You are reading the article Pov: Reelect Donald Trump President updated in November 2023 on the website Hatcungthantuong.com. We hope that the information we have shared is helpful to you. If you find the content interesting and meaningful, please share it with your friends and continue to follow and support us for the latest updates. Suggested December 2023 Pov: Reelect Donald Trump President
POV: Reelect Donald Trump PresidentPhoto by Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons
Voices & Opinion
POV: Reelect Donald Trump President He “trusts Americans to act in their best interests when it comes to the pandemic”Four years ago, one of the most astounding political movements in American history culminated in an election night victory for Donald Trump. By electing him president, the American people said no to Washington, bucking the establishment that had forgotten about them for so long. This time around, President Trump is running against the epitome of the establishment: former Vice President Joe Biden, a man who has spent 44 years in government with few notable accomplishments.
Since taking office in 2023, President Trump’s energy has matched the American spirit—a sharp contrast from his opponent, whose public appearances continue to be limited and uninspiring during his fear-driven campaign. Trump never needed this job, and the day-to-day effort he continues to put in for the American people at age 74 is remarkable. While questions persist regarding whether Joe Biden profited off the vice presidency, President Trump has undeniably lost money since he began working for the people four years ago, the mark of a selfless leader.
Americans, on the other hand, have made money since President Trump took office—at least until COVID-19 arrived in the United States following months of cover-ups from the Chinese government. Prior to the pandemic, our nation’s unemployment rate had reached a 50-year low, and wage growth was consistent after volatile years under the Obama administration. Fortunately, the United States has gained back more than half of the jobs lost when the pandemic hit this spring, and the stock market has rebounded significantly. That recovery will only accelerate once a vaccine becomes available in the near future.
Vice President Mike Pence was correct when he said during the vice presidential debate on October 8 that Biden’s plan to address COVID-19 largely mirrors the Trump administration’s actions right now. America is routinely testing more than one million people each day, personal protective equipment is widely available, and the administration has implemented strict requirements to protect nursing home residents following the fatal failures of Democratic governors early in the pandemic.
Related
Voices & Opinion
POV: Elect Joe Biden PresidentThere are a few differences, however, between Trump’s actions and Biden’s plan. Trump’s Operation Warp Speed already has America on track for a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine; the New York Times, citing health experts, says the FDA is likely to begin approving vaccines within the next three months.
Biden has touted a national mask mandate as the centerpiece of his plan, but both he and his running mate, Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) have admitted that they would not enforce such a mandate.
President Trump has made it clear that he trusts Americans to act in their best interests when it comes to the pandemic, coming out strongly against government-imposed restrictions that only temporarily halt the inevitable spread of the virus, as we’re seeing across Europe at the moment. Biden, on the other hand, has said that he would shut down the country if “recommended,” despite the crippling impact another lockdown would have on businesses that managed to survive the initial surge in the spring.
This election is about freedom, but it’s also about safety. If Biden is elected, the keys will be handed over to the party that too often turns a blind eye to chaos in the streets, demonizes law enforcement, and allows criminals back onto the streets under the guise of “bail reform.” These are not policies that keep people safe, and they are not policies you will ever see under President Trump.
Foreign policy is rarely mentioned as a key issue in this election, and that is not a coincidence. The Trump administration has vanquished ISIS, taken out terrorist leaders, and refused to get involved in more endless wars. Biden, meanwhile, voted in favor of the Iraq War in 2002 and “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” according to former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who served under President Obama.
Under President Trump, gone are the days of the Washington establishment’s hawkish policies. Reviving that worldview by electing Biden would be a grave mistake.
Domestically, Joe Biden has cast himself as a moderate, but he’s evaded questions on ideas proposed by the far left, such as packing the US Supreme Court and eliminating the filibuster. His running mate has held so many different positions on key issues that it’s tough to tell exactly where she stands on anything.
Never has there been so much uncertainty surrounding what the presidential ticket for a major party actually believes. With Donald Trump, you’re getting Donald Trump. With Joe Biden, you’re getting whatever the unappeasable far-left wing of the Democratic Party wants on a given day. At a time when Americans deserve stability, the greatest danger of a Biden-Harris administration is the unknown.
Much like 2023, this is a unique year in our history. This is a moment in time that requires bold leadership, decisive action, and a president who is visible on the national stage. Donald Trump is the man for the moment.
Dan Treacy (COM’22), media director of Young Americans for Freedom at BU, can be reached at [email protected]. This column represents the author’s view and does not represent the views of YAF at BU.
Explore Related Topics:
You're reading Pov: Reelect Donald Trump President
Make Microsoft President New Fb Ceo
May be Microsoft President Brad Smith as its new CEO
Speaking in the Collision Tech Conference in Toronto on Tuesday, Alex Stamos Stated Zuckerberg Should give up a Number of his Hands of Facebook and hire a new CEO, reports CNN.
SAN FRANCISCO: Mired in many privacy scandals, Facebook should hire Microsoft President Brad Smith as its new CEO since it’s right time for Mark Zuckerberg to resign, a former Facebook security leader has emphasized.
Talking in the Collision Tech Conference in Toronto on Tuesday, Alex Stamos stated Zuckerberg Should give up a Number of his hands of Facebook and employ a new CEO, reports CNN.
“There’s a valid debate he has too much electricity. He wants to give up some of the electricity,” Stamos was quoted as stating. “Facebook must possess an inner revolution on the civilization of the products are constructed. If I had been him, I’d go hire a new CEO for the business,” Stamos said, including Smith might be a fantastic match as a”adult that has been through this before”.
Stamos, who had been a crucial figure in the struggle against the spread of fake news and misinformation, stop Facebook in August this past year and combine Stanford University as a fulltime educator and writer.
At a recent opinion piece from The New York Times, Facebook Co-founder Chris Hughes said the authorities has to maintain Mark (Zuckerberg) liable, including that now is the time to split up the social media giant.
Zuckerberg is also Called Chief Product Officer Following the recent Death of Christopher Cox.
The two Zuckerberg and Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg have stated that breaking Facebook will not serve any function.
“You can break us up, you can break other tech firms upward, but you really do not tackle the underlying problems people are worried about,” Sandberg told CNBC.
Many US Senators also have called for dividing the social media amid repeated information breaches and privacy violations on this stage.
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris has worried that police should have a critical look at dividing Facebook since the social media platform is a”utility which has gone awry”.
Pov: Religion Cannot Excuse Discrimination
POV: Religion Cannot Excuse Discrimination Antigay laws in Arizona, elsewhere will flunk history’s scrutiny
In recent weeks, the Arizona legislature passed a bill that would allow businesses to discriminate against sexual minorities based on the business owner’s religious beliefs. Ostensibly designed to protect an individual’s religious beliefs, the law would protect a bakery, for example, that refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony. While Arizona’s governor, Jan Brewer, vetoed the bill, a similar measure has been proposed in Missouri and other states. As quoted in USA Today, the sponsor of the Missouri bill, State Senator Wayne Wallingford, said, “There’s discrimination kind of on both sides. I certainly don’t want any discrimination in the workforce….But I’m also concerned about discrimination going the other direction.”
Wallingford expressed concern about “discrimination kind of on both sides,” but in fact, neither Missouri nor Arizona protects the rights of their LGBT citizens—lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered. Right now, in those states, as well as 27 others, LGBT citizens have no protections against discrimination. An employer in these 29 states, including Arizona and Missouri, can fire an individual simply because she is a lesbian. A restaurant or bar in these states already can refuse to serve a customer because he is gay, and as of now, a baker need not bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. So why the perceived need for these laws?
Perhaps these legislators are making a statement, indicating that in their states, religious beliefs trump the rights of LGBT citizens. Perhaps the legislators are pandering to the antigay sentiments of their constituents. Regardless of motive, while these laws will have no practical effect in these states, they will send out a powerful message, namely, that discriminating against LGBT citizens, if religiously motivated, is protected by state law.
In fact, religious beliefs have formed the basis for much of the antigay sentiment in the United States and elsewhere. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) was the largest backer of Proposition 8 in California, the referendum that (temporarily) banned same-sex marriage. More ominously, evangelical groups are behind the antigay legislation just signed into law by Uganda’s president. The Uganda law punishes certain homosexual acts with life in prison.
Those who rely on religious beliefs to argue against equal rights for LGBT citizens are the latest in a long line of folks who have relied on religion to justify discrimination. The Southern Baptist Church found biblical support for slavery and segregation. Based on its own reading of the Bible, the Mormon Church did not grant its black members the right to fully participate in the church until 1978. The Dutch Reformed Church did not renounce its biblically based support for apartheid until 1998. The lesson here is that religious support for discrimination does not justify the discrimination nor immunize it from attack.
Today, in the United States, a business owner who refused to serve an African American customer based on religious beliefs would receive little public support. Likewise, no public outcry would arise in favor of the baker who refused to bake a cake for an interracial wedding. That sort of discrimination is universally condemned, yet discrimination against LGBT Americans is justified by relying on religion.
Supporters of the bills in Arizona and Missouri worry about the religious rights of their constituents, yet no antidiscrimination law could force a Catholic priest to perform a same-sex marriage or require a Southern Baptist church to accept a lesbian minister. The First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion would protect these organizations from compromising their religious beliefs. Moreover, those states that have passed laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation have included exemptions for religious organizations. The situations targeted by the Arizona law and the Missouri bill are different, however. These laws seek to countenance discrimination by a business that is already subject to numerous state and federal laws that restrict the business’ ability to discriminate in other contexts.
Then why pass these laws, laws that will have no practical effect? In many parts of the country, equal rights for LGBT Americans is not yet a majority viewpoint. I say “not yet” because, as with discrimination against African Americans, discrimination against LGBT Americans will, in time, be universally condemned. Those who propose laws that protect the right to discriminate will be relegated to the by-now overflowing dustbin of history. They will fall on the wrong side of a battle for equal rights that has been fought in America since its founding.
Explore Related Topics:For Student Government’s New President, Reform Continues
For Student Government’s New President, Reform Continues Junior Hafzat Akanni (CAS) looks back, and ahead
Junior Hafzat Akanni (CAS), the newly elected Student Government president at BU, led a slate that won a landslide victory this spring. Photo by Cydney Scott
The new president of Student Government, Hafzat Akanni, starts her term with distinction: She and Empower BU, the slate she led in April’s Student Government Executive Board election, won by a landslide (1,396-628).
And that puts wind at their backs in pursuing unfinished parts of the ambitious agenda Akanni supported as executive vice president of last year’s Student Government. Indeed, voter turnout eclipsed last year’s, which itself was two-thirds again the ballots cast in 2023.
“I thought it was really beautiful to walk into a room of students and not know anyone” during this year’s campaign, she says. “We did the same thing we did last year: grassroots campaigning, meeting with every student group that would allow us the opportunity to sit with them.” (Before serving in Student Government, her own awareness of campus governance had been confined largely to her friendship with its president.)
The Executive Board that governed during the last year “has increased Student Government’s presence across social media. I see their posts across Twitter and Facebook pretty often,” says sophomore Shaun Robinson (COM), editor in chief of the Daily Free Press, the University’s independent student-run paper.
Akanni’s predecessor as president, senior Devin Harvin (CAS), says he also has emailed monthly activity updates to all students.
The flurry of activity saw Student Government shed an anonymity that had been so pervasive that junior Suzie O’Michael (COM), Student Government’s current director of events, says the student president’s talk at her Matriculation two years ago “was the only kind of exposure to Student Government I had.”
As for concrete achievements, Robinson and Harvin cite the esprit-building exercise of resurrecting a spring concert, which Student Government organized after a five-year hiatus. Tickets sold out within 12 minutes of becoming available, says Harvin.
Nigerian-born and reared in Ireland until her family moved to the United States six years ago, Akanni had a disappointing political baptism in high school, when she lost a race for student body president. That made her nervous as this year’s ballots were counted, she confesses, even though she was running on the notable progress last year’s Student Government had made on its agenda, which also included:
An online list of global scholarships for Terriers to consider.
Gender-neutral bathrooms are “in the works” as BU begins the laborious process of converting the half of its 1,500-plus accommodations that are single-occupancy to accommodate anyone, “so you don’t have to run 20 minutes to use a gender-neutral bathroom,” Akanni says.
Opening Mugar Memorial Library 24/7 for study a week before finals yielded to the budgetary obstacles to staffing it, so instead, Student Government secured student access to West Campus dining halls during reading period last semester, while also providing study/R&R space, with food, in the GSU. “We’re trying to encourage healthy studying habits,” Akanni says. “Some students will study for eight hours and not get up, not eat, not see sunlight.”
A bigger campus monument to Martin Luther King, Jr. (GRS’55, Hon.’59), was put aside after BU chipped in $250,000 to a Boston initiative that will include an MLK memorial on the Boston Common.
One plank proved more elusive. Arranging free textbooks for students has proven “extremely difficult,” Akanni says. So Empower BU will encourage professors to donate copies of texts they’ve written to BU’s libraries for free access by students. (Free online texts are offered haphazardly across the University, Akanni says.)
“I have met students who have told me that they have not taken classes because they cannot afford the textbook for those classes,” she says. “I mean, you’re already paying $69,000, $70,000 to go here; why should you not be privileged enough to take a class that you have paid to take, just because you cannot afford the textbook?”
As Akanni looks ahead to life post-BU, the ever-striving president-elect hopes that she and her fellow Student Government members can accomplish even more next year: “I can’t wait to come back for Alumni Weekend,” she says, “and see the voter turnout be 6,000 people…however many Alumni Weekends it takes for me to come back to see that happen.”
Explore Related Topics:
Pov: When Fleeing Police Isn’t Necessarily Incriminating
POV: When Fleeing Police Isn’t Necessarily Incriminating Massachusetts high court breaks ground in racial profiling ruling
Photo by Getty Images/Viviane Moos
What constitutes reasonable suspicion to stop a crime suspect? When is it reasonable for a black man to run from the police? Should the man’s flight from police have no bearing on courts’ assuming the man’s consciousness of guilt?
This past September, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed down an important, and unanimous, decision that sometimes African American men’s flight shouldn’t incriminate them.
The facts in Commonwealth v. Jimmy Warren are both straightforward, and unfortunately, routine. The Boston police received a call about a breaking and entering at night. Responding officers interviewed the eyewitness, the apartment resident, who told them that his backpack, computer, and baseball hat were missing. The witness described the suspects: a black male wearing a “red hoodie,” a black male wearing a “black hoodie,” and another black male in “dark clothing.” About 25 minutes later and one mile away, police saw two black males wearing dark clothing and walking near a park. What happened next is not unusual.
The police had a hunch that these two men were involved in the breaking and entering. After all, the men were black, wearing dark clothing, and out at 9:40 p.m. on a cold December night. The officers, according to testimony, decided “to figure out who they were and where they were coming from and possibly do [a field interrogation observation (FIO)].” When the officers yelled, “Wait a minute,” to the two, they turned around and jogged away.
After the two men fled, the officers put out a radio call, noting that men fitting the eyewitness’ description were traveling in a certain direction. A second set of officers approached the two men and called out. One man stopped; Jimmy Warren didn’t. He ran away, was chased by the police, and arrested. No contraband was found on his person—no backpack, no computer, no baseball hat. A gun was found in a nearby yard, and Warren was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm.
That the two men ran from the police is salient. Why? Because the presence of flight is considered in a court’s calculus when deciding whether or not the police had a reasonable suspicion to believe an individual committed a crime. In this case, the court decided that Warren’s flight from police could not be viewed as incriminating: when an officer seeks to conduct an FIO, that event constitutes, in the court’s words, “a consensual encounter because the individual approached remains free to terminate the conversation at will.” Because it is a consensual encounter, Warren was free to leave the scene, and no guilt can be presumed by his actions.
Against the backdrop of racial profiling documented by the Boston Police Department’s own survey, it was easy to see that a person in Warren’s position “might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity,” according to the SJC. The court noted that field interrogation observation data between 2007 and 2010 demonstrated that those stopped by Boston police were disproportionately male, young, and black. The SJC declared that “[g]iven this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report’s findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus.”
The court’s opinion marks the first instance where the SJC cited data to support the idea that racial profiling exists and is a valid reason for suspects to flee police. This is a groundbreaking and long-overdue acknowledgement. It doesn’t mean that every time a suspect flees police, there will be an appropriate application of this principle. But for Jimmy Warren’s case, without additional factors to substantiate the reasonable suspicion standard, the court reversed his conviction.
In a time when police-citizen encounters have raised serious questions about methods of policing, it is an important recognition that race plays a factor in many of these encounters.
Wendy Kaplan, a School of Law clinical associate professor of law, can be reached at [email protected].
Explore Related Topics:Trump, Biden, And A 2024 Presidential Race Featuring Two Flawed Candidates
In 1968, voters were faced with two presidential candidates, Republican Richard Nixon (above) and Democrat Hubert Humphrey, who were both unpopular at the time. Will 2024 be a repeat of that election? Photo via AP
There have been plenty of presidential elections throughout history where one of the two major party candidates was deeply flawed or flat-out unpopular. But elections when both parties put up unpopular and flawed candidates to run against each other have been more rare. Is that where 2024 is headed?
The candidate leading polls for the Republican Party is former President Donald Trump, who on Tuesday was found liable by a jury for sexually abusing the writer E. Jean Carroll in the 1990s and then later defaming her in repeated public attacks. Trump’s role in the January 6, 2023, attack on the US Capitol, after losing his reelection bid to President Joe Biden, is also a lingering stain his party has wrestled with. Meanwhile, across the aisle, unless something dramatic occurs, the Democrats’ nominee will be its incumbent, Biden, whose poll numbers remain low and whose age (80) is a major concern among voters and his own party leaders.
A lot could change between now and Election Day in 2024, but as of this moment, it’s shaping up as a rematch of the 2023 election. BU Today spoke with Thomas J. Whalen, a College of General Studies associate professor of social sciences whose research focuses on modern American history and presidential leadership, about Trump, Biden, and the history of flawed presidential candidates.
Q
&
A With Thomas Whalen
BU Today:
Even though Trump is leading in the polls among Republicans, it’s hard to imagine he is the candidate the party would prefer to see as their nominee ultimately. Do you think he is?
Whalen: I don’t necessarily agree with that. The Republican Party has dramatically changed since 2023. It’s been a hostile takeover, but I think base Republicans are now far to the right of center, if not authoritarian. Trump sort of represents that point of view. I don’t entirely see the bulk of the Republican Party holding their nose when they pull the lever for Trump. You can see that in the amount of money being raised.
BU Today:
But the last three elections—2023, 2023, 2023—in which Trump played a direct, or indirect, role, did not go well for the GOP.
Whalen: The last three elections, there have not been enough of the far-right voters. The base is only so big. Democrats have a far wider base. For Republicans, unless they want to dramatically change tactics, they will experience losses. Under normal circumstances, they are not going to win.
BU Today:
Do the Democrats have the same problem with nominating Biden? His issues are different from Trump’s, but his popularity remains low.
Whalen: They are looking at alternatives—if not Biden, then who? And there is no standout in the crowd yet to stand out and win a general election. By default they will go back to Biden. Given recent Supreme Court decisions, I think they are willing to hold their nose and vote for Biden. And the truth is that he has, above and beyond, delivered what the liberal base wants, even more so than Obama. They will complain now about the nitty-gritty, but they will vote for Biden.
BU Today:
Is there one voting block you think is key?
Whalen: Gen Z is now beginning to reach political development. If they break for the Democrats as independents did the last time out, Democrats will win.
BU Today:
And even with this week’s news about Trump losing a civil trial, you think he will still be the GOP nominee?
Whalen: I think it’s going to help him. He is playing the victim. His base is set up. They feel his victimhood. Left behind by globalization, by elites in this country, and by gosh they have their champion in Trump. They will follow him through the rings of hell. Republicans will turn out their base. It’s going to be Trump, no doubt in my mind.
BU Today:
Can you recall an election in history like this potential one, where both candidates had such deep-rooted problems?
BU Today:
Could you see third-party candidates playing a disruptive role in 2024?
Whalen: That’s a factor now. If Robert F. Kennedy Jr. goes as an independent, he could take 1, 2, even 5 percent of the vote and that could eat into margins for Biden. But could Republican Liz Cheney run? Then you could have multiple third-party candidates, which we have not seen in a long, long time. It shows how fractured our parties are to have that potential.
BU Today:
Is there one other issue that could prove pivotal, in your view?
Whalen: The economy. It leaves open a lane for Trump. The regional banks, if that goes belly-up, it would have a crushing blow on the economy. Plus, the debt limit talks. That would put the entire world into a major recession. We are awfully close to the brink here, too close if you are Joe Biden. But I would not count against him. He has sharp elbows, politically speaking, and that’s what Democrats need to run against Donald Trump.
Update the detailed information about Pov: Reelect Donald Trump President on the Hatcungthantuong.com website. We hope the article's content will meet your needs, and we will regularly update the information to provide you with the fastest and most accurate information. Have a great day!