Who is Un-American now? edit
Some conversations edit
3 Problems w/ Melania's Plagiarism edit
of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute and contributing editor for The Atlantic Monthly said; ""If Leni Riefenstahl were alive, Trump would hire her to film this speech. Then not pay her.""
When Trump claims edit
"...Mr. Khan who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution", it only proves that he has not read the Constitution since the Constitution’s Bill of Rights freedom of speech gives Mt Khan the right. You could say Trump doesn't know the first thing about the Constitution. And you'd be right.
Debates edit
The Presidential debates are currently scheduled for Sept26, Oct9 and Oct19. The NFL denies it wrote Donald Trump any letter about any debate dates. In spite of Trump saying a letter was received, the NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy says a letter to Trump was never sent. Says Trump, ""“I’ll tell you what I don’t like,” Trump said. “It’s (the debates) against two NFL games. I got a letter from the NFL saying so.” ... and ... "As usual, Hillary & the Democrats are trying to rig the debates so 2 are up against major NFL games. Same as last time w/ Bernie. Unacceptable!" Nobody rigged anything. The decision was made independent of the two campaigns more than a year ago.
Koch Brothers money edit
Republican benefactors and meeting with the Koch brothers to discuss financial assistance to Republican candidates. In past election years over $750 million dollars was raised and spent, mostly on the presidential race. The Koch Brothers announced they will not be contributing any money to the Trump campaign.
Hillary in Omaha edit
Warren Buffett introduces her 8/1/2016 Challenges Trump to a Filed Tax comparison Q&A
- Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic (RET) is Trump's Natl Sec Policy advisor.
Misrepresenting sources edit
I want to call out a particularly egregious misuse of sources here. The source in question, "Netflix CEO says 'Trump would destroy much of what is great about America'" (CNBC), focuses on criticism of Trump by a host of major business leaders. But CFred instead cites the source to write: "Trump has been endorsed by a number of members of the business community..." I mean, why not just hang out a sign that says "I have no respect for the content or context of reliable sources, except insofar as I can use them to advance my political agenda"? This is extremely poor editing, and I've reworded the sentence so that it reflects the content of the source. More generally, we should probably review the article to ensure that sources are being used to convey their actual content, and not cherry-picked or misused in this manner. MaCe 20:15, 27June2016
- The source documents that Trump's reception by the business community has been largely, but not entirely, negative. To cherry-pick only the few positive sentences about Trump, and to ignore both the vast majority of the source's content and its overall message, is a poor editing practice, because it flips the meaning of the source on its head. I don't know how to explain this more clearly. Do you really see no problem with using a source entitled "Netflix CEO says 'Trump would destroy much of what is great about America'" to write the phrase "Trump has been endorsed by a number of members of the business community..."? MaCe 20:51, 27June2016
BLP violation? edit
To the point, I think this is an example of someone seeing something negative and reflexively assuming it must be a BLP violation. In this case, the actual policy is very clear that even negative material is appropriate, and in fact mandatory, for inclusion if it is widely reported and supported by multiple independent, reliable sources. Obviously, many such sources describe a racially charged or frankly racist element to Trump's rhetoric. Conveying that is not a BLP violation. MaCe 18:06, 2August2016 Out of curiosity, what are those sources about Romney/Ryan? I'm not sure what you mean by "pure motives". I mean, they're politicians—their motives are political. That's what is so unprecedented about this - there is a huge incentive for a politician to fall in line behind a party's Presidential nominee, even in the face of substantial disagreements (cf. Bernie Sanders endorsing Hillary Clinton). It's literally unheard of for the Speaker of the House to call out his own Party's nominee for "textbook racism" or "anti-Semitism" during an active campaign. MaCe 23:11, 2August2016 It's sort of laughable to claim undue weight in this setting. We're talking about a few paragraphs (out of a massive, sprawling article), about a heavily covered (Khan's speech and aftermath) incident. I mean, are you asserting with a straight face that we should have extensive coverage of The_Donald subreddit (as we do now), but none of this incident and its fallout? I would strongly encourage you to restore coverage of this incident; if you feel the language can be improved, please do so, but to remove it entirely is inappropriate, and a continuation of previous inappropriately partisan and policy-defying behavior on your part. MaCe 23:15, 2August2016