Fine.
Let me try to clarify, there's no inherent 'natural' response, we all begin as dumb, naive, babbling infants with an evil streak. It takes effort, usually from parents, to teach values, morals, and social norms. This isn't 'natural'.
It is completely natural. Babies are not inherently evil.
So, to reiterate, your suggestion that neither Democrats or Republicans would fight and die for their beliefs is incorrect in my view, because of my experiences I've already conveyed. No matter how we dissect each word, we won't prove anything definitively, so to keep this debate productive, I suggest we agree to disagree.
Fine, but I think you very well might be surprised. People naturally want to live, not die, even in combat.
Agreed
lol. ok, I guess whatever you were suggesting is fine, it was a statement of opinion so you can have it.
Bringing up great quotes from a wartime general is what I call misdirection.
Fallacy fallacy. Bringing up Patton had a significant purpose. People naturally want to live, not die, even in combat. Everything in basic training even emphasizes this.
Ask a soldier as he tools up and heads into battle "are you willing to die for your country? I think you'll get a full throated 'ABSOLUTELY' nearly every time you ask. That's my opinion and it's relevant to our conversation about willingness to fight and die.
A suicidal statement, and others around him can't trust such a man.
A soldier is certainly willing to risk everything for his country, but not to die for it. It does not serve the country to commit suicide.
True, my apologies, I like what you've done here with a detailed summary all in one place.
Beating a dead horse here, I've made my position clear, as you have. I'll admit to thinking you aren't reading my point of view on this, if you were, why not just say "I disagree, no need to cement any of his agenda with legislation, because he has the EO." You have said the last part but no mention of the first.
I mentioned both. Go back and read it again.
My previous comment covers this.
Ok, my opinion again, Trump will not be 'changing course' he's had a lot of time to develop his agenda and he's not unsure of it. Weak politicians change their 'course' based on polling and focus group results. Trump is not a weak politician, he's very sure of his agenda.
I am not suggesting he cancels any part of his agenda (Trump certainly won't if he can help it!). I am suggesting that the way something gets done might change slightly.
Yes, you've said this, I haven't denied it.
Your opinion, I've made mine clear enough. So, again, we'll agree to disagree.
You asked for my opinion. I gave it. Fine. We'll leave it at that.
Excellent
Ok
Absolutely, but, You know what I think. Every item above is stronger when backed up by legislation.
No, it isn't.
The President is given certain powers and authorities by the Constitution of the United States for a reason. Congress is too slow. As the United States was originally organized:
The House represents the will of the people,
The Senate represents the will of the States as States (in other words, the State governments).
The President is the executive. He runs the government when the other two are not in session, and reports back to these houses on what he is doing. He is also an advocate for one opinion or another in either house. This is significant, since he has a limited veto power.
The courts are the judges. They determine if someone broke a law (including someone in either house. No court has authority to change or
interpret the Constitution. They must operate UNDER the Constitution.
Why two houses? The House shifts literally with the wind, since it represents the opinions of the people.
The Senate does not shift with the wind so badly, due to longer terms and by being representatives of the State governments.
Since the 17th amendment was ratified, the Senate has become another house representing the people (not the States), leaving the States with NO representation in the government they created! Also, the Senate tends to shift with the wind more, but at least still retains it's longer term of service.
In my opinion, the 17th amendment should be repealed, and the Senate returned to it's original role. The States should have representation in the government as States.
Yes, you've said.
I've enjoyed this debate, I think it's about wrapped up unless you disagree. So, as is the case with non-libtards, we often see thing differently. That's the only way forward for anyone capable of thinking.
Fine. Let's leave it at that.
