Landslide?

Dear Donald, The other day you talked about a landslide. You said that you had won all over the US by a landslide. That's interesting. When I think of winning by a landslide, I think of 70%, 60% at least 55%. As I look around, you've passed 50% of the vote in only 6 states. Your overall average is about 39%. What that means is actually the opposite kind of landslide--60% of the voters voted against you. I know that politicians often exaggerate, and even redefine things to their advantage, but this is not even close. That reminds me, you keep saying that the system is corrupt and delegates are getting stolen from you. You like to say that it should be the people's vote that counts. So, does that mean that you want to give back some of those delegates that were given to you which you didn't really earn. Like maybe South Carolina, where you only won 32.5% of the popular vote, but were given all of the 50 delegates. So, maybe you should keep 16 delegates and free up the other 34 from South Carolina. And, that's just one example. If the system is really corrupt and unfair, here's your chance to show you want to make things a lot fairer and let the people's votes really count. You have won more votes than any one particular candidate, but you're still not even close to winning a majority of the popular vote. This 'corrupt' system is working to your advantage, far more than for any other candidate. But, you still want more. You complain when you feel it works against you, but you brag about winning delegates when it works in your favor. I guess that's why you're a billionaire real estate tycoon. That's why you complain about illegal aliens, but hire them to work on your own properties. You're in it to win, but it's not really about justice and fair play for Americans. It's about the Donald. You have win, and when you don't, you blame the system. You're a businessman, and not public servant. But, Donald, the presidency is not all about you. It's not for you to buy. It's about America.

Pretty Is As Pretty Does

Dear Donald, Well, since you asked.... I saw you on the news criticizing John Kasich because you felt the way he ate pancakes was disgusting. You asked if we really wanted a president like that. Well, I saw the video of John eating his pancakes and didn't notice anything disgusting, but whatever, I guess that is in the eye of the beholder. But, then you asked, "Am I handsome?" Well, I know that was a rhetorical question, since you clearly knew the answer you expected, and you also criticized all the other candidates for not looking presidential, just like you did about Carly several months ago (whom I think is actually nice looking). Anyway, whether rhetorical or not, since you asked, I am going take that as an excuse to just answer anyway. You see, I have heard you called many things, but I can't remember ever hearing anyone call you handsome--well, except for you yourself. In fact, I've heard a lot of jokes about your hair, your facial expressions, your mannerisms, and your sprayed-on tan, that seemed to indicate that the person speaking thought the opposite of what you seem to think. In other words, they seemed to think that you were kind of strange looking if not actually ugly. Sorry to disappoint you, although I don't think you believe any opinion that differs from yours is valid anyway, so I guess you won't be disappointed to hear that. But, the thing is I hope that Americans don't decide who they vote for based on looks. Yes, many studies have shown that looks do influence us, but most of us at least try to make our primary judgment based on the candidate's ability to do what we expect of them and their views on the issues that are important to our country. The good news for you is that, even though I don't at all think you are good looking, I don't really care about that it won't affect whether I vote for you or not. Your views, your attitude, and your ability will, though. And yes, we do hear people talking about whether the candidates "look presidential" or not, but I think you have missed the point. The presidential "look" is not whether someone is handsome (or beautiful). The look is more of an attitude. Looking "presidential" means that one seems to know the issues and be well-versed on potential solutions, knows when to speak out and when to shut up, knows that the best way to get things done is not to run roughshod over everyone else but to work with people. It means one who doesn't act like a playground bully more focused on thinking up clever names for everyone else, and who doesn't think that the best way to get ahead is to hit everyone else harder than they hit you. Maybe the fact that you don't understand what "looking presidential" means explains a lot about you. You're working hard to be handsome and sound tough instead of working hard to learn the issues, take the job seriously, and learn that no one really builds themselves up by tearing others down. If you could learn that, you might look a lot better, despite your hair.

Prove it!

Dear Hillary (and news media), Bernie keeps talking about your ties to Wall Street and I can imagine that that can be a bit frustrating. Several times your response has been to challenge anyone to show that contributions from banks and wealthy contributors have affected your vote. Recently a reporter has repeated that challenge as a question to Bernie. However, I think you both have missed the point. Think about it. If I get stopped for speeding (just hypothetical, not saying that I actually would break the law, you know), and I hand him a 50 to give to the Fraternal Order of Police for me, both of us would be at risk of getting arrested if found out. We might say that there was no proof that my contribution affected his treatment of my alleged speeding, but as you know very well, that wouldn't work. You see, the whole point of the questions about influence is not just whether someone can prove that you actually did any favors for them. The point is that the current campaign fundraising system that requires you and other candidates raise such obscene amounts of money puts you (and us) all at risk. You see, it's not really even about some overt favor. When someone does something really generous for you, it's hard to not lean toward them in some way and even if you try not to, it just happens. You're not the only one with that problem, but it doesn't help to just paper it over and put out a challenge for proof of an offense. You can say that you have studiously avoided being influenced, but don't treat the issue so flippantly and with disdain. We know the saying, "you are what you eat," and maybe you are also what donations you take. It's certainly more than just a possibility that politicians are influenced by who is paying the bills for getting them elected, sometimes in such subtle ways that they don't even realize. It's a legitimate question and points out a serious problem in our current campaign finance system. You could even use it as a point to bring up the issue as something that we all need to deal with. But, please don't feign indignation. You went for those donations. Did you really think that no one would ask what they thought they were buying?