-

The Observer is a Student-run, daily print & online newspaper serving Notre Dame & Saint Mary's. Learn more about us.

-

viewpoint

I am not a victim

| Thursday, December 1, 2016

On Election Night, I was amazed when I gradually saw states turning red on my television screen. Granted, if I were able to switch out then-presidential nominee Donald J. Trump for Sen. Marco Rubio or Sen. Ted Cruz, I would have. Nevertheless, given the outcome of the primary elections, I had accepted and supported our presidential nominee. Once Pennsylvania was called and Clinton had conceded, I was overwhelmed. Americans made their voices heard through the ballots and proved that they were also ready for a change. To say that this made me proud of our constitutional republic would be an understatement.

However, to my surprise, on Wednesday morning my mailbox was flooded with emails regarding classes being cancelled, safety pins being given out, immediate prayer services taking place and services on campus offering their “safe spaces.” The emails I received from the administration insinuating that Trump’s victory proves a threat to my existence as a minority and a woman is ridiculous. It seems as though I am objectively viewed as a victim of an election that ultimately placed a “white male” in the Oval Office.

As a Hispanic, Republican woman from the San Francisco Bay Area who was raised in a family that overwhelmingly votes Democrat, hearing opposing political views is nothing new. However, being called a “fake Mexican,” a “disgrace,” and being told that “my heart is full of hate” through social media and in person has been astonishing. The amount of times I have been told my “white privilege is showing” is comical to say the least. Trump supporters have been called racists, but the ultimate form of prejudice is when it’s expected and assumed that all women, or even all Hispanics, must have identical ballots. We all have our reasons why we voted the way we did, and to assume that someone voted red because they are chauvinistic, hateful individuals is nothing short of a self-righteous disposition. To say you voted for Hillary because you “stand against hate” yet continue to act hatefully and judgmentally toward people who voted for Trump is hypocritical at best.

To provide “safe spaces” and handout safety pins is in no way preparing anyone for the real world. When I am working at my first job, post college, it would be a stretch to assume they have safe spaces available to protect my feelings. I understand how polarizing this election has been, but to act as if Trump’s election is the end of the world seems outrageous. Claiming someone is “extremely privileged” because his or her personal choices are different than yours is also a tad extreme.

The faculty and administration have not been shy in supporting the student protests, but do they also support the students who stand with the president-elect? Do they stand with them against the hate they have received? Personally, I have grown tired of this campus depicting those who lean right as horrendous individuals. Meanwhile, there are posters for undocumented students, female students, Muslim students, Black students, Hispanic students, minority students and LGBTQ+ students stating, “We accept you for who you are.” I fail to fathom why white students have been left off of these posters and are ultimately seen as “the oppressors” on campus. I understand the call for diversity, and being a Mexican-Nicaraguan daughter of an immigrant, I have not been blind to it. However, to portray me as a monster because I voted for a candidate who insists on a strict border policy and a stronger national defense to defeat the ideology of radical Islamic terrorism, a serious threat to this nation, is incredible.

While I have the utmost respect for professors and the administration at this institution, it would be a lie to say political opinions were not made clear this past week. This is true not only within the tri-campus community, but at college campuses around the country. Now more than ever, conservative college students have voiced concerns over their grades being jeopardized for expressing views contrary to those of their professors. However, while I have witnessed this unfortunate circumstance occur to my peers, I have absolute faith in the integrity of Saint Mary’s College.

On Jan. 20, 2017, Donald J. Trump will be the next president of the United States of America. I understand the importance of open dialogue on college campuses, but ultimately masking your views in an academic setting to avoid offending the ideology of someone else is harmful to intellectual growth. Consistently spewing hateful rhetoric towards people who hold opposing viewpoints and tastefully disagreeing are two different actions. While this is a time to unite as Americans and move forward in preparation for new leadership, it is also a time to stay true to beliefs.

To my fellow deplorables: Remember that you too have a voice, so do not back down. While it is important to listen and learn from those around you, it is also important to stand your ground. Reject the fatal concept of identity politics. Do not let the fear of being labeled a traitor, racist, sexist, homophobe or bigot diminish your ability to stand strong in your conservative beliefs. Keep showing up at the polls and let God handle the rest. As Alexander Hamilton once stated, “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”

Christina Herrera
class of 2018
Nov. 17

The views expressed in this Letter to the Editor are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

Tags: , , , ,

About Letter to the Editor

Letters to the Editor can be submitted by all members of the Notre Dame community. To submit a letter to the Viewpoint Editor, email viewpoint@ndsmcobserver.com

Contact Letter
  • Newyorkmom

    Christina Herrara’s letter to the Editor should be mandatory reading for every student on campus! She is articulate, intelligent and brave… things we are no seeing on campus. Excellent!!!

    • i_enjoy_tacos

      Curious: what’s your opinion on Bannon?

      • yellow1234

        How is that relevant to the character attributes of Christina? Get a new talking point

        • i_enjoy_tacos

          It’s relevant because she’s supporting a candidate who has appointed to a high level of his administration a person who has trafficked in racist conspiracy theories while at the same time complaining that people are saying her decision to support said candidate is racist.

          And I keep using this talking point because not a single Trump supported has answered my question. And it’s a really good talking point because it illustrates my complaints about Trump in a very compact form.

          Maybe you can you help me, please? Can you tell me your opinion of Bannon and his role in the Trump administration? I still have not received an answer.

          • yellow1234

            The only thing I know about Bannon has been reported by mainstream media = his competitor. So I have to take that with a grain of salt. I’m very much a “show me the proof” kind of person. From what I understand, the issues are with what Breitbart publishes, not his beliefs. Do you think every leader of a company agrees with their philosophies? They tend to get hired because they are good at running businesses. I’ve actually seen that many prominent Jewish people have come out and said they don’t believe him to be anti Semitic. If you have quotes from him somewhere that prove otherwise, I’m happy to learn.

            Even leftie Anderson Cooper knows he has to be careful with accusations like that without standing. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/308227-cooper-to-warren-no-evidence-bannon-a-white-supremacist

          • what no really
          • yellow1234

            So the best that can be brought forward is an article about his ex wife trashing him in divorce hearings, and the third party confirming the comment but denying it had any ill intent? Thanks for proving my point.

            “The director didn’t interpret the question as anti-Semitic. “I think the context was different from what I’ve read in the papers,” she said. “The school doesn’t celebrate holidays — we celebrate all holidays and no holidays, so we don’t have costumes at Halloween, but when a holiday comes up, we talk about it, and there are books in classrooms, and they put them away for the next holiday. So I thought he was referring to, How come you say you don’t celebrate holidays? There were all these books about Hanukkah.”

          • what no really

            I can dig deeper if you’d like. But I also think it’s odd you dismiss anything that was published on the website that he, you know, ran.

          • i_enjoy_tacos

            Thank you for responding. I appreciate it!

            (And the comment system keeps eating my posts, so excuse me if you see this multiple times. (I just realized it may be because of the headlines I pasted! I’ll add more asterisks))

            If all you know is what you heard from traditional media sources, then you actually know more than you give yourself credit for. Also, I didn’t call Bannon a racist, I called him somebody who trafficked in racist conspiracy theories. I called him a bigotry peddler. So we’re in alignment when we say the problem is with what he published, not with what he explicitly is known to believe.

            Speaking of what’s he published, have you seen some of the headlines? They’re pretty abhorrent. If not, here’s a taste:
            – Bill Kristol: Republican spoiler, renegade J**
            – Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy
            – Suck it up buttercups: Dangerous F***g*t Tour returns to colleges in September (except the printed that f-word)
            – Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?

            …there are many more. And, no, they’re not satire: you, yourself, said he’s a comeptitor with mainstream media.

            Yes, the news organization Bannon led, published those things. And because this company was not some giant, amorphous, multinational conglomerate, but rather a relatively small internet media company, he would have had a direct role in deciding what was published and what wasn’t (or he would be incredibly incompetent at his job if he didn’t). So I think it’s fair to say that he published all this stuff.

            Which brings me back to why I feel justified in saying he’s a bigotry peddler. He pushed and profited off of bigotry. Whether or not he actually believes the stuff is irrelevant: he’s just as guilty as if he does believe it since he furthered these abhorrent ideas.

            Do you agree? Or are you going to stick with your “he was a hands-off” leader defense – which, again, would make him incredibly incompetent?

            And you’re cool with this guy being a top adviser to the President-Elect of the United States? And that the President-Elect didn’t find this behavior immediately disqualifying?

          • i_enjoy_tacos

            Thank you for responding. I appreciate it!

            If all you know is what you heard from traditional media sources, then you actually know more than you give yourself credit for. Also, I didn’t call Bannon a racist, I called him a bigotry peddler. So we’re in alignment when we say the problem is with what he published, not with what he explicitly is known to believe.

            Speaking of what’s he published, have you seen some of the headlines? They’re pretty abhorrent. If not, here’s a taste:
            – Bill Kristol: Republican spoiler, renegade Jew
            – Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy
            – Suck it up buttercups: Dangerous F***g*t Tour returns to colleges in September
            – Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?
            …there are many more. (And, no, they’re not satire.)

            Yes, the news organization Bannon led, published those things. And because this company was not some giant, amorphous, multinational conglomerate, but rather a relatively small internet media company, he would have had a direct role in deciding what was published and what wasn’t (or he would be incredibly incompetent at his job if he didn’t). So I think it’s fair to say that he published all this stuff.

            Which brings me back to why I feel justified in saying he’s a bigotry peddler. He pushed and profited off of bigotry. Whether or not he actually believes the stuff is irrelevant: he’s just as guilty as if he does believe it since he furthered these abhorrent ideas. He’s a bigotry peddler.

            Do you agree? Or are you going to stick with your “he was a hands-off” leader defense – which, again, would make him incredibly incompetent?

      • Newyorkmom

        LOVE BANNON! He is not at all racist,,, your “talking points” are old and cliche. Bannon has a spotless career … and your are not dealing in facts,, just speculation based on one comment about the alt right,,, many people would be considered alt right that are not racist. The libtards have made up the alt right label for their own agenda. Think for yourself and open your mind. Liberals are so narrow.

        • i_enjoy_tacos

          I’m confused. Please help my simple mind:

          Do you dispute the fact that the headlines I listed exist?
          Do you dispute the fact that the news organization hew worked for published them?
          Do you dispute the fact that Bannon led the news organization at the time?

          Lastly, a question about opinion, not fact: what’s your opinion of these headlines that he was responsible for publishing and profiting off of?

    • Walt Osgood

      I Agree….Christina will be a success in life….

  • what no really

    First of all, employers are, generally speaking, required to provide employees with a “safe space.”

    Second, you mention border security and national defense but fail to acknowledge:

    He’s an admitted sexual assailant.
    He wants to ban particular people from the country based on their religion.
    He mocked a disabled reporter for being disabled.
    He insisted John McCain wasn’t a war hero because he got captured.
    He insinuated that Ted Cruz’s father was partly responsible for the assassination of JFK.
    He claimed to support the rights of LGBT people while simultaneously picking MIKE PENCE as his running mate.
    Every cabinet official he has selected thus far as a racist/bigoted background.
    He claims that millions of people voted illegally without a shred of evidence.
    He undermined our electoral process by claiming in advance that the election would be rigged.
    His business interests create automatic conflicts of interest around the world.
    He has no plans to divest from his assets and no plans to place assets in a blind trust, as would be normal practice.
    He promised to “drain the swamp” and then promptly filled his cabinet with Washington insiders and Goldman Sachs executives.
    He has held meetings with David Petraeus… who was actually convicted of sharing classified information illegally (I guess that’s not important anymore?)
    He has written that black people are inherently lazy.
    He and his father discriminated against black people in their residential properties.

    And that is just off the top of my head.

    Oh, and he lies. Constantly.

    https://www.thestar.com/news/world/uselection/2016/11/04/donald-trump-the-unauthorized-database-of-false-things.html#analysis

    But sure. Your vote is looked down upon because you are conservative. Give me a break.

    • i_enjoy_tacos

      I’ll grab the baton!

      – His political career was launched by promoting the racist Birtherism conspiracy theory, which he perpetuated deep into his campaign
      – He mocked a Gold Star family, including suggesting a grieving mother didn’t speak because of her religion
      – He called for a return of waterboarding (torture)
      – He suggested somebody should have their citizen revoked for exercising their constitutionally-protected freed speech
      – During a meeting with a foreign politician after becoming President-elect, he discussed issues directly related to his personal business
      – He appointed to a high level of his administration somebody who’s recent career was built upon peddling bigotry
      – He suggested a reporter who asked him tough questions did so because she was menstruating
      – He refused to release his tax returns during the election, outright lying as to why he wouldn’t

      But, yes, it’s his conservatism that I’m upset with and find offensive.

      • RandallPoopenmeyer

        – He called a woman who left a meeting to breast feed “disgusting”.
        – He told a black man that he will help his community by implementing stop and frisk.
        – He appointed Stephen Bannon (who called Breitbart the alt right platform) as his white house strategist…

      • Timothy Smith

        I’ll continue shooting down lies:
        His interest and rise in politics precedes Obama by decades.
        He did NOT mock the Kahns- he answered their VICIOUS attack.
        Yes! Let’s return waterboarding to get info from terrorists!
        I agree with free speech- too bad most of the alt-left does not!
        Proof about his private conversations?
        No bigots or racists in his cabinet- a complete and utter lie.

    • MC

      I’m sure the author could also come up with a laundry list of reasons why she didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton. The point is that the reasons behind the votes of individuals are complicated and nuanced and that she doesn’t think her identity should define or invalidate her political opinions. It’s a rather multi-layered reflection on reactions to the election, and you did exactly the kind of simplification that she is pointing out as unproductive.

      • what no really

        That’s the point though. She couldn’t.

        He is not a normal person.

        • MC

          It’s willfully ignorant to believe that there are no reasons someone would feel it was morally less abhorrent to vote for Trump than for Clinton.

          • what no really

            I disagree, unless you are a one issue voter and that issue is abortion. Even then, I’m not sure how you could vote for Trump given his history on the subject.

      • Annette Magjuka

        False equivalency is not helpful.

    • yellow1234

      Once again, the liberals aren’t listening… that was clear with yesterday’s news about Nancy Pelosi. More of the same. Aren’t you realizing that you are doing EXACTLY what the author was talking about?

      • what no really

        I’m doing no such thing. I’m not requesting any safety pins or coddling. I’m not accusing her of betraying her race. I’m saying she supported a horrifically unqualified man with no moral compass, no experience, and no ability to manage his twitter feed, let alone an entire nation. She says she is being called a monster because she wants border security and national security. That’s not the case. The reasons some may be calling her a monster are listed in my reply.

        As for Pelosi, the job of the minority leader in the House is to wrangle and count votes. It doesn’t have much at all to do with the direction of the party or its ideology.

        • yellow1234

          Thank you for again proving the density of the Democratic Party in this moment. If you don’t think keeping Pelosi as House Minority Leader is a bad strategic move in a “change” environment, I hope you enjoy Trump’s second term.

          • what no really

            In 2018, change will mean electing democrats. You realize this is cyclical, correct?

            DNC chair is a much more important job for what you’re referring to. Keith Ellison certainly represents “change.”

            But anyway. Catering to “change” is not really indicative of success. It gave us both Obama and Trump. So.

          • conway0516

            The 2018 midterms are still to be decided – however it’s not a slam dunk for the Dems, so I wouldn’t get too cocky yet. Yes, it is cyclical but the cycle isn’t in favor of the Dems right now. 2 years is a long time, for sure, but the deck is stacked against them.

            Several reasons:
            – Trump has yet to serve 1 day of his term – he’s been president elect for 3 weeks and wow…you’ve already voted him out of office. His approval ratings are higher than his popular vote percentage right now.
            – People may actually be happy with what he and Congress do over the next two years (yes, that is possible)
            – Dems have 23 senate seats up for election plus the two independents who caucus with the Dems while Rs have 8 senate seats up for grabs, so not only do they have to retain 25 but swing 3 to get to 51 (Pence is tiebreaker so 50 doesn’t do it).
            – Yes, the Dems flipped 2 senate seats this time around, however one was in Illinois – state of Obama, and home of the Rahm/Daley machine. And the other was in NH by a very slim margin using a relatively popular governor as the candidate. The state also voted Hillary by a slim margin, but is known to flip-flop with the wind.
            – 10 Dem senate seats up for grabs are in red states, some deeper red than others. Joe Manchin (D-VW) may even switch parties to hold onto his job.
            – The map is overwhelmingly red right now. Dems only fully control 4 states in terms of governor and state legislatures. 46 other states are split in some fashion or are all R.

            So while I admit, anything is possible it is not a guarantee that the Dems will sweep 2018. It’s actually an uphill battle based on the trend of the 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 Senate/House elections. Yes, Dems did a great job sweeping in 2006, but 12 years is a long time ago. Back then you were looking at a post-Katrina second term Bush presidency, plus the seats up for grabs were pretty evenly split.

          • what no really

            I typed out what I thought was a civil and thoughtful reply, but the Observer apparently disagreed. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

            Maybe I can get away with at least repeating that I didn’t mean to imply they’d flip either house in 2018.

    • Punta Venyage

      You are just regurgitating the talking points that the media has given you. And you selectively present part of the truth while ignoring the rest because that’s the only way you’ve looked at it. You are a brainwashed parrot.

      “He’s an admitted sexual assailant.” – False. I’ve covered this extensively before.

      “He wants to ban particular people from the country based on their religion.” – False.
      Though perhaps there should be discussions on limiting people in general who refuse to assimilate to Western culture and want to spread their backward and oppressive anti-woman and anti-euqliaty regimes

      “He mocked a disabled reporter for being disabled.” – Kovaleski lied and Trump called him out. Trump does not go around mocking disabled people.

      “He insisted John McCain wasn’t a war hero because he got captured.” John McCain attacked Trump, he counter-punched, why is this relevant to you other than the news propagandizing you that it is? Furthermore, he took back the statement in the SAME INTERVIEW.

      Although the time might be waster on you, I’ll address your propaganda blitzkrieg for the sake of helping others.

      “He insinuated that Ted Cruz’s father was partly responsible for the assassination of JFK” – I haven’t come across this, nor do I care, because again, why should you find this important?

      “He claimed to support the rights of LGBT people while simultaneously picking MIKE PENCE as his running mate.” – Elaborate on your rhetoric. I wonder why #GaysForTrump support him…

      “Every cabinet official he has selected thus far as a racist/bigoted background.”
      SMH . Is there ever a moment where you stop and ask yourself “Maybe I should stop and think for myself before impulsively buying today’s latest media narrative.”

      “He claims that millions of people voted illegally without a shred of evidence.”
      – Have you investigated voter fraud or busing operations before? (Hint: You haven’t). Are you saying that illegal voting doesn’t exist? And again, you are being nitpicky, do you actually find this important?

      “He undermined our electoral process by claiming in advance that the election would be rigged” – This is a completely meaningless statement. “Undermined” the electoral process? Is the electoral college in threat of being removed? No?
      Your statement is more accurately phrased as: “I am personally offended that he thought the election could be rigged” , To which the proper response is “Facts don’t care about your feelings”

      “His business interests create automatic conflicts of interest around the world.”
      Go on Trump’s twitter and see how he addressed this and what steps he is planning to take………..

      Also, though I’m trying to keep Hillary out of this, I have to express my incredulity in that… YOU WERE SCARED OF TRUMP’S “CONFLICTS” OF INTEREST BUT NOT HILLARY’S?!?! I still haven’t found an appropriate word to describe the kind of idiocy/naivete/arrogance/blindness/easily-manipulatedness this entails. It’s like someone who is gullible but being militant about their gullibility.. someone please help me find a word for this because it’s the perfect characterization of what we are seeing from the left.

      ‘He promised to “drain the swamp” and then promptly filled his cabinet with Washington insiders and Goldman Sachs executives.’ So instantly firing 100% of politicians is your practical solution for effectively reducing corruption and maintaining US governmental stability?

      “He has held meetings with David Petraeus… who was actually convicted of sharing classified information illegally” I’m not a fan of Petraeus for other reasons, but it’s funny you bring this up when Hillary’s breach to US security was in orders of magnitude worse. You probably can’t see this for yourself unless an anchorman on TV or a column writer on a newspaper tells you explicitly.

      “He has written that black people are inherently lazy.” Provide proof. Very interesting that he would hire a black female executive given your idiotic claim.

      I wonder if you are familiar with

      “He and his father discriminated against black people in their residential properties.” Too vague. And stop making everything about being against an entire class of people.

      ——-

      I took the approach of addressing each point and exposing the propgandized framing.

      But really, even if you assume that everything you are saying, in the most extreme and vast interpretation possible, was true, it is dwarfed by multiple factors of significance by the problems associated with putting your angel Hillary in charge.

      If someone else wants to provide an anti-Hillary list go ahead, but if people like “what no really” haven’t been paying attention thus far, it’s very unlikely that they will do so going forward.

      The main difference between people like “what no really” and us is that we can recite the liberal arguments back and forth and then counter whereas they seem completely incapable of considering pro-Trump arguments or conservative arguments in general.

      • what no really

        You have an interesting way of offering “counter-arguments.” See, I’ll show you how easy this is:

        “False. I’ve covered this extensively before.” No, it’s true. I’ve covered it extensively.

        “False.
        Though perhaps there should be discussions on limiting people in general who refuse to assimilate to Western culture and want to spread their backward and oppressive anti-woman and anti-euqliaty regimes” – No it’s actually true. (Like uh, do I actually need to copy and paste that statement for you? ugh fine: Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.)

        “Kovaleski lied and Trump called him out. Trump does not go around mocking disabled people.” Here you didn’t even dispute what I said so I’ll just move on.

        “John McCain attacked Trump, he counter-punched, why is this relevant to you other than the news propagandizing you that it is? Furthermore, he took back the statement in the SAME INTERVIEW.” Most of that isn’t relevant at all to what I said, and the last statement is false.

        “I haven’t come across this, nor do I care, because again, why should you find this important?” http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-ted-cruz-jfk-assassination-226020 How can you not find this important

        “Elaborate on your rhetoric. I wonder why #GaysForTrump support him…” – http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/mike-pence-isnt-boring-hes-one-americas-most-extreme-governors

        Trust me, the gays for hillary dwarf gays for pence. One stupid hashtag does not represent us.

        “SMH . Is there ever a moment where you stop and ask yourself “Maybe I should stop and think for myself before impulsively buying today’s latest media narrative.”” – There isn’t even an argument here? but https://mic.com/articles/160759/here-s-how-many-of-trump-s-cabinet-appointees-have-a-history-of-racism#.38K6fAtrO

        “Have you investigated voter fraud or busing operations before? (Hint: You haven’t). Are you saying that illegal voting doesn’t exist? And again, you are being nitpicky, do you actually find this important?” Plenty of people have! and you can’t prove a negative. Do you not actually find this important?

        “Go on Trump’s twitter and see how he addressed this and what steps he is planning to take………..” – Oh, I have! He is going to remove himself from involvement with business operations. He is not divesting. He is not putting his assets in a blind trust. The Clinton Foundation was a charity that helped AIDS victims. His business exists to make a profit.

        “So instantly firing 100% of politicians is your practical solution for effectively reducing corruption and maintaining US governmental stability?”

        No? And this comment makes me think you don’t understand how the government or presidential administrations work? He appoints his cabinet members. He’s adding to the swamp. Actively.

        “I’m not a fan of Petraeus for other reasons, but it’s funny you bring this up when Hillary’s breach to US security was in orders of magnitude worse. You probably can’t see this for yourself unless an anchorman on TV or a column writer on a newspaper tells you explicitly.” Hillary’s was clearly not worse, as she was not charged. Anyway, the actual point (and I can’t believe you missed this) is Trump’s brazen hypocrisy on the subject.

        “Provide proof. Very interesting that he would hire a black female executive given your idiotic claim.” This is apparently unconfirmed. http://www.snopes.com/trump-laziness-is-a-trait-in-blacks/ I’ll admit I should have included something else instead!

        “Too vague. And stop making everything about being against an entire class of people.” I’m sorry I don’t have time to educate you about a decades old civil rights lawsuit. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html?_r=0

        I consider lots of conservative arguments. I just think they’re bad!

        • Punta Venyage

          I am sincerely thankful for your time in responding.

          Rather than going back and forth endlessly on a micro level on every sub-point of every sub-point, I want to make a macro observation:

          You seem dependent on external validation from media outlets explicitly stating things for you. I say this because your response to many of these points is simply “see take alook at this article I found, look at what they’re saying. see told you” and not to mention you seem unaware of ways the publications you cite have manipulated the facts.

          Of course NYT/Politico/Mother Jones/Snopes/(throw in Washington Post, Salon, DailyBeast, etc.) are going to echo your thoughts because the individual columnists have the same bias as you.

          In today’s era we have RAW FOOTAGE and RAW DATA, meaning we can go directly to the original interviews, the original speeches, here counter-narratives to every narrative, and then decide. You’re putting blind trust in these outlets to give you an opinion.

          So something is bad or good only if society says at is? Wl

          It’s like instead of going to Chipotle and getting a burrito vs making your own, you are going to these publications to get your opinion vs making your own.

          The reliance on social proof is evident when you just said that Hillary’s breach was “clearly not worse”. Why? Because “she wasn’t formally charged.” Rather than using facts from both cases you are appealing to authority to make your point, which is a dangerous fallacy.

          Again, just a macro view:

          Why do you make everything about groups and identities?
          “More gays vote for Hillary” so in order to be a “good” gay I better vote for Hillary.

          There’s the surface level game and the one that’s deeper.

          I understand on the surface why from an impulsive reaction you might form the views that you do (and really that’s what the media specializes in: surface level readings in everything for the sake of propoganda). But if you look deeper on ANY of the issues mentioned you’ll see the full story.

          Just think in your own life when two people are in a personal fight (whether it’s family or friends), there are ALWAYS two sides to the story, and when you source only ONE SIDE you are infinitely echoing the same thing and will never learn the full story or the bigger picture.

          • what no really

            Please see my second response. You can’t rely on your gut. You need to be able to ascertain what media outlets cite the “raw footage” to which you refer.

            In one example I took a quote straight from trump himself. Another is based on a lawsuit which is public record.

            Mike Pence has actually said a ton of anti-gay stuff! I’m not just listening to what op ed columnists say, and that is a lazy attack to try to make.

            Trump really did imply that cruz’s dad was involved in the assassination. I heard it from him! That’s the raw footage that you somehow were completely unaware of. I provided some links because otherwise it is just the word of some anonymous person online. You clearly find that sufficient. I do not.

          • Punta Venyage

            An example of raw footage would be watching a full 30 minute speech/interview.

            My first big “aha” moment occurred this election cycle when I would watch full speeches and interviews, get a certain impression (call it “X”) and then I would watch the news coverage of it later, and I’m the moment end up with a markedly different impression and emotion (“Y”). Not to mention, that the things they spent time covering were completely ignoring the essence of the speech!
            The way you will see this is if you do a similar exercise. Watch a live event (let’s stick to a political one, just watch the next significant press conference). Imagine that you are a journalist in charge of a news agency and think about how you would report on what you just saw to offer the most honest representation possible and to capture the important facts. THEN take your story and compare it to how these agencies report on it and you will see the subtle framing which COMPLETELY changes the impression and the mood from what the original piece was meant to be. It’s like taking a piece of art (the Mona Lisa) and rather than talking about the smile, everyone spends time talking about the shade of a pixel on the corner of the canvas. And then the person who hasn’t seen the Mona Lisa thinks that it’s all about the color of the corner of the canvas and believes he is fully informed. There’s no way to show you this unless you do the exercise for yourself or see other proven manipulations.

            Anytime you consume the news, you are handing over the flashlight of your consciousness into the producers hand, and he will choose what he wants to show you.
            It’s all about focus and attention, read any book on persuasion.

            The other point is, that the media elite (whether it’s Fox or CNN or any of the others) lie to you generally not in terms of explicit facts, but through the INTERPRETATION of those facts and OMISSION of other facts that are evidence against the interpretation they are trying to promote.

            —–

            Cruz’dad: I’ll look into it more myself later . The JFK assassination is something I would like to explore more. Though again, I don’t see at all how this is important when we are talking about the issues that Americans face today.
            —–
            Trump isn’t changing gay marriage, and quite frankly he doesn’t care because in the grand scheme things it’s completely overshadowed (or should be) by the current issues we face in foreign policy, globalism Vs nationalism, domestic economics, etc.

            And Pence, assuming he was the one actually in charge, what exactly would he do to make your life miserable, especially on a net basis?

            —–
            All the facts? No big deal?

            I don’t know if you have experience working for a company/corporation but your work emails belong to them, they are not your property.

            Imagine:
            * One day you decide to take your emails to a private server at home where your employer cannot access them
            * Your employer finds out and demands that you send them back immediately
            * You delay and delete about half of them! You also have people physically take hammers and smash your blackberries and other devices.
            * Your employer can’t retrieve those emails, they’re pissed.
            * Some of your emails had CLASSIFIED company information (note that you have the third most important job role and get important emails)
            * Your private server was unsecured, and so easy to hack (orders of magnitude easier than Ashley Madison). Foreign companies have been trying to hack your company’s servers on a regular basis and it’s clear they knew about your private server. Basically guaranteed that they have sensitive information
            * You lie repeatedly about this whole fiasco

            Conclusion : You would be fired and almost no white collar firm would want to higher you.

            But instead you ran for President!

            No big deal though, right?

      • what no really

        But the other thing is, a lot of Trump supporters have been told not to trust anything anti-trump thing that they see. And they’ve bought it, somehow. There is no penetrating the conservative media bubble at all. It’s astonishing. Everything I’ve said you can just respond with “lol you’re just brainwashed by the MEDIA!”

        It’s legitimately terrifying. Learn to vet sources, for the love of god.

      • RandallPoopenmeyer

        Either the women are telling the truth, or trump lied to his little friend Billy to look cool…

        • Punta Venyage

          Or Trump was making a private joke about groupies/golddiggers, a reality that’s common to billionaires, celebrities, rockstars, etc…….

          • i_enjoy_tacos

            Groupies and Golddiggers, eh? Interesting theory.

            So which one was Arianne Zucker, the relatively successful actress who Trump joked he was in danger of sexually assaulting with bad breath? Was she a Groupie? Or was she a Golddigger?

      • i_enjoy_tacos

        Wow. This is the most amazing disregard for the basic truth I have seen in a loooong time. What planet do you live on? I mean, have you seen the video of him mocking the reporter? Have you seen what he said about McCain (I don’t care “who started it”)? Have you seen any evidence to back up any claims about voter fraud? Either you are a professional troll (good work!) or you are the most ill-informed person I have ever met.

        • Punta Venyage

          ^Completely missing the point. You will see only what you want to see. And only by letting go of your previously held beliefs and considering an alternate perspective will you be able to know what you did not know before. This is true about life in general.

          You “don’t care who started it”?

          SMH. That literally means you “don’t care” about the key principle of self defense.

          I’m sure you don’t actually believe this; you were just tapping into an arbitrary emotion in the moment.

          • i_enjoy_tacos

            Dude, lay off the lecturing about considering other people’s views. You’re actually making some pretty bold assumptions about me. I assure you many of them are false.

            Before I get to McCain, I want to revisit the “voter fraud” thing again, because it’s something that both you objected to in the original list and that I claimed you are being ridiculous for defending. Here’s why I think you’re ridiculous for defending Trump on this: from what I’ve read, there are isolated incidents of voter fraud, true, but to suggest it is a widespread problem that has any chance at swaying elections – let alone is in the millions that Trump suggested – is simply wrong.

            But you suggest you have done a lot of research about voter fraud and know more than I do. Can you please share something that shows why my understanding about voter fraud is wrong? I’d love to learn something here.

            Now, back to McCain.

            You suggest what Trump said about McCain (and I think the mocking of the disabled reporter, too – but correct me if I’m wrong) is appropriate self-defense. I think justifying his actions that way is the defense of a five-year-old. I’ll explain why.

            First, here’s what Trump said:

            “[McCain] is a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, OK?”

            My position is that this is not appropriate self-defense in any conversation amongst adults, let alone a Presidential Candidate, because it is a personal insult that has nothing to do with substance or policy; it degrades POWs everywhere; and it’s especially hypocritical coming from somebody who had several deferments during Vietnam. It incites and divides and pushes the conversation away from what’s important.

            Given all this, I don’t care what McCain said first. It’s irrelevant.

            Do you disagree? If so, please explain to me why? I would really love to know your logic about why personal insults of this kind are a positive addition to our political discourse, and how they’re appropriate self-defense.

          • i_enjoy_tacos

            Speaking of using insults as a defense, the NYTimes did a pretty awesome breakdown of who and when Trump insults on twitter.

            http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/06/upshot/how-to-know-what-donald-trump-really-cares-about-look-at-who-hes-insulting.html

            Please be an adult and don’t dismiss the NYTimes as a liberal rag. There’s no opinion in here: it’s just an analysis of insults on twitter. You may draw whatever conclusion you wish from this; either way it’s pretty interesting.

          • Punta Venyage

            On voter fraud;

            In a tight race, you only need voter fraud in a few select counties to make an impact. You should know this. You flip one or two states that are close, the picture could change dramatically in many presidential races.

            In fact, the irony of your criticism of Trump regarding this is that you failed to mention the Jill Stein/DNC-led vote recount effort! That is directly predicated on the idea that vote manipulation can make an impact on the election, and these ideas were pushed by the left when they laughed about such possibilities (it’s all a show, btw). If voting fraud didn’t matter, there’s no sense in doing the recount. The even bigger irony is that many of the recounts actually helped Trump!

            On McCain:

            First a general comment (1), and then specifically on the McCain issue (2).

            1)
            There is a game of influence and power being played, and everyone involved chooses the actions and strategies that seem most likely to lead them into achieving a victory.

            You have to look past the style and see the underlying motives and actions being taken.

            Bob might say: “Bill is mentally deficient and is unfit for a leadership role” …. or perhaps more indirectly/passive-aggressively
            “People are scared of Bill, and it amazes me how he keeps indicating how unfit he his whenever he opens his mouth.

            And Bill might simply say: “Bob is an idiot.”

            In the context of the game, Bob and Bill’s two statements are equivalent, they are both a battle of influence, branding, and power. Bill’s is more direct, clear, and done in a transparent and open fashion; whereas Bob tries to use underhanded manipulative tactics.

            In the 2D world of events, you might say “Wow, Bill’s statement was so harsh! Unbelievable that anyone would talk like that.” But in the 3D world of persuasion and in the context of the game, the two statements are effectively the same, and perhaps given the current cultural context and paradigm shift, Bill’s might be even more effective than Bob’s.

            For those who haven’t been watching, Trump’s branding and style is INCREDIBLY effective, and quite frankly, he is one of the best persuaders in our lifetime (especially when you have to overcome the propaganda tools of media).

            Just think at how all of his labels stick:
            “Low energy Jeb,” “Lyin’ Ted”, “Little Marco,” and the best one of them all, “Crooked Hillary.”

            You might snobbishly look down upon how simple and straightforward these labels are, but that’s precisely why they are so effective (and most importantly because they are accurate They would NOT be effective if they weren’t accurate)

            (2)
            The only reason you are even mentioning the interview about McCain is because the media focused attention on it. It was “BREAKING NEWS” . If you didn’t blindly give the media control of your attention, you wouldn’t care in the first place, you would be focusing on things that are actually important. An interview like this has no intrinsic relevance, it’s only “relevant” because the media has made it out to be. Again, please reread this last thought: ‘An interview like this has no intrinsic relevance, it’s only “relevant” because the media has made it out to be.’
            They have manipulated your perception of priorities by focusing and framing certain matters and completely IGNORING others.

            ^This is the forest view. But if you want do dive into the trees:

            1) McCain called Trump’s supporters the ‘extreme’ ‘crazies’ in the ‘Republican Party’. This is the context coming into the interview.

            2) The host, Frank Luntz, was being antagonistic and trying to defend McCain and trap Trump (remember the game…)

            <<<>>>

            Trump: “[McCain] insulted me and he insulted everybody in that room. And I said somebody should run against John McCain, who has been, in my opinion, not so hot. And I supported him for president. I raised $1 million for him. That’s a lot of money (**My note: imagine you gave money to someone and then he trashes you and your supporters. Not to mention, he lost! So the loser is going to talk about how to win?**). I supported him, he lost, he let us down. But he lost and I never liked him much after that ’cause I don’t like losers. But, but Frank, let me get to it.”

            Frank Luntz: “He’s a war hero. He’s a war hero…” (**completely ignoring any of the points just made, as the journalists and tv heads intentionally and oftentimes do. Classic tactic**)

            Trump: “He’s not a war hero…”

            Luntz: “He’s a war hero.”

            Trump: “He is a war hero…” (**Trump slightly conceding into the diversion of the reporter**)

            Luntz: “Five and half years in a Vietnamese prison camp…” (**Taking off into this direction. Remember that the whole point of this was the McCain called Trump’s supporters crazies? Why isn’t the reporter addressing this? It is obvious when you keep in mind the game being played, that I mentioned earlier, and who the players are**)

            Trump: “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured. So he’s a war hero…” (**a tactical mistake, but Trump was clearly trying to reject the frame of “McCain the good and honorable guy” that the reporter was trying to impose and focus more on “McCain, the hypocrite and the one who just called my people crazy”. Trump was trying to diffuse the frame the reporter was trying to impose with ‘war hero’, which is a vague characterization, and Trump brought it into the specific of what McCain actually did, which was get captured. This is not the same as a Braveheart/Leonidas type of battle performance which the term ‘war hero’ emotionally implies. Trump is diffusing the reporter’s emotional rhetoric, albeit it, he left himself open to the soundbyte which is easily used as ammo for propaganda)

            Luntz: “Do you agree with that?”

            Trump: “He’s a war hero, because he was captured, okay? I believe, perhaps, he’s a war hero. But right now he said some very bad things about a lot of people. So what I said is John McCain, I disagree with him that these people aren’t crazy.”
            (** Trump is again reimposing his frame, like has been all election, in true persuasive fashion. Relatively speaking, the media won this specific battle, as it was early on in the election, but as they kept implementing more of these dishonest framings and diversionary tactics, more and more people caught on. Though it seems that the #notmypresident people have completely drank the koolaid and are unfortunately oblivious of the game being played.**)

            <>>
            Hope this clarifies the view^, I know it’s a little lengthy, but when so much of the psychological information warfare is experienced on a feeling/impression basis, you really have to break it down step by step to see the impacts of each move.

            Pay attention to the battle of frame, and most importantly pay attention to where the attention is and where it is not. The truth often lies in what’s being omitted rather than what is being presented.

    • Timothy Smith

      He is not an admitted anything. He questioned out-loud the idea of a temporary ban on Muslims, since almost every single terrorist attack has been by someone who is Muslim. He DID NOT mock a disabled reporter for being disabled- he mocks many people in the same way. No one in his cabinet is racist. Illegals voting has been proven. How can you hypocritically criticize Patraeus yet ignore Hillary’s aggregious email security breaches? He never wrote that. But please- don’t let the truth get in the way of your hateful narrative! lol

    • Maximus300

      I won’t bother to describe all of the reasons why HRC was a terrible candidate for the dems save for one. She is a PROVEN liar!

  • JWG

    As an alumni, and a Trump supporter, I am dismayed at Notre Dame’s reaction to the election and the overwhelming attempt to promote Hilary supporters as victims of the recent election. The whining and victim mentality of college students will not serve them well in their futures. As one of the first women at Notre Dame and as a woman in a male dominated profession, I have been in the minority for a long time. Instead of feeling like a minority and requesting special privileges, I worked incredibly hard to be respected and the model for those who came after me. I was proud of my ND background and hopefully ND was proud of me. There were setbacks and failures, and the idea of resilience – the ability to double down in these situations – has served me well. All the people who want safe places and special privileges will eventually plateau while the resilient hard working will continue to rise. Both Trump and Clinton were seriously flawed candidates, and hopefully the future generations will find better candidates. But the Democratic path over the past 8 years has failed to model the American dream of opportunity (hard work, not government handouts) and the American people spoke. The University seems to have succumbed to the victim mentality, instead of the the idea of mutual respect for ideas. The Trump supporters ( and I believe they support his ideas of what the future is for America and not the man) should not be denigrated while placating the Clinton supporters. This “show” by the University does not represent me and promotes further divisiveness. This is the victim path that America was tired of when they voted for Trump. I challenge the University to promote respect for both parties and constructive discourse, not coddling. The students will be better citizens and better representatives of the University.

  • Green

    A well written piece. As a class of 2014 graduate I do not recall this type of reaction by fellow students or the university after the 2012 election (maybe this has to do with who won that year, but that shouldn’t matter). I am glad to be informed of what is happening through your letter, though disappointed to hear of these reactions at and by ND (canceling class is ridiculous and inexcusable). I think I will discontinue donating to the university for the foreseeable future.

    • OGSwaggerDick

      I do not think classes were canceled, I can speak for Notre Dame but I am not sure about Saint Mary’s. Also the response has mostly been from a student perspective with the University hosting some events to foster a sense of community. I implore you to not let student action influence your donations though real talk it would probably be better spent on a charity as Notre Dame has ludicrous amount of money that is mostly spent on a losing football program. #staywoke

  • HauteJuju

    Glad to see an independent thinking young person standing up for herself admist the intolerance of leftist haters on campus.

    • i_enjoy_tacos

      Ha ha. You cheer somebody standing-up for supposed intolerance for one group’s views while at the same time using a pejorative label that denigrates a different group’s views (“leftist”). That’s some impressive hypocrisy.

  • HauteJuju

    Glad to see an independent thinking young person standing up for herself admist the intolerance of leftist haters on campus.

  • Punta Venyage

    Thanks Christina. You are effectively pointing out the realization many are coming to.

    People on the left view others through the lens of classes, races, sexual identities…. — collectivized groups. In any leftist comment, this is all they talk about. identities

    Whereas we view others through the lens of individuality and accomplishment.

    They treat individuals as extensions of a group, whereas we view individuals in their own right.

    This is why they can’t comprehend a criticism of an individual as being independent from a criticism against an entire group of people. They make everything about the group and not the individual.

    Realize that every time they call you racist they are revealing their own misguided way of viewing the world and are projecting their own prejudice.

    Just look at what the left has done historically to entire groups of people they perceive as inferior.

    • OGSwaggerDick

      Yo do you realize the hypocrisy in your statements? You write, “They treat individuals as extensions of a group, whereas we view individuals in their own right”. Do you not see that you too are labeling liberal individuals as extensions of the left, the very thing that you criticize. Stuff like this is why America is so divided, we need less “them” more “us”

      Also learn how to construct a paragraph. #FireKelly

      • Punta Venyage

        OK, “OGSwaggerDick”, let me be more precise in my choice of language as I think you’re missing the point through semantics.

        Groups still exist and that doesn’t mean you can’t make certain inferences on a MACRO level (think averages, bell curves, etc). But on a MICRO level, when dealing with an individual, you should deal with them primarily as such, an individual with their own strengths/weaknesses, hopes/fears, accomplishments/failures and belief systems.

        Groups exist, but it’s the DEGREE of obsession that the left places in categorizing people that is strange, especially when people are simply discussing abstract issues and there is no need to play the “groups” game.

        Furthermore “left” refers to a worldview/belief system and any individual may be 50% left, 75% left, etc. I am referring to the core essence of it and those who choose to identify with it. These are abstract groups that one can conform to or disavow willingly simply by a change of mindset. Really it’s no different than being fans of sports teams, the reason you might like Golden State Warriors Vs some other team is in the mental realm and can change.

        I am highlighting the inability for certain people to evaluate others on an individual basis outside of a group identity. Christina’s piece is a clear example of others treating her as an extension of a group – being called a “fake Mexican” (which is code for “you’re not behaving like I think your kind of group should behave!”) and a “disgrace” (presumably to the identity groups of women and Hispanics) are direct examples of imposing collectivization on an individual

        Here’s some meta.

        Right now I’m addressing you, an individual. You have your own unique view on the world, and my claims about characteristics of the “left” may or may not apply to you, I have no idea.
        What would be HYPOCRISY is if I didn’t think that you, the individual, “OGSwaggerDock”, have the freedom to differentiate yourself from the group in any meaningful way or if I imposed my definition on you when your actions imply a different perspective.

        The point is, where do you find your identity, and the identity of those around you?

        Do you consciously lean towards identifying yourself based on your group of affiliation? Do you identify others first based on their group of affiliation?

        Whether it’s labor unions, Marxist class ideologies, LGBT activism, immigrants, occupy wall street, BLM, etc for the left every issue is viewed through the lens of WAR between the identity groups. Am I not right about this?

        Tribe versus tribe . ‘ I have to fight for my tribe and the tribe in power is the oppressor ‘

        The rhetoric from the left this election was
        “Trump is against group X”
        “Trump is against group Y”
        “Trump is against group Z”

        Lather, rinse, and repeat.

        • OGSwaggerDick

          First off glad you understand how to work a paragraph knew you could do it. Second off from the length and vocabulary of your post I’m guessing I touched a nerve here. This is a vast over simplification and generalization of complex issues. The only evidence you gave that it wasn’t a hypocritical statement were the last few paragraphs.

          Also, PUT SOME RESPECT ON MY NAME. #Investigate311

          • Punta Venyage

            Don’t give yourself that much credit – I elaborate on the ideas because they are worth talking about! The lefty profs and faculty aren’t going to talk about it, and the ones on the right are more or less intimidated into silence for the sake of job security.

            “This is a vast over simplification and generalization of complex issues.”

            This is #NotAnArgument

            I will say it again: relatively speaking, the left views everything through the lens of group identity, whereas the right focuses on individual power.

  • Punta Venyage

    ” We won’t need aggrieved white people who are upset they aren’t quite as dominant as they used to be. ”

    Hmmm

    • what no really

      Is there a response there or

    • what no really

      Is there a response there or

    • what no really

      Is there a response there or

    • what no really

      Is there a response there or

    • what no really

      Is there a response there or

    • what no really

      Is there a response there or

    • what no really

      Is there a response there or

      • Punta Venyage

        It’s not “white people” being upset about lost “dominance”, (which BTW, you do realize more non-whites voted for Trump than for past republican candidates). Such a characterization is borderline prejudiced – ‘there’s this people group that particularly likes to “dominate” others, it’s……the “white people!”‘

        • what no really

          “More than past republican candidates” is certainly an interesting (although useless) way to frame minority voting practices.