Email Letters: October 4, 2016
A third party vote is a vote for Trump
The polls clearly show that a presidential vote for the Libertarian or Green party (or not voting) hurts Clinton and helps Trump.
Colorado is a crucial swing state and the election is expected to be very close. In the 2000 election, a mere 536 votes for the third-party candidate Ralph Nader in Florida gave George W. Bush the presidency, which gave our country the trumped up costly war and destabilization of Iraq, which created ISIS. The disasters that await our country with a temperamentally and emotionally unfit President Trump will likely be much, much worse.
Those considering voting for a third-party candidate (or not voting) need to patriotically step up and not waste a vote that helps elect Trump. Vote for experience in Clinton to protect our country from the unpredictable human cyclone and P.T. Barnum-like showman Donald J. Trump.
Do the math when choosing the fiscally responsible candidate
Trump? Clinton? Do the math. Literally.
If you’ve already decided to vote for either major party candidate, stop reading. If you’re undecided, take a look at the numbers and you’ll better understand how your vote may impact the country economically. In a study done by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Hillary Clinton’s plan presumably would increase America’s debt by $200 billion over the next 10 years. Donald Trump’s plan presumably would increase the debt by $5.3 trillion during that same time period. The Tax Policy Center suggests that Ms. Clinton’s proposed plan could increase federal revenue by over $1 trillion over the next 10 years, while the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan organization, suggests that Mr. Trump’s proposed plan could decrease federal revenue by nearly $6 trillion during the same time period.
If voters can set their emotions aside and instead trust the math, choosing the most fiscally responsible candidate could be as easy as using a calculator.
Hillary Clinton is too late with her ideas
If I understand Hillary Clinton correctly, she plans to let businesses know just how much money/profit she will allow them to make, passing the monies that exceed that amount to the workers, whom she claims deserves it because the owners of the businesses are making money off the backs of the workers.
I wonder where the workers were when the owner put up everything that they had, and took the risk of losing it all if the venture failed?
Clinton is way too late with that idea. It was started in 1848 by Friedrich Engels, and Karl Marx, and pushed to reality in 1917 by Lenin of Russia and was known as communism.
Also, there are two things that Mr. Trump can say he has never done that she can’t:
1) Sending and receiving e-mails that endanger our national security.
2. Causing the death of four operatives by not responding in a timely manner: called Benghazi.
ROBERT D. BROWN
We should put Trump’s role as con artist in proper perspective as well
Because Ernie Stech is only partially correct in outlining the institutional constraints on a potential Trump presidency (“Put Trump’s role as a ‘businessman’ in perspective,”) we dare not minimize the profound damage “the Donald” could do if somehow elected.
First, Donald Trump is not the exemplary “businessman” that he claims to be, much less the paragon of entrepreneurial success that his zealous supporters still gullibly believe he is. Rather, “Trump has benefited financially from raping, pillaging and bankrupting other businesses and suppliers as well as ripping off taxpayers and government.” See, e.g.: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/03/true-cost-trumps-tax-swindle-worse-ever-know.html.
Second, whatever constraints might theoretically be available to a responsible Congress would nevertheless have little practical effect in the areas of foreign policy and the use of force – leaving it to a reluctant State Department and/or an “insubordinate” Joint Chiefs of Staff to thwart Trump’s impulsive reactions to perceived provocations and/or slights. We have already seen how easily Bush/Cheney evaded such “constraints” to invade Iraq.
Third, given the already proven irresponsibility of a Republican-controlled Congress, we should expect the Freedom Caucus to load-up House appropriations bills with pet “poison pills” and the Senate to eliminate the Democratic minority’s ability to filibuster them – so that Trump can repeal ObamaCare and implement more tax cuts for the already wealthy.
Fourth, Stech grossly underestimates the extent to which Trump’s likely rubber-stamped political “appointments to key positions in the government” could perversely contaminate “the bureaucracy” – not to mention our judicial system. “Trump has sunk a pump into the lowest strata of the American psyche and dredged or sucked up its worst, most reprehensible elements, and mainstreamed them, promoting them as real Americans, as the people for whom he will make America great. This includes racists, misogynists, white supremacists, Anti-Semites, Islamophobes, Homophobes and every other hate demographic you care to mention.” http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/03/crazy-crazy-does-trump-jumps-deep-end-supporters-dive.html.
Fifth, we would also have a vice-president who has supported discrimination based on spurious but “sincerely held” religious beliefs, the New Testament notwithstanding.
Thus, we should also “put Trump’s role” as a con artist in proper “perspective” as well.
With Trump as president, we can look forward to huge losses
With Trump at the head of the USA, we can look forward to huuuuge losses. But don’t worry; someone else will pay the taxes necessary to run the country. We can always hire out our military to Trump’s pal, Putin. After all, Putin offers opportunities in Crimea and Syria. Why should our veterans get a free ride? They can hire out as consultants to the Russians, especially the malingerers with PTSD. You don’t see the Donald getting a free ride (ha, ha, ha). It’s about time that we abandon NATO and join with our Russian pals. Besides, we can use the Russians hacking skills to get to the bottom of Hillary’s emails.
DANIEL H HARRIS
Centennial State needs more passionate, qualified women in office
The decision to run for public office can seem like a daunting one. That’s especially true for women, who are starkly underrepresented in offices in Colorado and face unique challenges as female candidates. However, for every reason to not run for office, there are ten reasons why women from Colorado should.
Maybe a woman feels like her needs and her family’s needs aren’t being prioritized by a legislature that’s 58 percent male. Another might be a retired teacher who can bring expertise and energy to her local school board. Others might simply look at the gender inequality in offices across Colorado and think, “Hey – our voices are needed too.”
Emerge America recently launched a campaign called #WhySheRuns to highlight Democratic women in office and to shed light on the forces that initially drove them to run. The #WhySheRuns videos are inspiring for a lot of reasons, but mainly because at the core of every woman’s decision was the same thing: a desire to create positive change in her community.
The Centennial State needs more passionate, qualified women in office. At Emerge Colorado, we recruit and train Democratic women because we have confidence in their potential and know the value they bring to governments. Our programs give women the skills they need to take the plunge into politics. We’re currently recruiting for our next class. If you or a woman you know already has their reason to run, applications are available at http://www.emergeco.org. We’ll take it from there.
Executive Director, Emerge Colorado
Story about Trump’s comment angering veterans sparks other memories
The story about Trump’s comment angering veterans reminds me of a time when Mesa College sponsored a speaker who claimed the gay and lesbian community suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder after Colorado voted in favor of Amendment 2. As a veteran who is diagnosed as having both a seizure disorder and of being bi-polar and knows peers who have PTSD, I went to
that talk to see how gays could possibly compare themselves to men who have been in combat.
I was not impressed by the speaker, who diagnosed herself as suffering PTSD, nor was I impressed by the majority who came to hear her. I was in a distinct minority in that room. That was then. This is now.
I did hear what Trump said broadcast on the network news and given my experience and training as an Army medic, I cannot take the blind leap of faith required by the captured press – those lapdogs that have their “news” written by Clinton clones.