Readers Write: Trump and Arnold Palmer, St. Paul elections, Third Precinct cleanup, Mike Meyers

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

•••

This past weekend was truly the most disgusting chapter of the presidential campaign thus far. A man running to be the leader of our country and the face of America in the world decided to spend more than 10 minutes talking about a dead man and his genitalia. What made this particular incident so unbearably more disgusting to me and many people I know is that the people standing behind him (some with children beside them) were cheering and laughing not only at his lewdness but at his vulgarity. What has happened to this country when half of us support this kind of behavior? Have we lost all dignity and decency?

Margaret Capra, Rosemount

•••

The Minnesota Star Tribune said it will not endorse candidates for public office, but it should, at the very least, point out when a candidate is unfit for office.

Those of us following the election read about outrageous, inappropriate or ridiculous words coming out of former President Donald Trump’s mouth every day. Every day! Saturday’s talk — it wasn’t a speech — in Latrobe, Pa., where Trump talked about Arnold Palmer’s genitalia, is just the latest in a series of crazy talk. In just the last couple weeks, Trump claimed to have invented in vitro fertilization, that Democrats want to get rid of cows, that tariffs on cars should be 2,000% (making a $30,000 car cost $600,000), that the military should be used against civilians and that immigrants have bad genes (except, apparently, his wife.)

The Star Tribune reports this crazy talk as it happens, but it is unwilling to state the obvious: Trump is mentally unfit to serve in the stressful job as the leader of the free world. If I had a parent making these statements, I would bring that person into a doctor. And I certainly wouldn’t let them make any important decisions.

Jeremy Powers, Fridley

You wonder why there is so much distrust for the media these days? Consider this. The Oct. 21 issue of the Star Tribune printed four letters from readers commenting on former President Donald Trump’s talk at the Economic Club of Chicago last week (“What is he talking about?” Readers Write). If all you did was read these four letters you would come away thinking that Trump is a moron. The problem is I watched the entire presentation and every example that was brought up was highly edited and designed to make Trump appear as a buffoon. For example, one letter writer mocked Trump for his response to Bloomberg News editor-in-chief John Micklethwait’s assertion that undocumented migrants are an important part of our economy and deporting them would leave us in need of workers. The letter writer skipped over Trump’s response that he is in favor of migrant workers; however, they must enter our country legally. Instead the letter writer focused on a remark he made about migrant crime. Very deceptive. No mention was made of the fact that Trump won over a large share of the audience in the room, judging by their response to his remarks.

The entire presentation was well over an hour long, and while I don’t agree with everything that Trump says, it is impressive that he can speak extemporaneously and with a level of knowledge that can’t be denied. When you chooses to elevate a few voices who clearly have an ax to grind, is it any wonder that some would question your motives?

Mike Bethke, Minneapolis

This November, St. Paul voters are asked in Question 2 whether to move local elections for mayor and City Council to presidential election years. I urge you to vote no.

While the idea of higher turnout in presidential years may seem appealing, this proposal conflicts directly with our use of ranked-choice voting (RCV) in municipal elections. Under current state law, cities holding local elections in even years cannot use RCV due to the lack of regulations for conducting these elections alongside state and federal races.

Additionally, moving city elections to even years would leave St. Paul school board elections in odd years, creating stand-alone, low-turnout elections. This would undermine the goal of increasing voter participation.

Until the Ranked Choice Voting Local Option bill is passed, which would allow even-year RCV elections, this measure is either not implementable or forces St. Paul to abandon RCV altogether. This would not only be a huge loss; it would also pose a significant legal challenge. RCV has been widely popular, increasing voter turnout and encouraging more diverse candidates to run and win.

Let’s not jeopardize a voting system that works. Please join me in voting no on Question 2.

Ellen Brown, St. Paul

So the Minneapolis City Council wants to make the abandoned Third Precinct police building look less dystopian to minimize its effectiveness as a campaign photo opportunity for conservatives (“Council calls for cop station cleanup,” Oct. 19). Sadly, the council’s primary concern is its reputation, rather than the safety of southeast Minneapolis residents who have been deprived of a physical police presence for more than four years. The “beautification” plan for the precinct site is a literal coverup of the council’s appalling incompetence and ideological lunacy on the crucial issue of public safety since 2020.

Jerry Anderson, Minneapolis

•••

The burned and abandoned Third Precinct has served as a visual reminder of the Minneapolis City Council’s dysfunction. Does the City Council think this derelict and destroyed building somehow serves its constituents? Now it seems that vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance, who is otherwise abhorrent, has done more in one hour to advance Third Precinct action than the City Council has been capable of over the past four years.

Frederick Law, Minneapolis

The Star Tribune tribute to economics reporter Mike Meyers was richly deserved (“His writing brought light to complex economics,” Oct. 20). He was a lovely person as well as a unique talent, and I think the story conveyed the warmth that people who knew him felt toward him. His talent was evident. There is an old joke that if you ask a question of five economists, you will get five opinions (six, if one went to Harvard). Yet Mike relished sitting down for a two-hour lunch with the Star Tribune Board of Economists four times a year and turning the discussion into intelligible and relatively interesting reportage (and Bill Melton in our group did go to Harvard).

Mike also contributed at least one piece of noneconomic reporting to the Star Tribune’s pages. On 9/11, he called the office of my small consulting firm to ask my opinion of what the economic consequences of the attack on the World Trade Center might be. My business partner, Andre Lubov, later told me that when she told Mike that I was attending an economic conference inside the World Trade Center and that she was hoping to hear from me, she literally heard the wheels going round in his head. He might be connected to breaking news instead of reporting on GDP in the quarter that ended six weeks ago. He asked if I would call him if she heard from me, and he and I talked that afternoon. The Sept. 12, 2001, metro edition included Mike’s story of my “escape” from the south tower and my journey on foot north to the Manhattan office of my wife’s employer, Padilla Speer Beardsley, complete with an inset map. Mike managed to make even that interesting; we shall not see his like again.

Paul Anton, Edina