Deeply moving essay from wife of a Trump supporter.

[Jersey Girl]

My Husband And His Family Voted For Trump — So I'm Canceling Thanksgiving And Christmas
I feel very much the same way she does, except I still managed to enjoy the thanksgiving holiday with my much beloved, Trump supporter brother and his family. Needless to say, however, we did not discuss politics, though I am deeply disappointed in him for voting for Trump, a second time.

Here are a few excerpts from her essay:



I fully understand her feelings and the terror of her nieces and her family member's Ukrainian friend, and have difficulty understanding how any fair-minded and decent person could ever have voted for Trump. That infamous Access Hollywood tape alone should have been enough to dissuade any moral and caring person from voting for Trump!



Again, I deeply understand and sympathize with those sentiments. This whole "anti-woke" movement is deeply disturbing and inherently immoral, as far as I'm concerned, as is the abandonment of the principles of DEI. I can think of nothing more antithetical to the teachings of Jesus Christ than that! If one is "anti-woke", they either don't really understand what is meant by "woke", or they are hateful bigots! The same goes for those who oppose and disparage diversity, equity and inclusion.

Okay one more post and then someone needs to get to bed around here.

Gunnar how does this woman's approach serve to reflect the light of Christ?

Bringing my question forward because I never got a reply to it. If anyone would like to take a crack at it, please do.

[Kishkumen]

When the "supportive letter writer" lady shared that she had an urge to punish her husband and deny him her touch, was that an example of this supportive letter writing? How supported do you think the husband might feel if he were to read this supportive letter?

I was referring to the letters she wrote to her friends, ceeboo. I didn’t see anything wrong with comforting people distraught about the election. You do presumably?

About her honesty concerning her feelings, guess she was honest. I can see it being a challenge to know your spouse doesn’t understand why you as a woman find Trump threatening. I think it’s wise to be concerned. He has committed sexual assault more than once. He saw to it that the lives of women would be in peril over the abortion issue.

Looks like grounds for being really upset.

How about when she shared that she didn't want to be in the same room as her husband's parents, or his brother, or his brother's family - would you include this in this "supportive letter writing" that she shared with the world?

I told you what I meant by her supportive letter writing. As to the fact that she finds it incredibly disturbing that her husband’s family supports the man who tried to overturn the 2020 election, I sympathize. The difference between me and her, I am guessing, is that I no longer think of people who voted for Trump as being in their right minds, so I mostly feel badly for the way they were brainwashed by right wing media.

Of course, I am a guy. I think the mindset that leads to voting for Trump is much more threatening to those who feel more vulnerable than I do. They are probably the sane ones.

Maybe I am kinda slow not to internalize the extent of the danger yet. But, we must live our lives, and we must live them around Trump voters. There is really no escaping it. You can only do so much to avoid it.

[canpakes]

Later that night, I briefly glanced at my husband and found myself not wanting to look into the eyes I love. I hated this divide. I wanted to touch his forearms and feel our connection, but I also felt an urge to punish him and deny him my touch.

Her husband just showed her that if she were raped, there's a chance (as small is it may be when it isn't a "stranger" who is the victim, but a chance nonetheless) he'd prefer her rapist be elevated to a position of power rather than find justice, as long as the rapist told him some things he found flattering and promised to save him some money. That's not an easy thing for a lot of people to process.

And now, if she’s lucky enough to live in any of the 10 or so strictest States, she can experience the added bonus of having to carry her rapist’s child to term, and birthing it, and handling the bills for that afterwards, for up to 18 years.

And she can thank the guy that her husband voted for. The same guy who refused to answer a question about whether he had ever been party to an abortion himself. Not that rampant and naked hypocrisy was ever an issue for Trump or many in his Base anyway.

[Dr. Shades]

That's a little extreme. How much different is your life now thanks solely to Trump's first term (and no other factors)?

We have lost tenure, which we earned fair and square.

Aren't there slugs who quit trying and just have their T.A.s do all the teaching as soon as they achieve tenure?

We just found out that the Republicans don't think that Greek History and Roman History should be General Education courses, whereas Mythology should be.

Republicans think a lot of things. It doesn't mean they'll get their wishes. But even on a worst-case scenario, Greek History and Roman History, if not general education courses, can be matriculated courses.

I mean, there is so much that is cockeyed and stupid because of Trumpism. There is a single nutcase in Florida, a private citizen, who has gotten 900 books removed from Florida public school libraries.

So this person would be less of a nutcase if Trump had never run for office?

I am not going to spend my good time educating you on something so simple as the consequences of rewarding and emboldening loonies.

You don't need to. Rewarding and emboldening loonies is self-evidently counter-productive. If not for Trump, these loonies would simply grasp on to some other excuse. They always have.

The problem that I have with your attitude is that you can't see the principle at stake beyond what you see as the extreme. The loss of the principle leads to the extreme. That's the reason for bringing the extreme up--to show you where such things actually could lead.

Yes, but that sounds akin to the slippery-slope fallacy.

Do I think that Trump will be gassing Jews by the end of January? No. Indeed, he may never do that. But that is not the point of a comparison or analogy. The point is to try to show you the kinds of bad things that could very well happen. As for me, I see Bladerunner world being a more likely outcome than Hitler's Germany, but then I don't want that either.

Sure, lots of bad things could very well happen. They always do no matter who is in office. But there are checks and balances in the Constitution that prevent worst-case scenarios.

I have to say I find a lot of Shades' political responses both disappointing and revealing. Whenever I feel prompted to ask how someone could be a libertarian, I should pull up Shades' contributions to these threads.

What exactly about Libertarianism do you find objectionable?

That depends. Like her musician son and his songwriter girlfriend, did you quit creating? Like her nieces, are you terrified? Like her Ukrainian friend, are you petrified? Like her sister, did you have a panic attack and have to leave work? Like her student, did you reschedule an appointment because you just couldn't function?

If you answered "yes" to any of the above, then you're a snowflake.

As I mentioned before, you remain daft. It's like you've been asleep from 2015 till now. Yeah, we survived his first term (although half a million didn't because of his bungled COVID response - just one example of his gross incompetence that should terrify everyone)

What was he supposed to do? Lock everyone down for twice as long and do twice as much damage to the economy? Suspend the Constitution? Declare martial law?

I'm being sincere when I request that you tell me what a sitting U.S. President constrained by a free country can do beyond what Trump did.

but that was before he was emboldened by the Supreme Court with presidential immunity.

Yes, that was monumentally stupid, but it was the Supreme Court's fault, not Trump's. And besides, Biden and all future presidents will "benefit" from this, not just Trump.

And your ignorance on the Ukraine situation is criminally negligent. It's like you've never heard of NATO or what its for.

I know exactly what NATO is for, but I disagree with it. It's a fatal alliance of the type that drew the world into a war once over a stupid assassination, then a second time over a megalomaniac trying to regain lost territory. Thanks to NATO, we've recreated that exact same powder keg, just waiting to trigger WWIII the next time some similarly foolish incident takes place.

In fact, a case can be made that the Russia/Ukraine war is because of NATO (by threatening to allow Ukraine to join), motivating Putin to remove the threat of NATO bordering his nation. If this is true, it caused war instead of preventing it.

But back to the point, her Ukrainian friend was terrified, assumedly because Donald Trump was elected again. But terrified why, exactly? Because Trump might cut back on the gravy train flowing from the U.S.A. to Ukraine? My, how generous of her to allocate her host country's citizens' tax dollars the way she wants. If she's "terrified," let her return to her home country and contribute to its defense herself rather than rely on the U.S. taxpayer. Or better yet, start being terrified of Putin instead of Trump, since the last time I checked, Trump wasn't threatening to invade Ukraine.

Again, that's the most explanation you're going to get out of me (and I already regret explaining this much to you, because I know it won't register). There are many more reasons to be terrified by giving Trump that much power, but clearly, they are too complex and over your head.

Look, I agree with you about Donald Trump, for all the reasons you have for feeling the way about him that you do. The one thing I agree with him on is this one statement: "Elections have consequences." Yes, he nominated conservative or quasi-conservative justices to the supreme court, but what else is a conservative President going to do? If a liberal president had been in office, then liberal or quasi-liberal justices would've been nominated to it instead, with a different subset of risks. Congress sustained all his nominations, which it didn't have to do. The court didn't have to punt Roe vs. Wade back to the states, but it did, even though Trump wasn't in office. Even then, every state could've chosen to effectively keep Roe vs. Wade in place if it wanted, and the state governments that didn't were all elected by the people of those states. So there is a very long chain of causality that extends beyond just Donald Trump himself. But for some reason, nobody wants to remember that.

So, let's not talk past each other. I agree with you about Donald Trump. What I disagree with is hyper-snowflake-ism regarding Donald Trump, that's all. Yes, he is the way he is, but the sky isn't falling.

[Kishkumen]

Aren't there slugs who quit trying and just have their T.A.s do all the teaching as soon as they achieve tenure?

If there are, there are vanishingly few of them. The point of getting rid of tenure was political intimidation. Florida also passed a law giving the right to students to record faculty and report them. Our work email is available to the public by records request. The intent is to make faculty feel like they can share no political opinions in the classroom or be very public political statements. The chilling effect of it all has been very effective.

Republicans think a lot of things. It doesn't mean they'll get their wishes. But even on a worst-case scenario, Greek History and Roman History, if not general education courses, can be matriculated courses.

In Florida, they control education by dictating curriculum with the stroke of a pen. We had roughly a dozen GE courses before the politically controlled GE overhaul. Now we have three. The reason for doing this is partly to reduce enrollments in our classes. Republican lawmakers in Florida are not so well educated that they have any business deciding which courses belong in GE.

So this person would be less of a nutcase if Trump had never run for office?

You didn’t think this one through. It is the power the governor gave any citizen to challenge books that was the problem. The governor was on a crusade to appear more Trumpy than Trump so he could get MAGA voters to support his bid for president. So, yes, Trump’s election had a big impact on the lives of Floridians.

You don't need to. Rewarding and emboldening loonies is self-evidently counter-productive. If not for Trump, these loonies would simply grasp on to some other excuse. They always have.

Loonies who are handed power and tools are so much worse than ones who are denied them.

Yes, but that sounds akin to the slippery-slope fallacy.

Again, if you watch what totalitarian systems do to education, and you see what has been done in Florida education, then you would be a lot less complacent and unfazed. But maybe not. I like you and appreciate what you have done all these years on the board, but your political sensibilities have always struck me as poorly thought through.

Sure, lots of bad things could very well happen. They always do no matter who is in office. But there are checks and balances in the Constitution that prevent worst-case scenarios.

Checks and balances that Republicans have not been respecting at all in the Trump era. And will likely continue to disrespect more egregiously as much as they can.

What exactly about Libertarianism do you find objectionable?

It is a childish philosophy that shows no real apprehension of the value and nature of institutions and community action.

So, let's not talk past each other. I agree with you about Donald Trump. What I disagree with is hyper-snowflake-ism regarding Donald Trump, that's all. Yes, he is the way he is, but the sky isn't falling.

So, in other words, you have internalized and adopted partisan propaganda that transforms a valid concern about our constitutional republic into a schoolyard taunt that is tantamount to calling someone a sissy.

That’s a dumb thing to do.

[Some Schmo]

What was he supposed to do? Lock everyone down for twice as long and do twice as much damage to the economy? Suspend the Constitution? Declare martial law?

I'm being sincere when I request that you tell me what a sitting U.S. President constrained by a free country can do beyond what Trump did.

He never should have denied it was a problem in the beginning that would go away on its own. He shouldn't have criticized masks and vaccines. He shouldn't have suggested ingesting bleach or horse tranquillizer as possible cures. He also shouldn't have abolished Obama's pandemic readiness plans before COVID hit. And he certainly shouldn't have been giving the Russians COVID aid over Americans.

He could have actually implemented a federal wide plan for handling the crisis rather than letting all the states come up with their own disparate ones.

Again, I assume you slept through all of that.

but that was before he was emboldened by the Supreme Court with presidential immunity.

Yes, that was monumentally stupid, but it was the Supreme Court's fault, not Trump's. And besides, Biden and all future presidents will "benefit" from this, not just Trump.

Trump is the only President since Nixon whom we should all be concerned has this immunity. He's a damned thug. I wonder if people should be concerned with putting a career criminal in the White House, or does that make us all snowflakes?

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

As is your take on Ukraine and Putin and its relationship to Trump in the White House.

[Some Schmo]

And by the way, Shades, it's not just about Trump being President. I know many people are upset that this many Americans are stupid/selfish enough to vote for him in the first place. That has deep impact on personal relationships all over the country. You may not think it should, but it does.

If you don't think that's significant, you can't be helped.

[ceeboo]

When the "supportive letter writer" lady shared that she had an urge to punish her husband and deny him her touch, was that an example of this supportive letter writing? How supported do you think the husband might feel if he were to read this supportive letter?

I was referring to the letters she wrote to her friends, ceeboo. I didn’t see anything wrong with comforting people distraught about the election. You do presumably?

No, I do not see anything wrong with comforting distraught people about the election - Truth be told, I am a fan of comforting distraught people no matter what is causing this mental pain.

As to the potential implications regarding the question you ask of me ("You do presumably?") - I will resist the temptation to ask you a question with similar frames and simply rest on the possibility that it was an unintended consequence that we all face when communicating with only written words on a screen.

He saw to it that the lives of women would be in peril over the abortion issue.

I applaud your concern over the lives of women (I share them) - Is your concern over lives limited to women or does this concern go beyond women?

Looks like grounds for being really upset.

There are good grounds to be really upset about countless things (I can even understand people being really upset over an election result)

As to the fact that she finds it incredibly disturbing that her husband’s family supports the man who tried to overturn the 2020 election, I sympathize.

Of course you sympathize, you share the author's political ideology.

Here is what I find interesting about your above quote: You make a statement (even suggesting it as factual) concerning a particular reason that the essay's author is "incredibly disturbed" over her husband and her husband's family - But, the author never mentions this particular reason in the essay, you did. So, I think you might be sympathizing with yourself?

I no longer think of people who voted for Trump as being in their right minds, so I mostly feel badly for the way they were brainwashed by right wing media.

You think more than 77 million American citizens are no longer in their right minds?

I can't even imagine thinking something like that about 77 million individual human beings. Wow!

But, we must live our lives, and we must live them around Trump voters. There is really no escaping it. You can only do so much to avoid it.

As I am sure you understand, there is another side to that same coin - and "we" find ourselves in similar circumstances (Even if "we" don't author "deeply moving" essays about the person we married or their families or cancelling holidays)

[Morley]

I know exactly what NATO is for, but I disagree with it. It's a fatal alliance of the type that drew the world into a war once over a stupid assassination, then a second time over a megalomaniac trying to regain lost territory. Thanks to NATO, we've recreated that exact same powder keg, just waiting to trigger WWIII the next time some similarly foolish incident takes place.

Shades, you seem to be suggesting that the US (and possibly Europe) shouldn't have gotten itself involved in WWII. Will you clarify?

[canpakes]

What was he supposed to do? Lock everyone down for twice as long and do twice as much damage to the economy? Suspend the Constitution? Declare martial law?

I'm being sincere when I request that you tell me what a sitting U.S. President constrained by a free country can do beyond what Trump did.

He never should have denied it was a problem in the beginning that would go away on its own. He shouldn't have criticized masks and vaccines. He shouldn't have suggested ingesting bleach or horse tranquillizer as possible cures. He also shouldn't have abolished Obama's pandemic readiness plans before COVID hit. And he certainly shouldn't have been giving the Russians COVID aid over Americans.

He could have actually implemented a federal wide plan for handling the crisis rather than letting all the states come up with their own disparate ones.

There are many reasons to see Trump as not qualified to lead the nation; his behavior during COVID was an example of his will to toss aside even the easiest chance to do the right thing in favor of putting on an amazing display of self-serving actions at the expense of so many Americans. For even the simplest mitigation efforts like masks or social distancing, he chose to aggressively foment and stoke anger and blame for the sole purpose of riling up his own base, rather than show the simple leadership and effort needed to define and unite us in purpose.