Trying to grasp the reasoning of the “other” voters

Re: “I am a Mexican American who voted for Trump; no, I don’t hate myself,” Nov 17 commentary

When I first read J. Marcos Peterson’s article, I laughed. I thought it was a parody. I try to be objective but many charges he levels against the Dems apply as much, if not more, to the GOP.

I particularly like the paragraph where he praises his undocumented relatives, who are successful and admirable. He then criticizes the current undocumented immigrants for skipping the line. Whoa, partner, who skipped the line?

— Patrick Shima, Alamosa

J. Marcos Peterson’s commentary is a fascinating explanation of why he and other Latinos voted for Donald Trump.

Trump blames America’s economic problems on immigrants here illegally, yet Peterson is certain this is not a reference to his undocumented mother and other family members. Peterson resents immigrants who have “skipped the line” with government-funded help his mother couldn’t get. Was he referring to Haitian immigrants working at jobs Ohio factories were unable to fill? Donald Trump will cancel their temporary legal status and he has reiterated his promise to use the military to conduct mass deportations.

As a gay man, it didn’t bother Peterson that Trump stoked fear and prejudice against LGBTQ+ people throughout his political career. During his first administration, he attempted to keep gays from openly serving in the military and tried to end nondiscrimination policies for LGBTQ+ people in housing, health care, the workforce and education.

Trump was convicted of fraudulent business practices and is famous for not paying employees. Yet, Mr. Peterson believes Trump is the person listening to him and will take care of regular folks.

I’ve watched Trump’s rallies. I heard the contempt Trump and his followers have for gays, immigrants and women. I was shocked so many Americans voted for Donald Trump. Peterson reveals the mental gymnastics many Trump voters engaged in to justify their vote for him. I will check back next year and see how that has worked out for him and his family.

— Holly Sample, Florissant

I certainly appreciate J. Marcos Peterson’s opinion, but the author can hardly blame the left for labeling anyone. We call them like we see them and the right never had problems labeling us all as “radical (insert new name).” We understand racist, homophobic and misogynistic accusations are not a reflection of the entire conservative party just as woke and elitist isn’t for liberals.

We don’t pretend to wear camo, own guns and drink beer; we actually own guns, wear camo and drink beer.

Where we might disagree is we believe in some fundamental truths: a lack of any significant immigration reform from Congress in the last 30 years had more to do with the border crisis than the man sitting in the White House; immigrants commit crimes at much lower rates than U.S. citizens; under Biden’s administration the greatest increase in personal wealth and income came to lower-income workers; the price of groceries is directly associated with pandemic related supply restrictions and price gouging by opportunistic manufacturers; and finally, Democrats had a better plan to help you and your generation obtain the American dream while also protecting your rights.

I find it the author would vote for a party that could eliminate his right to marry the person of his choosing and wants to deport millions of Latinos who came here, much like his parents, in search of a better life.

No, I’m not going to call the author any of those “ist” or “ic” names but I can think of one that ends in “id.” I think the next four years will be a learning experience for him.

— Tony Hillas, Centennial

Will news media learn anything from this election?

Re: “Freedom of the Press: We will not be silenced,” Jan. 17 commentary

It is interesting that Jim Martin talks about how the free press is “the watchdog, the gatekeeper, and the public’s window into the inner workings of political power.” He mentions the “resolve of the press to strive for truth and transparency,” “distinguishing fact from fiction,” and “its commitment to truth.”

Who is he kidding? The press has done nothing but bash Donald Trump, his appointees and his ideas while not providing the “truth” about the Biden administration cabinet members, the border, Hunter Biden’s laptop, etc. The left-leaning press has not provided the American people with the truth, and for once, the left-leaning press did not elect the president. It’s time the press starts giving the American people both sides of the political picture or they will continue to lose even more respect and following.

— Judy Robinson, Castle Rock

Re: “Media Trouble,” Nov. 17 commentary

For all the opining about why Donald Trump won more than half of our votes, very few voters are aware of how they’ve been duped by the cruel journey of the favorite media of more than half of U.S. citizens — Fox News and its ilk (such as Newsmax). The journey of Rupert Murdoch to victimize U.S. citizens by spreading false conservative information is critical knowledge to have. The book “Hoax,” by Brian Stelter, is highly recommended.

Rupert Murdoch admitted in a deposition that Fox hosts endorsed election fraud lies, lies which cost him $787.5 million in a settlement. Britain threw Murdoch out years ago, yet he continues to perpetuate lies here.

If you consider Citizens United’s passage and the loss of The Fairness Doctrine to this year’s election outcome, it’s plain to see that Murdoch successfully programmed our citizens to unknowingly vote for the biggest liar.

Thank you, LZ Granderson and The Denver Post, for bringing this truth to people who need it so much. We can hope that the masses of Murdoch’s victims will finally realize how they have been victimized. Then we can correctly point fingers, hopefully healing this country, if we have much left after Trump’s war on us.

— Adoree Blair, Highlands Ranch

Jim, most of us don’t want to silence the press/media. We want it to be fair.

— Alan Hale, Brighton

Voters looked past media reports to see the truth for themselves

Two of Sunday’s commentaries were humorous to me:

One extols the virtues of the role of media as the 4th branch of government. The legacy media (newspapers and network TV) long ago abdicated this role for that of the propaganda arm of the Democratic (liberal) Party. People are not stupid and they don’t listen to

repeated nonsense of “how Trump lies about everything” and “he’s a terrible man.” They use their eyes and ears for truth. They look for how the party they vote for may be able to help them and their community, not just for handouts.

The article by LZ Granderson is even worse. It tells us that the reason for the problems with the legacy media all resides with the Republicans letting Rupert Murdoch into the industry. Can it be that the media has skewed so far left as to be immune to seeing the forest for the trees? In other words, they work so hard to convince us that every position and policy put forth by conservatives is the worst thing ever, that they take no time to really study what the policy is and how it might actually help some people.

Finally, let me tip my cap to J. Marcos Peterson! What a refreshing article to read of someone who might so easily fit into the Democrats’ “identity” groups. It shows how Americans can see through the continuous Democrat Party propaganda and rightfully reject their rhetoric.

It does not go unnoticed, though, that these two “liberal” media articles appear above J. Marcos Peterson’s writing, a clear indication that those at The Post still hang on to their legacy media “purpose,” blindly following and promoting the liberal prioritization of their proven, wrongheaded views.

— Paul Fabian, Broomfield

Harris/Walz campaign positions were not “centrist”

Re: “The list of reasons is long in examining Trump win/Harris loss,” Nov. 17 letter to the editor

Following the shellacking on Election Day, the near-term political future of our country is fairly predictable. The long-term? Not so much. But if the letter writer who asserts that it’s wrong for the party to move to the center because “the Harris/Walz campaign was centrist.” is any indication of the general mindset of Democrats, the future of 2028 and beyond is a gimme.

Banning fracking, defunding the police and abolishing ICE, supporting universal income and reparations, taxpayer-funded abortion upon demand and gender transition surgery for inmates … shall we go on? The writer’s definition of centrist is remarkably different from that of 75 million Americans.

Technically, I suppose it’s accurate to say they didn’t “campaign” on those issues. And rightly so. Had they done that, it would’ve exposed the truth regarding their positions, and you can’t have that if you’re hoping to be elected in today’s America. Fortunately for voters, someone exposed that information, and here we are.

The Harris/Walz relative position on the political spectrum is nowhere near the center. Voters recognized that and responded accordingly.

— Jon Pitt, Golden