Rachel just called him President tRump

[Iwasthere]

WTF? There's a lot that going on today.

[Ocelot II]

1. Sometimes it's just a slip, since that's what he was called for 4 years.

I'm quite sure Rachel Maddow isn't part of a plot to legitimize Trump.

[Iwasthere]

5. I know there's slips

But there's far too much normalizing going on these days, imo. Why can't she just call him t rug UK mp? Or mr trump, as the judge does.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

2. Lots of media outlets call Obama, President Obama.

It's been done for a long time. I get that we don't like the guy, but it's been done for decades.

[Xavier Breath]

8. Yep, we've always referred to former presidents that way.

The difference now being that neither Presidents Carter nor GHW Bush insisted they were still president after having lost an election, nor were there millions of people still insisting they were the legitimate president. So, that's the frustrating part of it, and I can see both sides of the argument for/against using the title post-office.

[TheProle]

3. Please continue to start a new thread for each. This is riveting stuff.

[Blue Owl]

4. The larger the fat man's ego the harder the fall

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. Calling former office holders by their highest title is a common practice.

That’s why HRC is addressed as “Madame Secretary”, Obama Clinton and Bush are still referred to as “President”, Chris Christie as “Governor” etc.

It’s not a slip or some deep conspiracy, it’s common practice by the press.

[sarisataka]

7. We do this everytime a former office holder is referred to by their previous title.

It is a common practice and is applied to both Democrats and Republicans.

[Blue Idaho]

9. President is valid but in this case I would prefer

“the defendant” - since it’s more appropriate.

[senseandsensibility]

10. Absolutely!

Just because we like someone does not mean it's fine for them to call him President Trump under these circumstances. I like the defendant, Mr. Trump, or the former President. All factually correct and specific.

[B.See]

11. The difference is

NO president ever refused to accept having LOST an election, or called his loss a 'stolen' election, or conspired to get the results thrown out, or stood on a world televised debate stage refusing to say he'd accept the results by instead telling known domestic terrorists to 'stand back and stand by',

or conspired to have armed insurrectionists show up at the Capitol on J6 where he thereby INCITED them to riot, in an attempt to interrupt a long standing and sacred government process, just to facilitate his ATTEMPTED COUP.

Nor has any president, three years hence, ever continued to lie about an election result, and continued to incite violence and civil war over his own sorry-ass LOSS.

Two thirds of his deluded rabble still think he won and every time someone refers to him by that title, they REINFORCE the delusion.