cyberdad wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Still ,it’s mean to mock a poor senile old man.Joke was in bad taste and childish.
Certainly seems a continuing double standard for certain individuals to claim the "high moral ground" when it comes to the left criticising right wing "icons" but they (apparently) still have no concerns over continuing to use vile/bottom of the barrel humour to denigrate democrat leaders.
It's more a case that the previous president had the same (and worse) vitriol directed at himself and his supporters, with the media presenting it as being "acceptable" (or even virtuous), then when the positions are reversed, such behaviour is then considered "vile/bottom of the barrel humour" - Either the behaviour was "vile/bottom of the barrel humour" initially, when one side was "dishing it out", (and so is still "vile/bottom of the barrel humour"), or it was acceptable behaviour then, and so is now.
To be a double standard, it would either require:
People to have been continually outraged about (and fighting against) the treatment the former president received, speakingout about this, and then (using a double standard) giving the same treatment to the current President.
OR
People having no issue with certain treatment directed at the former president, but getting outraged because the current president receives the same treatment that the previous one did.
Considering the way the media normalised certain treatment towards the former president, there are very few people likely to be in the former category, but quite a lot in the latter making false claims of "double standards" because it is now "their" side on the receiving end of treatment their side initiated and normalised.