Smith correctly pegs Trump, supporters

John L. Smith’s column on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his groupies having thin skin might have been the best I’ve seen Mr. Smith write in the 20-plus years I’ve been reading his work (“Trump supporters just as thin-skinned,” Feb. 28 Review-Journal). Of course, he was proven right by the response of Mr. Trump’s supporters.

It’s beyond ironic that their hero can launch personal insult after personal insult, instead of actually debating key issues, yet the second Mr. Trump faces a similar attack, they start whining about others being unfair. Even Mr. Trump and his wife are complaining about people who dare return insults to the bully.

Like all bullies, Mr. Trump can dish it out, but he can’t take it.

Tim Weaver

Henderson

Protecting Clinton

Hillary Clinton sent or received at least 1,800 emails that contained classified materials, according to the State Department, with more to be released in the near future. Twenty-two of these emails were designated “top secret,” which could be exceptionally damaging if the information got into the wrong hands.

Gen. David Petraeus was charged with one count unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, which could have led to a one-year imprisonment, but he was subsequently fined $100,000 and placed on two-year probation. Stephen J. Kim received 13 months in prison for discussing classified information with a Fox News reporter. Donald Sachtleben, a former FBI bomb technician, was sentenced to more than three years in prison for possessing and disclosing secret information. And a former CIA agent faces a lengthy prison term for discussing classified data with a New York Times reporter.

Did I mention that Mrs. Clinton is still not in custody, nor has she been indicted for her transgressions, while she is actively seeking the become the Democratic nominee for president? Who do you suppose is protecting her from being charged? Perhaps our nation is experiencing a pandemic of an illness called “affluenza.”

Mrs. Clinton is still out there saying she is the most qualified, experienced candidate for president. If you consider that she was secretary of state during the Benghazi attack and the email scandal, how can anyone seriously consider supporting her effort to become president?

Terry Frazier

Mesquite

Caucus debacle

Arthur Hambacher’s letter described an unpleasant voting experience during the Nevada Republican caucus (“Out with caucuses,” Monday Review-Journal). My wife and I want to second his recommendation that caucuses be eliminated as a method of voting.

We have long subscribed to the admonition, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” My wife and I have also long believed that voting should be a private civic responsibility, accomplished by secret written ballot. Our vote is no one else’s business outside the realm of those who provide voting equipment, polling sites and account for the results of the process.

Our tax dollars have been used to purchase, transport, place and maintain voting machines available to voters for 12 hours on election days. These machines seem to accurately record votes, maintain an archival record and promptly report the results for public consumption.

It’s the candidates’ responsibility to propagate their positions on relevant issues, and the voters’ responsibility to separate the wheat from the chaff through due diligence. Attempts to mix these responsibilities by caucuses results in a chaotic, time-wasting, confusing substitute for orderly voting.

My first experience with the caucus concept was in 2012, and that was a disaster. I found the caucus process so disagreeable that I wanted to completely withdraw from the primary process. I didn’t, but the option remains open. I don’t see the advantages supposedly gained by caucuses and urge their abandonment, reverting to conventional voting by secret ballot. Voting is a serious responsibility and should be treated as such.

Kenneth F. Hines

Las Vegas