Readers Write: Patriotism, abortion fact-check, immigration, St. Cloud Trump rally fees, inflation

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Dear former President Donald Trump (and conservatives in general):

In the recent presidential debate, you repeated your claim that liberals hate America. This may come as a surprise to you, but it is possible for someone to disagree with your vision for America and still love this country. Enough with this nonsense that “liberals hate America.” Don’t be absurd. If we truly hated America, we would leave, but we love it enough to want to make it better. We just happen to have a different opinion than you about how to accomplish that. And like it or not, we have every bit as much right to shape the future of this country as you do. Are you really so arrogant as to think your voice is the only one that matters? That you, and you alone, are so truly representative of what America should be that anyone who disagrees with you must hate America? Is your vision really so narrow? You, and those who agree with you, are not, by yourselves, America. All of us, together, are America. Yes, even the people who disagree with you.

It is not America we hate. It is not America we oppose. It is your idea of what America should look like that we oppose. And we love America because it gives us the right to do precisely that.

Signed, your fellow American,

Mark Leppert, Faribault

•••

Trump has announced that he will not debate Vice President Kamala Harris again. He declares that it is not necessary because he so soundly beat Harris in their first debate. Trump actually may believe that, but I doubt it. Certainly his handlers know that Harris dominated Trump in both style and substance. Trump may be delusional, but his team does not want another debate disaster.

Trump’s typical tough-guy bravado wilted before 67 million viewers. It especially is devastating to Trump that his opponent is an intelligent woman of color. Trump’s misogynistic and racist dispositions run deep.

Voters deserve a second debate. We should hear Harris and Trump provide detailed defenses of their records. Most importantly we need to see them articulate specific policy proposals that address the multiple challenges facing our nation.

Harris wants a second debate yet Trump has declined. Harris demonstrates respect for voters and the value of an informed electorate. Trump again exhibits disdain for voters and the electoral process. Harris wants to turn the page. And so do I.

Phil George, Lakeville

The recent article fact-checking former President Donald Trump’s debate claims about Minnesota (“Trump falsely claims that Walz supports infanticide,” Sept. 12) is heavily slanted and consistently omits relevant information.

The article claims that Gov. Tim Walz has never said abortion in the ninth month is OK. Really? Walz signed legislation under which such abortions, performed for any reason, are legal in Minnesota. Lawmakers had rejected any and all amendments to provide gestational limits — and didn’t dispute the upshot of their votes. Egregiously, the article obfuscates this fact by saying that it is “Republicans and groups that oppose abortion” who claim the law allows “abortion up to birth.” No, it’s everyone who has read the law who says that.

The article tries to downplay the frequency of abortions later in pregnancy by citing statistics from before recent legal changes (all signed by Walz) that are now sending an open invitation to practitioners of late abortion. It also claims that Walz doesn’t support infanticide and that it is illegal. Infanticide via active killing is indeed illegal, but Walz signed legislation repealing a guarantee of lifesaving treatment for born-alive infants. Intentionally leaving viable babies to die is allowed under Walz’s policy.

The article works hard to spin this, citing advocates who say the new policy “doesn’t get in the way of parents or doctors trying to save the life of the child.” That’s right — it just makes saving that life optional. The article also repeats uncritically the false claim that the former law required unnecessary interventions in hopeless cases. In truth, the old law only required “reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice.”

Space doesn’t permit additional criticism here. But telling the truth about Minnesota’s abortion policies matters.

Paul Stark, Minneapolis

The writer is the communications director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life.

In the Sept. 11 article “Debate outlines the stakes” about the presidential debate, the reporter stated, “Harris laughed out loud when Trump repeated false and outlandish claims that immigrants were stealing and eating their neighbors’ pets in an Ohio town.”

After listening to every word of the Harris-Trump debate on Tuesday evening, I have to caution all of us about broad-brush negative language against immigrants. Vilification is not the answer. I implore all of us to be vigilant about our biases, xenophobia and scapegoating thoughts. Not all immigrants crossing our borders are terrorists, rapists, drug dealers and from jails. Many flee from horrible, tragic situations we know nothing about and are living here in places most of us don’t even know exist.

In the past two years I’ve been to Worthington, Minn., twice and Austin, Minn., once to try to understand the plight of the undocumented worker. Whether you or I realize it, we have all profited from the hands, hearts and backbreaking labor of the undocumented worker as seen in our meatpacking plants, farming and elder care. Certainly, immigration reform must be passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by the president, but our leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, have chosen obstructionism over sanity. We have and have had immigration solutions for years, but political will is at a stalemate.

After 37 years of teaching, I have experienced immigrant youth and parents firsthand and now believe many immigrants, if not most, are the new energy of the United States.

Margaret Hinton, Burnsville

Hey, St. Cloud — maybe you should get some help from your congressman (“Brooks: Will the Trump campaign pay St. Cloud? City asks for $200,000 to cover July rally expenses,” Sept. 12). We all know U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer is former President Donald Trump’s buddy and also chair of Trump’s presidential campaign in Minnesota. I am sure, as your congressman, he would love to help a city in his district. And as chair of Trump’s presidential campaign in Minnesota, he wouldn’t want to see a city that welcomed the campaign not being paid what is owed for a campaign rally. Emmer, as chair of Trump’s Minnesota campaign, could personally go to Trump and get the $200,000 Trump owes St. Cloud.

At the Republican National Convention, Emmer said Trump and the GOP would put America first. Stiffing a city to the tune of $200,000 doesn’t sound like it.

Randi Reitan, Hopkins

Voters seem to be primarily concerned about the economy in this election season and, in particular, the price of food. Is this a legitimate concern for most of us?

To get some perspective on food prices, I looked at data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and from Our World in Data, a nonprofit organization based in the United Kingdom.

The findings: On average, North Americans and U.K. citizens pay less than 10% of household income for food eaten at home. In low-income nations, food expenses can be higher than 50% of income, which often means that adequate nutrition is unaffordable.

Furthermore, we have seen improvement in our ability to pay for food. In 1963, the U.S. cost of food took up around 14% of income. In 2023 that cost had dropped to only around 6%.

In light of this information, we live with the privilege of paying far less than most other human beings for necessary calories. Are we complaining about the right things?

Melinda Quivik, St. Paul