Topic on Talk:Donald Trump

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.

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.

How about Didn't Think This Through?

Some examples are in the Real Life section of that page.

Done, plus a little more.

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...which they did.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.

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.

Will this do?

Will this do for what?

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.

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.

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".

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.

So one person's "Kick Them While They Are Down" is another person's "Hoist by His Own Petard"?

I knew there would be a difference of opinion on what trope a proposed example illustrated, but I didn't expect it so soon...

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...

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.

Oh, definitely the the 1776 Report.

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

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.

See above discussion.

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".

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

"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.

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...

That might be Frivolous Lawsuit

Yep, that'll be the trope.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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.

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).

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?

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.

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).

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

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

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

Yes I can, he's not President anymore.

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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.

No, not in the former case, and for more personal/contentious reasons. As for the latter, considering he knew Epstein... I'll leave it at that lest I truly derail things.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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).

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.

Plus exposing hate groups who were formerly hidden/.

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.

Trump is Slave to PR

Huh, there's a good one...

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

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.

Yeah, much better.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.

There are tropes for specific accents - see Category:Accent Tropes.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Nod-nod, gotcha.

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

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

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.

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.

While I think about that one, I came across another link for possible inclusion in Blatant Lies: From Forbes Magazine's website, Here Are The Lies Trump Is Now Telling About His Business.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

• Karma Houdini:
  • Despite being impeached in 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, the Senate refused to bring him to trial.
  • Also, while over a dozen of his businesses have failed and six more of his businesses have declared bankruptcy, he has never declared personal bankruptcy.
  • Two allegations of sexual impropriety were enough to get Bill Clinton impeached (although he was acquitted on all charges). Forty-three allegations of sexual impropriety were not enough to bring Trump to court.

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

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.

Yeah, that'll do. <grin>

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.

"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.

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 offender, no). Since he wasn't convicted, he doesn't fit the Karma Houdini since it hasn't been proved he actually did those things.

While the latter always brings with it the risk of the former, no matter who the subject of the discussion is, a comparison shows not many get the one-sided treatment that Trump often gets, and most of those who do are far worse than him.

I would add that you had two weeks or so to object to any of the edits proposed for the page in the now-closed thread below, and you did not do so. One could be forgiven for thinking that you might have deliberately withheld any objections so that you could point to the edited page afterward and complain.

If you're going to accuse me of something, just say it. We all have lives outside of the internet @LooneyTunes. I would've objected sooner, but with shifts at work starting to return with the easing of COVID restrictions where I live, I didn't have the time to log in and say this.

"Reality has a noted liberal bias." —Stephen Colbert

Better to report the literal truth and allow the reader to make their own decision than present the worshipful hagiography for Saint Donald you would rather see. We've caught you deleting content on this page that was heavily documented because it conflicted with your own bias, so forgive us if we take your complaints with a one-pound canister of Morton's Salt.

What you said about me is so inaccurate it sounds like a strawman, but you don't know me so there's benefit of the doubt. I left plenty of criticisms of Donald Trump on that page, and he deserves them, but I'm willing to see both sides of the story and point out his positive traits too, unlike most of the people on this thread hopping on the anti-Trump bangwagon.

Disregard.

If that's something you think we need to address, please start a new thread on my Talk page. It's off-topic here.

@Looney Toons, there is the fact that he's been impeached twice and the first one never went anywhere, as well as the fact that he hasn't been prosecuted for most of the financial scams and other dubious dealings attributed to him.

Did the Second Impeachment actually happen? Last I heard the trial is still ongoing.

According to the constitution of the USA, the trial can only takes place after the impeachment is completed.

Uhm, yes, the vote was made to impeach.

Helmets Are Hardly Heroic -- invoked by Trump and some supporters about face coverings. Unfortunately viruses are not intimidated by such 'heroism'.

No. This page is about Trump himself, not people who support him. And Trump himself wore masks, especially during and after having COVID-19 himself.

Not willingly, and he tore them off his face as soon as he could. Trump hates the appearance of weakness, and he perceives the need for a mask as weakness.

Willingly or under protest, the fact remains Trump still wore face masks.

Well, I'd say that's the difference between a trope in use versus merely invocation, but as Rob points out below I misinterpreted the description of the trope.

That isn't this trope, though - "Helmets Are Hardly Heroic" is defined as being able to see the character's face.

Thus, my opinion is "not an example of the trope as defined on its trope page." (EDIT: And that the trope name verges on being esoteric.)

You seem to be right that I was mislead by the trope name; I read the lede but apparently not close enough the first time. I thought it was when a heroic character eschews garb that would obscure their face even if it would have a protective function because hiding a face 'just is not heroic'. But it seems it is not a character trope but a work trope, where the work avoids obscuring faces (with or without justification) because faces are so expressive. Anyway, I had in mind quotes like this:

https://abcn.ws/2GbS1PHI

> I don't wear masks like him. Every time you see him, he's got a mask. He could be speaking 200 feet away from it, and he shows up with the biggest mask I've seen.

> I just don't want to be doing -- somehow sitting in the Oval Office, behind that beautiful, Resolute Desk, the great Resolute Desk, I think wearing a face mask -- as I greet presidents, prime ministers, dictators, kings, queens, I don't know, it somehow, I don't see it for myself.

> Trump said he wore a mask behind closed doors on a visit to a Ford plant in Detroit but he "didn't want to give the press the pleasure of seeing it".

> Well, I'm tested, and I'm sometimes surprised when I see somebody sitting and -- like, with Joe. Joe feels very safe in a mask. I don't know, maybe he doesn't want to expose his face," Trump said on Sept. 16. "There's no reason for him to have masks on."

> In September, a frustrated Trump asked a White House reporter to remove as mask while asking a question: "If you don't take it off, you're very muffled."

To further elaborate on the "heroic" part, it's just another facet of the general modern belief held by right-wingers in particularly that submission to government policies such as "maybe try to prevent yourself from spreading disease' is tyranny (and we could talk all day about the incoherence of that).

It's a pity we don't have a page on "Toxic Masculinity"; I just read an article last week that lays a lot of the blame for this kind of behavior on the concept -- that the "big, tough, real men" that make up a lot of the alt-right won't do anything that even hints at effeminate icky girl stuff, and they class a lot of socially-responsible behaviors as effeminate or dangerously close -- like caring about anyone other than themselves, or thinking masks are "girly"

It's a pity we don't have a page on "Toxic Masculinity";

The Trope Workshop is right over here...

How about Testosterone Poisoning?

Maybe Miles Gloriosus?

Testosterone Poisoning is about parodying the attitude. Rated "M" for Manly (the "played straight" version) might do...

Another suggestion:

• "You Can't Fire Me, I Quit!": Trump resigned from the Screen Actors Guild after learning he was about to be expelled from the union for his actions on January 6, 2021.

We may also want to add this link to Cult of Personality.

I don't think this should be added; "You Can't Fire Me, I Quit" refers to a boss and their employee. Being in the Screen Actor's Guild is being the member of a club... plus when Trump was President he outranked them, so if anything they were more like his employees since he ran the country. Plus, I'm not sure "You Can't Fire Me, I Quit" is a trope in and of itself.

Also, Trump's "actions"? He was actually rioting or attacking anyone.

Er... the Screen Actor's Guild is a trade union, not a club. And they don't work for anybody in the government. (Unless you're claiming that Trump is a communist who had some sort of right to take charge of any business in the USA "since he ran the country".)

Speaking of, Trump did not run the country. He ran the Executive Branch.

As for Trump's "actions", there are proceedings taking place in your Senate as I type this, to determine what actions they may or may not have been. Assuming your senators do the jobs that they have sworn to do and actually look at the evidence (instead of voting on party lines), we'll know what those actions were soon enough. Until that process is completed, I see no point in speculating about the matter here.

I thought he ran the country since as President he's the Head of State.

I don't live in the United States, but I strive to learn about the situation for reasons including the fact that I've never seen a non-violent (if Trump were violent, he would've sent authorities to use force against all those rioters and that CHAZ Insurrection, like how the tyrannical Chinese government massacred the Tiananmen Square Protesters in 1989), non-tyrannical world leader get so much negative press coverage.

I don't live in the United States

Then take the time to learn how our government is structured and is supposed to work before you comment negatively on those of us upset with a would-be tyrant for trying to subvert that system for his own aggrandizement. Many things you seem to take for granted and "as things are done" are not how things are done in our nation.

No, the President is supposed to be head of the Executive Branch of the government, he does NOT run the whole country.

It's called "Separation of powers" (and also "checks and balances") -- the government of the United States is divided into the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches, each with its own responsibilities and powers, and each equal to the others; further, the power of each branch is held in check by the other two. Trump took office clearly thinking that the office of President had absolute power over the entire government and country (and that all previous presidents were obviously weak incompetents for not using it) -- that's the "Article II" subpoint under "Artistic License Law"; he was upset to find out that wasn't the case and tried his damnedest to upset the Separation and make the President an absolute ruler.

(if Trump were violent, he would've sent authorities to use force against all those rioters and that CHAZ Insurrection, like how the tyrannical Chinese government massacred the Tiananmen Square Protesters in 1989)

This is also because of the organization of the US government. While the president is "Commander in Chief" of the nation's military forces, those forces do not automatically hop to on his orders -- those orders are transmitted to the Joint Chiefs, who determine how to implement them. And enshrined in the US military code is the obligation and right of all military personnel from the Joint Chiefs down to buck privates to refuse to follow an illegal order, which such a demand would be.

It is precisely for this reason that Trump worked so hard to fire anyone who disagreed with him and install his own loyalists -- and why he issued an executive order in the final months of his presidency stripping civil servants of their immunity to politically-based dismissal. He fervently desired that kind of power, but because the Constitution was explicitly designed to keep it out of the president's hands, he had to replace personnel who were loyal to the Constitution with personnel who were loyal only to him and would bypass the Constitution's restrictions and limitations for his benefit.

Given that the link is simply to "Other Stock Phrases", there is no specific trope definition to adhere to. And even if there was, Tropes Are Flexible, and this phrase has frequently been seen in contexts other than a strict boss-employee relationship.

The New Republic is admittedly left-wing - we'd have to note that if we added their piece to Cult of Personality.

Ah. I'd thought it was a bit more centrist. I might rescind that suggestion, then.

I mean it's not an uncommon assertion to my recollection, though it's "natural" that it would come from more liberal-slanted sources.

It doesn't matter what the source is, what matters is it true or not, and the linked has a lack of citation, is rife with editorializing and an admitted bias that casts the article into doubt.

The New Republic is a commentary magazine, not a newspaper. Of course every article in it will contain editorializing - that's the whole point behind commentary. (If you take the editorializing out of commentary, what you have left is a recap.)

Bias does not invalidate an article. When I was in high school, a few decades ago, we were taught to identify bias and take it into account. Do they not teach critical thinking in high schools any more?

Not in the United States.

@Robkelk@Looney Toons Gentlemen, I understand this is a contentious topic, and I understand it can be one that flares tempers, but on behalf of @NormAtrediesI would like to ask the two of you to chill with the snippy rebuttals. No offense, but you two are moderators, and your replies seem to drip with a fair amount of acid that you need to rein in. I don't disagree with the mass majority of your arguments, but I would ask you try to remain a bit more civil in your replies.

For the record, I am responding to a request to intervene from @NormAtredies, and while I find most of your logic sound, the two of you need to restrain your indignation a little. Consider that me speaking with my mod hat on.

I must ask for clarification of the complaint, because I have not been speaking with indignation at all in this thread. On the contrary, I have been careful to remain calm and dispassionate. Please point out where I failed to do this.

EDIT: In order to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, I will not do anything on this wiki other than defend myself here until such time as this charge against me has been resolved. This recusal is necessary to protect the wiki, and thus it is not negotiable.

I apologize, it seems my remarks were unfounded in your case.

While I will admit to some responses in this thread in which I replied with less patience than I should have, if Rob is being accused of anything inappropriate in this thread then NormAtreides is firing scattershot accusations at all mods in this thread in the hopes of hitting something, whether it's a valid target or not.

@NormAtredies First off, let me be clear I am not your stalking horse. Apparently, you already tried to get another admin (@Labster) involved in this, and when that didn't work, you went to me. You should have tried to inform of me this prior. While I do not want tempers to flare for ANYONE, that includes you. I'm a moderator, not someone who helps people exercise spite or settle scores. Consider this a warning not to repeat this error.

@Robkelk@Looney Toons As for you two, I apologize to the former, your comments are generally civil on upon closer examination, and as to the latter, you graciously fell on your sword.

I can see how it looked that way, but that wasn't my intention @GethN7. I messaged two admins because I'm not sure who would respond because I didn't know how often any of you were online. I didn't think it through and see how it looks bad. This was not an exercise in spite or revenge, messaging two admins rather than sticking one was a poorly thought-out decision and while I stand by getting another perspective, I apologize for the reckless way I went about it.

What about the aspersions that you cast on my character?

I got carried because of the aspersions cast on my character by others including Looney Tunes... but yes, you were generally innocent. Though we disagreed, you didn't mistreat me in that debacle. Mea culpa.

Thank you, and I accept your apology.

Well, I buy that, that makes sense, thanks for your apology.

Gonna avoid commenting on what I just came back to and instead signal that I agree with the suggested trope addition. I'm iffy on the change to Cult of Personality, but my issue is more with the precision assertion made by the article itself than whether or not it applies to Trump (which it most undoubtedly does in the face of current evidence).

From what scattered bits I've seen regarding the trial (because I'm not subjecting myself to that theatre) I may make more suggestions of my own this weekend.

Now that that is done with, @NormAtredies, I would suggest that if you're upset that far too many trope entries show true and well-documented but unfavorable aspects of Donald Trump, it is incumbent upon you to find equally true and well-documented examples of positive aspects of his life and personality.

We are not TV Tropes with its enforced hugbox "no negativity" rules, and we are not required to bend over backwards to find nice things to say about the most evil bastards in the interest of "balance". Nor do we take orders to add content from users who are perfectly capable of creating the content themselves. Nor we will remove truth from the page because it conflicts with your bias.

You want "balance" on this page? You find the good things to say to balance it that aren't already on the page -- and show that they're fact and not just propaganda or wishful thinking. And no "whatabouts" or Clintonesque quibbling about the meaning of tiny words so you can exculpate Trump of something everyone knows is true. If you can present entry candidates for the page that meet these minimum requirements, then we will add them. But I honestly think you're going to have a hard time finding anything like that about a man whom members of his own political party have called an asshole and a criminal.

You are right that it is incumbent on me. I will do what I can to research the matter further. Thought it will require some searching I don't think it will be too hard as Donald Trump, despite his well-documented flaws, is a far cry from "the most evil (of) bastards" among humanity, even if we're only talking about the last 100 years of human history.

Most people can't create content for this this page themselves at this point, due to the current lock limiting it to moderators, which is why we have this thread.

Now I must protest some of what you just said to me, quote;

• "Nor we will remove truth from the page because it conflicts with your bias"
• "You find the good things to say to balance it that aren't already on the page -- and show that they're fact and not just propaganda or wishful thinking. And no "whatabouts" or Clintonesque quibbling about the meaning of tiny words so you can exculpate Trump of something everyone knows is true."

From the words you used, while I could be wrong and you could just be giving hypothetical scenarios while detailing how this webpage is run, given past experiences it reads like you're making personal attacks plus assuming and/or insinuating inaccurate things about me. I'm not left-wing or right-wing, I'm more of a swinging voter myself but from your words you seem to be assuming that I'm some rabid, far-or-alt-right Trump supporter.

I think if I'd said those sort of things to/about you, I'd get some sort of penalty imposed on me (I suspect I'm already on thin ice and am concerned this comment might bring some sort of official penalty down on my head). People saying those sort of things about me are one of the reasons I reached out to Labster and @GethN7.

I previously asked for somebody to develop content for this very thread. It never happened.

We have evidence of you adding and removing opinions as if they were facts, getting even basic facts wrong, moving goalposts, making baseless claims, and trying to have rules enforced to suit your own bias. And I also remember what HeneryVII has asked us to disregard. I trust that you can see where your prior behaviour is taken by the Moderation Team as an indicator of possible future behaviour.

I have already told everyone taking part in this thread to re-read Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment.

I think if I'd said those sort of things to/about you, I'd get some sort of penalty imposed on me (I suspect I'm already on thin ice

With that comment, you definitely are - because of that comment. Please read ATT:1WAY.

I read ATT:1WAY and will keep that in mind for future contributions. Before I add those, I must say I disagree with three of the accusations you leveled at me.

• That incident on the page for Hollywood Atheism was a misunderstanding, one you and I resolved cleared up (quite amiably imo). You even accepted my explanation, so I think it is unfair to cite that against me now.
• How was I moving any goalposts in the "moving goalposts" link you provided? You cited one of Trump's quotes, so I asked when he said to get context for the quote. I don't think examining evidence is moving the goalposts.
• I wasn't trying to enforce the workings of Karma Houdini to suit a bias, I was just sticking to the rules of that trope. I even saw moderators approving the incorrect use of that trope, so I called attention to it.

I was wrong about application of the Stock Phrases, as I wasn't as familiar with its application as you are, so while I'm not sure if that counts as "getting even basic facts wrong", I'll concede that point.

I also concede that I did not provide evidence for the left-wing conspiracy that Trump only won due to Russian interference. That was baseless because I did not provide evidence that it existed among the left-wing. I never said it was throughout the left-wing, only that it was left-wing (because it originated from people the left-wing such as former Democrat President Jimmy Carter).

Regarding this quote of mine; "I think if I'd said those sort of things to/about you, I'd get some sort of penalty imposed on me (I suspect I'm already on thin ice" I said that to LooneyTunes because of the vitriol he showed me, which is something GethN7 acknowledged and even LooneyTunes himself somewhat owned up to. LooneyTunes followed that acknowledgement up with statements that may or may not be veiled personal attacks and as of this comment has yet to apologize, so I was merely standing up for myself and was not threatening to say or do anything.

I'm not left-wing or right-wing, I'm more of a swinging voter myself

Now that's interesting, because several days ago you claimed you weren't even an American to excuse some of your more egregious ignorance of how the US government works. So which is it? Are you an American voter or a foreigner?

EDIT: I ask, by the way, because from the viewpoint of the rest of the world, the United States is at best centrist to right-wing in its politics, even the Democrats. A foreign citizen who thinks American Democrats are left-wing -- forget socialist! -- would be a rare beast indeed. So rare, in fact, as to be almost mythical.

I'm not American, and never indicated that I was. And I said swinging voter because that's the best way to describe my political views since I'm not all in for any political affiliation though I'm no anarchist. I support whoever I think will do the best job politically.

When it comes to where the U.S is on the political spectrum, like you, I'd say centrist to right-wing in politics. But I'd add the caveat that there's growing rumblings of change (for better or worse). As for how left-wing or right-wing a person or group seems, I think that's related to the concept behind the Overton window. When a group of people ranges from left-wing to far-left, most others will seem right-wing even if they're centrists. The same applies to a group ranging from right-wing to far-right, most others will seems left-wing even if they aren't.

There is nothing hypothetical here. Other moderators than I have rebuked you in this very thread for playing word games and being a "goalpost mover" to attempt to get around or bury truths you didn't like. I personally have restored deletes from the page made by you -- "The Chosen One" comes immediately to mind -- which referenced documented aspects of Donald Trump's personality, behavior and career that you apparently wanted expunged from the record. You have indulged in -- and been called on by other moderators than I for -- "whataboutism" in the "Troping the Abraham Accords" thread on this page. I have done nothing more than listed behaviors in which you have already engaged in public sight.

Most people can't create content for this this page themselves at this point, due to the current lock limiting it to moderators, which is why we have this thread.

You can do as was done once already -- generate a list of contributions and post them in a separate thread on this page for general discussion, revision, and eventual approval.

The reasons behind "The Chosen One" trope were something I did not know about, and when it was proven conceded that point. That is not goalpost moving or trying to expunge them from the record; you are wrong about me in that regard.

I'm working on contributions and trying to fact-check them; don't have as much time for that as usual due to increasing work hours on my part. I'll be adding them soon.

Meanwhile, another proposed entry up for discussion:

• Author Vocabulary Calendar: Trump's frequent use of "failing" as a pejorative for any news outlet which reported anything negative about him, as though impugning the profit margins of organizations such as The New York Times was relevant to their journalistic integrity. Along with his insistence that any television program which covered him negatively was always losing or low in ratings, this testifies to Trump's obsession with winning as the only meaningful metric in life.

Three more proposed entries for discussion:

• I Gave My Word: Despite getting a reputation as a liar, Trump was one of the better Presidents regarding keeping campaign promises. During the first two years of his term, Trump had kept, kept in some form or was working on more than half of the promises made on the campaign trail. These include prison reform, combating HIV/AIDS, salary donation, tax cuts and combating unemployment.

(sources of information for that point; https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/ending-the-hiv-epidemic/overview https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/18/18140973/state-of-the-union-trump-first-step-act-criminal-justice-reform https://abcnews.go.com/Business/unemployment-rate-falls-lowest-level-50-years/story?id=66058946 and https://www.houstonpress.com/news/5-objectively-good-things-trump-has-done-11286106

• Pet the Dog
  • In 2018, Trump granted clemency to Alice Johnson, a 63-year-old woman who had been serving time for a drug charge and money laundering since 1996 and had been denied clemency by previous administrations despite meeting all the criteria. (source; https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44390737 )
  • A literal example where Trump administration arranged for a White House meeting with of the special operations soldiers that participated in the Baghdadi raid that killed the leader of ISIS; literal because that included Conan, the special operations war dog in that raid. While the soldiers couldn’t be identified due to national security reasons from being on active duty at the time, Conan wasn’t on active duty. Trump also posted a declassified picture of Conan on Twitter and even considered reversing the policy on military canines not being awarded military honors. (source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conan_(dog)#White_House_visit )

Actually, according to PolitiFact, Trump kept only 23% of his campaign promises, and broke 53% of them:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/?ruling=true

Of course, many of them were infeasible and ill-conceived, much like Bush's infamous "Read my lips!" promise.

In that case let's see if we can reconcile things into a consistent single entry -- your choice of which trope applies.

First of all, Norm's claim that " Trump was one of the better Presidents regarding keeping campaign promises" is not true at all. If you compare Obama's record:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/?ruling=true

(47% kept, 23% broken)

...and then factor in the obstructionist Senate he had to deal with (compared to Trump, who had Republican majority in both Houses for his first two years and majority in the Senate for his whole term) I'd say just the opposite is true.

Most of Trump's promises were ill-conceived and controversial Forget the wall, he promised to bring back waterboarding, impose mandatory death penalties for cop-killers, and end birthright citizenship. Wishful thinking on all three. He also promised term limits on Congress, something that, while desired by most Americans, is beyond the power of the Executive Branch. It would require approval by Congress to ever get started. (Call me a skeptic, but our Congress will NOT vote on a bill that limits their own power.) Keep the Guantanamo Bay detention center open? WHY? That place should never have been opened to begin with.

Also, I'd go so far as to say most of the promises Trump kept were controversial and NOT for the country's benefit, mostly a petty attempt to undo Obama's accomplishments. These include defunding Planned Parenthood, demanding more donations to NATO from other countries, tearing up the Iran Deal despite their adherence to it (violating it in the process), tearing up the Paris Agreement (so he and big industry were no longer bound by it), and limit immigration for no discernable reason.

Plus, the kept promise of prison reform that Norm mentioned meant expanding privately owned prisons, a clear attempt to profit from such controversial facilities.

In the end, his base will scream at the top of their lungs that "Trump did more in one year than Obama did in eight years!" but this only means he did more bad things in that amount of time.

Politifact consistently shows a lower percentage of promises kept than simple arithmetic does.

• Obameter: 526 promises listed in total, 255 promises listed as kept. 255/526 is 0.48479 to five digits, which rounds to 48%.
• Trump-O-Meter: 102 promises listed in total, 24 promises listed as kept. 24/102 is 0.23529 to five digits, which rounds to 24%.
• Biden Promise Tracker Scorecard as of this posting: 19 promises listed in total, 5 promises listed as kept. 5/19 is 0.26316 to five digits, which rounds to 26%.

Keep in mind that Biden has not yet had his hundred days as I post this.

What I see from this is:

• Politifact can't do grade-school arithmetic,
• Trump (25.5 promises made per year in office and 6 promises kept per year in office, with a friendly Senate) was a slacker compared to Obama (65.75 promises made per year in office and 31.875 promises kept per year in office, with a hostile Senate), and
• I Gave My Word does not apply to Trump.

(As for whether the promise was a good one, that doesn't matter with regard to the trope in question. All that matters for the trope is whether the promise was kept.)

I said "one of the better Presidents" in that regard, not the best, and you brought up Obama HeneryVII, not me. You're also not proving me wrong by showing that Obama did a better job at keeping campaign promises. I don't talk much about Trump's negatives because so many people - including nearly everyone besides myself on this thread - have talked about them ad nauseum at best.

By the way, you're calling Trump's motives into question, which is fair, but you're not providing evidence for your claims. For example, you claim he wanted to bring back waterboarding and end birthright citizenship, can you source those claims please?

Finally, the point of that trope is that Trump kept those election promises, not the motives. You're also assuming the worst without providing sources, including arguments from personal views (such as saying defunding Planned Parenthood is not beneficial to the U.S - I disagree for several reasons).

I also contend that Trump could have kept more - not all, but more - promises if he wasn't being obstructed by unfriendly state governments and extreme negative media coverage of which a large part was rife with editorializing and/or bias by omission; but I will do research to determine how much, if at all, that hampered the effectiveness of the Trump administration.

How do you think Obama or Biden would react as Presidents if they had to contend with the amount of negative press coverage that Trump did? The entertainment and media industry seemed to love Trump for the most part when he was doing shows like The Apprentice or cameos... but they turned on Trump like a pack of ravening wolves when he entered into politics (maybe that could be a point for adding the "Eu Tu, Brute?" trope to his page... I'll look into that).

<nod> Looks good.