Needless Disrespect for a President - Biden, Trump or otherwise

[jbg]

It makes for some fun debates but I agree, it's better for displaying some cander as well.

Do you mean "civility" rather than "candor"?

 

[jbg]

I think there are certain privileges and powers which come with the job of President, and of course, it merits a certain level of respect and courtesy.

Of course, criticism is allowed, and some Presidents might be more harshly criticized than others. Satirizing and making fun of Presidents is also a time-honored tradition. For me personally, when I was a kid and my early perceptions of America and politicians were formulated, Nixon was President. I also perceived widespread hatred, scorn, and disrespect for Nixon and much of the government and military. "Pig" was a rather common epithet for politicians and police officers. Anyone who was considered "establishment" was a "pig."

I myself have probably said some nasty things about politicians over the years. But I've probably mellowed quite a bit in more recent years. Not much fazes me anymore.

It doesn't particularly bother me if people are disrespectful of politicians or other public figures. They actively chose to be in the hot seat, and if they can't produce satisfactory results, then they're going to be scorned and ridiculed.

I went to synagogue twp Fridays after Trump was elected. At the time I had not yet changed my opposition to him. As we were walking out someone I did not know referred to Trump as a "pig." Given that it was a synagogue I found that particularly distasteful.

I turned to the lady and said "'excuse me'", he was just elected. I voted for Hillary but he deserves a chance." Someone who the week before was very upset with me for expressing some degree of sympathy for those in tears about the election thought I was almost "rabbinic" in the way I approached the matter.

 

[jbg]

Myself, I wouldn't normally use such derogatory terms about anyone. Though I don't see the POTUS as deserving any more respect than anyone else. I just give everyone the same degree of respect.

I doubt you walk around calling people "potato head", "puddle brain" or "demented Grampa."

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you mean "civility" rather than "candor"?

Yea. That's applicable as well. I think straightforward and honest dialog helps as it was the first thing that came to mind.

 

[Secret Chief]

stands on a higher plane, entitled to a modicum of respect.

Sorry but I completely disagree. Respect is something earned, in all cases. And those in public office, who supposedly act on our behalf, should certainly have to earn respect. They are never on a higher plane. And when individuals demonstrate serious personal defects they only garner disrespect which is likely to lead to disrespectful monickers. I will not show respect to a serial liar, a racist, a misogynist, a sexual predator, a fascist...

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sorry but I completely disagree. Respect is something earned, in all cases. And those in public office, who supposedly act on our behalf, should certainly have to earn respect. They are never on a higher plane. And when individuals demonstrate serious personal defects they only garner disrespect which is likely to lead to disrespectful monickers. I will not show respect to a liar, a racist, a misogynist, a fascist...

...or a Marxist, or Socialist, or Communist....

 

[LuisDantas]

I voted "other".

It isn't quite automatic that Trump and/or the GOP deserve less respect than most anyone else, but that has been the reality since at least the 1980s, unfortunately.

It should be noted that politicians are very much not warranted the right to excuse themselves from public debate and judgement, and for that reason they do not get to be spared from fair criticisms - even if those criticisms require scalding and demeaning language to be made in any clear way.

TLDR: disrespect may be necessary, and usually is when one has to point out what is called "right-wing politics" these days. And it is definitely necessary when addressing Trump and his support base.

A cigar is ultimately a cigar.

It falls not to critics to restrain themselves from pointing out that certain offices stand conspurcated.

 

[Heyo]

I went to synagogue twp Fridays after Trump was elected. At the time I had not yet changed my opposition to him. As we were walking out someone I did not know referred to Trump as a "pig." Given that it was a synagogue I found that particularly distasteful.

I turned to the lady and said "'excuse me'", he was just elected. I voted for Hillary but he deserves a chance." Someone who the week before was very upset with me for expressing some degree of sympathy for those in tears about the election thought I was almost "rabbinic" in the way I approached the matter.

Trump earned that moniker long before he got elected.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I will make no bones about it; I don't like Joe Biden or in general the job he's doing. And I will be the first to admit that I have used some choice language myself, but here goes.

Part of me really does not like terms like "demented president" (or stronger), "puddle brain", or "potato head." Right after Trump was elected (I didn't vote for him in 2016) someone in synagogue referred to him as a "pig" and I definitely had something to say. At that point I had not yet shifted to being a mild, intermittent supporter of some of the actions of the 45th President.

However, the President, whether Biden, Trump or otherwise, stands on a higher plane, entitled to a modicum of respect. The use of terms like that is just wrong, even if one totally dislikes him. And truly, I believe that epithets have no place in dialog. They tend to end all rational discussion.

Someone who talks about (and does) grabbing women's genitals without their consent is a pig. Someone who accidentally-on-purpose walks into a change room where young girls are changing so he can see them naked, is a pig. Someone who says, about a ten-year-old girl, "“I’m going to be dating her in 10 years. Can you believe it?”
Trump has earned that moniker.
Sorry. Not sorry.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I put Other. In a debate? No, it is not proper or justified. In normal discourse? We do have freedom of speech.

 

[Secret Chief]

...or a Marxist, or Socialist, or Communist....

Personally I don't disrespect tories or liberals on principle.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Personally I don't disrespect tories or liberals on principle.

I'm starting to wonder of there is any politicians people would actually like these days.

It seems , at least in the states, it was way back with FDR.

 

[jbg]

I'm starting to wonder of there is any politicians people would actually like these days.

It seems , at least in the states, it was way back with FDR.

Glad-handing is what FDR was good at. He gave away the store to Hitler and Stalin because he wanted to be liked. What else is new?

 

[Debater Slayer]

In debate, no, such things have no place.
But outside of that respect is not an entitlement but something that must be earned, and politicians usually fail at being decent and respectable people.

This is my position as well: no disrespect or name-calling in a debate, but outside that, satire and ridicule have always had their place in various societies throughout history. Their appropriateness or lack thereof almost always depends on context.

 

[Stevicus]

Glad-handing is what FDR was good at. He gave away the store to Hitler and Stalin because he wanted to be liked. What else is new?

I'm not so sure about that. One can also look at FDR as a rather shrewd geopolitician, especially when one looks at the end result of WW2. The U.S. was clearly in the most fortunate and favored position among the Allies. It's hard to say how things would have turned out if FDR had lived.

 

[jbg]

I'm not so sure about that. One can also look at FDR as a rather shrewd geopolitician, especially when one looks at the end result of WW2. The U.S. was clearly in the most fortunate and favored position among the Allies. It's hard to say how things would have turned out if FDR had lived.

Well Israel would not have come into existence and the Holocaust may well have been extended. FDR has a lot of Jewish blood on his hands. The Armed Forces did not bomb the rail lines to the camps. FDR did not allow the admission of Jews, even up to the non-generous quotas. I literally don't know where to start.

I rank FDR, as a President with:

1. Carter
2. Nixon
3. Buchanan
4. Pierce
5. Andrew Johnson

I rank him a few levels above Hitler. He had a certain fascination with Stalin, rushing to establish relations with the USSR in November 1933. He was in a boundless rush to give the USSR Lend-Lease aid at a time Britain could have used it. Most shockingly, starting in 1943, rather than advocating for the U.S. he pushed for the world to be run by the "United Nations", which eventually became the United Nations. He ensured that the U.S. would be weak there by allocating votes to Soviet Socialist Republics, and satellites, on a one-country, one vote basis. He ensured the USSR a Security Council seat, complete with a veto.

Basically, he threw a party at the expense of the West. Did I mince words?

 

[Stevicus]

Well Israel would not have come into existence and the Holocaust may well have been extended.

I don't see how. The war was all but over by the time of FDR's death.

FDR has a lot of Jewish blood on his hands. The Armed Forces did not bomb the rail lines to the camps. FDR did not allow the admission of Jews, even up to the non-generous quotas. I literally don't know where to start.

I've heard these criticisms of FDR before, although I think FDR's main focus was just on winning the war. That doesn't make it right, but he had to fight a two-theater war and maintain a shaky coalition of Allies.

I rank FDR, as a President with:

1. Carter
2. Nixon
3. Buchanan
4. Pierce
5. Andrew Johnson

Just out of curiosity, what's your beef with Pierce?

I rank him a few levels above Hitler.

That may be going too far.

He had a certain fascination with Stalin, rushing to establish relations with the USSR in November 1933.

Most nations of the world had recognized and established relations with the USSR by then. The USA was one of the last holdouts. FDR was certainly no communist.

He was in a boundless rush to give the USSR Lend-Lease aid at a time Britain could have used it.

Actually, Britain still received most of the Lend-Lease aid overall. The USSR did need it, and the Allies needed the USSR to remain in the war. If Hitler had conquered Russia, that would have been checkmate for the Allies. FDR was thinking strategically, not just to win the war, but also for America to be in the best position when the war was over. His first duty was to America's strategic interests.

Most shockingly, starting in 1943, rather than advocating for the U.S. he pushed for the world to be run by the "United Nations", which eventually became the United Nations. He ensured that the U.S. would be weak there by allocating votes to Soviet Socialist Republics, and satellites, on a one-country, one vote basis. He ensured the USSR a Security Council seat, complete with a veto.

I'll admit I have mixed feelings about the United Nations, but it wasn't exactly Roosevelt's idea. He, like other world leaders of the time, might have believed that it could be a useful organ for diplomacy and peaceful negotiation among nations. It hasn't been perfect, and maybe it's starting to become more irrelevant in today's world.

In any case, the US didn't have to join. The Senate could have refused to ratify it, and any President could have pulled us out. I get that you don't like FDR, but if you don't like the UN, then there's a lot of other Presidents and politicians to blame in that department. At the time, the US was in a favorable position, and with UN Headquarters being placed in the U.S., that elevated the status and prestige of America in the eyes of the world. America was on top. It was Europe that was devastated and wiped out, while over here, American industries were humming like a well-oiled machine. In the years following the war, America's standard of living grew by leaps and bounds. We were building and economically expanding more than we ever had before. FDR helped make all that happen, even if he wasn't alive to see it. When he took office, America was in a deep depression, but when he died, America was on the verge of winning a world war and a forthcoming economic boom and expansion we've never seen before or since.

I'm not saying that he's perfect or that he deserves all the credit for America's good fortune. And I will admit that there was a certain dark side to his administration, as there were with other WW2 leaders (such as Churchill). But in the final analysis, America was far better off when his presidency ended than when it started.

Basically, he threw a party at the expense of the West. Did I mince words?

The party didn't come until after his death. That may be part of where our national problem came in. It's like America just had one big party after WW2 and never really stopped. But that may have been more Truman's fault. Or possibly JFK. There's a guy who liked to go to parties.

 

[Shaul]

In Judaism we would call this "lashon hara". Lashon hara - Wikipedia It is strongly condemned and taken quite seriously in Judaism. Although everyone is guilty of it on occasion, it is to be greatly avoided.

Whenever I read someone talking trash about someone, including Presidents, I think two things. One is that they must be really short on valid arguments. The other is that they are projecting their own shortcomings unto others.

 

[metis]

Glad-handing is what FDR was good at. He gave away the store to Hitler and Stalin because he wanted to be liked. What else is new?

He didn't want us in the war, which is also what most Americans wanted before we got attacked. It was the attitude of "Let Europe take care of Europe and leave us out of your mess".

 

[FredVB]

Necessary evil is not something I would choose to support. How are we better with having ruling leaders? Are they better people than we are? They are not, really. So people are so bad they need rulers who are people, who are so bad. We could do better than this, we just should not crowd together so much.