Talk:President of the United States

"Selection process" section is junk

This section is very poorly structured, and comes across more as someone's personal musings and recollections of a presidential election cycle, than any kind of useful informational resource. First of all, the selection process is by way of the electoral college. They are the ones who select the President. This section treats that fact as an afterthought. Second, the very idea of a "campaigns and nominations" subsection very inappropriately elevates a tangential matter. The "prior experience" subsection is altogether pointless, at best. Should we talk about pets as well? No prior experience is required, no pets are required, no vaccinations are required. There is no reason to go out of the way to have an entire subsection to about some hypothesized eligibility criterion that not existing. It is sufficient to have an eligibility subsection that lists the requirements that DO exist. If some absence from those requirements is really so notable (and I would reject the idea that such is the case here) it can be mentioned and discussed in that section. Finally, the inauguration subsection is entirely out of place, as the inauguration itself has nothing to do with the election process and only occurs well after the selection process is complete.

I would recommend this section be restructured as follows: 1) Electoral college, explaining the constitutional establishment of this process, that states have long deferred to choosing electors committed to individual candidates that are chosen by popular choice of their voters, and the difference between winner-take-all and partial award states regarding electors, and the constitutionally prescribed contingencies; 2) Election Cycles, explaining that political parties typically choose their endorsed candidates through a primary season where the party membership elects candidates, giving way to a general season where those candidates focus on securing enough electoral votes to win election; 3) Eligibility, where the actual requirements and limitations in the constitution are detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:B07B:9700:7590:F425:4CF1:84F0 (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2025

Minor edit. "Under Critics of presidency's evolution" there is repetition:

"The nation's Founding Fathers expected the Congress, which was the first branch of government described in the Constitution, to be the dominant branch of government; however, they did not expect a strong executive department.[62] However, presidential power has shifted over time,"

I'd change the first however to "but," or the second to "yet" or some other equivalent. Delukiel (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done I just removed the first use of the word and it seems to flow better. Thanks for the request. cyberdog958^Talk 08:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2025

Hi there I was reading this which I page and I noticed there's a lot of incorrect law going on here and because I'm a legal study student I would just like to fix the laws that are being presented that are absolutely incorrect please give me the authority to do so. Thank you very much for reading this and taking the time just to address the issue. The one issue is that the fact that the ultimate statement says that the president has ultimate power over the government which is not the case there are three branches of government that control are entirety of government the judicial the legislative and the presidential if we can make sure that's added to this week I page so people don't get the wrong impression that that president or any president of the United States has ultimate power and that is not the case. 2603:7000:CA00:3C90:9451:C53B:427A:BC59 (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Feeglgeef (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

On Capitalizing "President" in Reference to the U.S. Head of State

When referring to the President of the United States—or the president of any nation—the title should be capitalized when it directly replaces the individual's name or refers to the full official capacity and title of the position. This aligns with standard rules for proper nouns. For example, we say President Washington, not president Washington—so we should write the President of the United States, not the president of the United States, when referring to the office held by a specific individual or to the proper title of the position itself.

Lowercase is appropriate when referencing the office in a general or abstract sense, such as: "The president has the authority to..." This usage refers to the role, not the person.

Capitalization reflects precision and respect for the office, not the officeholder. It’s not about politics; it’s about consistency and clarity. Wikipedia, as a widely referenced public resource, should uphold high editorial standards—even in details that might seem minor. Quality matters, and accuracy builds trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.26.249 (talk) 03:**, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, what do you actually want me to change?

Second, "The 47th and current president of the United States is Donald John Trump." is an official government example of the capitalization, which isn't an issue I disagree with you on. So if there is an error, please, point it out.

Finally, remember to sign your posts using the following markup:

~~~~

1101 (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Travels during post-presidencies?

I recently expanded the Post presidency activities section, particularly in regards to long-gone presidents. One of the things I mentioned is that several 19th and early 20th century presidents took Grand Tours of Europe, and occasionally elsewhere, during their post-presidencies. Examples:

1. Martin Van Buren was the first post-president to visit Britain
2. Millard Fillmore was called handsome when he met Queen Victoria
3. World tour of Ulysses S. Grant has a whole article
4. Theodore Roosevelt went on an African safari followed by a trip to Europe where he was the "unofficial official" American representative at the funeral of Edward VIII

I had added the sentence Since the mid-19th century, many former presidents have taken a Grand Tour of foreign lands during their post-presidencies, but I was reverted. Can I get a consensus to add that back? Maybe with slight modifications? Sources for all four of those travels can be provided if need be. _pbp 14:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Timeline Colours

Should Lincoln's second term use the National Union shading (like Johnson's?)

"Leader of the free world"

This is a discussion started for this edit-revert cycle. I am the one who proposed the edit. The 'leader of the free world' narrative has been recently widely criticized. In fact it was criticized even in Trump's first term, but especially now with the tariffs and withdrawal of Ukraine support. The edit was sourced and not clear why it was reverted. Pinging reverter Drdpw. JDiala (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I very much agree that this sections requires an update. Historically I support this as being tru. However with the President Trumps second term, I would argue that this section is now factually incorrect.

Please compare the Wikipedia definitions of leadership with bullying. Consider the dictionary definitions of a leader vs. a bully. Put this in the context of Donald Trump in his second term as US President

Comparing Definitions: Leadership vs. Bullying

Leadership

According to Wikipedia and standard dictionaries, leadership is generally defined as the act of guiding or influencing individuals or groups toward achieving common goals. A leader is someone who inspires, motivates, and directs others, often characterized by qualities such as vision, integrity, empathy, and the ability to foster collaboration and trust. Leadership is typically associated with positive influence, ethical behavior, and the pursuit of collective benefit.

Bullying

In contrast, bullying is defined as the repeated use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. A bully is someone who seeks to harm, control, or humiliate others, often targeting those perceived as vulnerable. Bullying is marked by an imbalance of power, a disregard for the well-being of others, and actions that serve the bully’s interests at the expense of others’ rights or dignity.

Leadership vs. Bullying: Key Differences

Leadership (Wikipedia/Dictionary)

• Guides, inspires, and influences others toward common goals
• Motivated by collective benefit, vision, and ethical responsibility
• Uses collaboration, persuasion, empathy, and integrity
• Power is shared or delegated, based on respect and trust
• Results in empowerment, growth, and positive change

Bullying (Wikipedia/Dictionary)

• Intimidates, coerces, and dominates others for self-interest
• Motivated by personal gain, power, control, or humiliation
• Uses threats, aggression, fear, and manipulation
• Power dynamic is imbalanced, based on fear and submission
• Results in harm, fear, resentment, and suppression

Context: Donald Trump’s Second Term

Trump’s Leadership Style

Analyses of Donald Trump’s second term describe his approach as highly personalist, leader-centered, and often authoritarian. He positions himself as the only strong leader capable of decisive action, frequently dismissing traditional checks and balances such as Congress or the courts. His communication style is marked by dominance, low frustration tolerance, and frequent use of insults or dismissals when challenged. Trump’s leadership is described as “pugilistic rather than pluralistic,” focused on quick wins through confrontation and transactional decision-making, rather than consensus or long-term stability.

Bullying Behaviors

Several sources explicitly characterize Trump’s behavior as bullying. He is noted for using fear and threats to oppress opponents, withdraw support from vulnerable groups, and demand loyalty from subordinates. Trump’s administration has been described as weaponizing government agencies against critics, politicizing the civil service, and using executive power to punish dissenters. This approach aligns closely with dictionary definitions of bullying: leveraging power to intimidate, coerce, and dominate others for personal or political gain.

“He is using fear to literally oppress his opponents… He is bullying those people, and we all know that bullies are thugs.”

Leadership vs. Bullying in Trump’s Presidency

While Trump’s supporters may view his style as strong leadership, many analysts and critics argue that his methods cross the line into bullying. His reliance on threats, retaliation, and personal loyalty over institutional norms and ethical standards reflects a leadership style that is more aligned with bullying than with the collaborative, inspirational qualities associated with positive leadership.

Trump’s Second Term: Leadership vs. Bullying Behaviors

Actions/Traits Associated with Bullying

• Uses threats and fear to control others
• Demands personal loyalty from subordinates
• Dismisses dissent as betrayal
• Centralizes power and bypasses traditional norms

Actions/Traits Associated with Leadership

• Inspires or empowers supporters
• Seeks quick wins through confrontation

Actions/Traits Not Strongly Associated

• Fosters collaboration and trust (not evident)

Conclusion

The standard definitions of leadership and bullying highlight a fundamental difference: leadership is about guiding and empowering others for collective benefit, while bullying is about dominating and intimidating for personal gain. In the context of Donald Trump’s second term, many of his actions and behaviors—such as using threats, demanding loyalty, and retaliating against critics—align more closely with the definition of bullying than with positive, ethical leadership. 80.80.21.178 (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Take the prompt out next time. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)