Letters: How can we look past Trump’s words, actions? Social issues should be determined by states; Columnist needs reminder about 2016; Disliked spirit of letter | READER COMMENTARY

How can we look past Trump’s words, actions?

As we brace ourselves for the next month of election rhetoric my question to everyone is, “What has happened to the old saying, ‘If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all’”?

My mother instilled this saying in our family and I’ve tried to pass onto my children. It’s curious that our current president doesn’t see any value in this saying. He seems to speak without thinking and definitely doesn’t follow this simple rule. I find it baffling that Christian, family-centered people can tolerate this rhetoric and consider voting for him. A quick Google search shows all of the horrible things that Trump has said, too numerous to mention all: “Grab them by the pussy,” “I like people who weren’t captured,” illegal immigrants from Mexico “are all rapists and drug dealers.”

He has mocked an autistic teenage girl who wants to save our planet, and made fun of women for being bitchy because of their menstrual cycles. He’s mimicked a disabled reporter, and called our military losers. Think about this for a minute. Who says things like this? You could never say such things at your office, in school, or at the grocery store. He is our President. How can people look past this? Aren’t “we” as a country embarrassed?

Just last week I heard him hitting on Ainsley Earhardt from “Fox and Friends” like a slimy, dirty old man, chuckling and saying he could nominate her to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court. How can this be acceptable in a first-world country?

The Golden Rule calls us to treat each other as we would want to be treated. Over and over again, Trump proves that this basic tenet of Christianity has no impact on how he lives his life. Please explain to me how Christians can look past all of these horrible traits that are the exact opposite of the loving morality that Jesus taught. It really, when you think honestly about it, is just not acceptable.

Sue DiPietro

Westminster

Social issues should be determined by states

I just reread the Constitution of the United States, which confirmed my belief that it gives responsibility to the federal government for, basically, the common defense along with relations between the U.S. and foreign entities and relations between the states. All other things are reserved to the states, according to the 10th amendment.

If that’s true, there is no constitutional requirement for the federal government to be involved in social issues. In fact, there are times when the federal government doesn’t get involved with interstate issues. Witness California’s requirements for automobiles. It would seem that there is a definite interstate issue, since cars are routinely driven between the states. Add to that driver’s licenses. Drivers can easily drive in states that, were they residents of that state, could get a license because of age limits.

This brings me back to social issues. If states on the coasts and upper Midwest choose to allow abortion, there is nothing that the Constitution says which gives the federal government jurisdiction. In fact, it is state laws that are routinely considered by the Supreme Court. It seems to me that we should simply allow the red states that want to limit abortion to do so. If their citizens are happy with that, fine. Otherwise it is time to change their own government.

If the states were to make their own determinations about social issues, such issues would become moot on the national level and the feds could go back to what they are really supposed to be about, and maybe things like the national debt, infrastructure and the like could be dealt with.

Rick Gordon

Sykesville

Columnist needs reminder about 2016

I would like to remind columnist M.K. Sprinkle (“Ginsburg Effect on American political turmoil,” Sept. 26) that it was a Republican Senate that did not permit President Obama to select a Supreme Court justice in 2016 after the death of Antonin Scalia nine months before an election.

It was the Republicans who set a new timeline for such appointments. It was the Republicans who did not follow the words of Ginsburg when she said, “There is nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being the president in his last year.”

It is the Republicans who are attempting to “pack the courts.” It is the Republicans who need to listen to Ginsburg’s guidance when her last words were to wait until after the election less than 2 months away to appoint her replacement.

Patricia Roop Hollinger

Westminster