Readers Write: Minneapolis police, protests, COVID restrictions, the presidential election

"Disgusted" is a mild term relative to the way I feel about the six Minneapolis City Council members, including my own, who refused to authorize money to fund officers from other law enforcement agencies to temporarily back up the Minneapolis Police Department during this spate of violence that has been visited upon our city, especially north Minneapolis ("Council, chief clash over bringing in outside cops," front page, Nov. 11). Council Member Jeremiah Ellison chided the Chief Medaria Arradondo for asking for more money but having no plan. The plan, Mr. Ellison, is to keep more people safe and fewer people dead! Where is your safety plan? The "violence interrupters" were on the street for how many weeks before they were placed on hiatus because they weren't safe either?

For 10 days, Oct. 12 through Oct. 22, I kept track of every notice from the phone app "Citizen" that I received (for reports of crimes within a 1-mile radius of my home in north Minneapolis), composed an e-mail and sent that to every council member, the mayor and the chief. During that time there were 49 individual events reported, most of which were shots fired, assaults or shootings. Forty nine reported events in 10 days within a 1-mile radius of where I live! How does that not deserve additional intervention? I cannot comprehend a council that purposely leaves its constituents to battle and try to survive this violence alone. (By the way, not one council member even bothered to reply to my e-mail, although Lisa Goodman, who is not in my ward, replied to a subsequent one.)

Apparently, a Wednesday letter writer asking "what the difference is" between disappointed voters and protests over George Floyd's death needs to be reminded that one difference is that no one was killed by our law enforcement over $20. Some people have short memories, I guess.

House Republican Leader Kurt Daudt's comment regarding new virus restrictions raises partisan politics to a new level. "The Legislature doesn't know anything and didn't have any part of this," he said. Really? Why not? What are you doing to safeguard the health of Minnesotans? Perhaps you could try working with Gov. Tim Walz, instead of complaining and criticizing at every turn. Because our hospitals are at or nearing capacity. Health care workers and teachers are getting sick, and there's no one to pick up the slack. People are dying, Mr. Daudt. It's serious. Wake up and go to work. Show the people of our state that lives transcend the political divide.

The 2020 presidential election is over and every major media outlet has found Joe Biden to be the victor. He won convincingly in Minnesota and has been declared the winner in the battleground states of Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, giving him 290 electoral votes by the Associated Press count, more than enough to be elected president. Again according to the Associated Press, he leads in Wisconsin by over 20,000 votes, in Nevada by over 35,000 votes, in Pennsylvania by over 49,000 votes and in Michigan by over 146,000 votes. Also, while there are still states that have not been called, he further has a lead of over 14,000 votes in Georgia. More important, he leads the national vote by over 5 million votes.

The race is not close and there is no way that Trump can claw back in with recounts or lawsuits. Republicans need to stop enabling him and concede that Biden was elected president. Doing otherwise will only harm America in the long run.

Once again during the Trump administration the Republican Party, which at one time I supported vigorously, has shown that it values party loyalty above the national good. Responsible Republicans stepped in to pressure Richard Nixon to resign for the good of the country (and the Republican Party) in the midst of the Watergate scandal. The same motivation should be present in the situation today. With few exceptions, it is not.

I would like to respond to the Nov. 10 letter "Give Biden support denied Trump."

Though I respect the sentiment behind the letter, I would disagree with the conclusion that we should not look into any controversies that may surround the current president-elect.

While I would agree that trying to manufacture controversy around the president-elect before he even takes office would not be in the best interest of our country, we mustn't allow the president to act with impunity, as doing so would encourage more of the same poor behavior.

I personally voted for Joe Biden, but if he is accused of collusion with a foreign government to rig an election I would wholeheartedly support an investigation into it, provided there is enough evidence to base an investigation on. If Biden is accused of sexually inappropriate behavior I believe it is important that it is looked into and taken seriously.

To place blind trust in politicians and give them the benefit of the doubt only to be surprised when they continue to act egregiously is like sticking our mouths on a sewer pipe and being surprised when we leave with a sour taste in our mouths.