Letters to the Editor: Nine years after Trump emerged, some readers are making fun of him
Let me give you a peak into how I do my job as The Times’ letters editor: I organize reader emails into folders based on topic, most of which I delete after a week or however long people write about the issue. A few topics hang around for a while — folders labeled “guns,” “homeless” and “climate” get new letters regularly because those issues tend to stay in the news.
There’s one folder more senior than the rest, one that hasn’t gone away since I first created it in 2015: “Trump.”
Readers have been writing a lot about Donald Trump for almost a decade, because we’ve been covering him for almost a decade. In that time, plenty of ideas have been offered on how the media and politicians ought to handle a politician who’s like no other. That has continued since his debate Tuesday with Vice President Kamala Harris, with most of the reader commentary focused on the former president’s performance.
This time, some readers are approaching him differently — with humor. And I must confess: After close to a decade of Trump-related doomsaying, I find the shift refreshing.
— Paul Thornton, letters editor
————
To the editor: Jackie Calmes’ recent column on Harris letting Trump beat Trump made salient points, yet I would strongly urge Democrats to reconsider its approach.
For too long, Democrats have stood on Michelle Obama’s edict of “when they go low, we go high.” Harris is a well-educated and professional woman who can undoubtedly carry herself as a presidential candidate, yet the political landscape has changed in such a way that professionalism can no longer be solely relied upon.
Hillary Clinton was projected to dominate in the 2016 election. Yet her campaign’s belief that Trump’s apparent lunacy and inappropriate behavior would turn voters away proved disastrous.
While behaving in a presidential manner is certainly important, the Democrats should adopt some of the tactics used by their opponents. Just this summer, we saw Trump and his cohorts driven into a frenzy after being labeled “weird.” Even such a minor attack rattled them.
A decade ago, a candidate as belligerent as Trump seemed unfathomable. But today, the Democrats cannot rest on their laurels. Trump is too dangerous, and this election is too important.
Harris brilliantly laid traps for Trump during their debate, and he fell into every single one. Yes, she should focus on policy and lay out a clear plan, but she cannot ignore that in today’s climate, mudslinging and taunting are very much part of the game.
Gavin Ortiz, Altadena
..
To the editor: The debate was an inflection point.
We saw a narcissist wounded and his subsequent meltdown. We also saw the prosecutor embrace her spouse post debate — a demonstration of basic humanity — while the narcissist retreated off stage alone. Did everyone catch that?
He chose a running mate out of convenience, who likewise chose him out of convenience, and who is also incapable of performing normal human behavior. These guys all strike me as soulless.
The Republican Party is a walking, talking display of clinical disorders. Just as there are concepts of a plan, there is an idea of a GOP. You can shake their hands and feel flesh gripping yours, but they simply are not there. Only those inside the cult would consider putting these people in power.
I hope what we saw in the debate was the beginning of the end, an unmasking, the fever finally breaking.
James Mo, Irvine
..
To the editor: I’m confused! Are people in Ohio and other places aborting their pets and eating their children?
Roger Scheuer, Long Beach
..
To the editor: The most original idea emerging 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 other night, I am making a solemn vow.
I have eaten my last dog. Sure, I may snack on a canary every now and then, but that shouldn’t be held against me, should it?
Gone are days of feasting on cocker spaniels. Poodle salad will be a thing of the past. Fried Great Dane will be a no-no.
My dog Spot has been whining when I pet her. I admit that my mouth will still water when I think about bulldog under glass.
Gary Uselton, Benton, Ark.
..
To the editor: Both Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), voice outrage at the hearsay nonsense about immigrants gobbling up pets. Yet they welcomed at their party convention South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who shot her puppy and tossed his body into a gravel pit.
They are long on rage and umbrage and short on basic logic.
Jodi Miles, Santa Barbara
..
To the editor: I think the debate gave more people a reason not to vote for either nominee.
Mike Barclay, Glendale
..
To the editor: Trump’s debate performance shows us that his mind resembles a tabloid newspaper, trafficking in rumor, innuendo and conspiracy theories. As an experienced debater, he tells us a “secret” regarding Harris, that Biden “hates her; he can’t stand her.”
He informs us that pets in Ohio are being abducted and eaten by immigrants. This is the gossip-addled level of discourse that he prefers to share with the American people.
Trump’s advisors continue to urge him to discuss policy in his campaign appearances. But he doesn’t focus on policy, because policy requires serious reflection and sustained attention to the complexities of purpose, execution and outcome. He would rather sling his slogans and hurl insults.
Repeatedly, Trump has shown us not that he is intellectually lazy, but that he is intellectually vacant. He is not there. He is not in a place to offer thoughtful leadership for the many challenges that we face. Send him away.
D. Keith Naylor, South Pasadena
..
To the editor: In the front section of the Sept. 12 print edition of The Times, there were three photos showing Harris. In contrast, there were seven photos of the former president. And that’s just one day’s paper.
It is a choice to view the former president as the main character of our national story, which has been the pattern since he lost the 2020 election.
In the same issue, Times reporter Noah Bierman quoted a poll suggesting that 3 in 10 voters said they needed to know more about Harris. Maybe the L.A. Times could address that information deficit instead of giving constant, unnecessary publicity to a man who is clearly unfit to be president.
Judith Lipsett, Claremont
..
To the editor: Watching the reaction (written and televised) to the Harris-Trump debate, I’m struck by the relative ignorance, not of Harris per se, but of how it was that she was elected district attorney of San Francisco, attorney general of California and a U.S. senator, and chosen to be Joe Biden’s vice president.
Do they think we Californians are simpletons or suckers? That nearly 40 million people just don’t understand reality?
We’re not lotus eaters. Harris is the real deal.
Edward Bialack, Woodland Hills
..
To the editor: Trump doesn’t necessarily believe what he says. But he obviously believes that the world believes him, no matter how outrageous his lies. He’s about to find out how wrong he is and has always been.
I get the feeling that, if he were to debate himself today, he might very well lose.
Saul Isler, Los Angeles
