To The Editor:

How many misstatements, corrupt activities, erroneous facts, offensive gestures, improper investment activities, false criticisms of competing candidates, anger, concealment of specific speeches and offensive language does a candidate have to use before "we the people'"completely reject them?

The foul-mouthed Hillary Clinton is interested in two things: her personal financial gains and satisfying an ego, putting her personal objectives above those of the country's. She will do whatever is necessary to advance those objectives. One might wonder if that self-absorption caused her husband to look for companionship elsewhere. There is no love in her heart for others and as a result she only cares about advancing her own personal agenda. Ego is an ambiguous characteristic serving each of us in different ways. There are those who get gratification in helping others and then there are those only interested in satisfying their own personal ambitions. Don't accept these statements as fact; her ludicrous comments are well documented and can be easily found on the Internet. Review her past and current activities and judge for yourselves. Is this the person we want representing America?

When candidate Obama pledged to fundamentally transform America, many sided with him because of the dissatisfaction citizens were experiencing with Washington. There was no question that the American people were fed up with Washington politics, resulting in his election. Hillary Clinton disagreed completely with his political positions then, thinking the party would never nominate or elect a socialist. Today she supports his positions, because her objective is to get elected and not to put past principles above politics. Opposing Obama didn't work for her in 2008, causing her to completely conform to partisan politics today.

The issue is the same one we were faced with when electing Obama the first time: can they deliver what they promise? Go one step further - is she capable of being president? I was certainly not impressed with her accomplishments as a senator, even less impressed with her accomplishments as secretary of state. And, if elected, she intends to appoint her husband as the economic czar. While Bill has specific qualifications, I'm not sure he is the most qualified for that position.

While Donald Trump is a very successful businessman, I am not at all sure that "success in business" is the appropriate credential to lead this country. I am a firm believer that the qualifications for the presidency should expand beyond 14 years a resident of the United States and a natural born citizen, having attained the minimum age of 35. The global economy alone is reason to expand those qualifications. The economic and political conditions throughout the world are dramatically different from those when qualifications were initially established.

If it is at all possible, partisan negativism should be eliminated and replaced by party solutions for current issues. I am suggesting that each party promote their solutions rather than bashing their opponents. Let's start demanding, significantly more experience, and higher standards from our political candidates.

A.P. Roznicki

169 Hanover Road, Newtown          May 25, 2016