Trump's 2020 Trailer Is More Revealing Than You Think

Trump's 2020 Trailer Is More Revealing Than You Think

Spoiler alert: In all two minutes and two seconds in this spoof trailer, not a hint of policy is mentioned.


On April 9th, 2019, President of the United States Donald J. Trump tweeted a video that appeared to be a campaign ad for his 2020 re-election bid, captioned "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN". At first glance, it appears to be a poorly made, low-resolution iMovie project, complete with corny stock cinema music, filling you in on the trials and tribulations of our poor, underdog president at a whopping six frames per second. But this video is more than just another national embarrassment - it's a clue into Trump's psyche.

Before I analyze the living hell out of this thing, I'm going to give a quick disclaimer: this video was not made by Trump or his campaign staff. The original video was uploaded to YouTube three days before the tweet, by a user named "Dr. Steve Turley". I'm unsure if the video was actually made by him, but he appears to have a copyright claim on it, aside from the horrible misuse of Hans Zimmer's "Why Do We Fall?" from the Dark Knight Rises (although I must say, the fact that Warner Bros has sent the White House a cease and desist order to remove the video is a delicious bit of irony). Unsurprisingly, Trump failed to credit anyone for the video, but it's not like we can expect him to give credit where credit is due at this point.

Not even a mere twenty seconds into the video and we're hit with a cringe-inducing summary of Trump's rise to presidency. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they call you racist." Then BAM, there's a shot of Hillary Clinton, some menacing looking hundred dollar bills, CNN, and Bill Clinton. The fact that Trump still considers the Clintons to be THAT relevant in today's political arena is a joke. It's almost like watching Paul Rudd in The 40 Year Old Virgin complain about his ex-girlfriend, whom he's been broken up with for years, at the same time pathetically beg for her attention.

The music intensifies. Now, we see Trump Doing Important Things (is he standing in front of a tank?). Trump walking with Ivanka (the quality is so bad you can barely make out her face), Trump shaking hands in front of mouth-breathing people-props, Trump walking off an airplane, Trump standing in front of a large crowd - oops, another random cutaway of former President Obama and Hillary Clinton! - more handshaking, more walking in front of large crowds... ah yes. Our president has truly done a lot these past two years.

Spoiler alert: In all two minutes and two seconds in this spoof trailer, not a hint of policy is mentioned. But that's because people who vote for Trump don't want a politician - they want a television star.

It's important to note that Trump sees himself this way too. If he really, truly respected the title of the presidency, he would be trying to convince you how qualified he is to fulfill the role of one of the country's highest public servants. Instead, he's focused on protecting his ego. My favorite example of this is the random inclusion of Amy Schumer, Bryan Cranston, and Rosie O'Donnell, all celebrities who have criticized him in the past. For what reason? Vengeance? A little third-grade bully-esque "I'll show you"? Why on earth weren't Alec Baldwin's hilarious SNL impressions included in this vile display of immaturity? The only valid conclusion is that they must have hit a little too close to home for our snowflake and his blizzard of supporters.

Take a look at the last bit of language. "YOUR VOTE PROVED THEM ALL WRONG" shows that Trump is extending his ego to his supporters. Your vote isn't going to actually make the country better - it's a bitter strike against establishment Democrats and liberal media outlets. Trump uses this rhetoric time after time again, to manipulate the small amount of influence you as an individual have in our democracy.

To anyone voting in the upcoming presidential election: no matter what your political affiliation, please do not use your vote for someone who uses tacky fan edits to promote their self-centered agenda. You deserve a much better president than that.

Popular Right Now

As A Female Christian Millennial, I Fully Support Alabama's Abortion Ban Because I Know God Would, Too

A life always has worth, no matter the circumstances.


Alabama's state legislature passed a bill on May 14, 2019 that makes it illegal for abortions to be performed past six weeks of pregnancy. Doctors who are caught violating the law could be sentenced up to 99 years in prison. The bill is the strictest anti-abortion bill to date this year as states try to pass laws to challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.

While the law does allow an exception to women whose lives are at risks, it does not allow for abortions in the event of rape or incest. I support Alabama's new law, and I applaud them for their efforts to protect the rights of unborn children.

As a Christian, I believe that life is a precious gift from God and should be treated with care.

The sixth commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill," and Jesus said the second greatest rule was to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39-40). I believe this applies to every person born and unborn. But, even from a secular perspective, there are reasons that support an unborn child's right to life. Let's break down two of the most important components of the bill: abortion itself and the case of rape and incest.

A big argument in the debate is whether a baby is alive before it is born or only after it is born.

I believe can be explained and answered with simple medical science. In the medical profession, a person is pronounced dead when there is no more activity in the brain, known as brain-dead.

At that point, they consider there to be no more life in the body.

The opposite of death is life, so if you have electrical signals still coursing through your brain, then you are alive. A fetus begins to have electrical activity in its brain at six weeks. Most women do not find out they are pregnant until around that time, so by the time they decide to have an abortion, the baby, by all medical accounts, is alive.

Another indicator of whether a person is dead or dying is their pulse.

The pulse is how many times a person's heart beats per minute. If a person does not have a pulse, they will more than likely die if their heart cannot be resuscitated because no oxygen is getting to their brain.

Medical personnel does everything they can to start a person's heart back because they know that the heart is key to life.

A baby's heart begins to beat at five weeks old, again before the mother knows she is pregnant and can choose to have an abortion. Since the United States' justice system upholds that killing a person is wrong, then shouldn't killing a baby, who is alive, be wrong too? I think this is plenty of proof that aborting a baby is killing a living person and is therefore wrong.

Rape and incest are two horrible acts that should be punished. It is never the victim's or conceived a child's fault in the situation.

Given the reasons above for why abortion is wrong, I also believe, while both crimes are horrendous, that abortion is still not the answer to this problem. I do understand, however, that women, because of the traumatic experience or other reasons, may not be able to care for the child.

As such, I am an advocate for adoption.

There are many couples out there who cannot have children on their own who would love to adopt. In order, for this to be a viable option, though, Congress needs to make amendments to adoption laws.

Adoption is outrageously expensive, much more costly than an abortion, and is a long and tedious process.

Though the laws are in place so that not just anybody can adopt a child, the government still could stand to relax laws a little. Another option could be to offer aid to those who wish to adopt specifically to cover adoption expenses or to only those who meet certain requirements. If we want to protect unborn children, we must give women and families more viable options.

I know that my views are not popular, but God did not call us to be popular, He called us to be His disciples.

I will not compromise my convictions because I am in the minority. I support the women who have to face this dilemma, and I pray that they and our government officials make the right decisions and aid these women and families in need of help.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

We're All Thinking It, I'm Saying It: Too Many People Are Running For President

I'm all for options, but man, do we really need 24? I mean, I can barely pick a flavor of ice cream at Baskin Robbins let alone a potential President.


There are, currently, 23 Democrats running for President. On the Republican side, there's, of course, Trump, but only one other candidate, former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld. Democrats have a whole range of people running, from senators to congressmen, a former vice-president, and even a spiritual advisor. We can now say that there are DOZENS of people running for President in 2020.

Joe Biden has been leading the pack for quite some time now. He was even leading polls before he announced his campaign. Although he is the frontrunner, there really is no big favorite to win the nomination. Biden has been hovering around the mid-30s in most polls, with Bernie Sanders coming in second. Other minor candidates in the hunt are Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris.

After the surprising defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016, Democrats have become electrified and have a mission to take back the White House after winning back the House of Representatives in 2018. There are so many people running in 2020, it seems that it will be hard to focus on who is saying what and why someone believes in something, but in the end, there can only be one candidate. This is the most diverse group of candidates ever, several women are running, people of color, the first out gay candidate, and several more.

There could be a problem when it comes to debate time. I mean, the first debate is next month. Having around 20-plus people on stage at the same time, debating each other kinda sounds like a nightmare. How can someone get their point across in the right amount of time when someone else is going to cut them off? Debates are usually around an hour and a half. So, if you divide it up, each candidate would get just under five minutes to speak. That would be in a perfect world of course.

Democrats seriously believe that they can beat Trump in 2020. They say they have learned from the mistakes of 2016, and have the guts and the momentum to storm back into the White House. By July of next year, there will be only one candidate left. Will they be able to reconcile the divide during the primaries? We will see. It will surely be a fun election cycle, so make sure to have your popcorn ready and your ballot at hand to pick your favorite candidate, no matter what party you lean towards.

Related Content

Facebook Comments