Turkish government under Erdogan first protecting and empowering Jihadists including those who morphed into ISIS and then relentlessly fighting those who fought ISIS and lost 11000 soldiers is an act against NATO as NATO is/was a member of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. The current American government abandoning and belittling those who were steadfast allies of their armed forces in the recent years is dishonoring NATO and the American armed forces. Who will want to close a pact with a double-crosser? Only a superior double-crosser!--James2 (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2019 (EST)

Impeachment

This article should point out that Donald Trump is only the third U.S. president to have been impeached. There is also a website saying that Donald Trump is the least popular president of modern times. Carltonio (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2019 (EST)

clarify

Trump is not a conservative. He is center to center-left in his positions. On March 26, 2020, Trump tweeted,"96-0 in the United States Senate. Congratulations AMERICA!" This is referencing the $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill that received support from EVERYONE. I guess fiscal conservatism is no longer a goal to achieve.