LETTERS: Democrats have superior debates, candidates
The Feb. 4 Democratic presidential debate is what a debate should look like, not the clown shows that make up the Republican debates. There is not a single Republican candidate who could have debated either Hillary Clinton or Sen. Bernie Sanders, let alone understood the moderators' questions. The questions were tough and required knowledge and judgement. The Republican candidates would have avoided answering the questions and instead gone into one of their programmed speeches complaining about the Obama administration's so-called shortcomings.
The Democratic debate was focused on issues, and each candidate's answers were about solutions to the problems. The candidates had ample opportunities to challenge their fellow candidates' positions, as well as allow personal comments on each other. The moderators were professional, their questions were clear and made for direct answers, while staying within the allotted times for answers and rebuttals.
Meanwhile, the Republican debates have drama, insults flying all over, unanswered questions and buzz phrases in place of solutions as candidates constantly lie about the Obama administration and use phrases such as "losers" and "stupid" over and over. The best phrases to describe the Republican debates are entertaining, silly, lacking substance and a waste of time.
I can't wait until Mrs. Clinton or Sen. Sanders debates the Republican nominee, regardless of who it is. Any questions about climate change, dark money in the election process, eliminating tax loopholes, discrimination policies, voter suppression, abortion rights, gay marriage and more will leave any Republican candidate speechless. Bring on the presidential debates.
Dave Starr
Las Vegas
Gun confiscation
Jim Graham wrote an informative letter to the editor ("Gun control," Jan. 26 Review-Journal). As a gun owner, I agree that under President Barack Obama's watch, nothing has been done to change my Second Amendment rights.
However, I disagree with Mr. Graham's statement that "President Barack Obama does not want to take anyone's guns." The president's goal is gun confiscation. Such Confiscation hasn't happened because of resistance in Congress and the current makeup of the Supreme Court.
If a Republican is not elected president, and Democrats obtain strong majority in both houses, coupled with the fact that at least two Supreme Court appointments could be made in the next four years, we may very well see a move to gun confiscation.
Lev Schneiderman
Las Vegas
Costs to tourists
My wife and I have enjoyed visiting Las Vegas two or three times a year since the late 1970s. It's bad enough that escalating food and drink prices have eliminated one of the main attractions of visiting and gaming in Las Vegas. Now, Strip hotels have added resort fees and are looking at paid parking ("MGM to charge for parking," Jan. 16 Review-Journal).
Plus, those properties are not happy with the house advantage in the casinos, so they have made the odds even worse for players. Sorry Las Vegas, but I'm dramatically cutting back my visits. I will support my local Native American casinos. At least I get free parking there.
Joe Borrello
Grand Rapids, Mich.
High Roller articles
Regarding those who wrote letters complaining about the articles on the couple charged for having sex on the High Roller (Wednesday Review-Journal), doesn't anyone have a sense of humor anymore? The secondary article was obviously written with tongue in cheek ("Vitalvegas.com's 11 vital tips for having sex on the High Roller"). I thought it was hilarious.
Jerry Gordon
Henderson
Misleading lead
Jeff German's opening paragraph in his article about Brian Bloomfield was very misleading ("Lawyer accused of lying to state bar," Thursday Review-Journal). He wrote it as if it were the judge's decision, not the prosecutors' allegation. Is this bias? The article should have begun with "prosecutors accuse," not that Mr. Bloomfield "lied under oath." I find this troublesome, as it misleads readers.
Sandy Mallin
Las Vegas
