Letters to the Editor 10/23/2024

Editor’s note:

The Nugget received an exceptionally heavy volume of letters to the editor this week. We are running as many letters as space allows in the print edition this week, with first priority given to letters regarding local matters. All of the letters may be accessed at http://www.nuggetnews.com.

Recognizing the keen interest in issues surrounding the November 5 election, we will endeavor to place as many of those letters as possible in the October 30 print edition as well, space permitting.

Jim Cornelius, Editor in Chief

Sheriff’s coverage

To the Editor:

Thank you for your fair, factual, and complete coverage of the current Sheriff’s office election controversy. I wish all election coverage was as fair, accurate, and well researched as yours. As usual, the factual issues in this race are more complex and multidimensional than the political posturing on both sides would indicate.

I am grateful to live in a community that still puts a premium on honesty and integrity over partisanship. I wish other folks in Oregon and elsewhere were as lucky as we are in this regard.

Keep up the good work.

Paul Lipscomb

Madrone for council

To the Editor:

I’m writing to express my support for Eli Madrone in his candidacy for Sisters City Council. Eli is a personal friend, but more importantly, he’s an active and helpful member of the Sisters Community.

When I first met Eli, he was helping coach our kids’ Little League team. He invited me to apply to be a member of the City Parks Board with him, where I saw his love of Sisters and his dedication to the community firsthand.

I’ve seen Eli actively engage in local issues, from supporting our parks and public spaces to volunteering to ensuring Sisters remains a vibrant and welcoming place for families and businesses alike. As a parent of a child at Sisters Elementary School and a small business owner, Eli understands firsthand the challenges and opportunities our community faces.

Eli is a thoughtful, solutions-focused leader who listens to the needs of the community. His vision for the future of Sisters balances growth with the preservation of the town’s unique character. I hope you will join me in supporting Eli Madrone by casting your vote for him on November 5.

Asa Sarver

Pets on school property

To the Editor:

We love our furry friends, however due to recent issues, we kindly remind the community to help keep our school grounds clean by picking up after their pets while on school property.

Also, please note that our school campuses are closed to dog walking guests during the school day (8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.) Monday through Friday.

Failure to respect these rules may result in the grounds being closed to the public. Let’s work together to maintain a safe and clean space for everyone! Thank you.

Curtiss Scholl

Sisters School District Superintendent

Supporting McDougall

To the Editor:

I urge you to vote for Sarah McDougall for Sisters City Council.

Sarah has what it takes to be a great City Councilor. Her background as a project manager means she studies a situation and follows through. Sarah is a great listener and respectful to all. She is solution oriented and has a wonderful sense of humor. Sarah knows what is happening in town, and she has much to contribute with her talents and knowledge.

I have known Sarah for over three years and have worked closely with Sarah for over two years on the Board of Citizens4Community, of which she is currently president. Her contributions to the nonprofit have been very significant, and she has dedicated hundreds of hours of her time and talent to the volunteer position. During much of this time, Sarah has also been on the City Planning Commission, where I know her efforts and skills have also been appreciated.

It is my opinion that Sarah is ready to make an even bigger positive impact on Sisters.

Jane Paxson

To the Editor:

Sarah McDougall for Sisters City Council

This upcoming election is not only important on a national level, but it’s significant on the local level as well. Specifically, the seats up for election on our City Council warrant careful attention. One City Council candidate in particular that deserves your vote is Sarah McDougall. I’ve worked closely with Sarah on the City of Sisters Planning Commission where she has consistently demonstrated her devotion to the city and its long-term livability and vitality. Sarah has a strong understanding of the issues facing our town, especially land use and housing. She possesses the intelligence and impartiality to find equitable solutions, and isn’t afraid to ask tough questions. She is a consensus-builder and can provide strong leadership to shepherd our beloved city into the future. Sarah McDougall will be getting my vote this November and I wholeheartedly recommend that she receive your vote as well.

Jeff Seymour

To the Editor:

Sisters’ residents have the opportunity to elect three new members to the City Council. Sarah McDougall has spent the last two years talking to neighbors, attending numerous meetings and workshops and donating her time to important nonprofit work. Sarah has done her homework – she’s served as a member of the Planning Commission, the Budget Committee and the Parks Advisory Board. She has the background and experience to be an excellent member of the City Council and her commitment to the principals of constructive collaboration and respectful dialogue will be an asset as the Council faces important decisions about Sisters’ future.

Please join me and cast your vote for Sarah McDougall for Sisters City Council.

Dixie Eckford

Response to two letters

To the Editor:

Two letters from last week struck a chord with me. The first was “God and Freedom” by Chet Davis. Mr. Davis, I am truly sorry for the loss of your grandson and I wholeheartedly support the soldiers fighting to save Urkraine’s freedom. It must make you both very proud and very sad for your grandson.

The second paragraph I found confusing. In the first sentence, I am assuming that when you say millions vote for socialism every 4 years, you really mean that millions are voting for a democrat party candidate and that democrat equals socialist. I would point out that millions also vote for a GOP candidate every 4 years, and notably since 1980 when Reagan was elected, we have had 24 years of GOP presidents and 20 years of Democrat presidents. Even if there are socialist voters, they have not been successful the majority of the time so your statements are historically unfounded. Another thing I don’t understand is that many like you have been talking about the collapse of the U.S. due to socialism for decades and it has yet to occur. I think that it is misleading and inflammatory to say that millions in our country vote for socialism and the collapse of the United States every 4 years. If millions did vote for collapse of the U.S., it has been decidedly unsuccessful thus far.

The second sentence is equally confusing in that I think you must be equating socialism with communism. Socialism does not hate god, although I am not sure which god you are referring to, and it does not hate freedom. You might be able to make a case for communism qualifying for that statement, but I have included three definitions that help clarify what socialism, Christian socialism and socialism in terms of the church and state are defined as. It is very obvious that these definitions show that socialism does not hate god and freedom.

Socialism — is a social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. Are cattle ranchers that want to graze their cattle on public lands actually socialist?

Christian socialism — is a religious and political philosophy in the U.S. that blends Christianity and socialism, endorsing socialist economics on the basis of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus and God.

Clearly this definition, indicates that socialists across the board do not hate God, Jesus, or the Bible. Again communism might be what you are thinking of.

Separation of Church and State: Socialists support all religious freedoms but do not believe in a relationship between the state and any religion in particular.

I hope this fulfills the challenge that was requested in your letter.

The second letter entitled “Too emotional,” by Pat Farr made statements that were so astounding, I could not believe that someone in this day and age would actually put them in writing. Especially if Pat is Patricia and not Patrick! The first paragraph is just the typical political opinion of VP Harris but it is the second paragraph that is other worldly. It is “rare to have a strong willed, informed woman”? And “women are too emotional to handle world affairs”? Good luck with those opinions in this day and age! Let me just run a few names of some women in recent history by you. Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Queen Elizabeth II, Benazir Bhutto, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel and Jacinda Ardern. Look them up but the short description is that they are all strong willed, informed women that were elected to run countries at high emotion times.

And did you also know that as of October 1, 2024, with the election of Claudia Pardo as President of Mexico (now there is low-stress position), there are presently 26 female heads of state or government in the world today. Lastly, I do believe you have successfully insulted all of the women in the military, law enforcement services, intelligence services, medical field, etc., that thrive in high emotion positions in the U.S. today. I would not have put my real name on that letter.

Mark Parchman

Crossing flags

To the Editor:

The crossing flags in Sisters have been a great safety addition to the streets for years. The Christmas lights, truck headlights, and undimmed car lights nearly obscure the orange flags in the brightness and glare.

As a result they are not as helpful as they could be at night. The addition of reflective strips on each side of the flag would increase visibility. These would be an easy addition by stapling strips to each side.

Alice Stolzberg

Measure 117

To the Editor:

This is simply a public service announcement to call attention to Measure 117 which we, as Oregonians, will have the opportunity to vote on in this election cycle. Measure 117 would implement ranked choice voting (RCV) for future Oregon elections, potentially providing voters with more options and requiring politicians to win a majority of voter approval (currently, a candidate can win with approximately 30 percent of the vote).

RCV is currently used in Alaska and Maine as well as 50 other municipalities, including Benton County, Oregon. In a time where many voters feel unheard at the national level, it’s important to remember that we have a great amount of influence over our state elections and RCV could potentially provide us with even more.

This letter is not meant to convince anyone to vote one way or the other but to simply raise awareness about this unique opportunity to alter our state voting system and to encourage our voters to research the implications of Measure 117 and RCV in general.

Wishing us all a safe and civil election season.

Nathan Woodworth

Too emotional?

To the Editor:

I’m not surprised at the comments expressed by Pat Farr’s letter in last week’s Nugget. We know there are those that hold those views.

What does surprise me is that our local newspaper — normally a leader in this community’s concerted efforts to advance civility — would publish a letter that is so patently racist, sexist, and wrong.

Thomas Clasen

To the Editor:

Can you please explain your decision to print Pat Farr’s letter? Are there things that The Nugget would not print? Where does The Nugget draw the line? If the mission of The Nugget is indeed “maintaining community connection,” it seems like you have missed the mark and shot yourself in the foot.

I appreciate your reasonable explanation of why The Nugget needs to start charging money to deliver to mailboxes, but why would I pay to have misogyny, bigotry, and racism delivered to my mailbox when I can get it for free in many places?

I value The Nugget and its role in our community. If you are asking your readership to adapt to the new reality of a modern media landscape, then I would ask The Nugget to adapt to the times as well. Our community deserves better.

Beth Wood

Editor’s reply:

Part of maintaining community connection is providing a town square where people can argue their corner on the issues of the day. The Nugget prefers to keep as loose a rein on the discourse as possible, under the assumption that everybody can hold their own when the fur flies. Robust discourse may include people promulgating notions that are offensive to some and/or past their sell-by date in the marketplace of ideas. It’s not always easy to judge whether a letter reflects a sincerely held belief of the writer or is designed merely to be provocative. Sometimes they can be both. Mrs. Farr made an aggressive statement — and got plenty of pushback from letter writers marshaling argument and evidence to make their point. That can be uncomfortable, but it seems to me to be a good outcome.

Jim Cornelius

Editor in Chief

To the Editor:

I am a bit shocked and dismayed that a particular letter was published in The Nugget (October 16).

I found the letter to be misogynistic in the worst way. Maybe not as a hatred of women, but certainly a prejudice against us.

Historically women have been undervalued and have lacked the same basic rights as men. It really has only been in the last 100 years that women have protested and fought to gain those same rights.

I’m sorry but I don’t buy the idea that women can’t run the United States or deal with world affairs. There have been women all over the world who have run their countries in exemplary fashion with grit and fortitude. Think of Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Angela Merkel, and even Queen Elizabeth II. Just to name a few.

Given the same rights, opportunities, and determination women can achieve anything a man can.

Let’s move on from archaic thinking!

Laura Fouts

To the Editor:

I hope that there are many women out there that took offense to Pat Farr’s comment about how RARE it is to find a woman capable and not “too emotional” to handle world affairs.

Perhaps Pat (man/woman?) needs to review history and reflect on all the women that run countries around the world and look at their records of achievements. As a woman I ask how much is too much emotion? Having emotional responses can help solve problems on a more human level. An emotional response is not something to fear in a leader – the fear comes when that person can’t control their emotional responses and act selfishly for their own gain, which can occur in both men and women.

Are there no men you can think of out there that have become “too emotional” and made poor decisions for our country or other countries?

Christine Funk

To the Editor:

I’m disappointed in The Nugget’s decision to publish Pat Farr’s “Too Emotional” letter in the October 16 issue. I don’t think that my own personal politics would be a surprise to anyone who has ever stepped foot in my business, Paulina Springs Books, (or frankly even walked past it), but I believe that there are many in this community who know that I am more than willing to engage and have conversations with people whose viewpoints differ from mine. In fact, my right to carry books and host authors whose ideas I disagree with is something that I have vehemently defended within my own industry and is a subject that I have even given testimony on to our state’s Congress. That approach, however, should be centered on substantive contributions to the debate.

It is important for us as readers of this paper (which we are exceedingly lucky to have) to be able to separate opinion pieces from journalism and lord knows there have been many letters to the editor that have been full of misinformation, logical fallacies, or were clearly written in bad faith...that’s all part of us having this space. Pat Farr’s letter, however, is blatantly inflammatory, misogynistic, belittling to half of the paper’s readership, and does next to nothing to contribute in a meaningful way to our current political debate; and, if you follow her argument that women are “too emotional to handle world affairs” through to its end, would even suggest that women should not be able to vote (foreign policy is, after all, a pretty big part of a political platform). It is the belief of myself and others I have spoken with that the decision to publish this type of letter is a misstep and, unfortunately, delegitimizes the publication as a whole.

I believe in the importance of spaces where our community can express the myriad perspectives, beliefs, and opinions that we all hold. The Nugget is a fantastic resource and example of this. It is my hope that in the future more editorial discretion will be exercised in order to protect this space and prevent it from devolving into a thread of petty exchanges - we can all easily find that elsewhere if we wish.

Lane Jacobson

To the Editor:

My question is why would The Nugget Newspaper/Jim Cornelius even publish the letter from Pat Farr ‘Too Emotional’ in the October 16 edition, which was so derogatory towards women. Why print sexist/misogynistic comments that could offend half of the population? What is the point of furthering false stereotypes and what is your responsibility as the only “newspaper” in Sisters? Are you trying to promote further division or shock value? Research shows that women are less reactive than men, and are less likely to be autocratic or arrogant in leadership roles. There are many leaders all over the world who are women. In the past and now. Other countries get it.

Jane M. Lindquist

Editor’s reply:

Political opinions tend to offend people sometimes. As might a letter that throws scare quotes around “newspaper.” Yet, we’re publishing it.

Jim Cornelius, Editor in Chief

To the Editor:

A response to the following sentence from Pat Farr’s letter dated October 16:

“I have lived long enough to know that it is rare to have a strong willed, informed woman to be able to handle the office of President as they are too emotional to handle world affairs.”

My first instinct was to respond with a comprehensive list of successful, elected female leaders of developed countries. Or perhaps a well-researched, emotion-free roundup of scientific studies debunking what Ms. Farr (a woman herself, if my quick lookup is correct) thinks she has seen through the biased lens of her own life. But I’m not going to — I only get 300 words.

Instead, I want to point out the double-bind in Ms. Farr’s statement.

For centuries, women have been stereotyped through statements like these again and again — which originate from a male-run society and are spoken by both men and women. These sentiments are, by design, infuriating, frustrating, and saddening. And women have long internalized that messaging, thinking, “I can’t say anything, because if I show an ounce of emotion I’ll be proving them right.”

The idea that women are hobbled by their “emotionality” is an outdated myth perpetuated by sexist people to keep women in a state of subservience and self-doubt.

I am a woman. Ms. Farr’s claim makes me feel frustrated, angry, and sad for the world we live in. I have emotions, and they are appropriate here. But that does not mean, as a woman, that I’m unable to access my logical faculties and inner strength to handle complex and challenging situations. And it certainly does not mean it’s OK to make blanket statements about the 168-plus million women in our nation and the jobs they can “handle.”

Olivia Collins

To the Editor:

This is my first letter to the editor. I just moved here two years ago and love reading The Nugget and the letters to the editor but this one letter by Pat Farr is so out of line and I can’t believe it was even published.

It’s not only racist and sexist, it is also false. Kamala Harris was not a DEI and has more qualifications that most presidents running in the past 100 years! I assume that Pat Farr is older and was raised in a [biased] way and it is sad that she does not believe that a woman can run a country. She must have a poor value for herself and other women. There have been many women leaders throughout history around the world and are respected and did a great job.

My Dad is 93 and he is voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz; he knows how much she can do to heal this divided country. She has the strength, knowledge, empathy, and compassion to lead this country forward. Maybe under her leadership we can finally protect our children from gun violence and mass shootings — something men leaders can’t seem to accomplish.

Kathy Marshall

To the Editor:

Prime Ministers. Chancellors. Presidents. Australian. Bangladeshi. British. Indian. Slovenian. Ukrainian. Thai. South Korean. Peruvian. Samoan. Ethiopian. South African. Marshallese. Senegalese. Leaders during war, world-wide pandemics, and terror attacks. Conservative. Liberal. Centrist. Christian. Muslim. Buddhist. Since 1960, women have served as heads of government in over a third of the UN member states. And, no, not just spouses or daughters of former male leaders, but formally elected, capable leaders. “If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.” ~Margaret Thatcher

Gigi Merrill

To the Editor:

As the husband of a strong-willed, informed, and intelligent woman I have to reply to Pat Farr’s letter in The Nugget regarding women and their ability to lead. My first response will be completely subjective. Poppycock!

Now let’s be objective:

• Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, 2005–2021, elected four times.

• Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, 1966–1971, 1980–1984.

• Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel, 1969–1974.

• Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of England, 1979-1990, longest serving English PM in 20th century.

• Vigdis Finnbogadottir, President of Iceland, 1980-1996, elected three times.

• Mette Frederiksen, Prime Minister of Denmark since 2019.

• Gro Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway, elected three times, served ten years.

• Sanna Marin, Prime Minister of Finland, 2019-2023.

• Ellen Sirleaf, President of Liberia, 2006–2018

• Giorgia Meloni, Prime Minister of Italy, elected 2022.

• Claudia Sheinbaum, President of Mexico, elected 2024.

This is a short list. According to World Population Review, 29 countries currently have women in the highest position of power. Since 1960, according to website Statista, 62 countries have had a woman hold the highest position of political power. Maybe Pat Farr should have used the IMO strategy. After all, anyone can have an opinion about anything. But to state that he or she knows that women aren’t emotionally up to the challenge is, in a word, poppycock!

Kevin Statham

To the Editor:

Regarding Pat Farr’s letter “Too emotional”. Not all women have what it takes to lead a nation, and neither does every man. I think it would be more accurate for her to change her use of “they” to “I.” In doing so, I would no longer object to her statement.

Sarah Keeton

To the Editor:

I am disappointed in The Nugget’s editorial decision to print Pat Farr’s letter last week. Publishing content that perpetuates negative gender bias does a disservice to our community. We should evaluate leadership based on an individual’s abilities, policies, and character rather than on outdated stereotypes.

While I understand that the Letters section is intended to offer a range of opinions, I urge the editorial team to recognize the responsibility that comes with your platform as a community paper, one that is read by many girls and young women. Providing a voice to perspectives rooted in sexism does not foster healthy debate —it bolsters harmful narratives that we should be moving beyond as a society. As we near the election, I encourage The Nugget to prioritize publishing content that cultivates respectful discourse.

Laura Leis

Replace Trump

To the Editor:

It is inexcusable that people are supporting Trump in this election. He is an inveterate liar, is emotionally unstable and mentally failing, admires dictators, is irrational in his comments, intends to hijack as much federal power as he can to punish his opponents, and has absolutely no moral or ethical restraints to his greedy persona.

His rants about inflation and immigration are purely political red herrings. Congress tried to clamp down on illegal immigration but Trump scuttled that effort so he could use border insecurity as a campaign issue. And POTUS can not control inflation. His message appeals only to folks who watch propaganda (Fox News and Truth Social) instead of legitimate news media. He has set back race relations decades. He is a cult leader, reminiscent of Jim Jones. Trump’s behavior and policies are a much greater danger to this country than are immigration and inflation.

He is unfit by any criteria to be President of this great nation.

Donald Harner

Vote smart

To the Editor:

As voting looms on the horizon, we must challenge ourselves to be educated voters. America’s future is in the balance.

Firstly, let’s acquaint ourselves by reading the Declaration of Independence (Preamble) and the U.S. Constitution (Amendments). Our founding fathers based these precious documents on Judeo Christian principles which have held us in good stead for 248 years.

Secondly, we have two candidates who have held powerful positions in the U.S. government running for the Presidency. We are fortunate to be able to compare their past policies to see if their positions and direction reflect or differ from the documents of our founding fathers. Review each candidate’s positions on: free speech; freedom of religion; sanctity of life; border security; families and parental rights — to name a few.

Then, putting aside media buzz, gender, race, party, personality and age, vote for the candidate whose policies best reflect the vision of our founding fathers for our nation, our neighbor, and ourselves. Let’s educate ourselves before we vote to make a smart vote based on policies of the candidates we select. It is our right , our privilege, and our duty to vote.

Carla Zylius

To the Editor:

My husband grinned as he read Pat Farr’s letter to the editor (October 16) to me. He knew I would find it both tedious and preposterous.

Does something so diminutive in historical awareness or imagination even deserve a response? Maybe not, and so here I may make a mistake. I considered citing all the various examples of female courage, leadership, prowess, intelligence (Harriet Tubman, Marie Curie, Joan of Arc, Margaret Thatcher, Katherine Johnson, Jane Goodall, and on and on...).

But no, Kamala Harris does not need me to come to her rescue. She does not need me to defend her. She has faced down more than a few bad actors.

In a very short amount of time I trust that this great nation is going to put Kamala Harris in the White House (with the aid of voters who know much better than Ms. Farr) and then we can all watch and learn in real time as President Harris helps put to bed, I hope forever, the myth of Woman-as-Damsel.

Owyhee Weikel-Magden

To the Editor:

I am always curious why one would embrace the fever dream of Donald Trump. Well, a writer to The Nugget (October 16) has given her reasons. She will vote for him because he supports abortion (regardless of the health or wishes of the mother, even if it results in death), he supports Israel (although Biden has helped Israel butcher tens of thousands of Palestinians, which apparently is not enough), and he favors “border security” — which he left in a mess.

In addition, it must be said that although the unvarnished Trump is there for all to see — [civilly liable for sex abuse], adulterer, compulsive liar, grifter, crook, convicted felon, and, if Jack Smith’s indictment regarding January 6 is proven, a traitor — but none of this matters to his acolytes like our aforesaid writer. They live in the realm of the imagination, a realm we call the twilight zone.

Gary Leiser

To the Editor:

I don’t like Trump, I don’t like Harris for president. I have issues with both the Democratic and Republican platforms. Anybody else out there with me on this? It is embarrassing to think that out of thousands of qualified people, these two have become our “best of the best” options. Really?

Hoping to live my life fully for an audience of One (Christ), I sincerely beg you my brother, my sister, believing you want the best for all, to consider the following: I have devoted the last four decades to the study and care of life and I am convinced of this foundational truth….. my life, your life, began at conception and is a continuum to this very moment. A society which denies this truth in order to be rid of inconvenient persons, young, old, differently abled, is a society with a fast approaching expiration date. This is America. We are the greatest nation on earth, not because of GDP, but because we value family, friends, and faith. We have waged wars, struggled and worked hard to protect these values. Our fight is internal, the enemy within. We are the best versions of ourselves, when we have loving relationships and live lives of sacrifice for the good of the other. My deep hope is that we come together and choose what fosters kindness, compassion, peace, and joy. I urge you to vote for Life and it is no secret which party stands for Life. Please vote and vote for Life. I will be voting Trump/Vance.

Mike Amsberry DVM

To the Editor:

Someone recently asked me why I like Trump. My answer was that I don’t really like a lot of things about Trump. But this election is not about choosing the most likable person. We are voting between two vastly different ideologies. We are voting for the country we want to leave our children and grandchildren.

Trump represents that future and has proven that he can deliver. He is a patriot to the core and even served his country for four years without pay. That moment when someone says, “I can’t believe you’re voting for Trump,” I simply reply, “I’m not voting for Trump.”

I’m voting for the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech. I’m voting for the right to speak my opinion and not be censored. I’m voting for secure borders and legal immigration. I am voting for election integrity to include mandatory voter ID. I’m voting for the Second Amendment and my right to defend my life and my family. I’m voting for the police to be respected once again. I am voting for law and order and an end to allowing protesters to trespass and burn our cities, destroying innocent small businesses. I am voting for personal responsibility and the end of the revolving door where criminals are being put back on the street (Kamala Harris). I’m voting for the next Supreme Court Justice(s) to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I’m voting for a return of our troops from foreign countries and the end to America’s involement in foreign conflicts.

I’m voting for the continued appointment of federal judges who respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I’m voting for keeping our jobs to remain in America and not be outsourced all over the world — to China, Mexico, etc. I am voting for doing away with all the freebies given to all the illegals and not looking after the needs of the American citizens and homeless. I’m voting for the military and the veterans who fought for this country. I’m voting to keep men out of women’s sports. I’m voting for peace progress in the Middle East. I’m voting to fight against human trafficking. I’m voting for freedom of religion. I’m voting for the return of teaching math, history, science instead of the indoctrination of our children.

I’m not just voting for one person. I’m voting for the future of my country. I’m voting for my children and my grandchildren to ensure their freedoms.

I’m not voting for Trump; I’m voting to save America.

Dick Brady

To the Editor:

Kudos to Deborah Halsten for wishing that Americans could agree to disagree peacefully (letter to editor, October 16).  

Unfortunately, her candidate, Donald Trump, is the first president in modern times to disrespect the Constitution by refusing to accept one of democracy’s most important tenets: the peaceful transfer of power. He and his followers are like children who have a tantrum when they don’t get their way. Only this tantrum caused grave harm to the American people - both to individuals charged with the task of protecting our leaders and to our remarkable system of government “Of the People, By the People and For the People,” (The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln).

Sharon Booth

To the Editor:

When the Biden-Harris team took over, I was upset but gave them a fair shot. However, them making Trump the scapegoat for their bad policies is living proof that Trump Derangement Syndrome belongs in the Psych books! Kamala wouldn’t answer any of FOX’s Bret Baier’s questions without twisting them around and blaming Trump. Popular media have carried her administration’s water for four years. Mika Brzezinski (Morning Joe) was furious when Trump was prez and talking right to the people. She said that was because they’re the ones who are supposed to tell them what to think! That’s a quote which sent this “deplorable” right over the edge .... 

The U.S. is a republic. All citizens are supposed to have “equal” rights, but this administration has tried to silence speech they don’t like and the media have helped them. First day of their rule, they threw open our borders and since then, the masses, including prisoners, gang members, and terrorists, have flooded across into our country, where they’re being housed, fed, and clothed by us taxpayers. Meanwhile, since they’ve trashed our economy with their so-called “green” policies, prices on gas & food are soaring. Our less affluent citizens have been fighting to pay for gas and food, and credit card debt is the highest it has EVER been. We’ve also lost 100,000-plus people to fentanyl drugs (from across  our southern border thanks to the Chinese), drug cartels, and the administration’s open border. 

If you think this is great, vote for Kamala, who suddenly changed all her policies, except for abortion, in 2024! Bernie Sanders explained, “She hasn’t changed her values, she just is doing what she thinks is right to win the election.”

Reagan had more class and character, but Trump’s policies are the same. I’ll vote Trump. 

Marilyn Bernal