With the controversy going on in the country regarding “Black Lives Matter,” an organization here on campus is taking strides towards something that they believe in.
The Black Students Association at New Mexico State University was charted in the late 1960’s and promotes African, African-American, African-Caribbean, and African-Latino culture on campus.
Christopher Love, a former President of the organization, is inspired by the diversity of the group and advocates for their purpose and mission.
“I love the close bond that the members have with each other. We keep a warm and family atmosphere in our organization. We are very multi-cultural even though our mission is to promote Afro-culture. We have Asian, Caucasian, and Hispanic members,” said Love.
It is important for them to embrace, no matter what someone’s background is, they are welcome into the organization, to explore their potential.
Statistics show that NMSU’s African descent makes up 3% of the total University. The Black Student Association says that their goal is to educate and show the University their cultures and the significance of them. While doing this, they want to make sure that the School stays diverse and equal. This is something that they strive for, especially with the recent incidents that have occurred around America.
The School has a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds when it comes to student culture. Because we are so close to the borderland, and being a less expensive school with many benefits, you will definitely have a diverse group of people within your classes.
“We try to make our organization diverse by welcoming people into our group of all ethnicity’s, genders, religion, sexual preference’s, etc,” said former president, Love. “We try to stay active on campus and encourage our members to branch out and get involved in the things that NMSU offers.”
The group voiced that some have been subjected to police brutality and blatant racism before, within their community. As a result, they want to make sure that NMSU stays equal and diverse.
“A lot of us members were saddened and outraged by both the shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, as well as the killings of the police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge,” said the members of the Black Students Association.
The media and movies have promoted stereotypes of people from different places and cultures. They have branded law enforcement to be racist and to have favorites towards dissimilar people.
Because of this, the Black Student Association wants to block out stereotypes and maintains a strong relationship with police, especially NMSU police.
“As members we understand and respect that most law enforcement officers are model citizens and they risk their life to protect all of us,” said Love.
College students are our upcoming CEO’s, leaders, business men/woman, and rising successors. It is important that students here at NMSU take strides to break barriers and rise above any stereotype.
The Black Student Association wants people to know that they are open and care about their members and the student body. They want to encourage members to stay social with one another, no matter what color they are.
For more information on the Black Student Association at NMSU and to get involved, you can contact them at (575)-646-4208, or email email@example.com.
The NMSU football team has been told by the Sun Belt Conference they are no longer wanted. This next season is vital for NMSU football to remain relevant.
By Albert Luna
Saturday, April 16.
NMSU football is holding its annual Crimson and White Scrimmage, with the conclusion of yet another set of spring practices in the books. The players play hard, the fans come out in pretty decent numbers, yet there’s still something that seems like it doesn’t fit.
It has been on the field for the past two seasons but has an expiration date of just two years more, and on this Saturday in April, the Sun Belt Conference logo remains part of NMSU football.
Obviously by now, most people know that the Aggies’ time in one of the worst Division-I FBS conferences is limited as the Sun Belt has essentially told NMSU (and Idaho) they are no longer welcome to play football in their conference beyond 2017.
Not too surprising, considering NMSU’s reputation as the school with the longest bowl drought. And it was generally expected that not a lot, if any, of FBS conferences would be lining up at the school’s doorsteps to invite the Aggies into their league—which is exactly what has (not) happened.
NMSU Chancellor Garrey Carruthers has been fairly mum on the subject, so there is a whole lot of uncertainty for NMSU’s conference future.
A conference in college sports can mean almost everything. Not only do conferences have direct impacts on recruits and home attendance (household-name universities attract bigger numbers), but also their brand as a whole. A school can gain instant respect and prestige simply from slapping on a particular conference’s acronym next to their name.
NMSU knows this and they know that to get into a somewhat respectable conference going forward, especially in the cash cow sport that is football, they need to perform. That performance can no longer be a long term, exponential plan for growth: it has to happen quickly, and it has to happen in this next season.
Two years can be an enormous amount of time in the conference realignment world. If you need any evidence of this, just go back to the crazy shuffle in 2013 that left NMSU as the odd-school-out and stuck in the now football-less WAC. That being said, so much in college football can be decided on-the-fly in terms of where which schools are going, essentially making a program’s momentum everything. Because of this, NMSU, where traditionally success has been hard to come by, will likely struggle to achieve the kind of success they need to remain in the Sun Belt Conference.
The Aggies must have a winning season this fall and they must make a bowl game in order to keep their chances of staying at the top level of college football. Make no mistake: this next season will have a lasting impact on not only this school but the community for the foreseeable future.
But everything I’m saying is not something that the program doesn’t already know and isn’t preparing for. The face of the program, All-American running back Larry Rose III, says he thinks there certainly is pressure to make a bowl game.
“We don’t think of making a bowl simply because of conference and things like that, but that is a nice added pressure because everyone here wants to make a bowl at the end of the day,” he says. “It’s self-inflicted pressure, if we had to pinpoint it.”
To have a good season, NMSU needs a good start to the season, and the way to do that is to improve the team’s defense.
To accomplish this, the program brought in a new defensive coordinator in Frank Spaziani. And during the spring game, Spaziani’s influence was already apparent, in that the defensive side of the ball had more confidence.
Another important factor in the Aggies’ defense is Jaden Wright, who says the new coach has established a new culture.
“Coach Spaziani is such a good teacher of the game. He’s been right in everything because if we don’t do it his way, we’ll get beat,” he says.
Wright says that players are aware of the situation regarding the school’s conference future but that the coaching staff likes to keep it in the moment.
“We’re just trying to take it one game at a time, one season at a time, and however we do this year, that (conference decision) really is not up to us,” he says.
The third-year defensive back was named the Sun Belt player of the week on one occasion last year and has accepted his leadership role on the team now.
“I tell the guys that nothing that we do will be able to affect tomorrow,” he says. “We all came here to win, that’s one thing people might not get: none of us came here to lose.”
He echoes the same goals as Rose.
“Our biggest thing is that we need to just make a bowl game,” Wright says. “That’s what it comes to.”
Spaziani and the defense certainly seem to have a groove. Rodney Butler, a senior linebacker heading into his final year, says the former Boston College head coach has challenged his players.
“It’s not only in practice, but it’s also in the film room and he’s pushing us into the best we can be,” he says.
If this Saturday in April is any indication of what is to come defensively, Wright and Butler seem to have their side of the ball well in check headed into the summer.
With the defensive revival seemingly already taking place, the team really has all of the weak spots from a year ago basically covered up, at least from a fundamental standpoint as the season continues to get closer and closer.
With these factors, there can be no more, “Next season we’ll get better” attitude, which Las Cruces has heard since 1960. Coaches need to judge their players on bowl success, and in turn, Athletic Director Mario Moccia needs to judge his coaches on this same criterion.
The time to win is no longer in the future for the Aggies, it is now and it’s more important than ever. The only question that remains: Will this team step up to the challenge?
Staff writer Derek Gonzales examines recent updates in the Marvin Menzies shakeup at NMSU.
By Derek Gonzales
Just as we thought the dust had settled and the coaching carousel had run its course through Las Cruces as it comes to rumors around NMSU head basketball coach Marvin Menzies, another situation has surfaced and it appears this one poses the biggest threat to the Aggie Basketball program losing its head coach since Menzies arrived on campus in 2007.
Menzies has been linked to jobs in the past at schools such as Arizona State, Texas Tech, Tulsa, UNLV, and Washington State. Though he has not left to this point, his sustained success at NMSU has made him a commodity to high-profile programs. He is 198-111 in nine seasons, and has led NMSU to the postseason six times. His teams have been highly unimpressive against quality competition, going 3-15 against New Mexico and 0-16 against Power 5 Schools. His best win outside of beating New Mexico or UTEP while he’s been in Las Cruces was against Pacific in 2013.
It is being reported that since Texas Tech lost head coach Tubby Smith to the University of Memphis, the Red Raiders are looking at Chris Beard (though he has only been at UNLV six days) to be their next head coach. Beard was able to get the job after a 28-5 season at Arkansas-Little Rock, which was his first at the school. UNLV athletic director Tina Kunzer-Murphy chose Beard over Menzies, but now it appears UNLV might lose Beard.
Beard was an assistant coach at Texas Tech for 10 seasons (2001-2011). He coached under Bobby Knight, and was a part of the coaching staff that led Tech to four NCAA Tournament appearances during that time. As of Thursday night, Beard had met with Texas Tech officials about the opening and Kunzer-Murphy issued a statement confirming the meeting and adding that she looks to have the situation resolved in the next 24 hours, according to Mark Anderson of the Las Vegas–Review Journal.
If Beard were to bolt for Lubbock, UNLV would be sure to give Marvin Menzies another call to see if he is still interested in UNLV. Menzies was an assistant under Lon Kruger for the Runnin’ Rebels during the 2004-2005 season, and has familiarity facing Mountain West schools. His 1-11 in 12 games against Mountain West opponents would cause Rebel fans to cringe, but the upgrades in facilities and a larger recruiting budget would help Menzies bring in players that will help him build a sustainable program.
It is a real uncertain time for the Aggie basketball program. With Pascal Siakam entering the national scene, testing the NBA waters, and the team bringing back all of the key contributors from a year ago, it looks to be only a matter of time until a program with more money, more fan support, and stability in a conference comes knocking on Menzies’ door. If it happens this weekend, Aggie fans can only be grateful we were able to keep him almost a decade and can look forward to turning the page after an amazing chapter in Aggie basketball history.
Derek Gonzales can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Follow Round Up Sports on Twitter at: @RoundUp_Sports
Too many NMSU basketball fans focus on a season’s final result, rather than measuring improvement on a game-by-game, player-by-player basis, writes Sports Editor Albert Luna.
By Albert Luna
Covering NMSU basketball this past season was a rollercoaster. Many fans can agree the Aggies had a bit of a letdown season after failing to make the NCAA Tournament a record-tying fifth consecutive time. Despite all the success the Aggies were having on the court this season, it always felt that it would all be for nothing, and that the “upset” they suffered in Las Vegas at the WAC Tournament Championship game to Cal State Bakersfield was expected.
The Aggies could not get over the hump. That was the feeling I got when I was covering games this year—that for every quality home win against an inferior opponent, there was an impending road loss to another team that was “good.”
For every win against UTEP or Grand Canyon at home, there was a close loss to Long Beach State or Air Force. By February and March, it was clear that, even if NMSU was to win their automatic bid conference tournament, a likely 15-seed and first-round exit was the same as missing the tournament altogether.
Then, when the Aggies did lose that conference tournament and the subsequent NIT first-round exit (which should not rest on Braxton Huggins as he played his best basketball in March), it made many fans cherish their 15 minutes of fame on national TV and the past four NCAA appearances that much more.
When news broke last week that Marvin Menzies was being interviewed for the UNLV coaching position, it really came as a shock to no one: he had been long linked to it for months on end. It was during these days that there was uncertainty as to who would be coaching the team in the fall, and this validated something I had suspected for a while: the fans have it all wrong. On multiple occasions, I’ve had fans and spectators come up or write to me that Menzies is not a good coach.
To that I say to NMSU fans, shame on you. Some common things I have heard about Coach Menzies are things that almost have nothing to do with basketball.
“He’s not as active as previous coaches are, he doesn’t care,” I have heard once. “He can’t make in-game adjustments,” was another.
Some things are not his fault, such as the lack of competition that is coming in, which is another big complaint. The WAC is currently depleted of talent, which NMSU has not seen in a long time. That has served as a positive, as well as the killer for Aggie basketball. It makes winning easier when you play schools that were formerly in Division II just a few years ago, as opposed to Utah State or Nevada that the WAC was housing less than a decade ago.
With no surprise, this is why attendance is down at games: no one wants to see a good team beat a bad team by 20, as is the case in about 75 percent of NMSU home games.
However, when Menzies later informed Mark Rudi of the Las Cruces Sun-News of his intentions to stay, and sign a multiyear contract extension, not a peep of negativity was said.
Menzies is the best we can get. No better coach, at least not willing, is still in the WAC, nor will any be fleeing from a respectable conference school to come coach here without being fired and having no other options. The rumors of if Menzies knew he was not going to get the UNLV job are meaningless at this point too: he could have still tried his luck with opening this summer or even next year.
This extension shows he’s committed. The product on the floor is also only going to get better. He lost basically three of his best five players and still was able to coach guys through the pressure of being full-time starts and contributors, something that will never be easy to do with college kids.
To bring a team like NMSU had this year (no seniors) to within a bucket of five-straight tournament appearances? It was nothing short of brilliant. The players never showed a sign of disbelief, but rather knew their individual games and what they could do. It felt, for many that I have talked to, that this team was not the NMSU basketball teams of the past.
We saw talented young men improve their individual games in front of our eyes this season, but the only thing many people focus on is the final result, did we make it to the tournament?
Looking ahead, if Pascal Siakam stays an Aggie one more year, NMSU will more than likely have a season like they did this past year, but obviously no one can predict the final results in terms of NCAA berths or not this early.
If NMSU is a first-round out the next three seasons in a row or barely misses the NCAA tourney, why can’t fans simply regroup and come back in better numbers the next year? The quality of play is still going to be there, and whether a player believes it or not, seats filled in their arena make them perform at higher levels.
Shouldn’t that be what people are supporting? Not a coach, but the program.
So before fans start deciding that NMSU basketball is stuck in this never-ending cycle of mediocrity and think a new coach is the answer to breaking out, think again, and next year, go to the games.
Trump is appealing because of his ability to “harness the rage of older, less-educated Americans who feel they’re falling hopelessly behind,” while Hillary Clinton arouses memories of her husband’s presidency, when taxes were raised on the wealthy and there was a budget surplus.
By Billy Huntsman
New Mexico has the angriest voters in the country, according to research done by an author and analyst for Yahoo Finance.
Rick Newman calculated New Mexico’s ‘anger’ by using the state’s statistics for: current unemployment rate (6.6 percent), change in employment between 2005 and 2015 (1.4 percent), change in manufacturing employment between 2005 and 2015 (-25.2 percent), and change in weekly income between 2007 and 2015 (6.4 percent).
To compare, the national rate of unemployment is 4.9 percent, the national change in employment between 2005 and 2015 5.9 percent, the national change in manufacturing employment at -13.2 percent, and the national change in weekly income between 2007 and 2015 at 19.6 percent.
The implications of these numbers and the labeling of the ‘angriest’ states in the country—which, after New Mexico, the next nine are Alabama, Rhode Island, Nevada, West Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, Mississippi, Florida, and Illinois—are that voters in these states are less likely to vote for traditional politicians and instead vote for those whose ideas and policies seem the most antiestablishment, says Newman.
The candidates most likely to appeal to ‘angry’ voters, Newman says, are Donald Trump on the Republican side and Bernie Sanders on the Democrat side. Trump is appealing because of his ability to “harness the rage of older, less-educated Americans who feel they’re falling hopelessly behind,” while Sanders “rouses multitudes with his rants against crony capitalism.” Both candidates, Newman says, appeal to voters who “find prosperity further and further out of reach.”
Newman’s hypothesis—that unorthodox candidates are favored by ‘angry’ states—has interesting correlations: of the 10 states listed above, Alabama, Nevada, Mississippi, Florida, and Illinois have held both Republican and Democrat primaries.
Trump ran away with all five nominations, seeming to strengthen at least part of Newman’s argument, but the fact that Hillary Clinton won the Democrat nominations in these states from Sanders simultaneously seems to weaken Newman’s assertion.
To be fair, Sanders lost by small margins to Clinton in each of these five states, the closest being Clinton’s 68 to Sanders’ 67 delegates in Illinois.
So what does this mean for Sanders? Is Newman wrong?
Sanders, having won the Democrat primaries in New Hampshire, Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, and Michigan, is certainly no lightweight and not a small-timer.
But with the exception of Michigan, which ranks at 11 in ‘angry’ voters, all of Sanders’ victories have been in states that are significantly less ‘angry.’
So in fact contrary to Newman’s assertion, it seems Clinton appeals to angry Democrats.
The five states mentioned above, which Clinton won, have unemployment rates that are higher than the national average and have seen a huge portion of their jobs be turned overseas.
Of course they’re angry but they’re also desperate. If Alabama, Nevada, Mississippi, Florida, and Illinois are anything like New Mexico, they’re still struggling through statewide recessions. And when you’re desperate, you don’t take any chances, you play it safe.
Democrat voters in angry states are voting for Clinton because she’s familiar, at least to some degree. As Newman says Trump appeals to “older” voters, Clinton does too, people saw her face back in the ‘90s when her husband was president and taxes were raised on the wealthiest 1.2 percent and America’s budget deficit was, for a time, erased and there was a surplus of more than $86.4 billion in 2000.
Angry Democrats remember how well the country faired under the first Clinton and hope it will happen again under the second Clinton.
Sanders, while he is certainly charismatic and appealing, particularly to younger voters, is too much of a risk for the older majority of voters. He will continue to win some primaries and will give Hillary Clinton a run for her money.
But come June 7, New Mexico’s Democratic primary will be Clinton’s, while the Republican will go to Trump. And it will be their names on the ballot in November. When that happens, anger must give way to what is safe and familiar, or else this country will descend into anarchy.
You may like the comparison of Trump to Hitler, but it’s far more accurate to compare him to Charles Manson, writes Managing Editor Billy Huntsman in his opinion piece: “Trump is the Devil and he is here to do the Devil’s business”
*Disclaimer: The following opinion piece expresses only the views of its author and does not necessarily represent the views of The Round Up/Oncore Magazine or New Mexico State University as a whole.
By Billy Huntsman
Donald Trump is not Hitler.
Hitler had a whole regime working with him in order to recruit Nazi soldiers and begin the Holocaust. Hitler would have been nothing without the Third Reich.
Trump is a lone wolf. He alone galvanizes crowds into frothy-mouthed fits of chauvinism, rage, and violence.
He makes people who attend his rallies raise their right hands and solemnly swear—yes, as you would put your hand on a Bible and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God in court—to vote for him as president.
He is a brainwasher, a puppet-master.
If you’re going to liken Trump to anyone, liken him to Charles Manson.
Manson never killed anyone, as I presume Trump has never either. Instead, Manson recruited—brainwashed—people to kill for him, his “Family.” Manson persuaded his Family to kill seven people—one of them eight months pregnant—in two nights.
Does Trump’s pledge that American soldiers will not deny his orders as president to commit torture, such as waterboarding, even though torture is a war crime, make the comparison of him to Manson too extreme?
I don’t think so.
Does his plan to kill the families of suspected ISIS members make him any less a threat than Manson?
I don’t think so.
Would we elect Manson as president?
I hope not.
So why are we as a nation flirting with electing Trump as president?
HE IS A TERRORIST.
The U.S. has long prided itself as not negotiating with terrorists.
“Trump will crucify this country, set the cross on fire, and laugh as it burns,” writes Managing Editor Billy Huntsman.
*Disclaimer: The following opinion piece expresses only the views of its author and does not necessarily represent the views of The Round Up/Oncore Magazine or New Mexico State University as a whole.
**Disclaimer: The following opinion piece has graphic descriptions, foul language, and ethnic slurs. Proceed at risk of offense.
By Billy Huntsman
There’s a 1983 horror movie called The Dead Zone. In it, a schoolteacher, Johnny Smith (Christopher Walken), awakens from a coma and discovers he has the ability to see into the future simply by touching someone’s hand. And when he shakes hand with Greg Stillson (Martin Sheen), who is trying to get elected to the U.S. Senate, Smith sees the future: the mentally unstable Stillson eventually becomes president and instigates the nuclear apocalypse.
Watching the results come in from Super Tuesday, with Donald Trump claiming victories in the Republican primaries in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia, having already claimed New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada in February, I felt the same scrotum-piercing terror Johnny Smith felt when he saw the future of Stillson’s political career.
So how does Smith decide to proceed? Reasoning that a decent human being, given time travel were possible, must go back in time and kill baby Hitler, Smith decides to assassinate Stillson.
I’m not going to assassinate Donald Trump. I stopped playing video games because I’m so terrible at aiming.
But I can assure you, if Trump gets elected to the White House, he will get assassinated.
I repeat: IF TRUMP BECOMES PRESIDENT, HE WILL GET ASSASSINATED.
How do I know?
Because better people have been assassinated for nothing. Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lennon, John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln. Why wouldn’t Trump be a reasonable target?
The difference between these individuals and him, however, is that Trump WOULD DESERVE IT.
I don’t say that as a result of his politics—which I’ll eventually discuss here—and I don’t say that as a result of his persona on The Apprentice of a ruthless businessman—which principles I think he’s applying to his campaign, and probably has long applied to his personal life, ergo his two failed marriages—I say Trump deserves to get assassinated because, based on how he has conducted himself just in the course of his presidential campaign, he has proven himself to be an individual of no morals, no restraint, no compassion, no decency.
Donald Trump is a cruel, vindictive, spike-tongued, scaly-skinned, cold-blooded Morlock, a reprehensible subhuman, a perfect example of the very worst of humanity, an abhorrent, morally bankrupt reptile promoting acts and promising policies of moral turpitude.
Make America great again?
I’m sure I’m not the only one who wonders what Trump’s latest motto means. In typical political fashion, it’s vague but elicits a gut response from many.
Still, what does it mean?
On his Facebook profile, he says and has long advertised his campaign as self-funded, which he says means he “only works for YOU, the American people!” unlike Marco Rubio, who, Trump says, “has raised $100 million to attack me. He is now owned by his masters.”
Presuming Trump is being truthful about not taking any donations to fund his campaign, that would mean he is beholden to no one, except the American people, as he specified, right?
Of course not. He’s a businessman and he knows doing something for someone for nothing is the road to bankruptcy and ruin.
his paradoxical advocacy to cut Obamacare while somehow also addressing the “massive problem” of mental health, rather than gun control, in the country;
his advocacy to “unsign” Barack Obama’s executive action to restrict access to guns for civilians, (which he called “an assault on the Second Amendment”), only to then vow to “open up” libel laws so that he can sue the media when they report negative things about him—an “assault” on the First Amendment;
building a wall along the Mexican border, which would work just like the one in Israel, he said,
regulating the internet “to fight ISIS”—which coincidentally also benefits his desire to lessen people’s First Amendment right to free speech.
All these things may greatly appeal to and benefit housewives in knee-length flower dresses with June-Cleaver haircuts and middle-management husbands in flannel plaid suits who come every day expecting dinner on the table and kids washed up from playing football out in the yard and later read a newspaper ironed open to the business section, but for everyone else, the majority of this country, WE WILL SUFFER FROM TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY.
Trump has gotten where he is now in his political career by means of advocating hatred and threats of violence. In other words, he’s a textbook terrorist.
At a Birmingham, Alabama, rally last year, three protesters—part of Birmingham’s chapter of Black Lives Matter—attended the rally on grounds of protestation. Here, half a dozen White Trump supporters reportedly “shoved, tackled, punched, and kicked” the protesters when they interrupted Trump’s speech. The Trump supporters also reportedly called the protesters monkeys and niggers as they were beating them up.
More recently, in a victory rally in Louisville, Kentucky, on Super Tuesday, a protester was reportedly shoved around and called a nigger and a cunt before she was “kicked out.”
Who can say if these comments were actually made, it’s only hearsay, I admit. But if they turned out to be true, would it surprise you?
It wouldn’t me, because these are the sentiments Trump appeals to in people, and he may well plant the seeds of misogyny and racism in younger people.
Why else wouldn’t he adamantly denounce support from former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke? He says he knows nothing about endorsements from White supremacists and needs to know about the group supporting him before denouncing them.
Does he know nothing about the KKK?
Unlikely. Which means he recognizes that a good portion of his supporters have racist sentiments and he doesn’t want to alienate them.
Trump’s success thus far in his campaigning shows just how prevalent racism, classicism, hatred, intolerance, and pensions for violence are in a good chunk of the American public.
I’ll give you my interpretation of the “great” America Trump envisions: women in dresses and bonnets, showing no hair and no flesh other than their faces and hands. Every word a White Protestant man says is infallible, and anyone who is not a White Protestant man knows his or her role. Every city and town in the nation has at least three prisons, in them, no Whites: only niggers, wetbacks, cunt eyes, Bolsheviks, communists, socialists, queers, lesbos, trannies, whores, drug users—including coffee-drinkers and cigarette-smokers—kikes, Scientologists, Mormons.
Whereas Hitler believed he was helping Germany, everything Trump does is for himself. He is a new breed of egomaniac. Hitler and Napoleon had nothing on Trump.
Trump is a loose cannon. I don’t mean that in any way but bad. Further, though I’m no psychologist, I honestly believe he has a personality disorder and an impulse control disorder, which he might dismiss as simply a disregard for political correctness.
Mockingly imitating a journalist’s physical disorder during a rally is not a flippant disregard for political correctness—it is a blatant display of Trump’s fundamental lack of basic human goodness.
He has no business being anywhere near the White House, and yet he’s apparently the frontrunner, even ahead of Hillary Clinton.
A president should be a diplomat, an ambassador of goodwill from one country to another. He or she needs to be able to negotiate, compromise, listen.
Does this sound anything like Trump?
In ancient Sparta, members of a council—equivalent to today’s Congress—were elected by who could shout the loudest.
Trump is working on this same basis—watch any of the Republican debates for verification—and, perhaps most horrifying of all, it’s working.
Voters evidently love Trump’s approach, which is best summed up as: close your eyes, cover your ears, and spew forth hatred and ignorance.
There is no compromise for Trump: It’s either his way or scorched earth.
The American people cannot trust in Trump to negotiate with the likes of Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, Bashar al-Assad, Raúl Castro, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, Hamid Karzai, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Xi Jinping, et al, because America as a whole cannot afford—no country could—to make enemies of their states.
Further, America cannot afford to lose its allies in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, et al, for both economic, as well as defense, reasons. And Trump will surely strain these relationships, if not totally break them, because of his personality, which is one of unapologetic chauvinism and ridicule for anyone who is not a White Protestant American man.
In the recent past, Trump has called North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong-un, “a madman” and “a maniac” while simultaneously praising Jong-un for how he took control of North Korea following his father’s death: by purging—imprisoning and/or executing—more than 200 people, protégés of Jong-un’s uncle-in-law, Jang Sung-taek, and O Kuk-ryol, a close friend of Jong-il’s and “the second most powerful man in North Korea,” as well as reportedly all of Sung-taek’s family and relations, calling Jong-un’s actions “incredible.”
Is this really someone who sounds responsible and trustworthy enough to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office?
Among his lesser qualities that should disqualify him for the presidency is the fact that he is not ethical enough—at all—to be president. The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative—formerly Trump University—has since 2013 been the defendant in a $40-million lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who leveled claims of fraud against Trump and the ‘university.’ According to the lawsuit documents, more than 5,000 people had filed complaints of being defrauded by the ‘university,’ which charged them $1,500-$35,000 in ‘tuition’ to attend real estate seminars and workshops. The instructors for these courses, Trump said in an infomercial to promote the ‘university,’ were personally hired by Trump, “professors and adjunct professors that are absolutely terrific.”
Yet under oath and in a 2012 deposition, Trump later said he had neither chosen the instructors nor written any of the ‘university’s’ curriculum, which was the big draw for students to enroll, as they were promised to be taught Trump’s “business secrets.”
In other words, these students were deceived and exploited, by Trump and by the ‘university.’
Not only is he alarmingly unethical, but Trump is patently immoral.
“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families,” Trump said during a December 3, 2015, broadcast of Fox News’ “Fox and Friends.”
This of course brings up the question of whether the families of terrorists and/or suspected terrorists are themselves civilians. Consider a family with a newborn baby. Is the baby, incapable of complex thought, speech, even walking, a terrorist?
And how does Trump plan to deal with terrorists/ISIS (ISIL)?
“I would bomb the shit out of them. I would just bomb those suckers,” said Trump, as reported by Real Clear Politics.com during a November 13, 2015, Trump rally.
He was referring to the pipes of oil throughout the Middle East, which he says are giving ISIS a ton of money.
That would entail bombing the villages and likely cities that ISIS has under its control. Families and civilians, some related to ISIS, some just prisoners of occupation, would inevitably die or get injured.
But Trump doesn’t care, because he doesn’t see Muslims, Syrians, Mexicans, anyone who is not a White Protestant American man as human.
During March 3’s Republican debate, Trump further advocated for the killing of ISIS’s families, as well as the American military’s use of waterboarding and other forms of torture, which are not specifically cited but,
“There is no way any competent and knowledgeable attorney can say that waterboarding is legal under the Geneva Conventions, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or the Convention Against Torture,” retired Major General Thomas Romig, a former Army judge, told The Wall Street Journal in a 2014 interview.
“We should go for waterboarding and we should go tougher than waterboarding,” Trump said during the March 3 debate.
Trump was reminded that members of the military could defy unlawful orders, such as torture and killing innocent people, as former CIA Director General Michael Hayden told Bill Maher on February 28.
“You (military members) are required not to follow an unlawful order,” Hayden said. “That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.”
“They (military members) won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse, believe me.”
This tyrannical statement chills my blood. If Trump thinks he can coerce the military to perform what would be war crimes, what else does he think he’s capable of? What else would he try to do if he becomes president?
Here’s my vision of Trump’s America: With his hordes of gun-toting supporters—sycophants—and members of the CIA, FBI, Special Forces, SEALs, either bribed or brainwashed to join Trump’s cult, surrounding him, Trump enters the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C., cronies killing and/or brutalizing anyone in his way. He removes the framed Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Emancipation Proclamation before setting the building on fire and leaving. With the flames and smoke rising at their backs, the brigade make their way to the U.S. Capitol, where Congress has gathered. The gang enter, overwhelming the security forces within and forcing their way into the House chamber. The gunslingers guard the doors, ensuring no escape for any of the gape-mouthed, wide-eyed politicians and their friends and family members who tremble in their seats as gun barrels are aimed in the middle of their faces. Trump, followed by four men, each carrying one of the framed historical documents, makes his way to the House Clerk’s desk, where he announces to the stunned, terrified crowd, “The America you knew is no longer. I am in control, I am everything.”
Congress in session. Creative Commons photo.
His minions then take blowtorches to the frames and sear through the bulletproof-glass and incinerate the delicate parchment with the words—the foundation—of this country’s governance.
Some Congress members are killed, to ensure those who are not know Trump and his ghouls will tolerate no resistance.
Then comes the trickle-down effect, bringing the U.S. Supreme Court into the fold, and once the separation of powers has been abolished, Trump has the entire country once known as the United States of America under his thumb.
A little too Olympus Has Fallen for you?
I’m not joking. This is the fate, I fear, of the country under Trump’s presidency.
And taking control of the country is just the beginning.
Then comes the systematic invasions of neighboring countries—Canada, Mexico—picking up reinforcements and slaves along the way. Then he claims Central and South America before heading far north again, contingent marching into and overwhelming Russia, then China, the rest of Asia and Australia, before moving into Europe, then south to Africa.
After Trump’s vision of ultimate Manifest Destiny has been achieved, then will come the extermination of the undesirables: the Jews, the Hindus, the Orthodox, the Catholics, the gay, the disabled, the “uppity.” He won’t kill them all, of course, because then his forces would be greatly diminished and, quite frankly, ruling a bunch of people is a lot more fun.
But Trump wouldn’t want really black Black people or really brown Hispanics or Middle Easterners or really pale Russians or British. He wants the nice, eye-pleasing shade of white, Caucasian, so he enforces interbreeding—ethnic cleansing—between those people of color and the Caucasians, until most of the too-dark or too-light pigment, as well as the thick, coiled hair of Black people and the slanted eyes of Asians, are gone, and everyone looks just right to him—looks just like him.
A representative of Trump’s government attends each birth throughout his empire and if the baby born looks strange—too small or looks retarded or cries too much or doesn’t cry enough or has difficulty breathing or has too much of the pigmentation of his or her forbearers—the representative murders the babe on the spot.
No room for the weak.
Perhaps to prevent us from carrying on into this line of thought and this Man in the High Castle scenario, Trump, not 24 hours after promising military members would not refuse his orders, released a statement, reported on by The New York Times:
“I feel very, very strongly about the need to attack and kill those terrorists who attack and kill our people. I know people who died on 9/11. I will never forget those events. I will use every legal power that I have to stop these terrorist enemies. I do, however, understand that the United States is bound by laws and treaties and I will not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters…I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities.”
Amazing. Such a change of heart in just a matter of hours.
Surely he couldn’t be lying just to save face, perhaps, with more conservative voters. Surely, if elected president, he wouldn’t change his mind—or perhaps remove the façade and show us how he was all along, that he was just deceiving us like he deceived the people who enrolled at his ‘university.’
Trump doesn’t have a history of changing sides, certainly not. Once he’s made up his mind about a matter, nothing can move him. He’s not wishy-washy, like most politicians, right?
Take the Planned Parenthood debate.
“Planned Parenthood should absolutely be defunded,” Trump told Fox News’ Chris Wallace on October 19, 2015.
So how does he stand on the ever-important abortion debate?
He used to be pro-choice, as he told Meet the Pressin 1999—“very pro-choice”—but changed his view as a result of a friend’s wife giving birth to what later became “a superstar” of a child.
Would he be persuaded to change his view again if he heard from women who had abortions and then, because they didn’t drop out of high school to take care of the child, became CEOs, doctors, engineers, lawyers?
But people are allowed to change their minds, even politicians. So let’s presume Trump would change his mind again, go back to being pro-choice: how would he then proceed with Planned Parenthood?
Perhaps he’s simply against the organization, not necessarily abortion, but against Planned Parenthood because they sold fetal tissue to researchers. And because of this, he believes Planned Parenthood should be federally defunded, which likely means Planned Parenthood would go out of business.
So if that happens, where are women going to get abortions?
At a general practitioner’s?
Not if Trump has his way and gets rid of Obamacare, which can provide some of the costs for getting an abortion.
So once Planned Parenthood and Obamacare are defunded and repealed, how are women going to get abortions?
In the back of a van? In a dark alley? With a drawn-out clotheshanger?
Yeah, that’s right. Because you had sex and got pregnant, now you have to decide: are you going to have a dangerous abortion and run the risk of dying, or are you going to have the baby and be destitute for the rest of your lives?
I believe Trump is being honest and has changed his mind—that he used to be pro-choice and now is pro-life—but I don’t believe his reasons for switching sides.
Do you want to know why I think he changed his mind?
Because President Trump wants live babies so he can have dead soldiers.
What else does Trump expect? According to his books, Time to Get Tough (2011)and The America We Deserve (2000), he wants to restrict public access to welfare and food stamps, make single mothers live together in group homes, and reduce the national minimum wage. How can the son or daughter of a poor family get out of the black hole of their current existence?
Join the military!
You’ll have the chance to enlist voluntarily until Trump reintroduces conscription—the draft.
But don’t worry, because—if you survive (unlikely, because we’ll be at war with the world with Trump as president)—you’ll get this lovely G.I. bill, which will cover part of your $100,000-a-year tuition to any Trump University throughout the nation.
And while we’re on the subject of the military, let’s talk about sexual assault, which is such a problem in the U.S. military that the U.S. Department of Defense had to set up a separate office—the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO)—to handle all the cases.
But it’s not only a problem in the military, of course, there’s also a significant rape culture on university campuses—maybe not Trump University—throughout the country.
While he has not spoken to sexual assault on campuses, he has talked about the military issue. How did he respond?
“26,000 unreported sexual assults (sic) in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?” he wrote in a May 7, 2013, tweet.
“The Generals and top military brass never wanted a mixer (putting men and women in the military) but were forced to do it by very dumb politicians who wanted to be politically C!” he tweeted again nine minutes later.
To me this sounds like he’s saying sexual assault is an inevitable result of men and women working together—so get used to it!
Of course many other people felt this way and criticized him, prompting him to tweet again:
“For all of the morons who have been complaining about my comment on sexual assault & rape in the military, don’t you see that it was asked as a question, with a question mark at the end of the sentence! In other words, it wasn’t made as a statement, but rather as a question. I wanted your views. Many of the generals and military officials were not in favor of the male/female mix. What do you think of that?”
What we think of the issue of sexual assault in the military is irrelevant, it’s you, Trump, who needs to recognize the problem that it is. Tell US what YOU are going to do about the problem.
If he were asked this question, I think he would respond something along the lines of, “I’d probably just keep women from serving in the military—they’re the weaker sex, after all.”
So women can’t serve in the military—a dependable alternative to working nine-to-five for those who can’t get blue-collar work—they can’t get safe abortions, and welfare resources will be severely limited? All that’s left is take away their right to vote.
In other words, in Trump’s America, women would be second-class citizens.
Hey ladies, wanna talk about feminism?
“Stone the bitch!”
Oh your husband died?
“Throw her on the funeral pyre! Damn Hindus actually had a good idea for once!”
Now that we’ve brought women and sexual assault into the fold, let’s talk about Donald Trump’s brief but significant history of sexual assault.
Nothing has been confirmed—yet—but Trump is currently the defendant in a $125 million lawsuit brought against him by a woman who claims he sexually harassed—bordering on abuse—back in 1997. The case is ongoing.
Additionally, in a 1993 biography of Trump, Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump by Harry Hurt III, Trump’s first ex-wife—Ivana Zelníčková—recounts a graphic sexual encounter with Trump, which she summed up thus: “He raped me.”
This scene Zelníčková recounted in court during her and Trump’s divorce proceedings, and just as the book was getting ready to ship out to book retailers, Trump’s lawyers reportedly sent the publisher a copy of a statement written by Zelníčková in which she retracts much of the magnitude of her previous statement. The statement was included as a footnote to the sexual encounter story:
STATEMENT OF IVANA TRUMP
During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me.
I wish to say that on one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness which he normally exhibited toward me, was absent. I referred to this as a “rape,” but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.
Any contrary conclusion would be an incorrect and most unfortunate interpretation of my statement which I do not want interpreted in a speculative fashion and I do not want the press or media to misconstrue any of the facts set forth above. All I wish is for this matter to be put to rest.
This statement can only be released and used in its entirety.
Approved: Ivana M. Trump
Date: April 6, 1993
So what’s she saying here? That Trump raped her but not actually “raped” her—as though there are varying degrees of rape, as there are burns.
“Ah, well, it’s only first-degree rape, it’s nothing—put some Neosporin on it and get on with your life.”
Of course Trump’s history was brought to the forefront once again shortly after he announced his candidacy for the presidency:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” he said on June 16, 2015.
Overlooking the phrasing, perspective, and syntaxical issues of this statement (difficult for a journalism major), the only thing of real importance in this statement is the fact that Trump is calling all Mexicans who come into the United States “rapists.”
“And some, I assume, are good people.”
So a person can be a rapist and simultaneously be a good person? Is that what he’s saying?
Is he including himself in that?
How did Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer, defend him when Trump’s comment about Mexicans was paralleled with Ivana’s claims in the book?
Did Cohen assert the claim was preposterous, heinous, mean-spirited, untrue—you know, how someone who is innocent of rape being accused of the act would respond?
(America’s Got Talent buzzer disapproving a performer)
Of course Ivana’s statement vaguely pardons Trump and prevents me from outright calling him a rapist.
But Ivana did say she felt “violated” by sex with Trump, so let’s call him a violator, because rape and violation are worlds apart, right?
I don’t think Trump thinks rape is a big issue—a nuisance of modern society, right, like smog?
Let’s delve a little deeper into this fantasy world Trump and those who work for him live in, a world where one spouse can “violate” the other at will. By this logic, all the people in the world who are imprisoned because they raped someone—often multiple people—and those who live in society with sexual predator status would be rapists and sex offenders if they had been married to their victims. Right?
So, presumably if Trump becomes president, and I just happen to be in Las Vegas next February, and I’m on the Strip and I see a really smokin’-hot woman I want to have sex with, and I take her to a bar and get her drunk but then she says she’s not into me—she just wanted me to buy her drinks—and then she tries to leave, all I would have to do is get her into a taxi, get in with her, instruct the cabbie to take us to A Little White Wedding Chapel, marry her, then I could do whatever hideous, disgusting, horrible, diabolical acts I want to her—on her—and she wouldn’t be able to do anything—she couldn’t have me arrested, she couldn’t sue me, it wouldn’t be grounds for a divorce—because I’m not raping her, because “you cannot rape your spouse.”
At the most, I would be a violator.
Recently Trump proposed he could save America $300 billion by repealing a law prohibiting Medicare from negotiating prescription drug prices with drug manufacturers. How Trump plans to save $300 billion a year from a program that only saves $78 billion a year is beyond me.
But if he’s interested in saving America money, I have another proposal for you to consider, Trump: In 2013, the FBI reported more than 67,000 cases of forcible sexual assault had been reported and convicted. Further, Parents For Megan’s Law report more than 800,000 registered sex offenders either in prisons or in communities throughout the United States and its territories.
So let’s use a few billion dollars—because America has so much money it can just throw around, or maybe you, Trump, can use some of your money for a worthy cause—and relocate all the White Protestant men and seen-and-not-heard women in Utah to other states of their choice—all the non-White non-Protestant people will be shit out of luck, on their own. Then we move in all the non-White non-Protestant rapists, sex offenders, predators—not violators—all the convicted sex criminals into Utah, except the White Protestant American men who are surely in prison by mistake—because White Protestant American men couldn’t possibly commit rape, maybe violation, but not rape—along with all of their victims—all women, because men can’t get raped, right, Trump?—and if the female victims don’t want to comply, you force them at gunpoint—because women don’t have rights equal to men’s, and any woman who wants fair treatment must be a witch.
So now that all the convicts and their victims are in Utah, then the convicts marry each of their victims—remember polygamy is legal in Utah—and now the convicts can violate—not rape—their spouses with impunity. And if a convict wants to violate—not rape—someone he’s not married to, all he has to do is marry her and he can do whatever he wants and not get in trouble.
Then we’ll save a lot of money because we’re not housing rapists—who aren’t rapists anymore because what they’re doing—violating—is completely legal—in our prisons. Then Trump can build another of his precious walls along the state lines of Utah, guard it with airstrike drones to make sure none of the undesirables within can ever get out.
Let’s keep talking about sex because it’s fun.
As though we couldn’t like Trump any less, he wants to have sex with his daughter, Ivanka.
If you were grossed out by the thought of Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton in the Oval Office…
Yeah, think about it.
This is the guy 40 percent of Americans don’t dislike?
At a recent Republican debate, Trump spent more time defending the size of his penis than he did talking about the issues America is facing.
That’s great, so when ISIS invades America and the military doesn’t have any guns because Trump didn’t assign them a budget—”because I didn’t think this job was going to be so hard”—Trump can just scare ISIS away with his monstrous schlong.
Going back to Trump’s views on Mexicans, let’s talk about that wall he wants Mexico to build (and pay for) at the border—to keep Mexicans from entering the U.S., at least illegally.
“All you have to do is ask Israel,” Trump said. “Walls work.”
He’s referring to the West Barrier Bank barrier in Israel, which divides the land Palestinians say is theirs and the land the Israelis say is theirs.
But the barrier and Trump’s wall are two very different walls.
But, unlike the Israelis and Palestinians, the U.S. and Mexico don’t have an outright hostile relationship as a result of centuries-old religious differences.
America has a problem with Mexican migrants entering the country without documentation—hardly a crime you would bring before a tribunal at the Hague to hear a case for crimes against humanity.
If there were to be a wall—in the hopes of creating a bigger impediment than is already in place—it would only serve to hurt the U.S.’s economy.
In 2015, the U.S. exported more than $236 billion in goods to Mexico, and imported more than $294 billion from Mexico, leaving the U.S. with a trade deficit of more than $56 billion—a drop in the bucket when compared to the U.S.’s national debt of more than $119 trillion.
Do you really think putting up a 3,200-mile-long wall—from the southernmost tip of California to the point of the panhandle in Texas—will make things any easier on trade?
This is not Cold-War Germany, where a wall (with its subsequent trade agreement) improved one side’s trade and economy by eight percent.
We’re talking about two first-world countries that do a ton of trading with each other, and the rest of the world. A wall would bring unnecessary inconvenience and detriment to both countries’ economies.
Not only that, but can you imagine the fatality rate that would accompany Trump’s wall?
Border Patrol aren’t known for their kindness to undocumented migrants, and the wall would inevitably attract even more migrants to try to cross it (because, as we all know, when someone says you can’t do something, you wanna do it even more). Factor in the presence of gun-wielding, overworked, overheated Border Patrol and the whole situation is doomed to be a human rights nightmare.
So then not only is the wall an economic burden, it also brings unnecessary bad publicity to U.S. Customs and the U.S. as a whole.
You may be wondering about my political identity. For the sake of transparency, I’m a very liberal Republican—the kind of Republican that used to exist back in the 1800s, when we were abolitionists and Democrats were pro-slavery. I voted for Romney in 2012 because he was Mormon and I’m steadfast in the belief that people from different backgrounds—ethnic backgrounds, religious backgrounds, sexual orientation backgrounds, political backgrounds, etc.—can lend new perspectives to a system that has been primarily run by the same species since it started, and reconsidering things that aren’t working anymore is crucial and requires perseverance and bravery.
When I registered to vote several years ago, I hesitated whether to identify as Republican because, as the party is today, my views don’t really align. I could have signed up as Independent but I wanted the option to vote in primaries.
And thank God I did, because every vote matters this year—we need every vote we can get that’s not for Trump.
I had been a fan of Rand Paul, a Republican libertarian, but then he dropped out of the race. Now I’m pulling for Bernie Sanders, with Hillary Clinton as third-string. I can’t support any of the remaining Republicans—Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich—because they’ve all said they’ll support Trump if he’s elected the GOP nominee.
The prospect of Trump becoming president terrifies me. I don’t think people think about it hard enough—only superficially. They laugh him off, “Oh yeah, he’s Hitler, he’s stupid, dumb hairpiece.”
But it goes deeper than that. Trump is not an idiot—Bush was an idiot—Trump is a conniving fiend. He has a cruel heart and he will bring endless suffering, dismay, death, and destruction to this country, as well as the rest of the world, as president.
“I’m very concerned about having him in charge of the nuclear weapons because I think his visceral response to attack people on their appearance—short, tall, fat, ugly—my goodness, that happened in junior high,” said Rand Paul during a debate with Trump present. “Are we not way above that and would we not all be worried to have someone like that in charge of the nuclear arsenal?”
But did Trump say anything to quell Paul’s fears, which must have struck home for some viewers? Did he say anything to put any worries at ease?
What did he say in response?
“I never attacked him (Paul) on his look and believe me, there’s plenty of subject matter right there.”
Time and time again Trump has been given opportunities to address concerns—gaps—in his policies as president, and each time he has chosen the low road, he has chosen to sidestep any chance to promote his platforms, to address the issues he wishes to change about America, in favor of making acerbic, half-clever shots at anyone, onstage and off.
“You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals,'” Megyn Kelly said during a debate she moderated with Trump onstage.
With the audience laughing in the background, “Only Rosie O’Donnell,” Trump replied.
This man is not a politician. He does not have the proper temperament for politics. He is an entertainer, a performer, a trite comedian at best. He is a 69-year-old middleschooler shooting spitballs and making armpit farts.
He is bastardizing democracy, shitting on the legacies of John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington.
Trump is a tyrant, a plague, a monster, a boil, a cyst, a Philistine, a dictator, an extremist, a cult leader, a terrorist who will crucify this country, set the cross on fire, and laugh as it burns.
If the Continental Congress and the Founding Fathers had known a campaign like Trump’s would be so successful, I have no doubt they would have torn up the Constitution and said, “Fuck it, not worth it. We’ll stay part of Britain.”
I reassert my claim that Trump has one or more mental disorders that account for the way he acts the way he does. Some critics are calling to see copies of his tax returns. I say we need to see a psychological assessment for him.
But that’s an invasion of privacy, even for a politician, you’re probably thinking.
Think about this: People who want to undergo sex reassignment surgery often have to undergo psychological evaluations to determine if they’re mentally competent and stable enough to withstand the transition (a good reason).
But to run for president, all you have to do is fill out some paperwork and announce it on Facebook.
Does this seem strange to anyone else?
People who want to have the opposite kind of genitalia so that they can feel more comfortable with themselves have to go through a host of certified medical professionals before they’ll even be considered for sex changes, yet the position for the most important, most powerful job in the most powerful, most dangerous country in the world is open to any American who can write his or her name?
Trump wants to “open up” libel laws in America so that it’s easier for people like him—who are often criticized by the media—to sue and win when media say bad things about him.
So he wants to strip people of the constitutional right to criticize and condemn our leaders. For now he just wants their money.
Might he eventually want our heads?
Too far of a jump?
I don’t think so.
When I was a kid, my mom and I used to watch this mini-series called Storm of the Century. In it, a man arrives on a remote Maine island just before a massive snowstorm is due to hit the coast. This man is Satan in the flesh and he has come to take something from the islanders.
At one point, everyone gathers in the town hall, where they have scheduled to meet the man and discuss his demands, and the people discuss among themselves if they actually believe the man is who he says he is. Even though everyone knows he is in fact the Devil, the protagonist votes otherwise. His wife his tells him they’re not deciding on whether to give the man what he wants, just deciding if they believe who is he.
“Once we start down that road, every step of the way gets easier.”
That’s how Trump’s presidency will be.
It’ll start with small things: making it easier to sue the media so that they shut up for fear of losing money and going out of business. Then, once that’s done, he’ll repeal the rest of the First Amendment, so that no one can criticize him.
On and on. He abolishes any right to a court hearing, instead judges defendants and sets out their fates himself—100 an hour, on a conveyor belt, “Off with his head, off with his head, set him free, chemically castrate that one.”
There’s the question of who will be Trump’s running mate. Why wouldn’t he pick someone who had been a candidate for the office before? And someone who fervently endorsed him?
Back when Sarah Palin ran with John McCain in 2008, I didn’t pay much attention to politics and so didn’t realize just how frenetic Palin is. But after seeing her endorse Trump in Ames, Iowa, and seeing how similar their personalities are, I’m convinced he’ll choose her. And if that happens, woe even more to the world.
In psychology there’s a concept that one delusional individual can transmit his or her delusions—beliefs—to another. It’s called folie à deux, a madness shared by two.
I don’t know if either Trump or Palin “caught” each other’s craziness—I think they were both individually crazy before meeting—but if they become president and vice president respectively, the rest of the country will catch their madness.
I know that sounds extreme, but let’s keep some figures in mind: Hitler was in control of the Nazi party from 1933 until 1945. In 12 years, his regime killed close to 20 million people—including the Jewish genocide—not to mention the 30 million killed as a result of World War II.
Joseph Stalin was in power of the Soviet Union from 1922 until 1953. In 31 years it’s estimated he killed at least 30 million of his own people.
Serving as prime minister of Democratic Kampuchea (modern-day Cambodia) from 1976 to 1979, Pol Pots’ dictatorship killed between one to three million of his own people (in a country of about eight million).
Between the Young Turks’ coup d’état of 1913 and lasting until the last vestiges of the Young Turk reform in 1925, the Three Pashas—Enver, Talaat, and Djemal Pasha—held de facto rulership of the empire and were responsible for the Armenian Genocide, which killed as many as 1.5 million Armenians, the Assyrian Genocide, which killed as many as 300,000 Assyrians starting in 1914 and continuing on until 1925, and the Greek Genocide, which killed as many as 900,000 Greeks between 1913 and 1923. They also entered the empire into the First World War.
These individuals wreaked such havoc in the little time they had the power to do it with—all without nuclear weapons.
How will the triumvirate of Trump and Palin and their third Pasha, the U.S. secretary of state (let’s have some fun and predict Maine Governor Paul LePage, who recently berated a Maine town hall meeting with a rant against drug dealers in Maine—”guys with names like D-Money, Smoothy, Shifty”—who sell their heroin, then return to New York and Connecticut. “Incidentally, half the time they impregnate a young, white girl before they leave.” And why wouldn’t Trump appoint LePage? The Maine governor has endorsed Trump. ‘‘I was Donald Trump before Donald Trump became popular,’’ LePage said.)—because, remember, Trump plans to overthrow Congress, so he doesn’t have to get the Senate’s approval—what havoc will these three wreak?
How many people will die, get mangled, suffer, weep, bleed, vomit under Trump’s dictatorship?
I feel it in my bones, in the depths of my soul: if Trump becomes president, this country will never recover. This country and the world will be changed for the worse.
And if Trump becomes president, what becomes of democracy then? He will cast it aside like a broken condom.
What was it all worth then? What did the Founding Fathers work for? What did the revolutionaries die for? What were they drawn and quartered for? What were they burned alive for? What were they tarred and feathered for? What did the British pour boiling tea down their throats for? What did the revolutionaries, shivering in Valley Forge, get frostbite, break their teeth chewing their leather boots, die without seeing their families again for?
The Bostonian Paying the Excise-Man, 1774
What did the Yankees fight for in the Civil War if not for the idea that, in accordance with our Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal? Not just American men, but Syrian, Mexican, Muslim men, too.
If Trump gets elected president, what was the point of our soldiers fighting so that the America we have today could be created? What was the point of later soldiers defending it so that the principles laid out by the Founding Fathers could prosper? What was the point of defending the American way of life and the dignity of innocent people at home and abroad in World War I, II?
What have so many American soldiers died, been disabled for—in the belief that what they were doing was for the greater good of their children, their people, their country—if it all only led to Trump, this treasonist, this villain, this fiend, this virulent disease propagating hatred, anger, and fear getting elected?
Trump has and will continue to make an absolute mockery of democracy. He will be the death of America.
Trump is the very worst of us, the most reprehensible version of us. If you vote for him, you cannot possibly consider yourself a moral person, a caring person, a decent person.
New Mexico’s primaries are on June 7. But I hope this reaches a much larger audience than just New Mexicans. It’s not too late for the country to come to its senses and oust this monster.
He will be the GOP’s nominee—I’m almost certain. If he does, it’s incumbent upon all of us to vote against him. No matter who the Democratic nominee is—it could be Clinton, it could be Sanders, it could be Vermin Supreme. No matter who it is, he or she will be infinitely better than Trump, because he or she will not lead us into World War III.
This is not a matter of ethics, political philosophies. It truly doesn’t matter who you vote for—it doesn’t matter whether you agree with their policies (although the Dallas Observer has some concerns about Cruz being president, and their argument rather undermines mine, but it’s worth reading—so long as you don’t vote for Trump.
This is larger than politics. This is a matter of life and death, black and white, a clear-cut battle between good and evil.
I encourage everyone who is reading this to do something to oppose Trump’s presidency. Make GIFs, memes, satire videos, SNL skits, SEND ME OPINION PIECES, tweet, blog, write letters, manifestos, pamphlets, for God’s sake, ANYTHING.
A note to journalists: The time for objectivity is over. In fact it never should have existed as far as Trump’s campaign is concerned. Objectivity was born out of the Civil War—another example in which objectivity had no place. IF YOU’RE NOT OPPOSING TRUMP, YOU’RE SUPPORTING HIM AND THAT IS UNCONSCIONABLE.
Condemn Trump for the charlatan he is. Damn him for the vaudeville charades he has subjected us and our political system to.
Trump is a terrorist, and this country—like Hell vomiting out a soul too corrupt and maligned for that region—must drive him out of the race for president, out of the country. We must shun him, excommunicate him, we must realize we are better and deserve better than the foul like of him.
Wondering if you should see ‘Deadpool’? Read staff writer Aaron Stiles’ review to see if it’s for you!
By Aaron Stiles
In the corporatized, profit-driven world that we live in today, it’s no wonder that every part of our lives is becoming more and more processed. Not only are our plants, animals, and drinking water processed, but since the 1980s movies have become cheap, compressed, nutritionally void products that leave us feeling less than satisfied. The biggest of these junk food movie franchises right now exists in the superhero genre, which had some popularity in the ‘70s and ‘80s but really took off in the early 2000s, with Marvel’s Spider-Man.
Since then, every year has brought us another action-packed reboot, sequel, or origin story for some of the most popular superheroes in history. The only logical next step would of course be to combine these films into crossovers that encompass the entirety of these superhero universes.
Which of course makes sense, because even back when comic books were in their earliest stages, crossover stories have been part of the norm. But the problem is, (and I may be alone in saying this) that while some of these movies are really good in a lot of ways, some of them are becoming so formulated and generic or the fans are disappointed with the adaptation that I can’t help but wonder, “Is it time to retire superhero films? At least for a while?”
And then the superhero franchise finally got the kick in the ass that it needed from Deadpool. Fans of the Marvel comic book immediately fell in love with the anti-hero’s antics more than 20 years ago. X-Men Origins: Wolverine finally saw a film version of Deadpool but fans were horrified at the portrayal, which transformed the character into a deformed mutant, with swords sewn onto his arms and a stitched-up mouth—a far cry from the mouthy, smart-ass true Deadpool that fans knew and loved.
Ryan Reynolds, who played Deadpool in the aforementioned film, felt badly about the portrayal and made it a personal mission to have the film made. After 10 years in development hell, some test footage was released and the Internet went wild. The studio green lit the film and production began in early 2015. Fan boys and fan girls all over the internet were ecstatic. They had read the comics, seen the promotions, and played the video game based on the character—the people were ready for Deadpool. The first trailer from Comic Con leaked online the day it was shown and the hype really began. Deadpool’s opening weekend broke the R-rated opening weekend record.
Deadpool is the story of Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds), former Special Forces operative turned midnight mercenary in New York City. After meeting Vanessa Carlysle (played by Morena Baccarin) in a bar, the two become entangled in a short-lived, picture-perfect romance. Wilson is diagnosed with terminal cancer and as he fights for his life, Vanessa stays by his side and tries to help him, but Wilson feels that his life is coming to an end and the last thing that he wants is the love of his life to see him die. So in the middle of the night, Wilson packs up and leaves and is confronted by a recruiter for a secret program, who tells Wilson they have been studying experimental cures for cancer and they believe he would be the perfect candidate. Wilson is taken to a facility where he is tortured and experimented on by an evil scientist called Ajax (portrayed by Ed Skrein), in an effort to transform him and other “patients” into super-powered, mutated slaves. Wilson is experimented on to the point of deformity but not without gaining a few super powers. Later, Wilson escapes and vows to find a cure for his disfigurement and to win back his girlfriend.
Deadpool was one of the most fun movies that I have seen in a while. Last year there were some really entertaining films—Mad Max and The Revenant—but this film was a treat I had been looking forward to for a long time. Deadpool promised the internet that it would be full of blood, gore, and profanity, which may normally have been a turn off for some people, but of course the spirit of Deadpool had to be preserved, and it worked out for the film in many ways.
The comic book character Deadpool has always been a sarcastic sort of commentator on comic book culture and popular culture who likes to break the fourth wall and make nods to pop culture with his meta humor. This in itself is enough to love Deadpool and to want a movie made about him, but I think there were some other factors that helped usher Deadpool to the big screen. Because of this type of humor found in the comic books, it is easy to see that Deadpool is used as a device to poke fun at comic book readers and the culture, to illustrate the importance of not taking oneself too seriously. Any art form can become pretentious and it’s important to have moments of looking in the mirror and seeing one’s flaws—and of course laugh at them.
This was the perfect time for Deadpool to hit theaters. Not only because we find ourselves in a time where political correctness is being demanded at every corner, but because we live in a period of film that is centered around superheroes. Marvel has become one of the biggest film franchises in the world and has released an impressive amount of films in the last 10 years. With Captain America, Iron Man, and the Hulk always at the forefront of pop culture and movie theaters in the summers, this was the perfect time to have a movie about a sadistic swearing anti-hero.
But the film was much more than just poking fun at superhero movies or breaking the fourth wall. It was also a fun action movie with good fight scenes and plenty of action. The writing was also extremely well done, with all of the quick wit and hilarious sequences. As far as acting, Ryan Reynolds is without a doubt the favorite. Most of the other actors are a bit one-dimensional, but that’s not a problem because Deadpool himself is supposed to be the focus of this film. The only actors who added to the comedy of the film were T.J. Miller as Weasel and Leslie Uggams as Blind Al. Both characters were hilarious and perfectly acted and the chemistry all of them shared with Reynolds was also apparent and added a lot of laughs to the movie.
Overall I had a great time at this film and I will definitely be adding it to my film collection when it’s released.
How did the NBA rebound after a less-than-exciting trade? Find out in The Round Up/Oncore Magzine’s weekly NBA column!
By Derek Gonzales
The 2016 NBA trade deadline was expected to be as entertaining as the year before, when players like Goran Dragic, Isaiah Thomas, Reggie Jackson, Enes Kanter, and Kevin Garnett were traded minutes before the four p.m. Eastern Time deadline hit.
This year, rumors swirled around the league, from Kevin Love going to Boston, to Carmelo Anthony teaming up with King James in Cleveland. However, none of these came to fruition, with the most notable trades being Cleveland landing of one of the league’s best three-point shooting big men in Channing Frye, and Phoenix finally getting rid of their disgruntled power forward Markieff Morris, sending him to Washington for two expiring contracts and a protected first-round pick.
Let’s take a look at my three likes and dislikes of Week 18 in the NBA, as well as power rankings.
Like: Cleveland acquiring Channing Frye.
This was a low-cost move for the Cavs, sending a first-rounder and Anderson Varajao’s expiring contract to Portland in the three-team deal. Channing Frye, whom Cavs GM David Griffin is familiar with when both were in Phoenix, is a 7-foot center who in his 10th year and shoots 38.7 percent from behind the arc. His ability to spread the floor and pull opposing big men away from the basket to open up driving lanes for LeBron and Kyrie will be a huge plus for the Cavs as we inch closer to playoff basketball.
Dislike: Markieff Morris
Markieff Morris was given a four-year, $32-million contract by the Phoenix Suns. And what did they get from him? Bad publicity: getting charged with assault with his twin brother and fellow Sun Marcus, throwing a towel at the Suns’ coach’s head, shoving a teammate during a timeout, and publicly asking to be traded after Marcus got traded. The unprofessionalism Markieff showed as part of the Suns was wrong. The organization deserved his 100 percent effort on the court, and did not get that, with his scoring average dropping four points from the season before, to add onto his off-the-court antics. Here’s to hoping he grows up in Washington.
Like: The ‘Brow puts up 59 and 20 on Detroit.
The New Orleans Pelicans have been decimated by injuries all year. A team that snuck into the playoffs last year is 11 games under .500 and is falling out of the playoff picture, but Anthony Davis provided a memorable night for the team Sunday. He went 24-34 from the field en route to his 59 points in 43 minutes, and grabbed 20 rebounds against Pistons center Andre Drummond. A team with a special talent like this shouldn’t be 22-33 on the year. GET THIS MAN SOME HELP!
Golden State Warriors (49-5)—It took an unbelievable performance from Damian Lillard, scoring 51 points to knock off the Dubs. Sitting at 49-5, they are still on pace for 73 wins.
San Antonio Spurs (47-9)—These Spurs continue to fly under the radar, but they do still face Golden State twice before the end of the season. That’s their chance to get some attention.
Cleveland Cavaliers (40-14)—It was a toss-up for the third spot between them and OKC, but they knocked the Thunder in Chesapeake Bay Arena on Sunday, which is always tough.
Oklahoma City Thunder (40-16)—They would’ve liked to have gotten a signature win over LeBron and the Cavs, but this team is clicking. The addition of Randy Foye will only make it tougher for opposing defenses.
Boston Celtics (33-24)—Brad Stevens has gotten his team to buy into his defense-first mentality. “They’ve got a bunch of junkyard dogs that can play,” said Clippers Coach Doc Rivers after his team lost in Boston.
Los Angeles Clippers (36-19)—Speaking of Doc, his team just continues to put up better numbers offensively without Blake Griffin. Good win during the week against San Antonio, but they still cannot figure out a way to beat those Warriors.
Toronto Raptors (36-18)—They have the second-best record in the East, but it’s hard to give love to a team that, with Lowry, DeRozan, Valanciunas, hasn’t been able to get out of the first round of the playoffs.
Memphis Grizzlies (32-23)—Grit ‘N Grind continues to win games in Memphis. Let’s see if Lance Stephenson can channel that fire that made him popular in Indiana and be productive for the Grizz.
Miami Heat (31-24)—Chris Bosh has another blood clot-related issue, so let’s keep him in our thoughts and hope for a speedy return to the court. Hassan Whiteside just posted 25 points and 23 rebounds in a win in D.C. on Saturday, as the team sits at fifth in the East.
Indiana Pacers (30-25)—Paul George, who should win NBA Comeback Player of the Year, leads this team into a big game in Miami on Monday. The game will have playoff/tiebreaker implications.
Be sure to check next week for the next installment of the NBA Column.
Under Moffat “Doctor Who” tries too hard to be conventional when we fans are used to the unconventional. We want the show back the way it used to be!
By Nani Lawrence
Before I dive into this opinion piece, just let me say I’m a certain kind of viewer. When I watch something on TV or Netflix, my aim is to enjoy it. Mainly, I’m not much of a thinker. If anything, I’m a ‘feeler.’ Especially, I think, with Doctor Who, I want to feel his alien pseudo-humanity.
One of my favorite episodes I absolutely had to re-watch before Netflix (and every other streaming service) took down all seasons of Doctor Who is probably one of every fan’s favorites: “Vincent and The Doctor.” Not only am I a huge fan of art—painting in particular—and of Van Gogh, but the very last scene in which Amy and the Doctor hope that showing Van Gogh how beloved he is in their time will extend his short life is fantastic to me. That moment and the Doctor’s comment that even though they didn’t save him, they were still important “good things” chokes me up every single time. That alien is more human than many humans I know.
Having said all that, I am pretty happy that Steven Moffat is leaving. I really do appreciate many of the episodes he wrote for. “Blink” and “Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead” are also some favorite episodes of mine. Since he took over as head writer, though, I just cannot follow a single thing.
In groups online full of fellow fans, it seems my opinion is in the minority. People actually like trying to guess what kind of alien-science is at play.
More power to them.
Every time I try to guess, even at times based on past episodes, I’m wrong. Sure, it keeps it interesting, but it really doesn’t keep the show consistent.
Even story arcs didn’t exactly stay consistent. The biggest example that gives me hope while at the same time I’m pretty sure won’t hold up is “River.” When we first meet her in “Silence in the Library,” the Doctor’s and her timelines have reversed. River dies the first time Ten meets her.
In the most recent episode, Twelve sees her for what he says should be the last time. However, River knows him and in fact gripes about how he abandoned her. Is it all because of that diary she carries? It definitely didn’t seem so to me with her very raw emotions (I love Alex Kingston’s acting abilities).
These are both episodes Moffat was deeply involved with!
Please tell me I’m not the only one troubled by this.
I guess it’s someone else’s job to write their way out of this one now.
It almost seemed as if Moffat was trying to force Doctor Who to be cool, which is ridiculous because the fans always did and probably always will think it’s cool. He took over for season five. I absolutely loved Matt Smith’s Doctor, especially with Amy, and even more so for me with Rory.
I really enjoyed the episodes with James Corden as Craig. From season five to now seems to have changed quite a bit, though. The show feels more modern and a bit gimmicky. Gone are the days of more simplistic storylines and more down-to-Earth production quality. I wouldn’t mind getting back to that.
I have no idea who this new head writer is, beyond his involvement, somehow, with Broadchurch. I just hope Chris Chibnall—with his fresh eye and an entire year—is more consistent and can craft better stories and better-developed characters. I think we fans deserve at least that.