Jump to content

Talk:Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.2.38.14 (talk) at 02:54, 7 November 2016 (→‎Primary results: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

9/11 Donation

A NY Daily News stories claims that Trump never made good on a pledge to contribute $10,000 to a Howard Stern charity. The pledge was made on the radio and Trump received many accolades for his contribution....but the city's comptroller says the charity never got the check and concluded that Trump "may have lied" about making a donation. Trump often makes a point of talking about his generosity during his campaign. It would not be the first time that named charities did not receive funds or that the foundation claims it sent, but were never received. Not included is the $25,000 "donation" to Pam Bondi after she decided not to investigate Trump University. Buster Seven Talk 14:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Howard Stern charity' < this is when people dont know what is a joke.(unsigned contributor)
The promise to contribute was not a joke Buster Seven Talk 13:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have space to include every story about Trump, just those that are most widely reported which this one is not. If we decided to base articles about politicians based on investigative reporting by the Post, these articles would have a peculiar look. Of course when tabloid stories hit the mainstream we cover them not because they come from tabloids but because they have attracted attention. I note that the paper's reporters searched for payments to the two major 9/11 charities only, and even then could not report with certainty that Trump did not contribute to either of them. That could be why the mainstream did not run with it, but it violates neutrality for us to promote unduly stories that have been overlooked. TFD (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements??

Currently we have an "Endorsements" section which only speaks about Trump's lack of endorsements by the press, and some endorsements of Clinton to boot. No mention of people or organizations who do endorse Trump, although we have a fairly developed main article about those. Did I miss a consensus discussion to exclude Trump endorsements from the Endorsements section of the Trump campaign page? — JFG talk 23:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Endorsements" section refers only to newspaper endorsements; I have changed the section heading to make that clear. There are several entire articles listing Trump's endorsements by people and organizations, and they are linked at the top of the section. There are too many to include in this article; that's why it is spun off. However, the unprecedented lack of endorsements by the press has been commented on by many sources.[1][2][3] It is a news story in itself and thus is deserving of a mention here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

this diff by Triggerhappy4 with the edit summary "removed inappropriate categories" is questionable to me and should be undone. Thoughts? Buster Seven Talk 16:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal of the "racism" and "sexism" categories. Looking at the type of articles that are listed in those categories, they were inappropriate for this article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly neutral one way or the other. Both are in the BLP and sourced, so its not a violation there. Although, I'm not sure the categories really fulfill the spirit of writing BLPs conservatively (no pun intended). TimothyJosephWood 16:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I'm not willing to pursue it beyond this chat. Buster Seven Talk 18:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016

On the line

Trump's campaign rallies have attracted large crowds, as well as public controversy. Some of the events were marked by incidents of violence between Trump supporters and protesters, mistreatment of some journalists, and disruption by a large group of protesters who effectively shut down a major rally in Chicago. Trump has been accused of inciting violence at his rallies.[29][30][31]

You should include that the protesters at the Chicago rally were paid by Hillary's campaign and other groups working for the campaign.

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY&index=1&list=PLXvy1DRoSfZlzszVv2sw3-IUPL6YlER6_ [11:00, Zulema Rodriguez] & https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transaction_period=2016&recipient_name=ZULEMA+RODRIGUEZ&min_date=01%2F01%2F2015&max_date=12%2F31%2F2016

Hplaza12 (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Neither of those sources are reliable for "the protesters at the Chicago rally were paid by Hillary's campaign and other groups working for the campaign". Please find a reputable newspaper, magazine, journal, or news web site that makes such an assertion.- MrX 20:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump rushed offstage by security at Reno, Nevada rally

Tonight (Nov. 5) Trump was rushed offstage at his rally by secret service in Reno, Nevada according to multiple news sources. In a video at the rally, Trump can be seen abruptly looking directly into crowd at something, only moments later secret service shielded him and brought him off the stage. Following that, officers went into the crowd and detained someone, bringing the man into a bathroom away from the crowd. Video and Sources:

Thanks. WClarke (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update The Trump campaign has released a statement thanking the Secret Service and law enforcement at the rally, though didn't elaborate on what happened. WClarke (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How often has the secret service needed to react during past presidential campaigns? What is pertinent about the incident is that, for what ever reason, it was the second time that the secret service had to whisk Trump off the stage and to safety. The very briefest elaboration as to who, what, why is explanation enough. Buster Seven Talk 12:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we include this then we need to describe what actually happened: an anti-Trump Republican tried to hold up a "Republicans against Trump" sign, at which point Trump's supporters jumped on him and knocked him down to the ground and began kicking, beating, and stomping him. Then someone in the crowd yelled "gun!" and that's when Secret Service rushed Trump off the stage. The anti-Trump Republican was escorted out and no gun was ever found. He was released shortly there after.

Yeah, we could include a couple sentences about this I guess.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a minor incident.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Minor indeed except the battery of the innocent sign-carrier by Trumps Army and for the twitter claims by Eric Trump that it was an assassination attempt. If we mention the sign-carrier we need to mention the extremely over-exaggerated response by senior members of the Trump team. Buster Seven Talk 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How should we cover the 73 year old, legally blind Trump supporter who allegedly punched a 69 year old woman?

Does this incident belong here at all, once we move past the early, sensational media coverage that let readers assume it was a young man battering an elderly woman? If so, should we mention the two parties's names—Shirley Teter and Richard L. Campbell? Finally, since we are quoting Teter's claim to have been "cold-clocked," can any of the following material from Snopes.com be included?: "Footage of the encounter shows 'Teter reaching out to (Campbell) ... from behind, using her left arm'; the man's lawyer asserted that her client 'reflexively moved his arm to release himself from Ms. Teter's grip, causing her to fall.'"TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it warrants inclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Snopes doesn't warrant inclusion. Moreover the insinuation that it's OK to punch a woman in the face as long as the puncher is 73 years old is grotesque OR, not unlike the rationalizations of pussy-grabbing by celebrities and forced kissing. This thread should be dropped and archived. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Upland was arguing that the incident itself lacks notability, and I agree with him. That said, if it is included, then both Teter's and Campbell's claims should be discussed. (SPECIFICO, I would appreciate it if you dropped the personal attacks such as the "grotesque ... insinuation that it's OK to punch a woman in the face," since no-one has ever made such an argument. There were plenty of witnesses and video evidence, and it looks like Teter grabbed and startled the legally blind Campbell, who reflexively brushed her aside; she was not "punched in the face" or seriously hurt—it was a hoax.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree minor incident, inclusion violates wp:weight NPalgan2 (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we include the story, we should mention the claims that the alleged victim was a Clinton campaign plant[4] and it is more relevant to the Clinton campaign article. TFD (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: What does that have to do with the guy clocking her? Isn't that like saying a woman was raped because she wore attractive clothing? If the opponent paid an actor to impersonate a violent Trump supporter and assault her, I could understand. But the assault was voluntary and it's been documented, so I don't see what difference it would make why she was at the rally. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should read up on rape before making such statements. Women do not provoke men to rape them and rape is a crime of violence and control not men being overcome by lust. Allegations of a campaign paying vulnerable people, whether homeless, mentally ill, or elderly are more serious than alleged assualt by an individual supporter of a campaign. TFD (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(NB: I didn't get into this aspect of the story because the Left will always say O'Keefe is just taking Democratic bosses out of context, but Teter being an operative actually makes perfect sense. It appears Teter was grabbing Trump supporters in the hope of provoking a reaction—although the only reaction she could get came from a blind man reflexively batting her away—and then immediately dropped to the ground despite barely being touched, before giving interviews about it with a large number of media outlets. That's not normal behavior, unless you're being paid to prove how "deplorable" Trump supporters truly are.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Promoting voter intimidation"

I have changed this to accusations of promoting voter intimidation. The cite given was to http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/donald-trump-voting-election-rigging.html " stirred increasing fears of intimidation”。 Note this is slightly weaker language and a quick googling of the first RSs i could find suggests that RSs are not currently saying in their own voice that DT's campaign is promoting voter initimidation, but using alleged, so we should follow:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/04/politics/trump-clinton-voter-intimidation/index.html "allegations of voter intimidation” http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/poll-monitoring-voter-intimidation-lawsuits/506078/ "Trump’s Alleged Voter-Intimidation Efforst” https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-latest-federal-judge-hears-voter-intimidation-arguments/2016/11/04/a9e8bf7e-a29f-11e6-8864-6f892cad0865_story.html "allegations Republican volunteers are engaging in voter intimidation" I suggest we follow this and see if weight of RSs shifts. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary results

According to The Green Papers, Trump led all Republicans with 14,015,993 votes during the primary. This is the highest amount ever received by a Republican.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign&oldid=748227658"