I appreciated your relatively reasoned, respectful approach to trying to find out how all Democrats (Dems) think. So many Republicans offer a challenge, almost a dare laced with insults, to explain Dems’ contrary opinions to someone who has already made up their mind. 

First, I know many Dems. None of them think our trade with China has been fair. Even the public figures acknowledge a serious problem. The main dispute is how it should be addressed. I hope you are right about business coming back after China finds new providers. 

Don’t be so sure other countries’ products are inferior. I have been to South America and noted the Chinese are already establishing a good reputation there. The long term answer to Chinese predation is defense. 

Second, you miss the point about immigrants. It’s not that we should open our borders to anyone who comes. If those days ever existed, they are gone now. We need to be sure they don’t come to harm us. 

Most of them come fleeing persecution or looking for a better life, as the vast majority of our ancestors did. We should treat them as humanely as possible, as guests rather than criminals. 

The ultimate answer is to help them solve problems in their own countries. Central and South America are our adopted charges, and we have treated them like unloved stepchildren.

About blaming the inanimate object rather than the person — if you think the person is the only reason so many children are dying in mass shootings, then why don’t Republicans take steps to screen those who want to buy those objects of destruction? 

You are willing to dedicate billions of dollars to prevent the real possibility that some immigrant might shoot a real American. You don’t care as long as you can play with your toys and protect the illusion that you can defend yourself against the government if they come for you. 

You are right about campaign promises not being lies. They are more like hopes or commitments to try. They only begin to look like lies when they are obviously untrue or no real effort is made to make them come true. 

Trump promised to build a wall and that Mexico would pay for it. He has certainly tried to build the wall. A lie is something you know is untrue when you say it. 

I don’t believe Dems are “bashing the constitution.” Even if they did want to change the constitution or update it, that is the process that is written into the constitution and has occurred 27 times so far. Refusing service because of someone’s personal beliefs is not something I like, but Republicans or Democrats are not a protected class.

Have you read the Mueller report? I have. Have you noticed how many Trump advisers have been convicted? The perception that there might have been collusion is reasonable, certainly not a lie. Mueller’s take on that was very constrained. It did not vindicate the administration, and there was certainly no proof that collusion did not exist.

 

Marilyn Dickerson

Chehalis

 

Recommended for you

(4) comments

Shibas1

This was IMO a well thought out letter to the Editor. I enjoyed reading it and will have to agree on her assessment. Thank you for writing it


1Skeptic2

Some points of contention:







“…if you think the person is the only reason so many children are dying in mass shootings,…”







The likelihood of children dying in automobiles is far greater than in “mass shootings but no political party has suggested banning them. Also, swimming pools and poisonings, but those aren’t nearly so emotionally grabbing, so they’re mostly ignored by the media. Perception is not reality.







“…why don’t Republicans take steps to screen those who want to buy those objects of destruction?”







May I suggest you read state RCW 9.41.092 and RCW 9.41.040 and federal title 18 USC Sec. 922, 924? What more in the line of “background checks” - all at the expense of the transferee - would be efficacious? Federal employee “secret” clearances are easier to obtain.







“You don’t care as long as you can play with your toys…”







The Second Amendment, written as part of the nation’s founding documents aka Bill of Rights, not “privileges,” adopted in 1791 makes no mention of “toys,” so there would seem to be some serious doubt as to this characterization of same. I doubt the Founders had “toys” in mind…







“… and protect the illusion that you can defend yourself against the government if they come for you.”







This is simply ignoring worldwide history. The scenario has played out multiple times in multiple places. Additionally, “government” is not the only entity that seeks to do harm to individuals, and firearms are known to be used millions of times _annually_ for defensive purposes. Ask yourself if you’d rather have an iPhone or a pistol in your pocket the next time a 200# man approaches with mayhem in mind.


YourNeighbor

Millions annually? Yeah, that’s going to need some sources cited. The framers also didn’t imagine any firearm more advanced than muzzle loaders. If you want to stick to what the framers had in mind, be consistent. Or, it’s what we call “cherry picking”. I recommending arming yourself with your wits. It gives you the ability to solve a lot more problems than a pistol does.


jeremiad

The framers knew people and were themselves owners of cannons. The same argument that framers didn't foresee the telephone, printer, computer or smartphone could be used to ban usage. Ideas can be more dangerous than weapons, and ARE more dangerous than weapons in the hands of the law abiding.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.