R-E-S-P-E-C-T?

Doug:
Should one always respect the President of the United States of America? What does respect mean?

David:
I suppose I would separate the office from the person. If the President is representing the people, with the full support of Congress (the people's representatives), then I think that person is deserving of our respect and support. If the President oversteps his bounds, and acts outside of his Constitutional role, then perhaps not. But that can easily slide into a very grey area.

Doug:
That sounds a lot like B.S. to me. It sounds like you are trying to thread a needle so that you don't have to respect Obama, but should respect Trump. Grey area? That always means that you can decide one way or the other based on nothing. Stepping outside of the Constitution is for the Court to decide, not Breitbart.

David:
I was actually only thinking of Trump with that analysis. He may actually live completely within a grey area, sometimes with support from one side, and sometimes with support from the other. At times, he has found himself in the middle (or perhaps outside) with no support from either. The short answer is: You can respect the office, without respecting the occupier.

To quote Merriam-Webster:

Respect

-a feeling of admiring someone or something that is good, valuable, important, etc.

- a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated in an appropriate way

-a particular way of thinking about or looking at something

In the past 16 years, our polarized society has not really invoked the first definition when it comes to dealing with the person inhabiting the White House. Social media has made this worse and a lot meaner. Even the status of the office itself has taken a beating. Politics is starting to mirror sports. Are Tom Brady and the Patriots a bunch of cheaters? Depends on if they are your team or not. Republicans and Democrats are acting more like rivals, rather than two squads in a practice scrimmage, who are actually on the same team.

Doug:
Listen to yourself, man. Then imagine that you should have been saying those things over the last 8 years. And, speak for yourself. I think Obama has been one of the best Presidents that our country has ever had. Did you see Clinton's gracious concession speech, and Obama's gracious welcoming to the White House? To the man that started his presidential run by claiming that Obama was born in another country. After he had been President for 4 years. Obama has been gracious and professional for 8 years. More gracious than I could be.

David:
He lashed out at Republicans in every single speech he's given for 8 years. He's lectured Conservatives about why they are wrong. And instead of working with all of Congress, he passed his own executive orders, and then blamed Republicans for making him do it. Arrogant is the word that comes to mind. Arrogant and condescending. And in every election since he took office, Democrats have lost more ground. Ask yourself this, are Democrats better off now than when Obama took office?

Doug:
History will show him not to be the evil, arrogant character you have painted. I have heard of rose-colored glasses. I think you have viewed Obama with poop-colored glasses for 8 years.

David:
I think you may be looking at his presidency through beer goggles.

Doug:
I'm always willing to consider the possibility. But I just don't see any evidence that he has "lashed out" during any speech, let alone "every single" speech.

David:
Take a gander through his speeches during his presidency. You'll be surprised how frequently he blames Republicans for whatever it is he's talking about.

He himself admits the reason he's being so gracious is that is how the Bush administration treated him when he came into office, graciously. He appreciated their treatment of him, and responded along the same lines. That's how it should be for a president passing the torch. But remember the last time the Clinton's left? All of the "w" letters had been removed from computer keyboards? Nice. And petty.

Doug:
Horror! And he is gracious because it is Bush's fault? Ok. Can you respect a regular person that is an affront to your sensibilities? They don't hold any particular position. Do you have to listen to them? Should you interrupt them when they are speaking?

David:
Like it or not, Trump's the president now. Republicans hold all of Congress. Republican control more state legislatures across the country, and have more governors than ever before. Trump may not speak your language, but apparently your language doesn't resonate with middle-class America. Or maybe all of those regular people and their ideals are an affront to your sensibilities.

Doug:
If 100,000 people had voted differently we would be talking about President-Elect Clinton. And keep remembering that more people voted for Clinton.

David:
Ah yes, I'll remember that 100,000 people didn't vote for Clinton where it mattered most, in the middle-class across the rust belt.  She isn't the president, and never will be. The people have moved on. But, apparently Clinton has not. After she was "horrified" that Trump said he might not concede after the election if it were close, she has now rescinded her concession, and is happily joining Jill Stein in their recount efforts.

Doug:
Some people have moved on. The majority of people (those that voted for Clinton) are mobilizing.

And why are you telling me about my sensibilities? All I did was ask some questions to try to understand how you feel about respect? Does one need to respect the national anthem of a country? The flag of a country? Or is attempting to force obedience in the name of respect just an attempt of controlling people?

David:
Mobilizing? Perhaps we need to revisit the beginning of this blog. You have asked what respect means, and have criticized me and conservatives for not being completely behind Obama. Mobilizing doesn't sound like a respectful move. (As an aside, it appears a good portion of those that are "mobilizing" didn't actually vote for Clinton. They didn't vote at all.)

You have many sensibilities and strong opinions, but many wrong beliefs as well. The same can likely be said for me. On the one hand, you feel that people from opposite ideologies should stop and listen to each other. I agree with that sentiment. To understand each other, we need to reach out to the other side. Even though it is perfectly legal to burn the flag, you must realize that there are many Americans that hold the flag to be very important and sacrosanct. Military families especially treasure the flag as an emblem of their loved ones who have died. So, to burn the flag certainly won't win any of those people over to your side. Burning the flag, or sitting during the National Anthem, is "an affront to their sensibilities". If your goal is to win people over to your viewpoint and to bring the country together, then you should dissuade protesters from behaving this way. If for no other reason, it's strategically damaging to your cause. Look how the last election turned out. The authoritarianism of the left lost.

I would also criticize people who bring guns to rallies. Unless it is a rally specifically to protest gun rights, bringing a gun to any other rally (even though it is legal) only serves to inflame the left and doesn't win anyone over. It's sticking a thumb in their eye. Strategically it isn't smart. IS also isn't respectful.

Doug:
Reach out to the other side? Where did you get that? We need to freaking argue about the policies and push for what we believe in. Obama barely won. Clinton barely lost. Is there a deep meaning in those two outcomes? I don't think so except that the Democratic party needs to explain our policies and their impacts better.

Ask a question, get a lecture on how I feel. That is probably not going to help you understand how I actually feel. I'll tell you: I am confused. Are you arguing that you want to understand why someone would want to burn the flag? You want to know why someone would want to kneel during the national anthem? I understand those desires (hint: it isn't hate, it is frustration). I also understand why people think that the flag and anthem are sacred, and I disagree with them (hint: they are not sacred).

David:
So, just to understand, if someone on the left is protesting, it's not hate, but frustration. If the tea party protests government spending, it isn't frustration, but hate. If I say something that inadvertently offends someone, I'm supposed to apologize for being insensitive and should go to some special government-mandated training classes to weed-out my micro aggressions, but if you burn the flag in front of someone, knowing they hold it to be sacred, they should get over it because you disagree with them. Do you not see how twisted your logic is?

I'm listing what you have said in the past. I have no idea how you feel, and didn't comment on how you feel.

Doug:
You wear me out. You just said: "you feel that people from opposite ideologies should stop and listen to each other." You presume to understand what the other side is thinking without asking. It is dangerous to assume to know, and even more dangerous to not even recognize the difference between what you presume and what is true.

David:
I'll correct my statement. You have said (as I have also said) that people from opposite ideologies should stop and listen to each other.  When someone says something, it is reasonable to assume they mean what they say. My mistake. Are you now saying that you don't really believe (or feel) people from opposite ideologies should listen to each other? Or is it only when when you win an election the other side should stop and listen, and when you lose you believe the correct response is to mobilize and argue?

Doug:
I'd be glad to tell you how I feel, but I don't think you care judging by your questions. I think you'll just be happy imagining what I must be feeling.

David:
Chuckle. You're upset I said how you might be feeling, and then tell me how I'm thinking. We might be related after all.

Doug:
And yet we are moving on without you actually caring. We are related, but we are definitely in different places now.

David:
And now you assume to know what I care about. Geesh!

I'd say that the left's attempts during the past 8 years to squelch dissent by declaring conservative ideas as hate speech, and lumping conservatives into the same boat as the KKK is trying to force obedience. People got tired of being preached at, but since you belong to the Church of Leftist Ideals, you didn't notice that your ideas were not resonating with blue-collar workers that were left behind in the push for globalization. To be respected, you need to show respect. President Obama has never respected Republicans.

Doug:
I'd be interested in hearing about "conservative ideas" that were interpreted as "hate speech."

David:
According to the left, saying that someone with a penis should use a men's locker room is called hate speech. Arguing that religious beliefs are protected by the Constitution is called hate speech. Arguing that life begins at conception is hate speech. On college campuses, just writing "Trump" in chalk is considered hate speech. Believing we should secure our borders is hate speech. Saying, "I believe the most qualified person should get the job", is now considered hate speech. Conservative speakers aren't even allowed to give talks at college campuses because anything they say is considered hate speech. Please don't play dumb.

Doug:
Everything is black and white when you describe it. Why would there be any confusion? Could it be because the world is not so black and white as you pretend? But the KKK is in your boat, like it or not. And so are the white nationalists, and the white supremacists. We're going to have to do some study to know the difference between all of the variations. I don't blame you for the fact that they got into your boat. But only you can kick them out.

David:
Trump condemned them. "I condemn them. I disavow, and I condemn them". What else do you want?

Doug:
It would be really cool if Trump spent as much time complaining about white nationals as he does complaining about how SNL impersonates him. Do I think he has his priorities backwards? Yes.

If I did belong to a Church, I would totally go to the "Church of Leftist Ideals" if you mean a group that is interested in feeding the poor, increasing diversity, protecting women's choices, giving everyone healthcare, welcoming immigrants, social justice, treating others with respect (e.g., political correctness), giving homes to the homeless, social security, etc., etc., etc. Perhaps those Identity Labels don't scare people the way the used to?

David:
You say that as though conservatives don't believe in any of those things, don't support those things, or subscribe to the opposite of those things. I may believe in a different means to effect those things, but that does't mean I don't support variations of the same goals. (Give a man a fish, or give a man a fishing pole. Both have the goal of feeding that man.)

Doug:
I didn't say anything about you. Why do you assume that if I say that "I believe in X" that you feel that I imply that you don't? All you have to say is "I agree with you." Oh, but then I guess you'd be saying that you agree with some of the ideals of the Church of Leftist Ideals.

David:
Solving the problems you listed are common goals to most Americans. The idea that conservatives don't believe these things, which the left constantly accuses us of, has led to election defeats across great swaths of the country.  People get tired of being accused of something they aren't. As I mentioned, it's the solutions to these problems that creates friction. The devil is in the details, whether you're in a real church, or the Church of Leftist Ideals.

Doug:
"To be respected, you need to show respect." How do you think most other kinds of people (non white males) find Donald J. Trump? Do you think he shows them respect? Should they show him respect?

There it is: you feel disrespected by your President, and you give it back. Why do you feel disrespected? Because he believes differently? Because he is smarter? Because he believes that he is better than you? As Trump is demonstrating, you can be direct with your disrespect, and then it can be a rallying cry. Even if you believe that Obama really did disrespect you, you have to admit that he tried to hide it. Perhaps that is another reason to dislike him: he isn't honest with his disrespect?

But what I am really interested in is the phrase "Obama is not my president." Did you ever say that, feel that way, or hear others say it? If so, how does that make you feel?

David:
Never said it, and never felt it, although I know many who did. He was the President. He was the President of the USA. But he totally discounted the ideals I hold dear. He did not incorporate any Republican input into Obamacare, and then lied to us to get the bill passed. He took religious groups to court to force them to bend their beliefs. He threatened to withhold funding from colleges and universities if they didn't follow his gender philosophy. He promoted the idea that the color of your skin means more than the quality of your character or merit. He pushed globalism at the expense of rust-belt workers. And he pushed his agenda with a smarminess and condescension that was completely disrespectful of my beliefs. He never acted like he was President of everyone. He was the President of the left. Both Obama (and you) have said the problem was "messaging". The problem was that he lectured me about why I was wrong, rather than engaging in dialogue. He lectured me that my beliefs are wrong, and his are right. He imposed his will, often skirting Congress. He never governed with consent, but forced his beliefs on half of us. If you really want to try to understand what I'm saying, read through these quotes, and see if you can find why conservatives might be aggravated by some things he has said, and the attitude he conveys.

Doug:
It doesn't sound like you respect President Obama, and I think you don't understand how much Obama really did try to work across the aisle. But you can believe whatever you want. I read all of the "quotes"...some were indeed gaffs, others he didn't actually say, some were misrepresentations, and others were things I completely and 100% agree with. But I think you would probably agree with many of Obama's other statements. Not everything he utters appears on the "25 Most Obnoxious Things List". In fact, if those are the worst things he said over 8 years, then I don't see what the problem is. Trump's list would be much more terrible already, if you only look at the 25 most obnoxious. And no one would have to misquote, or cleverly edit his statements.

David:
And that is why you will never understand what really happened in this election. You believe he tried to work across the aisle? He invited some Republicans to the White House in his first two months in office, discounted all of their ideas, and never had them back (except for a golf game and two (2) meetings with John Boehner). He met more often with Putin, and spoke more highly of him than of Republicans. You can distill all of those quotes into either illustrating no big deal, or you agree with them. You don't understand at all what it really is that I find wrong with the left, or why I would not respect President Obama. Not even a smidgen.

Doug:
As usual, you compress what I said into what you expect to hear. You discount people based on caricatures. That is your loss.

David:
Ditto. Maybe it's a genetic trait.

Doug:
And also as usual, I'm going to have to disagree with you: I don't think you have to respect the person, or the office (nor the flag, nor anthem). He will be our President, but I don't have to respect him. We'll see if Trump lives up to your image, or my image, of what Obama was.