I had the opposite rally experience
I just read the letters of a few's opinions in regards to the rally in the Oct. 7 paper. One such letter "How about a little empathy?" caused me to gasp. I do not know what part of the rally this individual was at, but where I was at, it was the other way around.
These people found a way to get around that so called "rule" of not provoking the Trump supporters. Everything this person accused the Trump supporters of, was quite the opposite! Despite the extremely few numbers, there was much bullying on the part of the protesters against those walking around.
I find it very frustrating that the very traits the conservatives are accused of are actually the exact traits they encounter from the very people who claim tolerance (yet have no tolerance for those who do not agree with them). While people have their opinions, sometimes they are a bit extreme.
I did laugh at her statement about how the women Trump supporters "walked behind their husbands." Oh my my my! So not true! Unless there was a single file due to the crowd and people getting around, there were many men walking behind their wives, too! It just happened that way. I feel sorry for this girl (and others of her mindset), for they do not see the forest for the trees.
Candidates defined by health care differences
I attended the Oct. 4 candidates forum and wish more could witness the rather stark difference between Republican incumbents, Matthew Hill and Micah Van Huss, and their opponents, Murphey Johnson, an independent, and Nathan Farnor, a Democrat. It's a pity Phil Roe wasn't present to defend Congress's meager response to the opioid crisis, which his Democrat opponent, gynecologist Dr. Marty Olsen, described in detail from his daily interaction with patients.
Medicaid expansion dominated the forum. Democrat and independent candidates support it because our state forfeits $3.4 billion dollars yearly, to the benefit of 33 Medicaid-expansion states (with expansion votes coming soon in Idaho, Nebraska, Utah and Montana), while over 300,000 Tennesseans are denied the benefit of health insurance, and while our rural hospitals close, 10 since 2014. It's beyond absurd when any Tennessee legislator defends four years of obstructing even a floor vote on Medicaid expansion. And they've done so despite actual bipartisan legislative support along with 67 percent of the population. Also strongly supporting expansion: the Tennessee Hospital Association, our local hospitals and medical professionals, even the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce because of clear economic advantage. All that is ignored or glossed over by legislative leadership and extreme conservative supporters, including Hill and Van Huss.
Micah Van Huss gave only a vague and lame ideological argument as if that really has bearing on the issue as a down-to-earth practical matter. Matthew Hill stresses "fiscal responsibility" and pretends it's all about his empathy for people who would have coverage but might lose it someday because of drastic economic changes. Whom does he consult about this? Certainly none of the 300,000 Tennesseans. How about a lucky Kentucky beneficiary who's already had four years, and counting, of excellent health coverage? His condescending arrogance astounds me.