Email Letters: August 31, 2016

Vote for the service record, not the narcissist

On Tuesday, The Sentinel published a letter from Dan Bledsoe about the presidential candidates with the headline “Americans deserve better than Clinton.” If we deserve better, could it be because we treat the people who run so badly that the ones we would like to have won’t run?

Mr. Bledsoe states that Secretary Clinton “will, and already has, stooped to extremely low levels and will do whatever it takes to achieve that. Period.” I certainly hope he is right that she will do what it takes to win, because no matter how low she stoops, she will never do the damage to this country and the world that a Donald Trump presidency would do.

Mr. Bledsoe claims, without providing any evidence or facts, that Trump is honest, and Clinton gives “lies, lies, and more lies.” There are fact checking websites – Politifact, Fact or Fiction, etc., and the evidence there does not bear out Mr. Bledsoe’s claim.

Trump claims he will force American corporations to bring their factories back to the US, but his brands are still made in Mexico and Asia. And you say he is being honest? Six corporate bankruptcies, leaving small businesses holding the bag does not seem to provide much evidence of business judgment.

In regard to his claim that he will institute “extreme vetting,” his prior campaign CEO was let go for being an unregistered agent of a foreign country. His current CEO has an arrest record for domestic violence. And Mr. Trump is going to do “extreme vetting?” When does he plan to start

It seems to me that anyone who looks at the facts – Clinton’s 40 years of service versus Trumps 42 years of total self aggrandizement, has to vote for the service record, not the narcissist. We may need a change, but the one Trump brings is not it. Do yourself a favor and vote for Secretary Clinton.


Grand Junction

Paper has kept community well informed of airport happenings

I want to thank The Sentinel for the three airport-related articles in Sunday’s edition. For years, now, we’ve read time and again of troubles at our airport: the manager fired; a building left incomplete (and subject to dilapidation if it wasn’t completely enclosed before winter); a contractor and subcontractors unpaid for work done; the FBI confiscating files and vehicles; allegations of fraud and racketeering; airport board members accused of fraud and theft; a wildlife fence that left wildlife access from the airport to the Bookcliffs, but excluded private pilots and airport businesses; long-time staff and employees quitting in disgust; our terminal building, ramp, and the runway itself in need of repair/replacement; the list of embarrassments for our community went on and on.

It seems now that your staff’s vigilance and perseverance (attending and reporting on constant and interminable meetings, chasing the story from hither to yon, even printing letters to the editor from a group of aircraft owners with contradictory explanations of what was going on) have paid off, and, with a new board and, now, a new manager, we can finally mark the end of this long, difficult story and look to the future for our city and county’s airport.

The Sentinel has been our window onto the confusing goings-on at our airport and deserves a pat on the back for keeping us informed.


Grand Junction

Urge Congress to finally pass comprehensive immigration reform

This Labor Day, let’s honor the hardworking men and women who keep America running. But let’s also remember the millions of aspiring Americans who are forced to work and live in the shadows due to our broken immigration system. Too many immigrant workers are justifiably afraid to speak up and assert their rights when their employer underpays, doesn’t pay at all or mistreats them on the job. Sadly, they have come to expect that this is the price they pay for working in America.

Our broken immigration system is being used by unscrupulous employers, large and small, and their political allies to drive down wages and standards for all working people. And yes, it is happening everyday right here in western Colorado. This year, let’s stand in solidarity with immigrant workers and communities by urging Congress to end their senseless gridlock and finally pass comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship and real job protections.

Grand Junction

Commission on Presidential Debates should include all candidates

Why do American voters have to choose between the two most unpopular presidential candidates in the last 10 presidential election cycles? Because the Commission on Presidential Debates says so.

The Commission on Presidential Debates sounds like an important public entity, but is, in fact, a private corporation hired by the Democratic and Republican parties. It defines the “minimum polling threshold” of 15 percent that third-party candidates must reach before they are allowed to participate in the presidential debates. The polls that the CPD uses for that purpose don’t always include the Libertarian and Green parties.

We urge the CPD to suspend these arbitrary rules and include all four presidential and vice presidential candidates in all of the upcoming 2016 televised debates.

The right to vote doesn’t mean much if we don’t have the right to know who we can vote for!


Americans deserve much better than Trump

While Dan Bledsoe (“Americans deserves better than Clinton”) seeks to establish credibility by self-identifying as an erstwhile “independent,” he actually proves the truth of P.T. Barnum’s famous aphorism: “there’s a sucker born every minute.”

True, this election should be a “no-brainer” for Bledsoe and his ilk – if they had any real interest in facts. Indeed, with all that President Obama (rescuing our economy from the depths of the Bush Recession) and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (restoring our reputation abroad) have done for this country, Bledsoe – like Donald Trump – betrays a racist and sexist inclination to discount their real accomplishments in favor of hogwash.

Every Saturday’s Sentinel suggests that – had Obama not rescued the U.S. automobile industry (over Republican objections) – there might not even be a local newspaper in which Bledsoe and his fellow Hillary-haters could spout their tripe.

Neither Obama nor Clinton espouse “open borders” or engage in “anti-police rhetoric.” In February 2016, President Obama rebuked so-called “sanctuary cities” and the DOJ stopped transferring prisoners to them. Clinton regards the proliferation of 300+ cities, counties, and states refusing to cooperate with ICE as another symptom of our “broken immigration system” that underscores the need for comprehensive reform (which Republicans have obstructed since 2013).

Both Obama and Clinton embrace the bipartisan consensus that forging economic ties to our “frenemies” through fairer trade is preferable to armed confrontation, and Clinton has published her detailed plan to mitigate the localized effects of trade deals.

Neither Obama nor Clinton would “take your gun-owning rights away,” but responsibly support common-sense reforms that would expand background checks and help protect police by restricting access to assault weapons.

For 25 years, Clinton has been subjected to partisan “investigations” that – in contrast to Trump’s business record – revealed no “underhanded dealings,” while fact-checkers conclude that Trump is the most dishonest candidate to ever seek the presidency.

Clinton has disclosed decades of tax returns, her millions in charitable donations, and a credible summary if her medical history, while Trump has not – and only lies about them.

Now that Trump is receiving national security briefings, he may well be sharing secrets with an illegal immigrant – his third “trophy wife,” a college drop-out who lied on her resume and website, and is yet to hold the press conference that Trump emptily promised.

Thus, to paraphrase Bledsoe, with the Trump/Pence campaign shoveling horse manure on its bubbleheaded suckers, “If it looks like it, and it smells like it, that’s what it is.”

Grand Junction


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1

If Hillary is in good health, why did she look so bad today?

Does it really matter? Good health or bad health, you’re just proud to be able to vote against a woman.

No Mr. Iles, it doesn’t matter to me, but I would hope some other people might, just might consider the health of their candidate.  I realize as a true believer you would never reconsider, but there are people who are still on the fence.

That’s odd, Mrs. Kneisel. Why then, did you say “I feel so proud today——It’s the first time in my lifetime I will have the opportunity to vote against a woman for president”? (E-mail letters, July 28).

And you aren’t considering the health of the candidate, Mrs. Kneisels. You’ve already decided. Despite her doctor’s statements that she is in good health, you’ve decided based on YouTube videos that she isn’t. Most doctors have to actually examine the patient before reaching a diagnosis, but you apparently have an ability that they all lack. How lucky we are to have you here.

Convincing? Hardly. I’d be happy to reconsider, Mrs. Kneisel. But YouTube videos are not medical evidence. When you have some actual evidence that her health isn’t good enough to be president, I’ll stick with her doctor’s statement, which you are ignoring. Its a little more convincing than you are.

I know, Mr. Iles, all you have is attack the messenger when you don’t like the message.  Go for it.  Tell you what—-if Hillary is in good health she must have been recovering from a real “bender” yesterday.  Her face looked bloated and she had a bigger bag under one eye—-  Her hair looked like she hadn’t bothered to wash it for days…

Just pointing out inconsistencies in your story, Mrs. Kneisel. That’s how you find out if a witness is credible. Your story keeps changing, which casts a lot of doubt on your credibility. I’m not attacking you, although based on past experience you will no doubt accuse me of that.

Hillary is 69, Mrs. Kniesel. I don’t expect her to look like Jennifer Aniston. And I don’t assume she’s medically unfit just because you don’t think she looks right. As I said, I’ll trust her doctor. Why don’t you?

Let’s hear my inconsistencies, Mr. Iles.  I don’t like Hillary.  I don’t want an Obama 2.0 presidency.  It is my personal opinion that Hillary is not being truthful about her health.  She looked like hell yesterday.  The only way I would ever cast a vote for her is if I was dead and my identity was misused.

Sure thing, Mrs. Kneisel.

On July 28, you said: “I feel so proud today——It’s the first time in my lifetime I will have the opportunity to vote against a woman for president”

Today you said, in response to my statement about you being proud to vote against a woman: “No Mr. Iles, it doesn’t matter to me”.

These certainly appear to be contradictory statements. Perhaps you could explain how they aren’t?

In addition, as I have pointed out before, you have no actual evidence that she is in poor health. All you have is your desire that she not be fit to be president and your opinion of how she looks in YouTube videos. You ignore anything that says otherwise, such as the statement her doctor released and you admitted that you would reject anything else that would tell you something you didn’t want to believe. You don’t like Hillary, and that is your choice. But don’t pretend that choice is in any way based on facts or evidence, because it obviously isn’t.

In response to your, “Does it really matter?”  I responded no it doesn’t matter to me…If that’s contradictory, get over it.  I did not mean to imply I felt any different today than I did on July 28.  I’m terribly sorry to have misled you.
The rest of your statement is just the, same ole’ same ole’.  You need some new material.

Yes, it’s contradictory, but that’s never stopped you before. Cognitive dissonance is the term if I’m not mistaken. The ability to hold mutually exclusive positions at the same time. Personally, I find that to be dishonest, but it seems to be a requirement for those supporting Trump. It’s the only way to pretend he isn’t a despicable, disability-mocking blowhard who calls for the assassination of his opponent (and yes, Mrs. Kneisel, that is exactly what he did) and for foreign countries to interfere with U.S. elections.

But of course, the only real evidence of anything you have against Hillary is that she’s a woman. I will grant you that. So why bother pretending she is in poor health? You don’t need that to dislike her. She’s a woman, and that’s all you need to proudly vote against her, or so you said. Right?

Sorry, Mr. Iles.  I have no use for Hillary for the things she has done to others.  It’s fine if you have to think I’m sexist for my views. 
Again, my apology for agreeing with you earlier.  It seems to have really upset you.
I’m happy for you that you can now decide I am dishonest for stating my views.  I hope it makes you feel better.
I am a never Hillary voter.  That’s it, period the end.

Still not reading what I’ve written, I see, since I said nothing like anything you just said. And I don’t allow people like you to upset me. I don’t take any of this personally. That you think it does says more about you than it does me.

I don’t care who you vote for, Mrs. Kneisel. That is not and never has been an issue. You’ve made your dislike of Hillary quite plain from day one. Understand this - I don’t care. Its your business.

However, when you post comments saying that you don’t like her for specific reasons, and those reasons are not supported by facts or evidence, you are going to have that pointed out to you. This is not a personal attack, it is a simple statement of fact. One that can be easily shown to be wrong by providing said evidence. Somehow you never get to that point.

You claim Hillary is in poor health. You have no evidence that this is the case, and you are ignoring contrary evidence. Your choice, but don’t expect to be taken seriously by anyone who relies on actual facts to base their opinion on.

You have said in the past how proud you were to be able to vote against a woman. I’m not speculating about your motivation for such a position - again, its your business. I’m merely reminding you of what you said and how it conflicts with what you said today. Your double standard with regard to certain subjects is pretty well-known here. You hold certain people to one standard and ignore the actions of others that violate those standards. Again, your choice.

You have the freedom to say what you want, Mrs. Kneisel. But that freedom does not include immunity from reactions to what you say. If you say something factually untrue, even if you believe it, you can expect to be called on it. That’s life, and as you have said to me - get over it.

Wow!  Go for it…

Since nothing I wrote called for a response of “go for it” I can only conclude you didn’t read what I wrote yet again. How unsurprising.

A sarcastic response to someone who goes on and about how terrible you are is “go for it” in my opinion.  I care less what you think.  You are a jerk.

Sorry, Mrs. Kneisel. You are obviously reading far more into what I wrote than I put there. I never said you were a terrible person. Far from it. All I said was that you have a well-known double standard about certain things. You yourself said that. All I did was agree with you, and to you that’s calling you a terrible person?

As you say, Mrs. Kneisel. Go for it. As I said, I don’t take any of this personally, so you can think what you like. It doesn’t affect me in the slightest.

Page 1 of 1

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
Advertiser Tearsheet

© 2016 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy