Dear Rachel,
I have never wanted my Odyssey profile to be political. I have not yet written a political article, because I do not think it is a necessary topic to bring up for people to understand who I am. In fact, I do not even necessarily like to identify with a party in the first place.
But, here we go, I guess.
As I scroll through Facebook, I love to open articles, specifically Odyssey articles. Even when they are on the supporting side of Trump, I open them, because I like to see other peoples' sides, and although I do not support him, I am constantly searching for a way to, because, as you said, "He’s our President, people. Like it or not, he’s our President." This is correct.
Usually, I open these articles, I read through them, and I might nod at a few points and shake my head at others. I will then usually close the article and continue to scroll. I got to yours, and I could not scroll. This is not because I do not support Trump. My opinion of him has very little to do with the anger I felt reading your article.
The reason I couldn't scroll was because, when I get to articles like yours, articles that call others out for not basing their opinions on facts, when the article itself lacks facts, and articles that actually contain false information, I cannot scroll.
I would like to start with your first paragraph. You talk about how whenever you go on the internet, everyone who is posting their opinions all apparently have the same opinion - "It’s always the same liberal, anti-Trump opinion." You continue to go on to say, "everyone has the same liberal, "controversial" and "progressive" opinions as to where no one thinks for themselves anymore because they all think "differently...". So essentially, you are upset with the fact that liberals are posting similar opinions on social media platforms.
My problem with this paragraph of yours? People identify as Christian. People identify as feminists. People identify as environmentalists. Why do they identify as these things? Because they all believe in very similar things. Just like liberals. Just like republicans. People, liberals specifically, are posting their opinions and they all sound similar? They're all "anti-Trump" - against a president who goes against many things that liberals believe in? Shocking. I understand that you are sick of seeing anti-Trump things, but do not use that as an excuse for getting annoyed that people have similar opinions, just because they are not yours. People have their own opinions, and if they identify as the same political party, their opinions may be pretty similar, and they might be against the opposing political party.
You go on to say that "no one seems to be different anymore. Everyone thinks the same, does the same thing, wears the same things, etc." I am just confused how people wearing similar clothes has anything to do with Trump, anti-Trump, liberals, republicans, or literally anything to do with the topic of your article in any way?
Let's move on. "He won the Presidency because we did, indeed, vote for him." You are right. Many people did vote for Donald Trump. Carrying on... "Over half of the United States voted for him." Ah! Pause. Nope, they actually didn't. Here's a fact: Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3,000,000 votes.
Speaking of facts, your article calls out liberals for not backing up their opinions with facts. This, I think, is quite confusing, based on the reasoning that your article does not contain a single fact. It is solely opinions. You said, "I have no problems with people who have opinions that go against President Trump, but at least educate yourself instead of just hating him because of an anti-Trump meme you read on Twitter." However, you are hating on liberals because of something you read on social media, yes? Just a little confused here. I have no issue with you sharing your opinion, but I do have an issue when you are being incredibly hypocritical.
You go on to talk about another very sensitive topic - terrorism. With the attacks that have been conducted, it is all too fresh in our minds and hearts, and my heart goes out to their loved ones, but, according to you, that means virtually nothing. As you said, "“Thinking” about attack victims isn’t going to stop it from happening again." Maybe not. But your reasoning is closed-minded and rude, and honestly not true, to say the least. When people are saying "choose love", they are attempting to band together and use love to stop the terrorists, they are not telling the terrorists to choose love. They are not saying that the people conducting these attacks just need to be told to choose love, and then they'll stop. For example, the "One Love Manchester" concert that was held after the terrorist attack? That was to unite artists, fans, and the public in general. They raised over 3 million dollars. During it, Justin Bieber led a chant of "love". But how dare he, right? Why would he say "love" over and over again, because according to you, fighting terrorism with love doesn't work?
Your entire article is bashing on people for tweeting about things, or showing their support, anger, frustration, and opinions on social media platforms, but that is exactly what you are doing with your article. That, coupled with the fact that several things you said are actually just not valid, is why I could not scroll.

I thank you for producing an article that produced something of extreme passion in me. I thank you for sharing your opinion, because I believe that you reached many people and I'm sure it affected just as many, as I know it impacted me. I probably believe this because I believe that social media has a way of making others feel strongly and then actually do things about it.

With love,
Taylor