Mediaboss Marketing

Putins preference?

I just wonder who Vladimir Putin really prefers in the White House: Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders? And I also wonder as to the form in which Putin could interfere with our elections. Finally, the-then USSR contributed lots of money to the Communist Party of America in the 1980 to sabotage the election of Ronald Reagan. It got them nowhere.

Svetozar Pejovich, North Dallas

For 60 or more years I have seen the conservatives call many new reform idea socialistic and, thus, bad ideas. After visiting corrupt and less-corrupt capitalistic and socialistic nations like Mexico, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Canada and China and teaching social policy for some 50 years, I conclude that the United States and the world have been blending socialism and capitalism ideas for over 100 years or more.

Major national news have many articles on how to save capitalism. When those in the coalfields wanted to employ doctors and set up HMO clinics, the coal companies and American Medical Association called it socialism or worse, and said it would be the downfall of society and medical care.

So be not concerned when some claim a new idea is some form of socialism. Individualism and community (collective approaches like insurance) blend well in the less-corrupt nations like Canada, Switzerland and even in the USA. Democratic socialism in Sweden has a very strong capitalist economic society.

Stan Ingman, Denton

Re: Sanders told of Russian backing Senator, unlike Trump, sees activity as effort to undermine democracy, Saturday news story.

This article shows the direct threat Russia is to Americas democracy, and indeed, to the world. I have been following several Facebook groups that support both Democratic and Republican parties and while some participants reflect thoughtful discussion on policies, mostly they are hateful, degrading or apocalyptic statements of the absolute evil of the other side. It is impossible to have thoughtful discussions.

This media brings no value to the election of qualified candidates and in fact, is seemingly designed to ensure that there are no elections that result in anything more than a plurality for a candidate with no majority support after the election. If Russia had devised a way to destroy or at least weaken the U.S. permanently, they could have not devised a better weapon. Social media should be banned from spreading this poison.

If in fact Google, Facebook, Twitter and the others were to try live up to Dont be evil, then that could put a stop to this continuous bombardment of the American public. Elections would be much better if diverse and fair in-depth discussions were held individually between qualified and vetted journalists.

Jay Martin, Pilot Point

Of course Donald John Trump isnt happy with more news of Russian interference in 2016 and 2020 elections. Intelligence officials seem to be playing the role of Toto in The Wizard of Oz. They are knocking down the screen that conceals a very puny wizard. A screen built by Russia, no less.

Anne M. Sanders, Fort Worth

I used to chuckle when I heard the conservative pundit, Michael Savage, refer to liberalism as a mental disorder. Over the past three years, it seems that the Democrats with support from the liberal media have been attempting to prove him right with the failed Mueller investigation and House impeachment fiasco. They have recently reinforced the Savage statement by putting an avowed socialist at the top of their slate of liberal candidates for president.

In a state that proudly claims the motto Live Free or Die!, Sanders came away with the most votes. Crazy right? In a country with 175 million citizens at least 35 years of age, this is the best we can come up with to run for the president of the United States?

Our choice could come down to a socialist whose proposals will kill our booming economy and take away many of the freedoms we enjoy or a bully with a narcissist personality who will continue to alienate half of the population with his childish tweets. At least the liberals still have a choice.

Wes Pyfer, Irving

Re: Dallas misses red-light cameras City officials say crashes are up since states ban, while revenue for safer infrastructure is down, Sunday news story.

I get it that most questions especially political ones do not have simple answers. But when has common sense disappeared? As you so clearly revealed in this story, its a no-brainer that red-light cameras were a good thing. These cameras saved lives many of them. I see drivers run red lights not just every day, but essentially every time I stop at an intersection. Everyone has. It seems as clear as flashing yellow that the only people who dont want red-light cameras are people who run red lights. How simple is that?

Not to mention the revenue that helps keep down our taxes. Even when its common sense, our Legislature bombs again. And thanks to the governor. I believe the first time I took note of him was about a tree in his yard being cut down. He really focuses on the important stuff.

Wheelice Wilson Jr., Coppell

Perfect timing for a red-light piece the same time Michael Bloomberg is taking a hit for stop and frisk. Both are unconstitutional. Red-light cameras catch a vehicle breaking the law, not the person driving. Its not the vehicle owners job or legal requirement to state who was driving at the time of infraction, if the owner knows.

But, if you digest the complete article, it is not really about safety, it is about money for the city. Granted, red-light cameras do save lives and prevent injuries. But like stop and frisk, which also saved lives, it is not constitutional. And no, I have never had a red-light ticket or ever had a ticket in 50 years.

Brent Beal, Mansfield

Click here to submit a letter to the editor.

Here is the original post:
Letters to the Editor - Russian election interference, Vladimir Putin, socialism, social media, red-light cameras in Texas - The Dallas Morning News