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 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.
