This story is unavailable.

With all due respect, you present everything between you and your father through the prism of rhetorical questions about Donald Trump. You do not include any verbal assaults or aggressive behavior your father, himself, made; it is simply innuendo that voting for Trump is a product of a person who would do these things, which might be true in the case of your father, but certainly isn’t an accurate blanket statement. If that’s the case, then I would say a history of hateful sentiments directed your way is a much more substantive and justifiable reason to break off the relationship as compared to the actual differences between Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Incidentally, the mainstream media—which has made it their unprecedented, personal mission to defeat Trump—is only presenting one side of the story. To a degree, that’s justifiable because Trump says so many reprehensible things, but the fact remains that an objective accounting reveals two things:

  1. Many of those who worked directly with Trump and are not disgruntled paint a much more complicated picture of him than just Sexist and Racist. Nobody can or should deny that he often conducts himself in a disgusting, juvenile manner, but a history of promoting women and minorities belies the virulently bigoted, sexist portrait that the mainstream media presents and you repeat above.
  2. Trump lashes out repulsively at ALL people who cross him. The mainstream media focuses on women and minorities because of the aforementioned mission to harm him politically, but it’s not as if he’s spared white men the same abhorrent treatment. This is not a defense of his behavior outside of its use to make him Sexist, Racist bogeyman.

As for the realities faced by women, it’s not that I pretend to completely understand them. I obviously cannot.

It’s that the reality of the differences between these two deeply flawed candidates, especially politically, is simply not accurately reflected by much of the coverage of them.

HRC says all the right things, but the vast majority of her actions are in service to a group that is distinctly NOT female and NOT minority. That’s not going to suddenly change. It’s just not. That’s not the way human behavior works because she has no incentive to change based on the tremendous wealth and influence (soon to be augmented by the presidency) the status quo has delivered to her/her family.

Furthermore, politicians do not set the tone for social progress in this country anymore, if they ever did. Think of all the gains made in the last two decades—LGBTQ rights, gender equality, war on drugs, Black Lives Matter, etc.—and an honest accounting shows it was the PEOPLE who led the charge with politicians coat-tailing the movement for votes after it became safe to do so.

Trump can’t unravel all of that and a politically careful individual like Clinton isn’t going to risk political capital to accelerate it. Shit, this is one of the tent poles of the Democratic party for the last two decades who didn’t formally endorse same-sex marriage until 2013!

She will do what she has always done—use the progressive social agenda to dress up her public appeals while making it the sacrificial lamb at the first, politically expedient opportunity.

And the ones who will benefit, like always, are the predominately white, predominately male donor class.

If a functionally different treatment of the underprivileged classes is your driving concern, then a vote for Jill Stein—as flawed as she is—would be a much more effective differentiator from which to write this letter.

A single golf clap? Or a long standing ovation?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.