Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump

Please update the section under economy.

Currently, the paragraph on the economy has the following line:

In February 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. entered a recession.[223][224]

Line can be left but content needs to be added:

U.S. recession ended in April 2020, making it shortest on record As per WP:RS

Concerns about Bias in the Article

=== Relying on Authority ===

The article leans heavily on fact-checkers and mainstream media sources like The Washington Post and The New York Times to support claims about Trump's falsehoods and misleading statements. This might make readers more likely to accept these claims without questioning them.

=== Picking and Choosing ===

Selective Presentation of Facts

The article mainly focuses on the negative aspects of Trump's presidency, like false statements, controversial policies, and high turnover rates, while ignoring positive achievements or different viewpoints that could give a more balanced picture.

=== Preaching to the Choir ===

Assuming Agreement

The article seems to assume that everyone reading it already agrees that Trump is bad, using language and framing that assumes readers share the same negative view.

=== Making Things Too Simple ===

Simplified Narratives

The article often oversimplifies complex issues like economic policies, judicial appointments, and foreign relations, only showing the negative side without exploring the bigger picture or considering other perspectives.

=== Unsupported Claims ===

Lacking Proof

Some claims in the article, such as Trump's supposed disrespect for the rule of law and democracy, are made without enough proof or detailed analysis to back up these serious accusations. ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I've been at this for over 10 years, and I've never seen Wikipedia editors scurry off to implement one user's generalized suggestions for improvement, or to address one user's generalized concerns about bias. It just doesn't work that way. You can participate as an active editor, subject to all the rules and processes that all editors live by. Or you can make specific, policy-based suggestions for changes to articles, and they will be considered by the article's editors. But this is a waste of your time. For further information, read: Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, the fact that the Russia Election Interference Hoax is even mentioned when it’s been proven over and over again that it was a HOAX is even in this article proves there’s plenty biases. Every thing in this article criticizes the former president and fails to mention his many accomplishments, but yet mentions every single controversy he’s had. Right or left encyclopedias should be non biased. The average American sees this when trying to do research. Right or left anyone not looking at this from a political point of view and take the manufactured hate for one man out of their heads for one second would see that this and 75% of mainstream media is doing their best to degrade Trump. There’s articles that disprove almost all the hate and biased statements made about the Trump campaign with creditable facts and proof but no we must completely change the landscape of this site and internet media in general and criticize any person who supports Trump or the Republican Party and lock any pages that have the potential of people editing and telling the people the real TRUTH. Is this the America/world you really want to live in? Restrictions on the “Fair media” like this only apply when the other side has facts that you don’t like Dreadpirate43 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Please try getting your news from a reputable source. Russia has interfered with our elections. Proven, and demonstrated at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah because the justice system that brought hundreds of cases against Trump since he took/left office just randomly stopped pursing perhaps their most prevalent claim they had against the man they hate so much. It’s been proven and admitted by Mark Zuckerberg that Meta actively promoted Biden/Harris during the last election and shadowbanned content promoting the GOP yet theirs not any articles about “Meta Election Interference in the 2020 Election” The Russia Hoak was blown up in the media by the Clintons and leftist news and gave nothing hearsay and incredible evidence, but when the mainstream media uses it as its talking points for 4+ years you end up with a million articles of ACCUSATIONS so much that the ones that prove that this thing was a HOAX with the actual court papers as their evidence it gets buried. BIPARTISAN MEDIA SHOULD BE A PILLAR IN OUR COUNTRY BUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE WHY WE DIVIDE Dreadpirate43 (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, and stop using all capital letters in your comments. It's sen as shouting on the Internet, so is poor manners. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

First president since Carter to initiate no new military conflicts?

Does this warrant inclusion in the subsection of foreign policy? From what I've researched, this point is factually correct and would seem to merit inclusion here.

A fact check from USA Today, linked here

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/01/fact-check-trump-not-first-president-since-eisenhower-without-new-war/6086636002/

furthers the point that military conflicts with and without Congressional approval have occurred in every presidential term prior to Trump up until and including Reagan, but no such conflicts were initiated during Trump's term.

I would think this does warrant inclusion in the foreign policy subsection of Trump's presidency, especially considering the apparent 35-year track record of previous US presidents in this regard. Danielnrg (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Some would argue that the reasons for this were not really positive. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If it's relevant to his policy, what does positive or negative matter? I don't really understand what it is you're trying to say, to be perfectly honest. Danielnrg (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that says it was due to policy? HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Does it need to be due to policy to be worthy of inclusion? It doesn't seem outlandish to include this detail compared to other Wiki articles I've seen.

I will note that it appears I've been suggesting an edit to the wrong article. I was attempting to submit for the foreign policy subsection of the broader Donald Trump article - itself a subsection of the presidency portion.

But your feedback can inform or preclude a talk submission in the proper article feed, which is why I'm submitting this here despite realizing my mistake.

It seems a more fitting inclusion in a brief summary that includes "Hallmarks of foreign relations during Trump's tenure included unpredictability, uncertainty, and inconsistency. Tensions between the U.S. and its European allies were strained under Trump."

Do you think I should make a talk submission for that article, as I intended to? Danielnrg (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned policy because YOU did. I regard that wording you just quoted as very accurate. Trump didn't have formal policies in most areas, including international relations. He just reacted based on his own emotions at the time. Fortunately, in the areas of starting wars, the US has a lot of safety valves built into it's systems. It's hard for a leader to start a war on a whim. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

How to deal with a potential second Trump adminstration?

Supposing Trump wins in 2024, would this article be renamed to Presidencies of Donald Trump, as is the case with Grover Cleveland? Or would a new article be made for the second term, given the increased volume of info? I know this is a bit early to be asking this, but still. EA09thesecond (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a second article, unlike someone who had two or more consecutive terms. TFD (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Should there be a mention about attempts to weaponize the I.R.S. against political rivals?

I believe the Rule of law section of this article could be updated to mention that Trump wanted to use the I.R.S. to target James B. Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Andrew G. McCabe.

A recent story from New York Times states the following:

But by late 2017 into early 2018, Mr. Trump’s attention shifted back to an old preoccupation and he wanted to go the offensive. He told aides he wanted to use the I.R.S. to target Mr. Comey; Peter Strzok, the lead F.B.I. agent from the Russia investigation; Lisa Page, a top F.B.I. aide; and Andrew G. McCabe, the bureau’s deputy director, according to federal court records and previous public statements made by Mr. Kelly, the White House chief of staff at the time.

Repeatedly, Mr. Kelly and Mr. McGahn, the White House counsel, strongly cautioned Mr. Trump against such talk. To them, using the federal government to go after those he saw as his enemies was a tactic from an authoritarian playbook. Mr. Kelly specifically told Mr. Trump that along with being immoral and self-destructive, weaponizing the I.R.S. was illegal.

References

I don't have a proposal for specific language, but just a short mention along with this citation would suffice. Thank you. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this something he actually tried to do or just something he discussed? If he didn't make any moves toward it, I'm not sure why it would be notable. I would check the source, but it is paywalled, and the archive link isn't working for me. Catboy69 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)