Difference between revisions of "Talk:Donald Trump"

Revision as of 16:39, October 20, 2019

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. [1]

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.[2] 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?[3][4][5] 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? RobS^{Make 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) RobS^{De 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. RobS^{De 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: ....) [6] --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:

• Elijah Cummings
• Donald McEachin: Rep. from Virginia, missed all the 12 votes in September and October and 4 in April due to a serious health issue, while he only missed 4 votes in the years 2006-2018, voting records

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. RobS^{De 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)