Letters to the Editor: Why did the L.A. Times call Trump’s victory a ‘hostile takeover’ of the White House?

Trump inauguration
Donald Trump waits to be inaugurated as the 45th U.S. president at the Capitol in Washington on Jan. 20, 2017.
(Win McNamee / Associated Press)

To the editor: Wow, what an objective, analytical, classically professional opening sentence in this article, which appeared on your front page of the Sunday edition.

The first sentence begins with the phrase, “Four years after his hostile takeover of the White House.”

Now I ask you, really, does winning an election constitute a hostile takeover? Or is this merely hyperbole to emphasize the unbiased, objective and realistic approach the Los Angeles Times has taken toward our president?

Come on, you purveyors of public opinion, you leaders of the free world’s press, where is your honesty?


Bill Schoettler, Bass Lake, Calif.


To the editor: This “analysis” would be better labeled “opinion.”

The piece lost me at “hostile takeover.” I was unaware that an electoral college victory was considered a hostile action. I believe that’s the way the framers of the Constitution set things up.


A “hostile takeover” would better describe what has been happening for the last three-plus years, with a constant effort to figure out some way to get rid of a duly elected president.

S.L. Grewal, Anaheim

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.