:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tronc/OBPT2CUQD5D2XPSISNWTBQYZQA.JPG)
How can a man who doesn’t respect or abide by the rules of a game expect to play in it? Any umpire or referee would eject such a person from the game in the blink of an eye. Why legitimize a candidate who won’t accept or even admit a loss in a free and fair election as Donald Trump has done since 2020?
Trump’s participation in the 2024 election should be barred. His refusal to acknowledge his legitimate defeat in 2020 should be enough to disqualify him from running in 2024.
He hopes to win, pardon himself and assume dictatorial powers above the law.
Trump’s conspiring to overturn the election in various ways, culminating in a bloody attack on and invasion of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, is reminiscent of Adolf Hitler’s tactic that allowed him to become a dictator in the 1930s. After a series of bloody demonstrations by his Nazi brownshirts, Hitler forced the members of the Reichstag (German parliament) to grant him the power to run the country. Are the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers ready to see themselves as brownshirts?
Incidentally, Hitler’s propaganda machine also invented the technique of the Big Lie. Don’t let it become Trump’s springboard to power.
— Marion J. Reis, Lombard
Trump and 14th Amendment
As Donald Trump gets closer to clinching the Republican nomination for president and as the number of indictments against him grows, the media have often joked about our next president holding state dinners in prison. True, there is nothing in Article II of the Constitution that bars a felon from holding office.
But Section 3 of the 14th Amendment lists disqualifying factors for holding federal office. One is participating in rebellion or giving aid or comfort to the enemies of this nation.
Trump’s “rally the troops” speech before the Jan. 6 insurrection cites examples of both disqualifying factors. He encouraged them to “fight like hell” and comforted them at the end of the day: He said, “We love you,” as many were arrested.
Have media outlets picked up on this important fact?
It is beyond time to inform his supporters that their choice can never be president.
— Jan Goldberg, Riverside
Fundraising opportunity
Donald Trump publicly rails against the latest criminal indictment against him accusing him of conspiracy to subvert the 2020 election. But privately, he must feel very pleased. It gives him a chance to ask his supporters to send money to help his defense and also to be used for his campaign and his lavish lifestyle.
I wonder when his supporters will wake up and see that their contributions are going only for the benefit of one person: Trump. If they ever see the world as others see it, the consequences could be very severe for Trump and his supporters.
— Frank L. Schneider, Chicago
Letter writer’s hypocrisy
In the Tribune’s Saturday edition, the Rev. Bill Lenters admonishes the Tribune in a letter to the editor, and the press in general, to stop printing anything said by Donald Trump (“Don’t give Trump press,” July 29).
Apparently, the good reverend does not approve of anything Trump has to say. In his letter, Lenters exercises his First Amendment rights by calling for Trump to be denied his. Lenters fails to notice the hypocrisy he blatantly displays in his letter.
— James Osterhout, Palatine
Editorial misreports news
A recent editorial (“GOP Sen. Tom Cotton overreaches in sending a warning to big law firms about DEI efforts,” July 26) asserts that law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher “wrote that the Supreme Court decision on (affirmative action in) college admissions does not change existing law governing employers’ use of race in employment matters.”
This statement the Tribune Editorial Board attributes to Gibson Dunn is noticeably not a quote, and it mischaracterizes the firm’s advice. Indeed, much of the law firm’s statement highlights the ruling’s risk to DEI programs. For example, the firm states: “There is some risk that lower courts will apply the Court’s decision in the employment context.”
Gibson Dunn’s analysis concludes: “The Court’s holdings likely will encourage additional litigation. Plaintiffs’ firms and conservative public-interest groups likely will bring reverse race-discrimination claims against some employers with well-publicized diversity programs.”
Opponents of the court’s decision would like to minimize the ruling. But in suggesting that Gibson Dunn has done so, the editorial board is misreporting the news.
— Glenn K. Beaton, Denver, Colorado
Recruitment system corrupt
Do we need to be reminded that the hazing of so-called student-athletes at Northwestern University was done by their fellow athletes? It seems that the victims of an earlier generation of hazing as freshmen later became the victimizers. Hazing was not inflicted on the athletes by their coaches.
What this says is that the problem begins with the recruitment of promising high school athletes who would not otherwise be accepted for admission to the college. It also says that the recruiters, who are often the college coaches, are poor judges of character.
But all they can go by are interviews and written statements by the high school athletes who are extensively coached on how to make a good impression.
Chicago Tribune Opinion
There is much blame to go around, but the corrupt system of recruitment lies at the heart of the scandal.
— Ronald Kallen, Highland Park
What about team suspension?
In 2006, Northwestern University suspended its women’s soccer team after photographs of a hazing incident were posted on a website; team members could not participate in organized athletic activities. So it seems the university has significant history with hazing in its athletic programs and moved quickly against the athletes when the news broke.
Now please explain to me why the athletes involved in the current hazing issues are not being disciplined in the same manner. Is it because they were just following tradition? Is it because football and baseball are more popular sports than soccer was 17 years ago? Or is it because they are men?
— Liz Allan, Wilmette
Join the conversation in our Letters to the Editor Facebook group.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.