President Obama needs Hillary Clinton to carry on what he established, because of course Donald Trump would jettison anything Obama had initiated. So, Obama lauded Hillary throughout his convention speech. He did not mention the current state of America — enormous debt, terrible race relations, millions dropped out of the workforce, Islamic terrorism everywhere and lost leadership in the world. Bill Clinton said earlier that Hillary would be a "change maker," which, of course, means she would have to jettison the Obama policies. Hmm — what to do if she is elected? The answer is clear: Do not elect her. Obama's policies are gone with either Hillary or Trump.
Bill Halling, Edina
• • •
I voted for President Obama twice. I am not enamored of Mr. Trump. But we need to remember that "better" is not the same as "good." As such, we need to decide in which areas better is not good enough and when good is a requirement.
Tom Oakes, Eden Prairie
• • •
You could compare Steve Jobs with Donald Trump. They both are characterized as leaders with abrasive personalities. But I can think of no better people for achieving grand goals.
Barbara Allen, Woodbury
• • •
Trump says he can't disclose his tax returns because they are being audited. Certainly there are some years that are no longer being audited if we go back far enough. Jeb Bush has disclosed his returns back to 1981! Hillary Clinton and many others go back to at least 2000. Why not disclose older years no longer being audited? (Even though the audit argument is weak, very, very weak.)
Doug Wobbema, Burnsville
• • •
That individuals in the Democratic Party acted to increase the chances of one candidate, Hillary Clinton, to win the nomination over her rival, Bernie Sanders, should be a huge story in our daily newspaper. The press must dig into the e-mails and tell us exactly what was written by whom and to whom, and how each message may have resulted in an advantage to Clinton over Sanders. The individuals involved need to be questioned to find out whether their intent may have differed from what they wrote and to determine their motivation for colluding against Sanders.
By making the story about Russia, which may or may not have played a part in revealing the corruption of the Democratic Party, the press has distracted its readers from the details of the corruption. We citizens need to know what is going on to the greatest extent possible so that we can hold the proper parties responsible and take action to prevent future corruption. Until the press does its job, it will be correctly considered to be biased toward Clinton's candidacy.
Dean DeHarpporte, Eden Prairie
RUSSIA, TRUMP, HACKING
Joking or being dangerous: A new Rorschach test
So, a man who seeks to be the commander in chief of our military encourages Russia to hack into a State Department e-mail account for the sake of his campaign ("Trump urges Russians to hack Clinton," July 28). Maybe now all of these supporters of his will see him for what he really is. Sadly, though, they probably won't.
Karl D. Sommer, Bloomington
• • •
Not since "Dewey Defeats Truman" has U.S. journalism, including the Star Tribune, hit such a disgusting low in integrity and misreporting. I actually listened to Trump's statement yesterday, and anyone who could possibly report it as anything other than humorous sarcasm either didn't listen to the comment, can't recognize sarcastic humor, or was looking for something to twist into a misrepresentation of the event. The reprinting of poor reporting such as this without verifying or listening to the comment is reprehensible. Your industry should not call yourselves journalists, and you certainly have lost any right to a claim of journalistic integrity!
Marc Sullivan, Richfield
• • •
What a disappointment to wake up this morning and see your headline "Trump urges Russians to hack Clinton." I watched that interview and have no doubt that Trump was being facetious. Stop with the tainted headlines for both parties and start with fair and unbiased reporting; something your newspaper is lacking.
Judy Sieve, Apple Valley
• • •
The U.S. has spent billions over the years to combat and counter foreign espionage. Clearly believing his presidential ambitions superior to the interests of our country, Trump is encouraging our long-term nemesis, Russia, to commit espionage by hacking the e-mails of his adversary. He is literally pleading with Russia to help him personally gain from that criminal act.
As a criminal-defense attorney, I am flabbergasted. The threshold for the crime of conspiracy does not take much more than the encouragement of another to commit a crime. Trump is applauding the likelihood that Russia has already committed espionage upon the U.S. government and encouraging the Russians to do it again and to share the fruits with him.
Trump has broken so many taboos that people seem to blow it off like the antics of a crazy uncle. This act of applauding and encouraging our nemesis to commit espionage against our security interests demonstrates not only a complete lack of presidential judgment, but also affirms that he is an extreme narcissist committed only to a personal win at all costs.
It is time to collectively denounce this treachery. Trump is not a savior. He is a snake-oil salesman who will never change and has now demonstrated that he is willing to sell out his country's safety for his own political gain.
Robert Speeter, Minneapolis
• • •
Dear Democratic Party:
Enough with the whining about Russian hackers. We noticed you're not denying the authenticity of messages that reveal your wanton disregard for your own primary process. Any attempt to change the subject or to distract us from your blunder insults our intelligence and makes it so much worse. Are you saying everything would have been just fine if your scheming hadn't been discovered? Your sole focus should be on explaining what happened, and what (if anything) you intend to do about it.
You keep telling us our vote is so important. Is it really? Because when you pull stuff like this, voting feels irrelevant. A few years back, you damaged trust at the local level in the same way when the mayor of my city, whom I voted for, conspired with other politicians to subvert a city referendum about spending on stadiums, which I also voted for. Makes voting seem pretty meaningless.
You need to make up your minds. Do you want our participation or not? If you do, you need to act like it.
