Find alternatives
I watched the presidential debate, or what could be called a circus show, and one of the candidates is a liar who should never be anywhere near the White House again, and the other is too old, and if either of them wins, the American people will lose.
I will vote for the party that has the courage to replace their own candidate with a better alternative.
Patrick Eaton, Bedford
Is there anyone else here?
In the aftermath of the presidential debate, is there anyone else running for president? Both parties should post job ads on Indeed, ZipRecruiter and LinkedIn.
Joel Littman, Dallas
Cuban Presidential Candidate
With Joe Biden in charge after his debate performance, we may not win. With only a few months left, we need a hero who can beat Donald Trump. My first draft pick is Mark Cuban. I hope he rises to the occasion and saves us all.
Cuban is a self-made billionaire who is running for the good of his country, not for himself. He can run as an independent and be competitive. He can put together a team that no one else can. I am confident that he can restore the public’s faith in our government.
Those who understand the essence of Moneyball know that this strategy starts with discarding widely accepted but unproven ideas, defining your goal, and carefully selecting the elements that work together effectively to achieve your desired outcome.
Cuban is focused on picking the most skilled players, regardless of whether they adhere to ideologies or dogmatic theories. His approach addresses income inequality by allowing the wealthy to contribute equally.
Mark, please consider carefully standing up to save our country before it’s too late.
Peter C. Seely, Dallas/Lake Highlands
KRLD cuts afternoon talk
All my life I’ve heard the saying, “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.” So why did KRLD add a three-hour opinion talk show to their weekday afternoon lineup? Trust me, no one wants to listen to this.
Move this show to the weekend airtime when other talk shows are on the air, and during the weekdays, get back to the news, traffic and weather that makes us the best radio station in North Texas.
Otherwise, longtime listeners like us would have to find other stations to listen to weekdays from noon to 3pm.
Larry Mendolia, Dallas/Lake Highlands
Gain over pain?
Subject: “State agency sued after contract terminated — Cook Children’s Hospital takes action after Texas ends long-standing Medicaid agreement,” Thursday Metro & Business article.
It’s no surprise to me that state governments want to move from non-profit to for-profit health care providers — after all, for-profit companies can raise far more money through bribes, or rather, “campaign funds,” than non-profits.
Of course, to get that money, health care would probably have to be reduced, but that would only affect the poor, so Republicans probably wouldn’t care.
Anyone who thinks I’m wrong should re-read the excellent series that ran in this newspaper a few years ago, “Pain or Gain.” Governor Greg Abbott renewed the contract with Superior Health, a for-profit company, even though the company was denying or cutting quality care to patients. Don’t be surprised if the same thing happens in Fort Worth once a for-profit company takes control.
Sandra Buckett, Krum
All Life is Sacred
Regarding Tuesday’s news article “Each party celebrates anniversary differently — Allred marks Dobbs Day as rallying cry, Cruz focuses on other issues.”
I found Ken Paxton’s statement, “I will never stop defending the sanctity of life against unconstitutional attempts to undermine Texas’ pro-life laws,” completely hypocritical. He talks about the sanctity of life, yet I have never heard him oppose state-administered capital punishment.
If human life is truly sacred, and I believe it is, then the life of those sentenced to death is equally sacred. His lack of action regarding the sanctity of all life makes it clear that he is lying.
Fate by James R. Bridges
The judge is religious
The Ten Commandments posted in public schools will raise the issue of separation of church and state and ultimately lead to decisions by the Supreme Court, which is supposed to be impartial. All of the justices are religious and may influence their decisions. This raises the question: if the United States is a country of secular law, why are there no secular justices on the Supreme Court?
John Nugent, Georgetown
The opposing view lacks common sense
Regarding the June 22nd news article “Supreme Court Upholds Gun Control Laws — Court Rules 8-1 to Preserve Order Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence.”
I’m surprised to find myself mostly agreeing with Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent in United States v. Rahimi. He begins his first paragraph with this: “Following NY Rifle & Pistol v. Bruen, this Court’s instruction was clear: A firearms regulation that falls within the language of the Second Amendment is unconstitutional unless it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. No single historical regulation justifies the law in question.” All of this is true.
But he ruins it with the next sentence: “I therefore respectfully disagree.”
What he should have said was, “Some believe the United States Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, is divinely inspired. Others believe it is the pinnacle of 18th-century Enlightenment thought. Either way, I cannot think of any enlightened or enlightened person who could believe that the Constitution commands the government to keep guns out of the hands of Zak Rahimi,” and concluded with, “In the face of this counterexample, I believe Bruen was wrong and should be reconsidered.”
It simply makes no sense to make all judges experts in the history of 18th and 19th century law.
Brian McKay, Coppel
We welcome your comments via letters to the editor. Please see our guidelines. Send your letter hereIf you have any problems with the form, please email us. Email: