American taxpayers should not have to pay to defend President Trump for his accused sexual misbehavior. The Department of Justice did not defend President Bill Clinton, and it should not be defending President Trump. Accusations of personal misdeeds should be defended by the accused person, not by the federal or state governments.
Both Republican and Democratic office holders should be fed from the same spoon!
A simple answer
In reply to the writer of the Sept. 6 letter “Broken promises,” the answer is very simple.
- Former Vice President Joe Biden
- Sen. Kamala Harris
- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
- Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
Here are five reasons for reelecting President Trump. I could go on, but with limited space, 250 words unfortunately just isn’t enough.
William A. Rice Jr.
You recently published a letter taking your newspaper to task (“A shameful letter,” Sept. 4). The writer found a previous letter (“Relying on handouts,” Aug. 30) offensive. He thought it was racist. I want to commend you for publishing both letters.
The letter criticizing you had good elements but contained a major flaw. The writer would be a muter of ideas that he judges to be offensive.
If this country is to survive as a democracy, no opinion should be censored. If you disagree: debate! Bad ideas should be called out and debated. Our democracy will not survive if we use duct tape to limit open expression. The Hitlers of the world use this mode of operation and look how that turns out.
I suspect that the writer of the offending letter would be surprised that anyone thought his letter was racist. He thought he was just stating the way things are as he saw them.
It is my hope that when the next letter offends us, we will respond by pointing out the flaws in its logic. Shutting down the lines of communication is not the way to go.
Dialogue is the way to go.
Grover R. Mims
A step ahead
As always, President Trump is a step ahead of me.
I never could figure out why everyone who had access to the White House was constantly tested for COVID-19 if, as Trump maintained, it wasn't that serious, was a hoax or would disappear, like a miracle.
Now we know.
He knew it was serious.
Margaret Supplee Smith
What is socialism?
I realize I’m asking a lot here, but if I could change one thing about politics, it would be the distorted and childish view that Republicans have of what they call “socialism.”
One of the speakers at the Republican National Convention made the standard clichéd claim that “socialism has never worked anywhere in the world.”
But some of the policies the Democrats would like to institute, like universal health care, are successful throughout the civilized world.
Republicans call such health care “socialism” — but it’s successful.
Which is it? It is successful socialism or successful something else? And if it’s successful something else, why can’t we do it here?
It’s no wonder that Republican legislators want to dismantle Social Security and the post office. Every dollar that’s invested in public health or public safety or public good is a dollar that they can’t put in their own pockets.
It was deeply troubling to read about the total disregard for wearing masks and social distancing at the recent Republican rally at the Smith Reynolds Airport (“Trump stirs up crowd,” Sept. 9), especially after the concerns expressed in the Journal the day prior.
President Trump said he has downplayed COVID-19 so people won't panic, though he's urgent about getting a vaccine and willing to induce extreme panic as he lies about Democratic candidates and peaceful protesters. The level of cognitive dissonance is disturbing.
We need a healthy fear of this virus because that fear stirs us to take proper measures for safety and economic well-being. We need an honest, rational president.