Letter to the editor: Misinformed on Obama vs. Trump | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Misinformed on Obama vs. Trump

It’s hard to know where to begin with Ron Raymond’s letter “Obama vs. Trump.” Like so many other right-wing parrots, he directs us to see the effects of socialism in Venezuela. Funny, I never hear these people speak of Norway, Canada or Finland, to name a few.

The only reason Barack Obama may be seen as an “ineffective president” is that the Republicans have sabotaged his work at every turn. Obama’s accomplishments were considerable, and included the Iran agreement, which was working.

Raymond says Trump has given us security, but now we have threat of war with Iran. Kim Jong Un, his buddy, is building more bombs.

But let’s talk about climate change, arguably the biggest security threat we have. Trump pulled us out of the Paris accords and has overturned, or is in the process of overturning, 78 environmental laws and counting. Climate change is not a hoax. The military and all but a handful of scientists, most paid by energy companies, agree that this is an existential threat to our planet. Do you want to get your science from scientists or the partisan talking heads on Fox News?

It is clear to any thinking person that if you support Trump, you must be either very misinformed or very rich. Which are you, Mr. Raymond? Do you have children who will have to live in the world you will be leaving them? I hope people will wake up before it is too late. The Grand Old Party is not what it used to be.

Al Duerig


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.