Topic on Talk:Donald Trump

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page will continue to be locked until May, but changes can be suggested here for mods to make

182
Summary by Robkelk

Thread has devolved to a discussion about politics and the media, and thus is off-topic for the subject of this page. People are welcome to start a new thread for suggesting tropes that apply to Donald Trump, but keep discussion of the media (and other tropers) out of it.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

The admin team members with Bureaucrat rights, plus the founding admin team member, have voted unanimously to treat this page as if it was in Wikipedia "protected" status, where people can propose changes but mods need to approve them.

I have just added "Persona Non Grata" to the page.

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)
Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

Done, plus a little more.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

How about Kick Them While They Are Down? I don't mean Trump himself, but two examples done to him come to mind.

I'm trying to find the article, but I remember a news report where right after reporting on the death of Trump's younger brother, the news station immediately followed it with criticism of Trump's political allies.

The second example is how many, myself included, consider social media platforms banning Trump in the last days of his term as President being done partly out of spite.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Hmmmmm... Your first example isn't about Trump himself - rather, it's about the particular news channel and people surrounding Trump. Arguing by analogy, we don't put tropes about Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind on the Studio Ghibli page, even though they're both related to Hayao Miyazaki.

Your second example is better, but relies on the assumption that companies that have been making a lot of money from Trump's posts would ban him out of spite. I'm going to ask for evidence of that.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

I'll look into the second. What would be acceptable evidence they're doing it out of spite? There have been videos from Twitter staff members leaked by a whistleblower where they talk about their next step going forward (and from what I've seen of said of videos, Twitter's starting to get Orwellian imo).

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Difficult to give particulars, but "something that could be presented in a libel case in court" is a good starting point.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

I did some more research on the second example. I refer you to Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), in which the United States Supreme Court ruled in favour of a business owner who refused to provide service to somebody who he did not want to do business with. (There were other issues involved, but the Supreme Court ignored those issues.)

So the precedent was established during Trump's presidency that a company doesn't have to do business with a particular person if the company doesn't want to.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

This is an interesting topic and makes for interesting discussion imo.

I'm not sure the precedent applies as the situation is different. The Cakeshop was claiming freedom of speech and religion to not cater for a gay wedding as it went against the religious beliefs of the shop's owner... while this situation is social media platforms banning a head of state because they don't agree with his politics and accuse him of deliberately inciting a riot (there's also some double standards/selective enforcement of rules at work if this is compared to how these platforms treated the politicians and celebrities who endorsed violence from the other side of the political spectrum; such as the George Floyd Riots- even the George Floyd Protests violated COVID-19 social distancing regulations - and the CHAZ Insurrection).

But you do have a point. Not having a go at you, I think it's an interesting discussion topic. We can discuss it in PM's or here if you'd like.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Let's turn that objection around. The Cakeshop was refusing to do business with somebody because they don't agree with his sexual orientation and accuse him of disrespecting their religion ... while this situation is social media platforms claiming freedom of speech and association to not cater to a propagandist. That's just as accurate as what you posted, but leaning to the other side of the political divide.

The actual reason social media platforms banned him is that he finally crossed the line and advocated violence (evidence: the results of his speech on January 6 and his tweet in support of the participants), which is a violation of their Terms of Service - in short, a breach of contract on Trump's part.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

The Cakeshop situation was about freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Unless one side supports freedom of speech and religion and the other doesn't, how is that - to quote you - "...leaning to the other side of the political divide?"

The tweet Trump made calling for peace that I've previously linked, albeit Tweeted a bit too late since violence already begun, undermines if not disproves the idea he was advocating violence. Plus he was head of state at the time, since when does a company have the authority to overrule and deplatform a head of state? That sounds like one of those tyrannical megacorps from cyberpunk stories.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

First, the Cakeshop situation was not about freedom of religion - read the Supreme Court's decision - and your insistence that it was is only muddying the waters. Stop believing the propaganda and look at the actual facts.

Second, at no time did any company overrule a head of state.

As for deplatform, it's their platform and their property. The FCC rejected (during the Trump administration) the argument that the internet was a utility. If a particular group doesn't like that, they can Start Their Own platform with different Terms of Service.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

...which they did.

And it got hosed by their hosting services for reasons that should by now be glaringly obvious.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

It's called "private companies are not governments and are thus not beholden (by necessity, that is) to constitutional amendments" - and it's a horse that was out of the barn for at least 2-3 years before his term even started, to speak nothing of examples occurring during said term.

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

It's not out of spite, IMOHO. I was perma-banned from TV Tropes for "ownership issues" (meaning I vocally objected to my own fanfictions being smeared) . Long story short, Twitter bans people for doing half of what Trump tended to do in one day. His Tweets in support of a violent mob simply crossed the line, and likely would have made them accomplices had they not perma-banned him.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

Citation needed on Trump tweeting in support of said mob after they turned violent.

Recently, Twitter's gotten themselves in hot water after whistleblowers leaked videos on the CEO and other staff telling employees to double-down on censorship. While one of the staff members claimed things like "conspiracy theories", these definitions can be abused, misapplied or selectively enforced... either way, Twitter is looking sus and facing backlash over their censorship policy. Even before they banned Trump the company's CEO faced a Senate enquiry, so Twitter's got some things to answer for.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Citation provided: "We love you. You’re very special." - his exact words.

Citation needed on there being whistleblowers at Twitter. One would expect the more sensationalist IT news outlets (such as The Register in the UK) to be all over a story like that, but I've seen nothing along those lines.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

Was "We love you. You’re very special." said before or after the violence?

As for the whistleblowers at Twitter, here is my citation for that; on this news outlet and this one. Pardon me if I'm doubling up, I'm not sure if you get notified since my first reply was to HeneryVII.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Never heard of NewsNet before. Are they new?

Sky News Australia has an admitted right-wing bias, and it shows in the clip you posted. "Bizarre rant"? No, that was a sound comparison. Ignoring the spin that they're trying to put on the matter and reading only the tweets - the source material, if you will - that clip supports HeneryVII's position.

(As to why somebody on either the left or the right might not have known enough to strip the spin off any just read the source material, see here. It's a long read.)

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

I think NewsNet is new. Most news sites have biases all over the political spectrum, ones comparatively lacking in bias - such as Reuters - are rare. Eg; Sky News has a right-wing bias, The Christian Science Monitor has a centrist bias, MSNBC has a left-wing bias.

The fact remains that regardless of any bias from the sources, those articles prove there was a whistleblower at Twitter and there are leaked videos which can be seen in the links, some of which feature Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.

Here's some more links from other outlets on the subject; such as this news outlet and this one.

Thanks for the link, I'll get back to you on that, it is really long.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

"We love you. You’re very special." was said during the violence.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

In the link you provided, it indicated Trump also said "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!" As seen here https://www.thetrumparchive.com/?searchbox=%22%E2%80%9CPlease+support+our+Capitol+Police+and+Law+Enforcement.+They+are+truly+on+the+side+of+our+Country.+Stay+peaceful%21%E2%80%9D%22

Unfortunately by the time he said that violence had already begun. And yes, before then he said some boneheaded stuff that taken out of context could be misinterpreted as a call to violence.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

After looking at that, while Trump did say some stupid, thoughtless things in those tweets, I asked for tweets about Trump supporting the mob AFTER they turned violent. The linked tweets were from before the Capitol Hill Riot.

As for whistleblowers at Twitter, the video and the anonymous whistleblower have made the news in quite a few places. as reported on by this news outlet and this one.

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)
NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

Will this do for what?

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

For what you requested.

I think this particular discussion has gone on long enough. A request was made, evidence was requested and provided, the person who requested the evidence decided to move the goalposts instead of accepting the provided evidence.

I will not be adding Kick Them While They Are Down to the list, since it appears to everybody taking part here except for the goalpost-mover that it does not apply.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

Thank you for considering adding the trope, at least. While I'll drop that matter, I'd like to say one more thing on that beforehand.

Am I the "goalpost mover"? I asked for support of Trump supporting the mob AFTER they turned violent, I should've been clearer. Interestingly, one of the links posted as evidence also quoted and acknowledged a Tweet from Trump for them to remain peaceful after he admittedly said some boneheaded things; he said, and I quote " "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!" as seen here.

By the way, to answer your question about why the Twitter whistleblower wasn't bigger news, I think it's partly because the investigation into big-tech is still ongoing and partly bias by omission from certain news outlets.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Yes, you are the goalpost mover.

let's put your favourite quote there into context: "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!" was tweeted at 2:38 PM, at which point public property had already been damaged. Most people would not consider the actions that Trump wanted the crowd to "stay" at to be "peaceful".

And the CEO of a company making public statements is not "whistleblowing".

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

I think that Tweet from Trump does undermine the accusation that he was trying to incite a riot. Calls for peace around the same time they're getting violent... sounds like he was trying to calm them down when he'd learned they'd gotten violent.

I wasn't saying the CEO making statements was whistleblowing. Those videos were supposed to be private among Twitter's company staff and speak of applying a rather draconian approach to censorship (eg; Dorsey's vague with his definitions of "conspiracy theory" in that video, and with the term not being clearly defined, the accusation is easy to weaponize against whoever the company want to silence) the whistleblowing is the staff member sharing those with the public.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)
Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Well, there's the 1776 Project now, which his administration had a hand in and seems to essentially all but restate and reinforce the most stereotypical conservative views of America. Probably worth troping on this page in some manner, though wondering if it also qualifies for Blatant Lies...

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

I can't tell whether "1776 Project" qualifies for Blatant Lies, because there are two different entities that have used that name - 1776 Unites and 1776 Commission. Forbes (which is about as right-wing as one can get and still be mainstream) calls the latter "Trump's 1776 Commission". Both are reactions to the The 1619 Project, which according to Wikipedia has flaws of its own.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)
Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Yeah, misremembered the name. But yeah, it's gotta be Blatant Lies at minimum.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

Might need more information about that. From what I know it's an African-American project to promote entrepreneurship, self-determination, and mutual social support. Don't see what that has to do with Trump or anything negative about it.

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

I've got a few suggestions:


Conspiracy Theorist: Has promoted dozens of them, among the most troubling are his assertion that Barack Obama was not born in America and thus not eligible to be President (Birtherism, as it is called), that Muslims in Jersey City were celebrating the 9/11 attacks by partying in the streets as it was happening, that Ted Cruz's father was involved in John F. Kennedy's assassination, that there was widespread voter fraud in 2016 (the election he won) that there was even more voter fraud in 2020, that Obama was "wiretapping" his campaign, Hillary Clinton ordered Vince Foster and dozens of others murdered (not a conspiracy theory he started, in his defense, but one he seems adamant is true), Global Warming is a "Chinese hoax", and that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered (which he did seem to make up himself).


New Media Are Evil: Whether he believes this or not is debatable, but he clearly wants everyone to think so. His war with the press is well-known, having coined the term "fake news" (a moniker he places on any media company who expresses any negativity towards him) and claiming the press is the "enemy of the people".

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

Trump has been on the giving end and receiving end of many conspiracy theories (there were election conspiracy theories against Trump in the 2016 election, remember the "Russian bots" "Trump's colluding with Russia" thing?). Plus some of the points you listed need citation and/or are already described on the main page.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Then let's do due diligence and list the rest.

And Henery already sorta alluded to the Russiagate thing possibly per 2016 voter fraud, though it might be worth expanding on insofar as it was run with.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

I was referring to the left-wing conspiracy theory that claims Trump only won the 2016 election due to Russian interference.

But I'm fine with listing the others if it can be verified (though I think it should also be acknowledged that Trump himself is a target of numerous conspiracy theories, not just a source).

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

I don't recall any member of the DNC claiming Trump only won the 2016 election due to Russian interference.


Indeed, exactly how much Russia interfered cannot be known until the Mueller Report is actually released, something Mr. Trump and his former Attorney General repeatedly refused to do.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

I never said the DNC were the ones claiming Trump only won in 2016, I said that theory is a left-wing conspiracy theory, just like Alex Jones isn't the entire right-wing but he's a font of right-wing conspiracy theories.

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

There is no "left wing conspiracy". The DNC never made any such claims whatsoever.


Hillary conceded, the DNC did not challenge the results. On the contrary, Trump challenged the results, even though he won, wasting taxpayer money on his "Election Fraud Commission", which ultimately found nothing.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

Just because the DNC never said it doesn't mean other left-wing people haven't endorsed or pushed that conspiracy theory.

Which results are you saying Trump challenged? The 2016 results or the 2016 and the 2020 results?

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38126438


Trump even claimed there was fraud in elections he WON, letalone the elections he lost. He was a petty man who could not bear the thought or Ms. Clinton winning the popular vote.


Oh, and he also claimed he won the 2106 by "the biggest electoral landslide in history", even though it wasn't even close.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Presumably, the ones that he specifically said in his proposed example text.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

"Fake News" seems more like a Wild Card Excuse for any press coverage which wasn't fawningly obsequious, although his campaign against social media in his last weeks in office did seem to invoke the trope for his advantage.

Conspiracy Theorist: You forgot the claim that Hugo Chavez was behind the 2020 election "fraud", and his embrace of QAnon. But yeah.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Also the numerous failed legal challenges to the results posed by him and his administration, including the attempt to sue Dominion. Though I'm wondering if that's close enough on-topic...

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

I don't think those legal challenges fit the criteria enough to be included in the Conspiracy Theorist description, though I can definitely see the trope applying to Trump.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

The theory was the basis for the lawsuit, I think that might be enough to at least warrant a mention within that trope (while covering the lawsuit itself using what Henery suggested.

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

Hey, not enough space to list all of them...

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

I suggest we add the Broken Base trope to the page. One needs to only take a look at the discussions here, online and in general about Trump to see how divided people are about him.

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

Norm, Broken Base is a Trope that applies to any politician.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

Good point. I was thinking this because Trump might not be worst President, but I think so far he is the most hated (this entire thread is evidence of that).

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

That's a given for the YMMV section, but not even in the general sense (that could be argued of all presidents to varying degrees).

Rather, if and when that trope's added, focus on the Lincoln Project and other similar (and imo opportunist) "never-Trump" Republicans who at least nominally oppose him, as well as the QAnons increasingly becoming discontent with the lack of results.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

I suggest we add a point under the "Pet the Dog" point on the page; when Trump was hospital with COVID-19, several of his supporters gathered outside to wish him well... and he thanked them by buying them all pizza and doing a drive-by visit (wearing a mask - for a change - and with the window rolled up, but still).

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

I see, was that before or after he boasted of being treated with expensive experimental medications that most of his supporters would have to mortgage their homes in order to afford?

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Norm isn't completely wrong, granted, but that also still bears pointing out - it's an illustration of how PR-driven he is that even his few "good" acts come with caveats.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

I think you give Trump too little credit. I sometimes feel like I'm playing devil's advocate on this thread, and that even despite moderator presence, without me this thread would've descended into a critical echo chamber and that people here are grasping at straws for anything even slightly negative to say about the man.

There's a difference between valid criticism (and there valid criticisms) and close-minded hatred unwilling to attribute anything good to a person (even mass-murdering dictators - which Trump wasn't - have positive personal traits and non-evil hobbies).

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

The lack of balance here is a problem, yes. However, we can't force people to take part.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

The lack of balance is a problem, but we can fix that.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

Umbire can you even think of one positive thing to say about Trump as a person and/or a president?

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

Yes I can, he's not President anymore.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

Really? Not the historic Abraham Accords peace treaty? Or his efforts to combat human trafficking?

I know I'm repeating myself, but there seems to be a bit of blind hatred herd mentality starting to happen in this thread, so I just wanted to clarify. In fact, I strongly suspect this comment of mine won't get a reply because it challenges the zeitgeist.

I am so glad though that we can have this discussion. It's one of the things that elevates this website above the cesspool of ideological censorship and authoritarianism that is TV Tropes.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

HeneryVII, you're skating on thin ice there, IMHO.

Everybody, please re-read Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment.

As for good things to say about Trump:, one comes to my mind immediately: Unlike every other GOP President since at least Nixon, he did not start an armed conflict between the USA and another power.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

While technically true, none of those stopped him from trying to escalate other conflicts.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

I concur.

If there's any "positive" I can draw from his term it's exposing the weakness of the American media (and even then, not in the exact way he or his followers would hope).

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

Really? Not the historic Abraham Accords peace treaty? Or his efforts to combat human trafficking?

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

It was not a "treaty", it was a joint statement


And Norm, every President since Carter has pushed for peace in the Middle East, you seriously think this will do any better than the last ten attempts?


For the record, Netanyahu is as bad as Trump.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

While I do agree with this, I think it'd be best to drop this specific line of the overall conversation for pure sake of topic drift - we'd be here the next three months otherwise.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)
NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

Sounds like you're trying to imply something very bad about Trump then shut down the discussion. That would be a very insidious thing to do, especially about such a hot button topic that definitely needs citation.

Maybe you shouldn't have brought it up at all if it's that contentious and you don't want to elaborate. I've heard about all sorts of people being connected to Epstein, including former President Bill Clinton and President Biden, God knows how big the list is (then again not everyone who knew Epstein visited his island of depravity). Shall we take this part of the discussion elsewhere?

Whose personal reasons make the Abraham Accord contentious? Devoid of context, it doesn't make sense. The Abraham Accords were an achievement for Trump since it was a politician with no prior experience making a historical peace agreement, and no one can take that away from Trump.

Back on topic, maybe we could streamline the wording on the main page, there's quite a bit of word cruft there.

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

Norm, I will ask the same thing I ask every one of Trump's defenders who bring up "Epstein's island":


Where is it? Who's jurisdiction is it under? If Epstein could fly there, it must be on international flight paths, right? Was it ever raided? Searched? You'd think folks would be concerned about child trafficking, you know?

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

Epstein's island is in the Caribbean Sea between St. Thomas and St. John, the two largest of the Virgin Islands. Little St. James is situated to the east of Puerto Rico. Per the New York Times, Epstein accessed the approximately 75-acre island by flying into St. Thomas International Airport and chartering a helicopter. Not every place accessed by flying has to be on International Flight paths - what made you ask that?

Not sure about jurisdiction. It's either under the jurisdiction of the Puerto Rican government or the U.S government and the FBI have searched it (even the left-biased news outlet NBC reported on that).

More on that this link, this link and this one.

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

The Puerto Rican government IS the U.S. government, in case you forgot.


And "left-biased news outlet"? Please don't give us the "fake news" fallacy, okay?

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

The fact remains I just proved Epstein's Island is a real thing and not a conspiracy theory. By the way, putting the word "fallacy" after any claim or term you disagree with doesn't make it a logical fallacy.

NBC is biased for the left-wing, and they're not the only news outlet biased for the left wing... just as Fox and other news outlets are biased for the right-wing (currently centrists get the short end of the stick regarding news outlets).

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

I suppose I can relent in regards to the Accords, but overall any good he's done strikes me as being of the performative sort - and naturally regarding both subjects, he's not the only one I hold such opinions on, but we are on a talk page for his article right now.

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

Plus exposing hate groups who were formerly hidden/.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

And that's because they believed /theirguy/ would give them free reign to do as they pleased.

I'm not gonna lie and pretend he was absolutely incapable of doing some amount of good, but I'm also not gonna lie and pretend I don't highly dislike him.

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)
NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

If Trump's a slave to PR I'm the King of England.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

I have to agree with you there. He doesn't play a role in the press, so "Slave to PR" isn't applicable.

He insists on being in the spotlight, though - consider how upset he got when social-media services started cutting off his accounts. I believe the trope here is (poorly-named, IMHO) Attention Whore.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

I don't think Attention Whore applies either. Politicians in general seek the limelight and hate losing it, and I think most would react the same if they were treated the way Trump has been by the media (leaving aside the question of whether he deserved it or not, and if so to what degree). How do you think Biden would've reacted if news media treated him the way they treated Trump?

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

The boasting about medicine - assuming it was boasting - is irrelevant to his act of kindness, Henery, so I don't think that's worth mentioning. I also don't think he's driven by PR as much as you say, otherwise he wouldn't have gone against the mainstream media's near constant negative coverage of him and would comply with their wishes.

There are valid criticisms of Trump, but nearly all of them are either on the page already or have been repeated ad nauseum.

In conclusion, I think we should just add that point for pet the dog, no caveats for that trope. Save the criticisms for other points. What say you?

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Could somebody write up a draft for how the explanation would read (the way I did below for Ironic Echo), please? I'll come back to this page in 12-13 hours.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

I have a proposed entry:

  • Ironic Echo: When Greta Thunberg addressed the United Nations in 2019, Donald Trump tweeted that she looked like "a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future", ignoring the topic of her speech. On the final day that Donald Trump was president in 2021, Greta Thunberg tweeted that he looked like "a very happy old man looking forward to a bright and wonderful future."

Any discussion on this?

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

I'm tempted to say Ms. Thunberg was being sarcastic there, and made the reference on purpose, but I guess it might count.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

That it was no doubt intentional/sarcastic on her part makes it fit all the better, really.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

I think that's good enough. Adding "Ironic Echo".

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

In a related note, I just started a page for Joe Biden - and, to be fair, locked it for almost as long as this page will remain locked. (I couldn't do an exact match because of the granularity of the protection system.) Same rules there as here for suggesting addition of tropes.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

Is there a trope for accents? I think Biden's got a strong American accent, and while I don't think much of Biden (I'd be happy to proven wrong and for him to turn out to be a good President), I like his accent.

On that note I think we can add to Trump's page that he was succeeded by Joe Biden as President.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)
HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

I have another, although it may fit Biden's page better:


Shut UP, Hannibal: Joe Biden may have been the first politician to say it to his face, doing so in the first debate of 2020.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

The rules of this website say we don't apply hero or villain tropes to people in real-life, so I think adding that trope violates the rules, thus it should not be added.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

I'd say that's a trope about Biden, not a trope about Trump.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

The rules of this website say we don't apply hero or villain tropes to people in real-life, so I think adding that trope violates the rules, thus it should not be added.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Good point. Troper is correct, Mod is wrong. Please continue calling me out when I make mistakes.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

All good. Love, hate or whatever Trump, people really get polarized about the man. I try to be even-handed about him and fail at times lol

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

Nod-nod, gotcha.

Arlo James Barnes (talkcontribs)

What's special about May, anyway? This guy's not going to get any less controversial by then.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

It was six months in the future when we locked the page. There's no special significance to the date.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

As far as I know, the date was chosen with the hope with the hope that emotions will have cooled and troping Trump will be less biased either way by then.

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

A suggestion to be added to the Artistic License Law part of the page:


** He promised to impose a ''mandatory'' death penalty for cop killers, something the 8th Amendment would likely prevent.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)
Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

In addition to social media platforms, it's also worth noting that it feels like shows and programs such as Saturday Night Live are trying to distance themselves from the fact that they ever humored him in the first place - at the least, their attempts to make him seem incredibly un-serious as a candidate backfired spectacularly. I can try to look for citations on the former if need be.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

I'm not sure that would fit under Persona Non Grata, but once we have the citations we can figure out where to put them.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Yeah, it wouldn't fit that specifically, I just mentioned social media for the purpose of establishing "people and companies what no longer want association with him". I'm sure we'll find something it DOES fit, though.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Another proposed trope: Karma Houdini.

In truth, the question of whether Trump is held to normal standards of accountability is hardly new — it's been the soundtrack of his presidency, and arguably his entire adult life.
Keith Boag, "Can America handle the truth about Trump?", January 29, 2021
Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

We'll need a bit more than a quote but yeah, I like that.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Possible text, second draft (adding to what was previously here):

In truth, the question of whether Trump is held to normal standards of accountability is hardly new — it's been the soundtrack of his presidency, and arguably his entire adult life.
Keith Boag, "Can America handle the truth about Trump?", January 29, 2021
NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

Adding "Karma Houdini" to Trump's tropes violates the rules of the website. The rules of this site and the Trope page say "No real-life examples" for that trope. Plus it's a rule of this website to not use hero or villain tropes for real people. That point needs to be removed.

It's very telling that despite moderator presence this page keeps devolving into a big hate session on Donald Trump.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

Yeah, that'll do. <grin>

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

Adding "Karma Houdini" to Trump's tropes violates the rules of the website. The rules of this site and the Trope page say "No real-life examples" for that trope. Plus it's a rule of this website to not use hero or villain tropes for real people. That point needs to be removed.

It's very telling that despite moderator presence this page keeps devolving into a big hate session on Donald Trump.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

"Adding "Karma Houdini" to Trump's tropes violates the rules of the website." Please provide a link to the page where this supposed rule is listed, because I can't find it. I do see this rule, though: "The site administration will not censor for politics, prudery or prejudice. Period." Core Policies take precedence over Guidelines.

"It's very telling that despite moderator presence this page keeps devolving into a big hate session on Donald Trump." I refer you to your own statement in this thread, 20 days ago: "I am so glad though that we can have this discussion. It's one of the things that elevates this website above the cesspool of ideological censorship and authoritarianism that is TV Tropes." The latter always brings with it the risk of the former, no matter who the subject of the discussion is.

NormAtredies (talkcontribs)

The trope page for Karma Houdini says "No Real Life Examples" which Trump is.

Plus, Trump was never convicted of all those rape accusations leveled at him (and given how they all conveniently came forward when he was about to become President, that smells like a conspiracy to me. Trump is a billionaire married to a former supermodel - even if he was that kind of person he doesn't need to do it. Even the PussyGate nontrovesy has Trump clearly state consent is involved "and when you're a billionaire, they'll let you". Boorish, maybe. Sex