Never Normalize: Why Trump’s Presidency Is Illegitimate And How To Respond

[homersapien 11,371]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/never-normalize-why-trumps-presidency-is-illegitimate_us_58585770e4b0d5f48e165210

Now that a majority of electors have cast their ballots in favor of Donald Trump, he will have the lawful powers of the presidency, as prescribed in the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Legal authority is not equivalent, however, to political legitimacy, moral authority, or entitlement to civic respect.

Trump’s legal authority will give him the power to issue executive orders and repeal existing ones. If he signs bills passed by Congress, those enactments ― however stupid or destructive they may be – will be the law of the land, unless the courts find them unconstitutional. Similarly, Trump will be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, because the Constitution confers that power on the holder of the office. As a result, as long as Trump’s actions are consistent with law, opponents can and should publicize the costs and hazards of those actions, but will lose if they mount legal challenges.

Though Trump has legal legitimacy, he totally lacks political legitimacy. He seized power through a cumulative set of actions that thoroughly undermine the integrity of the election outcome. These illegitimate actions include voter suppression engineered by the Republican Party; highly inappropriate and outrageous interventions in the election by the Director of the FBI; persistent demonizing and intimidation of a free press; and, most egregious, a deliberate attempt (openly encouraged by Trump himself) by a hostile foreign government to influence the election in his favor. Taken together, these actions fatally undercut the political legitimacy of Trump’s presidency.

He also lacks the moral authority normally associated with the Presidency. Trump’s deficiencies of character undercut any notion that he deserves moral or civic respect. His deep flaws have been on full exhibit before, during, and after the election campaign. These character failures are revealed in his blatant and persistent lies; the scapegoating of vulnerable groups; eight years as a birther; a disgusting history as a sexual predator and racist; and conflicts of financial interest so wide and deep that he will be impeachable on day one of his presidency.

How should Americans treat a president who has bare legal legitimacy but lacks both political legitimacy and moral authority? Some say that all Americans should wait and see how he performs in the job, and that other leaders should work with him where common interests can be found. They argue that, for the good of the country, we should put the election behind us and treat Trump with political and moral respect – that is, that we should strive to normalize his presidency.

We respectfully but emphatically disagree. It would be a grave error to ignore his political illegitimacy and lack of moral authority. Other elected officials, the media, and the citizenry at large have no obligation to afford him the slightest political respect. Rather, the next four years should be a time of resistance and outright obstructionism. Opponents of Trump should be at least as aggressive in challenging the political legitimacy and moral authority of his presidency as Republicans were in disrespecting President Obama, whose political legitimacy and moral authority were beyond reproach.

What concrete presumptions flow from the political and moral illegitimacy of Trump’s presidency? Here are four:

• Everything Trump speaks, writes, tweets, or otherwise expresses should be presumed false, unless there is reliable (to the listener) evidence that it is true. He has lied so often and so blatantly, and his followers have so persistently rejected the idea of objective truth, that no responsible citizen should believe a word he says unless it can be independently verified. The press will be acting irresponsibly unless it covers him according to this principle.

• Trump should never be presumed to be acting in the best interests of the United States. His actions with respect to his business interests and his family’s wealth suggest that his highest loyalties are to those personal concerns, and his loyalty to the nation is completely secondary. His encouragement of the Russian cyberattack on the election is just the most extreme example of his loyalty to himself over loyalty to his country. Every move he makes should therefore be presumed to represent a conflict of interest, unless he can demonstrate that no conflict exists.

• The wealthy donors and others he appoints to office should be presumed incompetent and riddled with interest conflicts until proven otherwise. His emphasis on a cult of personal loyalty, insensitivity to conflicts of interest, alliances with bigots, and willingness to appoint people wholly ignorant of, and indeed hostile to, the tasks associated with a particular office, mean that the burden of proof should always be on Trump to demonstrate the competence and honesty of his appointees. Unlike what routinely occurs in a normal presidency, Senators should give absolutely no deference to his choices. Indeed, nominees requiring confirmation should be questioned at length and scrutinized with care, in order to expose their flaws. Confirmation of nominees should be slowed down and blocked in every procedural way possible.

• Trump’s substantive judgments should be presumed ignorant, and, at times, dangerous. His unwillingness to educate himself about crucial details of national security and domestic policy, or to surround himself with expert and trustworthy advisors, means that every substantive judgment he makes is highly likely to be flawed.

Democratic leaders should take every opportunity to act in accordance with these presumptions. Common inter-branch traditions and norms of civility should be laid aside for the duration of the Trump regime. For example, Senate Democrats should never provide unanimous consent, including to allow Trump’s incompetent and financially conflicted nominees to be confirmed prior to January 20. Democrats should force votes at every turn and use the filibuster aggressively, as Republicans did during the Obama years. The goal should be to prevent the smooth flow of Senate action in order to stall Trump’s illegitimate agenda as much as possible.

On January 20, Democrats should boycott Trump’s inauguration. As befits a lying president, Democrats should be quick to shout “You lie!” when Trump addresses joint sessions, just as Republicans shouted at President Obama. When Trump praises Vladimir Putin or Russia in formal addresses, Democrats should rise and chant “Puppet! Puppet!” In short, Democrats should learn the lesson Republicans have taught them: Don’t bring boxing gloves to a knife fight.

At noon on January 20, 2017, we will have a new president. The office of the presidency deserves respect, but the new occupant has relied on illegitimate means to seize power, and he deserves moral contempt. Polling reveals that these concerns are widespread among the electorate. Two thirds of Democrats want to see resistance, and well fewer than half – just 38 percent ―of the entire electorate believe Trump to be minimally qualified for the presidency. Democratic leaders should take notice and act accordingly.

 

[homersapien 11,371]

A good companion piece:

What Those Who Studied Nazis Can Teach Us About The Strange Reaction To Donald Trump

While it’s important to watch the president-elect closely, we also must be mindful of our own response to him.

Excerpt:

.....Michael Lerner, in another New York Times op-ed, “Stop Shaming Trump Voters,” argued that “the pain and rage of the Trump voter is legitimate” after decades of this constituency being ignored or attacked by the left for cultural and religious reasons. He added that “we need to reach out to Trump voters in a spirit of empathy and contrition” and reassured us that “the racism, sexism and xenophobia used by Mr. Trump to advance his candidacy does not reveal an inherent malice in the majority of Americans.”

These reactions to Trump and his supporters have a way of separating ideas that usually move in tandem. Facts and truth are suddenly unrelated. Power no longer implies responsibility. Legitimacy and decency are now somehow passengers on separate ships. In this dynamic, People magazine can champion both the perpetrator and the victim and see no contradiction or betrayal. Lilla can use the victory of a campaign steeped in identity politics to highlight the ineffectiveness of identity politics. And Lerner can argue that a campaign “advanced” by sexism, racism and xenophobia can tell us much about the targets of that bigotry, i.e. that they need to behave differently, but little about the supporters of that campaign.

So, why the rush to defend Trump’s supporters? Why the self-recriminations? Why the willingness to stretch the bounds of legitimacy to accommodate Trump’s antics? Much has been written about Trump’s demagoguery and its similarity to totalitarian leaders of the past, but what about Trump’s opponents? Are many of us borrowing a page from totalitarianism without realizing it? Are we empowering him? Are we coordinating?

The word Gleichschaltung is often translated from the German as “coordination” and refers to the process of ― politically speaking ― getting in line. It often appears in books about the Nazi era. German Jewish philologist Victor Klemperer and German journalist Joachim Fest wrote about the personal cost of coordinating in their respective memoirs. German author Sebastian Haffner and Americans including journalist William Shirer wrote about the propaganda and politics of coordination.   

German-born Jewish political theorist Hannah Arendt, in one of her last interviews, explains it best.

“The problem, the personal problem, was not what our enemies did, but what our friends did. Friends ‘coordinated’ or got in line.” And this coordination was not necessarily due to the “pressure of terror,” said Arendt, who escaped Germany in 1933. Intellectuals were particularly vulnerable to this wave of coordination. “The essence of being an intellectual is that one fabricates ideas about everything,” and many intellectuals of her time were “trapped by their own ideas.”

People rejected the uglier aspects of Nazism but gave ground in ways that ultimately made it successful. They conceded premises to faulty arguments. They rejected the “facts” of propaganda, but not the impressions of it. The new paradigm of authoritarianism was so disorienting that they simply could not see it for what it was, let alone confront it.....

The faulty premise that empowered Hitler and helped place him in the German mainstream was called the Dolchstoss or the legend of the “stab in the back.” It argued that, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, Germany was winning World War I only to have politicians surrender prematurely..... 

In today’s United States, the suggestion that illegal immigration is the cause of the economic struggles of working-class whites is an American Dolchstoss. Mechanization, globalization and the decline of unions have affected working-class whites to a far greater extent than illegal immigration ― or immigration of any kind. And this is not an obscure fact or liberal talking point. Yet many who supposedly reject Trump’s scapegoating of illegal immigrants seem willing to concede it. 

The debates about how or what, if anything, workers can do to combat this reality are endless, but the claim that immigrants are to blame is the talking point of the demagogue, not a reflection of economic reality.

When the decline of working-class jobs was perceived as a problem for African-Americans primarily, the neoliberal and conservative positions were much less sympathetic. According to William Julius Wilson’s 1996 book, When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor, “Between 1967 and 1987 Philadelphia lost 64% of its manufacturing jobs; Chicago lost 60%; Detroit 51%.” This meant hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, disproportionately affecting African-Americans. The solution from conservatives? “Migrate” was black conservative Shelby Steele’s prescription. “Get new skills,” said others. And even more popular was “behave more like Asians.” Yet whites need an entirely new mythology, even if that mythology hurts prospects. According to a recent Politico article by Dana Goldstein, “America: This Is Your Future,” “Rust Belt cities that are attracting immigrants are in better shape than those, like Dayton, Ohio, with fewer foreign-born residents.” Yet, “the people who are upset about immigration live in areas where immigration has had very little impact. A lot of the upset is symbolic.” The symbolism and the propaganda form a kind of feedback loop, each reinforcing the other, regardless of the underlying truths ― or lack thereof.

In his 1940 book, Germany: Jekyll and Hyde, Haffner explains this relationship between impression and propaganda, even for those opposed to the Reich. He writes, “Outside of Germany people often wonder at the palpable fraudulence of Nazi propaganda, the stupid incredible exaggerations, the ludicrous reticences concerning what is generally known. Who can be convinced by it? They ask. The answer is that it is not meant to convince but to impress. It addresses emotion and fantasy. Nazi propaganda seeks to create in our minds tenacious ideas and fantasies.”

....In Haffner’s time, the tenacious ideas and fantasies were the subhuman images of the Reich’s enemies. Many Germans rejected the “facts” of this propaganda: that Czechoslovakia or Poland posed existential threats to Germany and the German people, but the impression of the propaganda remained. “The image,” Haffner wrote, “of the Czechs and Poles as a snub-nosed, unpleasant, dwarfish half-ape brandishing a revolver, whip or rubber truncheon at a number of barely clad women, children, and blond men bound to posts.” Who could trust such a person? Why risk it?

Trump’s propaganda about Mexican rapists and Muslim terrorists operates in a similar way. The informed listener knows that most rapes are committed by perpetrators that are known to the victim. They know that most terrorist attacks in the United States are committed by non-Muslims, but the impression that those groups are not to be trusted ― that to trust them is taking an unnecessary risk ― remains.

Read the full piece at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-nazi-propaganda-coordinate_us_58583b6fe4b08debb78a7d5c

 

 

[Mikey 16,586]

"They know that most terrorist attacks in the United States are committed by non-Muslims ...." If the time range of that statement is limited to recent years I don't think that's true. Of course, the writer has left himself considerable wiggle room as to the definition of "terrorist attack". If drive by gang shootings in Chicago are called terrorist attacks, then he can claim accuracy. Otherwise, no.

[TitanTiger 20,481]

That's a lot of words to simply say, "I pitch a fit when I don't win."

[SaltyTiger 7,795]

"He seized power through a cumulative set of actions that thoroughly undermine the integrity of the election outcome. These illegitimate actions include voter suppression engineered by the Republican Party; highly inappropriate and outrageous interventions in the election by the Director of the FBI; persistent demonizing and intimidation of a free press; and, most egregious, a deliberate attempt (openly encouraged by Trump himself) by a hostile foreign government to influence the election in his favor. Taken together, these actions fatally undercut the political legitimacy of Trump’s presidency."

Seized power? he was elected. demonize and intimidate free press - bless their little liar liberal hearts. that is laughable.

End with the paragraph with the same russian/FBI bullS

[icanthearyou 4,462]

It is foolish to listen to two disingenuous liars and then, attempt to determine what the absolute truth is.

 

[homersapien 11,371]

55 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That's a lot of words to simply say, "I pitch a fit when I don't win."

C'mon Titan, you are better than that.

[TitanTiger 20,481]

Sorry, those articles are ridiculous.  I don't like the guy, but he won.  Get over it.

Several weeks before the election, the thought was that we'd have a reverse of the current situation where Trump would win the popular vote but lose because of the electoral college.  And Clinton and the confident Dems told us all that we have to get in line and respect the unique design of our republic.  Now all that's out the window when they didn't get the outcome they expected.

So yes, that's a lot of words to tell me that a whole swath of people in this country whine and throw tantrums when they don't win at things.  Like it or not, Trump is the legitimate president of the country.  Time to act like grown ups.  Oppose policies of his that you disagree with like normal people.  But stop embarrassing yourselves this way.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/never-normalize-why-trumps-presidency-is-illegitimate_us_58585770e4b0d5f48e165210

Now that a majority of electors have cast their ballots in favor of Donald Trump, he will have the lawful powers of the presidency, as prescribed in the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Legal authority is not equivalent, however, to political legitimacy, moral authority, or entitlement to civic respect.

Trump’s legal authority will give him the power to issue executive orders and repeal existing ones. If he signs bills passed by Congress, those enactments ― however stupid or destructive they may be – will be the law of the land, unless the courts find them unconstitutional. Similarly, Trump will be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, because the Constitution confers that power on the holder of the office. As a result, as long as Trump’s actions are consistent with law, opponents can and should publicize the costs and hazards of those actions, but will lose if they mount legal challenges.

Though Trump has legal legitimacy, he totally lacks political legitimacy. He seized power through a cumulative set of actions that thoroughly undermine the integrity of the election outcome. These illegitimate actions include voter suppression engineered by the Republican Party; highly inappropriate and outrageous interventions in the election by the Director of the FBI; persistent demonizing and intimidation of a free press; and, most egregious, a deliberate attempt (openly encouraged by Trump himself) by a hostile foreign government to influence the election in his favor. Taken together, these actions fatally undercut the political legitimacy of Trump’s presidency.

He also lacks the moral authority normally associated with the Presidency. Trump’s deficiencies of character undercut any notion that he deserves moral or civic respect. His deep flaws have been on full exhibit before, during, and after the election campaign. These character failures are revealed in his blatant and persistent lies; the scapegoating of vulnerable groups; eight years as a birther; a disgusting history as a sexual predator and racist; and conflicts of financial interest so wide and deep that he will be impeachable on day one of his presidency.

How should Americans treat a president who has bare legal legitimacy but lacks both political legitimacy and moral authority? Some say that all Americans should wait and see how he performs in the job, and that other leaders should work with him where common interests can be found. They argue that, for the good of the country, we should put the election behind us and treat Trump with political and moral respect – that is, that we should strive to normalize his presidency.

We respectfully but emphatically disagree. It would be a grave error to ignore his political illegitimacy and lack of moral authority. Other elected officials, the media, and the citizenry at large have no obligation to afford him the slightest political respect. Rather, the next four years should be a time of resistance and outright obstructionism. Opponents of Trump should be at least as aggressive in challenging the political legitimacy and moral authority of his presidency as Republicans were in disrespecting President Obama, whose political legitimacy and moral authority were beyond reproach.

What concrete presumptions flow from the political and moral illegitimacy of Trump’s presidency? Here are four:

• Everything Trump speaks, writes, tweets, or otherwise expresses should be presumed false, unless there is reliable (to the listener) evidence that it is true. He has lied so often and so blatantly, and his followers have so persistently rejected the idea of objective truth, that no responsible citizen should believe a word he says unless it can be independently verified. The press will be acting irresponsibly unless it covers him according to this principle.

• Trump should never be presumed to be acting in the best interests of the United States. His actions with respect to his business interests and his family’s wealth suggest that his highest loyalties are to those personal concerns, and his loyalty to the nation is completely secondary. His encouragement of the Russian cyberattack on the election is just the most extreme example of his loyalty to himself over loyalty to his country. Every move he makes should therefore be presumed to represent a conflict of interest, unless he can demonstrate that no conflict exists.

• The wealthy donors and others he appoints to office should be presumed incompetent and riddled with interest conflicts until proven otherwise. His emphasis on a cult of personal loyalty, insensitivity to conflicts of interest, alliances with bigots, and willingness to appoint people wholly ignorant of, and indeed hostile to, the tasks associated with a particular office, mean that the burden of proof should always be on Trump to demonstrate the competence and honesty of his appointees. Unlike what routinely occurs in a normal presidency, Senators should give absolutely no deference to his choices. Indeed, nominees requiring confirmation should be questioned at length and scrutinized with care, in order to expose their flaws. Confirmation of nominees should be slowed down and blocked in every procedural way possible.

• Trump’s substantive judgments should be presumed ignorant, and, at times, dangerous. His unwillingness to educate himself about crucial details of national security and domestic policy, or to surround himself with expert and trustworthy advisors, means that every substantive judgment he makes is highly likely to be flawed.

Democratic leaders should take every opportunity to act in accordance with these presumptions. Common inter-branch traditions and norms of civility should be laid aside for the duration of the Trump regime. For example, Senate Democrats should never provide unanimous consent, including to allow Trump’s incompetent and financially conflicted nominees to be confirmed prior to January 20. Democrats should force votes at every turn and use the filibuster aggressively, as Republicans did during the Obama years. The goal should be to prevent the smooth flow of Senate action in order to stall Trump’s illegitimate agenda as much as possible.

On January 20, Democrats should boycott Trump’s inauguration. As befits a lying president, Democrats should be quick to shout “You lie!” when Trump addresses joint sessions, just as Republicans shouted at President Obama. When Trump praises Vladimir Putin or Russia in formal addresses, Democrats should rise and chant “Puppet! Puppet!” In short, Democrats should learn the lesson Republicans have taught them: Don’t bring boxing gloves to a knife fight.

At noon on January 20, 2017, we will have a new president. The office of the presidency deserves respect, but the new occupant has relied on illegitimate means to seize power, and he deserves moral contempt. Polling reveals that these concerns are widespread among the electorate. Two thirds of Democrats want to see resistance, and well fewer than half – just 38 percent ―of the entire electorate believe Trump to be minimally qualified for the presidency. Democratic leaders should take notice and act accordingly.

 

Get over it homes!  The beast lost!

 

 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

22 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Sorry, those articles are ridiculous.  I don't like the guy, but he won.  Get over it.

Several weeks before the election, the thought was that we'd have a reverse of the current situation where Trump would win the popular vote but lose because of the electoral college.  And Clinton and the confident Dems told us all that we have to get in line and respect the unique design of our republic.  Now all that's out the window when they didn't get the outcome they expected.

So yes, that's a lot of words to tell me that a whole swath of people in this country whine and throw tantrums when they don't win at things.  Like it or not, Trump is the legitimate president of the country.  Time to act like grown ups.  Oppose policies of his that you disagree with like normal people.  But stop embarrassing yourselves this way.

Big ask.

[japantiger 4,051]

4 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

"He seized power through a cumulative set of actions that thoroughly undermine the integrity of the election outcome. These illegitimate actions include voter suppression engineered by the Republican Party; highly inappropriate and outrageous interventions in the election by the Director of the FBI; persistent demonizing and intimidation of a free press; and, most egregious, a deliberate attempt (openly encouraged by Trump himself) by a hostile foreign government to influence the election in his favor. Taken together, these actions fatally undercut the political legitimacy of Trump’s presidency."

Seized power? he was elected. demonize and intimidate free press - bless their little liar liberal hearts. that is laughable.

End with the paragraph with the same russian/FBI bullS

[homersapien 11,371]

18 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Sorry, those articles are ridiculous.  I don't like the guy, but he won.  Get over it.

Several weeks before the election, the thought was that we'd have a reverse of the current situation where Trump would win the popular vote but lose because of the electoral college.  And Clinton and the confident Dems told us all that we have to get in line and respect the unique design of our republic.  Now all that's out the window when they didn't get the outcome they expected.

So yes, that's a lot of words to tell me that a whole swath of people in this country whine and throw tantrums when they don't win at things.  Like it or not, Trump is the legitimate president of the country.  Time to act like grown ups.  Oppose policies of his that you disagree with like normal people.  But stop embarrassing yourselves this way.

That's just BS.  There's nothing in either of those articles that is false.

Point it out if you think otherwise.

You are completely missing the point.  Trump WILL be sworn in as president.  No one is denying that, they are recognizing it.

This is not about losing. It's about dealing with the winner, who is Trump.  This is what the articles are about.  You yourself have described him as a "clown".  This is about normalizing a "clown" as president. It's about recognizing Trump for what he is, not what you hope he becomes.  It's about recognizing he represents a danger for the country, legally elected or not.  It's about trying to minimize that danger as everyone who loves what this country represents should be in favor of.

How is it embarrassing to point out the truth? He hasn't even been sworn in yet, and look at his behavior.  Did you embarrass yourself by calling him a clown?

Obviously there are people who are willing to overlook his behavior.  I don't know why.  Perhaps they are assuming he will improve (he won't).  Perhaps they just don't care.

You can just "get over it" and accept Trump as the new normal.  As for me, I plan to keep pointing out everything he does that ignores reality or just reflects badly on the country.  It's the least I can do.  And that doesn't embarrass me at all.  Hell, I am proud of it.

 

[homersapien 11,371]

18 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Get over it homes!  The beast lost!

 

And the clown won.  

(See my response to Titan.)

[TitanTiger 20,481]

When your premise starts with "Why Trump’s Presidency Is Illegitimate...", then you are already off on the wrong foot.  That's not recognizing him as president.

When you say "Legal authority is not equivalent, however, to political legitimacy, moral authority, or entitlement to civic respect," that tells me that you have a basic inability to understand the difference in the office and the person.  He has the same political legitimacy, moral authority and entitlement to civil respect that any other President has.  And it is entirely based on the issues.  When he offers policies and views that you believe are good or at least benign, you support him.  When he offers ones that you believe are bad, ineffective or even harmful, you speak out and say so.  If he breaks the law, you hold him accountable.  None of the ways in which you handle the man or the office changes just because it's Trump in the chair instead of Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan.

[quietfan 233]

Quote

Now that a majority of electors have cast their ballots in favor of Donald Trump, he will have the lawful powers of the presidency, as prescribed in the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Legal authority is not equivalent, however, to political legitimacy, moral authority, or entitlement to civic respect.

I don't see any significant difference between "legal authority" and "political legitimacy".  They are equivalent in my mind and I recognize Trump as the legitimate, legally elected next President of the United States.

Moral authority or entitlement to respect is a completely different question in my mind, and not automatically bestowed by the ballot box (Electoral or popular).  Many conservatives and the GOP have consistently claimed Obama (who won both the Electoral College and popular vote) was lacking in moral authority and undeserving of respect.  I respect their right to such an opinion, but liberals or Democrats have every right to feel likewise about Trump.  Also, while Trump legitimately won the office under the Electoral College system ensconced in our Constitution, that is not the same as claiming he was the choice of most Americans or has the endorsement of the majority of Americans.

[homersapien 11,371]

20 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

When your premise starts with "Why Trump’s Presidency Is Illegitimate...", then you are already off on the wrong foot.  That's not recognizing him as president.

 

I agree that was an unfortunate title.  (I actually anticipated someone would focus on it.)

But it depends on how you interpret "illegitimate".  It can be interpreted in a strictly legal sense, in which case it was used wrongly.  But it can also be interpreted in a moral sense which is clearly what the intended based on the very first paragraph:

"Now that a majority of electors have cast their ballots in favor of Donald Trump, he will have the lawful powers of the presidency, as prescribed in the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Legal authority is not equivalent, however, to political legitimacy, moral authority, or entitlement to civic respect."  

So bottom line, you are wrong on this point.  No case of legal legitimacy is being made. And no disrespect to the office is implied.  This is all about Trump the man and nothing more.

If you want to believe anything he says, simply because he is president, that's your problem

Being elected POTUS doesn't make him suddenly not a "clown".  And it doesn't change his basic character flaws.  He is a narcissistic psychopath and will remain one.  

Our duty is to prevent him from unduly harming the country.

[TitanTiger 20,481]

I always respect the office. I never believe everything any president says. The articles just seem over-the-top to me. The approach is no different than any other president – support him when you can, oppose him when you shouldn't

[homersapien 11,371]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I always respect the office. I never believe everything any president says. The articles just seem over-the-top to me. The approach is no different than any other president – support him when you can, oppose him when you shouldn't

Yeah, love the sinner but hate the sin. (j/k) 

Pretty much everyone - well, except maybe for ICHY - respects the office.

The question is how to deal with someone who is psychologically unfit to serve in said office.

I don't think that everything he does will be bad for the country, but he is nevertheless unfit for the job. Accordingly, Democrats should at least be as obstructive to Trump as most Republicans were to Obama. 

But, as they say, the proof is in the pudding.  Time will tell.