Why couldn't what Zelensky did be equally described as "appealing to the American people"? After all, aren't we a democracy? The President is supposed to represent us, and thus be receptive to such appeals. If it so happens that the appeal persuades Americans, the President should follow suit.
Dissuading and choking off appeals to the people suggests to me that the President is highly insecure in his position. People in secure positions don't get offended or upset when people appeal to their bosses (i.e., us).
Calling the recently-elected Vice President of the United States "bitch" in Russian, on camera, in the White House, was probably not the right way to appeal to the American people.
I've read it was more like cursing at a situation, not calling someone a name. As if I said "son of a bitch" when reading comments that defend Russia and attack Ukraine.
For a foreign head of state in the White House on a state visit sitting next to the President in front of cameras, you mean? Or did you mean someone else in an entirely different context?
You’re grasping at straws, I’m afraid. (Even if he did mutter it under his breath, by then, the boorish behavior by Vance and the President was well under way.)
Can you kindly answer the question presented? When—before this testy tirade began—was Zelensky disrespectful, and how? When considering your answer, what makes Zelensky’s behavior different from anyone else’s who wished to plead their case to the American people, which has been done throughout history without incurring similar drama and blowback?
Dissuading and choking off appeals to the people suggests to me that the President is highly insecure in his position. People in secure positions don't get offended or upset when people appeal to their bosses (i.e., us).