Needless Disrespect for a President - Biden, Trump or otherwise

[metis]

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.

All societies need political leaders in order to at least organize society. For example, let's say we are under military assault, who will make the choice as to how we might respond?

 

[jbg]

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.

That was a pretext. Bombing the rail lines would have meant little or no diversion of effort. He did not want Jewish survivors.

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

His alcohol habit, for starters.

That may be going too far.

He pressured Reform Rabbis to pressure their flock to keep their mouths shut. The book in question is The Jews should be Quiet.

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.

So,what does the USSR have to offer? What did it then have to offer? They made the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact,and then when the viper bit them came to use for help.

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.

Actually I believe it was FDR's idea.

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.

FDR started it, I mean, in the sense of drunken-sailor giveaways.

 

[metis]

FDR started it, I mean, in the sense of drunken-sailor giveaways.

Such as...?

One should know that it was the eastern front that mostly stopped the NAZI's even though we like to take the most credit as Americans. Had they defeated the Soviets, the rest of Europe would have been there for theirs for the taking.

 

[metis]

That was a pretext. Bombing the rail lines would have meant little or no diversion of effort. He did not want Jewish survivors.

Rubbish. It was right after the war ended that FDR asked members of Congress to go to Poland and Germany to see the bodies of Jews piled up, and one of my neighbors was involved in the American liberation of Dachau btw, and he told me how totally unprepared they were to see what they ended up seeing.

 

[Wandering Monk]

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.

Take a look at older US newspapers of how president's have be caricatured in the past. This is nothing new.

 

[Stevicus]

That was a pretext. Bombing the rail lines would have meant little or no diversion of effort. He did not want Jewish survivors.

I thought they did bomb rail lines - or at least some of them.

One can find room to criticize the U.S. leadership - such as the refusal for the U.S. to join the League of Nations, which might have given enough strength to that organization to stop Nazi aggression before it even started. We could have anticipated what was going on and been better prepared in the years leading up to the war. It wasn't until 1940 that US war production really started in earnest. That wasn't really FDR's fault, as an isolationist Congress stood in the way.

His alcohol habit, for starters.

I thought he was a reformed alcoholic. But yes, he's one of a string of unsavory Presidents leading up to the Civil War. (On the other hand, Grant was also reputed to be a heavy drinker. I suppose leading a war of attrition against an intractable foe can take its toll on a man's conscience. I'd cut him some slack.)

He pressured Reform Rabbis to pressure their flock to keep their mouths shut. The book in question is The Jews should be Quiet.

I'll look for it. I've heard similar criticisms that the US government and even the media were downplaying the Holocaust or in some cases not acknowledging that it was happening to a satisfactory degree. But we were already at war with Germany, and the only thing any leader could have done at that point was just keep fighting the war until victory. You're trying to make it sound like FDR was an ally of Hitler, and nothing could be further from the truth. The US was on the Allied side, not the Axis.

Granted, I don't think everything our leaders do is totally on the up-and-up, and there may have been some corruption and political intrigue, as there often tends to be in matters of both war and peace.

So,what does the USSR have to offer? What did it then have to offer? They made the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact,and then when the viper bit them came to use for help.

It wasn't necessarily a matter of what they had to offer, but since they were clearly in power over a large, strategically-located major power, establishing diplomatic relations and opening the lines of communication would make geopolitical sense.

Actually I believe it was FDR's idea.

It was just a rebranded version of the League of Nations, which may have been Wilson's idea (although it may have been conceived much earlier).

FDR started it, I mean, in the sense of drunken-sailor giveaways.

Well, yeah, I suppose. When we took France from the Germans, we should have just kept it for ourselves. Silly FDR gave it back to the French.

 

[metis]

I thought they did bomb rail lines - or at least some of them.

They did, but for some reason not those leading to the death camps, especially Auschwitz.

 

[Stevicus]

They did, but for some reason not those leading to the death camps, especially Auschwitz.

To be sure, there were questionable decisions made by FDR and the Allies in general. I don't think FDR was a one-man band. He had to work with a coalition, both domestically and having to deal with Churchill and Stalin, who were probably quite a handful.

I think the main lesson that came out of that war was that our lack of preparedness was what hampered us. Not just the U.S., but also Britain and France. That's why they couldn't stop the Germans right away. Stalin also kept pressuring the Allies and thought they were stalling and foot-dragging on opening up a second front in Europe. But that wasn't really true, as it took a good deal of time for the US to build up a strong enough force to do that.

 

[jbg]

Rubbish. It was right after the war ended that FDR asked members of Congress to go to Poland and Germany to see the bodies of Jews piled up, and one of my neighbors was involved in the American liberation of Dachau btw, and he told me how totally unprepared they were to see what they ended up seeing.

Roosevelt was dead at that point. Future POTUS Eisenhower, to his credit, did what you attribute to Roosevelt.

 

[metis]

Roosevelt was dead at that point. Future POTUS Eisenhower, to his credit, did what you attribute to Roosevelt.

Yes, you're correct, so thanks for the correction.

 

[metis]

He had to work with a coalition, both domestically and having to deal with Churchill and Stalin, who were probably quite a handful.

Oh yes, they certainly were!

I think the main lesson that came out of that war was that our lack of preparedness was what hampered us.

That plus most Americans didn't want to get involved in "Europe's problems".

Stalin also kept pressuring the Allies and thought they were stalling and foot-dragging on opening up a second front in Europe.

In that respect, he was right. We also fudged with the Soviets with the Lend-Lease Agreement.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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?

Not words, but the facts are about as minced as a hotdog. FDR was by no means a saint, he did a lot of bad things, but he set things up for America to get the Bomb before Hitler (and the Allies having it before him was of paramount importance) and helped set up America to step up to the role of a global manufacturing and economic powerhouse after the war.
Amd a few steps above Hitler? He severely mistreated legions of Americans and Asians, but he didn't set out to exterminate them or make significant progress in achieving that goal. I can name several more and a few more that are more deserving of the place.

 

[FredVB]

All societies need political leaders in order to at least organize society. For example, let's say we are under military assault, who will make the choice as to how we might respond?

Have you seen it ever that people lived without political leaders? It has not existed that way, but it must be worse that way, right?

Maybe you can't organize. How can you know that others can't? There might be leaders but that does not have to involve political government to work.

If people are well armed, as many are in this country, is it desirable to others to really come to invade the country?

 

[metis]

Have you seen it ever that people lived without political leaders? It has not existed that way, but it must be worse that way, right?
View attachment 77208
Maybe you can't organize. How can you know that others can't? There might be leaders but that does not have to involve political government to work.

If people are well armed, as many are in this country, is it desirable to others to really come to invade the country?

It's not clear to me what the first two sentences are saying or why the listing of items in blue has anything to do with this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I try not to use ableist slurs in general, but I have no issue with calling Trump a habitual liar, for instance, because it's accurate.

As for being on a higher plane, and respect being due to the office: I agree, but my take on it is different than yours.

Because the office of President stands on a higher plane, the President ought to be held to the highest ethical standard, and conduct of a President that besmirches the office should be considered a serious problem.

The office is entitled to respect, and the first to show that respect is the President themselves.

 

[PureX]

Have you seen it ever that people lived without political leaders? It has not existed that way, but it must be worse that way, right?

Maybe you can't organize. How can you know that others can't? There might be leaders but that does not have to involve political government to work.

If people are well armed, as many are in this country, is it desirable to others to really come to invade the country?

If you're trying to promote anarchy, all I can say is that it's a total 'pipe dream'. There is no known mechanism within we humans that would enable us to work together for the sake of each other's well-being without some intervening force.

 

[metis]

If you're trying to promote anarchy, all I can say is that it's a total 'pipe dream'. There is no known mechanism within we humans that would enable us to work together for the sake of each other's well-being without some intervening force.

Yep, and any country that went in that direction became so unstable that it didn't last, and usually it was replaced by an authoritarian regime.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you're trying to promote anarchy, all I can say is that it's a total 'pipe dream'. There is no known mechanism within we humans that would enable us to work together for the sake of each other's well-being without some intervening force.

Do you how societies functioned when we were hunters and gatherers? It was a lot of anarcho-communism. The pipe dream (more like bad acid trip) is that we're individuals who must be in it for ourselves. We have to unlearn this and learn we are social animals who thrive best,as a whole, with mutual cooperation. After all, the more individualized a person becomes it also becomes easier to control this person (who are individuals first and foremost and lack necessary support and strength to figbt back).
But we keep fooling ourselves into believing are creatures of rugged individuality who must relly on ourself.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I consider disrespect for authority to be altogether healthy, something to be encouraged.

True. It's supposed to be a hallmark of freedom to critique your leaders including comical insults and the like.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you how societies functioned when we were hunters and gatherers? It was a lot of anarcho-communism. The pipe dream (more like bad acid trip) is that we're individuals who must be in it for ourselves. We have to unlearn this and learn we are social animals who thrive best,as a whole, with mutual cooperation. After all, the more individualized a person becomes it also becomes easier to control this person (who are individuals first and foremost and lack necessary support and strength to figbt back).
But we keep fooling ourselves into believing are creatures of rugged individuality who must relly on ourself.

No. Individualism is the hallmark of a well society. Not collectivism. We as humans have not evolved to posses an unthinking hive mind with strict roles and duties.