Difference between revisions of "Talk:Donald Trump"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(not really president because Hillary got more votes?)
(→‎Undermining his legitimacy: The flawed arguments of naysayers would better be placed near the end of this entry, wouldn't it?)
Line 36: Line 36:
  
 
Should we include this (implied) argument in the lede? Or create a section on detractors? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:38, 18 December 2016 (EST)
 
Should we include this (implied) argument in the lede? Or create a section on detractors? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:38, 18 December 2016 (EST)
 +
 +
:The flawed arguments of naysayers would better be placed near the end of this entry, wouldn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:23, 18 December 2016 (EST)

Revision as of 19:23, December 18, 2016

Trump was nominated for a Nobel prize.[1]

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))

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 better be placed near the end of this entry, wouldn't it?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2016 (EST)