How GOPers “defend” (and why they must) Trump’s ineptitude

[Cellblock2429]

“The president’s new at this,” Ryan says, adding that Trump “probably wasn’t steeped in the long-running protocols” that under our system establish law enforcement’s independence from the White House.

Lame excuse. Trump was planning to run for POTUS since at least 2014. That was enough time to get "steeped" not only in "'long-running protocols' that under our system establish law enforcement’s independence from the White House," but also the details of tons of other things. And did he? Hell, no, he didn't! The clown didn't even have the presence of mind to realize that healthcare is complicated....not the details of that complexity, but merely that it is complicated....I wonder if someone's checked the janitor's closets in Trump's building to see if his brain is sitting in one of them behind a bottle of brass polish or something.

/----/ Auto insurance isn't complicated, nor is home owners or life insurance. The only reason health insurance is complicated is because greedy power hungry politicians made it that way. You see dimwit, I'm old enough to remember when health insurance was simple, inexpensive and offered complete coverage without co-pays.

The only reason health insurance is complicated is because....

Why it's complicated, be your assertion right or wrong, doesn't negate the fact that it is complicated, nor does it alter the fact that Trump failed to recognize that it's complicated. That he sought to and did become POTUS and still didn't recognize that fact until well after making myriad remarks about it -- remarks he made from his "it's simple" misconception about it -- shows one aspect of Trump utter disregard for the substance of things and his immature naivete.

/----/ Got any fake outrage for this? President Obama says he was "surprised by the severity of partisanship" in Washington - CBS News

No. I don't ever have time for fake outrage.

/----/ your non stop whining about Trump is fake because you ignore all Hillary is accused of and pretend to be upset about Trump.

 

[IsaacNewton]

(Expect this trend to be more prevalent and soon, GOPers will "credit" Trump with the sun rising in the east.)

Now that James B. Comey’s testimony to Congress has painted a picture of President Trump’s contempt for the rule of law that’s far more forceful and persuasive in its dramatic details than Republicans ever bargained for, the new and emerging GOP defense is that Trump is a political and procedural naif. He merely needs to learn the rules. This line of obfuscation requires pretending that many of the events of the past six months never happened.

But this spin from Republicans has a significance that runs deeper than merely revealing the absurd lengths to which they’ll go to protect Trump from political and legal harm. More urgently, their new line unwittingly reveals the degree to which Trump’s abuses of power and assault on our democracy have depended all along upon their tacit and willful complicity — and, perhaps worse, it leaves little doubt that this enabling will continue, with unforeseen consequences.

Paul Ryan casts Trump’s interactions with Comey as a mere matter of inexperience. “The president’s new at this,” Ryan says, adding that Trump “probably wasn’t steeped in the long-running protocols” that under our system establish law enforcement’s independence from the White House. Others ground the argument in Trump’s business past or affection for the theatrics of disruption. “He’s used to being the CEO,” insists one House Republican. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) adds that Trump is merely being “crude, rude and a bull in a china shop.”


Opinion | The latest Republican defense of Trump is built on a massive lie

"More urgently, their new line unwittingly reveals the degree to which Trump’s abuses of power and assault on our democracy have depended all along upon their tacit and willful complicity — and, perhaps worse, it leaves little doubt that this enabling will continue, with unforeseen consequences."

And that is the real problem. Republicans are the enablers for the orange-Mussolini. They've rendered the Congress inept. Though some of them show some willingness to oppose drumpf, the majority or Republicans couldn't care less what he does as long as they get to do what they want.

Now it becomes clear why the founders thought three branches of government, each of which could check any of the others if they went outside the Constitution, was what was needed. And now one only needs to ask the question "what if the courts are turned into another Republican branch of government"?

The democracy ends.

 

[Cellblock2429]

(Expect this trend to be more prevalent and soon, GOPers will "credit" Trump with the sun rising in the east.)

Now that James B. Comey’s testimony to Congress has painted a picture of President Trump’s contempt for the rule of law that’s far more forceful and persuasive in its dramatic details than Republicans ever bargained for, the new and emerging GOP defense is that Trump is a political and procedural naif. He merely needs to learn the rules. This line of obfuscation requires pretending that many of the events of the past six months never happened.

But this spin from Republicans has a significance that runs deeper than merely revealing the absurd lengths to which they’ll go to protect Trump from political and legal harm. More urgently, their new line unwittingly reveals the degree to which Trump’s abuses of power and assault on our democracy have depended all along upon their tacit and willful complicity — and, perhaps worse, it leaves little doubt that this enabling will continue, with unforeseen consequences.

Paul Ryan casts Trump’s interactions with Comey as a mere matter of inexperience. “The president’s new at this,” Ryan says, adding that Trump “probably wasn’t steeped in the long-running protocols” that under our system establish law enforcement’s independence from the White House. Others ground the argument in Trump’s business past or affection for the theatrics of disruption. “He’s used to being the CEO,” insists one House Republican. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) adds that Trump is merely being “crude, rude and a bull in a china shop.”


Opinion | The latest Republican defense of Trump is built on a massive lie

"More urgently, their new line unwittingly reveals the degree to which Trump’s abuses of power and assault on our democracy have depended all along upon their tacit and willful complicity — and, perhaps worse, it leaves little doubt that this enabling will continue, with unforeseen consequences."

And that is the real problem. Republicans are the enablers for the orange-Mussolini. They've rendered the Congress inept. Though some of them show some willingness to oppose drumpf, the majority or Republicans couldn't care less what he does as long as they get to do what they want.

Now it becomes clear why the founders thought three branches of government, each of which could check any of the others if they went outside the Constitution, was what was needed. And now one only needs to ask the question "what if the courts are turned into another Republican branch of government"?

The democracy ends.

/----/ Good thing we live in a Republic and not a Democracy - you blithering idiot.

 

[Conservative65]

ALWAYS remember that popular votes don't elect a President. Electoral votes do. Why do you idiots continue to bring up something that isn't used to choose the President? If you knew why the system was designed, and I mean really knew, you wouldn't make such a stupid statement.

I ONLY bring it up when idiots (like you) proclaim to speak for the American people.....If you were to state that the electoral college elected Trump, then I'm fine with that.....BUT, when morons claim that Trump is "the people's choice"....I object.

Let's assume Hillary had won. Explain how she, getting only 48.2% of the popular vote would have been "the people's choice" with more than 51% of the people having voted for someone else. Perhaps you forgot Johnson, Stein, McMullin, and Castle. While Trump didn't get a majority of the popular vote, neither did she. To you, had she won, she would have been the "people's choice". How is her lack of a majority a mandate of the people?

By the way, I haven't proclaimed any such thing you credit me with. All I've said is he won the electoral vote, the type that picks the President. Maybe you can provide a link to where I said Trump was the "people's choice". Do you have one?

 

[Conservative65]

(Expect this trend to be more prevalent and soon, GOPers will "credit" Trump with the sun rising in the east.)

Now that James B. Comey’s testimony to Congress has painted a picture of President Trump’s contempt for the rule of law that’s far more forceful and persuasive in its dramatic details than Republicans ever bargained for, the new and emerging GOP defense is that Trump is a political and procedural naif. He merely needs to learn the rules. This line of obfuscation requires pretending that many of the events of the past six months never happened.

But this spin from Republicans has a significance that runs deeper than merely revealing the absurd lengths to which they’ll go to protect Trump from political and legal harm. More urgently, their new line unwittingly reveals the degree to which Trump’s abuses of power and assault on our democracy have depended all along upon their tacit and willful complicity — and, perhaps worse, it leaves little doubt that this enabling will continue, with unforeseen consequences.

Paul Ryan casts Trump’s interactions with Comey as a mere matter of inexperience. “The president’s new at this,” Ryan says, adding that Trump “probably wasn’t steeped in the long-running protocols” that under our system establish law enforcement’s independence from the White House. Others ground the argument in Trump’s business past or affection for the theatrics of disruption. “He’s used to being the CEO,” insists one House Republican. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) adds that Trump is merely being “crude, rude and a bull in a china shop.”


Opinion | The latest Republican defense of Trump is built on a massive lie

"More urgently, their new line unwittingly reveals the degree to which Trump’s abuses of power and assault on our democracy have depended all along upon their tacit and willful complicity — and, perhaps worse, it leaves little doubt that this enabling will continue, with unforeseen consequences."

And that is the real problem. Republicans are the enablers for the orange-Mussolini. They've rendered the Congress inept. Though some of them show some willingness to oppose drumpf, the majority or Republicans couldn't care less what he does as long as they get to do what they want.

Now it becomes clear why the founders thought three branches of government, each of which could check any of the others if they went outside the Constitution, was what was needed. And now one only needs to ask the question "what if the courts are turned into another Republican branch of government"?

The democracy ends.

Sad how you try to present an OPINION piece as if it's fact. So sad.

 

[whitehall]

Comey's testimony did not "paint a picture of Trump's contempt for the law". Lefties are still living in a hate filled fantasy world. Comey's testimony painted a picture of Comey's contempt for the law.

 

[Conservative65]

You just can't kiss enough of his black ass can you? Pucker up.

Black ass....orange ass......I leave the kissing up to fanatics like your ilk.

Obama did a very decent job....Trump is a fucking demagogue who fooled the "poorly educated" as he himself stated he loved.

No you don't. You pucker to the chocolate, BOY.

The poorly educated. Obama got 95% of the black vote and we both know they're the least educated of all.

 

[Conservative65]

LOL Trump whooped your ass, 304 to 227 that's to 57% to 43% that's an ass whooping Trump spanked the left bad

Indeed....and THAT was the greatest victory EVER, EVER seen in the US history as Trump himself stated........oh.....wait a minute.................LOL

Great doesn't necessarily have to be based numbers. When Trump wasn't expected to even been in it and Hillary was expected to walk away with it, winning by one point is a great victory. He won by 77 points, 34 more than he needed to win.

 

[nat4900]

Let's assume Hillary had won. Explain how she, getting only 48.2% of the popular vote would have been "the people's choice" with more than 51% of the people having voted for someone else. Perhaps you forgot Johnson, Stein, McMullin, and Castle. While Trump didn't get a majority of the popular vote, neither did she. To you, had she won, she would have been the "people's choice". How is her lack of a majority a mandate of the people?

By the way, I haven't proclaimed any such thing you credit me with. All I've said is he won the electoral vote, the type that picks the President. Maybe you can provide a link to where I said Trump was the "people's choice". Do you have one?

Not worth my time to scour over your posts.....BUT several right wingers on here purports that ....as Trump ass kissers......they speak for the "people's choice".

Anyway.....look up the difference between the terms, majority and plurality and you may stumble into an answer.

 

[nat4900]

No you don't. You pucker to the chocolate, BOY.

The poorly educated. Obama got 95% of the black vote and we both know they're the least educated of all.

Nah......if education was the ONLY criteria to get elected, than we would have had an Asian-American president quite a while back.......(and I'm not Asian-American.)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

(Expect this trend to be more prevalent and soon, GOPers will "credit" Trump with the sun rising in the east.)

Now that James B. Comey’s testimony to Congress has painted a picture of President Trump’s contempt for the rule of law that’s far more forceful and persuasive in its dramatic details than Republicans ever bargained for, the new and emerging GOP defense is that Trump is a political and procedural naif. He merely needs to learn the rules. This line of obfuscation requires pretending that many of the events of the past six months never happened.

But this spin from Republicans has a significance that runs deeper than merely revealing the absurd lengths to which they’ll go to protect Trump from political and legal harm. More urgently, their new line unwittingly reveals the degree to which Trump’s abuses of power and assault on our democracy have depended all along upon their tacit and willful complicity — and, perhaps worse, it leaves little doubt that this enabling will continue, with unforeseen consequences.

Paul Ryan casts Trump’s interactions with Comey as a mere matter of inexperience. “The president’s new at this,” Ryan says, adding that Trump “probably wasn’t steeped in the long-running protocols” that under our system establish law enforcement’s independence from the White House. Others ground the argument in Trump’s business past or affection for the theatrics of disruption. “He’s used to being the CEO,” insists one House Republican. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) adds that Trump is merely being “crude, rude and a bull in a china shop.”


Opinion | The latest Republican defense of Trump is built on a massive lie

Republicans will continue to blindly support Trump because he’ll sign into law the GOP’s reckless, irresponsible, and wrongheaded legislation, appoint to the Supreme Court justices hostile to a woman’s right to privacy and the equal protection rights of gay and transgender Americans, and adhere to failed conservative dogma.

Indeed, most Republicans know Trump is unfit to be president – that he’s inept and incompetent; but they’d never admit it because Trump will pursue the right’s harmful, hateful agenda.

 

[usmbguest5318]

“The president’s new at this,” Ryan says, adding that Trump “probably wasn’t steeped in the long-running protocols” that under our system establish law enforcement’s independence from the White House.

Lame excuse. Trump was planning to run for POTUS since at least 2014. That was enough time to get "steeped" not only in "'long-running protocols' that under our system establish law enforcement’s independence from the White House," but also the details of tons of other things. And did he? Hell, no, he didn't! The clown didn't even have the presence of mind to realize that healthcare is complicated....not the details of that complexity, but merely that it is complicated....I wonder if someone's checked the janitor's closets in Trump's building to see if his brain is sitting in one of them behind a bottle of brass polish or something.

/----/ Auto insurance isn't complicated, nor is home owners or life insurance. The only reason health insurance is complicated is because greedy power hungry politicians made it that way. You see dimwit, I'm old enough to remember when health insurance was simple, inexpensive and offered complete coverage without co-pays.

The only reason health insurance is complicated is because....

Why it's complicated, be your assertion right or wrong, doesn't negate the fact that it is complicated, nor does it alter the fact that Trump failed to recognize that it's complicated. That he sought to and did become POTUS and still didn't recognize that fact until well after making myriad remarks about it -- remarks he made from his "it's simple" misconception about it -- shows one aspect of Trump utter disregard for the substance of things and his immature naivete.

/----/ Got any fake outrage for this? President Obama says he was "surprised by the severity of partisanship" in Washington - CBS News

No. I don't ever have time for fake outrage.

/----/ your non stop whining about Trump is fake because you ignore all Hillary is accused of and pretend to be upset about Trump.

You just keep thinking that....

 

[Conservative65]

Let's assume Hillary had won. Explain how she, getting only 48.2% of the popular vote would have been "the people's choice" with more than 51% of the people having voted for someone else. Perhaps you forgot Johnson, Stein, McMullin, and Castle. While Trump didn't get a majority of the popular vote, neither did she. To you, had she won, she would have been the "people's choice". How is her lack of a majority a mandate of the people?

By the way, I haven't proclaimed any such thing you credit me with. All I've said is he won the electoral vote, the type that picks the President. Maybe you can provide a link to where I said Trump was the "people's choice". Do you have one?

Not worth my time to scour over your posts.....BUT several right wingers on here purports that ....as Trump ass kissers......they speak for the "people's choice".

Anyway.....look up the difference between the terms, majority and plurality and you may stumble into an answer.

It's not worth your time because you're wrong. To you, ignoring it means it didn't happen.

For you to say Hillary was the people's choice only getting a plurality is to say the 5 - 6% that didn't vote for either her or Trump don't matter. More people voted AGAINST her but I don't expect you to apply to her the same standard you apply to Trump. It's in your nature as a left-winger.

 

[Conservative65]

(Expect this trend to be more prevalent and soon, GOPers will "credit" Trump with the sun rising in the east.)

Now that James B. Comey’s testimony to Congress has painted a picture of President Trump’s contempt for the rule of law that’s far more forceful and persuasive in its dramatic details than Republicans ever bargained for, the new and emerging GOP defense is that Trump is a political and procedural naif. He merely needs to learn the rules. This line of obfuscation requires pretending that many of the events of the past six months never happened.

But this spin from Republicans has a significance that runs deeper than merely revealing the absurd lengths to which they’ll go to protect Trump from political and legal harm. More urgently, their new line unwittingly reveals the degree to which Trump’s abuses of power and assault on our democracy have depended all along upon their tacit and willful complicity — and, perhaps worse, it leaves little doubt that this enabling will continue, with unforeseen consequences.

Paul Ryan casts Trump’s interactions with Comey as a mere matter of inexperience. “The president’s new at this,” Ryan says, adding that Trump “probably wasn’t steeped in the long-running protocols” that under our system establish law enforcement’s independence from the White House. Others ground the argument in Trump’s business past or affection for the theatrics of disruption. “He’s used to being the CEO,” insists one House Republican. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) adds that Trump is merely being “crude, rude and a bull in a china shop.”


Opinion | The latest Republican defense of Trump is built on a massive lie

Republicans will continue to blindly support Trump because he’ll sign into law the GOP’s reckless, irresponsible, and wrongheaded legislation, appoint to the Supreme Court justices hostile to a woman’s right to privacy and the equal protection rights of gay and transgender Americans, and adhere to failed conservative dogma.

Indeed, most Republicans know Trump is unfit to be president – that he’s inept and incompetent; but they’d never admit it because Trump will pursue the right’s harmful, hateful agenda.

You mean like blindly supporting Obama simply because you had to have a black in the office?

 

[Conservative65]

No you don't. You pucker to the chocolate, BOY.

The poorly educated. Obama got 95% of the black vote and we both know they're the least educated of all.

Nah......if education was the ONLY criteria to get elected, than we would have had an Asian-American president quite a while back.......(and I'm not Asian-American.)

Thanks for admitting Obama having black skin is why you supported him. At least you're honest. Stupid, but honest.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Lame excuse. Trump was planning to run for POTUS since at least 2014. That was enough time to get "steeped" not only in "'long-running protocols' that under our system establish law enforcement’s independence from the White House," but also the details of tons of other things. And did he? Hell, no, he didn't! The clown didn't even have the presence of mind to realize that healthcare is complicated....not the details of that complexity, but merely that it is complicated....I wonder if someone's checked the janitor's closets in Trump's building to see if his brain is sitting in one of them behind a bottle of brass polish or something.

/----/ Auto insurance isn't complicated, nor is home owners or life insurance. The only reason health insurance is complicated is because greedy power hungry politicians made it that way. You see dimwit, I'm old enough to remember when health insurance was simple, inexpensive and offered complete coverage without co-pays.

The only reason health insurance is complicated is because....

Why it's complicated, be your assertion right or wrong, doesn't negate the fact that it is complicated, nor does it alter the fact that Trump failed to recognize that it's complicated. That he sought to and did become POTUS and still didn't recognize that fact until well after making myriad remarks about it -- remarks he made from his "it's simple" misconception about it -- shows one aspect of Trump utter disregard for the substance of things and his immature naivete.

/----/ Got any fake outrage for this? President Obama says he was "surprised by the severity of partisanship" in Washington - CBS News

No. I don't ever have time for fake outrage.

/----/ your non stop whining about Trump is fake because you ignore all Hillary is accused of and pretend to be upset about Trump.

You just keep thinking that....

/---/ OK then prove it. Tell us about Hillary's foundation for starters then how she attacked Bill's accusers. We'll wait while you gather your notes.

 

[usmbguest5318]

/----/ Auto insurance isn't complicated, nor is home owners or life insurance. The only reason health insurance is complicated is because greedy power hungry politicians made it that way. You see dimwit, I'm old enough to remember when health insurance was simple, inexpensive and offered complete coverage without co-pays.

The only reason health insurance is complicated is because....

Why it's complicated, be your assertion right or wrong, doesn't negate the fact that it is complicated, nor does it alter the fact that Trump failed to recognize that it's complicated. That he sought to and did become POTUS and still didn't recognize that fact until well after making myriad remarks about it -- remarks he made from his "it's simple" misconception about it -- shows one aspect of Trump utter disregard for the substance of things and his immature naivete.

/----/ Got any fake outrage for this? President Obama says he was "surprised by the severity of partisanship" in Washington - CBS News

No. I don't ever have time for fake outrage.

/----/ your non stop whining about Trump is fake because you ignore all Hillary is accused of and pretend to be upset about Trump.

You just keep thinking that....

/---/ OK then prove it. Tell us about Hillary's foundation for starters then how she attacked Bill's accusers. We'll wait while you gather your notes.

/---/ OK then prove it.

Prove this:

your non stop whining about Trump is fake because you ignore all Hillary is accused of and pretend to be upset about Trump.

Did you toss your good sense out with the trash? Dude, if you for one minute think I would deign to spend two seconds aiming to prove to you, or any other complete stranger, anything about my actions, statements, etc. and their motivations, you truly haven't the sense you were born with.

Moreover, why would anyone -- in this instance I -- attempt to prove or disprove a stranger's assertions about oneself? One knows for oneself whether a stranger's claim is accurate or not, and strangers can either accept one's assertions or not, but their doing so has no bearing on what is or is not so about oneself.

I can't control what you may or may not think of me, my remarks/ideas, etc., but insofar as I don't think of you (or other strangers) at all, I don't care what you or any other strangers think of those things, or me.

 

[easyt65]

How GOPers “defend” (and why they must) Trump’s ineptitude'

Despite the GOP Congress' incompetence and the 100% commitment by Democrats to shut down the government under Trump, this President is already far more successful than Obama was at this point in his Presidency.

SSDD - Same Sh!t Different Day - for the butt-hurt snowflakes.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Auto insurance isn't complicated, nor is home owners or life insurance. The only reason health insurance is complicated is because greedy power hungry politicians made it that way. You see dimwit, I'm old enough to remember when health insurance was simple, inexpensive and offered complete coverage without co-pays.

The only reason health insurance is complicated is because....

Why it's complicated, be your assertion right or wrong, doesn't negate the fact that it is complicated, nor does it alter the fact that Trump failed to recognize that it's complicated. That he sought to and did become POTUS and still didn't recognize that fact until well after making myriad remarks about it -- remarks he made from his "it's simple" misconception about it -- shows one aspect of Trump utter disregard for the substance of things and his immature naivete.

/----/ Got any fake outrage for this? President Obama says he was "surprised by the severity of partisanship" in Washington - CBS News

No. I don't ever have time for fake outrage.

/----/ your non stop whining about Trump is fake because you ignore all Hillary is accused of and pretend to be upset about Trump.

You just keep thinking that....

/---/ OK then prove it. Tell us about Hillary's foundation for starters then how she attacked Bill's accusers. We'll wait while you gather your notes.

/---/ OK then prove it.

Prove this:

your non stop whining about Trump is fake because you ignore all Hillary is accused of and pretend to be upset about Trump.

Did you toss your good sense out with the trash? Dude, if you for one minute think I would deign to spend two seconds aiming to prove to you, or any other complete stranger, anything about my actions, statements, etc. and their motivations, you truly haven't the sense you were born with.

Moreover, why would anyone -- in this instance I -- attempt to prove or disprove a stranger's assertions about oneself? One knows for oneself whether a stranger's claim is accurate or not, and strangers can either accept one's assertions or not, but their doing so has no bearing on what is or is not so about oneself.

I can't control what you may or may not think of me, my remarks/ideas, etc., but insofar as I don't think of you (or other strangers) at all, I don't care what you or any other strangers think of those things, or me.

/----/ Proving once again you don't care what a Democrat actually does, but have a cow over false accusations directed at Republicans.

 

[usmbguest5318]

(Expect this trend to be more prevalent and soon, GOPers will "credit" Trump with the sun rising in the east.)

Now that James B. Comey’s testimony to Congress has painted a picture of President Trump’s contempt for the rule of law that’s far more forceful and persuasive in its dramatic details than Republicans ever bargained for, the new and emerging GOP defense is that Trump is a political and procedural naif. He merely needs to learn the rules. This line of obfuscation requires pretending that many of the events of the past six months never happened.

But this spin from Republicans has a significance that runs deeper than merely revealing the absurd lengths to which they’ll go to protect Trump from political and legal harm. More urgently, their new line unwittingly reveals the degree to which Trump’s abuses of power and assault on our democracy have depended all along upon their tacit and willful complicity — and, perhaps worse, it leaves little doubt that this enabling will continue, with unforeseen consequences.

Paul Ryan casts Trump’s interactions with Comey as a mere matter of inexperience. “The president’s new at this,” Ryan says, adding that Trump “probably wasn’t steeped in the long-running protocols” that under our system establish law enforcement’s independence from the White House. Others ground the argument in Trump’s business past or affection for the theatrics of disruption. “He’s used to being the CEO,” insists one House Republican. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) adds that Trump is merely being “crude, rude and a bull in a china shop.”


Opinion | The latest Republican defense of Trump is built on a massive lie

"More urgently, their new line unwittingly reveals the degree to which Trump’s abuses of power and assault on our democracy have depended all along upon their tacit and willful complicity — and, perhaps worse, it leaves little doubt that this enabling will continue, with unforeseen consequences."

And that is the real problem. Republicans are the enablers for the orange-Mussolini. They've rendered the Congress inept. Though some of them show some willingness to oppose drumpf, the majority or Republicans couldn't care less what he does as long as they get to do what they want.

Now it becomes clear why the founders thought three branches of government, each of which could check any of the others if they went outside the Constitution, was what was needed. And now one only needs to ask the question "what if the courts are turned into another Republican branch of government"?

The democracy ends.

/----/ Good thing we live in a Republic and not a Democracy - you blithering idiot.
View attachment 142348

Good thing we live in a Republic and not a Democracy - you blithering idiot.

Perhaps the typical liberal finds in their nasal mucous enough nourishment for their brains so they don't forget the following:

• "Republic" is merely a term that is synonymous with "representative democracy.
• There are multiple types of democracy, a republic. of which there are also multiple types, is but one of them.
• "Democracy," "Democratic," and other etymologically related terms refer, when capitalized, to the Democratic party. It's the same with "Republic," "Republican" and so on. Uncapitalized, the terms refer to the theories/forms of governance and/or governance.
  • Definition of REPUBLICAN
    
  • Definition of DEMOCRATIC

Given that nat4900 wrote, "what if the courts are turned into another Republican branch of government," and given the capitalization convention that allows readers to distinguish between "republican" and "Republican," the only way to accurately construe his sentence is as synonymous with "what if the courts are turned into another Republican-controlled branch of government."

While the U.S. has many Republicans and Republicans have numerical majorities in the elective offices of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, the U.S. is nonetheless not a Republic, but it is a republic. Similarly, the U.S. is not a Democracy, but it is a democracy.

So, while I cannot accurately call you a "blithering idiot" because I don't know enough about your acumen to do so credibly, in light of the above, I can quite accurately say that your response to nat4900 is blitheringly idiotic.

FWIW, it may be that you always capitalize Democracy and Republic, regardless of how you mean readers to interpret your remarks. If that's so, it means that sometimes what you write and what you mean, are not the same things.