Opinion | Kellyanne Conway’s View of Donald Trump – The New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “The Case for (and Against) Donald Trump in 2024,” by Kellyanne Conway (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 15):

A diversity of opinions and perspectives is a fantastic goal, and one reason I’ve been a longtime subscriber. Generally speaking, your opinion guest essays are well written and thoughtful and provide a point of view that makes one examine a topic with fresh eyes.

The opinion from Ms. Conway is not that.

Time and again she employs sloganeering to sling arrows at Democrats and non-Trumpists in an attempt to burnish the reputation of her former boss.

She continues to attempt to turn neighbor against neighbor by perpetuating the othering of Trump detractors and the denial of Mr. Trump’s and her attacks on voting, democracy and simple decency.

Hers is not another “opinion”; it is carefully crafted and intentional spin to appeal to people’s sense of grievance and to reaffirm the lies and misinformation they are so ready to believe.

Her inclusion in your paper diminishes the quality of debate, and galvanizes a person America would be better off forgetting.

Conn Fishburn

To the Editor:

Kellyanne Conway opines that “when it comes to Donald J. Trump, people see what they wish to see,” and then goes on to demonstrate just that, never mentioning his blatant, willful, prolonged lying about the “stolen” 2020 election, which we now know not even he believes.

Toss in the further elephants in the room — his central role in the Jan. 6 debacle, his fraudulent and shuttered foundation and university, the conviction of his family business entity’s C.F.O., and on and on, and it would appear that Ms. Conway is indeed a victim of the Trump Derangement Syndrome she decries.

Even worse, she is clearly one who should know better, and even worse, likely does.

Steve Heilig
San Francisco

To the Editor:

Talk about hedging your bets as a political forecaster and soft selling your qualifications for rehire! Kellyanne Conway’s well-composed essay on Donald Trump’s potential for 2024 felt like the needed equanimity, bipartisan advice and clear thinking the country needs.

If Mr. Trump were smart he would rehire Ms. Conway as campaign manager for 2024, or at least pay close attention to her last sentences: “Success lies in having advisers who tell you what you need to know, not just what you want to hear. And in listening to the people, who have the final say.”

Lisa Bostwick
San Francisco

To the Editor:

Read Kellyanne Conway’s guest essay for what it really is — a job pitch to future Republican presidential candidates (conveniently name-dropped in the article).

The pitch: If I could get a buffoon like Donald Trump elected and then get The New York Times to give me a full page to list his imaginary accomplishments, just think what I could do for you.

Laura Schumacher
San Diego

To the Editor:

Kellyanne Conway writes: “Success lies in having advisers who tell you what you need to know, not just what you want to hear. And in listening to the people, who have the final say.”

Since when has Donald Trump been known as a listener or as one who respects advisers who tell him what he needs to know?

Mr. Trump’s overriding egotism and his self-infatuation prevent him from believing that anyone could know more about anything than The Donald himself.

Ben Miles
Huntington Beach, Calif.

To the Editor:

Thanks, Ms. Conway, for that delightful nostalgic stroll down the memory lane of alternative facts.

To the Editor:

Re “Plundering Art, Russia Assaults Soul of Ukraine” (front page, Jan. 15):

Like Nazi aggression in World War II, Russian aggression in Ukraine is an expression of absolute evil — a mixture of barbarism that knows no limits, genocide of both a people and their culture, and unremitting, centrally organized propaganda claiming that up is down, that black is white and that Russia is fighting a defensive war.

Richard Joffe
New York

To the Editor:

Re “Robot, Know Thyself” (Science Times, Jan. 10):

Robots with consciousness is an oxymoron. Consciousness is a necessary ingredient to what is usually deemed the defining characteristic of being human: the ability to choose.

Computers/robots do not have that ability. Their “choice” is limited to what programmers program them to do. Admittedly that may occur under circumstances not contemplated when the machines are programmed, but the machine’s progression toward making a decision is based on its programming, not on free choice.

Steven Goldberg

To the Editor:

A truly conscious robot will cost a fortune to the company that develops it, but at that level of sophistication it may decide to work on unnecessary projects, or stop working altogether for the company, instead opting to work for a competitor.

Kevin J. Longo
Putnam, Conn.
The writer is a science tutor.

Original News Source Link