Presidential debates should be about policy

As I sit and reflect on the first presidential debate, I ask myself “why?” Why do we keep accepting this? Why aren’t we doing more to prevent such an embarrassment? The presidential debate should be about policy. Candidates should be arguing what are the best policies to help the issues our country is facing. To be fair, the questions were asked of them and one of them gave some sort of answer related to policy. Sadly, the person who did that cannot be trusted.

There is continual arguing over what someone said. Why are people arguing over who supported a war more than a decade ago? I’m sure many people supported that war and now regret that. Why is there still arguing over this ridiculous birther debate? It’s because these candidates want us distracted from the truth. They want us to be caught up in their personal lives; they want this to be like reality TV. What they don’t want is for us to see that their policies won’t do what is promised.

Yes, the debate was entertaining to probably millions of people. That’s actually not a good thing. I have no clue how Donald Trump plans to do anything, because he never told us how he plans to implement his plans. Instead he made fun of Hillary Clinton’s temperament. Then we follow that up by laughing, tweeting about it, making fun of it and ignoring the reality of it. It’s getting to the point where no one has the right to complain about what either of these two will do in office, because we have yet to force them to explain their policies. Sadly, we continue to encourage this childish behavior. I want to say we deserve what we are getting, but that may be too harsh. BRIAN POHLAND

Penn Hills “smart” not to pay taxes. Apparently we, the poor middle-class dummies who worked and paid taxes for a lifetime, even though we did not always approve of the way they were spent, have been subsidizing this non-taxpaying billionaire all along because of our stupidity.

He is living high on money we contributed to our society for services we could not have if everybody was as “smart” as Mr. Trump. How stupid would we have to be to give this man our votes in addition? JONA HAMMER

Point Breeze

I do not agree with Donald Trump that Rosie O’Donnell deserves all the abuse she gets from him. I can’t think of anyone who deserves this kind of abuse. Such abuse is malignant and a very primitive way of processing emotions and is violent in a way.

Republican nominee Trump disdains women, characterizing them in his many expressions as pathetic, weaker, even sometimes inconvenient. Mr. Trump’s comments are poison to children’s minds. Widespread hatred and embittering malice must be strong factors in the amount of support this man has attained. MARK A. FITZGERALD

Mt. Lebanon

I am responding to Kelsy Frank’s Sept. 24 letter (“A Shocking Meeting”), wherein she took significant liberties with the truth in relation to a meeting between state Rep. Jason Ortitay, her and me on Aug. 23 regarding the efficacy of gun control laws.

The meeting with Rep. Ortitay was initially scheduled between Rep. Ortitay and another individual with Ms. Franks attending as a guest. I was asked to attend the meeting as I am a constituent of Rep. Ortitay and to provide a counterpoint for the other side. This is what legislators,

We welcome your opinion

responsible ones like Rep. Ortitay, do to hear from “both” sides on issues.

It was clear from the beginning of the meeting that Ms. Franks was blissfully ignorant of what gun laws actually exist and even rejected a copy of the commonwealth’s publication “Laws Relating to Guns.” Ms. Franks provided nothing to support her positions and even stated that this constitutional issue should be decided on emotion and not facts!

My reputation with legislators and the media is based on sound application of authoritative fact and logic. To expect a representative to support one’s position on a complicated issue such as the Second Amendment and how it is impacted by gun control without the slightest shred of proof is disrespectful, at best. Throwing around pejoratives like a bludgeon because a representative refuses to bow to worn-out rhetoric about “commonsense gun laws” is the height of arrogance.

To quote a famous movie line, Ms. Franks “can’t handle the truth” so she resorts to attacking the messengers instead of dealing with the reality of the failure of gun control at stopping violent criminals. KIM STOLFER

McDonald