Editor, 235 S. Nevada Ave., CS, CO 80903 • email: firstname.lastname@example.org
If your comments are mailed or emailed to us, we'll consider them for publication — unless you request otherwise.
Please include your name, city of residence and a daytime phone number for verification.
I feel so sorry for the Democrats. They don't seem able to accept losing. It's like what we GOP folks had with Bush and Obama, but we were braver. Then you had two guys who had difficulty speaking without their teleprompters.
I never realized the Dems were such big crybabies. Just be patient and time will tell, causing a great many to have affection for Trump. My gosh! He's done more not being sworn in than Obama did for the past four years in office.
The Dems will try to pin the hacking fiasco on Trump, but let's look at it in a different, more logical way. It's all Hillary's fault. Why? The hackers were not trying to help Trump. They were trying to keep naughty Hillary at bay. Of course, it's always easy to blame Trump, but the Dems are very biased and hard-headed.
Why are they biased?
It's the fault of the media. They never reported all the facts in detail. The leaders preferred to keep the party members controlled. Having watched the "other" news shows, you could see they were mollycoddling their watchers. Only tell them what the party leaders want them to know. Hang in there. Be patient and come onboard.
I love to hear the TV rebuttals as given by the fresh-faced young ladies defending the Dems. They sound off like they've been brainwashed. They only know what they've been told. It's a shame. They sound like socialists.
— Jack Terryah
P.T. Barnum could not hold a candle to The Donald when it comes to sleight of hand. Then throw in his VP, who could be the stunt double for the shark in the opening of Finding Nemo. Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a rough ride!
— Dave Joss
Not a democracy
In response to "The winner loses" (Letters, Nov. 30): You do not live in a democracy. The United States operates as a representative republic. The Founding Fathers carefully considered and rejected democracy as a form of government. They realized the perils associated with mob rule by the ignorant and malfeasant. Our government has specific, important limitations on people's authority.
You are probably not familiar with this excerpt from the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress ..."
The Electoral College is as important today as in the 1700s. Probably more important. The system was designed to mitigate the potential for populist oppression and despotism. Social media and other modern forms of communication have increased the potential for manipulating our electorate. As we have seen, uninformed and judgmental dolts are easily swayed.
The Electoral College also helps less-populated states maintain their relevance and independence. Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas and Idaho already receive little attention. Without the electoral college, they would be ignored entirely.
This election is a good example of why most people have no business participating in national governance. We could have enjoyed a level, intelligent and well-intentioned election between two candidates with gubernatorial experience, Martin O'Malley and John Kasich. Instead we got a circus animated by two of the least qualified, most divisive candidates in recent history.
Stop whining about winners and losers in a game where you do not understand the rules. Teach your children they do not live in a democracy. In fact, they should not want to live in a democracy where tyranny is enforced by the majority.
— Bob Wolverton
Not so fast
Re: "The winner loses," if you are going to explain to your children who "won" the election of 2016, please include a lesson in American civics. Although the Electoral College should be updated to a more proportional system, converting to a direct popular vote involves more than claiming Republicans have "used" a system to win.
If you desire to change the system to elect a president, that requires a constitutional amendment. If the people desire a popular vote to elect a president, they need to badger their congressional representatives to start the process. Please realize a popular vote favors large cities like Chicago, and big cities on the coasts; that may be as "unfair" as the Electoral College system is portrayed.
Personally, I am comfortable with a system that tries to include all of the states when it comes to electing a president; I'm not sure I am ready to embrace "direct democracy" just yet.
— David Naumann
Trump is our teacher
The bitter election is thankfully over, and it ended differently than we thought. During and after the election, we were mean and nasty — the candidates, media, you and me. We had to choose between two candidates we did not like. "None of the above" wasn't an option, so most Americans held their nose and voted for, as a friend put it, "the evil of two lessers."
We Americans are split in half. That's how the voting went, and our feelings. But that scenario never works. Compromise is essential for this republic to survive, and the candidates were so far apart, no compromise was possible. Trump will be our president. Disaffection runs rampant, and though there will be a peaceful transfer of power, nobody is happy.
So here comes "the good news." Trump visited President Obama at the White House. The meeting, set for 15 minutes, lasted 90 minutes. Even after bruising elections, presidents become comrades-in-arms and each president tries to help his successor. This was no longer personal.
Afterward, Trump said these precious words: "We had never met each other. I have great respect." For me, that was an "ah-ha" moment. Those words symbolized everything that is wrong in America. We don't meet people like our grandparents did. We are too busy, there's no time, we have to get on with the next thing and the next thing. We don't know our next-door neighbors, so how could Democrats speak peacefully with Republicans and vice versa?
Wouldn't it be nice if we Americans could convene "living-room dialogues" on a national level, where two or three families could get together in their living rooms and talk about their hopes, dreams, expectations and fears? Where white folks could talk to black folks, Latinos and immigrants (legal or not)? This is America, isn't that what we are supposed to do?
I believe this would go a long way toward lessening the anger many Americans now feel. As our future president taught: "We had never met each other. I have great respect." Amen.
— Melvin Glazer
Rabbi, Temple Shalom