MeredithMay2017

Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.

 

Hillary lost because of her cavalier attitude & licentious words

To The Daily Sun,

Froma Harrop stated we should martyr Hillary Clinton.There were many mistakes made by Clinton in 2016. The media treated her like a queen ready for coronation. The DNC ran interference against Bernie Sanders by sabotaging his campaign. It was so blatant that the chairperson, Debbi Wasserman-Schultz had to resign. Next, the deputy director, Donna Brazile, also resigned.

The mendacious actions of the DNC and feeding questions to Hillary Clinton before the presidential debates, was unethical to say the least.

The Benghazi cover-up was perpetrated by Clinton and Obama to make sure Obama was re-elected. The cavalier attitude conveyed by Clinton during the debates was smug, as she danced around questions with prepared answers as she already had been given the questions beforehand.

The Clinton email debacle didn't start just days before the Nov. 8 election. It was part of an ongoing investigation by the FBI, exacerbated by Bill Clinton surreptitiously meeting with the attorney general, Loretta Lynch, on the tarmac in a parked airplane. That is what dominated headlines.

Clinton was so confident about the election, she didn't even bother to go to Wisconsin to campaign.

She did win 2.5 million votes more than Trump. She won over 2 million more votes in California and New York. About one half of her electoral total came from those two, plus one or two more.

Hillary didn't lose because of the FBI Director James Comey, or Bernie Sanders, and she didn't lose because of the mainstream media or Russian hackers. She lost because of her cavalier attitude and her licentious and mendacious statements.

You mention her normal mistakes and many accomplishments mixed together is the joke of the year. In her 35-plus years in politics, she made many mistakes as first lady, senator, secretary of state. Can you name one accomplishment she can take credit for? It seems like you have been drinking some crazy Kool-Aid before writing this article.

Rich Tjaden
Meredith

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 487

If we'd followed Bush's advice, Granny would be driving a Tesla

To The Daily Sun,

The stock market indexes are hitting one new high after another. They have risen about 5 percent since Trump was elected. In 2009, the day Obama took office the market was 8,000. Today it is 20,000, a stunning 250 percent increase in seven years. This happened not because of a strong economy, but gains driven by the ingenuity and aggressiveness of American business to prosper in other countries around the globe.

In the backdrop of the stock market explosion inequality has become the fire brand, the political talking point of the left. Like racism before it, wealth differences must be used as a cudgel to bang envy into the party faithful and create anger in the masses, with the sole intent to provoke a vote for the Democratic Party. Remember, the Democrats have been the self-proclaimed advocates of the less fortunate for 100 years. Every new spend-and-tax "contraption" Democrats dream up is cloaked in promises to reduce the number of poor.

Obamacare is just the latest in a long line of Democratic boondoggles promised to reduce the number poor only to flame out like an exploding star leaving more poor with new billions of debt for taxpayers that always leads to the bankruptcy of every program.

We need to ask ourselves an honest question. Why would Democrats ever want fewer poor people when their most basic election model relies totally on more poor people, not fewer — those voters rely exclusively on the benevolence of government for the opulence of their living standards. Every dollar of increased wealth in the hands of the bottom 50 percent increases their chances to escape government dependence. Once and for all breaking the cold, iron shackles the Democratic Party has on them to vote Democratic.

There is nothing that could be any more devastating to the Democratic Party's election hopes than to have the wealth of the bottom 50 percent suddenly rise substantially. It is no coincidence after more than a century of promises from a long line of prophets like Obama, the poor remain prolific, poverty endemic, and inequality is busting at the seams.

The less fortunate are never — I repeat, never — going to be better off without owning assets. It is how the rich add trillions to their wealth even under presidencies as failed as Obama's. George Bush and Republicans strongly advocated for private accounts for Social Security (SS) be tied to our equity markets. This forced, long-term, growing, financial assets into the hands of the poor and working class. Democrats responded by showing poor, granny going off a cliff in a rocking chair.

Let me point out what Democrats won't. Had we followed Bush's advice, poor Granny today would now be sitting in a new Tesla, not the Democrats' old rocking chair had her Social Security monies been indexed to the stock market. Granny would have experienced a spectacular gain similar in percentage to that of the top 1 percent. The bottom 50 percent would now be sitting with trillions of added wealth, money that it did not have to be taken from someone else. We would have made a small dent in inequality. Tens of Millions of people would be a little less poor.

That's why Democrats oppose everything that honestly aims to reduce inequality and not exacerbate it. Fewer poor harms their election prospects. That Democrats are advocates of the poor is like believing a fox guards the hen house to protect it from wolves.

Tony Boutin
Gilford

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 455