Stuff they told me

They told me that it was a gosh darn shame that Prop 8 and the policy make gay people feel sad, which certainly was the furthest thing from their intention! You see it’s not that they hate gays, they just love family values so much, and the Divine Institution Of Marriage is so crucial that other things must be sacrificed, even when those sacrifices are painful and unfortunate. That’s what they told me. They told me during Prop 8 that they knew that California law already granted all rights and privileges to domestic partnerships that were granted to marriage, so they were really just fighting over a word, a symbol–the word marriage. But they told me that symbols are important, that what symbols the government symbolically holds up matter so much that we need to prioritize that even over the lives of our lesbian and gay brothers and sisters. Because should even the tiniest tarnish come to the image of the sanctity of the institution of marriage, all of society would collapse. So you know it’s just awful what the gays are experiencing but you see their hands were tied. That’s what they told me.

They told me women couldn’t be ordained to the priesthood, not because they hate women but because The Family is just that important. They told me I was wrong to be in grad school, they told me I was wrong to have a career when I had children at home. They told me this over casseroles in their homes, in bishop’s offices during recommend interviews, in sermons from the pulpit in stake conference. They told me that it’s not that they didn’t value strong women–no! It’s not that they relished the collateral damage of my career talent wasting, women’s voices being silenced, girls’ sense of worth being eroded, half the congregation’s ideas not contributing to the kingdom as much as they should. Of course they didn’t want any of that. It’s not that they didn’t want me, a woman, to have power, it’s just that they wanted me at home more. Because Family Values are simply that important.

They told me that when forced to make a choice between two competing priorities, gosh darn it, the moral character associated with The Family wins every time. No exceptions.

And then we had an election where they could choose between giving a woman power, or electing to the head of our nation–both in terms of raw power and symbolic importance–a man who embodies every wicked lack of moral character and anti-family-value you can imagine. And they chose to use their votes to keep a woman out of power.

I get it, that particular women had very different policy priorities from them, and they had some significant concerns. But I’m remembering what they said about choosing between competing priorities, and no exceptions.

So really, it was just that they hated me all along. That’s how I feel. And I don’t believe them anymore.


  1. Are you sure the “they” in your first two paragraphs is the same “they” in your third?

  2. They are.

  3. Yep.

  4. Speaking of giving a woman power, I assume you voted the McCain Palin ticket. Clear opportunity to give a woman power, don’t you think? And yet, “you” chose to keep a woman out of power.

  5. Every now and then I am reminded of how far out of the mainstream many of us in the church feel. I wish I had words that would help, except to say that I acknowledge that your pain is real, and that I understand how symbols can just as easily be seen as a bludgeon rather than as a sign of hope.

  6. She told me what Mormon Mothers Who Know want. And then showed me.

  7. IDIAT, I will admit that the prospect of a female vice president was appealing to me at the time. History has shown Sarah Palin to be a problematic pick, but it was a great symbolic step, just as Clinton winning the popular vote was a great symbolic step. However, let me make a suggestion to you: shut up.

    [Edit: that wasn’t nice of me. But neither is a weak move to try and shame a feminist for not voting for an unqualified woman who quite clearly stood against women’s and minority rights in almost every respect]

  8. Aaron Brown says:


    Was the McCain Palin ticket running against “a man who embodies every wicked lack of moral character and anti-family-value you can imagine”? No? Then your point falls rather flat on its face.

    Aaron B

  9. Sorry counselor, I’m not on trial and your objections, which are unfounded and baseless, will be ignored.

  10. Aaron Brown — my point doesn’t fall flat. Feminist hypocrisy about pretending to support a woman does. They only support a Democrat woman — period. A Republican woman will never stand a snowball’s chance.

  11. To the extent that you are referring to some portion of the 61% of Church members or 45% of Utah residents that voted for Trump, you may have a point (although I think it is a stretch to say that everyone that voted for Trump did so because they hate women). I don’t think you have any basis to suggest that all Church members voted for Trump or hate women. The number of votes for Trump were much lower than past Republicans received. Nor should you suggest that the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 supported Trump or did so out of a hatred of women. What the members of the Church do and what the leaders want are not always the same. I know many feel real pain over the outcome here. But over-generalizations do not solve the problem.

  12. What’s cool is when there’s a comment of the form “To the extent that you said…[a bunch of things that I actually didn’t say]” because then I can just ignore it and not bother refuting it because none of it actually applies.

  13. The list of they told me’s is so growing. My list of “I did it your way” is too. But. NO. MORE.

  14. This is like trying to explain that our Mormon modesty rhetoric can be problematic and even harmful. No, it’s not all harmful. Yes, the world does have it worse in the way it often objectifies women. But at the same time, what we, and general authorities have done, objectifies women in ways that we can discuss and then hopefully eliminate.

    Men in the church treat women in problematic and even harmful ways. No, it’s no all harmful, most of it is fine. Mormon men are incredible. Yes, the way Donald Trump has treated women (as reported) is worse in demeaning and abusing women. But at the same time, what we, and general authorities have done, have (hopefully inadvertently) treated women as less than men with regards to leadership potential in the name of The Family. It is codified in the temple and the Bible and the Proclamation that men with their priesthood are in charge and have the last word in decision making.

  15. Cynthia L: It is unclear who the “they” in the post is. It seems to alternate between Church leaders, Church membership as a whole, and specific Church members. There is a big difference between those three things.

    Thus, I think it’s important to recognize, despite the pain that is felt, that: (1) We don’t know that Church leaders voted for Trump (the Deseret New editorial may be taken as an indication where at least some of them stood); (2) Not all Church members voted for Trump and hate women; and (3) Not all members who voted for Trump did so because they hate women.

    When you with a broad brush, in a manner that seems to impugn the Church itself and all of to members, it makes it harder for people to hear your message.

  16. So, Trump got the votes of most Mormons who voted. But they were fewer than the Mormons who voted for Romney, so it’s not so bad!

    I’m already getting really tired of this argument. If that’s the best defense we can make for ourselves, we’re in trouble.

    And Anonymous, when you feel personally impugned, it’s a good idea to step back and look in the mirror for a while before you respond. That’s a hard thing for any of us to do, but it really works.

  17. #notallmormons, eh?

    C’mon. Own it.

  18. I didn’t vote for Trump. But it doesn’t help solve the problem to scapegoat all Church members and all Church leaders or the Church itself for his victory. Utah’s electoral votes would not have made a difference. Nor does it help to widely accuse all Church members, all Church leaders and the Church itself of hating women because some members tragically voted for him. There’s no basis for those conclusions. By painting with too broad a brush, we risk not identifying and fixing the real problems. The ambiguity of the post (which may have been intentional) contributes to this problem.

  19. Experts are now commenting increasingly on how the proliferation of social media has allowed, or even created, a balkanization of popular culture where people can go about communicating only with those with whom they share their beliefs. BCC appears to be leading the charge. So this comment is as much about the last three or four posts as the above.

    While generally a believer that most people would benefit from internalizing a little more, I am sorry Cynthia that you have internalized so much. The election wasn’t about moral character. Polls consistently showed that the majority of Americans found the moral character of both of the two major party candidates completely lacking. As I saw on a tweet, and have repeated many times since, don’t let the horribleness of one candidate distract you from the utter loathsomeness of the other.

    The election wasn’t about gender issues or gay rights. Historically, to the extent you could nail down Trumps positions on social issues other than, “It will be terrific!” they have been well left of the Republican party. Trumps daughter, Ivanka, has maintained a high profile throughout the election and is reportedly his most influential advisor. In addition, his platform included a more aggressive childcare proposal than any other republican candidate of which I am aware. I believe this website just posted a link to the very public, and openly gay, Trump supporter Peter Thiel. Evangelical Republicans and libertarian Thiel on the same side? Politics really does make for strange bedfellows. The election was not about the family, period. Both candidates appeared to have extremely close, positive relationships with their children. The election wasn’t about marriage, neither candidate had a history that fit the traditional, LDS, exemplar of a “marriage”.

    I certainly don’t know what drove us to this place or these two candidates – but it wasn’t social issues. Until convinced otherwise by more thorough post-mortems and data diving, I would argue the complete stagnation of working class Americans incomes over the last 25 years, regardless of who holds the white house, created a combination of indifference among minority members of the Obama coalition and anger among working whites. This fits with Bill Clinton’s “Its the economy stupid”. History shows most people, most of the time, vote their pocketbooks.

    Last night here in Seattle we had anti-trump demonstrations, windows broken, some burning in effigy. What are they protesting, democracy? The protestors claimed they were scared, but were obviously not scared enough to avoid vandalizing the hard working businesses in one of the most deep blue cities in the nation. While I didn’t vote for Trump, unapologetically, as a small-d “democrat” I am hopeful that the wisdom of the majority will somehow be validated – as history shows it often is.

    The election wasn’t about you. It wasn’t because your fellow Americans hate you – or, to be fair, whether they like you. They weren’t thinking about you. The election was about whether Joe-Blow-on-the-street believes he is going to be able to enjoy as nice a retirement as his parents did. And Joe has right to be concerned. Let’s pray Joe chose someone who somehow can find a solution.

  20. Steve, I’m all for owning and fixing problems. But lets fix the real problems. Is the real problem that ALL Church leaders and members hate women? Is the real problem that ALL Church members and leaders are racists, as has been suggested? Or are the issues more complicated and nuanced, and in our understandable post-election grief we aren’t able to talk about things clearly yet?

    Focusing on everyone, as the post seems to suggest the author is doing, just takes the attention from those who really need it.

  21. This is true, Cynthia. Thank you for expressing it so powerfully and clearly.

  22. Jamie Handy — very powerful comment. Thank you!

  23. 1) Prop 8 was passed back when even Barack Obama was opposed to gay marriage.

    2) Supporting a candidate that champions abortion up until the time of birth isn’t exactly “defending the family” either.

  24. Anonymous is right here. The original post overgeneralizes and the point breaks down as you try to get to specifics.

  25. What thennion said.

  26. You guys are nuts. Why don’t you try listening to her? Just listen.

  27. Supporting a candidate that champions abortion up until the time of birth isn’t exactly “defending the family” either.

    How about supporting a candidate that champions abortion up until he’s running as a GOP candidate in the primaries? Is that “defending The Family”?

  28. Steve, they won’t listen to her because she’s “just” some shrill liberal woman — and a “feminist”, so one of the three main threats to the Church, according to Boyd K. Packer — who is being overly dramatic about Trump winning the electoral vote, despite boasting about sexually assaulting women without consequence because of his wealth and fame as well as promoting pornography and rubbing shoulders with the casino underworld throughout his entire career, when the most qualified presidential candidate in at least the last 50 years, who also happens to be a woman, won the popular vote.

    If they can just explain to her why her feelings at Mormons, who usually are constantly sermonizing against pornography, adultery, gambling, dishonesty, religious persecution, etc., overwhelmingly supporting the candidate with the fewest family-values credentials of any candidate in all of U.S. history, then they can make her see why her histrionics are misplaced and no one hates or wants to subordinate women.

  29. Listen with desire to understand, not to remark, rebut, or rebuke. Understanding is not automatic agreement, but it opens the mind and heart to empathy and to the spirit.

    Try it; it’s amazing.

  30. I too experienced the joys of Prop 8 and a heavy-handed leader who wondered aloud if he could issue a temple recommend to someone who did not at least make a symbolic–in this case defined as $5–contribution to Protect Marriage. Why? In order to demonstrate that one was on the Lord’s side, of course!

    We’re all about taking sides and principled stands when the battle plans of the righteous require it. But when things go our way–as apparently the selection of a casino magnate as president-elect does–well, in that case, let’s just pray for those who “govern in these difficult and turbulent times.”

  31. Cynthia, I think it’s incontrovertible that we as the church bear responsibility for your pain and feelings of alienation. Clearly we haven’t done enough to grapple with racism and sexism (two isms that directly oppose the scriptural declarations that “all are alike unto God,” and the repeated commands to love one another, help the stranger, etc.). It’s doubly disappointing to have your experience dismissed by fellow church members, who sort of prove your point in their unwillingness to be more self-reflective and to accept the Book of Mormon’s clear mandate against assuming that “all is well in Zion.” We’ve got to do better. I am glad you share your story.

  32. The Mormon Church, like the Catholic Church, is inherently misogynistic, insofar as women are prohibited from the higher levels of leadership. This inherent misogyny is mirrored, consciously or unconsciously, by its membership.

    If you want a Church that actually respects women as equals, then you need to find one that allows women leaders. Simple as that.

  33. Update: if your comments aren’t showing, it’s probably because you’re not listening.

  34. Based on the moderation of my comments, it seems that no one wants to listen to opposing viewpoints at this stage. I can take a hint.

  35. I don’t believe them anymore either.

  36. First, foremost, a wincing thanks for this. It feels like a gut punch.
    Second, while I despair of any explanation to anybody who doesn’t get it, I do want to say that what I hear is not direct criticism of the election (however much warranted). Rather, I hear that comments and support and votes in Tuesday’s election prove the lie of former rationalizations. And so “I don’t believe them any more.” (Well, I never did.)

  37. I think I always knew it was a lie, but this was a particularly spectacular confirmation of it.

  38. “… the moral character associated with The Family wins every time …”

    There wasn’t a moral family-values candidate this election, not among the two major candidates at least. You’re criticizing people because they decided to vote for the immoral candidate you wanted to lose instead of the immoral candidate you wanted to win.

    Motes and beams, stones and glass houses, etc.

  39. Thank you for your post.

    I will not accept that any policy position could override Trump’s personal conduct in selecting him to hold the highest position of trust in our nation. However, my disillusionment is more with my fellow church members than with church leadership. I understood the letter read in Sacrament meetings (saying that principles of the gospel can be found in various political parties) and the Deseret News op-ed in opposition to Trump, to be not-so-subtle hints that members ought to avoid loyalty to the Republican candidate. Additionally, with respect to prop 8 as compared to the election, churches can permissibly speak out on political issues and retain tax-exempt status, but cannot voice support or opposition for political candidates. That may have something to do with the difference in approaches to the two situations from the church itself.

  40. I voted for Clinton, and I was always going to vote for the Democratic nominee, even before Trump got going. My friends and family knew that about me. I did that much to beat back the pestilence of Trump’s hate. If I wanted to, I suppose I could reasonably say that this one is not my fault. Even so, as I’ve lost sleep over the last couple of nights, my thoughts have been mostly about how I share responsibility for this. I didn’t vote for Trump, but these hundreds of thousands of Mormons who did are my people. What they have done is part of me.

    Now I read this in the thread above: “Focusing on everyone [in the church], as the post seems to suggest the author is doing, just takes the attention from those who really need it.” And I find this faintly disgusting. Are you one of us or not? If you are one of us, then you are one of “those who really need it.” It’s great that you didn’t vote for Trump, but that’s irrelevant now. We did this. We need to own it. We need to fix it.

  41. Dear Anonymous: you are still not listening to what Cynthia is saying. Your comments are cogent – nay, brilliant – but you are not listening. Take a deep breath, keep the hands away from the keyboard for a while.

  42. tulgeywood24 says:

    Thanks to all the commenters proving Cynthia’s point.

    I’m sick and damn tired of people telling me how to react to this nightmare of Donald Trump winning. I’m sick of people telling me how to feel. I’m sick of people telling me how to express myself.

    I’m sick of being condemned for ignoring the white middle class because I was too concerned about the threats against immigrants, people of color and women like me. I’m sick of people demanding unity from me when no one has assured my minority friends that they are safe. There have been no apologies for targeting these members of our society. Electing the man offering these threats is giving him permission. And yet we’re to unify with him and his followers on good faith?

    Our country is in grave error. The entire Book of Mormon warns against what “we” just did.

  43. Anonymous, you’re nuancing yourself right out of the picture. Again: are you one of us or not?

    And again, as others have said repeatedly, if you think that Cynthia is saying that “everyone and everything hates women,” you’re wrong. Really, that’s such an absurd way to characterize her post. If you want to be part of the solution, the first thing to do is listen. Let your defenses down. Listen with your heart.

  44. Dear Steve: I tried to listen and understand, was confused and suggested the need for clarification – only to be met with defensiveness. Thus, I was left to take the words on the screen at face value. I have sought to respond to them as I understand them. It doesn’t help to blame the listener if the message is muddled and not clear.

    What is clear is that the the post stems from a great deal of personal pain, which I have acknowledged and respect. I am sorry there is so much pain being felt over this election. I feel it myself.

    I thought the purpose of the blog was to share, discuss and, if possible, try to come up with solutions to eliminate problems. That is the spirit in which my comments were made. These are serious issues and we need to work together to solve them. That said, perhaps feelings are still too raw, and it would have been best to simply emphasize now and solve later. My apologies and best wishes.

  45. Thanks.

  46. 61% for Trump is far worse than whatever Romney and McCain’s percentages were, regardless of numbers.

  47. churches can permissibly speak out on political issues and retain tax-exempt status, but cannot voice support or opposition for political candidates.

    That’s a good point that I had neglected to consider in my initial reaction to the congratulations extended to the president-elect by the First Presidency.

  48. Anonymous, thanks for the conciliatory note, but it’s a little unsatisfying to leave it at “well I guess she’s too sensitive for my logic,” when my feeling was that your interpretations were so far off base that it was hard to imagine that you had even read the post. Some disagreement or discussion is fine. I’ve got my big girl pants on. I quite literally take grilling questions for a living. But you have to be talking about the same thing. You have to have made some attempt at reading and understanding what is in the post. And as far as I could tell, you were way below threshold on that, and so you shouldn’t be surprised that nobody really wanted to engage with you. Where in the post did I implicate top church leaders? In fact I foresaw your concern about generic target and so I listed, specifically, the places where I heard these things (cf. casseroles etc). Maybe you forgot to read that paragraph? But forgive me if I don’t see it worth my time in the comments to spoon feed you quotations from the original post one sentence at a time to clear up misconceptions you had from your initial reading of it.

  49. Great post, Cynthia. I also remember the outrage many fellow Mormons expressed against Bill Clinton – who I believe came in 3rd in Utah in 1992 behind Ross Perot (ah, the good old days). Yet now the same people are actually voting for Trump who is at least as bad (arguably much worse) than Bill Clinton? Mind boggling.

    Keep fighting the good fight. It’s worth it.

  50. If the author wishes to view the 2016 election through the lens of gender, priesthood, and family values rhetoric, she is entitled and has some valid points. But it’s a big stretch to accuse Utah Mormons of hypocrisy on these fronts simply on the basis that a lot voted for Donald Trump. I think most held their noses when they did, but I believe they had valid reasons to believe they were still voting in their best self interest, if not for better principles as well.

    I didn’t vote for Trump because I despise his rhetoric and politics (whatever they are this week) and because he he is a sleazebag of the highest order. But I also couldn’t accept a Clinton status quo presidency. The cost of my high deductible health care policy rose to over $1,600 a month for 2017, and that’s before I have to spend another $10,000+ to reach my deductible. A $25,000-a-year health insurance cost is all by itself plenty of reason not to vote for a candidate who is committed to more or less continue the policies of the past eight years.

    One could agree with the OP author’s entire viewpoint and still not vote for Clinton. The “Mormons who voted for Trump are hypocrites” math being presented here is very disturbing. And I say this as a (non-Utah) voter who wants equal opportunity for all women and who despises Donald Trump.

  51. You know maybe rates in the state would be more stabilized if your morally bankrupt state legislature that cares more about being petty jerks to Obama than it does about their constituents’ lives hadn’t blocked medicare expansion, thereby starving the rolls of lots of healthy but needy customers. Funny how that works.

  52. The halls of government are full of such people. Find a national lobbyist and listen to the Washington horror stories. Trump was elected because of the socioeconomic forest fire that has raged across the nation. It’s about economic and cultural survival for vast majority of voters who voted for Trump. In many areas, voters who voted for Obama the last two elections turned on him. I don’t believe they suddenly became bigots in 8 years.

  53. Kristine N says:

    Cynthia, I feel this pain, too. It’s incredible to me that ambition in a woman is as offensive to people as all the bad things that Trump’s done; that power and strength in a woman is counted as wicked as lying, stealing, and adultery in a man. It just hurts.

  54. Cynthia: Your repeated rhetorical use of the word “they” in the post is expansive. In some instances it refers to ideas that have been taught by top Church leaders. Your sentence about casseroles is not written in a way that suggested to me that you are limiting those you are talking about to just a few individuals. Rather, I undertood it to be representative of church members and leaders in general, including top church leaders who speak “over the pulpit at stake conferences” almost every weekend somewhere. Others that have commented on this thread seem to have read it the same way.

    So, yes, I read the post. I had (and still have) questions about who you were referring to as hating. And, I still think that the way you have written this could be construed in a way that will not help solve the problems that are causing the pain we all feel, but will rather turn people away from engaging in the issues. This is why I saw the need for clarification. When none came, I assumed my reading was as you intended, and suggested that your meaning as I interpreted it was not helpful.

    That all said, I know that I’m not a regular here and am not entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to my good faith. I also recognize this is a sensitive issue, which may make it more difficult to have meaningful exchanges in this forum. So, as I said above, meaning no disrespect to you, perhaps I should have been more circumspect.

  55. tbennion is right. I guess I already knew this but it’s become even more increasingly clear the last few days that BCC just wants to be another echo chamber. Sad. Your insularity helps nothing.

  56. a4this, let’s talk about insularity. tbennion is Exhibit A. He (I’m guessing tbennion is a “he”) goes on at length about the danger of “internalizing” too much, and all the things that the election is not about, and the need for thorough data-diving. Then the best he can do in conclusion is to “pray Joe-Blow-on-the-street chose someone who can find a solution” to old Joe’s problems with arranging a comfortable retirement. As if all of Trump’s hateful, brutal rhetoric were just incidental. Now that’s living in a bubble.

    People’s reasons for voting Trump don’t really matter now. None of us can escape the consequences of his victory by saying, “I’m not a racist.” Okay, you aren’t a racist or a misogynist. But Trump is, and his path is clear. I suppose he will adopt gentler rhetoric now. That won’t discourage the bigots who are openly celebrating his victory. You’re also not off the hook if you say, “But Hillary would have been bad too.” Trump is the one we all have to deal with now.

    If you are preoccupied with blaming Trump’s victory on someone else’s prejudices or some unfortunate economic conditions, I invite you to stop. Worry instead about fixing the damage among us that Cynthia describes. Worry instead about frustrating Trump’s designs. Worry instead about changing the conditions that allowed this man to be elected. Look forward, and do something useful.

  57. a4this – you’ve been commenting here for years and you’re just NOW figuring out that we’re an echo chamber? Sad.

  58. Well put, Cynthia. Your closing lines in particular are striking. The willingness of so many Mormons to vote for such a person is sadly telling about how they/we felt all along.

  59. Like Cynthia, I’ve been counseled from pulpits large and small to place the principle of the Family above everything else – my ambition, politics, sense of justice, even my compassion. I feel that sense of betrayal too.

  60. Anonymous your most recent comment is nice example of how you seem to be unable to actually listen:

    “This is why I saw the need for clarification. When none came, I assumed my reading was as you intended, and suggested that your meaning as I interpreted it was not helpful.”

    I actually responded IMMEDIATELY to your first comment to say that you had attributed to me “a bunch of things that I didn’t actually say.” And you (a) took that as no response at all–“none came”–and (b) ignored the literal words of the response, to draw this conclusion: “I assumed my reading was as you intended, and suggested that your meaning as I interpreted it was not helpful.”

    People are telling you that you aren’t listening and you need to #€%ing hear that and believe it because you are really, really not listening.

  61. Another Anonymous says:

    I don’t know how we’ll bridge this deep divide, but as a first step need to let people express themselves, even if vaguely or somewhat confusingly. I know I have strong, confusing feelings, and I appreciate this post.

    Today I was at a post-election forum with college students from both sides of the aisle. One of the black students explained that she felt like any person who voted for Trump was tacitly racist because it meant that they didn’t see Trump’s bigotry as a deal breaker. A Trump supporter pushed back and said that most votes for Trump were not about race at all, but about other issues, like economics. The first student replied that might be true, but she still felt that Trump voters had prioritized their economic interests over the safety of certain groups of vulnerable people, and that hurt. Several students responded that considerations like race had simply not entered the equation for many Trump voters.

    I think they may be right about that. It’s not that all voters fully considered what it might like to be on the receiving end of Trump’s insults or discriminatory policies, and weighed this with or against their hopes for economic or political progress. It’s that that many people never considered or understood what that pain might be like in the first place. Because it’s hard to take seriously the concerns of people that you don’t know and who seem different (especially when you’re exposed to media suggesting that those people are melodramatic about their suffering, or are even dangerous). I almost understand that mindset.

    But if that’s true, the misogyny component is almost sadder, because everyone knows a woman or two and yet many people (including many women) decided that women’s safety and dignity was of secondary concern. One of the students in the forum today said that Trump reminded her of her abuser, and I think that rings true for a lot of women.

  62. Anonymous is sanity and logic. Thanks.

  63. Yep.

  64. Thanks, Another Anonymous.

    “Several students responded that considerations like race had simply not entered the equation for many Trump voters.”

    And that is super, super racist. For Trump supporters, coming out of thick denial about that is a painful process that I have a ton of empathy for, and for which I think they deserve real, sincere support and credit. But on the other hand persistently not coming out of that denial is not something they necessarily deserve patience for.

  65. Cyn, the problem is your lens. I was not a Trump supporter as much as an anti-corrupt political elitist machine. Freedom and the Constitution will always be the most important ideal for me.

  66. Uh-huh. Tell my Muslim friends whose president-elect literally pledged to register them for a database last year more about that freedom and constitution that are your most important ideals. Your lens is white Christian and the sooner you come to terms with that the sooner we can begin healing as a nation.

  67. Good reading for all the “but I had other reasons” apologists in the crowd:

  68. I’m with you Cynthia L, except I feel less angst about the hypocrisy of the Mormon vote for Trump. I’ve long since accepted that we have no special claim to holiness or inspiration, we’re just like any other voting schmucks in America, slaves to our biased self-interest, and in our case, well-trained in blinding our eyes to any inconvenient facts that don’t fit the narrative we’re taught is the only righteous way.

    I know how cynical this sounds, I own that. But this is not a normal presidential transition. The scale of bad things that Trump said and did during the campaign, and during his checkered career (that involves zero public service, zero foreign policy experience, but include all manner of sheer wickedness) don’t even remotely meet a standard for a president-elect that I can muster even a little confidence in. And layered over this are all the contortions people go through to defend/excuse or otherwise justify voting for him/not voting for her.

    So yeah, I’m trying to find my way through this labyrinth of extraordinary cynicism and I’m not looking to the church for help, for exactly the reasons you wrote in the OP. I know the way through is Love, but I can’t quite locate that thread. Yet.

  69. Per the Scalzi OP, everyone who votes for either candidate has complicity with respect to everything done or said by their candidate both good and bad. Politicians are clearly complicit with respect to things done by the organizations or other entities to which they provide funding or other support. This was the reason I could not vote for either Hillary or a third party.

    For most of the primary season and general election, I told my wife repeatedly and emphatically that I would not vote for Trump as I would not be willing to answer for that vote at the day of judgement due to all of the factors that others have listed. Due to a number of extenuating circumstances, I allowed myself to be very grudgingly convinced to vote for Trump, but not because he was the lesser of two evils. I have yet to be convinced that he will not be worse than Hillary at least in some aspects. I believe that he will definitely be better than her in others yet I am not someone that believes you can take away the taste of a turd simply because you bathe it in chardonnay. Perhaps day old moonshine would have been a better choice.

    I spent a lot of time going through the scriptures and praying trying to find a way to make peace with my decision. I was going through “Scalzi logic” several weeks ago and came to the conclusion I had to factor in Hillary’s complicity with respect to the large number of abortions performed in this country since Roe v. Wade. Complicity that is much greater than the “You didn’t think about racial impacts so you’re racist” since the one is an act of unintentional omission while the other is an intentional act of reasoned commission. If you think that her support for the abortion rights is a fantastic thing, rock and roll. I can’t.

    This is the first time in my life that the matter of abortion has entered into any decision to vote as it’s something I feel very strongly about, but it’s also concurrently something I don’t have a good answer for. I highly doubt that the Lord will be copacetic at the bar with regards to 50+ million children killed post 1973, yet I don’t think we are willing to collectively solve the problem. The use of my tax and health insurance dollars to subsidize abortions makes me complicit in the abortion industry to a much greater degree than I would like. I probably would not have come down so hard on the other side had I not been forced to provide funding for a practice that even the most elementary logical analysis would deem “not good” at a minimum. Given that I have a seat at the table due to the fact that the money is coming in part out of my wallet, I cannot solely leave it between a woman, her doctor and God as I am complicit in it if I do nothing. Don’t make me pay and I probably won’t have much to say. Make me pay and I have a right to express my opinion and shape my vote based on what I am forced to do.

    I highly doubt very many voters on either side went through as much agony trying to find a way to make peace with their votes, but every engineer in the company where I work went through a process similar to this. The problem is that each of us who put thought into their votes has a different set of metrics and weights that they use to balance their internal reckoning and they don’t always come up with the same answer as yours. Is groping women, badmouthing people and doing a bunch of the other jackass stupid stuff that Trump did horrifically bad? Absolutely. I would have voted for anyone else if given a chance and did not support Trump at all through the primary season or the general. In my calculus, 50+ million abortions trumps (pun intended) what is very clearly bad personal behavior the same way that WWII trumps a 50 car, high fatality pileup caused by a drunk driver. Because Scalzi says you’re responsible for what you vote for, whether at the ballot box or in the halls of Congress.

  70. Cynthia L: I should also say I do wish you and everyone the best, and hope we can all work together in our various ways to solve the problems we face. We just have different views of how to make that happen apparently.

  71. @Panther II,

    I disagree with but understand your deep feelings about abortion. Understand however that Trump would, under your logic, also be complicit in the abortions conducted until he changed his stance on the subject (repeatedly, it’s confusing) in 2000-ish.

    Also, please note your tax dollars do not fund abortions. It’s the law (see Hyde Amendment).

    And as a pregnant woman, I would very much appreciate it if you would leave my medical decisions to me, my doctor, and my God.

    Apologies for a potential thread jack. Cynthia, thanks again for your post and continuing discussion.

  72. Anonymous – If you truly desire to understand the OP (which goes hand-in-hand with mourning with those that mourn to me), which she and others have asked you to do, there is a way to do so. Reread her original post and then repeat back to her what she was saying in your own words. Ask her if you got it right. She will tell you. Expect that you probably didn’t get it right (no one ever does the first time). Reread the OP and try again. Ask again. Rinse and repeat as many times as possible until you do get it right.

    There are some topics that are meant for discussion and debate (wonderfully so). Mourning isn’t one of them. Mourning is about listening and understanding (I am not saying that understanding is agreeing.). What really, really bothers me about this thread is the sheer number of people who don’t seem to be able to tell the difference. How can we ever become Zion of heart if we see mourning / suffering as something to be proved wrong? Or for that matter how can we become Zion if we’re incapable of even recognizing mourning in another person?

  73. Cynthia, great post. It helps to see that others are having all sorts of feelings at the church following this election.

    The day after the orange monster was elected, I was surprised at how angry I was feeling at the Church and I’m still trying to process those feelings. A bright spot for me in this crazy election was that for a time Utah seemed to be taking a stand against Trump, and I had this naive hope that they were taking a stand against misogyny and members were putting their money where their mouth is when they speak of the divine nature and value of women.

    But as often goes with folks in the church, the more likely outcome resulted and I was left with bitter disappointment in the reality of things. Had Utah and Mormons voted against Trump, I’d at least be able to say “not me, not my people, not us.” I feel betrayed, and hated all along as you describe.

  74. The bubbles people live in…

  75. Panther- I think it is a bit extreme to be held accountable for the actions of someone else.

  76. Mary Roberts says:

    Well, it is clear now that the majority of the country is so racist and sexist that they cannot even recognize racism and sexism when they see it. And that much of the membership of the Church is in apostasy, when they choose “Hate Your Neighbor” over “Love Your Neighbor”.

    And I suppose that this is the World we have always lived in; but I feel like this week I have lost both my Church and Country.

  77. Describe it to me first.

  78. Frank – it is not extremee at all to be held account for your own actions, including who you vote for.

  79. A corrupt politician vs a inarticulate cad.

  80. Utahn in CT says:

    Exit polling from Utah showed that of voters for Trump, 55% were men and 45% women. How can this large pro-Trump female vote be reconciled with the view implied here that the Mormon vote for Trump was overall based on misogyny?

  81. Women are not exempt from being misogynistic. In fact, women often enforce sexist norms more vigorously than men. I had a a female HR rep at the company I worked for tell me that she made sure men earned more than women at the company because they are God’s designated breadwinners. That is misogyny. I had a YW leader tell me that I could not question anything the bishop does. Only men can do that. Also misogyny. The high percentage of female Utahns who voted for Trump does not preclude misogyny as the reason.

  82. Reason over emotion would conclude that Utahns who voted for Trump didn’t vote “for misogyny” any more than voters for Clinton voted “for infanticide.”

  83. Another Anonymous says:

    Utahn in CT: It’s not at all surprising that women internalize misogyny, especially in a culture like the LDS church where “cool” women and “good” women don’t seek authority over men.

    In my personal experience, a lot of women defer to the opinions of men who have misogynistic ideas but express them as if they aren’t misogynistic. Growing up, Hillary Clinton was a constant target for my father. Even during Bill Clinton’s term, she got a lot of blame for everything my father thought was wrong in politics. It wasn’t that she was a woman, it was that she was bad. And honestly, I kind of believed it. A few months ago that I was talking to my father and he was praising Trump. I pointed out that Trump has said and done a lot of awful things to women, and my father scoffed and said that Trump loves women and that anyways the women he’d insulted had deserved it. It suddenly occurred to me that if my dad was applying that level of misogyny to his estimation of Trump, he was probably applying a similar amount in his evaluation of Clinton.

    And this may sound terribly cynical, but I think that women who’ve invested heavily in a patriarchal system where their own opportunities are limited are likely to feel terribly threatened by women who don’t work by those same rules and yet manage to find success or happiness. Because that’s not supposed to happen! So of course they’ll try to police the behavior of other women.

  84. Women, gays, and racial minorities were simply casualties for Trump voters to get what they want–restoration of privilege in a changing world. We were acceptable collateral damage. Unfortunately I agree with Cynthia that it’s a long-standing tradition in the church for people who aren’t white males to be acceptable collateral damage. Maybe that’s a byproduct of such a GOP-led organization. Conserving the status quo essentially means keeping things comfortable for the patriarchy–not eroding privilege–at the expense of progress and equality for everyone else.

    They created their Golem, and as that story usually ends, the Golem will eventually destroy them.

    Is there hope? Pres. Obama’s first meeting with Trump was very gracious. Perhaps Trump will see how serious this job is that he won as if he were a contestant on a reality TV show, using ratings stunts and rants. Obama is a serious leader, even more than Hillary. Trump seemed to take that to heart. “The truest friend does not doubt, but hope.” (Jane Austen)

    The democrat strategy underestimated how disenfranchised people felt in the rural areas of our country, and now we are all paying the price for that. Next time we have to be smarter and we have to listen more, even to things that are frankly upsetting. I unfriended and blocked people who were ranting horrible things on their FB pages, and here we are. The angry white people won.

  85. One good effect for me, of this election and especially this comment thread, is how clearly it has exposed that we all live in our bubbles. (formerly known as comfort zones) And it’s exposed the actual bubbles for our learning and edification, in case we’re interested. (I am.) Today I’ve been examining the amusement of black women toward white-Hillary-voter angst as we discover the mean, unsafe world that they’ve lived in all their lives, that is now rearing it’s ugly head, being given life by the results of this election. If you don’t believe me, take it from Mitt Romney, interviewed today decrying the at-large empowerment of bigotry and misogyny by the words and actions of the president-elect.

    It’s really exposed the bubble Cynthia writes about in the OP, that the majority of Mormon voters chose the male candidate over the female candidate and one of the major factors is that Mormons have a built-in bias against women in authority at the top. In the interest of brevity, I’ll end my point here.

  86. Utahn in CT says:

    EBK: yes, of course, and this was non my mind as I wrote my first comment. Isn’t the source of that misogyny ideas held by the group as a whole?

  87. I must say that I’m very disappointed. The last time my posts were deleted from a BCC thread, I at least had the benefit of Steve writing an apology that he made to look like it came from me.

    This time, nothing.

  88. Correction: Mitt’s interview is from last June, reposted widely today in my bubble. But you don’t have to take my word for it:

    Sent from my iPhone

  89. Reason over emotion would conclude that Utahns who voted for Trump didn’t vote “for misogyny” any more than voters for Clinton voted “for infanticide.”

    No, the former simply exercised their free agency to vote for a misogynist who has put his money where his mouth is. That’s gotta count for something among the silent, note-taking angels. Clinton–whatever her faults–doesn’t actually kill babies.

  90. Steve Evans: I understand deleting comments that you deem rude, offensive and unkind. I also understand if you feel the need to delete civil comments that you seem to be irrelevant or off-topic. But I don’t understand why you would delete my civil response to fairly caustic remarks in a previous comment that Cynthia L directed specifically at me. I did not ask her to engage and my deleted comment was in direct response to her remarks to me. At best, this makes it look like you permabloggers can’t handle disagreement. At worse, it makes you seem authoritarian and willing to suppress any thought that is not completely in lock step with your own. It also makes it appear that Cynthia L cannot speak for herself. Of course it’s your sandbox, and you can do what you want. But, your actions here, don’t appear to match your professed ideals.

  91. But, your actions here, don’t appear to match your professed ideals.

    That only appears to be the case. In fact, Steve has carefully nuanced reasons for deleting your comments that have nothing to do with authoritarian suppression of free speech. Give him the benefit of the doubt and a little time–say, four years–and I’m sure you’ll see that deleting your comments is actually a noble endeavor. At any rate, the petulant whining won’t get you anywhere.

    All joking aside, I have a story about a bunch of Mormons whose actions didn’t appear to match their professed ideals. You see, there was once a philandering casino magnate who ran for president and his strongest supporters were… See? BCC has joined the conservative mainstream!

  92. When I group our pitiful election result with the recent U.K. Brexit vote, I think the conclusion I have come to is thus:
    People are selfish. People don’t like to share. That not only includes not sharing resources with those less fortunate (wealth, access to healthcare), but also extends to sharing historic white man positions with others. It’s sad, yet I remain hopeful it can change.

  93. During lunch today a coworker was bemoaning the protests going on in the deep Blue cities. He could get it, if the protests were physical close to what they were protesting, but being hundreds or thousands of miles away from the person your protesting doesn’t do anything.
    I mentioned how many of the protesters are victims of sexual assault, and having someone who’s a serial assaulter, becoming President, opens those old wounds and is a traumatic experience to them.
    He looked at me funny and said something to the effect of “Then they should get over it.”
    There are lots of people who just do not even come close to understanding how other feel, because they don’t relate to it in their personal experience at all.

  94. Brother Drumpf says:

    In a similar vein, I’ve now heard of Utah Mormons trying to mend fences with their Muslim neighbors, saying that their vote for Trump was really just a vote against Hillary and that they’ve nevertheless got their Muslim friends’ backs. But doesn’t that mean that conservative Utah Mormons are willing to trade the religious rights of Muslims to defeat . . . who exactly? A communist? A socialist? No, a woman who in almost any other western democracy would be considered a moderate conservative. So, I guess the message is — we’ve got your backs, but only if we don’t really have to make much of a sacrifice. With friends like these . . .

  95. Cynthia L:
    Though I am late to the dialog, your post really resonates with me. I have longed ranted and railed (mostly to myself and close, like-minded friends) against this amorphous, ambiguous, doctrine/policy/tradition-churchthink that nearly all my fellow ward members *seem* to have. When you attempt to make a point during a lesson that disagrees with this mindset, you are met with silence or some usually irrelevant reference to something a GA said. And almost no one will engage in actually discussing your differing perspective. It is like smacking up against a whited sepulchre (“seek the truth from all sources”) or the white and spacious building–impenetrable.

    There is most definitely a “they.” And they are content to stay in their ignorance.

  96. Cynthia, I appreciate your post.

  97. Antonio Parr says:

    While this is a forum that provides thoughtful Latter-Day Saints a place to process and vent (which is a good thing), the “they hated me all along” conclusion is vague, excessively dramatic and, I believe, unfounded. I am as disappointed with the Trump as election as anyone that I know. FWIW, I would have been only slightly less disappointed with a Clinton victory. In my case I saw severe flaws – some character, some policy – that made neither worthy of my vote.

    Like many, I was also hoping that Utah would move away from the knee-jerk Red state allegiance that has been the norm for many, many years. I would imagine other Latter-Day Saints, like me, were conflicted. In my own circle, I know of none who were motivated by gender animus. I have reason to believe that Utah may slowly be moving towards a less dogmatic view of politics. Let’s hope.

    My personal resolution is to seek out more face-to-face opportunities to interact in the political arena with neighbors and my broader community, and trust that people of good will – myself included – can be influenced and persuaded by thoughtful dialogue. Wallowing will get none of us anywhere. The folks who run and populate this website all seem to have razor sharp intellects. I would suggest that we all take St. Francis’ counsel to heart – seek to understand before being understood – and then go out into the real life, face-to-face public square. and try to influence as many as we can to the political positions that ring truest to us. There will be future elections and future opportunities to make a difference.

    Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight. Got to kick at the darkness ’til it bleeds daylight.

  98. Antonio, thank you. Your personal resolution seems right to me. I have only two caveats.

    First, you write that “there will be future elections and other opportunities to make a difference.” Don’t take it for granted that there will be free elections in the future. The Trump cult has behaved as a group of neo-fascists throughout the campaign, and there is no reason to think that they will change now. We will have future elections only if we recognize the danger before us and act to fight it. Your discussions with your friends and neighbors are part of that effort.

    Second, I believe that Cynthia’s post is about more than just this election. I think she’s saying that the camel has been carrying a heavy burden for a long time, and for her this feels like the last straw. We Mormons are hypocrites in the ways we talk about women, and this election is the latest, most dramatic evidence of that.

  99. Antonio Parr says:

    Loursat – respectfully, the far left is every bit the threat to free elections as the far right. In some respects, the threat from the far left is more subtle than that of the far right, and, therefore, more dangerous. Either way, I find the excesses and evils of the DNC to be utterly indistinguishable from those of the RNC. Both are ruthlessly hungry for power, and both would resort to unscrupulous measures to trip up the other. (Huntsman has started a “No Labels” movement — here’s hoping it takes root and flourishes.)

    As to the “‘we’ Mormons are hypocrites in the ways we talk about women” observation: some are, some aren’t.

  100. Antonio, in our political system we have traditionally been able to recognize the “far left” and the “far right” as the ones whose views are so extreme that they cannot obtain power. With this election, there is a real possibility that this has changed. Not all who voted for Trump can be identified with the far right, but that is where Trump’s campaign got its motive force. They really are fascists, following the man who says, “I am the only one who can make America truly great again!” This is a new thing in our politics. As you work to raise awareness among your friends and neighbors, I hope you will recognize that this is not politics as usual. And please remember that regardless of the danger that the far left might pose in principle, they are certainly not the ones with the actual power now.

  101. Antonio Parr says:

    Loursat – Power is often a local thing, and in my neck of the woods the far right is completely impotent.

    I have seen some persuasive articles following the election that suggests that it was the far left’s overreaching that produced Trump. Political correctness carries its own weight and power, and the combination of the media’s and higher education’s ridiculing, name calling and lampooning of those who don’t hold the correct views and/or say the correct words has resulted in the backlash known as Donald Trump. To be clear, I am sickened by the Trump victory. But I have also been sickened by the attempts of those who profess to be adherents of free speech who seek to shout down voices who they perceive to be unenlightened.

    There are more good people who gravitate towards the middle than their are on the fringes of both parties. It would be nice if they found a vehicle to promote the kind of good faith discourse that is necessary for the health and survival of this remarkable nation.

  102. Brother Drumpf says:

    This whole election has been shot through with a seemingly stunning inability for people to call out false equivalences and make fairly obvious distinctions between different groups of people. There are major differences between the RNC right now and the DNC, the far right and the far left (not least of which is that the former is in control of two branches of government). This “everyone’s the same” business strikes me as its own deformed type of political correctness. The difference between Trump and Clinton was the difference between a cyanide pill and an over-mayonnaised ham sandwich. “But look at all that mayonnaise,” they said. Yep. But you’re choosing a cyanide pill for heaven’s sake.

  103. Antonio Parr says:

    Brother Drumpf: Saying something is a false equivalency doesn’t necessarily make it so. There are a lot of really wise people, both in and out of the Church, who felt equally torn by the extremes of both parties, and who were equally repulsed by the characters and/or political positions of the two major candidates. Seek them out and try to determine why they feel the way that they feel, and why they voted the way that they voted.

  104. Antonio: dismissing false equivalency does not make it untrue either. Personally I find the false equivalency argument strong. A good example are the Clinton/Trump foundations. Clinton’s involvement in her foundation as Secretary of State was questionable. Investigations found no evidence of quid pro quo, but criticized her handling of the situation. The Clinton foundation, however, has a strong track record (though not perfect) of performing good work in the world.

    Trump’s foundation has operated in far more questionable, possibly illegal territory. The foundation violated New York state law by soliciting donations without prior authorization. Trump’s foundation gave 25,000$ dollars to a political group supporting the attorney general investigating his university for fraud – who afterward dropped the investigation. Trump also used the foundation for personal gain, including settling legal disputes and buying personal souvenirs. While ostensibly a show of its founders generosity, it has run primarily on other people’s money since 2007. Promised donations to veteran’s groups have not been received.

    Equating the two controversial foundations (as I have heard many do) or focusing solely on Clinton’s problems with her foundation is false equivalence.

  105. Antonio, remove the words “really wise” and you have a point.

  106. Brother Drumpf says:

    Thanks for the suggestion, Antonio. I’ve actually talked to quite a few people about this: family members, friends, my home teaching companion. They told me that Hillary is the most dangerous person ever to run for President, that she was a criminal. I asked what laws she had broken. They weren’t sure, but they were pretty certain that they existed. So, I took a different tack — I asked what it was about Trump that they found appealing. I heard concerns about the Supreme Court, that they wanted justices who would limit executive power. I pointed out that even if one thought that Trump would elect conservative justices, this alone wouldn’t tell us anything about their stand on executive power since that issue, sort of like federalism, doesn’t have a particular political valence. At this point in the conversation, I usually refrained from pointing out the deep contradiction in hoping that a power hungry strongman would appoint judges that would limit his power. Additionally, they suggested the economy, I guess because Trump is supposedly a successful businessman. I asked what they thought would be the effect on the economy of the combination of trade wars, massive unpaid for tax cuts and threats of default on government debt. Crickets. Another argument I heard was that Trump would do a better job of respecting the rule of law than crooked Hillary. I usually acknowledged that her decision regarding the private email server was imprudent but that Trump had proposed a religious ban, stricter libel laws for journalists, the killing of terrorists’ family members and torture worse than waterboarding, among other things. The man had actually proposed policies as part of his campaign that were unlawful, if not unconstitutional. But none of this mattered. You know why? Because this election was about a mood, a real, legitimate, sincerely held mood, but a mood nonetheless. But mood affiliation is not always a great way to make decisions, as evidenced by this election. We need to use reasoned decision-making. We need to be able to do the hard work of differentiating between bad and less bad. Allowing oneself to be convinced that one of the candidates is the reincarnation of Lady Macbeth might make it easier to sidestep this hard work, but it doesn’t make it unnecessary.

  107. Comments to;dr but the OP was 🔥!

    Seriously, thank you.

  108. Antonio Parr says:

    I have been undeservedly blessed with some amazing friends and colleagues both in and out of the Church. “Wise” doesn’t begin to capture their gifts. Many of these were deeply burdened by this most recent election. For some, it may have been a “mood”, but for most it was a series of thoughtful concerns. Trump’s shortcomings are plain to see. For many, Hilary’s flaws balance Trump’s scales. I personally was dumfounded that these were the best two people that we could find. Brother Drumf’s experiences are unfortunate, and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of his account. My contacts interact quite differently. Either way, there is much work to be done in building the peaceable kingdom. God bless each of our efforts as we pursue this laudable objective.

  109. Preach, Rachel.

  110. PS: Unfortunately, I’ve heard exactly the same false equivalences from the far left as well. Sad! (as Trump would say in Tweet)

  111. Yup

  112. Clark Goble says:

    While there is false equivalency and I don’t think those on the right paid enough attention to the dangers of Trump, the problem is that when you have two compromised candidates and then ‘swing voters’ often also being low information voters you’re always going to get false equivalency. And, as Merritt notes, it happens on both sides. (I’ll not wax examples, but double standards and weird equivalencies aren’t hard to find)

    The problem is that we should have better candidates. The problem on the right was that how they perceived their coalition and the actual voters didn’t line up. While Trump had unusual advantages due to his place in entertainment, and while many on the left and media tried to promote him thinking he’d be easier to beat, the reality is he also spoke to a constituency of the GOP that past leaders like Romney didn’t. He was a horrible candidate but in a certain sense he won as much due to who the GOP were putting forward. The base weren’t nearly as excited by Cruz, Bush and Rubio as some thought. Likewise on the left for reasons not at all clear they nominated one of the most disliked people in America knowing how the right would react and let her go nearly unopposed. That Sanders did as well as he did shows that it perhaps wasn’t as good a choice as it seemed. I’d think now that just how bad her campaigning was is coming out there’d be some self reflection too.

    None of this is to say Clinton is worse than Trump. By any normal standard she’s not. But we’re dealing with people’s projections, hopes, fears and most importantly emotional reactions. That’ll always involve false equivalency.

  113. Steve Evans, if you are going to delete comments, please start with your own where you tell someone to shut up. It needs to go.