This is my response.

This is what I want to talk about today.

I really want to address this. I feel like this article describes quite a few people who voted for Trump; the women, the Latinos, the African-Americans, et al. The article in a nutshell talks of a Muslim woman, an occupant of two of the demographics whom Trump has offended at every turn, and why she chose to vote for Trump. I want to talk about this because I just want to break down her arguments and understand why she did what she did.

"But I am a single mother who can’t afford health insurance under Obamacare. The president’s mortgage-loan modification program, “HOPE NOW,” didn’t help me. Tuesday, I drove into Virginia from my hometown of Morgantown, W.Va., where I see rural America and ordinary Americans, like me, still struggling to make ends meet, after eight years of the Obama administration."

To which I say, congratulations your anecdotal evidence is more than enough proof that Obamacare and his mortgage loan modification program failed miserably. Except for the fact it helped millions of people that weren't you and you didn't want to take that into account. Look at this article from the New York Times where it goes more indepth on who exactly Obamacare helped and the net positive it had on the country. The data there proves that by giving people affordable healthcare, it made an incredible social difference acting as income redistribution and giving people a piece of mind they weren't able to have for years. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the mortgage program, though according to this article from Glenn Greenwald's "The Intercept", it seems the bill was intended to lay the groundwork for the big banks to step in and help.

"Finally, as a liberal Muslim who has experienced, first-hand, Islamic extremism in this world, I have been opposed to the decision by President Obama and the Democratic Party to tap dance around the “Islam” in Islamic State. Of course, Trump’s rhetoric has been far more than indelicate and folks can have policy differences with his recommendations, but, to me, it has been exaggerated and demonized by the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, their media channels, such as Al Jazeera, and their proxies in the West, in a convenient distraction from the issue that most worries me as a human being on this earth: extremist Islam of the kind that has spilled blood from the hallways of the Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai to the dance floor of the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla.  

In mid-June, after the tragic shooting at Pulse, Trump tweeted out a message, delivered in his typical subtle style: “Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism? If he doesn’t he should immediately resign in disgrace!”
Around then, on CNN’s “New Day,” Democratic candidate Clinton seemed to do the Obama dance, saying, “From my perspective, it matters what we do more than what we say. And it mattered we got bin Laden, not what name we called him. I have clearly said we — whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I’m happy to say either. I think they mean the same thing.”

And again, we turn to the specter Trump continually pointed out in his campaign: extremist Islam. While there is no way to refute the existence of it, there is a way to refute the seeming ever-presence of it. Take these set of surveys from the Pew Institute. 

"According to newly released data that the Pew Research Center collected in 11 countries with significant Muslim populations, people from Nigeria to Jordan to Indonesia overwhelmingly expressed negative views of ISIS.
One exception was Pakistan, where a majority offered no definite opinion of ISIS. The nationally representative surveys were conducted as part of the Pew Research Center’s annual global poll in April and May this year.
In no country surveyed did more than 15% of the population show favorable attitudes toward Islamic State. And in those countries with mixed religious and ethnic populations, negative views of ISIS cut across these lines."

Muslims across the world overwhelmingly condemn ISIS, barring Pakistan. However, that doesn't immediately mean Pakistan must support ISIS, because 62% had no opinion on the group for what could end up being a multitude of reasons. But now I can hear you say, "That still means a decent size of their populations have a favorable view of ISIS, therefore they're all terrorists in training who hate America! Ailes was right!" And once again, I feel like I must state the obvious: a favorable view doesn't immediately imply a desire to harm and maim on a mass scale. Rather it can be the result of various personal factors: hearing rhetoric on how their faith needs to be exterminated, moments of prejudice against them because of their faith, etc. My point is, we know nothing about these people and why they see ISIS in a positive light, but to automatically assume their views equate to terrorism is fallacious. But, for argument's sake, I can concede that point to you, there do exist a worrying amount of Muslims who view ISIS favorably. Will they act violently?

Again, here's Pew.

Muslims around the world strongly reject violence in the name of Islam. Asked specifically about suicide bombing, clear majorities in most countries say such acts are rarely or never justified as a means of defending Islam from its enemies.

In most countries where the question was asked, roughly three-quarters or more Muslims reject suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians. And in most countries, the prevailing view is that such acts are never justified as a means of defending Islam from its enemies. Yet there are some countries in which substantial minorities think violence against civilians is at least sometimes justified. This view is particularly widespread among Muslims in the Palestinian territories (40%), Afghanistan (39%), Egypt (29%) and Bangladesh (26%).

The survey finds little evidence that attitudes toward violence in the name of Islam are linked to factors such as age, gender or education. Similarly, the survey finds no consistent link between support for enshrining sharia as official law and attitudes toward religiously motivated violence. In only three of the 15 countries with sufficient samples sizes for analysis – Egypt, Kosovo and Tunisia – are sharia supporters significantly more likely to say suicide bombing and other forms of violence are at least sometimes justified. In Bangladesh, sharia supporters are significantly less likely to hold this view.

In a majority of countries surveyed, at least half of Muslims say they are somewhat or very concerned about religious extremism. And on balance, more Muslims are concerned about Islamic than Christian extremist groups. In all but one of the 36 countries where the question was asked, no more than one-in-five Muslims express worries about Christian extremism, compared with 28 countries where at least that many say they are concerned about Islamic extremist groups. This includes six countries in which 40% or more of Muslims worry about Islamic extremism: Guinea Bissau (54%), Indonesia (53%), Kazakhstan (46%), Iraq (45%), Ghana (45%) and Pakistan (40%). (For more details on views toward extremism, see Concern About Religious Extremism in Chapter 2: Religion and Politics.)"

If you'll notice the regions where the values are highest are also the regions where there currently exist or have existed vast amounts of active conflict, hence providing the explanation towards the acceptance of civilian damage: they've experienced what happens when an oppressor kills their loved ones and feel inclined to perpetuate that cycle once more in the name of justice. But, I'm no psychologist, so I'll leave my armchair analysis there. My point is, a vast majority of Muslims across the world condemn the actions of ISIS as well the belief Islam perpetuates violence. But, now I can hear you say, "Who cares about the world? What about those shifty American Muslims?"

Again, Pew states:

As found in the Pew Research Center’s 2007 survey, Muslims in the United States continue to reject extremism by much larger margins than most Muslim publics surveyed this year by the Pew Global Attitudes Project. And majorities of Muslim Americans express concern about the possible rise of Islamic extremism, both here and abroad. 

A significant minority (21%) of Muslim Americans say there is a great deal (6%) or a fair amount (15%) of support for extremism in the Muslim American community. That is far below the proportion of the general public that sees at least a fair amount of support for extremism among U.S. Muslims (40%). And while about a quarter of the public (24%) thinks that Muslim support for extremism is increasing, just 4% of Muslims agree.
Many Muslims fault their own leaders for failing to challenge Islamic extremists. Nearly half (48%) say that Muslim leaders in the United States have not done enough to speak out against Islamic extremists; only about a third (34%) say Muslim leaders have done enough in challenging extremists. At the same time, 68% say that Muslim Americans themselves are cooperating as much as they should with law enforcement. 

The survey of 1,033 Muslim Americans, conducted April 14-July 22 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, finds that far more view the United States’ efforts to combat terrorism as sincere than did so in 2007. Currently, opinion is divided – 43% of Muslim Americans say U.S. efforts are a sincere attempt to reduce terrorism while 41% do not. Four years ago, during George Bush’s presidency, more than twice as many viewed U.S. anti-terrorism efforts as insincere rather than sincere (55% to 26%)."

In other words, they're not growing more radical, they're co-operating with the law, and they're divided as to whether or not the US is genuinely trying to reduce terrorism or do so in name only. Compare that with popular conception of them, and you find a startling disparity that is likely the result of Fox News and other right-wing sites doing their damndest to make you think every brown person is out for your life. So when you have a minority that is doing their best to show America they're nothing to fear and still end up being persecuted, retaliated against, and hated for no other reason other than their skin and their faith, it becomes impossible to ignore any resentment against the U.S. might be the result of its civilians' insistence on the belief Islam is evil.

By mid-October, it was one Aug. 17, 2014, email from the WikiLeaks treasure trove of Clinton emails that poisoned the well for me. In it, Clinton told aide John Podesta: “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL,” the politically correct name for the Islamic State, “and other radical Sunni groups in the region.” 

"The revelations of multimillion-dollar donations to the Clinton Foundation from Qatar and Saudi Arabia killed my support for Clinton. Yes, I want equal pay. No, I reject Trump’s “locker room” banter, the idea of a “wall” between the United States and Mexico and a plan to “ban” Muslims. But I trust the United States and don’t buy the political hyperbole — agenda-driven identity politics of its own — that demonized Trump and his supporters."

And here we get to the recurring idea of emails in this stupid stupid election. So, you have an issue with the Clinton Foundation receiving money from Qatar & Saudi Arabia. And here we reach an inconvenient, unacceptable yet needed truth: business and ethics are two completely incompatible concepts. In a just world, the idea of voting with our money would be incredibly powerful and make the world right. But, as Adam Smith said in "The Wealth of Nations", capitalism has a way of perverting the best of intents into something else entirely. In this case, if you have issue with the fact a charity used likely dirty money, you also must take issue with the entire U.S. government, right? Between toppling entire regimes to maintain sectors of the economy, invading Iraq for the largely agreed upon reason of oil, regularly selling arms and whatever else to the Saudis, etc etc, you must be positively disgusted to be an American. And I don't think I'm wrong in my belief that every single country has done something to "benefit" a dubious country in some way, shape, or form. Whether it be oil, natural resources for your computer, textiles, et al, the things you need in your daily life have been the source of some conflict somewhere. At least be consistent in your ethics if possible. The worst part about this is, she used that money to actually directly help people through the foundation's various initiatives while the U.S. did what they did to just keep daily life intact. So, yes it might have been ethically dubious money, but that would imply Trump only used "good money" he earned. Except for the fact he exploited tax loop-holes to keep whatever was left of his fortune while his businesses were all tanking. Then there's the fact he used Chinese steel to build his famous buildings and made his shirts in Bangladesh, one of the places that positively views ISIS.

And we reach the grand conclusion:

"Days before the election, a journalist from India emailed me, asking: What are your thoughts being a Muslim in “Trump’s America”? 

I wrote that as a child of India, arriving in the United States at the age of 4 in the summer of 1969, I have absolutely no fears about being a Muslim in a “Trump America.” The checks and balances in America and our rich history of social justice and civil rights will never allow the fear-mongering that has been attached to candidate Trump’s rhetoric to come to fruition. 

What worried me the most were my concerns about the influence of theocratic Muslim dictatorships, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, in a Hillary Clinton America. These dictatorships are no shining examples of progressive society with their failure to offer fundamental human rights and pathways to citizenship to immigrants from India, refugees from Syria and the entire class of de facto slaves that live in those dictatorships. 

We have to stand up with moral courage against not just hate against Muslims, but hate by Muslims, so that everyone can live with sukhun, or peace of mind, I finished in my reflections to the journalist in India."

First off, those checks and balances you trust? Those are meant to keep one branch of government from growing too powerful and maintain the balance of power. If it weren't for the fact that the executive branch will all be hard-core Republicans with the same set of beliefs as Trump, the legislative being controlled by the party that has been crushed into the diamond of hate it is today, and the judicial presumably returning to a conservative lean, I'd believe you. But, if you had taken a second to look at what that phrase means, you'd see a Trump victory defies all that. Secondly, those theocratic dictatorships you worry about in a Clinton America wouldn't have impacted her largely considering those were the same dictatorships she's been working with for 30 whole years as a First Lady, as a lawyer, and as Secretary of State. Also, you traded the influence of a theocratic Muslim dictatorship for the influence of an authoritarian dictatorship, so again you really weren't checking for this stuff. I'm glad you justify why those dictatorships are bad, because now you get to see Trump do that exact same thing. Even if its worded the same, the sentence still remains somewhat true if needlessly provocative: "Trump's America is no shining examples of progressive society with its failure to offer fundamental human rights and pathways to citizenship to immigrants from India, refugees from Syria and the entire class of de facto slaves that live in those dictatorships." Add on to that "LGBTQ people, practicing Muslims, anyone vaguely brown and ethnic, basically everyone not straight or white" and you get the more holistic picture.

You voted Trump because you believed in a threat that wasn't there. Or you voted Trump because you hated Hilary. Or you voted Trump because you want less money to go to the government. I don't care why you voted for him, only the fact that you did. By voting for him, you proved that you didn't care about how he'd be as a leader only what he'd do for you. You didn't give a shit how a Trump presidency would affect the country, only that you got yours, so fuck everyone else. You let the party line over-take your basic human decency because it would benefit you. And that's what hurts: you chose self-interest instead of thinking for a single second what would happen if he actually won. And now, everything about my future has been up-ended. I might have to struggle to find a job, my children might have to suffer in an America evocative of the Dustbowl, my grand-children might have to wage wars for water. Your sisters, cousins, nieces, etc. will have to bear witness to their rights becoming more and more curtailed, continually being paid less than their male peers, and being vilely harassed for the sole reason of daring to voice their opinion. Anyone who is a minority or gay now has to fear for their lives any time they go anywhere not heavily liberal, because they are different. You, the voter, chose to empower racism, sexism, a new generation of domineering men, xenophobia, and more. And for that, you don't get to be treated fairly. I don't think I'd be lying if I said you might have just ruined the next 40-50 years of my life because of your greed. You don't get to claim "persecution" because that is an insult to those who actually will be persecuted for the things they can't control in their life. You made a bad choice, willfully or not, and you jeopardized America's future. I'm sure over time we will forgive all of you, but for now, when the pain is still fresh, when the fear is still nascent, when the ramifications are truly beginning to settle in, there's no chance of such a thing happening. You made your choice, and we've made our ours. It seems fitting that this election harped so much on what makes us different: after all, united we stand, divided we fall.