P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000 EDITOR@BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM
Founded 1987 • Volume XXX, Issue XI
Patrick McAuliffe Jr. Managing Editor Kayla Jimenez Copy Desk Chief Elizabeth Elliot
Business Manager Jason Caci
Social Media Shitposter Thomas Sheremetta
Editor Emeritus Jordan Raitses
Associate Editors Adrienne Vertucci, Colin Gilmartin
David Keptsi, Luke Kusick, Jordan Jardine, Tommy Gagliano, Matthew Rosen
Diogenes of Sinope
Special Thanks To:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth. He Provides the Staples
SHOTS AND GIGGLES: THE AFTERMATH OF STONEMAN DOUGLAS
by David Keptsi
5 Dick Moves? by Kayla Jimenez 6 Tariff Trouble: A Tale of Trade, Trump and Turmoil by Jordan Jardine 7 OhioH NOOO by Kayla Jimenez 10 The New Culture Club Band by Jason Caci 11 This Article is a Tide Ad by Patrick McAuliffe 12 President Trump’s (New) Worst Week So Far by Matthew Rosen 14 Well, There You Have It... by Diogenes of Sinope by Tom Sheremetta 15 Trump Said What?!
Departments 3 Editorial 4 Campus Presswatch
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to email@example.com 2
Vol. XXX, Issue XI
EDITORIAL Dear Readers,
From the Editor
he Ides of March are upon us! Check yourself before you Shrek yourself if you happen to be a Roman dictator that also enjoys salads. For the rest of us plebs, we eat the true golden apple of cuisine, the Forbidden Snack™, the Tide pod. Our cover clearly shows what will happen should you cross these “Podracers”, as they’re affectionately called. We have much to say on the bundle of things happening in our nation these last few weeks. We send our hearts to the Stoneman Douglas victims and their loved ones, and I hope that we can find the root of the problems plaguing our nation and agree on a rational, effective strategy soon. Our cover article, although it doesn’t relate to the Tide pod controversy (that’s mine), is one in which David tries to detangle some of the problems around future gun regulation and looks into surprisingly unorthodox (and legal) weaponry one can buy right here in the US of ‘Merica. Kayla takes a look at the new policies regarding gun sales of Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods, arguing that these may not, in fact, be Dick(‘s) Moves after all. Matt touches on some of President Trump’s surprising gun comments over the past week, and expands more generally to see what went wrong for him and his staff. Don’t we have quite a lot to say about old number 45? Jordan analyzes how poorly Trump’s new tariff policies will go for American consumers, from the EU to his free trade supporters and advisors. (My own plug: I’d like to see a protectionism vs. free trade op-ed discussion happen on these pages one day. I think we’d have a vibrant comparison.) Classical postmodernist Diogenes comments on the survey from the American Political Science Association calling President Trump the worst President in history. Despite the skewed political affiliations of the respondents, Diogenes does not completely fault them for their lack of knowledge about the government’s inner machinations or historical hindsight, like that afforded to George Dubya Bush or Harry Truman. Tom both praises and critiques Trump’s use of language, at times calling it #savage and at other times decrying it as unpresidential and inappropriate. Our last two pieces don’t quite fit into either main theme that we have for this issue, but they’re still worth mentioning. I throw it back to some old news from February about the Tide Pod Challenge and the legislative response, calling out New York lawmakers for overstepping their bounds to keep people from snacking on them. Finally, Jason lays out a few social areas that the United States needs desperately to improve in order to once again assert our dominance as a world superpower in more ways than just militarily. Parade Day 2: Electric Boogaloo will be here and gone before you know it. Can we agree collectively to try very hard to not have someone die this year? Watch your friends, watch yourself, and have fun, but remember that Irish-themed daygers are not worth your life or your future.
Our Mission Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, studentrun news magazine of conservative thought at Binghamton University founded in 1987. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives. The mark of true maturity is being able to engage with those divergent perspectives rationally while maintaining one’s own convictions. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free and open exchange of ideas and offer alternative viewpoints not normally found or accepted on our predominately liberal campus. We stand against tyranny in all of its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of Western civilization. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness and cultural authoritarianism that dominates this university. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage with, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.
Patrick McAuliffe Jr.
Views expressed by writers do not necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole. firstname.lastname@example.org
CPampus resswatch We know you don’t read the other campus papers, so we did for you! Original quotes are noted, our responses are in bold. “SHADES is here to stay” By KALISSA SAWYER FEBRUARY 26, 2018 Prism “LGBTQIAP+” ⅓ of the alphabet… smh “This article only reaffirmed my awareness of the ways in which white-dominated spaces have the propensity to silence people of color and to disentangle themselves from revealing the injustice of white institutions, like Binghamton University.” Actually defending Pipe Dream here: Pipe Dream does an excellent job of giving a voice to people of color… they event print the multiculturally focused paper in which this article is published! Why is it that whatever these so-called “white-dominated” spaces do is never good enough? Binghamton University also makes strides to encourage and promote diversity. According to College Factual (it’s the best source I could find, oops!), the undergraduate population at BU is less than 60% white; the U.S. population is nearly 80% white. How is BU a white-dominated space when it is overall more diverse than the nation as a whole? “The multicultural community on campus is a minority community.” That is the case across the nation, but is changing overtime. The fact that this community is a minority is nothing to be concerned about. Minority
Written by our Staff
groups on this campus have a voice and have channels to express these voices, something we often seem to take for granted. BU is a diverse university, even though minority groups are still, well, minorities. “The Binghamton POC survival guide” By AIMEE MONTANEZ - FEBRUARY 26, 2018 Prism “But for students of color, enrolling in a predominantly white university comes along with everyday struggles they may not have initially considered.” Most universities in the U.S. are predominantly white, as is the population. These “struggles” are most likely struggles all students of color face, not just students considering Binghamton University. What is with the BU hate in this issue of Prism?! BU has accepted you and has given you a place to start your career at an affordable price… what more does one expect from a University? “Get involved… Find good eats … Don’t be passive … Be respectful” This generic advice is applicable to literally all new college students. Why do we need to separate our common student struggles into struggles for white students vs struggles for all other students? We all have a fairly common experience coming into college and should come together and bond over these shared struggles rather than putting this advice out as if it mainly applies to POC. “Trump’s proposed changes to SNAP don’t benefit recipients” By SARAH MOLANO - FEBRUARY 22, 2018 Pipe Dream “The idea of the U.S. government distributing such a volume of food to roughly 38 million people is a logistical nightmare. How will the food be distributed?” Okay same though. I do not trust that this will end well! Let’s get Amazon in on this ASAP. This change to SNAP
sounds like it will cause more trouble than it solves. The current system provides low-income citizens with funds to purchase foods within SNAP guidelines. This system is decent: it is an easy approach to helping feed the hungry. Simply transfer the funds and those receiving the funds take care of the rest. The idea of the federal government creating boxes of food to send to these same people is horrid. This change will make SNAP less efficient, more costly, and will likely not feed SNAP recipients as effectively as the current system does. “There’s something more glaring that this proposal suggests: Poor people cannot be trusted to make their own food decisions. Those in favor of Trump’s proposal accuse SNAP recipients of being unable to make what they deem to be acceptable food selections.” As a kid, my parents would sometimes leave money for my sister and I to get food. If they left $10, we would be sure to make that $10 go as far as possible. SNAP recipients most likely do the same. With the funds they are given, they know how to best use those funds to feed themselves and their families. If we want to help those in need, we can not expect so little of them.
Vol. XXX, Issue XI
By Kayla Jimenez
n recent years, companies have become more and more political, as has everything in society. Unsatisfied with how the government and politicians handle political matters, Americans have turned to businesses, public figures, celebrities, and the internet to find political information and take political action. Following the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, many Americans demanded the government take action and reform gun policy. After both the federal and state governments failed to make major headway, American companies stepped up to the plate. Following suggestions that the Trump administration work to increase the legal gun purchasing age, both Walmart Inc. and Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc. decided that they would no longer sell guns to anyone under the age of 21. According to the New York Times, these companies are “two of the nation’s leading gun sellers.” These companies took initiative to tighten their own policies following the Florida tragedy. Part of the policy change includes no longer selling “assault-style” rifles at Dick’s Field & Stream chain (Walmart stopped selling assault-style rifles back in 2015). Currently, it is lawful for licensed gun retailers to sell handguns to those 21 and older and sell rifles to those 18 and older. Now, both Dick’s and Walmart will only sell weapons to those 21 and older, superseding U.S. law. Dick’s had a personal connection to the incident: the accused Florida shooter had purchased a shotgun through Dick’s prior to the shooting. Additionally, another accused potential school shooter had purchased his weapon at Dick’s during the planning process before being arrested. Dick’s will continue to sell rifles and shotguns, only to those 21 and older, and will no longer sell high-capacity magazines at any of its retail outlets. Walmart went so far as to stop selling toys resembling assault-style rifles, such as toy guns and air guns. Both companies openly announced that their actions were in direct response to the Florida tragedy. A handful of other companies have expressed their stances on gun control through different means and measures. Several companies have severed ties with the NRA. The Wall Street Journal reported that “both Delta Air Lines and United Airlines… ended their discount travel programs with the organization. The airlines also asked the NRA to remove their information from its website.” In response to social media outrage and seemingly widespread resent of the NRA, companies felt the need to take action and show their support for these movements at a time when the government fails to do so. Social media users demand these companies do something through tweets, posts, and hashtags because they don’t see their interests reflected in the actions (or lack thereof) of the federal and the state governments. When people call out to companies in such a manner, companies usually respond and address their concerns faster than the government does. I was unsure what to expect following these varied actions taken by corporate America in the wake of the shooting. I expected both outrage and support. Yet social media response to
both Dick’s and Walmart’s decisions has been overwhelmingly positive. The New York Times disclosed that about 79% of tweets responding to Dick’s announcement are positive. The other 21% call for boycotts of the companies, including one Dick’s employee resigning from the company. Dick’s stock price jumped slightly following the announcement, reflecting even Wall Street’s and investors’ support of the decision. The issue with the government regulating guns is primarily the violation of the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights is the source of our most basic protections and freedoms. The idea of altering the Bill of Rights in any way makes conservative people uncomfortable, and justifiably so. The United States operates under a common law system, meaning that our laws are based on precedent. This applies here because once one amendment is violated, challenged, or altered in any way, that paves the way for other amendments to be similarly violated and altered. In order to preserve our freedoms given to us by the Bill of Rights, none of these freedoms can be violated, simply because of how the law functions. Although it seems odd that Dick’s and Walmart are the ones taking political action, private companies are the best source of gun control in the United States. The government is in a tricky situation when it comes to gun control, not because of the NRA or other political actors, but because of the Second Amendment. Sure the NRA complicates things, but the real reason for the difficulty and confusion surrounding gun regulation is its status as an American right. Dick’s and Walmart do not have this issue; they do not have their hands tied the way the government does. Non-public institutions are not held accountable to the Bill of Rights, and can act freely on such matters (or as freely as they can under other governing laws). It makes people uncomfortable when corporations and businesses take political action because they expect that action to come from the government. But when the government fails, or the government simply cannot act on certain fronts, businesses fill that void and provide people with the things they want and believe they need. Though some people feel that it is inappropriate for businesses to do such things, at the end of the day, that is the right of the business. I support these companies’ decisions to take action because it is better than doing nothing. I don’t think it is appropriate for the federal government to keep reforming and changing gun control policies. Nothing seems to be a solution. If companies continue to take action and respond to Americans better than the government can, so be it! Who knows if Dick’s and Walmart selling less guns will make a difference? Who’s to say if regulation changes will decrease the impact of gun violence across the country? We simply have to do what we can and keep trying to find solutions. Can people still buy guns, both legally and illegally? Sure! But we can at least wait and see if these companies’ decisions have an impact. People should be more comfortable with private companies taking action because, at the end of the day, we do not have to answer to these businesses; they only exist if we give them our business.
TARIFF TROUBLE: A TALE OF TRADE, TRUMP AND SWEDEN
Tariff Trouble: A Tale of Trade, Trump and Turmoil By Jordan Jardine
resident Trump got into an interesting exchange with Swedish prime minister Stefan Lofven during a press conference the two leaders gave at the White House on Tuesday, March 6. The point of contention: President Trump’s proposal to slap steel and aluminum imports with heavy tariffs. The Hill reported on that same day that several Republicans and many of Trump’s own advisors took issue with the president’s idea. Despite this, Trump plans to continue fighting to get these tariffs implemented. Trump’s position is that trade wars are a good thing, particularly for America. The United States has trade deficits with several countries in the European Union, including Sweden. Swedish Prime Minister and Social Democrat Stefan Lofven scolded President Trump prior to the aforementioned press conference, saying that “… increased tariffs will hurt us all in the long run.” Lofven went on to state that he believes trading with EU countries should be as free as possible. Trump fired back by pulling the “America is being taken advantage of ” rabbit out of his ultra-protectionist hat. Trump emphasized that these tariffs will once again help the United States have a level playing field on the global economic stage. To add insult to injury, President Trump also proposed adding a new tax on cars imported by the EU from the United States. He claimed that EU countries have a nasty habit of sending American-made cars back to the United States. Trump said he would impose a 25% tax on every car the EU sends back to America. This fits his MO, as he said he would be tough on trade on the campaign trail. Trump’s own White House is extremely divided over the president’s comments at the press conference and his remarks on the same subject of trade during the week prior. In attendance at the joint press conference in question was Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, who is also a notable ultra-protectionist.
Conspicuously absent from the press conference was Gary Cohn, Trump’s National Economic Council Director. Fittingly, soon after the press conference, Cohn announced that he would be resigning from his position in “… a few weeks,” according to CNBC. This is a story where I am personally deeply conflicted. I have a strong protectionist side, but it isn’t quite as strong as that of President Trump. I disagree with Trump that high tariffs and starting trade wars are indeed good solutions to this country’s economic woes and problems with trade. I agree that we should implement some tariffs, but I would make them significantly lower than those that the president is proposing. While I understand Trump’s intentions, I also know that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. In this case, Hell
“...[Trump] is caught between pleasing his base, to whom he promised trade reforms and increased protectionism, and pleasing many of his Republican Congressional colleagues...” is the increased cost and heavy burden that will befall American consumers if these high tariffs are passed and implemented. What the president needs to understand is that massive tariffs, as I have just explained, all too often only end up hurting the very people they were intended to help. I definitely agree with conservatives and libertarians when they voice that sentiment. Though I fancy myself an idealist in many respects, I know that idealism doesn’t override empirical economic reality. The economic reality is, in the long term, as tariffs increase, so does the burden that is placed on producers and, especially, consumers. President Trump needs to realize that if the economy goes down the drain again,
no matter what promises he made on the campaign trail, he will bear the brunt of the blame and may lose a sizeable chunk of his voter base, thus severely calling into question his chances for re-election to the Oval Office in 2020. The president needs to be willing to hear both sides of this issue. In addition to announcing Gary Cohn’s upcoming resignation, CNBC also reported that Trump had canceled a meeting that Cohn had arranged so the president could hear arguments against high tariffs from various American companies that regularly use steel and aluminum. After initially agreeing to the meeting, President Trump decided to kill the meeting at the last minute, presumably to lessen the chances that his mind would be changed on this issue. This may help to explain Cohn’s sudden desire to resign from the Trump administration after over a year of service. Trump needs to be very careful when considering his next moves. Again, I empathize with the position he is currently in. It seems to me that he is caught between pleasing his base, to whom he promised trade reforms and increased protectionism, and pleasing many of his Republican Congressional colleagues and some members of his own staff who are vehemently opposed to the ideas and proposals the president has put forward in the past couple of weeks. Whatever decision he makes will have significant implications in areas such as trade, international relations, foreign policy and our economic system here at home. It’s all in his hands now. The future of American trade hangs in the balance and the president needs to do everything in his power to ensure that said future is a bright one. Sources:
Vol. XXX, Issue XI
By Kayla Jimenez
hat an exciting time for state and local governments! The 2018 midterm elections are just around the corner. While I could write about people running in New York, Broome County, or anywhere within 600 miles of Binghamton, I’m instead going to write about a gubernatorial candidate from Ohio: Dennis Kucinich. Never heard of him? Me neither! Dennis Kucinich is a Democrat with an interesting political history. He became the Mayor of Cleveland at age 31, becoming the youngest Mayor of any major U.S. city. That wasn’t the only first: he then led the city to be the first U.S. city to default on on its debts! He continues to represent the people of Ohio, now looking to replace John Kasich as Ohio state governor. According to the online news organization The Intercept, “Kucinich called for a total end to oil and gas extraction in the state of Ohio.” The same publication praised Kucinich, describing this as “one of the most cutting-edge environmental platforms of any candidate in the country.” If by cutting-edge they mean job-destroying, growth-halting, and a threat to the state economy, then sure! But I don’t think that was on their minds. To achieve this “total end,” Kucinich plans to establish radical policies: utilizing eminent domain to seize control of gas and oil wells across Ohio, only to then shut them down, blocking all applications for drilling
permits, stopping vehicles on Ohio roads, enlisting Ohio State Highway Patrol to stop any vehicle carrying fracking waste… to name a few. For those of you nerds out there who have read Atlas Shrugged, you know that when the state starts seizing and nationalizing things claiming eminent domain (bullshit), the end is near. In an interview with The Intercept, a spokesperson for the Ohio Chamber of Commerce explained that “Misguided policies such as these threaten Ohio’s future and would destroy billions of dollars invested in our communities.” The Intercept also reported that the Chamber of Commerce expects that “Ohio could lose 400,000 jobs by 2022 if the state enacts a ban on fracking.” 400,00 jobs means nearly 3.5% of Ohio workers out of work. At a time when the Midwest is suffering from job loss and the hard-hitting Opioid Epidemic, maybe now is not the time to lose even more jobs and potentially lives in order to be more environmentally conscious. It’s fairly obvious that banning all gas and oil drilling and production in the state will have massive negative impacts, but Kucinich is willing to disregard all of that to save the world and the environment! How noble. Environmental activists praise Kucinich for his hard-hitting platform. Drastically and abruptly pulling the plug on an important industry in Ohio will do more harm than good. It would be one thing if Kucinich proposed a long-term solution to improving the state’s environmental impact, but going balls to the wall and suggesting an immediate end to all oil and gas production in the state is ridiculous and unattainable. Making claims like these show Kucinich’s real intentions and allegiances. Kucinich is not interested in protecting Ohio residents, he is not inter-
“Although it sounds nice and environmentally conscious on the surface, Kucinich’s plans of ending oil and gas extraction to protect the environment and Ohio residents is far from what it seems.” ested in saving the environment; he is interested in using bold claims like this one to bring attention to his campaign and hopefully win him the upcoming election. If he wanted to improve the state’s environmental infrastructure, he would have to offer tax breaks to renewable energy companies, he would use state funds to invest in renewable technologies research, he would encourage state universities to expand renewable energy programs and degrees… he could literally do anything else that would have a better outcome and would avoid this unnecessary economic disaster. Rather than attacking existing industries, the support and fostering of new industries is where the future lies. People need to be careful when making voting decisions. Although it sounds nice and environmentally conscious on the surface, Kucinich’s plans of ending oil and gas extraction to protect the environment and Ohio residents is far from what it seems. People are too easily swayed by emotional appeals, especially regarding the environment. Politicians like Kucinich know this and use these sorts of platforms to garner attention and establish rapport. We wouldn’t be talking about him if he hadn’t made such a “cutting-edge” proposal; he made this proposal not because he wants to protect the environment, but because he wants to protect his career. Sources:
SHOTS AND GIGGLES: THE AFTERMATH OF STONEMAN DOUGLAS
Shots and Giggles: The Aftermath of Stoneman Douglas By David Keptsi
n the wake of the Stoneman Douglas shooting there has been increased public demand for the federal government to tighten gun control regulation in hopes that such a tragedy would never happen again.This is a highly sensitive issue and my heart genuinely goes out to the victims of the shooting which I have found to be a sentiment shared by people on both sides of the aisle. Although some piece of shit “antifa” guy has been going around campus throwing out stacks of the Binghamton Review (suppressing the press is pretty fascist, isn’t it?), I would like to address this particular piece to people on both sides of the issue as, unlike the aforementioned hypocrite, I believe the only way we can move forward is through an open and honest dialogue. Leading the gun control charge this time around, is a group of liberal leaning survivors of the incident who to some, appear surprisingly very well spoken for their age. The more conspiratorial conservatives have made the claim that these students are being guided on what to say in interviews by liberal news outlets with some of the more “Alex Jonesy” types labeling them full-on “crisis actors” hired by the government. These conspiracy theories are frankly absurd as it is not
“A major issue with the use of gun control legislation to prevent school shootings, is the fact that this type of legislation does absolutely nothing to address the reasons a person became a shooter in the first place.”
them to straw-man every remaining pro-gun activist as a deplorable person, willing to attack the survivors of a shooting and it is unfortunate conservatives seem to have fallen for the trap. The crux of the issue is that even though these kids have gone through a terrible event and someone must ultimately be held responsible for allowing such a chain of events to unfold, it does not mean their specific beliefs are factually correct.The debate surrounding gun control has a lot more nuance to it than many care to admit, and it is unfortunate that these survivors (however well-intentioned) have become tools for those who want to push their respective idea of a solution to mass shootings. In a time of such intense partisanship, it is important to note that for the most part, both sides want what they genuinely believe is best for the country and any debate on the issue should be done with that idea kept in mind. A major issue with the use of gun control legislation to prevent school shootings, is the fact that this type of legislation does absolutely nothing to address the reasons a person became a shooter in the first place. The core issue in mass murders of any type are the fact that the perpetrator wants to do damage and has a deathwish in doing so. While it may be unfair to apply the blanket label to school shooters as “mentally ill”, since the majority of those diagnosed with mental illness do not go on to become violent crim-
inals, it is apparent that these shooters often come from very troubled backgrounds and lack a respect for human life the way a “normal” person would. Therefore, the description of shooters as “mentally troubled” still fits in that they exist outside our societies’ norm of human behavior and moral values. These “troubled” individuals want to cause harm and while that may be the reason they use a gun, it doesn’t mean that guns are necessarily the most effective means of doing so. The Columbine shooters for instance had actually planned to set off homemade bombs within the high school, the success of which would have resulted in a death toll potentially in the hundreds. Furthermore, in European countries where strict gun laws are enforced, terrorists have taken to ramming people with cars and trucks, tactics that have also produced death tolls rivaling those in mass shootings. As I mentioned earlier, it is the intent to cause harm that truly matters.The anticipated response here would be that homemade bombs are difficult to make and vehicles don’t have the purpose of doing damage in the manner that guns do, but interestingly enough the U.S. government does not ban several weapons capable of causing bodily harm. The following is a list of ridiculous weapons you can actually obtain more easily than the guns Democrats tend to focus their worry on: There are almost no state or federal laws surrounding the purchase
only possible but also quite common for news outlets to make sure the people they interview are those that are well spoken and have views that align with their own. Liberal leaning media outlets have been quick to realize how powerful of a tool this conservative opposition has been in allowing
Vol. XXX, Issue XI
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM of flamethrowers for example, even if they were a notorious staple of American exploits in Vietnam. Tesla mogul Elon Musk in recent news has actually sold several million dollars worth of flamethrowers to the public through online orders for the purpose of funding his Boring company (Boring as in bore through the earth not feminist philosophy boring). The laws surrounding the ownership of cannons are also very ambiguous as well and maybe I’ve played too much Battlefield One, but it seems like a person can do alot of damage if they know how to operate an antique mortar cannon.
Miniguns. Yes Miniguns. Not semi automatic weapons such as the AR-15 or Ruger but actual fully automatic weapons capable of firing hundreds of rounds a second. Turns out you can buy any Minigun that was legally owned by a citizen prior to 1986. Obviously this runs on the luxury end of ridiculous weapons you can have but I think it’s frankly classist that rich people can’t be murderous psychopaths too.
SHOTS AND GIGGLES: THE AFTERMATH OF STONEMAN DOUGLAS 3D Printers. This is probably the reason any gun control measures we pass today are completely doomed in the future. We already have 3D printers capable of creating functional handguns even though their quality isn’t necessarily that high by modern standards. The issue is 3-D printing is a technology that is growing at a very rapid rate and all you need to create an object is raw materials and a blueprint in the form of a file. If I can download a fully functioning pirated copy of The Sims 4 off a peer to peer torrenting site in the span of 15 minutes with minimal technical skills, keeping weapons blueprints from being disseminated in the future is going to be a major issue. Of course the technology hasn’t reached such a stage yet, but technological growth has become exponential and I anticipate this will become a major issue in the future.
“To any liberal who has made it this far, I only ask that you understand that your ideological opponents still have good intentions...”
“...in European countries where strict gun laws are enforced, terrorists have taken to ramming people with cars and trucks, tactics that have also produced death tolls rivaling those in mass shootings.” Don’t get me wrong, this doesn’t mean we should do nothing. We owe it to the victims of Stoneman Douglas to take measures to prevent a similar tragedy. Even though by all accounts he seems to be literally Hitler, even Donald Trump believes this. I don’t know if his idea of arming teachers is necessarily the best idea for fighting shooters simply because firing a gun accurately is way harder to actually do than they make it look like in the movies, but I do believe that spreading the idea that the shooter may come into contact with an armed response as a deterrent, may delay their advance just enough to make a difference. To any liberal who has made it this far, I only ask that you understand that your ideological opponents still have good intentions, and if they won’t budge on the specific issue of gun control, there are other aids to prevent school shootings that may actually gain bipartisan support such as better access to mental health resources, and even a little bit of progress in dealing with the issue seems better to me than gridlock.
THE NEW CULTURE CLUB BAND
The New Culture Club Band By Jason Caci
he United States has an economy that relies mostly on imported goods. Unlike the United States, countries such as Germany, Japan, and China produce high quality material. Of course, one will point out that the United States still has the highest GDP in the world. However, China will lead the world in GDP in approximately twenty-five years. Not only will it lead the world in GDP, but it will accelerate at such a rapid rate that it will separate itself from the rest of the world and rise as the unequivocally most dominant superpower in the world. PricewaterhouseCoopers predicts that China will climb to the top in GDP in Purchasing Power Parity by 2050, although I believe they will rise to the top sooner than that. Regardless, we as a nation need to have a proactive mindset and take initiative now by positioning ourselves as the cultural model; an aspiration for every other nation in the world! It is not an obvious solution, but it accomplishes the job. One of the biggest problems we have as a nation is that we make decisions for the next ten minutes instead of the next ten years, and now more than ever is the time to make the home run play. First, let’s start with the youngbloods. We need to overhaul our education system and place an emphasis on STEM programs. On September 25, 2017, President Trump signed a Presidential Memo that expands funding for computer science programs in schools. According to the White House website, it “sets a goal of devoting at least $200 million per year within the Department of Education toward advancing this effort.” This is a good start to the overhaul, and we need to continue to preach the importance of STEM because it will overtake manual labor as jobs become more and more automated. This past January, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos claimed, according to the United States Department of Education website, that
“Common Core is dead.” However, some have debated whether or not this is the case. If it is not dead, then it is time to kill it. Common Core was made to challenge students intellectually. However, the implementation ended up being complex for complexity’s sake. Principals focus too much on the quantity of information given out rather than the quality. Throwing a bunch of material like a fastball to these children will make them memorize the information word for word and then forget about everything after the school year ends. Instead, less information should be given while stressing the importance of understanding why things are the way they are. We need to engage students in asking questions because that will get their brains churning. Students need time to process and understand the concepts. From that, they will improve students’ analytical skills, which are more essential, as opposed to memorization. We as the United States needs to produce more high-quality material instead of growing the economy of whatever country is supplying goods to us. If one takes a look at Germany, it has one of the best automobile and technology industries in the world. For American citizens born in the United States, while bringing immigrants to advance in engineering and medicine is a good idea, it does not solve the issue of the low work ethic Americans have. Immigrants from India and China will continue to enter the United States because they have the hardest work ethic in the world. Additionally, China and India currently have the two fastest growing economies in the world. As a result, Americans will have an identity crisis because a rise in diversity will occur more rapidly than it has risen recently.
In order to solve this issue, we need to develop a strong work ethic and stop relying on others to help us out. This comes from strict parenting and, as mentioned previously, school material that involves understanding it rather than simply reception. When parents discipline their children, kids learn to achieve success by earning it rather than looking to other sources. Furthermore, the children learn to have a strong morality. From this, the children reject degeneracy, laziness, and stupidity by not associating themselves with others that have a bad influence. The way we develop as individuals comes from within. Others would look up to us as a model country for what everyone should aspire to be. We would send a message to countries such as China and Russia that we are still the superpower of the world. People underestimate the importance of culture for a country’s power. A well-established culture has a domino effect because it leads to smarter folks, more production (which leads to a better economy), and therefore a creates a great image of the country to be admired by the rest of the world. Sources:
https://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/ prepared-remarks-us-education-secretary-betsy-devos-american-enterprise-institute https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/ president-trump-signs-presidential-memo-increase-access-stem-computer-science-education/
Vol. XXX, Issue XI
This Article is a Tide Ad By Patrick McAuliffe Jr.
his might be old news, but if I get the chance to use laundry detergent as an argument for limited government, you can be sure I’m jumping on it. I’ll also try to avoid using any sort of “turning the Tide” pun in the course of my writing. However, I think you’d agree that “cleaning up government overregulation” is perfectly fine. Alright, I’ll get to it. Tide pods, the Forbidden Snack (™) of memesters everywhere, started off the year 2018 in a rather unexpected way. While on maybe five or six layers of irony, people took to the Internet in January to partake in the Tide Pod Challenge, where they would try to eat the detergent-filled pods in increasingly creative ways. My personal favorite is the pizza adorned with Tide pods as if they were gummy-shaped pepperonis. Even though they were doing it for the meme, these brave souls quickly discovered that eating laundry detergent is an absolutely terrible idea. Failing to adhere to the warnings already on the bags and buckets of Tide pods, stupid people on the Internet chose the irony of eating something that is clearly not meant for human consumption over a good chuckle along the lines of “Wouldn’t it be wild if Tide pods were edible? Haha yeah that’d be crazy.” Tide has responded to people pulling this shit in the most laissez-faire way possible. Twitter blew up with people @ing Tide with their safety concerns, and Tide reiterated all of the warnings on their packaging in addition to general common sense. There was also no nationwide recall of Tide pods. This was left to individual retailers, most of which still kept the pods on the shelves. The Walmarts and Target in the greater Binghamton area didn’t even go as far as other stores that put their Tide pod bags in sealed plastic containers to be unlocked by the cashiers upon purchase. Just like all victimless crimes, the consumption of Tide pods couldn’t go unaddressed by lawmakers. My home paper in Rochester, the Democrat and Chronicle (unfortunate first name), reported on February 6th about a bill proposed in the New York State Assembly that would try to make Tide pods safer for household use. Reason magazine reported on this bill a day later. Two New York City Democratic representatives, Assemblywoman Aravella Simotas and Senator Brad Hoylman, wrote to Tide’s parent company Proctor and Gamble on February 5th imploring them to try and increase the safety of their own product before lawmakers had to step in. The measures they offered both in the letter and a press conference on the 6th include changing the color to be “unattractive to children,” wrapping each pod in individual bite-resistant packaging, and putting warning labels on both the outer packaging and each pod’s individualized packet. Proctor and Gamble, the only rational actor caught between the idiots eating their pods and the idiots forcing them to make their pods “safer,” responded to each criticism like any sane person would. Tide already offers a variation on their pods that are plain in color called Tide Free and Gentle. In the worst case, people could just use regular bottled or powdered deter-
THIS ARTICLE IS A TIDE AD
A true feast for kings... Tide pod pizza gent like they have been doing for years. The color or shape doesn’t seem to matter, because according to the National Capital Poison Center, more children under 6 died from ingesting batteries - not candy-shaped or colorful - than laundry pods between 2012 and 2016. The colors used in the pods are Tide’s choice to make, and for people that can’t know not to snack on them, parents and child-safe locks exist to provide that impediment to feasting on detergent. The second proposal is to add another layer between the bag or bucket that stores the pods and the pods themselves, in the form of another non-permeable, bite-resistant wrapping. Not only is this not certain to reduce the number of incidents in the eyes of P & G, but another layer of plastic may have negative environmental aspects. More plastic in the landfills to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist perfectly sums up how well government intervention of this sort can work. The final major proposal that the NYC Dems want implemented is the placement of warning labels on the outside of the laundry pod packaging about the dangers of consuming detergent. The problem with this proposal is that it already exists. The Tide pod buckets and bags already have warnings that take up about ¼ of the front of the label; you can see them every time you walk by their display in Walmart. Herein lies the root of the problem with government intervention of this kind. Politicians that advocate for these types of controls can’t wrap their heads around the fact that people are wild cards. Almost all people are rationally self-interested, and nothing is farthest from that than eating the soap meant for washing clothes. People can be warned about the dangers until they are blue and orange in the face, but the fact remains that it’s just as easy to choose to disregard those warnings. I’m not saying that just because we as humans have this radical freedom to choose to partake in the Forbidden Snack (™) or not, that the choices are morally equal. The choice should be treated like every moral decision: governed by one’s internal moral law and not by force or coercion on the part of the government. When a rational adult munches on a pod because of their free choice, they have nobody to blame but themselves. Lawmakers should stop treating rational people like children because of the minority of stupid people that act like children. References:
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S (NEW) WORST WEEK SO FAR
President Trump’s (New) Worst Week So Far By Matthew Rosen
y first article at the beginning of this school year had the same title as this one. In that article, I described President Trump’s first bad week in the White House, as I described how he fumbled the ball on the budget and DACA. Unfortunately this week, the things he has said and done has made the budget/DACA debacle look like a great week, as he royally messed up drugs, guns, and trade in ways I never thought possible. Fortunately, two of those three (drugs and guns) won’t be a big deal in the long term, and are basically already fixed. I have been an avid Trump Supporter from the beginning, and can defend him on most things, but it is crucial that we call out the President when he does something wrong. The least awful of the mistakes happened as President Trump attempted to deliver a message on the opioid crisis and drug problems in America. He suggested that the new strategy to fixing drug related deaths was to be more strict on drug dealers, including the approval of the Philippines’ use of the death penalty on drug dealers. This is an absolutely crazy suggestion, even without the death penalty part. The War on Drugs is not only immoral, but has and always will be a complete failure. First of all, the War on Drugs is immoral because nobody, especially the government, has the right to tell an individual what they can and can’t put into their body (if and when it doesn’t affect anybody else). As long as putting a drug inside of your body doesn’t impact anybody else’s life, liberty, or opportunity, than I believe it is immoral to have a government intervene. I do not personally advocate for drugs, nor want to take any drugs myself, but for people who do, they should have the freedom
to do so. Even passed the immoral argument, the War on Drugs has always been unsuccessful. The only time the US has ever repealed a constitutional amendment was a repeal on the prohibition of alcohol, which just shows that the government cannot stop the use of illicit substances. Lastly, the federal government cannot and should not crack down on drug crime because that power is not given to them in any part of the Constitution. Therefore if there was any crack down at all (which there shouldn’t be), it legally must come from the state and local governments, thanks to the Tenth Amendment. Once we have this assumption that President Trump cannot and should not crack down on drugs (as it is immoral, illegal, and impossible), we must look at his comments in a pragmatic way. First of all, on his wish for us to be harsher on punishment: is it really pragmatic to overcrowd our prisons with people who are just selling a product to another consenting adult? Second, his comment on the death penalty is way too over the top. For some young adult selling a small amount of marijuana to another consenting adult, they now should be killed by the government? Woah President Trump, I’m a little scared of this policy. He even tried to compare
a drug dealer, indirectly killing many people who overdosed, to a murderer who shot one person. He states that the drug dealer killed more people, yet gets a lesser punishment. The only problem with that argument is that the murderer had intent, while the drug dealer only sold a product to another adult who misused the product. The blame is on the overdoser. The second mistake by President Trump is with guns, which happened when he met with Democrats and dovish Republican Congressmen on a new gun control bill. President Trump suggested raising the age to buy an assault weapon to 21, he suggested taking the guns of certain people before going through due process, and he even made Senator Feinstein jump with joy over his acknowledgement and help in getting her assault weapon ban into the new bill. Wow. What happened to pro-Second Amendment Trump? Even though this is the dumbest, scariest thing he could say, I still believe pro-Second Amendment Trump is running the show. I was pleasantly surprised when I heard Ben Shapiro (on his podcast) agreed with my initial assessment of his comments: he is talking to be liked. When in a room full of people who would be happy with him if he said these things, he will say it 100% of the time. Not that this move is a brilliant forethought for him, but his instinct is to be liked. This theory is also supported by his walk back on a lot of this after seeing the criticism from his base, and his talk with the NRA. One other good news is that these proposals will never pass Congress. And the final good news is that his scariest comment as President (“I like taking the guns early… Take the guns first, go through due process second.”) was at least partially taken out of
Vol. XXX, Issue XI
BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM context, and would never ever happen. That comment is the most ridiculously illegal thing I have ever heard by a President. The part that was taken out of context was that President Trump was referring to a bill proposed by Senator Marco Rubio, and supported by Vice President Pence, where there is a temporary gun restraining order. So technically there would be due process as evidence is given to a court, and then later revisited to allow the person to defend themselves in court. President Trump I guess took that as due process second, even though it’s not. Even still, I never ever want to hear a President say anything like that ever again. And finally, President Trump’s big mistake that will affect us all is his new trade war with multiple countries. Trade wars are ECON 101, a stupid idea, economically unsound, and hurt one’s own country. President Trump just introduced a policy of reciprocal tariffs, most notably a 25% tariff on
“I urge everyone, especially Trump supporters, to criticize loudly whenever he does something that is bad for the country. It’s been great that he has been helping the country, and had a great first year, so we have had plenty of days to clap for him, but the condemnation of bad policy needs to be just as powerful.” steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum. Mr. President, this will lead to less competition, crony capitalism, increased prices, and unfair trading. This policy of placing a tariff on any country that we have a trade deficit with makes no sense because trade surplus/ deficit has been proven to show no correlation with a country’s economic success. The first negative effect of tariffs are that prices will increase, which will make consumers in your own country have to pay more for goods, such as steel or aluminum. It is the same concept as when you tax a business, their
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S (NEW) WORST WEEK SO FAR
supply curve (willingness to supply) decreases, leading to higher prices and lower quantity supplied. In principle we would call this a protective policy, as in protecting domestic producers but hurting foreign producers’ chances to compete. In reality, it hurts everybody as the price of steel and aluminum will increase, making it more expensive for consumers and producers alike. This leads us to another negative effect of tariffs: crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is making policy that will favor some businesses by hurting others. In this case, pure steel and aluminum businesses have less competition from abroad, which will help them sell at high prices and make more profit. This policy’s help to pure steel and aluminum comes at the expense of almost any business that uses steel or aluminum as an input, such as cars or beer. Car manufacturers have to purchase steel and beer manufacturers have to purchase aluminum for their cans. Since these pure metals are now more expensive, it acts as an indirect tax on all businesses in the US that use steel or aluminum. Here is where we see their supply and willingness to supply decrease, leading to higher prices, and a lower quantity supplied. We as a nation should treat global trade the same as President Trump has treated the domestic exchange. All exchange should be bilateral, and includes one party with money, and the other with a good. All exchange should be a direct trade where one party is willing to spend a certain amount of money on the good, and then they
swap. It seems really simple because it is; it literally is ECON 101. The fewer barriers you place, the cheaper products are, the more innovation there is, and the fairer trade is. Not to bring up Ben Shapiro again, but he said it perfectly in the same podcast as earlier: When trade is like this, no one ever has an effective trade deficit. When you go to the bookstore and buy a book for $10, you don’t end up with a $10 trade deficit with the bookstore. Instead, you end up with a book that is worth that money to you. And on an international stage, there is even more benefits than that. This is because most dollars we pay to countries like China for cheap steel ends up back in the US economy through investment. Therefore there is no sound economic reason for placing tariffs ever. Trade wars are never won, and never will be won. Just like when President Trump walked back his comments on guns when he felt the heat from his base, we need to keep criticizing his bad decisions in order to make him rethink them. Luckily for us, his comments on drug dealers and guns are either meaningless, taken out of context, or will never lead to effective change; however, his policy on tariffs will hurt all of us. I urge everyone, especially Trump supporters, to criticize loudly whenever he does something that is bad for the country. It’s been great that he has been helping the country, and had a great first year, so we have had plenty of days to clap for him, but the condemnation of bad policy needs to be just as powerful.
WELL, THERE YOU HAVE IT...
Well, There You Have It...
By Diogenes of Sinope
ell there you have it! President Donald John Trump was bestowed by members of the American Political Science Association (APSA) the title of the worst president in United States’ history. APSA members were asked by Professor Brandon Rottinghaus of the University of Houston and Professor Justin S. Vaughn of Boise State University to rate the “greatness” of our nation’s presidents for the 2018 Presidents & Executive Politics Presidential Greatness Survey. One would think that members of a prestigious academic organization would not succumb to modern day sentiments on our current president and to judge fairly. You would be mistaken. For those of you think that the survey was biased, your worries are justified. If one is to criticize our President or any governmental official, it ought to be done with clear facts and without ideological motives. 57% of the survey’s subjects were liberal Democrats. Conservative Republicans made up a mere 12% of the survey while 27% identified as independent. In this day and age, it is liberal Democrats such as Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and former Vice-President Joe Biden who rally behind the anti-Trump wagon without reflecting on their own actions. I urge the reader to recall Senator Warren’s blatant embrace of an illegitimate Native American identity and Biden’s efforts to disrupt federal bussing initiatives. However, this does not disqualify the survey. Political affiliations may mean nothing to the quality of any political study as long as the conclusions were logical and sound. President Trump can be criticized with persuasive arguments by all sides, so the survey’s contents must be judged. The survey, unfortunately, lacks any real understanding of history and it is a damning indictment of the American historian. It is unreasonable to judge a leader’s accomplishments and fail-
ures when his term is not even over. The public and, by extension, political scientists do not have access to the executive branch’s inner meetings, their internal documents, or the ability to foresee how their policies will impact the future. Critics will often stick to either decrying the president or praising the president without understanding the inner workings of government. It is why surveys such as this are quite unreliable. Opinions change as additional information comes out mostly when a new administration takes over the White House and the policies are studied without political pressure. Former President George W. Bush remarked “History will ultimately judge the decisions…” when asked about his legacy. He was correct. For those young to the political scene, George W. Bush left office with some of the lowest approval ratings. The Gallup Poll gave him a 34% approval rating. One of his predecessors, Harry S. Truman, left office in 1951 with a 22% approval rating. These facts would seem to pinpoint that these two individuals would go down as among the worst elected officials to hold office. The 2018 Greatness Survey put Truman as the 6th greatest president while Bush was ranked as the 35th greatest president. This is quite a shift from the hatred tossed upon these two individuals. How on earth did they rank higher? History happened. Truman and Bush were reexamined and then praised for their decisions. Truman is currently seen as a leader who stalled General Secretary Joseph Stalin’s ambitions for Soviet world domination. Bush is remembered for his successful diplomatic efforts to end the Darfur Civil War which his successor, former President Barack Obama, dismantled. Bush also remains to this day the only president to have tried a head of state official under the charge of genocide and to carry out the sentencing. Tell me, how could any person judge them if time had not passed enough for things to be put into perspective?
What may seem great today may be a disaster tomorrow. Another issue is how suspicious these ratings are. The APSA has deemed Trump to be the worst president. He, in their view, surpasses Richard M. Nixon who violated federal law during the 1968 campaign, who expanded the Vietnam War without congressional approval, who obstructed a federal investigation into a burglary that his White House team had orchestrated, and who remains the only president to resign from a threat of impeachment. Trump’s nonsensical tweets are, in the ASPA’s choir, more dangerous to American democracy than Nixon’s actions. He is worse than Andrew Johnson whose attempts to stifle Reconstruction efforts worsened the tensions between the Republicans and Democrats while disrupting civil rights efforts for recently freed slaves. The APSA decided that a tax cuts cut deeper into America’s soul than failing to rebuild a war-nation. He is worse than Woodrow Wilson whose birdbrained escapades led to America’s involvement in the first World War, the 1915 invasion of Haiti which lasted for nearly twenty years, sending federal troops into Mexican soil twice, the escalation of the Russian Revolution, and an inefficient League of Nations that was not equipped to deal with ethnic tensions. This is in addition to Wilson’s overwhelmingly racist policies towards blacks, his poor academic standing as a United States historian, and the privatized of the Federal Reserve. Yes, Trump, who has not finished his term and who has declared Jerusalem to be capital of Israel, is the devil when compared to Wilson. Can someone wake me up when common sense reappears?
Vol. XXX, Issue XI
Trump Said What?!
TRUMP SAID WHAT?!
By Tom Sheremetta
t’s been crystal clear for a while now that Trump has no filter. Throughout his presidency, we’ve been introduced to a plethora of sayings that are indeed unorthodox for a president. Some think it’s funny, while some think it’s non-presidential and childish. We see these debates of how people feel about Trump’s rhetoric on a daily basis in our lives, whether it be Chelsea Handler calling Trump an asshole through visuals or dank memes on the God Emperor Trump Facebook page. Even though Trump has his savage moments, it is important that he have a filter at times. I love the memes that come out of Trump’s daily life as our president. I also love that he doesn’t beat around the (Jeb) bush. However, that doesn’t mean that I personally approve of everything he says. Let’s be honest: he has said some overly cruel things. On top of that, it seems that Trump has a bit of a narcissistic attitude as well. He points out other individuals’ faults to progress his own character, mainly on Twitter. On multiple occasions, Trump has been flat out wrong about things. Let’s take a look at each of these special rhetorical techniques and analyze some of my favorite Trump statements. Even before his run for presidency, Trump had his cruel moments. We can first look upon his tenure on Celebrity Apprentice, where he wasn’t shy and had no problem being over the top with his speech. For example, in 2013, during an episode of Celebrity Apprentice, Trump said to female contestant Brande Roderick that it “Must be a pretty picture, you dropping to your knees” (TheDailyBeast. com). Not only was Trump married already, but this was shown on national television. There’s no need for him to make that crude comment and, in fact, he shouldn’t have at all. Fast forward to his presidential run: we were all introduced to his controversial comments towards women. Firstly, the infamous “grab ‘em by the pussy” comment shook the political world.
I understand that it wasn’t a public discussion (“locker-room talk”) and that it was more commentary on the phenomena that rich people can get away with anything. However, insinuating that money can lead to grabbing a woman’s genitals, implicitly coercive and non-consensual, is crude, deplorable, and uncomfortable in execution. Finally, his comment that Megyn Kelly had “blood coming out of her wherever” after a heated presidential debate just shows that maybe Trump isn’t a polite person. He tried to come back and say that he meant out of her nose or ears, but come on, we aren’t stupid. This, as well as other crude comments, are nothing new for Trump. Trump is also a big fan of putting others down through jabbing rhetoric, while at the same time shining praise on himself. We saw this throughout the Republican primaries. Trump gave it to his opponents, such as telling Cruz that he has no friends in the Senate and calling Jeb Bush “low energy.” Sure, it propelled him into winning the primaries and made for some great comedy, but debates should be more about policies than who can come up with the best insults and comebacks. Most of this behavior can be seen on his Twitter, as his posts are a battleground for anyone who crosses him. With his Twitter, anyone is at risk of a roasting. We’ve seen people from Hillary Clinton, to Kim Jong-Un, to Lavar Ball, come under fire. Yes, some of his tweets are downright savage, such as the tweet calling Kim Jong-Un “short and fat.” But, once again, this is our President. Is it really a good representation of our country when our President gets into verbal altercations on the Internet with a basketball dad and runs his twitter like a gossip page? The worst part of Trump’s rhetoric is when he’s dead wrong about what he’s saying. I understand that there are mistakes or misinterpretations, but there are times when what he says makes absolutely no sense. Recently, there have been a few instances of this.
Firstly, one of his recent responses to the Parkland Shooting truly caught my eye. Trump stated that we need to look at the violence of movies and video games and that “maybe they have to put a rating system for that.” (TheHill.com) One, there’s already a rating system (how does he not know that?). Two, there hasn’t been a valid study that showed that violence in entertainment creates violent people so calm down old man. And lastly, the Parkland school shooter was old enough anyway to be able to watch violent movies and play violent video games. Then, days later, Trump suggested that maybe the U.S. should confiscate guns from dangerous individuals before due process (TheHill. com). For someone that is in “support for the second amendment,” I guess he doesn’t care about the rest of our constitutional rights. We all know that it’s important to do research before making a claim. We also know that when we don’t, we’re at risk of making a fool of ourselves, as Trump has done. In essence, this article is just to show that there have been numerous times where Trump has stepped out of line, before and during the presidency. Going from the rhetoric level of Obama to Trump is a big difference. I personally thought that Trump would have calmed down a bit after winning the presidency, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Sure, it’s funny and #savage when Trump uses his rhetoric correctly, but it’s very embarrassing and childish when he doesn’t. Sources:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/watchtrump-told-female-apprentice-to-drop-to-yourknees https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ post-politics/wp/2015/08/07/trump-says-foxsmegyn-kelly-had-blood-coming-out-of-herwherever/?utm_term=.cc5c19f5044e http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/375102-trump-raises-concerns-about-impact-of-violent-movies-says-we-may-have http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-gothrough-due-process-second
Beware the Tides of March...