In response to the commentary's by David Michael Smith ("Trump's presidency one for history books," The Daily News. Dec. 20), Marty Fluke ("Anti-Trump columnist should have exhibited civility," The Daily News, Dec. 22) and Stephen Hodgson ("Factual assessment of Trump's work was not uncivil," The Daily News, Jan. 19):
I didn't see factual assessments. I saw moralistic drivel. Morality is subjective; what one sees as good, another may see as evil. We each have an intellect and conscience that guides us and we're responsible for our decisions.
Words used to describe President Trump were grotesque bigot, misogynist, enemy of the working class, buffoon, white supremacist and spoiled brat, etc. Civility is a good debate; character assassination is the lack of civility. Smith and Hodgson have every right to their own opinions and choices; they don't need to act as morality judges.
They may argue the merits of Marxism or the evils of capitalism; I will listen and respect their opinions. I will not listen to name-calling.
I have lived through several presidential administrations, some I liked and some I didn't, but as the duly elected President of the United States, I gave them my respect and never wanted their failure.
The "great unwashed," the privileged elite and all those in between should have a voice. All are worthy to be heard.