When did the line between loyal supporter and blind follower become so blurred? Why does the American media demand we see everything in black and white as they write their stories in various shades of grey? This election season has pushed the limits of what it means for the country to be polarized.

November 8th is rapidly approaching; Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both deeply embroiled in their own scandals that may ultimately end up tipping the scale one way or the other. However, depending on who you ask, it’s much ado about nothing vs the literal end of life as we know it.

Trump is currently being accused by no less than 12 women of varying degrees of sexual assault- and the list of potential victims is growing by the day. His comments to Billy Bush have been well documented(ad nausem)for weeks, and a plethora of people continue to denounce him and distance themselves from what they see as a rapist. Trump supporters on the other hand, only see a horde of liberal hypocrites being outraged at Trump for things they support in other people i.e; Michele Obama’s call out of Trump for his rhetoric on women, at the same time promoting Beyonce as a role model for little girls, when her shows and music are often sexually charged.

The critics might have a point, but does that erase or excuse all Trump has said or the example he will surely set? Is there a limit to the speech of a man known for “Telling it like it is” ?

Clinton is under daily attack by Wikileaks- private emails from her campaign are being released in the thousands almost daily. These emails are said to show a clay candidate that is molded on the fly depending on where the polls tell her to go, is beholden to big donors, and thinks its mandatory to hide what you really think from the public- for the public good of course. Go ahead and bring these up to a Clinton supporter and you’ll get an earful about Julian Assange’s agenda, his pending charges, and Russia’s attempts to influence our election.

Can we afford to gloss over the content of these emails because we may not approve of the source? How much journalism in the modern history of the world would have to be stricken from the record if that were common practice?

All the while the media pushes the drug we have all become addicted to: there is only one right opinion and all others are an affront to intellectuals and freedom itself. Conflict between political ideologies is great for ratings and clicks, but its shit for keeping a country from tearing itself apart. We have to accept that there are things out there that we may disagree with, that challenge our world view- but when we decide not to absorb and analyze new information from different perspectives, and stay in our respective bubbles with everyone else who thinks our way, how can we then come out and have a REAL and productive discussion about the issues? What’s the point of discussion when absolutely nothing the other side says could ever change your mind?

Candidates that are supposed to be for the people NEED feedback from the people, its ridiculous to not hold them up to higher standards than the rest of us or give them free passes when they screw up just because you see the other candidate as worse.

We need to continue to question everything, no matter how entrenched we are in our beliefs we HAVE to allow for the possibility that we may be wrong- this is the future of the country we all love at stake, not just who gets to be right. The longer we stay in our corners, foaming at the mouth being worked up into truly believing its us vs them, the more brutal the inevitable fight will be.