President Trump’s resilience under fire is a defining moment for America

In life, defining moments often present us with a stark choice: rise to the occasion or yield to fear. This reflection is profoundly relevant in light of the recent events surrounding President Trump, whose steadfast response to an assassination attempt has become a testament to his resolve and leadership.

When shots rang out and chaos erupted, instead of cowering or retreating, Trump defiantly pumped his fist. This simple gesture spoke volumes, symbolizing a steadfast refusal to succumb to fear. It was not just a personal reaction but a message to the nation: in the face of adversity, he would lead with strength and courage, qualities essential for guiding the country through turbulent times.

In the wake of such a harrowing experience, it is incumbent upon all of us to reflect on our own conduct and rhetoric in the political sphere. In a digital age where opinions are amplified through social media and online platforms, it’s far too easy to engage in vitriolic discourse from behind a screen. The attempted assassination serves as a chilling reminder of the consequences of inflammatory language and the need for civility in public discourse.

The events of that day were a glaring reminder of the challenges facing the nation and the need for strong, steady leadership. In the midst of an election defined by debates over age and competency, President Trump demonstrated unequivocally that he possesses the grit and capability to lead.

President Trump’s pumped fist was not just a gesture; it was a declaration that he is prepared to lead this nation forward, guided by faith in our collective strength and a determination to overcome any obstacle in our path.

Dan Nordberg, Colorado Springs  

Editor’s note: Nordberg is a former Colorado state representative and served as a regional administrator and director of the Office of Rural Affairs at the U.S. Small Business Administration during the Trump administration.  

Debating Thomas Friedman’s view of Trump and Biden

Re: “Anxious times — The devil may be enjoying this election season, but I am not,” July 14 commentary

After reading Thomas Friedman’s commentary, I am amazed that the man has won any awards, unless it is about Democrats telling lies. His lies about President Donald Trump are both astounding and politically bigoted. If you remove the COVID madness, this country was in better shape and better respected than during any recent presidency. Trump is a savvy businessman, which made him a savvy president. No amount of lying and bloviating will change that. Another reason the readership of most liberal papers is decreasing.

William F. Hineser, Arvada

Thomas Friedman’s political article in Sunday’s Post was spot on. Every voting American needs to read this article. It is excellent and well-written. Both parties need to wake up and see what this presidential campaign is doing to our country. Our elections should not be this divisive.

Peg Wirt, Broomfield

With all the noise about Joe Biden’s debate performance (ignoring Donald Trump’s lies and rantings, by the way) and now the understandable focus on the attempted assassination, it is easy to overlook the most important issues about the 2024 election. I was greatly relieved to finally read an opinion piece about the very real defects of Donald Trump.

I have admired Thomas Friedman for many years, and I agree 100% with what he said: Trump is not fit to be president, and Biden should be replaced by a younger, more eloquent candidate.

But wait — it’s even worse than Friedman’s opinion piece says. Specifically, he says nothing about Project 2025, the manifesto from the Heritage Foundation. It is possible that Trump knows little about Project 2025. However, the fact remains that several people who have been close to Trump are involved (e.g., ​Project 2025 director Paul Dans was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management under Trump, and associate director Spencer Chretien was a special assistant to Trump).

It seems obvious that the Heritage Foundation and Christian Nationalists view Trump as their way to gain control of the country. And with the current makeup of the SCOTUS, we have no way to protect ourselves from a right-wing takeover of this country if Trump is reelected.

Every American should read Project 2025. I believe that a substantial majority of Americans will be horrified by what is in that document and that they will vote accordingly.

James W. Craft, Broomfield

Leaders get in the way of reviving Denver

Re: “All my favorite Denver haunts have closed or changed,” July 14 commentary

Columnist Krista Kafer misses the forest for the trees. Of course, no one cares about the 16th Street Mall or downtown, really. Colorado is just one of those states most people don’t relocate to for an urban center with its attendant misery. The suburbs are a threat, at least for now, because they’re greener, quieter, less dense, safer, cheaper, and more free.

However, Denver’s real liability is its elected leaders, who oversee one of the worst-run municipalities this side of the Mississippi. It’s like they’re stuck in pandemic times, trying to out-woke Seattle and Portland. The rest of us have moved on.

We can expect nothing from Denver Mayor Mike Johnston in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Grants Pass decision, which ruled that people can be arrested and fined for sleeping outside in public; he’s a soft touch, and the empathy industrialists have his number.

We have a police chief who takes to the press to warn drivers about the 30 days this year his people will actually enforce infractions on expired vehicle tags.

City Council last week unanimously approved a ballot initiative that asks voters to allow non-citizens to ascend to our most hallowed public position: the first responder.

Transformed beyond recognition, indeed.

Tom Medlin, Denver

The other side of the lobbyist story

Re: “Lobbyists were paid nearly $70M,” July 7 news story, “Lawmakers, push back on lobbyists,” and “The price tag on influence costs citizens dearly,” July 14 letter to the editor

I have read with interest the articles on lobbying and lobbyists. For approximately 30 years I lobbied at the state Capitol. Over the years I had different clients with different interests, so I worked with many legislators. I believe and sincerely hope that I was honest and ethical. It was my belief that honesty was the most effective tool.

There is another side to this story, and that is the legislators themselves. On several occasions, legislators, including a speaker of the House, would demand money or withhold votes. My clients often did give money but not under threat. It was a big chance they took by not capitulating. There was even a “journalist ” who told me if my client would give enough money, they would write a favorable endorsement of an important bill. The client didn’t send money and the bill passed anyway. Often bills are drafted with unintended consequences. It is the lobbyist’s job to make sure their clients aren’t damaged, be it a business, group or government. Rather than killing the bill, an amendment might take care of the problem. We want, and have, a citizen legislature, warts and all.

Lynn Young, Kersey

Corporate doctors can give compassionate, consistent care

Re: “Remembering when physicians got personal with patients,” July 14 letter to the editor

I found myself somewhat in agreement with the doctor who wrote the letter but differed in his broad approach painting doctors as corporate lackeys.

Of course, I can only speak on my personal experience as a patient and a member of the Patient Advisory Board of CU Medicine Internal Medicine. I have been a patient cared for by Dr. Cindy Rakotz for over twenty years. I should add Rakotz also provides primary care for my wife, two daughters and my grandchildren.

Rakotz is not only professionally competent but also sincerely interested and committed to the well-being of her patients. CU Physicians and the affiliate UC Health can be described as a corporation of which CU Internal is a part of, but I never have felt anything other than personal interest and care from Rakotz and all the staff. When unable to arrange an appointment with my personal care physician, the office goes out of its way to arrange being cared for by another doctor on staff.

Recently, my wife was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and we were referred to the oncology department of Anschutz. For its size, the hospital, the medical staff and the technical support group — including desk personnel and valets — were sensitive and demonstrated personal interest in our welfare. Each medical professional must, in the end, be attentive to their oath to “first do no harm,” but also practice individual empathy despite their corporate affiliation. I believe CU Medicine and UC Health fulfill that expectation.

Philip Arreola, Denver

Too brutal to be called a sport

Re: “Let’s not wait six years for UFC to return to Denver,” July 14 sports commentary

Let’s not wait six years for UFC to return to Denver? Better still, wait a hundred years.

Ultimate Fighting is the second dumbest “sport” ever conceived. It’s referred to as “full-contact combat fighting based on striking, grappling and ground fighting.”

In other words, it’s two men or two women who try to beat each other’s brains out. That’s a sport? It’s not far off from dogfighting and cockfighting, although millions would argue otherwise.

Anyone who would appreciate a UFC bout would probably be delighted by multiple-car crashes on I-25, train wrecks and container ships ramming bridges.

The dumbest sport? Water polo. Half-naked, half-submerged players try to net a ball in urine-infused pools. Suggestion: Have them stand on dry land and aim the ball at nets that are, oh, ten feet off the ground. There’s a name for it too: basketball.

Craig Marshall Smith, Highlands Ranch

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.