Everyone was shocked at the fact that Trump was able to win the presidency (despite, like so much Gore v. Bush, losing the popular vote), but, as Russell Brand has so eloquently stated, the conditions were already there for Trump to be able to become president. Racism, xenophobia, sexism, transphobia and so many other forms of fear and hatred were already rampant in America; Trump's election victory simply brought those to the surface.
And yet, all I keep hearing from people who voted for Trump or who are for some reason anti liberal/progressive is that everything will be okay and that we should stop whining; they had to live through eight years of Obama as president, so now we have to put up with Trump. This is infuriating for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is that this is a false-equivalency, but that's an issue that frankly deserves its own post because the problems with that are so, so many. But, even more than that, that rhetoric dismisses the opinions and feelings of the millions of Americans targeted by Trump during his campaign.
The Cognitive Dissonance and Ignorance of the Right Wing
I have recently seen posts circulating through various social media right now that claim that it's the fault of liberals and progressives that things are the way they are. Here's the one that has made me the most furious:"Dear Democrats and Liberals.Allow me to explain why everything in this post is just downright ignorant.
I'm noticing that a lot of you aren't graciously accepting the fact that your candidate lost. In fact you seem to be posting even more hateful things about those of us who voted for Trump.
Some of you are apparently "triggered". Because you are posting how "sick" you feel about the results.
How did this happen you ask?
You created "us" when you attacked our freedom of speech.
You created "us" when you attacked our right to bear arms.
You created "us" when you attacked our Christian beliefs.
You created "us" when you constantly referred to us as racists.
You created "us" when you constantly called us xenophobic.
You created "us" when you told us to get on board or get out of the way.
You created "us" when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.
You created "us" when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.
You created "us" when you attacked our flag.
You created "us" when you confused women's rights with feminism.
You created "us" when you began to immasculate men.
You created "us" when you decided to make our children soft.
You created "us" when you decided to vote for progressive ideals.
You created "us" when you attacked our way of life.
You created "us" when you decided to let our government get out of control.
"You" created "us" the silent majority.
And we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up.
And we did it with ballots, not bullets.
Copy and paste if you agree"
- "I'm noticing that a lot of you aren't graciously accepting the fact that your candidate lost. In fact you seem to be posting even more hateful things about those of us who voted for Trump."
I wouldn't call Hillary "my candidate;" mine was Bernie Sanders, but I voted for Hillary because I felt there was no other realistic way to keep Trump out of the white house. Let's ignore that for a moment, though, and talk about the rest of what this post claims.
To begin with, Hillary won the popular vote. You must forgive us if, for the second time this century, (and we're only 16 years and five elections into it) a presidential candidate has lost the election despite being chosen by the American people. This is a pretty hypocritical stance to have anyway, since conservatives weren't exactly graciously accepting of Obama's white-house wins. And, while I admit my bias here (something I've never seen a conservative do...) and I may simply be perceiving things in an echo-chamber, most of what I see from the liberal/progressive side is either fear or people standing together to help each other. On the other hand, since Trump's election win was announced, those Trump supporters who are racist and/or sexist have gone on to paint swastikas on public property, scrawl "fuck ni***rs" on doors, burn pride flags, hang black dolls, and so many other things. That is the epitome of hate.
- "Some of you are apparently "triggered". Because you are posting how "sick" you feel about the results."
Ignoring the poor grammar and punctuation for a moment, I'd like to discuss the idea of being "triggered." This concept has been derided by many anti-progressive, backward-thinking conservatives who say things such as "Trigger warnings prevent the free exchange of ideas." What the real problem is here is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a trigger and trigger warning are in the first place. See, when someone is "triggered," they aren't simply upset because someone disagrees with them; they may become so upset and have such vivid flashback of a certain event that they may cause a panic attack. Laci Green has a really great explanation of what they are:
I think that saying that some people may be "triggered" by this election is actually not an entirely untrue thing; because of everything that Trump has promised and everything that he stands for, the fact that he is now the leader of our country--the representative of America--is terrifying.
We have every right to complain. We have every right to be angry. And we have every right to be scared. How dare you tell us we don't.
- "How did this happen you ask?
You created "us" when you attacked our freedom of speech.
You created "us" when you attacked our right to bear arms.
You created "us" when you attacked our Christian beliefs."
I lumped these all together because they demonstrate something that conservatives are really good at: cognitive dissonance. They can say that we are "triggered" and "feeling sick" when a madman gets into office, but when someone says "Christianity isn't the dominant religion of America; it's literally written into the constitution that there can't be one," they tell us we're wrong, we're attacking their freedom of speech, and that we're attacking their beliefs. I've seen it many, many times, and here's why it's bullshit.
Someone can attack a conservative person's "freedom of speech" (which I can only assume means the freedom to use the "N" word or something? Idk.) all they want; that's also freedom of speech. The only time one's "freedom of speech" is considered violated is if the government itself prohibits freedom of speech. Quoth the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech," That part about "Congress shall make no law" is important; you can go into a restaurant and be thrown out for using a racial slur and that is not a violation of your freedom of speech; if the government made a law that said you can no longer say the word "pineapple," that would be.
The underlying issue here that they keep returning to is that they can say whatever they want, but heaven forbid anyone else say anything that opposes their beliefs.
Similarly, their idea about "attacking" their "right to bear arms" comes from this same type of thinking: they want to do what they want, whenever they want, however they want, with no consequences, and if anyone tells them they can't for some reason, they scream "oppression!" (And the oaks just shake their heads...)
No one is attacking their right to bear arms. I'm a pretty liberal, progressive person myself, and I've considered getting a gun for protection. The only thing that's actually been put in place is a set of what has been referred to as "common-sense gun laws." These laws would regulate gun ownership similar to the way that car ownership and use is regulated; you would have to get a background check, sellers would have to get a license, and there would be fees for selling them illegally. Obama has never "come for anyone's guns," he has never said he would take them away, and he has never "attacked anyone's right to bear arms; in fact, under President Obama, gun production has doubled. So much for attacking anyone's right to bear arms.
Possibly the one issue of all of these that makes me the most upset is the idea that their Christian beliefs are being attacked. As someone who practices with minority religions and considers herself an atheist/pantheist (it's complicated), I can't even believe how ridiculous this sounds. Christianity is the most adhered to religion in the United States, with 70% of polled American adults identifying themselves as Christian in 2014. Almost every US president has been affiliated with some denomination of Christianity, with only two not formally identifying with any: Jefferson and Lincoln, aka two of the most well-remembered, best presidents US has ever had. While it says in the first amendment that there shall be no law establishing a religion, in practice, there's all but one; in today's socio-political climate, candidates cannot be elected unless they profess to be Christian. Even the thought that Obama could be Muslim had the country up in arms.
I think this also goes back to people disagreeing with the religious right's beliefs; the people who say things like this say it because there isn't enforced prayer in schools or before football games (The establishment clause of the first amendment, again.) They believe their religion should be the only one and everything should be done their way, and when it isn't, they are "oppressed." - "You created "us" when you constantly referred to us as racists.
You created "us" when you constantly called us xenophobic.
You created "us" when you told us to get on board or get out of the way."
I mentioned some of the activities that Trump supporters are now engaging in since his win, and that alone is enough to call at least some of them racists and xenophobes (though I won't call all of them racists; I know better.) However, this obvious parallel between racists and Trump, if not his supporters, is a pretty obvious one.
During his campaign, Trump let the world know how racist he actually is. These included saying that he didn't think a Muslim mother of a war hero was allowed to speak because of her religion, claiming a judge was biased because he was Mexican, being sued twice by the justice department for refusing to rent to black individuals, and refusing to condemn white supremacists who campaigned for him, among other things. The obvious retort to these remarks is that, well, we know he's not perfect, but he's "better than crooked Hillary."
What Trump supporters are saying when they continued to support his candidacy despite his racism and bigotry is that they thought it was okay. If the leader of the free world can be racist, then it's okay for everyone else to be, too.
Let me say this loudly for the people in the back.
When you support a racist, you're saying racism is okay.
And xenophobia is really just racism under another name. Xenophobia (lit. xeno: alien; phobia: fear) is the fear of people from other countries coming into yours. This is never okay, but in America, where we were founded by immigrants, it's even worse. The poem at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty reads "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free; send these, the huddled, tempest tossed to me; I light my lamp beside the golden door.*" It does not say "Go home, Syrians and Mexicans. We don't want you here."
A common defense of this fear, however, is the good ole' "They're takin' our jobs!" argument. Simply put, the job was never yours in the first place. There is a myth that there are only so many jobs available and that they only "belong" to Americans, a fallacy called the Lump of Labor fallacy. Furthermore, immigration is actually good for the economy. Adam Davidson wrote in his March 2015 article in the New York Times that, "...when people leave developing economies and set foot on American soil, they typically become more productive, in economic terms. They earn more money, achieve a higher standard of living and add more economic value to the world than they would have if they stayed home." But yeah, let's keep them out.
Probably the scariest thing about his racism and the general acceptance of it is the ignorance that the world has already been through this. Yeah, I know this argument has been done to death, but it bears reiterating: in Nazi Germany leading up to World War II, Hitler blamed everyone from the Jews to Gypsies for the economic problems that Germany faced and began forcing them to register and, as we know, eventually sent them all to concentration camps. Similarly, Trump has said he would "absolutely" require Muslims to register, and has vowed to deport two- to three million undocumented immigrants, chiefly from Mexico, whom he has called criminals, rapists, and murderers. I've heard a handful of reports from people who survived World War II and can see the parallels as well; Zeev Hod, a holocaust survivor, describes some eerie similarities between the events leading up to Trump's election win and Hitler's. Hod explains,“One of the things people used to say about Hitler when he rose to power in the early 1930’s was that he was saying it like it is,” my dad told me over the phone from Tel Aviv. “They thought he was a bit of a clown, with his big speeches and over-the-top showmanship, but they also admired his ability to say what everyone thought, but didn’t dare say out loud.”
The last of the three statements is a little silly to me; the fact that someone would not want the country to move forward and is upset when the rest of us do is just.... mind boggling, especially from a historical perspective. I would like for those who are fond of "telling it like it is" to answer a question for me: do you believe women should have gotten the right to vote? Do you believe slaves should have been emancipated? Do you believe in the civil rights movement? Whether or not you did or didn't, the country did, and we created laws that protected these historically oppressed minorities. We, as a country, have been moving forward since its inception; just recently we have moved forward even more by giving LGBTQ+ individuals the right to marry. By saying you feel you're being told to "get on board or get out of the way," it sounds as though you're saying "halt the progress of history." Perhaps you should try getting on the right side of history this time.
*This may not be 100% accurate; I memorized this when I was about 10 and that's what I remember from it. Same sentiment, though. - "You created "us" when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.
You created "us" when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.
You created "us" when you attacked our flag."
I'd like to say that, in some ways, I do agree with the first of this next set of statements. I don't necessarily agree that people should have to buy health insurance (not health care), but the problem is that that should not contribute to voting for someone as truly awful as Trump. Again, this is a false equivalency, and I can't help but wonder if there isn't something else going on in the minds of his supporters.
On the issue of "jobs continuing to leave the country," I'm particularly confused by this, because Trump, despite his bloviating about levying taxes on overseas American businesses, has businesses all over the world; simply look at the tag on any of his hats and you'll find "Made in China." There are Trump Hotels in Panama and Rio De Janeiro, and Trump Towers in India and Istanbul. According to this, he should either charge himself insane taxes or close down all of his overseas businesses.
I had to Google the third point, because it sounded so bizarre. The only results I got had to do with the protests after his election, which would have nothing to do with creating the conditions for Trump to be elected and more of a protest against the backward ideals that got Trump elected. If someone wants to weigh in on this, let me know; it sounds, to me, like a made-up problem to give conservatives a reason to be angry. But again, if there's something I'm unaware of, please let me know. - "You created "us" when you confused women's rights with feminism.You created "us" when you began to immasculate men.You created "us" when you decided to make our children soft."
Sigh. This is getting old. These arguments really bother me because they show the extent of the ignorance that has allowed to fester in America, and along with it, the misconceptions of progressive ideals.
Let's start with feminism. I think the issue that conservatives have with feminism is that they see it as angry misandry instead of what it actually is--equality. I've been asked several times why we don't call it something like "humanism," and it's for the same reason "black lives matter" is more accurate than saying "all lives matter;" no one is saying that men (or other lives) don't deserve rights as well, but when you call the movement something other than what it is (in this case, feminism,) you ignore the central problem that's being addressed: that women are a traditionally oppressed gender and that we continue to be oppressed, even if only in smaller ways. One of my favorite political cartoons gives a great metaphor for this: imagine there's a house burning down, but instead of pouring water on it, you pour water on the neighbor's house (which isn't burning down) and proudly proclaim "All houses matter." Trump's campaign brought a lot of this to the forefront, but to be honest, it's always been there and continues to be there. When conservatives post this kind of ignorant shit they actively set women's rights back.
This also has to do with the second point, about men being "immasculated" [sic]. I'm not sure who exactly is emasculating these men, but they must have some pretty fragile egos if their manhood is being threatened by something other than a sharp knife. If I had to interpret this "men being emasculated" idea, I think I would have to conclude that it means that men are no longer able to be sexist, misogynistic, and rapey, and conservatives aren't okay with that. One only need to watch an episode of Mad Men to see what I mean. Here's a great example of how "great" America used to be:
These commercials illustrate the prevailing view that men had of women once upon a time and the way they were allowed to treat them. If that was the norm, perhaps they needed to be "immasculated."
This fear of emasculation is indicative of toxic masculinity, which is masculinity that has essentially run amok. The Geek Feminism wiki describes Toxic Masculinity as "...the socially-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth." Along with the idea that feminism is somehow inherently a bad thing, the idea that toxic masculinity is okay hurts not only women but men as well. Men, as well as women, should be able to express emotion and be their true selves without worrying about being looked down upon. (See? Told you feminism was about equality.)
Both of these things also contribute to the "making children soft" argument as well. If teaching children that it's okay to experience their authentic emotions and be themselves is wrong, then, as they say, I don't want to be right. Teaching children to be "soft" teaches them that things such as bullying is wrong and that using violence to solve arguments is never okay. Bullying in particular needs to be discouraged: the website bullyingstatistics.org lists the following correlations and statistics about bullying and suicide: - Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people, resulting in about 4,400 deaths per year, according to the CDC. For every suicide among young people, there are at least 100 suicide attempts. Over 14 percent of high school students have considered suicide, and almost 7 percent have attempted it.
- Bully victims are between 2 to 9 times more likely to consider suicide than non-victims, according to studies by Yale University
- A study in Britain found that at least half of suicides among young people are related to bullying
- 10 to 14 year old girls may be at even higher risk for suicide, according to the study above
- According to statistics reported by ABC News, nearly 30 percent of students are either bullies or victims of bullying, and 160,000 kids stay home from school every day because of fear of bullying
- Everything else listed has essentially already been argued against in some way or another, so it's pointless to go over them again.
If, indeed, conservatives are pro-life and not just pro-fetus, one would think they would rally behind the idea of making children "soft," as that can literally save lives.
The Prevalence of Anti-Intellectualism
So if all of those things can be disputed, why do people believe them in the first place? Why do people listen to soundbites and believe them instead of accepting actual facts? How did this happen? People can't surely be that dumb, can they?Well, not all of them, but a good number of them certainly can. George Carlin famously quoted, "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." There is certainly validity to this; intelligence ranges from very low to very high in a population, but more than that, I think that those who are otherwise intelligent have simply not had the benefit of having their intelligence fostered and allowed to grow.
I know that many of the people with whom I associate will not like what I'm about to say, but I lay the blame for this anti-intellectualism squarely on the shoulders of only one thing: organized religion.
Just hear me out for a second.
One of the basic tenets of the big-three "Abrahamic" religions, Christianity in particular, is blind faith. If you accept the validity of Christianity (again, by far the most popular religion and belief system in America), you accept the following things as true:
- The Earth was created in 7 days.
- All humans come from two original humans and everything bad that happens to us is their fault--especially that nasty woman, Eve's, fault.
- The Earth is only 6-10,000 years old
- When you die, an invisible part of you that continues to "live" floats away to a magical realm to live there for all eternity, unless you don't believe it, in which case you go to a realm where you burn for all eternity.
- If you're Christian, you believe that the creator of the universe--who can see everything you do and think and everything you will ever do, who has supposedly decided everyone and everything's fate and so regularly kills children with cancer and causes horrible natural disasters (But remember: he loves you!)--sent his "son" (because for some reason, despite everything written above, he couldn't do it himself) to die painfully so that we wouldn't have to deal with something he created in the first place.
I understand that not all Christians believe all of the above, but that's quite possibly worse; in my view, you either believe what a religion teaches you or you don't; you can't compromise your beliefs because they suit what you think should be true.
And so we come to the crux of the issue: believing without any proof, often just because you think it feels "right." I've had various discussions with religious people who have told me that they believe all these things based on "faith," despite scientific and frankly just logical evidence. The Oatmeal calls faith a "magical wizard sauce that, when drunk, allows you to do, say, and believe in the dumbest shit imaginable and still feel right." Here is the full video of The Oatmeal's speech about religion (prepare to laugh your ass off):
As the video so hilariously illustrates, religion teaches people to accept truths that go against science and logic and to never question these truths. This idea of faith-based belief then bleeds into other areas of the lives of those who truly believe these things; they're never taught to question anything, so they hear something that feels true to them and they accept it blindly without another thought.Once again, I realize not all religious types blindly accept these things. However, the fact that they accept any of it as true, despite so much evidence to the contrary, speaks to the easy willingness to listen to soundbites like "Hillary is crooked!" and "Make our country great again!" without questioning them.
It is because of reasons like these that I'm leaning more toward, as Richard Dawkins puts it, "Militant Atheism."
My Personal Connection
TW: Sexual assault, graphic descriptionsIn the interests of revealing bias, I'd like to let you all know why this is such a big deal to me.
Growing up, I was a girl who desperately wanted attention, especially from males. I grew up with my grandparents, my grandfather being my only consistent male role model, and, while he filled the job in the best way he could, he was not my biological father. Both of my grandparents came from previous generations that believed differently than the subsequent generations and who relied heavily on religion, and the things they told me shaped me into a girl who felt guilty for feeling any kind of sexual desire and didn't know how men were really supposed to treat women. (I resent my father for not being there for me more but, again, that's a whole other post.) Because of this, I had low self esteem and a certain susceptibility to being taken advantage of by men.
Instance One:
When I was 14, I had quite a few male friends. I was a nerd (still am; big surprise, right?) and we used to get together and play games, listen to music, chat online, etc. Some of these male friends introduced me to one of their friends whose name I don't remember; I believe my brain has shielded me from remembering his name, to be quite honest. Also, this was 17 years ago. He was a couple of years older and, for some reason, had a bit of a crush on me.
One day, he came to visit me, and, as we were watching something on TV in my room with the doors wide open (because my grandparents would let me have little to no privacy and even the smallest infraction would be met with harsh derision and a constant string of guilt-trips). I must have been walking by this guy who was sitting on a glider I had (and still have) and he pulled me into his lap. I giggled and thought this was cute at first, but then he began to stick his hand down my pants. I'd had little experience in this area but had been dealing with the stirrings of pubescent cravings for some time now, so it didn't bother me much, and was a little bit exciting. The only problem was that the door was wide open and it scared me. So, I told him to stop.
But he wouldn't.
I tried to physically pull his hand out of my pants, but he was stronger than me and kept it there.
My grandfather walked by and I had to hurriedly lean forward and cover his hand with my shirt because I was sure--so sure--my grandfather would blame me and that my grandmother, after finding out, would go into her tirade of shaming and guilt tripping me for something that was beyond my control.
This was confirmed several years later when my mother and grandmother found out that I was sexually active and responded by treating me like a whore, telling me that "It's the girl's fault."
Instance Two:
A few years later, I started dating a guy online who lived in Florida (I'm from Texas.) This person came across as charming, caring, intelligent, and good-looking--everything I had been looking for. After falling in love online, we finally met, and I found out that he was shorter than he had claimed, constantly smelled like a three-day-old garbage can, faked a German accent, and is one of the biggest narcissists I've ever had the displeasure to know. I spent four-and-a-half years with this asshole."Four and a half years?" I hear you screaming. "Why didn't you break up sooner?!?"
The short answer is that I felt trapped. He moved down to Texas and I felt like I was all he had and therefore had an obligation to him. I also had the lowest self-esteem imaginable; not only the upbringing by my family, but the way I had been treated at school and even at the church I was forced to attend left me feeling like an ugly, disgusting worm. I sincerely thought he was the best I could get at the time.
Because of my low self-esteem and the fact that I felt so trapped, I felt I owed him sex. He physically disgusted me, but would basically pressure me into sex, so about once a month I would let him have sex with me. (TMI warning...) He couldn't get me wet but would pound into me mercilessly. I can't even describe the pain. I would bleed a lot afterwards and sometimes it would even be hard to sit down. Even wiping after going to the bathroom would hurt. But as long as he got his, it didn't matter what I felt.
I never considered this any kind of rape or sexual assault because I always said "yes," even though I felt coerced into it. It wasn't until someone told me that "Yeah, you may have said yes, but your body was screaming no," that I reconsidered that position.
And the worst part was that I never considered telling him no in the first place.
***
I've been through other, smaller instances of sexual abuse since then: the guy who wouldn't ease up when I told him what he was doing hurt, the guy who basically started humping me in his sleep even though I was too dry (and didn't remember the next morning...), but I've always excused them because I felt like I deserved them. Thank you, Christianity. Thank you, society. Thank you, rape culture. Thank you, patriarchy.
When I told my grandmother recently--who voted for Trump--that I had been sexually assaulted twice and how it really, really upset me that she voted for someone who was okay with sexually assaulting women, she claimed she "had no idea" and "would have voted for Hillary if she had known." The problem is that that's not the point; millions of women are routinely sexually assaulted--one in four women in the US--and anyone who votes for Trump is saying that's okay. It shouldn't--and doesn't--matter if you happen to have a personal connection to one of those women who was sexually assaulted; we need to work together to make sure that ALL sexual assault is abolished.
Trump is the living embodiment of rape culture. When he proudly claims that he can do whatever he wants to women, including grabbing them by the pussy; when he puts women down for their weight; when he cheats on two different spouses; when he calls his opponent a "Nasty woman" and when he threatens to jail her; and when he seriously discusses overturning Roe v. Wade he is showing his contempt for the opposite sex and reinforcing the mainstream ideals of sexism and rape culture. As President Elect (it's still hard to say that...) he is saying that it's okay to think that.
That is why I'm terrified, and why I have every reason to be. Don't you dare tell me to stop whining.
It will NOT be okay.
Trump is the living embodiment of rape culture. When he proudly claims that he can do whatever he wants to women, including grabbing them by the pussy; when he puts women down for their weight; when he cheats on two different spouses; when he calls his opponent a "Nasty woman" and when he threatens to jail her; and when he seriously discusses overturning Roe v. Wade he is showing his contempt for the opposite sex and reinforcing the mainstream ideals of sexism and rape culture. As President Elect (it's still hard to say that...) he is saying that it's okay to think that.
That is why I'm terrified, and why I have every reason to be. Don't you dare tell me to stop whining.
It will NOT be okay.
A New Hope?
(cue Star Wars music)
However, despite all of the horrors that Trump has been/will be inflicting on America, there are small glimmers of hope.
Despite all that he said during his campaign, there have been reports of him rethinking his position on several things. For example, even though one of his key campaign promises was to build a wall to keep said "rapists and drug dealers" out, he has now said that the wall would be "part fence." A fence, as it turns out, is what Hillary Clinton was originally for. Similarly, he has said that, rather than completely demolishing Obamacare, he would simply amend it.
Frankly, this surprises me a bit, because Trump has absolutely no political experience and yet is behaving exactly like a politician. I'm not sure how to feel about this.
Nonetheless, he could still be a potential threat to women's rights, particularly our right to our own bodies, and despite saying that he probably wouldn't overturn marriage equality, he may still do some damage in other areas, particularly once he appoints conservative judges, and we can't discount the fact that his vice president is pro-conversion therapy.
There are also glimmers of hope at the more local political level: Somali-American Ilhan Omar was elected to the Minnesota House, making history by becoming the first Somali-American legislator in the United States; Zena Stephens made history by being the first African-American woman to be elected to the office of sheriff in Texas; the Senate will see the first female biracial senators, the first Latina senator and the first Thai-born senator; former California Attorney General Kamala Harris becoame the state's first senator of Indian descent -- and the country's first black female senator since 1999, and many more. Click the link above for the full story.
As Delenn once said on Babylon 5, "There is always hope."
But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Despite all that he said during his campaign, there have been reports of him rethinking his position on several things. For example, even though one of his key campaign promises was to build a wall to keep said "rapists and drug dealers" out, he has now said that the wall would be "part fence." A fence, as it turns out, is what Hillary Clinton was originally for. Similarly, he has said that, rather than completely demolishing Obamacare, he would simply amend it.
Frankly, this surprises me a bit, because Trump has absolutely no political experience and yet is behaving exactly like a politician. I'm not sure how to feel about this.
Nonetheless, he could still be a potential threat to women's rights, particularly our right to our own bodies, and despite saying that he probably wouldn't overturn marriage equality, he may still do some damage in other areas, particularly once he appoints conservative judges, and we can't discount the fact that his vice president is pro-conversion therapy.
There are also glimmers of hope at the more local political level: Somali-American Ilhan Omar was elected to the Minnesota House, making history by becoming the first Somali-American legislator in the United States; Zena Stephens made history by being the first African-American woman to be elected to the office of sheriff in Texas; the Senate will see the first female biracial senators, the first Latina senator and the first Thai-born senator; former California Attorney General Kamala Harris becoame the state's first senator of Indian descent -- and the country's first black female senator since 1999, and many more. Click the link above for the full story.
As Delenn once said on Babylon 5, "There is always hope."
But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
