Readers Write (May 6): Donald Trump, guns and public safety, Prince and addiction, Prince and generosity

Americans for decades have clamored for a candidate for president who will give it to us straight, who is willing to make tough decisions and who isn't corrupted by Washington. With the recent suspension of campaigns by Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, the GOP has such a candidate. Donald Trump is not a polished politician, nor is he politically correct; instead, he is telling Americans like it is and is not corrupted by Washington. America, you demanded that the two major parties, since they are the only avenues, put forth just this type of presidential candidate. The GOP complied. The question remains: Will Americans have the brass tacks to fulfill their request, or will they go with another political insider?

• • •

What an offensive article by Ramesh Ponnuru ("Do you hate Trump voters? You've got a problem," May 4). Ponnuru presented the idea that there is a "debate" over whether a person supporting Trump is an intelligent and decent person. Please let me remind you who the other candidate in this supposed morality test of an election will be. Hillary Clinton is quite possibly one of the most corrupt and narcissistic politicians around. She has consistently lied, shifted blame, broken the law, changed positions, vilified women who were assaulted by her husband, been complicit in coverups, and taken money from people and governments who support terrorism, to name a few, throughout her life and political career. Why would anyone be faulted for choosing Trump over Hillary? One does not have to support everything (or even most of what) Trump says to still think he is a better option than Hillary, politically and morally. It is beyond hypocritical — it is beyond patronizing — to say otherwise. Get off your high horse and take a long, hard look at the options the American people are being presented with. Solely on the basis of morality, Trump vs. Clinton is actually a perfect matchup. Voters will be choosing between two indecent people for our presidency. The idea that anyone would be faulted for supporting the candidate closer to their core political ideology when given only these two options is ridiculous.

• • •

The U.S. House will select our next president. The only question is who will be selected to run as the third-party candidate to garner the hate vote by those opposed to both major-party candidates. That candidate will receive more money than Trump or Clinton. That candidate will prevent anyone from winning sufficient votes in the Electoral College, and according to our Constitution: "… if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately [choose] by Ballot one of them for President …" U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 1, clause 3. Amendments have changed the procedure, but this spoiler election will give the Republican House the final word. Oy vey.

• • •

Ross Perot. If only.

The news that Prince's death was likely a result of the combined forces of addiction and opioids saddens me beyond belief ("Prince died amid frantic rehab plans," May 4). Fifty years ago, when I was a very young child, my father died as a result of the combined forces of addiction, alcohol and mental illness. And, like Prince, he was found with his next step within his reach. For my father, it was a calendar next to the phone, open with a first appointment with a psychiatrist penciled in for the following week. Like my father, Prince could not overcome his inner demons alone and couldn't wait for help. My fervent wish is that their deaths, and those of thousands of others resulting from addiction, will not be in vain and that the visibility raised with Prince's death will lead to improvements in care for people suffering from addiction and to limits on the use of prescription opioids.

• • •

Were Prince still alive, the media would most certainly shy away and not report on so many details of his illness and its treatment. His privacy would hopefully be appropriately shielded. Now that he is dead, many circumstantial and medical details are daily fodder for the media, often on the front page above the fold or on the first part in the evening news. The public appetite for this type of news seems to be insatiable, and the media play along.

But a person's privacy does not end with the patient's death. This is now irrefutably part of HIPAA, protecting a person's privacy. There is much that's nobody's business. Shortly after Sir Winston Churchill's death, Lord Moran, his long-term personal physician, published the book "Winston Churchill: The Struggle for Survival" with many very private details. The public seemed to enjoy it, but the medical community was upset. Whose business was it that Churchill was depressed, even giving a name to these dark valleys — "Black Dog"?

After President Franklin Roosevelt died, Dr. Howard G. Bruenn, his physician, published a lengthy paper in a scientific journal about FDR's high blood pressure.

Yes, their lives were lived in public, but their deaths must be private. This is simply respect.

I understand that people want to participate in the remembrance of Prince, as he was part of the family of Minnesotans. However, he was known as a very giving man, donating large amounts to several groups for those with less. Wouldn't he want all the money spent on flowers, balloons and stuffed animals given to groups that he supported? It is disturbing to me to see all the wasted money spent to hang on a fence and then be thrown out. Please think about donating to a cause he supported in his name.

• • •

Perhaps Prince would have us support the fledgling Wirth Cooperative Grocery, around the corner from his north Minneapolis childhood home ("Which charities honor Prince best?" May 4). In seventh grade, Prince and other neighborhood kids were invited into music training by The Way community-service program (Insight News, May 2), spearheaded by leaders who have made a difference then and today in turning around racism and inequality, giving kids a chance to excel and give back. A major barrier to getting start-up financing for the co-op is that member-owned businesses don't easily fit into the prevailing for-profit business model and seem to pose a high investment risk. Community-owned and -led? Bringing neighbors together for the benefit of all? What's not to support? Anyone can join in.