NY Times: Trump ‘has a problem with democracy’

As was asked of Benjamin Franklin on his way out of Independence Hall that day in 1787 -
"Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?"
"A Republic, if you can keep it."

Actually, the USA is a constitutional republic. But that's not the point of the NY Times editorial. And neither is POTUS #44. What POTUS #44 did or didn't do is irrelevant. We're talking about the current POTUS #45.
“He's now president for life. President for life. No, he's great," Trump reportedly told Republican donors during a closed-door event in Florida. “And look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll give that a shot someday."
So, you have no problems with someone stating something like what POTUS #45 stated? I personally think it's a statement that's repugnant.

MSgt Neil Greenfield - the New York Slimes will not print ANYTHING positive about Trump. What I wrote was tongue in cheek. Free people are not enslaved by rhetoric but by actions. Trump has NO ability to become a dictator. Democrats, liberal judges, the press etc jump on Trump every time he passes gas. So Obama thought he could spend money without Congressional authority and did, no comments unless it was right wing press. Obama thought he could tell Congress when it was in session. Got smacked down over that. Obama wrote more Presidential actions than any sitting president. Trump has undone a bunch of those and liberals have dragged him Court . And found Trump also has a pen and a phone. Obama refused to work with congress and depended upon Harry Reid to block House bills. Obama admitted he didn’t have the constitutional authority on many of his immigration executive orders but did it anyway. So yes precedence matters and you were not paying attention. Did you know our constitution is deeply flawed? Ask constitutional scholar Obama, he will tell you about it!

MSgt Neil Greenfield - As I said, what previous presidents do is not irrelevant because it establishes a precedent. Here is Obama repeatedly saying he does not have authority to change immigration law etc. Then Obama decides to ignore the laws he has sworn to enforce. Even the Washington Composte had trouble swallowing it giving Obama an upside down Pinnoccheo ! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/18/obamas-flip-flop-on-using-executive-action-on-illegal-immigration/

I never mentioned President Obama. Maybe you got confused when you posted the same reply to two people MSgt?

Correction : four people. You spammed your irrelevant reply to four separate people.

Since RP gives us the opportunity to correct our errors, I did so. So, you have no problems with what POTUS #45 stated?

Personally yes I do. However, he hasn’t made it policy. I also don’t think that he meant it to be taken seriously or at least I hope he didn’t.

Actually, the USA is a constitutional republic. But that's not the point of the NY Times editorial. And neither is POTUS #44. What POTUS #44 did or didn't do is irrelevant. We're talking about the current POTUS #45.
“He's now president for life. President for life. No, he's great," Trump reportedly told Republican donors during a closed-door event in Florida. “And look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll give that a shot someday."
So, you have no problems with someone stating something like what POTUS #44 stated? I personally think it's a statement that's repugnant.