Comments by reader1
Posted on November 24 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
With respect to communication, you might start by reading my entire post. It was in reference to the President Elect's assertion that illegal immigrants were "bringing drugs, crime, and were rapists (although he supposed "some" were decent people). The obvious point being that, notwithstanding their illegal entry into the country, the picture the President Elect was painting of them was wildly off the mark. I'm certain most understood the point I was making. Arguing that they broke the law by entering the country is simply stating the obvious.
Posted on November 21 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
High school students are disappointed about the election and are talking about it. The young people are entitled to their opinions. I think this is a good outlet and think it's a good thing they are interested in their government.
I would suggest to them that they look into the different motivations for voting for Trump. Certainly, race and the ethnicity were issues for some and Trump played into some of that - but, there were other reasons as well. For example, Hillary talked about the glass ceiling re: women - I think a significant amount of voters felt there was an economic ceiling, keeping people out of the middle class due to the loss of manufacturing jobs (although this trend was occurring long before NAFTA). And, those voters were historically Democratic.
In short, I would caution them to not place all Trump voters into one category.
Posted on November 14 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Affirmative action has nothing to do with immigration. Nothing, two separate issues.
There were several factors that caused an uproar over his immigration policies. First and foremost, his opening speech that categorized most illegal immigrants as drug dealers, murderers, and rapists does not square with the research in this matter. In short, most illegal immigrants are no more likely, some have shown them less likely, to be involved in crime. Many people are for taking a much harder line on immigration including no path to citizenship - none of them felt it necessary to use that inaccurate, inflammatory language.
RE: affirmative action, again, the Supreme Court, the final word in these issues has drastically reduced these programs. And, I am certain his SC appointees will further reduce, probably eliminate them. The few places they remain are in some college acceptance policies, and many of those are transitioning towards class (economic) based affirmative action. The issue seems important to you so you might want to read up on it a bit.
Again, people have a right to protest, as long as they do so within the law. I wonder what your reaction was to the talk of "civil war" and "pitchforks and torches" and the eventual President Elect refusing to state he would accept the results if he lost.
Posted on November 14 at 2:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Curious that your focus keeps returning to affirmative action when it really played no role in the election. Never mentioned in a debate, certainly wasn't discussed in any significant way during the campaign.
Personally, I don't care what you believe.
Posted on November 13 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Will1960 - Revolt of protests - so there is no longer a right to protest?
KKK, American Nazis have the right to protest and you're getting bent out of shape over people protesting the results of an election?
Most racially discriminatory, I assume you are referring to affirmative action, have been drastically reduced. Wasn't even a major issue during the campaign. I'm not interested in debating that issue or anything else - that was what the election was about. The protests are probably not just about the issues - but about the candidate. I doubt you'd have seen this reaction if Cruz or Kasich won. An inflammatory candidate is getting an inflammatory reaction.
Posted on November 13 at 3:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A little puzzling that a newspaper, protected and fueled by the 1st Amendment, would condemn someone exercising their 1st Amendment rights. As contentious as this election was - you knew a significant amount of the voters for either side were going to be very upset. No excuse for any law breaking during the protest, including the disruption of traffic. In fact, I think that turns people from their cause.
RE: the "Not my President" signs and sentiments - there were plenty of those floating around after President Obama's first election. Wonder if DJ Barney was as upset about Sheriff David Clarke's "torch and pitchfork" comments? Or by the talk from some Trump backers about a civil war and taking out Hillary Clinton if she won.
It's speech protected by 1st Amendment. I'm just as upset about the election, but, the process has run its' course and we have to accept the outcome and hope that President Elect Trump has a positive effect on the country.
Posted on September 24 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
16 years seems like a light sentence for the original crime. And the fact that he was eligible for parole four times begs the question what was his earliest possible date of release?
Posted on July 6 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did they even give a version of the story?
Posted on June 26 at 7:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Glad to see the Mayor is doing well.
Posted on June 10 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DA has been consistent re: this policy. The Special prosecutor will have access to any necessary footage and the Special Prosecutor is the one seeking justice in this case - how is the DA obstructing justice?