Respect the office

We are talking about the standing of the office, which is a different thing entirely to what he does or does not do.
The standing of the office will still be there in 4 or 8 years. Unless the american people again vote in someone a bit like Trump. Which is their business. Their choice. Their perogative.

I think his twitter account should be closed.By himself, of course.Also, he he could count to ten before saying anthing, that may be a good idea.Other than that, his advisors/team will have to earn their large salaries by doing just that....advising.In the not so distant past, we didn't know what the President was thinking all the time, now we do, hardly a good thing.If he stays the course of the five years he will be a wiser man by the end of it, and the next Pres will find that he/she will be considered a saint by comparison, so in the long run, no I don't think that Trump will harm the 'office' of POTUS.

That is precisely what we are talking about.
How what Trump acts and behaves is at variance with the standing of his office and how he consequently thereby shows a lack of respect for it.
The office is bigger than the person -or at least it should be - but Trump does not appear to see it that way. His illogical utterances, his equally wildly illogical actions (the immigrant ban, banning the BBC from a White House press conference (?), the "last night in Sweden" diatribe, the banging on about the Bowling Green 'massacre"(?) , getting involved with Ivanka's business fiascos, and others) reveal a man who appears to believe hnself to be above the accepted conventions.

President Obama, by his conduct, preserved and enhanced the standing of the office. He was dignified, decent, responsible, intelligent, well informed - he clearly strove to make things better for Americans although (mainly because of Republican opposition) he was not always able to achieve as much as he hoped. President Obama deserved respect and got it. He raised the standing of the office of POTUS.

In a few short weeks Trump has reduced himself to a laughing stock and greatly diminished the standing of his office. Whoever the next president is will have an uphill battle to restore the respect.

"people judge the office by the person" (Vampirequeen).

I don't and I doubt if I'm the only one who judges the man by the man.

"the office is bigger than the person" (MawB). Agreed. It's what I've been trying to say, rather less succinctly.

Just because someone (DT) wants to change or challenge the way thing have always been doesn't make it wrong.

Of course challenge and change are not necessarily bad things and can often be good things. There are certainly aspects of the American Constitution that I would like to see changed.

However, being abusive to other allied countries' political leaders does not command respect for the man and does make one twitch about the office. Allowing a White House official to advertise the President's daughter's clothing line – and doing the same himself – is not corruption on the level of Tricky Dicky, but is still corruption and does not command respect. And so on.

I think Trump probably does respect the office of President, but I think he doesn't understand the office of President.

Joke on Twitter (@joshgondelman):
TRUMP: "Barack Obama trained a wolf to hide in the White House. No one can see it but me."
JASON CHAFFETZ: "Invisible wolf. Classic Obama."

Presidents are supposed to respect other presidents and not challenge what went before. Trump has already challenged Obama, so showing that he doesn't respect the office.

If trump is impeached (we can but hope) and thereby drummed out of office, do other living presidents still have to respect the fact that he has been president?

Well yes, one does have to respect actual facts, doesn't one? Except I think respect is the wrong word. Accept would be better.

Also, how does one disrespect a fact?

Is it true that each US president has not challenged what has gone before, even when there has been a change of political direction?

Do British political parties not challenge what the others have done when in government before them? I thought they did. I thought that's what politics was about, challenging what you believe is a bad idea.

We know that the majority of US electorate actually cast their votes for a different president to DT but the US system of election of presidents still makes DT president. Many 100s of thousands of US voters do not approve of/like/ admire/want DT. i do not think it is wrong for people . across the world, to support the majority of US citizens when they see the clumsy way DT is managing to contribute to threatening world peace.

gilly there is nothing wrong with an elected head of state introducing laws however one always hope someone with so much power also has some level of understanding about diplomacy and a reasonable level of general knowledge about the rest of the world. And nobody, not even an elected representative, is above the law / constitution. He needs to follow the agreed set of rules. otherwise everyone is subject to his whim. He only has his own interests at heart not that of the ordinary US citizen!

Those are really rhetorical questions. I've been reading about how certain laws have been changed each time there has been a change of administration from Republican to Democrat and vice versa.

This book review in Time Magazine makes interesting reading.
time.com/4677042/donald-trump-impeachment-book/

In his book, The Case for Impeachment, Lichtman argues that Trump is susceptible to impeachment because of questions surrounding his ties to Russia and potential conflicts of interest related to his businesses.

The author told the Washington Post in September he was convinced someone would find grounds to impeach Trump either for doing something that endangers national security, or for something connected with his business interests which would contravene the constitution.

Seems it's an impeachment just waiting to happen.

Possibly a result of trump not being a politician, Penstemmon? I wonder if they got what they really wanted, or are regretting their choices now.

We know that the majority of US electorate actually cast their votes for a different president to DT but the US system of election of presidents still makes DT president

As I have said before, he won the race that mattered.

And people say he would have spent more time in different states to the ones that he did, if winning the most votes was what counted.

Also people say that Hillary Clinton did it wrong,didnt spend enough time in states that mattered most to get into the Whitehouse.

Wow, Ginny, that was quick. A book waiting to happen.

It's out in April and I have pre-ordered a copy.

I suppose he had a 50/50 chance of getting his first prediction right. The odds on the impeachment must be very different, I suppose, depending on the number of reasons.
Actually, thinking about it, they won't be, will they? There must still be only two outcomes, either he will be or he will not.
Hope he's right on this one as well.

Yes Ankers I do know that as it is is what I said!

However the FACT remains that the majority of US citizens did not want DT to be president.

And the fact also remains that he is their president. I would like to suggest that people respect the US democratic election even when it doesn't quite work out how they wanted. What's the point of going on about the popular vote now?

He's not the first president to be elected without the popular vote and won't be the last.

What's the point of going on about anything now?
Because we can? Because we want to discuss it?
Because it's interesting?

Actually it might be more accurate to say that the majority of Americans who voted didn't want him as president. #possiblypertinentpedantry