If you hang out with a loser, you are a loser?Edit
It should be correctly quoted: "I've always said, if you hang out with losers, you become a loser. And that's what's happened to you, Alex". -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apprentice_3
This page is ridiculous. They cite FAIR as the source for racists comments by Trump. FAIR is a far left hate group that cannot be trusted for directions to a gas station. 22.214.171.124 03:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
-  FAIR is meticulously accurate, and Trump not only has not disputed the quotes, he himself told Playboy, "The stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true." — Robin Lionheart 22:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
FAIR is a joke, not accurate in the least. They, like Media Matters serve only to attack by taking words out of context. They are only a mouthpiece for far-left wackadoos. 126.96.36.199 20:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- What's your best example of an inaccurate quote by FAIR (assuming you have any at all)?
- You can become an editor here too, anonymous namecaller. If you find an inaccurate quote on this wiki, then cite a reliable source and correct it. If more context would make a quote on this wiki mean something different, then cite a reliable source and provide it. — Robin Lionheart 17:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The quotes you published are perfect examples. Trump never said the quotes regarding blacks were "probably true." He was speaking of the book in general. There is no proof he actually said and FAIR is not considered reliable. The book, "The Way Things Aren't" by FAIR about Rush Limbaugh, was full of inaccuracies and half truths. For example they took Limbaugh to task for saying that there is more forest land today than when Columbus arrived. That was a quote taken out of context. That is just one example,; do the research. My point is that FAIR would not be considered a reliable source by anyone except on some wiki site because they traffic in far left politics, lies, and quotes taken out of context. You might as well be quoting Media Matters, who would not be considered a reliable source either. You are going to have to do much better than that if you want anyone to take you seriously. Do some research before you post instead of trying to look for something that matches your political beliefs and posting it, regardless of the source. 188.8.131.52 03:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, so your best example is FAIR's book The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error citing Rush Limbaugh saying "We have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the Constitution was written." on his radio show on 1994-02-18 (when according to the US Forest Service, the opposite is true). What additional context do you think that quote needs? (You will also want to provide it on the Rush Limbaugh page where I've just added that quotation.) — Robin Lionheart 18:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I've done what I set out to do here, which is expose the fact that you used a poor source to further your political beliefs. Nobody but a far left wackodoo would even try to put FAIR as a source. I've proved my point. Don't worry little fella, nobody is going to delete your quote; but they will see why you put it here. You wanted to portray him as a racist, when the opposite is true; shown by his life and words. You should be ashamed. I am done here as I have accomplished my goal. Good luck to you. STUDY and LEARN. 184.108.40.206 22:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- To prove your point, you had to back up your charges that FAIR is "not accurate in the least" and traffics in "lies" and "quotes taken out of context". Since you did not, your victory lap seems premature. However, you may have accomplished your goal, if your goal was to anonymously wage an unsubstantiated smear campaign. Should you ever have anything of substance to say challenging a quote here, do come back and share it. — Robin Lionheart 02:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Our anonymous interlocutor is merely exhibiting the same sort of ad hominem genetic fallacy that is so widespread in contemporary polemics. My beef with popular "commentators" (left, right, and center) is that the prevalence of their disingenuous rhetoric has so poisoned public discourse that many otherwise sensible people are misled into honestly believing that this sort of bogus argument actually proves anything. The celebrity commentators are smart enough to know it is nonsense, but cynically pretend to drink their own Kool-Aid because it convinces the gullible to gulp it down. ~ Ningauble 17:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
This quote has now been given a section of its own by Illegitimate Barrister, which will make it stand out even more. I disagree with the IP complaining above, who apparently believes the quote should be deleted. But if the book in question was indeed written by "a fired and totally disgruntled employee" (as seems to be the case), then the quote is of course very problematic. I changed the title of the section to "Disputed", and quoted Trump's defense (it is not clear from the Washington Examiner article whether Trump specifically denied the quote). For what it's worth, its final words ("It really is, I believe that.") make me think the quote is made up. ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Quoting rival political candidatesEdit
DanielTom (talk · contributions) has added a neutrality dispute header to the About section because it includes a quote by Rick Perry. This is not uncommon. Frex, we have a quote by Mitt Romney on the Barack Obama page, and vice versa. To the contrary, it'd be biased of us to not include notable quotations criticizing a political candidate. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's not the reason. All quotes, except one, are insulting or attacking Trump (even his IQ). Do you honestly think that section (as it is now) can be considered neutral and balanced? ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Although he definitely disputed the quote later, the interview where he said the allegations were "probably true" should not be treated as a denial just because he also insulted the person quoting him.--Mugasofer (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists.
We 100% sure this is accurate? It seems like it could also be this:
- They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime, their rapists.
The 'people that have lots of problems' quote is talking about a list of things they bring with them, not describing those people, as we can see in those earlier too points, so it seems odd that he would suddenly out of the blue say 'they're rapists!' as opposed so saying they are bringing their rapists, as in rapists are a portion rather than an entirety of the PTHLOP.
Obviously this is the sound bite that a lot of people are running with. The closed captions for a clip of this shown on The Passionate Eye even reads "they are rapists" (which is false because he clearly does not say 'are').
- The second option is not a particularly logical reading, for three reasons. First, it is a consistent series of "they're" statements which follows the rule of three (which Trump consistently uses). Second, "They're rapists" - is accusing "them" of being rapists, whereas "their rapists" would be accusing the "them" of "bringing" their rapists, which creates a rather awkward category of "people who bring rapists". Third, this also doesn't fit with the statement that follows, that "some, I assume, are good people"; if the last object referent is not "Mexicans" as a whole, but merely "their rapists", then Trump would be saying that he assumes some of the rapists are good people. That seems unlikely. BD2412 T 13:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)