NC senator Thom Tillis put party over country. He didn’t even wait for a Senate trial

Thom Tillis put party over patriotism

Regarding “Tillis said he’d vote no on impeachment,” (Dec. 10):

A parade of witnesses has testified to firsthand knowledge of presidential misconduct. In spite of this, Sen. Thom Tillis and the vast majority of his cronies have circled the wagons around the president and completely disregarded his obvious attempts to coerce a foreign government to interfere in a U.S. election.

At least some of Tillis’ Republican colleagues have indicated a willingness to hear evidence in a Senate trial prior to making a final decision.

But Tillis is putting party over patriotism and we can only hope that N.C. voters remember that he is not for our state, but for a corrupt president. I know this unaffiliated voter will!

Jack Hankins, Charlotte

US leaders spreading false narrative

Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Russia is a designated enemy.

The idea that someone other than Russia hacked into DNC server in the 2016 presidential election has been put out by the Russian government in order to make Russia look better and get rid of sanctions. Anyone who knowingly puts out this false information is knowingly giving aid and comfort to Russia.

The president, vice president and many members of Congress are putting out this false information. They are putting it out when they know it is false. This is the pure definition of treason.

Don’t ask who our enemy is. It is us.

Robert Cubbler, Matthews

Tell the truth about Trump’s win

During the impeachment hearings I have repeatedly heard that the Democrats are attempting to deprive the country of the peoples’ choice of Donald Trump as the country’s president.

Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. His win was not the choice of the majority of Americans. It was the Electoral College margins of three states that put him in office.

Continuing to say that Trump was the voters’ choice is to promote a false narrative that we cannot continue to use.

Scott Carter, Charlotte

Crime and trendy neighborhoods

Regarding “Brooks’ Sandwich co-owner is slain,” (Dec. 10):

My heart aches for the Brooks family after the murder of Scott Brooks. I have worried about these new neighborhoods sprouting up all over Charlotte bordering problems areas.

As an ambulance driver in the city years ago, I saw firsthand the horrible crimes that can occur.

I know nothing about what Brooks did for safety, but everyone should spend more time working with your CMPD crime prevention officer and less time discussing the latest fad restaurants and apartments in these areas. You live in trendy yet dangerous neighborhoods.

John B. Hallman, Charlotte

NC does need a climate panel

I applaud Orrin Pilkey’s column, “It’s time to prepare for a changing Earth” (Dec. 5 Opinion).

He’s right: North Carolina needs a climate change panel to assess the increase in extreme weather events, the cost of clean-up and rebuilding, and strategies to improve our preparedness.

We also need a statewide plan for reducing carbon emissions, joining the top carbon-producing cities and states around the world that are trying to limit catastrophic weather changes.

The most viable answer is the carbon fee and dividend model, which is designed to reduce carbon emissions quickly enough to bring the change we need. If cities and states work toward this goal, which the federal government is currently deliberating, we could skirt a potential crisis.

Kim Fanelly, Mint Hill

Faux concern about climate change

Regarding “We all are culpable in climate crisis,” (Dec. 10 Opinion):

There is much we can do to get ready for changing coastlines. One badly needed policy change would be to phase out the National Flood Insurance Program, which costs $3 billion a year and has accumulated $24 billion in debt. Most of that money goes to pay for the rebuilding of beach houses for the wealthy.

If progressives are serious about their concern for climate change and wealth inequality, they would call for the elimination of a program that conservatives and libertarians have long opposed.

Unless progressives start making suggestions that are practical and bipartisan, their faux concern about climate change is little more than a cynical fundraising technique.

Warren Smith, Charlotte