In the Oct. 25 letters section, you published three letters supporting your endorsement of Donald Trump and seven letters opposed. Two of the Trump supporters gave substantive reasons for voting for Mr. Trump while the third one said he agreed with the endorsement.
The seven who were opposed to Mr. Trump said nothing about why they were voting for Hillary Clinton or whoever. Instead, some insisted that the Review-Journal is out of touch with the majority of our state — and even the whole country. Others called Mr. Trump every degrading name in the book while informing us that anyone who votes for Mr. Trump needs a psychiatrist, has no brains or is “out of their ever-loving minds.”
Ironically, in the last anti-Trump letter, the writer said this in closing: “In my opinion, one of the most important issues that faces our government and our people is how to reclaim civility when discussing opposing views.” I agree. Maybe actually having a discussion instead of just hurling insults would be a good start.
All we’ve got
A story on the Review-Journal’s Oct. 25 front page was headlined “Clinton positions driven by diversity.” I would have to disagree with that. “Stupidity” would be the word to substitute for “diversity.”
Donald Trump is far from the ideal candidate for president. But at least he’s not a crook.
Hillary supporters that I meet are unable to give me a single reason or success story that qualifies her for the Oval Office. Women who tell me that we need a woman in the White House don’t seem to realize that Hillary Clinton is a crook and doesn’t deserve to be anywhere near the place. Isn’t there another woman available for the job?
Between diversity and stupidity, America is just about done for. We are in desperate need of help. It may not be much … but right now Donald Trump is all we’ve got.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the Review-Journal’s endorsement of Donald Trump (“For the presidency,” Oct. 23) is the paper’s candid acknowledgement of Mr. Trump’s “impulsiveness and overheated rhetoric” and his lack of “humility.”
Voters might then infer that the Review-Journal does not believe Mr. Trump possesses the ability to act with the temperance and discipline required for a commander-in-chief, or to work prudently with his military and other advisers when dealing with foreign policy issues, including issues that could potentially result in war.
Indeed, voters who seek a prudent and deliberative commander-in-chief during times of crisis should remember that it is Mr. Trump who stated publicly, “I know more about ISIS than the generals do.”
Donald Trump is a chauvinist, possibly a bigot, and an inexperienced narcissist. The only possible reason to vote for Donald Trump is that his opponent is Hillary Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton is corrupt, dishonest, duplicitous and inept. One more administration committed to the progressive Ponzi scheme that Hillary Clinton espouses will surely bring ruin to our already crippled government.
At the cost of Mrs. Clinton as president, Mr. Trump is the only viable alternative.
For conservatives, this is a choice between the lesser of two evils and a decision not easily reached. I’m still not sure that I can go through with it. Good luck defending either of these flawed candidates.
Bullhead City, Ariz.