Advertisement

Tuesday's letters: Solar deception on the Florida ballot

 
Published Oct. 24, 2016

Vote no on anti-solar amendment | Oct. 17, editorial

Solar deception on Florida ballot

Kudos to the Tampa Bay Times for recommending a "no" vote on the anti-solar Amendment 1. This amendment is nothing more than a fraudulent attempt by utility companies to enact severe restrictions on the rights Floridians already have to expand solar power.

While at a shopping mall several months ago, I was approached by a woman collecting signatures in support of this amendment. When I pointed out she was working for an amendment supported by the utilities, she assured me that she was not. She was convinced she was collecting signatures for the competing amendment designed to protect our rights. Using my smartphone, I found the evidence I needed to convince her that the signatures she was collecting were going for the amendment supported by the utilities. She was stunned and walked off, saying, "I'll get to the bottom of this."

How many signatures obtained for this amendment were obtained fraudulently? How did several Florida Supreme Court justices allow this poorly worded and deceptive amendment on the ballot?

Robert Patton Jr., Clearwater

Campaign 2016

Time for a change in course

Both presidential candidates are flawed human beings. But we must vote for one. So, which might benefit us and our families the best?

It seems to me that recent experiences have not brought us much prosperity, opportunity or safety. Changing our taxation to lower rates so there is job growth for tens of millions of desperate Americans who can't find work would seem better than raising taxes and redistributing the money.

And don't we deserve protection from a flood of people entering our beautiful country who seem to hate us? And protection from gangs of vicious thugs in our once-great inner cities threatening minorities who deserve the same safety as everyone?

Donald Trump is a flawed candidate but represents positive change.

Leonard Mead, Apollo Beach

Find way to work together

The shocking answer Donald Trump gave to Chris Wallace when he asked whether Trump would accept the election results, win or lose, should be a wakeup call to us all.

Wallace pointed out that a peaceful transition of power is one of the nation's longest traditions, no matter how tough the campaign. He pressed Trump, "Are you saying you're not prepared to commit to that principle?" This is a question not only for Trump but for us all.

Will all Americans, win or lose, commit to this principle and find it in their hearts to accept the outcome of the election and support the next president of this great nation? Can we find a way to peacefully work together to come up with solutions to the problems that face us?

Marian Baird, Tampa

Don't put party first

Donald Trump's self-absorbed view of reality is cogently commented upon by the Jewish philosopher Maimonides: "An ignorant man believes that the whole universe exists only for him; as if nothing else required any consideration. If, therefore, anything happens to him contrary to his expectation, he at once concludes that the whole universe is evil." Or, at the very least, rigged against him.

If you had told me a year ago that I, a lifelong conservative Republican, would be making a case for the election of Hillary Clinton as president, I would have stared at you like you had just grown a second head. But here we are. And the case is rather simple. Trump is a protean, autocratic menace to our democratic republic, while Clinton, for all her manifold political liabilities and deficiencies, is not. The former first lady, senator and secretary of state largely works within the bounds of our venerable traditions — email follies and other lapses in judgment notwithstanding. Trump, on the contrary, acts as a force unto himself, beholden to no one. He would pull the entire democratic edifice down into the black hole of his will if it didn't cater to his desires. This is what terminal egotism looks like.

The polarization of American politics makes it difficult for many to imagine themselves voting for candidates beyond the bounds of their own party. Instead of obsequiously marching in lockstep to the siren blandishments of party solidarity, we should be considering ourselves human beings first, Americans second, and members of political parties a distant third.

R.B. Johnson, Indian Rocks Beach

Primary voters did poor job

I am disappointed with the choice of candidates in this presidential election. One is a proven liar and a political hack who has been associated with the government for the past 30 years while accomplishing nothing of value. The other is a boorish businessman who perhaps would be better suited to remain on TV entertaining the masses. Is this the best we can come up with?

My disappointment comes not from the candidates themselves but from the electorate that chose them. During the primaries we had a rich assortment of candidates who promised everything from smaller government and lower taxes to free college. In that mix we had people who actually cared about the country and would abide by the Constitution. The American people rejected these candidates and called them radicals. Instead, the electorate chose the more glitzy candidates who promised glitter and free stuff instead of substance. Lower taxes and free college sound like a great idea until one asks how will the country pay for them. Taxing the wealthy is a great platitude, but in fact how can the 1 percent pay for the social programs for the other 99 percent? That tactic is fiscally impossible.

In a little over 200 years we have evolved from a rugged people who cherished liberty and independence from the government into a society where 50 percent of the population is receiving some form of government assistance or entitlement and most do not pay one red cent in federal taxes.

The time is now to make some hard choices, to choose good leaders, in order to save this republic.

Larry Lunsford, Brooksville