No disrespect but I do not feel you are being honest in pursuit of defending your point.
No one is 'checking' everything. That is just false. Trump has been offered many compromises including bipartisan ones that his own party were proclaiming were great accomplishments of the parties working together.
OK fine, Trumps style and what he thinks gets him votes is to not be seen as accommodating or someone who accepts bipartisan solutions. He believes he gets the biggest voting boost if they see him defiant and dismissive of other views and they love him being the 'FIGHTER'.
That is all good and it is his right to be that guy.
But you CANNOT then say or put the onus on everyone else to just give him what he wants.
Trump is the prime example of WHEN checks and balances are necessary. It would be fair to say the Republicans ran a blatantly obstructionist 'never give' gov't against Obama that hurt the democratic process by even refusing to table things for vote to see if the votes (peoples will) was there to carry it. But that is not what is happening here. Trump can have his wall with compromise, bipartisan compromise, but he says NO, no compromise, just gimme because that is food for his base. No others should bend to that as that would be a betrayal to their base. Compromise is not for either.
Believe me,
everything will be checked from now on. Anything less and Democrats will compromise their position for the 2020 election. They will put that particular election even above national interests, and perhaps it will be wise for them to do so, in long-term thinking.
Compromise will be deemed a loss of face at this point.
You're saying what you're saying as if you are arguing with an American Trump supporter. Let me remind you that you're talking to, in fact, a foreigner, who has no particular investment in Trump. A large part of what you are saying I have already acknowledged. I leave the bickering and condemnation of Trump's tactics and his voters, to the Americans, there's plenty enough of it as it is. It doesn't get us anywhere, I prefer to talk about the "meat and potatoes" rather than decrying something that will continue to be there, and will always be there, the tribalism of politics.
In general, people on this forum need to understand that not everything needs to be an argument.
i do not know your prior posting history so I am only replying to what you say.
You are taking an overly emotional and defensive stance here which is not productive.
There is nothing semantic in my position. You seem, again, to not understand the very purposeful design of the system of check and balances and divisions of power in the oft repeated 'the POTUS should get his will regardless or it damages the system' point you keep trying to make.
NO, FALSE, WRONG. No POTUS should get their will regardless. That would in fact damage the system. If a POTUS wants to get his will regardless then he needs to put forth a more populist platform that garners strong majority support at each level.
If he chooses a more fractious platform that only garners minority support that is fine, that is his way of saying I don't compromise to get votes. And again that is fine. But then the system by design is in place to say 'you cannot push that minority agenda without seeking the compromise within gov't that you did not want to offer in the election. Again all fine. It is the system at work as intended.
I don't know what else to say other than you keep repeating the idea that any POTUS should be able to push an agenda without having to reach compromise when he does not have control of the other levels of gov'ts and that it is wrong or destructive of US gov't otherwise, is just a horrible and fundamental misunderstanding of the US system.
I think Finland is a Parliamentary system like Canada, correct? And if Finland has a history of mostly majority gov'ts then maybe that is the cause of your lack of understanding of the US system, as what you are thinking the powers of the POTUS should be much more resembles a PM with a majority and party discipline in a Parliamentary system.
I have to say that's a new one. In all my time on such forums, nobody has ever accused me of being "emotional", considering that I rarely if ever refer to the other person during a debate. I have no need for that, I just stick to addressing the points that the other guy is making, without worrying about their emotional state, which I can only hope that they can keep in check when going through the process of a meaningless argument on the internet.
You're attributing all of these statements to me as if we are in some grand disagreement over something. The only thing that I have said in the post you decided to quote (of course, by only picking a single statement out of context), is that I dislike obstructionism, which I imagine is a rather generally held stance among independents. I'm observing America's descent into an era of obstructionism, and I am trying to detail why that has been happening, from my perspective, with Trump's wall serving as a mere sidenote.
Just because I want the president to be more effective in making changes, to represent the people, does not mean that I want them to have absolute, dictatorial powers. That's a ludicrous notion to take, from what I have been saying. From my own government, I understand the adverse consequences when the position of a president is "emasculated", and made purely ceremonial. It hurts democracy, it really does. The people need a "face" for politics, otherwise they lose interest (just see America's interest in politics beyond presidential elections).
For democracy, the position of a president must remain strong, not dictatorial, but strong.
And again with the "lack of understanding about the American system". Just give it up. I know the system, okay? Enough to debate about it on a general level at a MMA forum. It's not that complicated. You don't need to try convince others that I don't know my business. I have no need of doing such a thing for you, because I can have enough respect for you as a poster. We have no fight here, anyway, we barely have a disagreement about anything other than semantics and definitions, mostly because you're trying to pick apart statements that I've said, by zoning in on single statements instead of the overall message. I said the people's will, you said a
portion of the people's will, give me a break.
Again, if there's an actual matter to disagree over, I can debate it. But this? This is just a waste of time.
