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

[theHawk]

(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

How did Hillary fare against Trump's "ineptitude"?

 

[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.

/----/ A democracy is mob rule. 51% say slavery is legal then it is the law of the land.
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic (not Democracy. Not Representative Democracy ) for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Seriously? Triviality is the best retort you have to offer?

 

[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.
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.

/----/ A democracy is mob rule. 51% say slavery is legal then it is the law of the land.
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic (not Democracy. Not Representative Democracy ) for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Seriously? Triviality is the best retort you have to offer?

/----/ Yes a quote from our Founding Father who helped shape our nation is worth 10,0000 times more than your dopey opinion. The pledge is just more facts you can't refute..

 

[Cellblock2429]

Growing up in the old South, I was surrounded by people who were diehard racists, and swore that equal rights would only occur over their dead body. They maintained not only that they were right in feeling this way, but also that god was on their side. For the most part, they never changed their minds about that, and they just slowly died off, until the South finally entered the 21st century.

i think that Trump supporters are basicly the same way. Those that were just pissed at Hillary will, in the end, turn their backs on Trump. But, the real die hards are Trump supporters, not because of Trump, but because they really are racist, sexist, exophobic, anti-intellectual rednecks. We will just have to wait until they die off.

/----/ I too grew up on the old south in the 50s and 60s and your assertion that even some of the Trump supporters are racists is a disgusting assumption you make with nothing to back it up. Your wishful thinking that Trump supporters will turn their backs on him is equally invalid.

Well, I will state a simple example. It is a fact that more canadians overstay their visas than Mexicans. Where is the outrage over that?

And they will be deported too..

Or do you seriously think Mexicans are the only illegal affected enforcement?

I demand a wall! those Canadians send over their rapists and murderers, and maybe some good people, too.........

Border control is mean.......
We must welcome all with open arms.....and entitlements !!!

/----/ Libs should take the lead and turn their homes, apartments and Mommy's basements to the horde of illegals. Go ahead Libs show your compassion.

 

[usmbguest5318]

"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.

/----/ A democracy is mob rule. 51% say slavery is legal then it is the law of the land.
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic (not Democracy. Not Representative Democracy ) for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Seriously? Triviality is the best retort you have to offer?

/----/ Yes a quote from our Founding Father who helped shape our nation is worth 10,0000 times more than your dopey opinion. The pledge is just more facts you can't refute..

Seriously? Triviality is the best retort you have to offer?

Yes

Okay...TY for saying so.

 

[Reasonable]

(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

Trump's probably going to be interrogated by a team of FBI agents..
He can lie about the Russian investigation and fake news but he can't lie to the FBI or the grand jury.
That's a felony, folks with jail time.

 

[Reasonable]

(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

Your thread fails from the start because it assumes the lie that Trump is inept.

It's a straw man argument. Google it.

Trump's ineptitude is not even debatable..
Knows nothing about healthcare, government, how to talk to people, how not to lie, how not to look stupid.

 

[Reasonable]

There's never been a president more unprepared for the job. But we knew that BEFORE the election. His dwindling base didn't care.
They heard: Make America white again and they were in.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ 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.

/----/ A democracy is mob rule. 51% say slavery is legal then it is the law of the land.
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic (not Democracy. Not Representative Democracy ) for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Seriously? Triviality is the best retort you have to offer?

/----/ Yes a quote from our Founding Father who helped shape our nation is worth 10,0000 times more than your dopey opinion. The pledge is just more facts you can't refute..

Seriously? Triviality is the best retort you have to offer?

Yes

Okay...TY for saying so.

/----/ So the only way you can pretend to debate is to edit someone's reply. Man it must suck to be you.

 

[Cellblock2429]

View attachment 142527

(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

Your thread fails from the start because it assumes the lie that Trump is inept.

It's a straw man argument. Google it.

Trump's ineptitude is not even debatable..
Knows nothing about healthcare, government, how to talk to people, how not to lie, how not to look stupid.

/----/

 

[PredFan]

View attachment 142527

(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

Your thread fails from the start because it assumes the lie that Trump is inept.

It's a straw man argument. Google it.

Trump's ineptitude is not even debatable..
Knows nothing about healthcare, government, how to talk to people, how not to lie, how not to look stupid.

Oh Look! A meme!!!! That's it, you are too smart for us. that's irrefutable proof there!

Grow up retard.

 

[Vandalshandle]

/----/ I too grew up on the old south in the 50s and 60s and your assertion that even some of the Trump supporters are racists is a disgusting assumption you make with nothing to back it up. Your wishful thinking that Trump supporters will turn their backs on him is equally invalid.

Well, I will state a simple example. It is a fact that more canadians overstay their visas than Mexicans. Where is the outrage over that?

And they will be deported too..

Or do you seriously think Mexicans are the only illegal affected enforcement?

I demand a wall! those Canadians send over their rapists and murderers, and maybe some good people, too.........

Border control is mean.......
We must welcome all with open arms.....and entitlements !!!

/----/ Libs should take the lead and turn their homes, apartments and Mommy's basements to the horde of illegals. Go ahead Libs show your compassion.

That would be illegal, but I have ridden with Operation Rescue, delivering water and clothing to those crossing the desert and in distress.

 

[Conservative65]

Well, I will state a simple example. It is a fact that more canadians overstay their visas than Mexicans. Where is the outrage over that?

And they will be deported too..

Or do you seriously think Mexicans are the only illegal affected enforcement?

I demand a wall! those Canadians send over their rapists and murderers, and maybe some good people, too.........

Border control is mean.......
We must welcome all with open arms.....and entitlements !!!

/----/ Libs should take the lead and turn their homes, apartments and Mommy's basements to the horde of illegals. Go ahead Libs show your compassion.

That would be illegal, but I have ridden with Operation Rescue, delivering water and clothing to those crossing the desert and in distress.

So you enabled criminals? TRAITOR.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

/----/ A democracy is mob rule. 51% say slavery is legal then it is the law of the land.
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic (not Democracy. Not Representative Democracy ) for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Seriously? Triviality is the best retort you have to offer?

/----/ Yes a quote from our Founding Father who helped shape our nation is worth 10,0000 times more than your dopey opinion. The pledge is just more facts you can't refute..

Seriously? Triviality is the best retort you have to offer?

Yes

Okay...TY for saying so.

/----/ So the only way you can pretend to debate is to edit someone's reply. Man it must suck to be you.

Dude, I'm not now nor before engaged in a debate with you; however, it may be that you think you are debating with me.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

/----/ A democracy is mob rule. 51% say slavery is legal then it is the law of the land.
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic (not Democracy. Not Representative Democracy ) for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Seriously? Triviality is the best retort you have to offer?

/----/ Yes a quote from our Founding Father who helped shape our nation is worth 10,0000 times more than your dopey opinion. The pledge is just more facts you can't refute..

Seriously? Triviality is the best retort you have to offer?

Yes

Okay...TY for saying so.

/----/ So the only way you can pretend to debate is to edit someone's reply. Man it must suck to be you.

So the only way you can pretend to debate is to edit someone's reply.

I asked you a "yes/no" question, and the first word of your reply is "yes." Why would I need to read any further? I didn't read further, and it's unlikely that I will.

Seriously? Triviality is the best retort you have to offer?

Yes...

I didn't hold a gun to your head to make you write "yes."

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ A democracy is mob rule. 51% say slavery is legal then it is the law of the land.
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic (not Democracy. Not Representative Democracy ) for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Seriously? Triviality is the best retort you have to offer?

/----/ Yes a quote from our Founding Father who helped shape our nation is worth 10,0000 times more than your dopey opinion. The pledge is just more facts you can't refute..

Seriously? Triviality is the best retort you have to offer?

Yes

Okay...TY for saying so.

/----/ So the only way you can pretend to debate is to edit someone's reply. Man it must suck to be you.

So the only way you can pretend to debate is to edit someone's reply.

I asked you a "yes/no" question, and the first word of your reply is "yes." Why would I need to read any further? I didn't read further, and it's unlikely that I will.

Seriously? Triviality is the best retort you have to offer?

Yes...

I didn't hold a gun to your head to make you write "yes."

/----/ "I". That's your reply? Like you I stopped reading after the first word. You moron. You must be the debate champ on the school short bus.