Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Monday, June 17
The Indiana Daily Student

opinion oped editorial

EDITORIAL: Trump's Policies as dystopian fiction tropes

Destroyed Environment

Breathe in The clean air and enjoy nature while you can folks - the United States of Trump would certainly see a change in the environment.

Donald Trump has stated several times he plans to cut government spending by getting rid of the Environmental Protection Agency. His reasoning is there are too many regulations. In an October 2015 interview, Trump called the EPA a disgrace for putting out new regulations every week.

According to him, the environment will be just fine without the EPA and we can’t hurt businesses for the sake of the environment.

Hasn’t Trump ever read “The Lorax?” Surely if he did, he’d know unrestricted use of the world’s resources eventually leads to no resources and, consequently, to no business — specifically businesses that sell versatile sweaters made of rare, fluffy trees.

The EPA’s regulations and restrictions can be helpful to everyone by creating jobs and businesses in renewable energy sources and products using safe, 
environmentally-friendly materials.

Also, regulations like the ones he is complaining about allow everyone to live on a safer, healthier and livelier planet. If we didn’t have EPA protections and regulations, America would not still have the beautiful landscapes that make our country special while also bringing in tourism money.

We understand, though. It’s tough to make the government work on so little money, especially when you give huge tax breaks to billionaires like Trump.

Trump wants to cut funding for the government agency that restricts water in areas with drought because, as he said at an event in South Carolina, “You have showers where I can’t wash my hair properly, it’s a disaster!”

He would rather cut vital departments instead of just working with the EPA to help these areas regain their water supply. Sure, Trump, that’ll show ‘em.

Women have had to deal with many disparaging and derogatory comments from Donald Trump during this chaotic election season.

Trump has trademarked himself as a misogynist by saying things like “You could see blood coming out of her eyes, out of her — wherever” in reference to Megyn Kelly’s performance as a debate moderator.

Another example of the Trump brand of sexism features Trump commenting on the presidential ability of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by tweeting, “If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?”

While you may not think women could be insulted any further, conditions for women under a Trump 
presidency will probably be even worse. All the strides feminism has made to prevent women from being viewed as nothing but sexual objects will be futile with Trump as president.

Women will only be judged on their sex appeal and beauty rather than their talent and intelligence. Pleasing men with feminine wiles and coddling masculinity will be more important than doing the best work possible.

Under a Trump presidency, women’s bodies will be policed in every way possible. The entirety of the U.S. female population will not be protected because its president will be too concerned about women’s looks to worry about their 
well-being.

Rachel Miller

Secret police

In an interview with Fox News last December, Donald Trump suggested the way to win the fight against the Islamic State is to kill the families of terrorists. A month before that, when asked about waterboarding as an interrogation technique, he said, “Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would — in a heartbeat.” 

Of course, both these actions violate international law, but that didn’t seem to bother Trump.

Elite military officials, including Gen. Michael Hayden, have said the military will not follow Trump’s illegal orders.

When asked about those comments at last week’s Republican debate, Trump said, “They won’t refuse, they’re not going to refuse me — believe me.” 

And with that, Trump turns being president into being the Godfather.

The day after the debate he reversed his position, but he could just as easily revert after assuming office. After all, he’s made his intentions clear. 

So when the military refuses Trump, how will he make them comply? A common tactic for tyrants is a secret police force, made up of unilaterally controlled soldiers, who answer not to the law, but to Trump.

A force that will execute anyone — journalists, terrorists, civilians, family members, suspects — on Trump’s command.

A force that will imprison, torture and commit the same acts of violence as the terrorists we’re supposed to hate.

Therin Showalter


War crimes

If Donald Trump is elected president, a harmonious and peaceful world likely would not be possible.

Trump’s views on foreign policy leave much to be desired.

On dealing with the issue of the Islamic State in the Middle East, for example, his solution is to “bomb the hell out of ‘em,” the Washington Times reported.

His hypothetical policy asks many questions Trump himself might not even be able to answer.

How will this solve the pressing threat of terrorism abroad? Will other nations be joining in the bombing? What strategic targets does Trump want to hit with the bombing?

If left unchecked, the Middle East could resemble the apocalyptic future seen in the movie “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” when major areas of humanity have been wiped out and little to nothing remains.

The candidate himself doesn’t even have a team of foreign policy experts, according to Reuters, indicating how little Trump thinks about the issue that is important to many voters.

Additionally, diplomats from Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia have all expressed concern about a potential Trump presidency, according to Reuters.

So if Trump is elected president, not only would the Middle East potentially be in danger, but other areas of the world would not even be willing to cooperate with the United States.

“I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” presidential candidate Donald Trump said at a rally in Fort Worth, Texas.

Trump has apparently decided the First Amendment is the next human right he is coming for when he becomes president. It’s ironic considering how frequently he exercises his own right to free speech when saying offensive things about marginalized groups and generally speaking nonsense in public.

This quote seems to refer to legislation referred to as Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP legislation, which Trump has been a fan of in the past. This type of lawsuit is hard to win and is expensive for the defendant. The expensiveness dissuades the defendant from saying things Trump doesn’t want to hear in the future.

Trump has filed a few suits of this nature, one against the author of “Trump Nation” for underestimating his wealth and another against a former Miss Universe contestant, and has threatened
even more.

A world where Trump makes good on his word, which would be hard considering defamation laws are decided by states, is a world without critical reactions to public figures because dissent is silenced by million-dollar lawsuits. You know, kind of like what the Bill of Rights was written to prevent.

Donald Trump has been labeled an isolationist by many of his Republican rivals. 

The Washington Post reported Trump is focused on backing out of international trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO. 

Canceling our membership to these types of organizations would put the United States at a huge disadvantage. The WTO is the ruling body of most international trade. If we were to remove ourselves from the WTO, most trade partners would be less willing to trade with us.

Trump said he wants to leave these organizations because he suspects they put the U.S. at a trade disadvantage.

Looking at the raw U.S. Census Burea data, it seems the U.S. is at a loss. In January 2016 we exported $8 billion worth of goods to China and imported $28 billion, which is leaving us at a deficit of close to $20 
billion. 

However, we are functioning in this way because of a long-term strategy to build relations with China and other nations.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, China is the our second-largest trade partner and is our largest creditor. China possesses more than $600 million in our debt.

 If Trump were to cut out these policies, he would undo close to 60 years of diplomatic work.

The U.S. is slowly increasing influence in China through the success of food, film and foreign investment.  

With a movie-going audience already half the size of the U.S.’s, the film earned $57.79 million on the Chinese mainland, according to a Telegraph report.

With a Bloomberg report estimating China’s economy will grow larger than the U.S.’s by 2027, now is not the time to sever ties. 

Get stories like this in your inbox
Subscribe