POV: Reelect Donald Trump President

Photo of President of the United States Donald Trump speaking at the 2018 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. He stands at a podium in front of a big screen and points at the crowd. He has a suit and red tie on. Overlay reads 'POV'.

Photo by Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons

Voices & Opinion

POV: Reelect Donald Trump President

He “trusts Americans to act in their best interests when it comes to the pandemic”

October 30, 2020
66
Twitter Facebook

Four years ago, one of the most astounding political movements in American history culminated in an election night victory for Donald Trump. By electing him president, the American people said no to Washington, bucking the establishment that had forgotten about them for so long. This time around, President Trump is running against the epitome of the establishment: former Vice President Joe Biden, a man who has spent 44 years in government with few notable accomplishments.

Since taking office in 2017, President Trump’s energy has matched the American spirit—a sharp contrast from his opponent, whose public appearances continue to be limited and uninspiring during his fear-driven campaign. Trump never needed this job, and the day-to-day effort he continues to put in for the American people at age 74 is remarkable. While questions persist regarding whether Joe Biden profited off the vice presidency, President Trump has undeniably lost money since he began working for the people four years ago, the mark of a selfless leader.

Americans, on the other hand, have made money since President Trump took office—at least until COVID-19 arrived in the United States following months of cover-ups from the Chinese government. Prior to the pandemic, our nation’s unemployment rate had reached a 50-year low, and wage growth was consistent after volatile years under the Obama administration. Fortunately, the United States has gained back more than half of the jobs lost when the pandemic hit this spring, and the stock market has rebounded significantly. That recovery will only accelerate once a vaccine becomes available in the near future. 

Vice President Mike Pence was correct when he said during the vice presidential debate on October 8 that Biden’s plan to address COVID-19 largely mirrors the Trump administration’s actions right now. America is routinely testing more than one million people each day, personal protective equipment is widely available, and the administration has implemented strict requirements to protect nursing home residents following the fatal failures of Democratic governors early in the pandemic.

There are a few differences, however, between Trump’s actions and Biden’s plan. Trump’s Operation Warp Speed already has America on track for a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine; the New York Times, citing health experts, says the FDA is likely to begin approving vaccines within the next three months. 

Biden has touted a national mask mandate as the centerpiece of his plan, but both he and his running mate, Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) have admitted that they would not enforce such a mandate.

President Trump has made it clear that he trusts Americans to act in their best interests when it comes to the pandemic, coming out strongly against government-imposed restrictions that only temporarily halt the inevitable spread of the virus, as we’re seeing across Europe at the moment. Biden, on the other hand, has said that he would shut down the country if “recommended,” despite the crippling impact another lockdown would have on businesses that managed to survive the initial surge in the spring.

This election is about freedom, but it’s also about safety. If Biden is elected, the keys will be handed over to the party that too often turns a blind eye to chaos in the streets, demonizes law enforcement, and allows criminals back onto the streets under the guise of “bail reform.” These are not policies that keep people safe, and they are not policies you will ever see under President Trump.

Foreign policy is rarely mentioned as a key issue in this election, and that is not a coincidence. The Trump administration has vanquished ISIS, taken out terrorist leaders, and refused to get involved in more endless wars. Biden, meanwhile, voted in favor of the Iraq War in 2002 and “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” according to former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who served under President Obama.

Under President Trump, gone are the days of the Washington establishment’s hawkish policies. Reviving that worldview by electing Biden would be a grave mistake.

Domestically, Joe Biden has cast himself as a moderate, but he’s evaded questions on ideas proposed by the far left, such as packing the US Supreme Court and eliminating the filibuster. His running mate has held so many different positions on key issues that it’s tough to tell exactly where she stands on anything.

Never has there been so much uncertainty surrounding what the presidential ticket for a major party actually believes. With Donald Trump, you’re getting Donald Trump. With Joe Biden, you’re getting whatever the unappeasable far-left wing of the Democratic Party wants on a given day. At a time when Americans deserve stability, the greatest danger of a Biden-Harris administration is the unknown.

Much like 2016, this is a unique year in our history. This is a moment in time that requires bold leadership, decisive action, and a president who is visible on the national stage. Donald Trump is the man for the moment.

Dan Treacy (COM’22), media director of Young Americans for Freedom at BU, can be reached at djt5900@bu.edu. This column represents the author’s view and does not represent the views of YAF at BU.

 

Explore Related Topics:

  • Share this story
  • 66 Comments Add

Share

POV: Reelect Donald Trump President

Share

  • Dan Treacy (COM’22)

    Dan Treacy (COM’22) is media director of Young Americans for Freedom at BU, and can be reached at djt5900@bu.edu. Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 66 comments on POV: Reelect Donald Trump President

  1. Nice to see that some BU students can still think for themselves and be intellectually honest. Sadly many students are letting group think and peer pressure influence them into saying and doing things that the group says are politically correct. Students who vote for Biden today will regret it 20 years from now when their children ask how they could have been so foolish to vote for a career politician who espoused the virtues of socialism over capitalism and freedom. But I guess when you have yet to pay taxes, run a business or tried raise your own kids it can he hard to see the future consequences of your naive actions when these feel right in the heat of the moment.

    Reply
    Link

    1. I can assure you that those of us voting for Biden are motivated by careful analysis of the facts. We have witnessed the president not only fail to respond to the pandemic, arguably the worst crisis to affect Americans in 75 years, but actively undermine public health officials’ efforts to inform the public and contain the spread. Instead of responding to climate change, which poses an existential threat to humanity, the president has tried to revive the dying coal industry and impede the inevitable progress of renewable energy. We have witnessed the breakdown in law and order from the president’s stoking of racial tensions and instigation of far-right extremists and terrorist groups that have wreaked destruction in our cities and plotted to kidnap and murder multiple government officials. We have observed the president bow down to foreign dictators like Putin, who ordered bounties on American soldiers, while shunning our democratic allies. We saw our parents pay more in taxes because of the tax “cuts” that eliminated the interest deduction on home equity loans, which homeowners often use to pay for their children’s college tuition or their own student debt, while the wealthiest Americans were enriched. We have seen the president’s disregard for the laws of the United States, evidenced by his use or attempted use of his position and the Justice Department to attack his political opponents. We have seen his disregard for the gravity of the presidency; his words and (mis)conduct are a disgrace to the office he holds.

      Peer pressure and political correctness are not influencing our vote, and I will certainly not regret my choice. I want to live, work, and raise children in a safe, sustainable society that prizes fairness, decency, and respect. That is why I am voting for Biden.

      Reply
      Link

      1. Thank you Joe for a well written comment. It is clear now that you were spot on and the original article here would have encouraged the American people to cede their democracy for a phony.

        Reply
        Link

  2. Wow, good job BU Today. Publishing different views does not mean letting someone express blatant lies. The opinion piece mentions “history” several times, but clearly this student has no knowledge of US history. The Democrat Party is not “far left,” it’s a centrist party and has been since Bill Clinton and the New Dems. What has happened in the last few decades is the Republican Party has shifted to the extreme, radical right that flirts with fascism. Call it what it is, news outlets like BU Today give these inaccurate, misleading “opinions” a platform to spread hate and lies.

    Reply
    Link

    1. The republican party shifted when the democrats took advantage of controlling all three branches to force the ACA on 50% Americans who did not support their plan

      It was sadly the Democrats own selfish bullying behavior that gave rise to the current backlash

      Reply
      Link

      1. The idea of the ACA came from the Heritage Foundation, a rightwing thinktank. Here’s a quick 2011 article from Forbes citing the Wall Street Journal (by no means “leftist” publications): https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/?sh=7e864f456187

        Republican Mitt Romney implemented a similar plan in Massachusetts, which the Obama administration essentially copied.

        This is why recent history is important.

        Reply
        Link

        1. Political think tanks are are not elected to represent the people.

          Mitt Romney is not a true conservative and what he did to the people of Mass does not excuse what Dems did to entire country during Obama years. RINO conservatives like Mitt who lost to Obama helped give rise to Trump.

          Reply
          Link

  3. Kudos to Dan for having the courage to publish his POV. I would just remind Dan that as a person in the first stage of his life, it might behoove him to vote for the candidate that wants to address the nonpartisan, non-discriminatory, existential crisis of climate change.

    It’s hard to enjoy all the freedoms granted to Americans and prosperity generated by conservative policies if you’re pushed into a migratory lifestyle based on record floods, storms, fires, and droughts. Even the Pentagon acknowledges this is a national security issue.

    Reply
    Link

  4. Why do white men constantly write about freedom? As if they’ve ever known oppression in any sense. Do you have a mother, Dan? What about sisters? Do you care about any of the women in your life? Do you have any friends of color? Do you care about their safety and freedom to survive in this country? I think if you did, you wouldn’t be arguing to re-elect human garbage.

    Reply
    Link

    3. I am a person of color with a mother and I do not see as his advocacy for Trump’s re-election is somehow logically inconsistent with his consideration of people like me or my family. Where my family comes from, freedom does not exist. I hope my family did not come here, fleeing from oppression and tyranny, only to be met by Americans trying to guilt each other into justifying a degradation of our liberties.

      I think all reasonable people should be concerned about their freedoms, regardless of your color. I find it quite offensive that if you were to have met me or my mother that you would assume that we would not care about our freedoms simply because we are not white men. FYI you would be WRONG, and if you said this in person to anybody reasonable you would surely feel silly for making such ignorant implications.

      If you think white people have not faced oppression, you are simply mistaken. All it takes is a quick google search to find that out (Example: Soviet Russia, Holocaust, Serfdom in Europe). Even if I acknowledge the reality of white privilege is a thing, such an assertion that white men have never faced oppression can only come from absolute ignorance of history or a bad-faith effort to smear someone for their opinion.

      Reply
      Link

      1. Actually Ahmed, White people are not oppressed. Yes Jewish people faced oppression during the Holocaust and still face discrimination today but there is no system like the criminal justice system, education, or housing with actively discriminated against them. Black people and POC still have oppressive systems set up against them. White people get systems which work for them. Serfdom existed many centuries ago but it was not oppression based on race because they were white. it was Classism and it’s been dismantled. Soviet Russia had oppressive tactics but not based on race but they just did not value human rights. It was not an issue of race at all. White people are not disproportionately killed by police as Black people are in America. Systems work for the white people. Before you try and sympathize with them, please do your research.

        Reply
        Link

        1. Trust me, the positions I take are not because of a lack of research. It’s a silly thing to say since I can just say the same thing to you. What you said in your comment didn’t respond to what I said, you’re arguing against claims I didn’t make.

          White people have experienced oppression in history, period. What you said doesn’t refute that. My point anyway was that it was ridiculous to assert that advocacy for freedom is exclusive to white men. If you disagree with that position, then feel free to respond to that. Otherwise, writing a reply that doesn’t actually contend with what I said while insulting me for a lack of research, only serves to prove your inability to listen when someone is speaking, or motivation to respond only to prove a point, not to genuinely engage and get to the truth.

          FYI if you equalize for number of interactions, white people are slightly more likely to be killed by police on any given police interaction in the United States. I don’t believe the police problem in the United States is mainly a race problem. But that’s aside from my original point, I just thought you should know that: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/11/opinion/statistical-paradox-police-killings/%3foutputType=amp

          Reply
          Link

    4. Many of those white men who will be voting for Trump are law enforcement officers, firefighters and military who risk their lives everyday protecting the freedoms we all enjoy. All of them have mothers and many have wives and daughters too.

      Reply
      Link

  5. While you certainly sound very comfortable in your glass house of alternate realities, I would hope that your time at BU teaches you to think more critically. At this point, if you actually believe half the things you just wrote, you are either willfully ignorant, maliciously misleading, or both.

    Let us take one small example, as I don’t have the time, will, or energy to refute this absurdity line-by-line:

    “President Trump has undeniably lost money since he began working for the people four years ago, the mark of a selfless leader.”

    President Trump has vacationed at his own properties nearly every other week of his presidency, charging the US Secret Service exorbitant fees for lodging, and even golf carts. Meanwhile, he has refused to divest himself of his international businesses, and has been credibly found on multiple occasions to be leveraging the Presidency to his own personal financial gain. There has never been any politician in American history more overtly self-interested than Donald Trump. How you could even consider describing him as a ‘selfless leader’ goes beyond the level of stupidity into willfully creating an alternate reality that suits your own racist, xenophobic, and fascist beliefs.

    I genuinely hope that someday you are able to come to terms with what a fool you have made of yourself here today. That is the first step towards regaining some semblance of the honor, dignity, and compassion, which you have divested yourself of.

    Reply
    Link

    1. “willfully ignorant”
      “maliciously misleading”
      “what a fool you have made of yourself”

      Ladies and gentlemen, I give you “Exhibit A” as to what constitutes debate for the leftist. Powerful stuff.

      Reply
      Link

      2. “the leftist”. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you “Exhibit A” as to what constitutes debate for the alt-right. Powerful stuff.

        Why don’t you respond to the one point of many Nora could’ve decided to refute?

        Reply
        Link

      3. In the very first comment on this article, “Missy” preemptively frames anyone who might disagree with it as intellectually dishonest, weak-willed, cowardly, foolish, short-sighted, immature, and naïve. Perhaps we can call that “Exhibit B.”

        It strikes me as disingenuous to first set the tone of the debate with a series of ad hominems and then feign disappointment and outrage when the opposition replies in kind, but I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

        Reply
        Link

  6. Hello Dan, thank you for sharing your point of view. I would love if you could share some of your sources for the points you mention above as I’m not quite sure what you mean. Above you mention that Americans are making more money and have more jobs under Trump however the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) would indicate otherwise. According to the real data given by CBO, President Trump entered office when unemployment was already declining and the number of new jobs was steadily increasing thanks to Obama. Since Trump took office the rate at which new jobs are being created has actually decreased by 23% since Obama. Additionally, data from CBO shows that Trump’s tax plan is significantly increasing the income inequality as his plans benefit high-income tax payers and corporations but yet hurt lower-income tax payers. Regarding your points on COVID-19 Trump has repeatedly told Americans the pandemic was not as serious as it was, has given Americans much misinformation about the pandemic, has held large and irresponsible public gatherings just to promote his campaign, and has constantly urged his supporters to distrust science. There are many inconsistencies in what you have put forth above and I’ve only addressed part of it. Trump does not have the best interests of Americans in mind, he is only benefitting the large business, like his own, and hurting many Americans, he has contributed to the unforgivably high number of COVID-19 deaths in America, he is not addressing the racism and racial inequality present in our country (especially in the justice system), and the list goes on. As Buttigieg accurately pointed out “maybe the president doesn’t care about other people.”

    Reply
    Link

  7. I guess if racist, bigoted, narcissistic, a lecherous creep, and a complete failure of a businessman and human being meets your definition for “man for the moment”, he’s certainly it. Wonder what look-aid you guys drink to be so disconnected from reality?

    Reply
    Link

  8. This article consists of nothing but assertions unbacked by evidence. It fails to even approach the level of an argument. On top of all that, it’s author is a member of a fascist organization. Shame on BU Today for publishing this garbage.

    Reply
    Link

      1. Do you honestly believe that deciding not to use your platform to publish another’s opinion constitutes “silencing?”

        If so, I have some ideas for a billboard I’d like to put on your front lawn.

        Reply
        Link

  9. Okay, so you think we should vote for a racist, white supremacist, anti-LGBT person who has done whatever he can to kick out Muslims, frame Mexicans and Latino people as criminals, and paint Black Americans as untrue Americans.

    Sure, Dan. Grow up and get your head out of your bucket of lies.

    Signed, a democrat just left of center (basically, our party is centrist, the “far left” is the DSA and AOC. See? Even you couldn’t get your party positions right, haha! Just like every other Trump fan.)

    Reply
    Link

  10. Data show that Trump’s main support is among white men without a college degree. Hopefully by the time Dan graduates in 2022 his views will have evolved. (My apologies if Dan is an African American male. I would need to write another response to his argument if that were the case.)

    Reply
    Link

      1. This reads as an intentional misunderstanding. Here, James acknowledges his (correct, for what it’s worth) assumption that Dan is a white male who does not yet have a college degree, while noting that Trump’s main base is white men without college degrees. The idea is that once Dan graduates, he will no longer be a white male without a college degree, because he will then be a white male with a college degree; James expresses hope that in the process of getting his college degree, Dan’s views will change based on learning more about the world around him. Of course, if Dan were not white, then he would already not be a white male without a college degree, so the joke would rather fall flat.

        Furthermore, while Trump’s support among African American men has increased, the overwhelming majority of African American men are still against Trump, as polls show. So another implication is that Dan’s point of view would be typical for a white man without a college degree, and James would be inclined to dismiss it as “more of the same,” whereas if this view were coming from someone who’s not so expected to think this way, he would be more inclined to engage on a deeper level.

        In this case, James actually recognizes that someone might be offended if he assumed their skin color based on their opinions. Framing this merely as “talking differently to people based on the color of their skin” is a bit specious.

        Reply
        Link

        1. “My apologies if Dan is an African American male. I would need to write another response to his argument if that were the case”

          I don’t know where you grew up, but where I come from, we call that racism.

          Reply
          Link

  11. This piece is actually insane, how’re you still supporting him? Something I find most interesting is the capacity of the so called ‘far left Democrats’ to criticize our presidential candidate while with the GOP it is blind obedience and sworn loyalty to Trump as he effectively poops all over what America stands for. How can you even say that what Trump has done during the pandemic has been effective when their first move was to ignore the warning signs because it looked like it was only hitting Democratic cities. That is plain moral depravity right there and blatant stupidity to not expect for it to spread across the US. And then to pit the states against each other to fight for PPE while everyday for over 6 months the administration says we’re ‘rounding the corner’ on a NASCAR racetrack of COVID-19.

    I feel that it is evidence enough as the election has been going on these past few weeks that the GOP is not a political party anymore – it is an organized crime ring where the politicians only advance the views of their biggest funders. Have you been watching the active voter suppression happen across the US, postal delays, removal of ballot boxes, voter intimidation etc. ? That is actively anti-American and anti-democracy. Cheating is the only way to win for Trump and it’s the only way he knows how. He is the biggest grifter the presidency has ever seen and has completely tarnished the meaning of being president of the US. He has condoned violence against political opponents and you say that Biden has a fear driven campaign and I’d counter that that is the gameplan with all of the GOP. Notice how the GOP runs on stoking the fear of ‘others’ and getting people to vote (most of the time against their best interest) in order to harm others and in fear of what progress would mean to their antiquated worldview and status quo. The ads don’t have a plan or policies anymore, they’re just stoking fear and hatred for progress.

    Reply
    Link

  12. Can’t believe this propaganda actually says “the mark of a selfless leader.” It’s embarrassing to see this on BU Today and to see that someone who goes to BU would be so uneducated by their junior year. There’s nothing wrong with an article comparing candidates but this “article” is just the babbling of a naive kid who refuses to look at the state this country is in as a result of Trump’s presidency and choses to overlook the racism and sexism clearly demonstrated by our “selfless leader.”

    I sincerely hope that the author isn’t pursuing a career in journalism because nothing about this article shows coherent thought or any interest in the truth. Get this article off BU Today, this trash should stay on whatever Trump 2020 online forum this kid copied it from.

    Reply
    Link

    1. I learned a very good piece of advice when I was younger from my Middle School English teacher: “If you find yourself getting emotional and upset during a discussion, it almost always means that you are in the wrong.”

      The lesson that I think you should take from this is if you are ever feeling embarrassed for someone articulating their case for why they believe one way or the other, and you aren’t able to think of an equally articulate response to why you believe the other way, that maybe you should reconsider your own opinion, not jump to being hyper-critical of theirs.

      Trust that this is better advice for in person when the person can actually respond to you. Many times in my life did I find myself outraged arguing about a political issues I cared deeply about to only feel stupid in the end when I found that I had far less reason and substance to base my beliefs on than they did for their beliefs. Eventually, I grew out of it (at least I hope) soon after than discussion in like 7/8th grade.

      Another tip: talk to people who disagree with you, and make an effort to listen. I find that when I really listen to people actively, I can learn something from basically anybody after long-enough. That way, if you still disagree, when you respond to them (or someone else with the same beliefs), you don’t come across as emotional, and you might give a substantial response, and then maybe everybody learns something.

      Interest phenomena to prove why this tip is valuable: if you ask a room full of people to guess at a number that is reasonably hard to guess, like the number of beans in a jar or the weight of a large animal, basically no one will get it close to the true number. But if you have the guesses of a large group of people, you can actually get really really close to the true number. Maybe the lesson is that no one person is right, because most ideas are outright wrong, but for us a society or community to arrive at solutions to problems, we need as many opposing opinions at the discussion table as possible. That way, maybe through the chaos and emotional distress of debating and discussing important ideas and problems, we arrive closer to the truth. And maybe, we can use that truth to solve them.

      Thanks for hearing me out.

      Reply
      Link

      1. Hi Ahmed. Thanks for your wonderful advice. Interesting that you feel this way but felt the need to respond to every comment in a negative manner that disagrees with this post and even chose to argue against factual systematic racism. It’s impossible to argue with propaganda or someone who won’t believe in obvious societal issues supported by countless cases. It’s impossible because they won’t believe anything no matter how much evidence is provided because to have that opinion means, unfortunately, you’re either naive or racist. My embarrassment is not for lack of understanding but instead for being grouped with Dan as a BU affiliate. Best of luck to you and hope that you reread your own words in a new light and that you do grow out of arguing without substance eventually.

        Reply
        Link

      2. Let’s unpack what you just wrote. First of all, I really encourage you to look up the word “gaslighting” as I believe your comment achieves just that. Getting emotional or upset about an issue does not indicate incorrectness. What it indicates is passion and a strong feeling of helplessness when your rights are controlled and regulated by a government that is slowly dismantling all of the progress that we’ve made in the past couple of decades.

        Politics directly influences people’s lives and rights. Hundreds of thousands of people have died in the US because of Trump’s COVID policies. Lives are on the line. If you don’t get emotional over politics, you are doing it wrong.

        Now on your point about talking to people with different views. We can’t debate the value of people’s lives. And when Trump is in the picture, we end up doing just that. Now, I hope you take your own (unsolicited) advice and listen and learn from someone else’s opinions.

        Reply
        Link

      3. Hey Ahmed, you’re being quite passive aggressive and condescending for someone who claims to have good advice regarding effective persuasion/debate tactics. That… or you don’t have the social-emotional intelligence to realize how combative you’re reply here is. Here’s a word of advice that I learned in the 7th grade myself (passive aggressiveness for comedic effect only on my end here), if you want to change someone’s mind don’t be condescending.

        Oh and also… regarding one of your other comments in which you mentioned statistics about police shootings adjusted for number of interactions between police and whites/blacks… you can’t just adjust for number of black/white police interactions… that proves nothing, have you considered racism might not start at the beginning of an interaction, but instead before it? Certainly if I was racist I would pull over more black people. The fact that you missed this simple flaw in your argument shows your discourse is being swayed by your preexisting political beliefs.

        Reply
        Link

  13. Trump lost the popular vote by 2.8 million votes.

    That means 2.8 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump–if that needed clarifying.

    Despite Clinton’s reputation (and sexism, frankly) driving many Democrats to not even bother voting for her, Trump is not the president the majority of the American people chose, his path to victory coming from what he does best: hiring people to help him game an outmoded system. (First the tax code, then the electoral college.) Now, record numbers of people have already voted early in the face of the best get-out-the-vote argument in years–Donald Trump’s failure of a presidency culminating in over 200,000 American lives lost.

    Donald realizes on some level that he’s on track to lose hard–and have to face lawsuits without the legal protection that the presidency provides him, not to mention those he owes money to–why else would he be trying to discredit the electoral process, one that is resilient in its high degree of decentralization?

    Voter suppression and intimidation efforts have ramped up across the country as the GOP desperately clings to Trumpism in hopes that they can survive despite destroying their credibility with the American people. Far-right militia groups–excuse me, domestic terrorists–are eating up the approval they hear from Daddy Trump to prepare for violent action, while Republican officials down the ballot try to distance themselves from Trump in hope of surviving difficult races. After all, who wants to associate themselves with an incoherent megalomaniac of a failed businessman who’s the all-time favorite of white supremacist vigilantes? (No offense meant to the author…)

    I only hope that this time around, the American people will actually be heard–lord knows they want to be.

    Reply
    Link

    1. Just to clarify for you: the President is meant to represent the people, nor be elected by the people. The President is meant to represent the states; The states elect the president through the electoral college based on the number of senators and representatives they have. It’s honestly not communicated to us clearly, which is why I understand your confusion about the popular vote, but state appoints the electorates based on their popular vote, but they certainly don’t have to. Nothing in the Constitution mandates that states do it that way, states have just decided to do it that way.

      What is meant to represent the “populous” on the federal level is the House of Representatives in the Congress, which is localized for a reason (NYers vote very differently from Texas and even within states their is great variation). Representation does not work well on the national level, evidenced by the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of Congress but re-elect their Congressmen with about something like an 80% re-election rate, which is why the founders came up with a familiar concept we know as federalism. Representation works on different levels under this system, and you cannot (and should not) be able to elect a president elected by a few hyper-populous industrial regions. You might be happy, but a bunch of states might not agree with you, which could very well be a supermajority of them under a popular-election, yet your guys wins. Reasonable people don’t see that as fair, and certainly don’t see it as more fair than the current way we elect presidents.

      The good thing to keep in mind is that the people who actually are best are representing you and most able to communicate with you directly are indeed the people who have the greatest impact on your life: congressmen, state rep/senator, selectmen, councilmen, mayor. Heck, the people who get appointed to run the DPW matter more to you than the president, and you can sometimes just call that person’s personal cellphone advertised on the town page depending on where you live.

      Not trying to be critical of your comment, because you are certainly not alone in your being upset about the discrepancy you wrote about, but I thought I might be able to offer just a little bit of perspective for you and others reading, because Donald Trump won the electorate college by a way larger percentage margin than Hillary won the popular vote. So considering your feelings about the situation, imagine how rightly outraged people would be that despite winning a landslide among the state electorates, the election is overturned because a slight 3-4% margin in the popular vote going the other way, when the President’s job isn’t even to represent the populous. I’m not telling you are wrong for feeling the way you do, but you have to understand there are plenty of people who simply don’t agree with you, and they can be upset about an election the same way you are about 2016’s outcomes. Put yourself in their shoes if you got your way. There is a reason we have the longest lasting governing constitution in the history of the world, we found a way that works. Don’t be so quick to criticize.

      Reply
      Link

      1. Thanks for the lesson, but perhaps I can clarify for you that I am not confused. My comment was not in response to your view, but to what Dan wrote in this article. He asserts that the American people elected President Trump in a powerful message to the Washington establishment, and that the President’s behavior has “matched the American spirit”–nowhere does he say that it was the states and not the people who elected him. Perhaps your comment would be more helpful if it were directed at the author of the article–he seems to be confused about the electoral process, if not consciously twisting the facts in Trump’s favor.

        In addition, what the President says and does is, in fact, important. The President does represent America on the world stage. While it is important for me to hold my mayor, governor, etc. accountable for what happens in my state, it is also important to me what happens to the country as a whole. Calling my mayor isn’t going to have a significant effect in the face of a serious national security threat affecting the whole country, for instance–that’s something the President weighs in on.

        The overall problem, in my view, is that the interests of the wealthy and already-powerful are overrepresented in our government, while the well-being of those in need is underrepresented. The system of, and surrounding, the Electoral College is just one part of this problem. Ever heard of gerrymandering? Voter suppression? Voter disenfranchisement? Perhaps you have your own research to do.

        As for being “quick to criticize”: I would not be so quick to assume that my criticism is reactionary. Critical thinking is important (hence the required BU Hub unit); we cannot simply idolize centuries-old documents and processes, which even the Founding Fathers thought should be re-written periodically. We must keep asking if still works for our society today. Reasonable people understand that in order for something to remain watertight, it needs to be tested for leaks periodically–and without skewing the results in favor of an assumption that since it was watertight last time, it must be this time as well. I could look critically at the government and find nothing wrong with it, but that isn’t what I’ve found. Unfortunately, there is still a tendency in many people to avoid critical thinking, and to prioritize rationalizing something rather than actually make it right.

        Reply
        Link

        1. Your welcome for the lesson my friend, but I didn’t come up with this stuff. You can find out a lot of this easily on the internet. Reach out if you have any questions or need me to elaborate on anything.

          Here’s a couple good resources to read up about this stuff:

          https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
          https://law.jrank.org/pages/6819/Federalism.html
          https://www.ushistory.org/gov/3.asp
          https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03003930.2018.1548351

          Reply
          Link

  14. It’s sad that a BU student has so little intellectual curiosity that he would accept Trump’s lies as facts without making the slightest effort to research the truth. Everything he spouts is just trump boilerplate with absolutely no truth behind it.

    Reply
    Link

  15. I am actually shocked that the school let you post this and gave it equal promotion to the opposing Biden piece. BU Today finally resists its overwhelming bias at least once. I know you’re going to get a lot of heat from your peers, but we need brave men and women to speak their truths in the face of the angry mob. Talking to each other, and more importantly, listening to each other, is the only way to avoid civil violence, as many of us worry about today.

    Good on you, and I hope it gives courage to those who are afraid to speak out in fear of retaliation from their employers, professors, and peers. I know it gave me a little bit of courage, so thank you. I pray reasonable, sensible people can one day be able to speak again without fear of violence and social rejection.

    God bless the Commonwealth, and our holy union that is the United States of America. May our freedom, our liberty, sculpted by the blood, sweat, and tears of the brave Americans who came before us, sustain through all forms of tyranny, and long the live the greatest country the world has ever seen.

    Reply
    Link

    1. “I hope it gives courage to those who are afraid to speak out in fear of retaliation from their employers, professors, and peers.”

      Tell that to Col. Alexander Vindman.

      Reply
      Link

        1. A simple Google search of “Col Alexander Vindman” will provide all the information you need to understand “Seriously”‘s point. In short, he was a high-profile military official serving the Trump administration, and his story is very much related to retaliation from employers and peers. Remember that everyone here has many things on their hands and does not owe you their time to explain things that have already been gone over on the internet thousands of times.

          Reply
          Link

  16. While I could mention all of the strawman arguments in this piece and pick apart the lack of factual argument, honestly, I’m too busy this week and care about my mental health enough to not do that.

    However, some critical feedback for the author of this piece – as a BU alum, I find it disappointing that this student is in the College of Communications and only provided three sources, none of which come from credible peer-reviewed articles or nonpartisan avenues. Consider backing up your argument with actual data next time; otherwise, this argument just falls flat and it’s clear that this is not about the “economy” or “anti-establishment.” It’s all just dog-whistling that invites racism, homophobia and lack of empathy to the White House (and, by extension, our courts and legislature).

    Reply
    Link

    1. “While I could mention all of the strawman arguments in this piece and pick apart the lack of factual argument, honestly, I’m too busy this week and care about my mental health enough to not do that.”

      I actually think it would be very helpful to actually give a substantial response, despite your mental health issues, for us readers trying to decide who we are voting for. Thanks for considering it!

      Reply
      Link

      1. I’ve read your comments throughout this thread and I find it hilarious that you are pretending to be a “reader trying to decide who to vote for”. It’s obvious that you’re a Trump supporter so why don’t you tell us why you’re voting for him and provide a substantial response with reputable non-partisan sources.

        Reply
        Link

        1. What makes it so obvious I am a Trump supporter? And how would you define a Trump supporter? Is that anyone voting for Trump? Perhaps something I said?

          I find it quite funny you criticize the person you think is a Trump support for not having substance in my responses. I recommend reading some of the anti-Trump responses in this comment thread. Compare them with the people who agreeing with Trump.

          In my opinion, I would say that is much more indicative of your bias against Trump than anything I have said indicates I am for Trump. I could be perceiving this wrong, but not everyone who critical of the way people conduct themselves in the face of a conversation about Trump is a “Trump supporter.” Committing to that line of thinking prevents you from contending with any criticism against Biden or advocacy for Trump, which I admit is easier than actually contending with what the person is saying, but it is not productive. It leaves you ignorant, to smear people who might be critical of something you agree with as ignorant themselves.

          Also, why don’t you use your real name if you’re going to come for me like a real man or women. It would hold you to a greater degree of accountability in what you say, and makes these conversations more genuine and helpful rather than snarky back-and-forths. I feel like I’m replying to an internet troll.

          Reply
          Link

          1. “How would you define a Trump supporter? Is that anyone voting for Trump?” <– That is the definition of support. You just answered your own question. You dodged my question with a whole bunch of nonsense. I've read all the comments in this thread including yours. I'm not stupid. So, are you or are you not a Trump supporter? If yes, tell me why you support him.

            Link

        2. I replied, but I think I was moderated for some reason. It was quite lengthy so I do not want to re-write it only to get modded again. If you’d like my reply, reach out to my email.

          Reply
          Link

      2. Ahmed, if you’re so concerned about my political views, I invite you to look up “Hoping for a Blue Wave,” the 2018 midterm election POV version of this on BU Today. I’m a bit familiar with writing op eds myself.

        P.S. Caring about my mental health does not correlate necessarily to someone having mental health “issues”, but thanks for your clearly well-intended concern.

        Reply
        Link

  17. Dan, I respect your opinion and point of view. I am impressed that you have found the courage to espouse your truth and would do so in the very liberal environment that is BU.

    That said, I will beg to disagree with the majority of your points. I am not going to go point for point here, I’ll just say this; Voting for policy is one thing. If you want to curb illegal immigration or have a low tax mindset, that is fine. However, Trump is not policy. He is a terribly, fragile person who cares not for anyone who disagrees with him. He threatened the entire state of Pennsylvania because the governor dared to let people mail in ballots in the middle of a pandemic. Are we forgetting the mentally handicapped reporter he made fun of 4 years ago. How about the city of Baltimore and its “rat infested streets”. What, Dallas doesn’t have rats? Why Baltimore? Because they didn’t support him so he singles them out.

    A vote for Trump is a vote for the continued harassments of minorities and women. A vote for Trump is us telling our children that this behavior is tolerated. A vote for Trump is a vote for all of the far right groups he has aligned himself with.

    This is not the year to vote for policy. That can wait 4 years. This is the year to vote for anyone but Trump.

    Reply
    Link

  18. Dan, kudos to you for creating such a well-written essay, and especially for your courage to publish it. You must have known that you would be receiving such hateful, vile comments from those on the Left. They’re just further examples of the Left trying to stifle the speech of anyone who has views different than their own. I know it hurts, but please don’t let them discourage you.

    Reply
    Link

    1. Hateful? Vile? Really? Have you heard any of what Trump says? Or were you just too busy shouting 4 more years to actually listen?

      Reply
      Link

      1. “Hateful? Vile? Really? Have you heard any of what the left says? Or were you just too busy shouting “Trump is a fascist” to actually listen?”

        She could literally just make the same petty comment back at you.

        How about actually responding to what she said? What is the point of a snarky comment that says absolutely nothing? Are you just upset and need to let your frustrations out through an anonymous comment trying to make someone feel guilty?

        Reply
        Link

        1. Look around mate. What candidate is supported by white supremacists? What candidate is supported by neo-nazis? What candidate has advanced a hateful rhetoric and increasingly divided America over the last 4 years? The past 4 years has seen an increase in hate crimes especially those motivated by race and ethnicity. Which candidate’s supporters literally 3 days ago tried to harass a Biden campaign bus and run it off the road?

          Insanity that you think hateful and vile sentiments come from ‘the left’. Do you think that Trump preaches togetherness, love, and acceptance of all Americans?

          Accusing anyone other than the GOP and conservatives of stifling speech is laughable. Active voter suppression by Republicans is happening across the country. Y’all love to pretend that there is some major silencing of conservative views. Let’s take Facebook for example. New today: Facebook reportedly skirted it’s OWN rules to protect conservative voices and avoid an ‘anti-conservative bias’ and whereas other accounts would have been banned for breaking the rules, Facebook shielded conservative accounts such as Donald Trump’s. Facebook created a bias to avoid bias – isn’t that crazy. Research points to more evidence that Facebook is a right-wing echo chamber as opposed to stifling conservative voices. The top 10 performing links everyday are mostly conservative.

          The real stifling of speech is happening with our votes right now. Why don’t you and BU mom address that.

          Reply
          Link

          1. Because i am not here to prove a point. You could be right about all of that. I may not agree with your analysis but haven’t said anything about Trump. I am just very worried about the discourse. If we don’t listen to each other, worse is to come.

            I’m not conservative, but I think if we’re pretending like the left and right are equally culpable for the lack of healthy discourse and tolerance of opposing ideas, were simply not being honest. But, thats just how I see it. I could be wrong, but thats the beauty of it, that we get to talk and disagree. But people are in these comments are just he here to prove a point, and they’re used to everyone in the room agreeing with them, so I felt compelled to write a few things about the discourse, not the candidate.

            You can see how thats not even possible, because if you are critical in any way of the left, you are called racist or a Trump supported or something else, evidenced by all of said comments. So just consider that, please. Have a good day, signing off.

            Link

    2. Stifling and suppression? Well, I guess the right would know a thing or two about that. From gerrymandering to voter suppression. Maybe they can teach the democrats how to do it. They are the experts after all.

      Reply
      Link

    3. I am truly a little baffled at this contention — which I see bandied about most frequently by those on the right — that criticism constitutes a “stifling” of speech.

      Dan’s ability to express his opinion in public is not diminished by the fact that others may vocally and publicly disagree with him, any more than my ability to express my opinion is infringed by Dan’s editorial being published here. What is the point of protecting the speech of those with divergent points of view if any attempt to engage those ideas is denounced as “hateful” and “vile”?

      Reply
      Link

  19. Vote for Trump all you want, but don’t feed us your Fox News talking points about Trump being a successful businessman doing the country a favor.

    If it weren’t for “The Apprentice” rehabbing his image, we’d still be talking about how his casinos, university, steak company, and airlines went belly up (to name a few). There are great businessmen and women in the history of this country. He ain’t one of them.

    Reply
    Link

  20. Dan Treacy is part of the same group of BU students (YAF) who pushed for an openly transphobic speaker to not only push hateful speech on campus but also have the university pay for his security fees using student tuition.

    His actions on campus have been telling, as has his choice to align himself with yet another hateful figure in American politics.

    This group isn’t interested in discussion or their fellow students. They’re interested in spreading as much hate as they can to preserve their fragile position in a changing America.

    Reply
    Link

  21. Arguing that “Trump never needed this job” implies that past presidents have what, been behind on paying their bills and thought, “Hmm, maybe I should apply for that job opening at the White House, I think I’m qualified to at least get a phone interview”!? Presidents don’t become president because they ‘need a job’. Maybe you meant to say that he never wanted the job.

    Reply
    Link

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest from BU Today