Letters for December 1, 2016

‘President’ Trump

I did not vote for Donald Trump, but like many people I have a partial explanation as to why he won:

1) Hillary made a big mistake in calling half his supporters “deplorables” and “irredeemable.” It was that elitist, arrogant, “I’m better than you” attitude that rallied his base and guaranteed their voting. That same attitude is evident with the RN&R’s Bruce Van Dyke and Brad Bynum when they refer to those voters as “pissy white rednecks” and “gullible, ignorant, and hateful.” Sorry, Hillary and others, but your superior attitude worked against you.

2) Many times there is simply no substitute for “hard work.” The truth is Trump simply outworked Hillary. He really looked and worked like someone who wanted to win. She disappeared by comparison. Not visiting Wisconsin during the last six months of the campaign revealed a lack of work ethic and/or an entitlement attitude that took certain states for granted. Either way, Trump won because he simply wanted it more. Originally, Trump said she didn’t have the strength or stamina to be president. Perhaps she didn’t have the strength or stamina to campaign. She certainly did not match his.

Thom Waters


One woman’s view

Nevada November gray wool clouds blanket the sky, draining color from the land leaving only the muted tones of Autumn.

Cheryl Chaudron


Hartman on Myers

From beginning to end of the Question 2 debate, I could count on Dennis Myers at the RN&R to not just twist and distort what I wrote on the issue—but knowingly lie about facts. Your publication even failed to run my letter detailing your factual lies—spiked the truth. The lies continue right down to the end, Dennis—on Denver schools and marijuana money. Google it. Man, it doesn’t take much of a reporter—and you are not one. A weak, little guy working for an underground newspaper depending on marijuana advertisers to pay him a tiny little income—pretty pathetic.

Jim Hartman



Re “Competing protests” (Let Freedom Ring, Nov. 10):

Brendan Trainor states in a November 10 article that, “In what appears to be jury nullification, the jurors felt the federal government had simply not proven [its] charges of conspiracy to intimidate federal workers to prevent them from performing their duties with weapons brought onto federal property.” This is not jury nullification.

When jurors are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved a charge, they have a duty to vote not guilty. This is a standard part of jury instructions and is how most not-guilty verdicts are delivered. Jury nullification occurs when jurors are convinced by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has violated the law which they are charged with violating, but decides to vote not guilty anyway. Jurors may do this when they believe the law is unjust or unjustly applied, that the punishment for violating the law is unjustly harsh, or that there are other mitigating circumstances that would make strictly enforcing the law unjust in the case at hand.

The law is meant to uphold justice. Justice is not meant to bend or break so that unjust dictates of the law may be maintained. When law and justice are in conflict, jurors have a moral duty to uphold justice above the law. Jury nullification is the mechanism by which they can do this. Jurors may vote not guilty for any reason they believe is just, and they cannot be punished for their verdicts.

Kirsten Tynan

Corvallis, Mont.