President Joe Biden is photographed after delivering remarks on the November jobs report in the White House on Dec. 3. (Stefani Reynolds, New York Times/The Minnesota Star Tribune)

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

•••

I don't expect the president to be able to do cartwheels ("Joe Biden is too old to be president again," Opinion Exchange, July 12). I do insist, however, that POTUS know American history, understand the three branches of government, possess the ability to comprehend information and articulate ideas, and honor the efforts of all Americans to contribute to society's betterment. In those respects, President Joe Biden is light-years ahead of many of his predecessors.

Michelle Goldberg contends that the problems our country faces are not Biden's fault, but she hopes Biden "doesn't run again, because he is too old." I contend that, because so many believed No. 45's lies, Biden's term in office had little chance of "success" from the start, and because so many still believe those lies, his remaining time in office will also be disappointing. But age?

I'm nearly 71 years old. I lead a monthly writer's group of mostly over-70s, and all of them possess the traits I would desire POTUS to have. I participate in monthly meetings of a local Alzheimer's support group, and the knowledge and sensibilities of these mostly over-75s dwarf those of many in Congress today.

I push my lawn mower, row my johnboat, care for two large garden spots and several flower beds, play music with friends each week and enjoy basketball with young men from high-school age to their late 30s every Sunday evening. Age?

This fall, my vote won't be based on age. Adherence to one's oath of office is far more important.

Loren W. Brabec, Braham, Minn.

•••

Thanks to Michelle Goldberg for pointing out that Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Chuck Schumer are too old to "grasp how broken this country is." Donald Trump is only 76, but apparently he is too vibrant for his age to be a factor (he can clear a table after lunch like nobody's business). Mitch McConnell is 80, Rudy Giuliani is 78, and Chuck Grassley is 88, but Goldberg doesn't mention them in her article either. Is she implying that "old" Republicans are more qualified to run things than "old" Democrats?

Many decisions are made these days in Washington that are not popular with one side or another, but they are made by people much younger than Biden, Donald Trump, etc. What is Goldberg's solution for that? I guess she'll just have to cross her fingers and hope that we elect the best people in November — regardless of their age.

Richard Goldman, Anoka

•••

In the commentary "Results are erratic when voters think short-term" (Opinion Exchange, July 13), the author makes some salient points, but then he digresses into the mantra we constantly hear from Democrats, that President Biden should not be blamed for the current high gas prices, inflation and for a false claim that he is cognitively impaired. Trump was blamed for everything, so now Biden is fair game.

Biden blames the Ukrainian war on just about everything. The fact is that his party pushed through largely questionable spending bills costing trillions of dollars. It is common knowledge that any time you print money and spend money that you don't have, inflation can rear its ugly head. And that's what is happening along with high gas prices that should not be occurring with the resources we have available. Mexico gas prices have been flirting with $3 per gallon. Why are we being hung out to dry?

To say that Biden is not cognitively impaired, really? The left-leaning media does an admirable job of attempting to cover this up, but the author's statement is patently false. Biden obviously struggles getting through interviews and needs a teleprompter and cue cards to help him. And that's not being cognitively impaired at least to some degree? Most people would have to agree it's time for him to move on.

Richard Foley, Edina

POLICE AND SAFETY

If officers want respect, they should start earning some

A recent letter to the editor suggests that Minneapolis cannot recruit police officers because police officers are not given enough respect: "More money will do little to attract good candidates until some public respect is restored for the police" (Readers Write, July 9). The writer then suggests that the media and state government should spend time highlighting positive stories about police officers.

Earlier this year, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights found that the Minneapolis Police Department engaged in a "pattern or practice of race discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act."

Specifically, this is what report from the Department of Human Rights found, from an MPR article:

"MPD officers used covert social media accounts to pose as Black community members to criticize city officials and members of NAACP. ...
"MPD officers are more likely to use more severe force against Black people than white people in similar circumstances, and treat Black and white people differently during traffic stops because of race.
"The department teaches an approach to policing 'that emphasizes aggression,' helping create a 'culture that results in unnecessary escalation and/or excessive force during encounters with community members of all racial backgrounds.'
"'MPD maintains an organizational culture where officers consistently use racist, misogynistic, and otherwise disrespectful language' against suspects and community members, and when that behavior surfaces on body camera video, it makes prosecutions harder 'and therefore undermines the criminal justice system.'"

Respect is earned, not given. Perhaps it is the MPD's culture that leads to the lack of public respect, not biased media coverage.

Terrance Newby, Roseville

•••

Regarding Metro Transit's recent update, virtue-signaling about their new safety measure rollouts, I can only imagine this will not be as effective as they think or hope it will in increasing ridership ("Metro Transit tests shorter light-rail trains for better safety," July 13). I like that they are expressing a desire that things change as far as customers feeling safe on the light rail (but I suspect it is more about losses in revenue than anything else). Metro Transit should focus its efforts in pressuring the city and state Legislature to empower police again, and prosecutors to enforce maximum penalties for those arrested for crimes on buses and trains. (We could start with not letting people just get on and ride for free simply because they behave rudely — this is rewarding criminal behavior and I see it happening over and over. Drivers have no recourse and they are afraid, and so this behavior continues and certainly has increased greatly since we have emasculated our police force in Minneapolis.)

Rather than trying to convince the public that they "care" through such news releases and ad campaigns, Metro Transit's money would be better spent lobbying for swifter and stiffer penalties for offenders from the courts. Without this and the backing of the police, these band-aid efforts to make the light rail more user-friendly will probably only have minimal effect on winning back those who have now gone back to the buses or calling Uber. Ridership will continue to decline. The perpetrators of crime and intimidation are not poor misguided victims of society; they are, simply put, bad individuals, they are criminals, and as long as our society prefers to coddle and cater to them, nothing will change, and likely it will continue to get worse.

Joy Perew, Minneapolis