To the editor: The op-ed articles by Paul Slansky and Scott Jennings were diametrically opposed, not just in the positions on President Trump, but in the ways they said it.

Slansky was direct, repeating criticisms of Trump that are widely recognized as valid. Jennings, on the other hand, did not dispute that Trump is a pathological liar and a boor. Instead, he attacked liberals and cherry-picked anecdotes to make the president’s critics look unhinged.

For all the Democrats I know, their biggest issue with Trump echoes an objection raised by many Republicans: He is not fit to be president. Certainly, Democrats and even some Republicans do not like many of Trump’s policies, but the most important reason for opposing the president is that he is the worst possible representative of this country.

Phil Kirk, Encinitas


..

To the editor: “It must be exhausting to wake up outraged every morning,” Jennings writes. “And here’s the truth: Your outrage is helping Trump more than it’s hurting him.”

Slansky observes: “When we think about him he wins. When we talk about him, he wins. I’m tired of all his winning.”

After all the mudslinging, they’ve come to the same conclusion. Glad we can agree on something.


Barri Clark, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Trump deserves most of the criticism he gets. But the kind of vitriol dished out by Slansky was unpalatable, bordering on hate-mongering.

Jennings, the writer who defended the president, really got it right by saying that constantly hating on Trump just strengthens his support.


Alas, as awful as the prospect is, Trump will begin tweeting his way through another term in 2021 doing what he does best: huffing and puffing and blowing all the bad stuff away. That will be good for cable news -- what would those channels do without Trump?

William A. Harper, San Diego