Readers’ comments: March 15, 2024

Presidential election is anything but normal
Dear editor:
Kris Meyer writes [“Vote Trump for president,” March 8 Readers’ comments] as if November’s election were a normal contest between a Democrat and a Republican, and argues that we should vote for the Republican. That is a totally misguided view of what the presidential election will be and what we should do.
I wrote the following proposed opening words for the State of the Union. While President Biden of course didn’t see it, it does express the accurate view of what the election is about:
“My fellow Americans: the other day, a former president delivered a speech in which he set out his vision of the state of this country. His vision is dark, grim. While not a word of what he said is true (we at the White House have searched in vain), nonetheless there is something grim lurking. That dark cloud is that that same guy wants to be president again; that he might succeed is the biggest threat facing the country. In that speech, he claimed that I am the worst president we have had. However, leading historians in their professional capacity have recently voted that our worst president is in fact him, former President Donald Trump. That we should put the bottom of the long historical barrel back in our highest office is the blight that afflicts any accurate state of the union this year.”
The election this year is not normal and must not be thought of that way. Trump has shown that he is not a normal candidate but is a threat to the well-being of this country and of the world. Meyer’s letter does not mention a word of what went wrong in Trump’s presidency or of what he promises for if reelected.
Merrill Ring
Claremont

Trump endorsement has comic potential
Dear editor:
I read your letter writer’s accolade of the MAGA champion [“Vote Trump for president,” March 8 Readers’ comments] with growing amusement, recognizing it as a satire in the vein of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” (1729), solemn advocacy for an absurdity. Only toward the end did I realize that this writer really believes that the worst president in American history was the best. To celebrate the energy and work effort of a president devoted to TV and golf, and the business success of a serial bankrupt and liar, has comic potential. Many of those highly qualified individuals who served in Trump’s administration have subsequently denounced him as ignorant, self-absorbed, and dangerous.
David Cressy
Claremont

An unscientific theory about President Biden’s speech patterns
Dear editor:
Didn’t we all listen to “sleepy Joe” and think, something is definitely up with his deliverance of the State of the Union speech? I sure did. Seconds in I thought, Adderall.
Psychopharmacology is behind the auctioneer speed of the words and sentences. He still messed up words but wow! He spit them out so much faster and continued on. No prob for Joe. He didn’t even wait for Mike Johnson to announce him as is the long held tradition and he launched in with Ukraine and Putin. Whoa, I thought!
Then I read what Dr. Carole Lieberman, a forensic psychiatrist based in Beverly Hills, California wrote in the Washington Times recently: “Speed and volume of speech can be a sign of using Adderall or another amphetamine.” There it was. I was right.
Although that explains his sudden burst of energy, a bit more research and I found that the use of Adderall is not a rare occurrence for occupants of the White House. What? Now doesn’t that make sense why Trump stayed up all night “working”? Hmm … the plot sickens.
Terry LePert
Claremont

We need more dialogue, less vitriol, on Gaza
Dear editor:
Daniel Segal weighs in from Bloomington, Indiana [“Courier reporting antisemitic and anti-Palestinian,” March 8 Readers comments] to characterize as “shameful” the Claremont City Council’s unanimous decision on February 28 to affirm a longstanding policy limiting council resolutions to local issues.
I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, the council’s decision was wise, and in the best interests of our whole Claremont community. He then criticizes the Courier’s reporting [“Council declines to take a position on war in Gaza,” March 1] on that long, painful, and very challenging meeting for our community by asserting it did not do justice to the fact that “anti-Zionist Jews” spoke in favor of the cease-fire resolution, but were not included in the description of “members of the Jewish community,” which is how the article characterized those who spoke in favor of continuing the policy of limiting council resolutions to local issues, or spoke against the proposed resolution. He termed this reporting to be “antisemitic and anti-Palestinian.” Again, I respectfully disagree. The article clearly stated that Jews were among those who spoke in favor of the cease-fire resolution, and quoted at least one of these folks extensively.
Our Claremont community needs open-minded and open-hearted dialogue on very complex and difficult issues at this time much more than it needs overwrought, unfounded accusations from Bloomington, Indiana.
Mark Levine
Claremont