To the editor: Donald Trump may not have studied semiotics in the classroom, as made clear by how frequently he uses the word “sorry” in his tweets despite his own boasts about never apologizing, but he cleaned Hillary Clinton’s electoral college clock nonetheless.
This rude and crude man has utilized cognitive disinhibition with such skill that a new chapter should be added to the semiotics syllabus.
While I am disturbed by Trump’s thin skin and easily bruised ego and his penchant for cutting insults that skirt the truth, I note that Trump, revealing more of himself to the electorate than his closely scripted Democratic opponent four years ago, won the presidency warts and all.
Those who voted for him knew the candidate inside and out, knew that they were voting for a loose cannon with little allegiance to facts, and knew that they would be making excuses for his wayward tongue, tweets, tics and tirades.
Those in progressive areas recognize that he is unfit to sit among the cognoscenti in various and sundry faculty lounges, in campus safe houses, in sanctuaries where mainstream media hang, in Martha’s Vineyard and other polite locales, and almost any place where chilled Chardonnay is sipped with extended pinkies.
Style over substance reigns in these favored havens, but assuming that the recent electoral past will not repeat itself in 2020 is, sorry, a “bigly” mistake.
Paul Bloustein, Cincinnati
To the editor: If I say “I’m sorry you’re sick,” I’m not apologizing or accepting blame for your illness. I’m saying it’s a sad situation.
It is this sense of “I’m sorry” that characterizes all but one of the 18 examples of Trump’s supposed apologies (in his tweet on gas prices he was obviously being sarcastic). So his infantile habit of never apologizing remains intact.
Brad Bonhall, Reno
To the editor: The end result of Sunday’s op-ed joke about Trump’s inability to apologize was a full page of the Los Angeles Times devoted to his repellent musings.
Sorry, but this is not funny.
R.C. Price, San Clemente
To the editor: Why is the L.A. Times so politically one-sided? Certainly a more middle-of-the-road approach would be more appropriate for such a widely circulated newspaper.
Robert Andrews, Claremont