It’s the Democrats who are being manipulated by the Russians
Columnist Larry Brown is quite right that “If we lose our confidence that elections are fair, democracy falls apart” (“2020 will be the year of tipping point choices,” Ideas & Opinion, Jan. 3) He is also certainly correct that Donald Trump in 2016 said that an election loss by him would mean the election was “rigged.” From that, he posits that Trump might refuse to accept an unfavorable result in the upcoming election.
Of course, Trump won the last election. While considering the threat to democracy posed by a hypothetical attack on an election’s legitimacy, Brown ignores the one that actually occurred. Democrats and their allies in the media have persistently undermined confidence in the results of the election they lost in 2016.
It is the Democrats who are already laying the groundwork for continued resistance to the election results in the event Trump is re-elected. Even after voting an impeachment, House Democrats are already investigating possible grounds for additional impeachments. Should the Democrats retain control of the House of Representatives, a permanent impeachment inquiry seems a more likely scenario than a refusal by Trump to accept adverse election results.
Fiona Hill, an academic who has served under several presidents and is no Trump apologist, testified at Adam Schiff’s impeachment hearing that the goal of the Russians in 2016 was not to elect Trump but, at a time when Hillary Clinton’s election was considered a certainty, to discredit the presidency, whoever was elected. In that, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. The Democrats have been the Russians willing dupes.
Brian R. Merrick, West Barnstable
It seems to me that whenever Donald Trump does something controversial that results in blowback, he does something else to draw attention away from the situation that got him into hot water. Congress impeached him in December and news sources have stated that Trump is very upset about it.
Now it is identified that he personally ordered the hit on Iranian General Soleimani. Some analysts are stating that this action could result in a major war in the Middle East. My question is did Trump target the general to draw attention away from his impeachment? And is the threat of major war the consequence of Trump’s personal agenda to divert attention away from his impeachment?
Brian Nickerson, Falmouth
Nation does not need an old, moderate voice
I was buying rear calipers for my wife’s Prius and got into a friendly conversation with the parts store manager.
He said, “What you Democrats need is a moderate candidate like Biden.” I had no response at the time.
A few hours later, while installing said auto parts, I thought about Hillary Clinton. She was a super-qualified, moderate Democratic candidate. Perhaps a moderate is not what is needed or wanted?
I delivered both of my children because the hospital was too expensive. That choice was made by my wife and me. How many people go without health care because of the price? Obamacare is too expensive. We need Medicare for all. The rich can keep their private insurance. That’s how Canada does it.
Joe Biden recently said this: “Poor kids are just as smart as white kids.” Joe seems to be a really nice guy. He’s just too old, mentally.
Scott Trask, Harwich
Build small, safe nuclear power plants
Recent letters have suggested that some cabal is promoting resurgence of nuclear power at our peril. The facts suggest otherwise. The real peril is climate warming, which is, if anything, accelerating despite our widespread but meager efforts. The first hurdle in this conversation is to understand how dire the circumstances are, and the second is to appreciate how we cannot slow warming without truly revolutionary thinking. Fortunately, thanks to the Bill Gates Foundation, five years of hard thinking have shown that small, safe, cost-effective power plants can be built. They came within a whisker of building a demonstration plant in China only to be derailed by the trade war. They will persist. The new plants will be powered by our huge mountain of spent fuel rods, which requires little additional processing. Our current supply will last more than 125 years. The design precludes catastrophic failure.
Neither climate change nor safe and innovative nuclear power are fake news. The United States can be a leader in climate-saving technology with this and other ideas. We should get to work.
Thomas Sbarra, Falmouth