Letters to the Editor: Biden won, but we’re still getting four more years of Trump

To the editor: Under normal circumstances, the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of the Texas attorney general’s lawsuit to overturn the election would be the end of the argument for President Trump.

But don’t count on it. Trump’s one great skill is getting maximum publicity free of charge by doing the outrageous, so we can pretty much count on him pursuing his publicity campaign by putting out some new and baseless claims about President-elect Joe Biden, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris and other prominent Democrats.

Trump is not going to let go until the 2024 Republican presidential nominee is selected.

Jewell Jones, San Pedro

..

To the editor: In most nations, there is a simple phrase to describe what Texas and more than a dozen other states that sought to nullify the election result are trying to do: a “bloodless coup.” But since there is so much animus in the GOP right now, one has to wonder how long “bloodless” will apply.

Texas had no shot of prevailing in its lawsuit. As reflected in its 2000 ruling in Bush vs. Gore, the Supreme Court is loath to delay statutory and constitutional election procedures.

So, Texas lost — badly. All the Republican members of Congress who backed the case also lost.

But we all lost simply because these people thought they could try to overturn the election. We cannot count on the Supreme Court to contain rogue legislators and government officials who believe this was appropriate.

If anything, this illustrates the fine line between democracy and autocracy that we are testing. Today, politics trumps patriotism, science and the notion of unifying us as a nation.

Democracy appears to be expendable.

Peter Dekom, Beverly Hills

..

To the editor: Don’t you find it rich that Trump is complaining that the election was stolen from him? After all, Trump has been stealing for much of his adult life.

Back in the 1980s, when he was building his casinos in Atlantic City, N.J., he had a habit of not paying his craftsmen in full. Many were small businessmen who, given the choice of taking a loss or suing a man with deep pockets, chose to walk away.

When he was running for president, he helped himself to music that he wished to play during his rallies. This music was the property of people who get payed in exchange for allowing their music to be played. After cease-and-desist letters were sent to no avail, what were these people to do?

When he was president and still holding rallies, his campaign would refuse to pay some of the cities he visited to cover the cost of added security. To this day his campaign owes money that it will probably never pay.

Now, he has the gall to complain about elections that were not stolen — and it seems there is nothing he can do about it.

Carol Levin, Woodland Hills