Let me give you a sense of how I do my job as the Times’ letters editor: I organize readers’ emails into folders based on topic, most of which I delete after a week or as long as people write about the topic. Some topics linger for a while — folders labeled “guns,” “homelessness” and “climate” get new letters regularly because those topics tend to stay in the news.
There is one folder older than the rest, one that hasn’t disappeared since I first created it in 2015: “Trump.”
Readers have written a lot about Donald Trump for nearly a decade, because we’ve covered him for nearly a decade. In that time, there have been plenty of ideas offered about how the media and politicians should handle a politician who is unlike any other. That has continued since his Tuesday debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, with most reader commentary focused on the former president’s performance.
This time, some readers are approaching it differently: with humor. And I must confess: after almost a decade of doom-laden predictions about Trump, I find the change refreshing.
—Paul Thornton, Letters Editor
————
To the editor: Jackie Calmes' recent column on how Harris allowed Trump to beat Trump raised important points, but I strongly urge Democrats to reconsider their approach.
For too long, Democrats have clung to Michelle Obama’s edict that “when they underperform, we overperform.” Harris is an educated, professional woman who can certainly perform as a presidential candidate, but the political landscape has changed in such a way that professionalism alone can no longer be relied upon.
Hillary Clinton was expected to dominate the 2016 election, but her campaign's belief that Trump's apparent madness and inappropriate behavior would turn off voters proved disastrous.
While behaving like a president is certainly important, Democrats should adopt some of the tactics their opponents use. Just this summer, we saw Trump and his cronies become enraged when they were labeled “weird.” Even such a minor attack unnerved them.
A decade ago, a candidate as belligerent as Trump seemed unimaginable. But today, Democrats cannot rest on their laurels. Trump is too dangerous and this election is too important.
Harris brilliantly set traps for Trump during the debate, and he fell for every single one. Yes, she should focus on policy and present a clear plan, but she can't ignore that in the current climate, smears and ridicule are part of the game.
Gavin Ortiz, Altadena
..
To the editor: The debate was a turning point.
We saw a wounded narcissist and his subsequent breakdown. We also saw the prosecutor hug her husband after the argument (a demonstration of basic humanity) as the narcissist walked off the stage alone. Did everyone notice?
He chose a running mate out of convenience, who in turn chose him out of convenience, and who is also incapable of behaving like a normal human being. I find all these guys heartless.
The Republican Party is a walking, talking showcase of clinical disorders. Just as there are concepts of a plan, there is an idea of a Republican Party. You can shake their hand and feel your flesh tighten, but they are simply not there. Only those within the cult would consider putting these people in power.
I hope that what we saw in the debate was the beginning of the end, an unmasking, a fever that finally breaks.
James Mo, Irvine
..
To the editor: I'm confused! Do people in Ohio and elsewhere abort their pets and eat their children?
Roger Scheuer, Long Beach
..
To the editor: The most original idea to emerge from this week's presidential debate was diet.
I used to eat a bagel for breakfast. Now I eat a beagle.
Two woofs for Trump!
Hal Greenfader, San Pedro
..
To the editor: After watching the presidential debate the other night, I make a solemn promise.
I ate my last dog. Sure, I might eat a canary from time to time, but that shouldn't be something to blame me for, right?
Gone are the days of feasting on cocker spaniels. Poodle salad will be a thing of the past. Fried Great Dane will no longer be an option.
My dog Spot whines when I pet her. I admit that my mouth still waters when I think of the bulldog under glass.
Gary Uselton, Benton, Arkansas.
..
To the editor: Both Trump and his running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), expressed outrage at absurd rumors about immigrants eating their pets. They did, however, welcome to their party’s convention South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who shot her puppy and dumped its body in a gravel pit.
They have a lot of anger and resentment and little basic logic.
Jodi Miles, Santa Barbara
..
To the editor: I think the debate gave more people a reason not to vote for either candidate.
Mike Barclay, Glendale
..
To the editor: Trump’s debate performance shows us that his mind resembles that of a tabloid, dealing in rumors, innuendos and conspiracy theories. As a seasoned debater, he tells us a “secret” about Harris: that Biden “hates her; he can’t stand her.”
He tells us that immigrants are kidnapping and eating pets in Ohio. This is the level of gossip-filled discourse he prefers to share with the American people.
Trump's advisers keep urging him to talk about policy in his campaign appearances, but he doesn't focus on it, because it requires serious thought and sustained attention to the complexities of purpose, execution and outcome. He prefers to shout slogans and hurl insults.
Trump has repeatedly shown us that he is not intellectually lazy, but intellectually empty. He is not fit to offer thoughtful leadership for the many challenges we face. Send him away.
Mr. Keith Naylor, South Pasadena
..
To the editor: On the front page of the Sept. 12 print edition of The Times, there were three photos of Harris. In contrast, there were seven photos of the former president. And that was in a single 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 cited a poll indicating that 3 in 10 voters said they needed to know more about Harris. Perhaps the LA Times could address that information deficit instead of giving constant and 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 am struck by the relative ignorance, not of Harris per se, but of how she came to be elected district attorney of San Francisco, attorney general of California, and U.S. senator, and chosen to be Joe Biden’s vice president.
Do you think we Californians are stupid or foolish? That nearly 40 million people simply don't understand reality?
We are not lotus-eaters. Harris is a real expert.
Edward Bialack, Woodland Hills
..
To the editor: Trump doesn't necessarily believe what he says, but he obviously believes the world believes him, no matter how outrageous his lies are. He's about to find out just how wrong he is and always has been.
I have a feeling that if he were to debate himself today, he would most likely lose.
Saul Isler, Los Angeles
