Donald Trump earlier made it abundantly clear that he was to be anointed Fuehrer or he'll destroy everything.

He'd already sown the seeds for delegitimizing the eventual winner, warning without cause of a rigged election.  Disappointed Trump worshipers will ultimately claim it was so, in the utter absence of all evidence.  As a result, the system will be virtually impossible to make function.

At the second debate, an entirely disgraceful spectacle, Trump threatened to jail his opponent-- something we see in cheap Third World dictatorships-- for the effrontery of opposing him at all.  It can't be for any real offense, despite his promise to open an "investigation" against her.  She's already been investigated.  Abundantly.  It's done!  The notoriously low-information candidate doesn't realize that a President can't command anyone's incarceration.  This depends on an independent judiciary.  We call it the Separation of Powers, and it's a vital safeguard of freedom.  As a Fascist, Trump would gladly destroy it.

Further solidifying his existence in an alternate reality, Trump then decreed to the approval of his worshipers that the mainstream media is entirely fraudulent and conspiratorial.  This was his only way to counter his well-known history of being a habitual harasser and abuser of women.  Well-known, and acknowledged:  He himself raised it in a 1998 interview as an impediment to political office.  (At the time he was defending Bill Clinton against such allegations, but he sings a different tune today.)  Even his own children, in an appearance on Howard Stern, teased their father as a sexual predator, without a whimper of protest from him.

Today, Friday October 14, Trump achieved a heretofore-unimagined low:  He solicited someone out there to issue a false accusation of sexual assault against President Obama, a man whose honor is clean of any stain.  Words fail to express how heinously underhanded this is.  This is Trump.

I consider it likely that someone will do exactly that, and it may happen before this sees print.  The responsible (mainstream) media will at first ignore it, but the unscrupulous right-wing media will run with it, even knowing it to be false, which will then push the calumny into the mainstream.

This will further drive our politics into the Trumpian sewer.  And a satisfied Trump will  stand astride an America metaphorically reduced to smoking rubble.  Again, that's what many Trumpistas want.  Following a Clinton win, they'll do their level worst to continue the Trump strategy of Scorched Earth.  Such is patriotism, 2016.

At what point did America go utterly mad?

P.S.: I can't let Edna Paskoff's characterization of me (regarding last week’s Letter to the Editor) slide by. She needs to explain by what logic can me wanting a nice Jewish doctor possibly be "anti-Semitic"?

Sincerely,

Stephen Van Eck

Rushville, PA

Please read the following very carefully because you already voted on this issue in April. Then, if you agree, please pass it on to all on your email and phone lists before November 8th.

In April, 2016, a proposition was placed on the Pennsylvania ballot asking whether or not judges' retirement ages should be extended to the time they reach 75 years of age.

The proposition read as follows:

Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the the Supreme Court, judges and justices of the peace (known as magisterial district judges) be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years, instead of the current requirement that they be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 70?

The voters responded with a resounding "NO," indicating that they did not want judges on the bench over the age of 70 years.

Well, evidently, the outcome of that vote did not sit well with the powers that be, and so a new proposition was added to the November General Election ballot. It reads as follows:

Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges, and magisterial district judges be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years?

Please notice the difference. The language left out of the current proposition is significant. The voters already said "NO" to judges being allowed to sit on the bench up until the time they reached 75 - that vote was in April. Now in November, the voters are being asked if they will vote AGAIN - but this time to REQUIRE them to sit until age 75!

If you vote "YES" on this proposition, you will be voiding the "NO" vote you cast in April! If you want to maintain the vote you cast in April you should vote "NO" on this proposition.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Sincerely,

Edna K. Paskoff

Montrose, PA

This is not a new issue but one I’ve been following for some time.  Some believe that illegal immigrants and bad trade deals have cost us our jobs. Someone has said that if you tell a lie long enough and loud enough some people with believe it. In reality, if you want to correctly place blame for our lost jobs, you must look at our legislators and our corporations. Corporations saw  that if you shed American workers and out source their jobs, they could dramatically increase their profits. They even get a tax break to facilitate their actions. Our Legislators have proven they don’t care about the American workers and their families, as they still refuse to eliminate this job killing tax break legislation,

I guess placing the onus where it belongs doesn't make good talking points, or fit a political agenda.

Sincerely,

W. G. Dahlander

Great Bend Township