Debating with the apostles I think
Answer:
The United States of Mexico is a federal presidential republic. The Constitution of 1917 is in force with numerous amendments. Executive power belongs to the president, who is the head of state and government. The President forms the cabinet, appoints and removes ministers, the Attorney General (with the approval of the Senate), members of the Supreme Court (with the approval of the Senate) and other senior public servants. The President determines domestic and foreign policy, has legislative initiative and veto power, establishes diplomatic relations and concludes international treaties. The president is elected by the people on the basis of universal, direct, secret ballot, without the right to re-election. Legislative power belongs to the bicameral National Congress. The principles of public administration in accordance with the 1917 Constitution meet the criteria for representative liberal democracy.
Denmark is a constitutional monarchy. The constitution was adopted in 1849; amendments were made in 1915 and 1953, when a unicameral parliament was created and women were allowed to become head of state. The head of state is the king, who exercises legislative power together with a unicameral parliament. The highest legislative body is Folketing. Executive power belongs to the monarch and is carried out on his behalf by the government. The government is appointed by the Prime Minister, approved by Folketing and is accountable to him.
Thus, the similarity is the fact that in Mexico the president and in Denmark the king determine domestic and foreign policy. However, the difference is obvious, primarily consisting in the very form of government - the republic and the monarchy, respectively, with all the further differences that follow from this.
Explanation:
Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
Answer:
google paraphrasing tool! It never gives the same sentence twice I promise it’ll work
Explanation:
