Trump’s rhetoric on election presents a danger
To the editor:
On Jan. 6, 2020, Mr. Trump, who could not accept the fact he lost the election, gave a speech and used the phrases — crooked election, crooked election poll workers, go to the Capitol, fight like hell. The result was a riot causing people to be killed and hurt, the Capitol Building being damaged costing the taxpayers money to fix and repair.
The D.C. mayor had to call in other law enforcement to help the Capitol Police, but first they had to call and check with other people to see if it was OK — which wasted valuable time to control the riot.
Now, Mr. Trump is making statements at his rallies and the presidential debate about crooked elections, rigged ballots, blood baths will look like World War III. Is he sending a message to his hothead and troublemaking supporters if he loses the election again?
An article in the Sept. 18, 2024, Herald-Mail said: “Poll: 46% of Republicans won’t accept Trump loss,” and would “take action to overturn the results.”
Do law enforcement, town mayors, state governors and anybody else hear or see what I am hearing and seeing? Could another riot be coming only bigger and worse if Mr. Trump loses the election? Are all levels of law enforcement and maybe the military in readiness?
If both political parties would work with each other to solve the problems and run the government for the good of the citizens and not just for a few top officials it should not matter which party the presidency belongs to.
Charles Miller
Boonsboro
Remember when voting, ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’
To the editor:
As far back as the late 17th century, an English proverb — “The proof of the pudding is in the eating,” reminds us that we can only see the value in something if we experience it.
Now, I really like chocolate pudding and, by tasting many, I know the brand that I like the best. So, I want to keep enjoying my favorite; the others just do not satisfy me.
We experienced a four-year term between 2016 and 2020, which provided the taste of a brand that greatly appealed to us in various areas, but it was quickly removed from the shelves, so-to-speak, and was no longer available. I could not find my favorite brand of chocolate pudding anywhere.
I now have a choice that could likely make it available again, and you can be sure that I will make that choice. I want what I experienced by tasting my favorite product, and don’t want to settle for something that has been “tasted” and determined to be of a much lesser quality.
If you too really like “chocolate pudding,” and want the good brand that was available, please do your part to make your voice heard so we can enjoy it together again.
Please don’t settle for less.
Donna Staggers
Hagerstown
False claims should always be challenged
To the editor:
Like Jonathan Turley (Herald-Mail Oct. 6), I embrace free speech, but that includes the right to present counter arguments, fact checks and criticism. Sadly, free speech proponents often whine when challenged.
They claim censorship and persecution. They forget that free speech is a two way street, with truth as a goal.
Claims without evidence are always fair game. For example, in the presidential debate Donald Trump, complained that he was fact checked three times. But false claims should always be challenged, otherwise they appear true. Disrupting fact checks is easy: Just tell the truth.
Oddly, this same free speech crowd also believes in book banning. When book contents challenge their beliefs, they demand censorship. But beliefs are sometimes based in mythology, not evidence.
Believers are threatened by information that contradicts their cherished views. Scientific research and historical records like letters, newspaper articles, business ledgers, ships’ logs and diaries may present an unwelcome alternative picture.
Where things get dicey is when speech threatens safety. Examples include medical misinformation, hate speech and anti-environmental tropes (windmills cause cancer).
The internet has created echo chambers where lies are spread with the electronic speed. Lies are often backed by affluent interests for their own aims. Through repetition, lies morph into “alternative facts.” Finding the proper balance is a challenge. Perhaps legal liability is a way out.
Larry Zaleski
Hagerstown
Trump will protect and close the border
To the editor:
Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Alejandro Mayorkas are saying that they can’t do anything about the border and the illegal immigrants coming into the USA illegally because the House won’t pass a supposedly bipartisan bill that Trump opposed and pressured Congress not to vote on.
That can’t be further from the truth. The fact is that Biden can secure the border today, right now. Don’t take my word for it; here are the facts.
Under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the president of the United States has the authority to “suspend the entry” of certain noncitizens into the United States under certain circumstances. Specifically, the section reads: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
A great percentage of the illegal immigrants in our country now are detrimental to the interests of the United States and to the taxpayers.
Trump will protect and close the border.
Mike Hébert
Hagerstown
Why did Trump refuse to go on ’60 Minutes’?
To the editor:
Donald Trump refused to go on “60 minutes” because they fact check answers.
This is Trump admitting he is a liar.
James Griffin
Waynesboro, Pa.
This vote for Harris is a vote against Trump
To the editor:
I will consider my vote for Harris a vote against Trump not a vote for her.
Listen to what Trump is saying, he is a danger to the country.
I am and have always been a registered Republican who cannot understand how the party can support Trump.
I hope he is defeated, and we can move on.
Jim Shank
Waynesboro, Pa.
This post was originally published on here
