Ethics Dunce: HBO’s John Oliver [UPDATED]

I’m being kind and restrained here. John Oliver is a lot worse than an Ethics Dunce. I’ll let you fill in the blanks.

The video above was Oliver’s final show this season on HBO. It is a full half hour of insults and hate directed at the President-Elect of the United States of America. Some of his insults and ridicule are based on substance, some appear to be  pure bias and stupidity. I almost bailed when Oliver, to the bleating of his all blue, all juvenile audience, implied that being endorsed by the head of the KKK obviously disqualifies someone to be President. Unpack the logic in that contention.

Mostly, however, it is a vicious ad hominem assault on the newly elected President of a level of unfairness and disrespect that has never been directed at any previous President Elect in public. Never, because Americans have always realized that the slate is cleared when someone becomes President, and that the individual inherits the office and the legitimacy of that office as it has been built and maintained by it previous occupants. He (no “he or she” yet, sorry: not my fault) becomes the symbol of the nation, the government and its people, a unique amalgam of prime minister, king and flag in human and civilian form.

That immediate good will, respect for the Presidency, and forgiveness of all that went before has made the transfer of power in the US the marvel of the world, and has kept the nation from violence and division. It is part of our strength as a society. It is part of the election process, and a vital one. John Oliver is intentionally tearing at that process.

I don’t want to hear about the Jester’s Privilege. Oliver’s goal isn’t to be funny, and it isn’t satire: he’s fueling hate against our new President, and perhaps fear and violence as well.  There’s nothing constructive there, or “all in good fun.” This is a fact: any comedian who launched into that kind of rant against Barack Obama in November of 2008 would have been permanently shunned, and probably ruined. It doesn’t matter that Obama “didn’t deserve it.” He, like Trump, was President-Elect. What he, like Trump, deserved was respect.

In John Oliver’s own country, Great Britain, where the free speech  is not nearly so robust as here, an equivalent attack on the Queen by an American comic would prompt a diplomatic incident. [CORRECTION: In the original version of this post, I referenced a news item that Trump had announced that he would seek a return of the Churchill bust that Obama had allegedly returned to the U.K. in 2009. I had the original story of the bust’s return in my files dating from 7 years ago. It was in error. Trump may have made the statement, since he believes bad sources even more than I do. It doesn’t matter: he” find the bust in the White House if he looks for it. I apologize for  the error. This would have been fixed much earlier, but I’m flying cross country, and the in flight internet wasn’t working.] As with the insufferable Piers Morgan in his CNN disaster, I don’t care to hear smug foreigners tell us how superior they are, and how little they respect our leaders. This arrogance and rudeness personified. This is our President, and you’re our guest. Behave.

You smug jerk.

132 thoughts on “Ethics Dunce: HBO’s John Oliver [UPDATED]

  1. I’ve actually been warming up to Piers Morgan a little lately:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3935314/And-award-worst-election-loser-goes-deluded-millionaire-celebrity-t-deal-fact-America-couldn-t-care-think.html

    Why do American media companies retain so many Brit hosts and announcers. I find it annoying even on golf broadcasts, never mind political commentary. I guess it’s the rampant Anglophilia in the culture. And the foolish belief that the King’s English is vastly superior to American English.

  2. “…the Winston Churchill bust that President Obama sent back to the U.K….”

    Ah, yes. The bust that he really didn’t send back, and anyone who said differently was publicly pilloried for saying so, and then he really did send it back but was disingenuous in finally admitting as much. In all of the political uproar of the past year I had nearly forgotten about this debacle. I feel good about Sir Winston’s return to the Oval Office. This Baby Boomer was taught that he was one of the greatest men of the twentieth century, and nothing I have read since high school would make me think differently. If we insist that our heroes be perfect, then we will have none. Of course, sometimes I think that is part of the Left’s agenda as well.

  3. A jerk of the first water. He can join Charlotte Church (has been) and Stephen Bowman (never will be) on the list of smug UKers who have no business in the US, both of whom spewed vicious hate against the President on social media. Hateful and bitter is just not a good look

  4. [Donald Trump, incidentally, has asked for the return of the Winston Churchill bust that President Obama sent back to the U.K. as a deliberate rebuke to the British icon who saved the world from fascism. Obama, typically for him and the party he leads, believed that Churchill’s bigotry mattered more than his service to humanity. In this one instance, at least, Trump’s priority of values are spot on.]

    Except that absolutely none of this is true. The bust was not sent back to the UK, and is still in the White House. You fell for a right-wing lie.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/no-donald-trump-wont-returning-9251835

    He (no “he or she” yet, sorry: not my fault) becomes the symbol of the nation, the government and its people, a unique amalgam of prime minister, king and flag in human and civilian form.

    That would be the problem. The idea of Trump being the symbol of our nation is repulsive, and did not suddenly become less repulsive the moment he was elected. He gets no clean slate from me, and the world needs to know that he does not represent me or my country. Oliver is an ethics hero for refusing to put ethics aside for symbolism, as you seem to be advocating here.

    • Let’s try rephrasing that:

      “That would be the problem. The idea of Obama being the symbol of our nation is repulsive, and did not suddenly become less repulsive the moment he was elected. Obama gets no clean slate from me, and the world needs to know that Obama does not represent me or my country. Oliver is an ethics hero for refusing to put ethics aside for symbolism, as you seem to be advocating here.”

      The Southern Poverty Law Center would be after you in a New York minute, Chris.

      • No, they wouldn’t be–anti-Obama comments are not monitored by the SPLC–and what’s your point? Replacing Trump with Obama there is silly, but doesn’t offend me, and there’s nothing inherently unethical about it. Did you expect that to make me angry?

        • “No, they wouldn’t be – anti-Obama comments are not monitored by the SPLC…”

          From the SPLC website: “We’re tracking more than 1,600 extremist groups operating across the country. We publish investigative reports, train law enforcement officers and share key intelligence, and offer expert analysis to the media and public.”

          But of course, the SPLC never, ever has monitored, nor would they ever monitor, anti-Obama comments. Keep shoveling, Chris. Good slave.

                • And your point was ridiculous. You provided no evidence or reason to believe that generic anti-Obama comments of the sort mentioned above are monitored by the SPLC, then decided to call me a “slave” for…defending a civil rights organization? It was one of your stupidest and most incoherent comments here. You should have relished the opportunity to change the subject.

                  • [Reply to Chris Nov 15 10:21 pm]
                    Chris: What a “schooler” you are, “teach!”

                    If anything I said in this little “classroom experience” was stupid and incoherent (it was not and is not), you missed it for the stupidity and incoherence of your own so-typical accusations-without-merit.

                    You know what? You don’t like my points; I don’t like yours. Deal: I’ll go back to ignoring you. Confirmed: You’ve got nothing to say worth reading.

                    But take heart, and keep resisting change. Your union will take care of you.

    • “Except that absolutely none of this is true.”

      You can’t even *just* correct the record. You have to add your own attempt to make partisan hay, which inevitably undermines your already shaky credibility.

      Let me fix this for you, into something that would indicate you might be objective and not a partisan hack.

      Instead of “Except that absolutely none of this is true. The bust was not sent back to the UK, and is still in the White House. You fell for a right-wing lie.”

      Try this:

      “There were two busts, there was one from the 1960s which was temporarily removed to be refurbished, and one temporarily loaned to the White House as a stand-in for the original. When the UK offered to extend the loan on the stand-in, Obama sent that one back, as the original was back in the White House at this point. So yes, Obama DID send a bust of Winston Churchill back after it was offered by the Brits, but only because they would have had 2 busts. The Republicans dishonestly spun this into a repudiation of Churchill. I can see how easy it is to believe because Obama’s explanation didn’t make clear there were 2 busts and because several British sources made a big deal out of it as well.”

      It’s really easy when you are objective.

  5. I am shocked at the behavior of those I know who were all freaked out about when Donald Trump said he’d “wait and see” before accepting the election results. Perhaps they were projecting THIS behavior they are engaging in from happening, since they obviously went from bullying others who shared a different view to tantruming now that they didn’t get their way.

    I am glad I voted against the left. I’m embarrassed.

  6. Jack,

    “What he, like Trump, deserved was respect.”

    I don’t buy it. To me, while the Office of the Presidency may deserve respect, the person sitting in it (or recently elected to it) affords none (unless it’s earned), Oliver isn’t tearing at anything that’s not already unraveling and he’s not breeding hate that isn’t already there. I’m not giving him a pass but, as usual, your anger is misdirected. He’s a businessman providing his consumers what they’ve made clear they want.

    Also, Oliver is a permanent resident on the path to citizenship (not to mention his wife serves in the military). Foreign born, maybe, but not so much a “foreigner” anymore. Although, I’m not sure why it matters either way.

    -Neil

    • Neil, thank you for your comments. I am an American. I pay taxes, I vote, I own a business, and I believe in the constitution. Trump and Pence have both said they don’t respect my right to be married to my wife and they have made outright racist comments throughout their campaign. If they can dish it out they can take it. I love how people commenting above believe they can say what they want any time, but the rest of us can’t. Get over it. I don’t have to respect someone who does not respect me. I also don’t have to vote for them or give them the benefit of the doubt or “a chance” when they win. It’s called freedom of speech. You’ll give it to Trump but can’t handle it when Oliver or Obama use that same freedom? That is childish and ridiculous. Questioning authority and even mocking it is part of American history, it’s part of why this country is great.

      • NOT THE POINT. To both you and Neil: a President Elect has Always had a “honeymoon” with critics and comics. ALWAYS. I’ve followed poular culture and political humor for decades. No one has EVER EVER EVER attacked and insulted a newly elected President like that under the guise of entertainment. NEVER! Got that? Never. Because it is a time to rally behind the elected leader. THIS, with students having the vapors and riots in the street and people “terrified” is an especially ugly time to break a very long tradition.

        Neil, I’m afraid, is ignorant on this point. Find me a single example of any mainstream comic, on mass media, ever doing this to any President-Elect. Even Nixon didn’t get this, except in some pot dens and hippy hangouts.

        He’s wrong,and you’re wrong. It has never happened.

        And it has absolutely never happened with a non-citizen doing the insulting.

        You of course, are far worse than Neil, since your argument is “I hate Trump and I don’t care.”

        • And we’ve never had a president elect who has behaved the way Trump did as a candidate, and continues to behave as a president elect. Check out his tweets from the past week–he is still behaving like a petty tyrant afraid of any opposition.

          Trump broke about every ethical tradition you can think of when it comes to running a presidential campaign. Why are we bound to follow traditions and norms out of respect for a president elect who has broken so many with glee?

        • I don’t think you watch enough comedy honestly if you think Oliver is the first person to have such vehement feelings about “a president”. Again as an American I reserve the right to say what I want based on the constitution the same way you feel it is acceptable for “President Trump” to say whatever he wants. He uses Twitter to say what feels and thinks and so do I and if it is that I don’t support him + his beliefs and philosophies sicken me, that is my constitutional right. Seriously the double standards you advocate for are ridiculous. The things Republicans have said about everyone if the Democratic party, including Democratic presidents proves they agree with me – Americans have a right to the Freedom of Speech. There are so many things you could be writing about that actually matter when it comes to politics and ethics. Really thoughtful things!

          John Oliver’s right to express whatever he wants about politicians – and that includes the President – is his right. Again Donald Trump has said a wide variety of disrespectful things about many people over the course of his campaign, not to mention how disrespectful his first 100 days will be to the basic health of our planet, but now somehow he is no longer accountable for those comments or his actions because he was elected and we are all just supposed to hold hands, join together, and support him blindly like sheep???? I don’t have to agree with people to believe in their right to speak their minds and people who do – you don’t really believe in the constitution of the United States! I guess your solution would be to go back to the days of the Monarchy when a King could have someone killed for sullying his name in any way simply because he was King. Honestly that is insane…..but yeah somehow I’m “the worst”.

    • Dead wrong. The point is that the Office HAS earned the respect. This is why the system is falling apart. We have healthy traditions, and people like you want to destroy them out of emotional animus. I yield to noone in my contempt for Trump, but right now, he is all symbol, and he, like every other President, deserves that because the OFFICE has earned it. And a non citizen, smug Brit decides to abuse our traditions? And you approve?

      Very say, very short-sighted, and very wrong.

      At least you didn’t say “lighten up.” I’ve trashed four comments with that fatuous message already.

  7. We should respect the office of the Presdent, the fact that Presdent Elect Trump remarks regarding sexually assaulting woman or impersonating a disable reporter says a lot. While you may not John Oliver’s humor you could have simply change the channel, unfortunately we can’t just change the Presdent. Thanks to the Trump supporters, now none if us can change the channel or for that matter turn the damn thing off. We are so screwed.

  8. “Never, because American have always realized that the slate is cleared when someone becomes President,”

    I’m pretty sure you just made that up. I certainly don’t believe anything like that. Why on earth would anyone clear the slate on a lying scumbag sociopath just because he becomes President? If anything, the President should be held to an even higher standard.

    “In John Oliver’s own country, Great Britain, where the free speech is not nearly so robust as here, an equivalent attack on the Queen by an American comic would prompt a diplomatic incident.”

    I’m pretty sure you just made that up too.

    “He,,,becomes the symbol of the nation, the government and its people, a unique amalgam of prime minister, king and flag in human and civilian form.”

    He’s a guy with a job. Same guy as before, more important job. I think Trump was a lying scumbag sociopath before, and I think he’s a lying scumbag sociopath now, and he will soon be our lying scumbag sociopath. President. You don’t have to agree with me that he’s a lying scumbag sociopath, but whether he is or isn’t doesn’t change just because he’s elected to office.

    “As with the insufferable Piers Morgan in his CNN disaster, I don’t care to hear smug foreigners tell us how superior they are, and how little they respect our leaders. This arrogance and rudeness personified. This is our President, and you’re our guest. Behave.”

    As a natural born, taxpaying, U.S. citizen, I say Donald Trump is an lying scumbag sociopath, and I say to hell with him.

    • That’s fine, but I did not make up that tradition, it is healthy, it has been respected, and your attitude is corrosive to the republic. And I know something about how Britain reacts when Americans insult the Queen. You are just saying “I don’t care, I don’t like him.”

      Nice. Also childish, And with no constructive content whatsoever. That’s not what this process is supposed to be about.

      By the way, Presidents should be held to a higher standard, and the clock starts when they are President. You want a history of all the mock-worthy incidents Presidents encountered before being elected? It’s long and disillusioning…but for the first couple months or so, below the belt.

      • And if you’re so sure I made that up, it’s because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Every President before Trump, as long as we’ve measured such things, no matter how close the election, reached inauguration day with a very positive approval rating, far beyond what they had before election day. It’s basic cognitive dissonance…the individual is now The President, and carried the prestige of history and his predecessors. He thus can begin with the public’s support, and good wished, with a sense of unity. Every President has had this key advantage, and that means that he has had a good start toward success. You want to withold this undeniably unifying and healthy factor from Trump out of…what? What possible justification can there be for doing that, other than pettiness. And it makes division and failure more likely. What a good plan.

        Trump’s intractable enemies are acting like spiteful children. You should think hard before going that route. It isn’t becoming, and it isn’t rational.

        • It depends what you mean by success and failure. To pick one example, Trump has indicated he wants to choke off foreign imports, essentially starting a trade war. I believe that this is a terrible plan that will hurt Americans, and I want him to fail at enacting it. The continued success of our free trade policy requires that Trump fail in his attempt to destroy free trade. Nobody owes him good wishes or unity when it comes to bad policy. The success of the Trump administration is not the same thing as the success of America.

          • Wanting a poicy or 10 to fail is not the same as wanting the Presidency to fail. This was, however, the exact switcherroo by wihich the GOP was deemed unpatriotic at the start of Obama’s administration. The GOP said they wanted to block his promised policies; Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted Obama to FAIL. As you say, not the same thing, but they were called the same thing in the media, and indeed, to this day. Limbaugh’s comment was unAmerican, essentially.And Oliver’s ad hominem attack is in the same category.

      • I really don’t understand your point. “I don’t care, I don’t like him,” is a perfectly good reason to call out a public figure like Trump for his terrible behavior. Giving the President a chance to get a running start on a terrible agenda is a bad idea. What would you have us do during the next few months? Are we supposed to lie and say we love President Trump? Or should we just pretend not to notice that he’s the President-Elect and write a lot about the weather instead?

  9. I am now spamming every comment that tries to re-litigate the election. This is going on in two posts, and its a waste of my time. And stupid. I hope it makes people better ranting about how bad Trump was in the campaign and how he shouldn’t be President. I know that. I wrote about it ad nauseum. He won. He is President. Don’t tell me how he shouldn’t be,

  10. Ok so did anyone get to the part were he asked people to get out of there media bubble. That what we need to do and why I’m here on this website. I’d like to point out, although it’s true most presidents come in to office with a clean sleight it is more for the reason that few people know there political elects before the enter the election. Trump ran a campaign of hate, racism, and xenophobia. To ask anyone to forget that is stupid. Your not going to forget that in his first speech he promised to deport thousands of people and neither should the American that he was talking about.

    • He did not run a campaign of “hate, racism and xenophobia.” Show me the racism, and don’t tell me about the birther crap, which preceded the campaign. Opposing ILLEGAL immigration is not xenophobia. Trying to avoid importing terrorists is not xenophobia.

      No one said anything should be “forgotten.”

          • It’s not an appeal to authority, since neither Ryan nor Romney is an authority on what racism is. It may sometimes be a fallacy to appeal to someone 1) with a vested interest in a certain position/goal 2) who expresses a position at odds with that position/goal, but I’m not sure what you would call that, or if it’s always a fallacy. (Even an appeal to authority isn’t always a fallacy.)

            My point was that if Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney can look at Trump’s statement that a Mexican judge must be too biased to rule fairly in a case against him, and Jack can look at that same statement and not even understand why anyone would call it racism, then either Ryan and Romney’s definition of racism is too broad or Jack’s definition of racism is too narrow. The former strikes me as highly unlikely, whereas I am already convinced of the latter.

            And yes, I know “Mexican” is not a race; bias directed at an ethnicity or nationality is commonly called racism in our society, as virtually everyone knows, so “You can’t be racist against Mexicans” is a pretty deliberately obtuse statement. Virtually everyone also knows that while Hispanics may be considered white on a census, they are NOT considered white by most whites, or by themselves. Virtually everyone also knows that spreading fear and hysteria against a group is a common tactic of racism and bigotry; Trump’s opening gambit, which can be fairly summarized as “Mexican immigrants are crossing the border to rape your white wives,” is such textbook racism that to deny it strikes me as a form of gaslighting.

            • Classic. Distract from an error by trying to create some necessary minutiae and argue that now…which would make this particular defense of your error a Straw Man now.

              “It’s not an appeal to authority, since neither Ryan nor Romney is an authority on what racism is.”

              One doesn’t have to be a particular authority on a particular topic in order to be appealed to. You appealed to them as an argument against Jack. They ARE authorities that you would presume would help change Jack’s opinion.

              This is a classic use of the Fallacy.

              That they aren’t “authorities on racism” only means this is a particularly OBVIOUS appeal to authority. (Whatever an authority on racism would be…sounds made up to me)

              “It may sometimes be a fallacy to appeal to someone 1) with a vested interest in a certain position/goal 2) who expresses a position at odds with that position/goal, but I’m not sure what you would call that, or if it’s always a fallacy. (Even an appeal to authority isn’t always a fallacy.)”

              Here’s an explanatory quote from the fallacy files website, which you apparently didn’t read:

              “It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition.”

              If the “authority” makes a valid claim, they make the valid claim from valid reasoning; therefore, use the valid reasoning in your own argument. Appealing to the authority (even if the authority is right) is STILL an appeal to authority and is STILL a fallacious argument.

              It’s too easy.

              As for the rest of your bit, it seems a little rambling to me. But no need to discuss it anyway as it doesn’t change my correction of your fallacious argument.

              • Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney accusing Trump of racism isn’t enough to prove he’s racist. I never said that was sufficient. It should be sufficient to make Jack wonder if he’s defining the word “racism” in a much narrower fashion than most people, even staunch Republicans who have themselves been accused of racism. Myself and others have already explained in other threads why Trump’s accusation against the judge was racist, without appealing to authority.

                • Oh I have no doubt that’s what you thought you were saying. And had you added all these clarifying comments indicating you were modifying the context of the subthread, you might have been ok, especially using the assertion as a “HEY these guys think so, maybe there’s something to the accusation we should investigate.”

                  But you had none of that in your original unintentionally fallacious argument. Nor was there any attempt to make it a “HEY open your eyes” kind of comment.

                  Here’s what it looked like in context:

                  Jack: “Trump didn’t run a racist campaign”
                  Chris: “Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney think he said racist things”

                  (Which in retrospect isn’t just an Appeal to authority, it also looks like moving the goal posts)

  11. https://newrepublic.com/article/138757/obama-warning-america-trumps-presidency-listening

    “One of the things you discover about being president is that there are all these rules and norms and laws and you’ve got to pay attention to them,” Obama said…. “The people who work for you are also subject to those rules and norms. And that’s a piece of advice that I gave to the incoming president.”

    “We listened to the lawyers,” Obama said, “and we had a strong White House Counsel’s Office. We had a strong Ethics Office. We had people in every agency whose job it was to remind people, this is how you’re supposed to do things…. We had to just try to institutionalize this as much as we could. And that takes a lot of work. And one of my suggestions to the incoming president is, is that he take that part of the job seriously, as well.”

    One can argue that there were, shall we say, certain ethical lapses during Obama’s presidency. That the DOJ was less than an ideal model of probity, for example.

    When it comes to commercial corruption though, I think that the Obama administration has been unusually free of it.

    The incoming Trump regime apparently had no idea that the mechanisms mentioned above existed.

    Ok, given some of the things the Obama administratiom has done, that is understandable to a degree.

    I personally have no confidence that any “norm” will be respected, in fact, I expect them to be deliberately broken. As for rules, Trump’s entire history has been to only obey laws when breaking them will be punished. Otherwise delay, deny, obfuscate, run out the clock until it costs more to continue the case than to abandon it. Refuse to obey court orders for discovery, destroy evidence, and generally only stop this process after the statute of limitations has expired. Then denial is irrelevant, no need to bother.

    There is no Trump ethics handbook. Literally. No guidance on probity in filling political appointments either. It’s not that they know what ethical behaviour is, and ignore it. They don’t know what it is, at least, in a government context.

    • Zoebrain, love you like a sister, but you have GOT to be kidding!

      “When it comes to commercial corruption though, I think that the Obama administration has been unusually free of it.”

      Ever heard of Solyndra? How about Keystone Pipeline (political payouts to oppose edition)? Maybe the changing of how unemployment is reported? 2 Billion to create Healthcare.gov (smells like a payout)? Hillary’s email server, which facilitated pay for play commercially? Forced Boeing to fire 1,000 workers, because the new factory was non-union? How about the one impacting every American except the Washington political elite: Obamacare? How can that not be commercial?

  12. Err.. no it certainly would not provoke a diplomatic incident, everyone rips the piss out of Her Maj all the time, mate.
    John Oliver, unfortunately for you, is not a guest, he’s a citizen. Hearing opinions which don’t fit with yours is something you need to get used to, not bar.
    And in what way don’t we have robust free speech? Because we don’t have it written on parchment, which we then squabble about generation after generation?
    Respect for your President is a choice. If it isn’t, your country is screwed. And the concept of forgiving someone of all their misdeeds because they got elected to a high station is complete nonsense. It should be the opposite.

    • He’s a British citizen.
      Americans ripping the Queen in GB are NOT welcome, and you know it. This is a hilarious comment for a Brit. The Crown i, in fact, formally and traditionally respected, or you wouldn’t have the wasteful Royals at all. Their only function is for the crown to be “respected.”

  13. Well, the right never stopped slandering Obama (remember the ridiculous birth certificate claims? They, like other stuff, never really went away), so I guess that the left ‘didn’t start the fire’. And Oliver usually backs up his claims, because media practises like Fox news’s are what got us into this mess.
    I didn’t manage to watch the video yet (based in Europe), but your strongest point is that he implies (i.e. doesn’t SAY) that the KKK endorsing a candidate disqualifies said candidate. This is an obvious opinion in what clearly is a mix of an opinion piece and a serious political commentary. You know, like Oliver always does. Or what Glenn Beck does, just left and more truthful. Really, what do you expect?
    Oh, right, obedience to the new election winner (not calling him president as long as he’s not). Well, with Trump being the proverbial sh*t-flinging monkey, it’s really no wonder if he’s stained, too. With a candidate such as him, it is hard to take Trump seriously nationally as well as internationally. Trump is a proven misogynist, compulsory liar and fraud, who won on personality and the populaces lack of education alone. Such a person should not be accepted as a president by anyone, so I hope that there will be an impeachment. A president doesn’t deserve the utmost respect just by being president. Do you respect Kim Yong Un? He’s a president, too! It’s the other way around:

    A good president is naturally respected!

    • I’ll let this ine squeek through as an illusytration of the non-responsive, ethics free comments that are pouring in.

      1. “They did it too” is unethical, and a rationalization.
      2. In this case, they did NOT do it. Obama was accorded more respect from political adversaries than any President-Elect withing memory. Read the post.
      3. Yes, a good President is naturally respected. The office should be respected always regardless. At this point, there is no President Trump, jut the office.
      4. Read the post. Christ.
      5. Stop litigating the election. Nobody sane disagrees that Trump acted and talked like an asshole. Nobody should disagree that he iS an asshole, based on what we have seen.
      6. The OFFICE, however, requires basic respect, and that means not engaging in gratuitous calumny before he’s sworn in. As I said. As is true.
      &. Trump’s vengeful enemies are making him look better by behaving miserably and childishly. It costs nothing to give him a chance. It has many benefit to the country.

  14. Every comment here that begins with the litany of Trump offenses isn’t making it out of moderation, as I promised above. I know all about Trump. Trump the man is not the issue. The post was clear, and every one of these comments changes the subject. They, and the many posts that ask me to do impossible anatomical acts don’t make it .

    The comment that ends with this:

    “Would you have afforded Hillary the same respect you expect for Trump if she had won?”

    ..presumes because I am asking for the exact same courtesy every single previous President Elect has been accorded, I am a Trump supporter. How about checking what I have written before impugning my integrity?

    Of course I would. Especially since I pronounced Trump existentially dangerous, oh, years ago. If you think this post defends Trump, you need reading comprehension training.

    • ” “Would you have afforded Hillary the same respect you expect for Trump if she had won?”

      Yes, of course. And been even more strident in my critique because I think she could have been salvageable. That she would not be completely immune to social and ethical critique.

      Though it would have been a very tough job.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.