Not editable
A reminder from one of the mods: This wiki is about tropes, not politics.
... I remind people that politics is off-topic for All The Tropes.
I also point out that I am neither a citizen nor a resident of the United States of America, and thus have no direct stake in the politics of that country. For this purpose, I am the closest to a neutral party on the wiki's Moderation Team. (Of course I have opinions, I'm human. But I have no reason to act on those opinions here.)
Trope was discussed and added.
Same here. One can argue he got paid, he just refused to spend any of it and gave it to others, so the inversion makes sense.
I have all objections, and I'm not gonna retreat my vote under any circumstance. That trope is completely subjective of your part, and the lack of objections I'm seeing here shows some other users forgot this trope isn't going on YMMV.
I don't see the issue, this isn't even a negative thing to say about Trump. Instead of breaking his promise, he did the next best thing he could do legally since he didn't want to accept the salary for being President. Since legally he had to TAKE it, the law did not say he had to SPEND it, so he gave it away after receipt.
What?
"Empty Promise" is not a YMMV trope. It's proposed to go onto a Creator page, not a YMMV subpage. The specific example given is objective and fact-checked, and linked to the specific fact-check page.
If you are pretending to be the person who is discussed on the page, please stop. You are not him.
Go ahead, but I will remark I'm just tired of people making trope additions to creator pages, specially of a politician. Trump is specially a minefield because he is the first candidate to ever be endorsed by a significant number of 4chan users. I'm just saying most people here should try to add more tropes to works instead of creator pages of the 4chan kind.
Telling somebody else what they "should" be working on is rather rude, especially when you aren't paying them to do the work.
I'm gonna say maybe should if it's more suitable for you to me to say it. I'm not trying to force anybody to do anything, working for free for Fighteer only for him to ban me on a whim it is the reason I was motivated to do work here, but If I have the chance to give an opinion I will.
Trope proposed with unanimous approval, and added to page.
Although I think it's a little rough and could stand some improvement:
Sure, why not? He did exhibit that behaviour while he was in office.
(And why do we not have a page for "Bully Pulpit"?)
Yeah, not gonna argue this one. It really seems to have chapped him badly to not have a platform to get attention.
One thing to note is is the threats of legal action have actually been carried through. Whether he even gets past summary judgment is another.
100% vouch on this one, considering all the bombastic statements he made e.g. the "fire and fury" comments vs North Korea. If that isn't any indication of his attention craving, I dunno what it is.
Okay, five yes, no objections. I'll add it to the page with a little tweaking.
Trope proposed, one agreement, no objections, trope added to page.
Reading through our definition of the trope, I see that it doesn't mention numbers - so this is the matching trope for that explanation.
Agree to add this to the list.
Six-month lock has expired.
The founding admins - the ones with the "Moderator" bit set on our accounts - have had a discussion about this page. The decision is that it's too contentious to keep open at the moment.
So, as the most recent Mod to look at the page, I'm protecting the page for six months. We trust that passions will have cooled by then and the vitriol can be safely drained from the page at that time.
My apologies to those who I've told that they can edit the page at the moment. Circumstances change, and ATT's stance has to change with them.
A reminder that this lock remains in place until May 5. Please continue to propose changes to the page here, where they can be discussed before being made.
The mention of "Home Alone 2" in the intro really should mention that these are merely cameos.
And the lock has been lifted, so I'm resolving this thread. If we need a new lock, we'll get a new thread.
Misused trope identified and removed.
The entry for "Extra-Strength Masquerade" is unnecessary snark that says nothing that isn't already covered elsewhere in the article, as well as a misuse of the trope, which shouldn't apply to an individual.
Agreed that the trope doesn't apply to the subject of this article.
I remain silent on the matter of snark.
That's three yea votes, counting my proposal. Deleting.
EDIT: Never mind, Rob's already done it.
Modification made.
As of March 30, 2021, a federal judge has ruled that the Non-Disclosure Agreements Trump had his campaign workers sign is so broad as to be unenforceable. I propose adding a mention of (and link to) this ruling to the NDA portion of the trope entry as either a subversion or an aversion.
It might be worth linking to Artistic License Law in the amendment, if a successful businessman could botch an NDA that badly.
Well, just under two weeks and no one else has weighed in on either side. Adding it to both tropes.
Irrelevant now that the page uses an image of Trump from when he was President instead of from when he was on The Apprentice.
"You're fired, America" is:
a) Unless I really missed something, nothing Donald Trump ever actually said.
b) Entirely against the theme of his transition and acceptance speech (which was, for the record, 'election's over, now is we all come together time')
c) Entirely unnecessary, as simply using the original 'Apprentice' catchphrase is all that's necessary for a pithy caption.
So I changed it back and I hope it stays that way.
It is disputed in the sense only that there are contrary claims, but that's anything in politics.
It is '*not* disputed in the sense that the public record is in any way doubtful or ambiguous on the topic of whether Donald Trump is responsible for it. The 'birther' accusations date back at least to 2008 and the Democratic primary campaign, well before Donald Trump ever mentioned them, therefore under remotely no credible theory can he be accused of originating them. Even Factcheck.org, which is about as far from conservative sources as it can get, agrees with that.
However, on re-examining, the question over whether it was Hillary herself that put it forward in early 2008, or members of her campaign staff that put it forward, or independent Hillary-supporting PACs that put it forward without campaign authorization, is legitimately in dispute.
I see. I admit I voted for Trump, but I'm objective enough to admit if compelling evidence exists one way or the other that can be sourced to prove this, then it should be cited, since this is a contentious topic. Provide a citation with reference tags to the most objective and verifiable source you can find along with any new edits to prove this one way or the other and I will let this stand.
If need be, cite two different sources with verifiable claims to eliminate any ambiguity.
Factcheck's article on it.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/was-hillary-clinton-the-original-birther/
Public-record claim from neutral source about 2008 birther lawsuit.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/01/29/supreme-court-ousts-attorney-who-sued-to-oust-obama/
Atlantic magazine 2008 archive of 2007 memo from Hillary's chief campaign strategist Mark Penn suggesting campaign target "his lack of American roots", although going at the birth certificate specifically is not mentioned.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/08/penn-strategy-memo-march-19-2008/37952/
Entry on main page edited to reflect. (correction) Just figured out how to shorten the links, so, they're in the reference note.
Old argument which petered out.
I see "Brutal Honesty" listed on the tropes list, and I'm puzzled. I'll grant the brutal part, but doesn't the honesty part require honesty, which the continuing-the-Birther-thing-four-years-after-being-disproven discussion indicates is missing here?
Trump's claims during his campaign (for example, saying Mexico sends immigrants who are criminals and rapists) are obviously not fact, but politically-fueled opinion made to appeal to his voter base. So the use of that trope is incorrect.
On the other hand, while quite a few politicians have /thought/ that the news media was incredibly sloppy and often biased, President Trump is the first one in a long time to actually say that out loud on the podium, let alone continue doing so regularly in the face of all the objections. So he is indeed brutally honest on certain topics.
Just because somebody says something doesn't make it true. There are plenty of independent fact-checking organizations out there - including the one at archive.org - that indicate the mainstream media are neither sloppy nor biased, no matter how many times Trump says otherwise. His continuing to say so is, IMHO, another sign that he is not being honest with the voters in his country.
Also, "disagreement" is not a synonym for "dishonesty".
Did you read the paragraph from the first word or just got "something that sounds good and Trump are mentioned together" reflex triggered? It seems to be a reading comprehension problem. That's not uncommon.
No reflex - my question was whether the trope as it is defined here applied to the subject matter.
"Since everybody in TV land spends all day desperately lying their way out of situations, one of the more reliable gags is to create a situation where you'd imagine the characters would lie, and have them be perfectly honest and straightforward instead."
If somebody's going to say that it should be listed, then the onus is on that person to show where the person in question made the particular honest statement. If the topic matter wasn't so contentious, I would have hung a "context" tag on the trope and asked for an example.
Since a candidate is expected to talk like yet another politician slimeball, and he didn't , well... ref #1, for one.
We allow different views than our own, he both has told the truth and lied, as does any politician. I think rather than delete, we should also add the lying part in a different trope, this means we don't become too biased either way and are balanced in our approach.