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

•••

Thanks to the Star Tribune commentary editors for sharing Bret Stephens' recent column excoriating former President Donald Trump as an almost certain future election loser ("Trump is finally finished," StarTribune.com). A conservative, I commend Trump for having accomplished a great deal during his single term in office: appointing three superbly qualified individuals to the Supreme Court, reducing taxes and burdensome regulations, pushing back against a dangerously aggressive China, creating a framework for peace in the Middle East with the Abraham Accords, providing badly needed funding for our military, and fostering an economy that reduced unemployment to record levels, boosting incomes of the most disadvantaged and making our nation energy independent. Oh, and inflation was less than 2% when he left office.

However, Trump made it clear during his announcement speech at Mar-a-Lago that his ego takes precedence over ideas. He continued to call himself a "victim" of the 2020 election. He lied about his supposed landslide win in that election, and he chose to denigrate the candidates whom he supported, yet lost, on Nov. 8. Former Vice President Mike Pence's recent account of Trump's behavior concerning Jan. 6, 2021, only furthered the narrative that the man's judgment and emotional balance were seriously wanting on that fateful day.

Trump's lasting legacy was his bulldozing of the GOP as the party of "free" trade, Wall Street and snobbish elitism. He gave the party new life as a champion of the average, blue-collar American, long ago abandoned by the radical Democrats. But his time is past. It is up to the party to find new faces with faith in our future and the demonstrated ability to make all of our lives better.

Mark H. Reed, Plymouth

•••

Karin Copeland, Stillwater

•••

The headline regarding the biggie announcement of The Donald's presidential candidacy should have read: "The ego has landed."

Agnes Kennard, Wascott, Wis.

"Could Trump campaign from jail? Absolutely" (Opinion Exchange, Nov. 17): Not only could he campaign; he could hold office. James Michael Curley, four-time mayor of Boston, one-term governor of Massachusetts and two-term congressman, held the mayor's office for five months while in prison for taking bribes. Admittedly, his city clerk, John Hynes, was the acting mayor, but Curley still held the office and returned to it when he got out of prison, completing his fourth term.

Elaine Frankowski, Minneapolis

•••

Kudos to Marshall H. Tanick for a reminder on the state of American law ("Could Trump campaign from jail? Absolutely.")

The mere thought of Trump committed to one of America's world-beating, supermax penal colonies brightened my day, although the sacrilege of mentioning The Donald in the same sentence as Eugene Debs took a bit of the edge off.

We can only hope that, if convicted of violating the Espionage Act, Trump might get the same treatment Julian Assange has gotten for the past decade, and more recently in London's Belmarsh Prison, for merely being fraudulently accused of violating that Act — solitary confinement, meetings with counsel illegally recorded, regular strip and cavity searches for contraband, unrelenting exposure to COVID and the like. Trump wouldn't last 48 hours in solitary.

Thanks to Tanick's helpful reminder and the dismal state of the Democrats' bench of potential leaders, I'll be writing in Eugene Debs for president in 2024.

William Beyer, St. Louis Park

"Legalize marijuana? It's on Walz's to-do list" (Nov. 12): Though obviously a topic of discussion, I would think there are more pressing matters for our state such as the economy, crime, education and taxes that Gov. Tim Walz should have as first on the agenda. Will the state blunder again like in July when it passed the law allowing edibles with no type of oversight or thoughtful planning on consequences for businesses that do not follow the law? They say these products are for adult use but who do you think the target is with some flavorings? And who will pay for the problems associated with wider access?

The movement is fooling itself if people think there will not be a cost to society. Yes, we need to address the disparity in the criminal justice system, but is full legalization the answer? If there is ever a legislation-signing ceremony, former Gov. Jesse Ventura may have to think twice about wearing his Jimi Hendrix shirt — Hendrix died of a drug overdose.

William Wimmer, Anoka

All too often, the authors of legislation to legalize marijuana are directly connected to profit-making businesses ready to further line their pocketbooks with proceeds from cannabis. Where, in our legislators' plans to benefit from distribution of cannabis, are the built-in measures to control sales to minors? Where are the specific plans to keep THC out of the developing and easily damaged brains of children? Where is the evidence that increased use of cannabis does not impact driving safety and endanger our lives? What about the obvious need for regulation of this substance? What about those with predisposed mental health conditions? Instead, we read about a few weak attempts to safeguard us against the widespread use and abuse of cannabis which, when easily accessed, will absolutely alter all of our lives.

It is possible to change the impact of prison sentences for offenses related to sales and use of marijuana without providing an open door to underage minors and others with delicate mental health who will be deleteriously affected by steady access and use of cannabis. Our rush to join the scores of other states that seek to benefit from sales of this potentially dangerous drug must be more closely examined for its negative health impact on all of us.

Carolyn Light Bell, Minneapolis

Regarding the Taylor Swift debacle ("Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar scrutinizes Ticketmaster after Taylor Swift presale debacle," Nov. 18): Rather than look for a villain on which to cast blame (Ticketmaster, scalpers), why don't fans and the media acknowledge the simplicity of the problem, too little supply to satisfy demand?

If Swift performs twice at a venue that holds 50,000 fans, 100,000 fans will get to attend. If 500,000 fans want to attend, 400,000 of them will be disappointed.

The Swift debacle is representative of the entitlement complex that plagues society. People believe they are entitled to see Swift perform, and if they don't get to, then it is an egregious wrong that must somehow be righted, even if it involves getting members of Congress to intervene.

The upcoming Swift tour is one of many major events in which ticket demand far eclipses supply. The recent World Series, particularly the three games in Philadelphia, or any Super Bowl come to mind. If Swift wants to accommodate all those who wish to see her, she can schedule enough shows to do so. Yes, it really is that simple.