Arguments about Trump bring out the ad hominem

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of “ad hominem”: 1) appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect. 2) marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made. In the July 25 letters, two submissions — one from a conservative and one from a progressive (Albert Bruno Bianchini and Robert Aiello respectively) — contain this logical fallacy.

Mr. Bianchini defends Mr. Trump, claiming that “older Americans have never seen anything like the mass hatred leveled at a sitting president.” This is his opinion, but I think that a strong case could be made that any American who is maybe 15 years old would have seen the same (or greater) level of hatred for Mr. Trump’s predecessor, including death threats. Mr. Bianchini goes on to denigrate the media and all Democrats as “unAmerican.”

Mr. Aiello, similarly, tears into Mr. Trump with ad hominem attacks, including that “[h]is disconnect with the real world and his emotional instability render him unfit for command.” Mr. Aiello does attempt to support these statements with generalizations about Mr. Trump’s behaviors (as shown on camera — no saying what happens that is not shown). I doubt that any president’s behavior would qualify him for sainthood, and only getting the sample that is newsworthy leaves much unknown that should be known prior to rendering judgment. None of this is grounds for impeachment, in any event, which is reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors— while in office.

I, too, would like to see Mr. Trump out of office, but unlike Mr. Aiello, recognize that this (likely) will not be possible until the next general election. ANDREW GERENYI

Lincoln Place