Voter beware
Re “Rigged? Election officials insulted,” Oct. 18
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated allegation that the election is rigged against him sows seeds of distrust in our democracy and its institutions.
His candidacy should serve as a lesson to the American voters: Do your homework and be careful whom you elect. Trump has been an embarrassment to members of his own party, many of whom have disavowed him.
I can truly say that in my 102 years of life, I have never seen a presidential race stoop so low.
Morie Markoff Los Angeles
Trump’s assertion that the presidential election is “rigged” is an obvious attempt by him to save face in the event that he loses the election. The irony is that by making his false claims, it is Trump who is, in fact, “rigging” (or manipulating) the perceptions of the American people.
Fortunately, the vast majority of us are not that gullible.
Indeed, while Trump wants the American people to dismiss his vulgar remarks about women as “locker-room talk,” it seems far more likely that the American people will dismiss his claims of a rigged election as “padded-room talk.”
Steve Danning
Las Vegas
If this election is rigged, it happened way before Trump began his campaign to discredit our voting system by blaming his impending defeat on the media and voter fraud. It happened when the Republicans themselves started to legally rig elections.
It’s called gerrymandering.
Republican governors and state legislators have drawn electoral districts to virtually ensure that their state and federal seats will be incontestable. Many Republican-dominated states have gone even further, putting in place restrictive and often unconstitutional voting laws that will make casting ballots difficult for groups of citizens.
That is a rigged election. And guess what: Those adversely affected tend to not be Republican voters.
Julia Springer
Santa Barbara
Trump has already built a wall.
Saying the election is rigged has deeply divided my family and surely others like mine across the nation. Decent people turn a blind eye, while others scream at members of their own family, desperately trying to get through to their loved ones.
It has such a terrible price. We are the collateral damage no one speaks of. Saying the election is rigged has put up a wall up that words cannot reach over.
Maybe that is the wall Trump was talking about.
Dennis Grossman
Woodland Hills
Re “Candidates forgo usual life on the road,” Oct. 16
It is nice that the presidential nominees can sleep in their own beds most nights, even while campaigning.
Now if I could only find a way to sleep at all after watching one of their debates. Allen F. Dziuk
Carlsbad
‘Might’ have a gun? Don’t shoot
Re “Long Beach officer won’t be charged in shooting,” Oct. 15
What struck me about the decision to not file criminal charges against the Long Beach police officer who shot a turning suspect in the back because he might be armed and might be intending to shoot the officer was that it appears police use a very loose standard as to when the facts justify a shooting in self-defense.
The standard seems to be that the officer can shoot if the subject “might” be armed and “might” fire at the officer. Self-defense normally requires a reasonable belief that the use of defensive force is necessary, not that it “might” be necessary. I would submit that ordinarily, under these circumstances, an officer is justified in drawing his gun but not firing it, at least until the officer actually sees a gun that reasonably appears likely to be fired.
Almost anyone “might” be armed and “might” be about to attack, but without objective observations, use of force, especially deadly force, cannot be justified.
While officers are justifiably concerned for their safety, no one wants to see an unarmed person unnecessarily shot. Effective and clear standards consistent with the ordinary rules of self-defense need to be established and incorporated into officer training.
James Adler
Los Angeles
Why do our law enforcement officers continue to get away with questionable killings? Black Lives Matter came about because of stuff like this. The mentality of our law enforcement is to shoot first and then assess the situation later.
The officer said he feared that his victim was turning toward him with a gun in his hand, but no weapon was recovered at the scene. Am I missing something here?
Charles P. Martin
Los Angeles
Taxing soda isn’t enough
Re “Can world swallow a soda tax?” Oct. 16
Soda taxes are not meant to shame consumers; they are a pricing tool that makes unhealthy choices less attractive. However, the proposal doesn’t go far enough to promote healthy alternative choices.
Revenue from the tax doesn’t trickle down directly to the consumer. This makes the proposal unappealing, especially to the poor, who carry both the tax burden and the potential health benefits.
In fact, the World Health Organization recommends a more comprehensive set of policies to reduce sugar consumption. In addition to a 20% to 50% tax on soda, there should also be a 10% to 30% subsidy on healthy alternatives such as fruits and vegetables. In Britain, the tax is “pro-rated” according to the amount of sugar in the product.
If the provision of healthy alternative subsidies were included in the proposition, this policy would be more consumer-friendly and weaken the “grocery tax” argument that is resonating with many voters in San Francisco Bay Area cities this November.
Gianna Le
San Francisco
It seems there is nothing that people in power won’t do to take away your freedom to make your own mistakes.
If consumption of sugar is such a bad thing, then simply ban it, as one would do with lead in paint. But that would take away from the lucrative extraction of money from the people. It is as if these bureaucrats have said, “We have the research to back up our claims that sugar is bad, so if they still want to ignore us, then we will use force to get our way and make money as well.”
I think I’ll take a big gulp of soda before that’s banned.
William Baker
Yorba Linda
Clinton has enough money
Re “Small donors give Clinton hard time,” Oct. 17
Your analysis of contributions from small donors, or lack thereof, to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign fails to consider many of us who support Clinton but haven’t given as much to her as we did to President Obama.
I read about the huge donations she is receiving from wealthy friends. I hear about her personal wealth on the national news. She has more money at this point in the campaign than any other candidate in history.
I am now retired and on a fixed income, and I figure she doesn’t need my money. Clinton supporters read. They listen to National Public Radio. This constant reporting of the money she has hurts her, even among those of us who believe in her and desperately want her to win.
Stephanie McIntyre
Simi Valley
I asked my fourth-grade son Sam a math question: “Clinton raised 24% of her total contributions from small donors while Donald Trump raised 65% of his contributions from small donors. Who raised the most money from small donors?”
Sam: “How much did each raise total?” I shrugged. He shrugged.
I looked at Bloomberg.com and found as of Oct. 15, Clinton had raised $911 million and Trump $423 million. I gave Sam the numbers to complete the problem: “Clinton totals $218 million from small donors and Trump has received $274 million, so Trump raised the most.” I asked Sam what percentage Clinton raised to Trump’s sum; his answer was 79%.
These numbers tell a different story than The Times’ front-page graph. Obama raised more than $1 billion in 2012; his 48% from small donors amounted to about $500 million. Both 2016 nominees are far behind Obama’s connection to small donors.
Tricia Bregman
Santa Ana