Dear Editor:

Recently I wrote a letter titled “Pretzels and politics,” which elicited a response with the title “Trump reset,” by a frequent and ardent writer in support of Trump, who asserted my letter “encourages changes to the Constitution such as removal of legal protections for previous presidents and elimination of the Electoral College … The attack on our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and our Supreme Court is of particular concern.” 
 

My letter took no policy positions! What it did was to pose a series of questions based on a half page Lincoln County Republican Committee (LCRC) advertisement the previous week.  

For example, in response to the LCRC statement: “I am voting for the Electoral College and for the Republic in which we live”, I asked: “How do the multiple and continuing efforts to deny the votes of the Electoral College in 2020 fit into this framework?” 

In response to the LCRC statement: ““I am voting for the next Supreme Court Justice(s) to protect the Constitution and the Bill of rights”, I asked: “How does the vote by the Trump-appointed justices to set a President above the law fit into this framework?” 

The “Trump reset” letter is directly out of the Trump playbook, which is to divert attention from policies which are broadly unacceptable to the American public by fabricating “alternative facts.” We had this vividly on display with the multiple Trump falsehoods in the debate between Trump and Harris. 
 

The letter writer answered none of my questions. In addition to those above, I’d like to repeat two more: 

In response to the LCRC statement: “I am voting for secure borders and legal immigration,” I asked: “How does the Trump-ordered Republican sabotage of the toughest bipartisan immigration bill in decades fit into this framework?” 

In response to the LCRC statement: “I am voting for the right to speak my opinion and not be censored,” I asked: “How does the banning of LGBTQ+ literature, purging of libraries, and book burnings fit into this framework?” 

These are not trivial questions. They are fundamental to our democracy, equality before the law, a balanced immigration policy, and our tolerance for each other. We cannot resolve these and other fundamental questions through the creation of alternative facts. 

Nigel Calder 

Newcastle