Republican Party = Russian Party? I pose the question because it sure seems that the Republican party is doing Russia’s bidding.
First, the Republican party, which controls both houses of the Congress and the White house, refuses to deal with Russia’s meddling of our elections. Not only it is shameful that the Republican-controlled Congress is not willing to take any stand against a chaotic White House that promotes Russia’s interests at the expense of the interests of our European allies, congressional Republicans are defending the White House’s Russia-centric policy continuously.
Even if one reserves judgment as to whether the president has colluded with Russia during the 2016 elections, it is very hard to ignore the fact that Russia meddled in our elections and that it is doing everything it can to derail our democracy.
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to The News & Observer
Now come the Republicans in the Senate and vote against a meager $250 million bill slated to strengthen our elections and, by extension, our democracy. That party-line vote to block efforts to strengthen our elections followed another party-line vote that the Republicans in the House used to derail a similar measure.
As an independent, I have no choice but to wonder whether the Republican Party is the Russian Party.
Draining the swamp
You may wonder why President Donald J. Trump is attempting to drain the swamp; however, the answer is quite simple: Democrats and Republicans are more interested in promoting themselves, rather then looking out for the people and our country.
Let’s face it – they get elected to work for the people, but they are more interested in keeping their jobs with their many benefits, like health care and retirement after working a short duration. They also start out with little money, and end up millionaires. Curious how these events occur.
I know it’s time to support President Donald J. Trump, and continue to get projects approved for the benefit of the people and the United States of America.
Finish bike lanes
Regarding “Raleigh tries to settle issues over Cameron Village road” (Aug. 3): I’m disappointed that the Cameron Village management is blocking new bike lanes on city-maintained Cameron Street, especially considering all the initial legwork from the city is complete.
As a development that thrives on pedestrian traffic, it’s counterintuitive to discourage bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Additional bike infrastructure not only makes the street safer for everyone, it has also been proven to have a positive impact on businesses.
Changing this roadway to two lanes with a center turn lane would help vehicles with turning left (which we all know is a big issue currently) and reduce the number of lanes pedestrians would need to cross and give cyclists (and now Bird scooters) the dedicated throughways that will keep them safe when getting around the shopping center.
The City of Raleigh should not compromise when it comes to bicycle and pedestrian safety. Raleigh’s streets belong to everyone, not just influential property managers. This project has gone through public input and has been approved by the Raleigh City Council. There is no excuse to significantly alter the project at this point.
I urge the City of Raleigh to move forward with the street markings as planned, as quickly as possible, to serve all Raleigh residents.
I am an electrical engineer who has driven an electric vehicle for the last 18 years. My vehicle registration bill now includes an annual $130 EV fee, which our legislators justify because I do not pay the N.C. gasoline tax that funds road maintenance.
This is understandable, but only half of the story.
I purchase the fuel for my EV from Duke Energy, and pay a 7 percent N.C. sales tax on this fuel. If our legislators would spend some of the electricity tax on road maintenance, that would be wonderful; we are no longer the “good roads” state of 40 years ago.
EVs have many advantages and consequently are replacing gasoline and diesel vehicles every day. Our legislature should promote EV use, rather than penalize their owners with double taxation.