What in the world are you blathering on about. Because it simply has no relation to what I wrote. Leave it up to some Dumb Dem to bring up something which is so far afield from the discussion to even have any coherence.
Bringing in a total non-sequitur about rules and Court nominees when what I was addressing was a clearly biased framing of implication, shows a lack of intellectual understanding of complex phenomena. Mine was an exposé of fraudulent thinking, while yours was…hell I don’t even know what that shit is supposed to be addressing. It certainly wasn’t anything I was talking about.
How could you be so obtuse as to not understand the difference between the usage of the words suggest and demand. Or not understand that rules don’t have a single solitary thing to do with the difference in meaning between those two words, nor interpreting the usage by which an individual would apply them in furtherance of their political misdeeds.
And supposing that an unelected person, with all due deference to Gerald Ford (who was unelected but nonetheless next in line), would be inserted ahead of the next in the line of succession, is a political misdeed. A malfeasance of hypocrisy, which I called out and you debated with…as far as I can tell…some total gibberish about rules. And Republicans.
Finally…Remind me again, who was it that changed the rules in the dead of night to get an unhealthy unaffordable care plan for the enrichment of insurance agents everywhere passed. Oh, that’s right, it was the Dopey Dems.
Now we’ve got possibly the worst Educational Secretary ever, thanks to Democratic chicanery. Enjoy your RULES. Or should I say Rule Changes.
