Let me offer you a peak into how I do my job as The Occasions’ letters editor: I manage reader emails into folders primarily based on subject, most of which I delete after per week or nonetheless lengthy folks write in regards to the problem. Just a few subjects grasp round for some time — folders labeled “weapons,” “homeless” and “local weather” get new letters often as a result of these points have a tendency to remain within the information.
There’s one folder extra senior than the remainder, one which hasn’t gone away since I first created it in 2015: “Trump.”
Readers have been writing rather a lot about Donald Trump for nearly a decade, as a result of we’ve been protecting him for nearly a decade. In that point, loads of concepts have been supplied on how the media and politicians must deal with a politician who’s like no different. That has continued since his debate Tuesday with Vice President Kamala Harris, with a lot of the reader commentary centered on the previous president’s efficiency.
This time, some readers are approaching him otherwise — with humor. And I need to confess: After near a decade of Trump-related doomsaying, I discover the shift refreshing.
— Paul Thornton, letters editor
————
To the editor: Jackie Calmes’ current column on Harris letting Trump beat Trump made salient factors, but I might strongly urge Democrats to rethink its strategy.
For too lengthy, Democrats have stood on Michelle Obama’s edict of “once they go low, we go excessive.” Harris is a well-educated {and professional} lady who can undoubtedly carry herself as a presidential candidate, but the political panorama has modified in such a approach that professionalism can now not be solely relied upon.
Hillary Clinton was projected to dominate within the 2016 election. But her marketing campaign’s perception that Trump’s obvious lunacy and inappropriate conduct would flip voters away proved disastrous.
Whereas behaving in a presidential method is actually necessary, the Democrats ought to undertake a number of the ways utilized by their opponents. Simply this summer season, we noticed Trump and his cohorts pushed right into a frenzy after being labeled “bizarre.” Even such a minor assault rattled them.
A decade in the past, a candidate as belligerent as Trump appeared unfathomable. However at this time, the Democrats can not relaxation on their laurels. Trump is simply too harmful, and this election is simply too necessary.
Harris brilliantly laid traps for Trump throughout their debate, and he fell into each single one. Sure, she ought to concentrate on coverage and lay out a transparent plan, however she can not ignore that in at this time’s local weather, mudslinging and taunting are very a lot a part of the sport.
Gavin Ortiz, Altadena
..
To the editor: The talk was an inflection level.
We noticed a narcissist wounded and his subsequent meltdown. We additionally noticed the prosecutor embrace her partner submit debate — an indication of fundamental humanity — whereas the narcissist retreated off stage alone. Did everybody catch that?
He selected a working mate out of comfort, who likewise selected him out of comfort, and who can also be incapable of performing regular human conduct. These guys all strike me as soulless.
The Republican Occasion is a strolling, speaking show of scientific problems. Simply as there are ideas of a plan, there may be an thought of a GOP. You possibly can shake their fingers and really feel flesh gripping yours, however they merely should not there. Solely these contained in the cult would take into account placing these folks in energy.
I hope what we noticed within the debate was the start of the tip, an unmasking, the fever lastly breaking.
James Mo, Irvine
..
To the editor: I’m confused! Are folks in Ohio and different locations aborting their pets and consuming their youngsters?
Roger Scheuer, Lengthy Seashore
..
To the editor: Probably the most authentic thought rising from this week’s presidential debate was dietary.
I used to have a bagel for breakfast. Now I down a beagle.
Two woofs for Trump!
Hal Greenfader, San Pedro
..
To the editor: After watching the presidential debate the opposite night time, I’m making a solemn vow.
I’ve eaten my final canine. Positive, I’ll snack on a canary once in a while, however that shouldn’t be held towards me, ought to it?
Gone are days of feasting on cocker spaniels. Poodle salad will probably be a factor of the previous. Fried Nice Dane will probably be a no-no.
My canine Spot has been whining once I pet her. I admit that my mouth will nonetheless water once I take into consideration bulldog below glass.
Gary Uselton, Benton, Ark.
..
To the editor: Each Trump and his working mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), voice outrage on the rumour nonsense about immigrants gobbling up pets. But they welcomed at their social gathering conference South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who shot her pet and tossed his physique right into a gravel pit.
They’re lengthy on rage and umbrage and quick on fundamental logic.
Jodi Miles, Santa Barbara
..
To the editor: I feel the controversy gave extra folks a cause to not vote for both nominee.
Mike Barclay, Glendale
..
To the editor: Trump’s debate efficiency exhibits us that his thoughts resembles a tabloid newspaper, trafficking in rumor, innuendo and conspiracy theories. As an skilled debater, he tells us a “secret” relating to Harris, that Biden “hates her; he can’t stand her.”
He informs us that pets in Ohio are being kidnapped and eaten by immigrants. That is the gossip-addled degree of discourse that he prefers to share with the American folks.
Trump’s advisors proceed to induce him to debate coverage in his marketing campaign appearances. However he doesn’t concentrate on coverage, as a result of coverage requires critical reflection and sustained consideration to the complexities of function, execution and consequence. He would quite sling his slogans and hurl insults.
Repeatedly, Trump has proven us not that he’s intellectually lazy, however that he’s intellectually vacant. He’s not there. He’s not in a spot to supply considerate management for the numerous challenges that we face. Ship him away.
D. Keith Naylor, South Pasadena
..
To the editor: Within the entrance part of the Sept. 12 print version of The Occasions, there have been three pictures exhibiting Harris. In distinction, there have been seven pictures of the previous president. And that’s simply in the future’s paper.
It’s a option to view the previous president as the primary character of our nationwide story, which has been the sample since he misplaced the 2020 election.
In the identical problem, Occasions reporter Noah Bierman quoted a ballot suggesting that 3 in 10 voters stated they wanted to know extra about Harris. Perhaps the L.A. Occasions may deal with that data deficit as a substitute of giving fixed, pointless publicity to a person who’s clearly unfit to be president.
Judith Lipsett, Claremont
..
To the editor: Watching the response (written and televised) to the Harris-Trump debate, I’m struck by the relative ignorance, not of Harris per se, however of the way it was that she was elected district lawyer of San Francisco, lawyer basic of California and a U.S. senator, and chosen to be Joe Biden’s vice chairman.
Do they suppose we Californians are simpletons or suckers? That just about 40 million folks simply don’t perceive actuality?
We’re not lotus eaters. Harris is the true deal.
Edward Bialack, Woodland Hills
..
To the editor: Trump doesn’t essentially imagine what he says. However he clearly believes that the world believes him, irrespective of how outrageous his lies. He’s about to learn the way flawed he’s and has at all times been.
I get the sensation that, if he had been to debate himself at this time, he would possibly very nicely lose.
Saul Isler, Los Angeles
