Talk:Terry McAuliffe

GreenTech

The state of Mississippi lost millions of dollars investing in GreenTech Automotive. According to one report, GreenTech reportedly owes the state of Mississippi $2.85 million, even after making an overdue $150,000 loan payment. Patrick McCarthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFAA:7110:2C5D:398:3E88:9369 (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

References

• added reflisttalk template for organization. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

greentech is a cash for visa scam disguised as a green energy car company, Terry and Hillary Clinton's brother founded the company and when Virginia rejected them they went to ole miss, the investors pledged the capital to get eb5 visas and appear to be unaware of the dirty affair as they are also suing him, after the tax credits, loans and other promises deadline comes by, there are no cars manufactured because Terry never intended to make any cars sources

https://apnews.com/article/220d2611a6064c93b016e0bb9748be72 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/national-editorial-virginia-doesnt-need-terry-mcauliffes-brand-of-crony-capitalism https://eb5projects.com/litigation/103 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.114.72 (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup required

This article, for some reason, repeats the subject's surname in almost every single sentence. In the first subsection, for example:

In 1985, McAuliffe helped found the Federal City National Bank, a Washington, D.C.–based local bank. In January 1988, when McAuliffe was thirty years old, the bank's board elected McAuliffe as chairman, making him the youngest chairman in the United States Federal Reserve Bank's charter association. In 1991, McAuliffe negotiated a merger with Credit International Bank, which he called his "greatest business experience." McAuliffe became the vice-chairman of the newly merged bank.

That is a paragraph of four sentences, in which his surname is repeated five times. As far as I can see the entire article is written like this. So, I've added a cleanup tag, requesting that it be written in normal English: in about 80% of cases, the surname should be replaced by a pronoun. 51.6.138.24 (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Around 70 McAuliffes have been changed to personal pronouns. Please restore the service tag if you think more should be done. Cheers! --Woko Sapien (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Grammar mistake

There's a grammar mistake in the education section that should read 'vetoed' not 'voted' for. I can't correct it because the page is locked. 70.191.130.23 (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the mistake's been corrected since. Feel free to suggest any other improvements you can think of. Cheers! --Woko Sapien (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Misleading in the education section

It says the supposed book ban bill was supported by Republicans and social conservatives when in fact about half of Democrats voted for it along with the Republican majority at the time. It's misleading as it stands. 70.191.130.23 (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The sources indicate that Democrats opposed the bill. Per the sources, it looks like the only social conservative group that opposed the bill was the Family Foundation of Virginia, which I added. I personally can't view the link you included above. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

All Dems voted to sustain his veto, however, 13 voted for the bill in 2016 and another 8 voted for it in 2017. Both of those figures are for the house and one Dem senator voted for in 2016 and 2017, respectively. The point is a group of Dems voted for it in both 2016 and 2017 but the article leads one to believe it was only Republicans who supported it. 70.191.130.23 (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's a news article that specifically mentions a Dem senator voting for it, it's not just a Republican bill. 70.191.130.23 (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Full-flop topic UNDUE

@Toa Nidhiki05: It may have been written, but that doesn't make it due weight for the Wikipedia article, or for this section. First, the source of the criticism was "Victoria Cobb, an anti-abortion activist who is president of The Family Foundation in Virginia; John Fredericks, a conservative radio talk show host; and several conservative websites." — not really sourced to PolitiFact, though they did dogpile on it. Second, the events took place in 2019 when McAullife wasn't even in office and likely had no access to the bill, wasn't briefed on it, nor was involved in it (neither politically or activist-wise). It is not unusual for anyone to change their mind about a bill when they later discover more information about it, as was mentioned in the PolitiFact article.

The language that I removed from the WP article ("In 2019, according to PolitiFact, McAuliffe made a "full flop" on late-term abortions, initially opposing a bill to deregulate them in February before supporting the same bill in April.") misleads the reader to believe that McAuliffe was part of the legislative process on this bill. He was not! Given these facts, the current content on the matter is WP:UNDUE and shouldn't be in this article. Platonk (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s notable and important because it clarifies his stance on abortion now compared to what it was. I honestly don’t get your complaint. Toa Nidhiki05 18:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: It clarifies nothing; McAuliffe didn't change his opinion on the subject of abortion. If you 'don't get my complaint', then please start by re-reading the Politifact article. The point is primarily that the PF article is about a complaint by pro-lifers about an incident that occurred while the 'Governor' was not a governor, likely had no access to briefings about that bill, was asked about it (twice) and appeared to flip flop on an issue he was not directly involved in. Anyone can ask anyone about their opinion on two different days, months apart, and likely get a 'flip flop' of that opinion. It also depends on how you 'frame' the question(s). McAuliffe has repeatedly stated his stance on abortion. This alleged flip flop on a particular bill he was not involved in is irrelevant to his position. Okay, let me get down to brass tacks.

• In the first instance, McAuliffe was questioned, framing the question as 'for or against infanticide': "Absolutely not," McAuliffe said. "And I think Ralph (Northam) misspoke on that. No Democrat I know is for infanticide, none, none. I just don't know of anyone who is for it."
• In the second instance, McAuliffe indicated he had learned more about the bill: He said the purpose of the bill was to save pregnant women facing life-threatening circumstances in rural areas where it’s hard to find one doctor - let alone three - to approve a third-trimester abortion.

Both positions are consistent with McAuliffe's position on abortion, and do not represent a flip-flop. Therefore the inclusion of the content, particularly because of the way it was worded, is UNDUE (not to mention skirting the edge of BLP violations). Platonk (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You left out "I would not have vetoed the bill," McAuliffe replied. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The crux of the article indicates that he states that he said he would "absolutely not" support the bill, and then later said "I would not have vetoed the bill," McAuliffe replied. "And listen, I have not read the whole bill, John, but from what I read in the newspaper, if the one thing in the bill was to go from three to one (doctors) to help with rural communities…I would support that. Sure I would.". --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, that highlights my point: "And listen, I have not read the whole bill..." Answering different questions two months apart does not make a flip flop, except when someone twists it to seem so. The man's viewpoint on abortion rights hasn't changed. If you want to mention flip flops, then do it in another section on consistency. On the subject of abortion, the article currently says "McAuliffe has been a consistent supporter of abortion rights", and the PF article doesn't change that. Therefore inserting the PF article stuff is UNDUE — "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all...". Platonk (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, the definition of 'flip-flopping' (verb) is "To alternate back and forth between directly opposite opinions, ideas, or decisions." What the PF article described was a single change of viewpoint (on a very narrow topic); with no alternating back and forth. Platonk (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

Remove the line in the first para referring to Gov. McAuliffe as an unremarkable white bread… Shvdca (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The first para needs cleaning up. It’s been vandalized. Shvdca (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021 (2)

Eliminate the text calling Mcaulife an “Unremarkable piece of white bread” 71.191.93.65 (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done clpo13_(talk) 02:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Business career and political career cleanup and editing

Business and political career should be merged and made in chronological order, as far as I could tell, it should go like this, he met richard swann in 1971 at age 21, got a job in carter's reelection campaign, then his first documented job was at 22 after graduating from college serving as carter's national finance director, and then went to help fund a Federal City National Bank (and by his own admission) using his political connections to solicit bank deposits.

also this sentence and source by the washington post adds no substance to the article and should be deleted According to The Washington Post, he has "earned millions as a banker, real estate developer, home builder, hotel owner, and internet venture capitalist."[14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.114.72 (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Morrissey's receptionist

(Morrissey and the receptionist later married, and had three children.)

I'd like to just be WP:BOLD and remove this poorly formatted, bizarre aside / vague apologism for statutory rape, but I'm sure that as with any vaguely political content that might be a cause for contention (and with recent events invested editors are no doubt keeping a watchful eye on the article) so I'm just going to bring it up here. It makes sense to bring up when discussing the incident in Morrissey's article, but just reads as a tragically misguided "gotcha, it wasn't actually that bad!" here.  Aar  ►  14:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)