No Republican here
Re “Donald who? GOP senator plays coy,” Oct. 26
The third-party candidate in this election is Republican nominee Donald Trump. He does not represent the fundamental principles of the traditional GOP platform except for tax cuts and gun rights. He does not stress deficit reduction, he opposes free trade, and he is willing to cut back on support for allies, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Trump has limited appeal to the “values voters,” as he has no history of opposing abortion or gay marriage. He is hardly the paragon of virtue with his three marriages and affairs.
Wall Street along with the leadership of the Republican Party have either disavowed him or given grudging endorsement while not actively campaigning for him. The GOP does not have a horse in this race, and Trump’s campaign organization is as ineffective as that of a third political party.
Betty C. Duckman
Long Beach
It makes sense to keep a distance from Trump. Democracy looks horrible from day to day, but it seems gradually to improve human society in the long run.
In David Brin’s book “Existence,” humans make contact with a range of societies on other planets, and it turns out that we are one of the best species. We have enough insight to reject their obsession with converting planets to factories that create robot messengers, which then try to persuade other planets to focus only on manufacturing similar robot messengers. The only message is “join us in creating message robots” — a crazy cycle.
Freedom of speech does seem to be the bedrock of sanity; it allows the insane sectors to expose themselves to ruin through their rants.
Lucy Hahn
Santa Monica
Re “Trump’s brand takes a hit from video, sexual assault claims,” Oct. 22
Serious question for The Times: Do you consider yourself unbiased in your reporting of the presidential election?
It is most evident that your inclusion of negative Trump stories versus negative Clinton stories is incredibly one-sided. For example, the headline to this article could have easily read, “Clinton’s brand takes a hit from e-mail, pay-to-play claims.”
This is just one of the scores of examples where Trump continually gets negative coverage from you. Both candidates have extremely low favorable ratings and plenty of scandalous material to draw from, but it is as if Democrat Hillary Clinton’s campaign makes decisions on your above-the-fold, frontpage articles.
I know it may be too much to ask, but please be fair in your reporting.
John Damitz
Fountain Valley
Blame Congress or the president? Re “Congress knew about efforts to take back soldier bonuses,” Oct. 25
For two years the donothing Republican Congress failed to stop the Pentagon from telling California National Guard members to pay back the enlistment bonuses they received last decade. But with the election less than two weeks away, they’re falling all over themselves to correct this monumental injustice.
We’ve watched members of Congress abrogating their responsibilities just to make President Obama look bad. They played chicken with the budget, shut down the government and failed to vote on a Supreme Court nominee.
There’s a novel solution at hand: Vote them out of office and hand President Hillary Clinton a Democratic Congress. We’ll all be amazed at how well the government works without Republicans.
Steve Weller
Encinitas
This article portrays the Democrats in Congress, namely House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), as heroes and the Republican leadership as foot-dragging dullards who have done nothing to “pass legislation to halt the Pentagon debt recovery.”
This misses a small point: The Pentagon is a part of the Obama administration. It was his administration that tried to claw back money from veterans, and it was his administration that had the power to stop this.
James Bianchi
Morro Bay
I’m a Vietnam-era veteran. I have always been proud of my service in both the Navy and in the Army. But now I am ashamed of my elected officials and am reluctant to admit that I once was a service member.
My government is responsible to the men and women who protect our country and our rights. My government has failed miserably, and it continues to do so.
We the people elect our members of Congress. We the people have the right and responsibility to remove them when they fail to represent us — and they have failed.
Therefore, the next time they’re up for election, they’re out.
Steve Feldman
Van Nuys
Where to house the homeless? Re “L.A. councilman at home with this issue,” column, Oct. 23
I reside in Los Angeles City Councilman Mike Bonin’s district and have gone to a number of his neighborhood meetings. During the last few years, I e-mailed him pictures of homeless encampments, graffiti and property damage and wrote of the intimidation that residents face.
He responded only once.
Measure HHH, which he advocates, is a bad solution. It uses valuable property to build shelters for the homeless. (I am for that!) But if that property were to be sold to developers, the income could provide many more shelters either through new construction or redevelopment. We should provide shelter to those who need it, but a guarantee of beach property seems extravagant.
Let’s make this city welcoming to those who have been good citizens but are down on their luck. Let’s not provide sanctuary to those who choose the lifestyle. This has a better chance of happening if the city sells its beachside property and provides more housing with the largess.
Arthur Kraus
Venice
Bonin’s leadership is to be applauded. His efforts have meant renewed attempts by the city of Los Angeles and the county to locate the funds and develop a plan to address the shortage of housing for homeless and low-income people in Los Angeles.
Each community must help, including Venice. When homeless people are housed in permanent supportive housing, which includes ongoing services, each person is able to stabilize and begin getting the assistance they may need for health, mental health, substance use and other issues.
The many issues described by Venice residents who are opposed to housing homeless people there will no longer be as problematic when people have homes.
Elizabeth Benson
Forer Venice
The writer is chief executive of the Venice Family Clinic.
Support for Standing Rock Re “Tension rises at pipeline protest,” Oct. 25
Protesters and law enforcement differ on what’s happening near the construction site of an oil pipeline in North Dakota, but the demonstrations have been remarkably peaceful and the brutality of law enforcement and its attempts to silence media coverage are obvious.
What is also clear is industry and government’s ongoing disregard for tribal concerns, climate and the environment. Why haven’t the presidential candidates weighed in on this when so many Americans and even the United Nations have?
We are all stakeholders in the outcome. We don’t need this new pipeline or any other that would encourage production of fuel that we also don’t need and can’t afford to burn. The climate news worsens continually as models are refined, new data are obtained and climate change’s consequences become increasingly apparent.
The conclusion is clear: Fossils must remain in the ground. That is one reason I support the Standing Rock Sioux.
Carol Steinhart
Madison, Wis.
‘Schizophrenic’ battle? No. Re “A schizophrenic battle in Iraq,” Oct. 21
Those who wrote this headline about fighting in Iraq need to take the National Alliance on Mental Illness’ free class.
The article has nothing to do with mental illness. The headline shows insensitivity and ignorance about schizophrenia and the impact of such loose language on people living with the disease. It’s outdated and hurtful.
Frances Tibbits
Pacific Palisades