Trump was the best option of the two
In response to “Don’t complain, you elected him” (May 28 Forum):
So, Forum writer Arnie Grieves, if the Republicans had only nominated someone who would lose, the Democrats wouldn’t continually be dragging the country through what has been shown to be mostly false charges by the exhaustive Mueller report? And as to the most corrupt candidate in the GOP field, Clinton was the most unethical candidate in the race, in my opinion, hence my vote for Trump.
Perhaps your party should have nominated a candidate who was more electable.
Dan Millard, Charlotte
Trump has done nothing positive
In response to “Trump will do great things if you let him” (May 24 Forum):
The Trump administration is a criminal enterprise. In my opinion, Trump has done nothing positive for this country. He has alienated our closest allies and cozied up to dictators and despots like Putin and Kim Jong Un. His “tax cut” only helped the rich.
His incompetent cabinet and associates have more than 20 indictments and/or convictions. He has given cover to and encouraged all sorts of bigotry. He is a misogynist with no moral compass and lacks basic understanding of how decent people live their lives. He has cheated on his wives and lied to the American people thousands of times.
Brian Jackson, Mint Hill
Why was LGBT front page newsworthy?
In response to “She’s known for seeing good in others. Why did she fear the worst in coming out to fans?” (May 22):
This past week leading up to Memorial Day weekend, when we honor all the veterans who have fought and died to keep our country safe, the Observer chooses to feature on its front page a story of a woman who decided to come out as a lesbian when she was the speaker at the Lesbian and Gay Fund’s fundraising event. The story of the man who sacrificed his life at Normandy to help liberate Europe from the occupation by the German army is "featured" on page 19, though. What is wrong with this picture?
You may justify this choice by saying that the man fought to keep the country free for all to express themselves in every way, but that is a bit of a stretch in this situation wouldn't you say?
Kathy Taylor, Charlotte
Congress isn’t in the pill business
In response to “Let’s regulate men and birth control” (May 28 Forum):
Forum writer Laurin McCarley refers to members of the House and Senate as “angry, and scary, white men.” I am shocked at her racist comment and the Observer for publishing it. Is this part of our American double-standard? I’m quite certain that any reference to “angry and scary black men” would be immediately characterized as shockingly racist and discarded.
Furthermore, she questions senators and representatives for not pushing male birth control pills. Does she think that the fathers of the thousands of illegitimate children care or are intelligent enough to bother? Perhaps she doesn’t realize that a potential female partner has a right to inquire about protection.
The House and Senate just aren’t in the pill business.
Larry Singer, Cornelius
What can the public do about this?
In response to “It’s not just Charlotte homeowners: Small businesses are being squeezed out, too” (May 17):
I appreciate your bringing attention to the gentrification problem in your excellent article. As a Charlotte native, I have seen so many changes over the years. Some were good and some saddened me greatly.
I am very concerned that our close-in neighborhoods will lose the character that make them unique. I am especially horrified about the prospect of chains replacing the local businesses. I make a point to support as many local businesses as possible.
What I feel like is missing in the article is what the general public can do about this problem. It feels like we are powerless to stop what is happening. Is there a group that we can join? Are there other ways to have a voice with this issue?
Bobbi Sherrill, Charlotte
Make sure to blame Sheriff McFadden
In response to “Inmate was released from Mecklenburg jail despite ICE detainer. He ended up in standoff.” (May 24):
Sheriff McFadden's refusal to honor ICE detainers is a significant threat to public safety. It will only be a matter of time before a released inmate whose ICE detainer was ignored seriously harms or injures someone in the community.
When this happens, the sheriff must be held directly responsible for the consequences of his policy.
Barry Pettinato, Charlotte