Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The banner headline in the Jan. 16 print edition of the Star Tribune was "Iowa stands by Trump" in a rather large font. Whoever thought this headline up is a master of hyperbole.

According to the New York Times, there were 110,298 voters who participated in the Iowa caucus Monday evening. Of those, 56,260 voted for Trump. According to the Iowa Secretary of State's website, there are 1,518,210 active registered voters in Iowa. Of those, 594,533 are registered as Republicans. So, this means that about 18.5% of Iowa's active registered Republicans participated in the caucus and that 9.5% of Iowa's active registered Republicans voted for Trump in the caucus. In addition, since any registered voter in Iowa could have attended their local Republican caucus and voted (those not registered as Republicans would have had to change their registration to Republican at the caucus to do so), this means that only 3.7% of Iowa's active registered voters voted for Trump on Monday.

This certainly does not look like "Iowa stands by Trump" to me.

Edward Seifert, Shoreview

•••

I grew up in Iowa City in a quite traditional household. My ancestors fought in the Civil War. My grandfather was a World War I prisoner, and both of my parents were World War II veterans. We felt a void when our principled father went away to church conventions or to Des Moines to encourage legislators to vote for increased education funding. I was proud to be Iowan when attending an East Coast college. Iowa then had the best public education in the nation! We adored the Hawkeyes and respected the Cyclones. I understood how our country elevators collected grain for eventual export to a world that needed to be fed. I was invited to participate in a mock United Nations in Ames, to better understand that world. Our community lived up to its belief in the inherent worth and dignity of all. We taught and learned from exchange students — from Chicago, Mexico and India. We were trusting and trustworthy with our neighbors. Halloween was for UNICEF as much as candy. We could recite the state capitals, the Pledge of Allegiance, the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address. We could name our senators and representatives. We mourned the assassination of political and spiritual leaders, as well as soldiers dying on the other side of the globe. We watched and listened to the news because the larger world mattered.

I have lived less than two hours from Iowa for the last 50 years, and yet I wonder: Where has my home state gone? And when will all of us find our way home?

Joan Maclin, St. Paul

•••

In the Jan. 17 editorial "Trump – and his lies – triumph in Iowa," I see that "in Iowa 66% of poll respondents 'echoed Trump's false claim that [President] Joe Biden did not legitimately win the presidency in 2020.'" What we don't know is how many of them sincerely believe the false claim. Sometimes we accept lies, both little ones and big ones, because we support the person who tells the lie. We want them to get the job, the scholarship, the promotion or an elected office because we like them. If fudging the truth helps their cause, so be it. "Everybody lies," we tell ourselves. But that means that we don't actually believe the lie, we quietly look the other way and accept it as part of the price we're willing to pay for getting what we want. Honestly believing a lie, on the other hand, is a whole different thing. If I believed Donald Trump was in fact cheated out of the presidency in 2020 (he wasn't), it would make me mad even if I didn't especially like the guy (I don't), and I could be persuaded to support him just to right the wrong that had been done to him (none was). Unfortunately, it is near impossible to reason or argue or debate any of us out of our fiercely held opinions, even when our opinions are based on falsehood. If Shakespeare is right, eventually "the truth will out," and it will be recognized even by those who for now deny it. But eventually may not be before Election Day. Meanwhile, those of us who accept the truth of the 2020 election can "stay engaged," as the editorial wisely puts it, with candidates who are also doing their best to keep faith with the truth.

W. Bruce Benson, Northfield

•••

What Iowans just voted for:

Mystifying, to say the least.

Chris Malecek, Mendota Heights

Last week there was an article about a settlement reached between Menards and an employee who was denied the time and facilities to express breast milk for her baby ("Menards fined for penalizing worker," Jan. 10). I expect there may have been some readers who felt that having to provide adequate time and facilities for a new mother was "over the top" or even unfair to other employees not able to have as much break time. I was a new working mother four times in the early 1990s. So, to me, that story was a reminder of the things I had to do back when nary a thought was given employees breastfeeding their babies — and God forbid anyone brought it up, because that would be awkward and embarrassing.

I would have to stand in a bathroom stall, balancing the bottle into which I was collecting milk on the toilet roll. If the person in the next stall vigorously opened or closed their stall door, the bottle would fall to the floor. Anyone familiar with the manual pump used for this can imagine what a juggling act it was and how hard it was not to be stressed beyond belief — far from the ideal state of mind for accomplishing the task. The whole thing was humiliating and disrespectful. It was hard not to get the message — expressed in so many ways — that a woman couldn't be a committed employee and a devoted mother simultaneously.

Suffice it to say, anything that happens in the workplace that facilitates a woman taking care of her baby and her job in the way she believes is best is progress. I applaud the woman in the story for having the courage and strength to take on Menards and force it to follow the law.

Jane Tyler, Forest Lake

Regarding "Red-flag law will harm, not help" (Opinion Exchange, Jan. 17), Nick Majerus, in his counterpoint to imposing red-flag laws, supports expanding mental health services. He calls upon citizens to intervene where they see illegal behavior or persons in crisis as an alternative, especially in proximity to firearms. Of course, he ignores the reality that those steps are useless once the danger has already arisen. To be safe from the harm created by others is also a fundamental right, which is why machine guns and explosives are illegal to possess without strict preconditions. Given that all rights are subject to reasonable limitation, it seems abjectly stupid to argue that the "harm" of empowering authorities to limit firearm possession during a mental health crisis is too much of intrusion to allow.

Peter Rainville, Minneapolis