Trump and the GOP; thank Hillary; leaking methane

Trump and the GOP

Donald Trump says that if the Republican Party doesn’t treat him “reasonably fairly,” he may run as a third-party candidate, which presumably would give the presidency to the Democratic Party.

Can you say extortion?

Trump’s egomania may have him believing he could win. However, surely his intellect — he is no dummy — would say otherwise. He seems to have no qualms about helping the Democratic Party’s candidate.

Given Trump’s penchant for winning, he must consider his current circumstances as win-win — including a Democratic presidency.

— Don Ponder, Fort Worth

If indeed Donald Trump is somewhat, or a lot, liberal, as the writer of an Aug. 13 letter (“GOP debate”) implied, perhaps he would not be a bad choice for president after all.

Certainly he would exceed anything we could expect from the likes of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas or Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

No doubt he is wise enough to steer clear of the harmful and foolish policies these two are advocating.

— K.D. Boyd, Granbury

I’m sorry, but I have to agree with Donald Trump on Megyn Kelly.

She is an unprofessional tabloid reporter. She likes to cut people off when they disagree with her.

Why on earth was she chosen to moderate a debate?

— Trent Spahr, Fort Worth

Thank Hillary

Everyone pointing fingers at Hillary Clinton should be thanking her.

Considering all the government servers that have been attacked, infiltrated and breached, her server may be the only one that has accurate and complete records.

She is being singled out.

That means, to me, that the Republican Party is really scared she will win and must discredit her in every way possible.

Why does the U.S. seem to be so afraid of a strong woman leader?

Rise up, women of America! It is our time to shatter the last glass ceiling.

Let us join our European and Asian allies who are not afraid to have a woman leader.

— Cecelia Gilbreath, Fort Worth

Leaking methane

The Aug. 19 story about methane (“EPA plans to reduce methane emissions”) was a bit confusing.

Petroleum industry operators are quoted as saying that “they have reason to take action on their own (as opposed to government regulation) because leaks leave them with less natural gas to sell.”

While that would seem common sense, why is it that it apparently takes “peer-reviewed studies” to reveal that most of the leaks are “coming from a small percentage of sites”? Why wouldn’t the industry know that already if it is truly an incentive not to waste gas on leaks?

If outside studies can identify the individual sites that are producing most of the leakage, why can’t an industry with a self-proclaimed interest in doing so identify and repair those sites voluntarily before the studies can find them?

Last, why on earth would an industry with access to the best marketing minds in the world try to dodge complicity in leaking methane by pointing to flatulent cows?

Really?

— Bill Lanford, Haltom City

This story was originally published August 25, 2015 at 5:39 PM with the headline "Trump and the GOP; thank Hillary; leaking methane."