I edited none of my comments in this conversation. Maybe you misread the original?

I appreciate you pointing out what you think that I am getting wrong, but you have yet to provide any information or resources that would refute my current understanding. As a result, I regret to say that I have not considered any of your replies to be a correction.

You say that my “misunderstanding is that there are THREE branches of government, and the separation of powers is starkly and explicitly stated”. Are there not 3 branches? If not how many are there? Are their roles and powers not defined?

Again, I am not trying to argumentative. These are honest questions. If I have incorrect information then I would like to correct it.

I would also like to apologize if you feel like I am complaining. The part of my responses address your behavior has been an attempt to correct what I see as hostile behavior that is an impediment to an open discourse. I am attempting to address this behavior by patiently explaining why I think it is wrong, how it can improved on, and by providing an example of civil discourse to the best of my ability. I understand this may have been misinterpreted and could be taken in a manner that you find upsetting. Please know that this is not nor has it ever been my intent to upset anybody and I hope that we can move forward in a more amicable and productive manner.

There is clearly a breakdown of communication here. I never claimed that the executive branch decided things. I said that the executive branch enforces laws (those laws being made by the legislative branch) and enforces the decisions passed by the judicial branch in their capacity to interpret the laws. Perhaps I could have been more clear in my wording.

The perceived insulting behavior was your decision to draw attention to out my lack of knowledge on the topic. Especially when comparing time and effort of that part of your response to the three words you used to respond to my questions.

I appreciate that you do not believe that your response was insulting, and maybe most people would agree that it was not, but at the minimum it was disparaging and could discourage others from asking questions.

Thank you for the response.

I am honestly asking how the ruling is supposed to be enforced and you insult me instead of answering the question? That was unnecessarily rude.

I am always happy to be educated if you would care to actually answer the question. How does the judiciary enforce their decisions, especially against another branch of the government that chooses to ignore the ruling?

Arrested by whom? Isn’t it the executive branch that controls the enforcement of laws and judicial decisions?

Serious question. What power does the judiciary have to enforce their rulings.

I have no experience nor done any research into this topic but I would think that a gun to the temple is easier to mess up resulting in either a slow death or a non-lethal shot with a life altering disability or disfigurment.

Gun in the mouth is more guaranteed a kill shot. Under the chin would probably be even more guaranteed. Just be sure to aim up and not back.

He should quickly blanket pardon himself so the Republicans push to codify that a president cannot pardon himself.

Then he should arrest and seize the property of all members of the opposition party under some BS national security claim. The Supreme Court has already granted immunity for this sort of actions by presidents so no need for another pardon.

Global News did an experiment a while back. The men wore the same thing, on-air, for a week. Then the women did the same thing on the following week. Wanna guess what the results of this experiment were?

Instagram post on it

I am starting to think about that Trump just learned what a tariff is during this election cycle. Still has no idea how they work, what their purpose is, when they should be used, nor how they impact local and global economies but, gosh darn it, if he isn’t excited to show off his new knowledge.

Maybe if they have him write out the word “TARRIF” on a piece of paper and put that paper on the white house fridge, he can be proud of it everyday and be able to move on to his next vocabulary word.

Well, they wrote some letters. There’s nothing more the nations law makers can do to protect citizens from corporate greed and price gouging. /s

WLFI has a current value of $0.0000000000034 USD.

That’s about 3 billion WLFI for 1 penny. What a deal!

Good to know. Thanks for the info.

Hmm, that was not my intent at all. Is there a more appropriate or accurate word you can suggest for somebody that does not fit nicely into either of the two popular US political Ideologies and depending on the topic will either side with a party (which party depends on the topic) or think that nobody has presented a good idea?

Interesting. Thanks for the info. I’ll take a look at that link.

What “narrow sense”? I literally just said “Moderate, not liberal nor conservative.”

To keep this on topic:

You asked why people say that it is a “right wing taking point” when you say “it’s fucked up that more money is going to Isntreal than to hurricane relief” and the answer is that you are using a topic Republicans don’t want scrutinized as you counter point thus directing the conversation away from what Republicans are trying to avoid. You could have used health care, education, VA benefits, or something more ambiguous. Instead you use an active topic that could erode Republican support and steer the conversation away from a Republican sore spot and towards a Democrat sore spot.

That is why some people are calling it out as a “right wing taking point”. I’m simply trying to answer your question.

Interesting. I have not had the word “lib” explained in such a way. I am more familiar with “snowflake” being used in that context.

I believe that most people associate the word “lib” with a political ideology and by using it you are, even if unwittingly, saying that you think one party is better than the other and should be in power.

I agree and share in your disgust of the current government of the USA. Neither party seems interested in helping the American people unless it profits them directly.

To stay focused on your original question, this is why people think statements comparing disaster relief to genocide is a Republican talking point.

The conversation has shifted from who voted for or against providing federal assistance to how the US uses its military and the genocide being committed by Isreal. Without trying to take a side on either topic, this sort of misdirection is the purpose of such statements.