Letters: Offenders are welcome to run for president in America

Does the irony of this strike any other readers?
“Fla. high court may hear felon voter case,” an article in the Herald-Tribune on Oct. 26, cites the case of one man who, because he committed a sex offense 35 years ago, voted “illegally” in 2022.
The constitutional amendment approved by Florida voters in 2018 allows felons to vote but omits sex offenders and murderers. 
The case of this one man has bounced back and forth in the courts and cost at least tens of thousands of dollars for Gov. Ron DeSantis and his minions to “target the alleged voter fraud by convicted felons.”
Yet a man found liable for sexual abuse and convicted of 34 felonies is allowed to run for president (“Jury finds Donald Trump liable in civil sex abuse case of E. Jean Carroll,” May 9, 2023)?
Too bad the law-and-order Florida legislators didn’t get in on supporting a federal law that would prohibit sexual offenders from running for president. If they had, we wouldn’t be in our current national situation.
Vote for the only sane person on the ballot.
Joyce Edleman, Venice
We have heard a lot about immigration in this political campaign.
Former President Donald Trump wants to evict all illegals, roughly 11 million people who work and live in this country. We are not given any more detail about the feasibility and the consequences of such a drastic policy.
Let’s revisit history for a brief moment and talk about the Chinese Exclusion Act. It was passed in 1882 and suspended immigration of Chinese laborers (skilled or unskilled) with dire consequences.
There was a shortage of labor, the Chinese community became isolated and discrimination against Asians grew. Not the most glorifying chapter of our history.
The Exclusion Act was not repealed until 1943. But it could be revived to end all immigration for Latinos or, as Donald Trump so elegantly put it once, immigration from “s——-” countries.
The rhetoric is always the same:
“They” take our jobs.
“They” are not to be trusted.
“Our white civilization is in danger.”
We should not fall once again into the trap of exclusion toward people who need simply to live. We should admit our past mistakes and not listen once again to the ugly chants of white nationalism.
Christine Deutsch, Sarasota
In an Oct. 29 guest column, Peter Dyga – the CEO of the Associated Builders and Contractors Florida East Coast chapter – expressed his desire for a president who would dramatically reduce governmental regulation (“Trump’s focus on cutting red tape would help firms”).
I understand his perspective: less regulation equals greater profits. However, as a consumer, I am interested in safe, high-quality products even when the short-term cost is higher.
There are many examples that affect the entire spectrum of our lives − from building codes to medicinal efficacy to food and water quality to vehicular safety. I have seen many instances in which inadequate regulation has had disastrous consequences.
When Florida introduced stronger building codes, i.e., more regulation, in the early 2000s, it dramatically improved the hurricane survivability of homes, including mobile homes. Builders did not like those new regulations because they increased construction costs.
My house was built in 1999. A major national insurance company would not insure my home because it was not built according to the new stronger standards.
While some builders put quality first, I know from personal experience that not all are competent. Regulation helps to offset incompetence.
In January 2001, the Herald-Tribune published a full-page article about the lessons I learned about home-builder quality issues. Reasonable regulations equal accountability, quality and safety.
Joe Harb, Lakewood Ranch
Write to us:How to send a letter to the editor