A Ticket to Hell: A Response to Charles M. Blow and the New York Times

Next, the author, Mr. Charles Blow implies that President Trump was jealous of, then president, Obama. I would say this is an accurate implication. I agree with Mr. Blow because I was jealous of Obama too. I was jealous, probably in the same was President Trump was, because for eight years I had to watch this buffoon of a man do the most important job in the world in a way that I knew I could have exceeded. A man like President Trump was justified in being jealous of a man who clearly didn’t deserve or live up to the position he held–not because Obama “had upper-class acceptance and adulation.” President Trump know he could (and eventually would) respect the office the way it was meant to be respected and do a much better job than its former occupant. Mr. Blow’s implication of jealously is probably accurate, but also greatly misplaced.

Mr. Blow follows with his most ignorant and poorly researched claim of all: “He valued flaunting over philanthropy,” Blow says of Trump.

Say what you will about President Trump, but to imply that he isn’t an ardent philanthropist, is irresponsible and ignorant from anyone who considers themselves a journalist (although, he works for the NYT so I use the word “journalist” loosely). This is a man who, I assume, would have rather had a woman who exploited the needy and her own foundation multiple times for personal gain.

“He oversold his voters a bill of goods that he would never be able to deliver.” Again, just ignorant considering that the president has kept good on each and every promise made to the American people thus far so I find it silly to accuse him of not doing so when, in all reality, that is all he has done in so far as we can see. (The article was published yesterday so it factors in almost every action up to date).

Mr. Blow ends the article dramatically by stating, “Donald Trump has sold his supporters — and by extension, this country — a ticket to hell.”

It’s a good thing he painted a colorful and dramatic picture for readers, because other than that, the article is in no way substantiated. There is nothing concrete to back up his claims and no real premise to support what he so desperately wishes were true.