I Support Donald Trump

@Kwek00 You spelled deluded wrong!

@Harriet03 I don't know him that well.

I'm just amazed that this is all about how you love or hate the guy... and that nothing is being said about if he did something that hurts the integrity of the presidency or not. I feel like we are doing an O J Simpson, where people are rooting for someone just because he's part of the team.

Annyway... [i]If Chewbacca, an 8 foot tall wookie, lives on Endor with a bunch of Ewoks... then it doesn't make sense. What does this have to do with this case? Nothing, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit![/i]

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwdba9C2G14]

@Kwek00 I agree. It should be a simple case of guilty or innocent.
However it was never going to be that! 🤷‍♀️

@Harriet03 Yeah, but you are a priori also taking a side in this proces. Like I said to Budwick, I don't like the guy... at all. And there are verry little things that he does, that I will actually defend (because there are parts of his presidency, that I believe had to be done). But what I like or dislike about the guy, has nothing to do with a political-process. I just think those in office need to look at the evidence that is presented, listen to both sides, and then come to a judgement. Which is pretty hard, since impeachement is a political process and not a court of law. But that's what it should be, a process to determine objectively if something has gone wrong.

And by making this some kind of boxingmatch, where you support one side over the other just because you like or dislike the guy. Is pretty corrupt to what the process is supposed to be.

I also am still amazed that with the conversation with Budwick, there was a point that he admitted that he didn't know what it was all about. So I had to look it up. I actually wonder how manny people are yelling and having an opinion actually know what this entire procedure is all about. If you don't know, I posted it here:

https://similarworlds.com/18-Politics/3033647-Wouldnt-it-be-interesting-to-get-Trump-under-oath?com_id=35544934&ncom_id=35551274&sort=1

But all this team spirit, about something of this magnitude is pretty disgracefull for the political process. At least if you still believe in a constitutional democracy. ... of course, that's my opinion about it all.

@Kwek00 Anyone with his attitude to women, has no place in politics.
That's my position.

@Harriet03 This isn't about his attitude towards towards women.
I thought you were someone that able to be on toppic.

I'm way more concerned on how easy people go over constitutions and political processes these days. It worries me, because the way people over simplify political institutions and rights can actually undermine a verry fragile system that has guaranteed liberties for a big chunk of those living in a country. And a liberal-democracy is extremely fragile. If people forget what it's about, and why things are complex... the consequences of those ideas might bite you in the ass over time. And this is regardless of my personal political stance.

@Kwek00 We all witnessed impeachable offences, with the tweets during the ambassadors testimony!!

@Harriet03 When it comes to a justice case and a political process... I ussually don't pick a side. I think every branch needs to do it's job on this one. And as a civilian, the bolstering and playing the crowd stuff, might not tell you the true story of what is happening behind the scenes. That's why annyone that is accused with someone gets a process. That's also the diffrence between a constitutional democracy where everyone has rights to a fair hearing, and a time where picked up our pitchforks and torches and hanged people on the market square because we got pissed about something. I think everyone has their rights, and that as a civilian you need to have some dignity for the process. Because one day it might be applicable to you.

@Kwek00 If I was being accused, I'd want my day in court. Especially if I had nothing to hide!!

@Harriet03 To be honest... that's the part that I find undefendable from his side. We can talk about that. That however doesn't determine a "guilty" or "unguilty" verdict. But I do find it despicable that a president has no respect for the rights of the legeslative branch or the judical branch.

Now... this also comes up in Belgian politics, and it's mainly a way to sway the crowd to your side. It's a tool to communicate to the people and play the game of politics. But that doesn't mean it's an attitude that I condone. I believe that kind of attitude also undermines the system, as it takes a way a part of it's credibility.

@Harriet03 "guilty or innocent" is more complicated than black & white. Life teaches us that...

@polyandrym66 No... when it comes to "guilty" and "innocent"... that's actually a clear cut thingy. I mean, that's beyond the grey area. A verdict is really clear and the punishment/consequence that comes with it might be influenced by the gravity of what actually happens. But "guilty" and "innocent" are really black/white concepts.

@Harriet03 "Anyone with his attitude to women, has no place in politics"... If that were the criteria of men in politics we'd only be left with gays and woman in politics..
AND WITH #MeToo that may become the case in the near future..

I say let em rule for a while..

@Harriet03 "I'd want my day in court"...
REALLY.. Our court system does not work in a way that considers character issues in the outcome..

@Kwek00 I can tell that you have never had to defend yourself in court from assertions and false accusations...

@polyandrym66 He's not even in court. 🤦‍♂️

Fuck, people that are such a fan of this guy are living in a fantasy land. It's almost as if I'm 13 again, and girls are telling me how great the backstreet boys are.

It's the president of a country. He's the person in control of the governement. one of the biggest powers of all the branches. But he's still subjective to the law (like everyone else) and he needs to explain himself to parlement. And after his term he needs to explain himself to the people. That's how it works. You have the person in power and the opposition. And it's not been diffrent since the conception of your country. The opposition is there to oppose those in power, to question their actions and their descisions. That's what they have to do, in the hope that governement doesn't turn into something bad and authoritarian. It's what seperates "liberal-constitutional-democracies" (or a "constitutional republic" if you want to use that term) with governement systems like "dictatorship" where there is no opposition.

This however is the first president of the US that I encounter in my lifetime, and that I'm aware off from what I know from history, that is such a snowflake about it. He's always the victim, everyone is working against him, people are accusing him... poor him. While it's actually just how governement works. Opposition tries to question the motives and actions of those that are in power, and as a head of state the president has to stand up and explain to parlement and the people why the opposition is wrong. The parlement functions as a concious that questions power so that the public AND the governement can learn from it and make a more informed vote at the end of the term or reevaluate their position during the term. It's part of what you pay parlement for, to investigate if the excecutive branch that enforces the laws doesn't abuse it's power. That's part of their full-time job description that everyone pays them for, since they have nothing else to do then to debate measures proposed by the governement, make laws and make sure there isn't anny abuse of power because those that live in ivory towers often loose their way.

Because if you are the only person in charge, the chances are that things go south quickly. Cause power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

@Kwek00 👎️

@polyandrym66 What's the problem here?

@Kwek00 We are all biased.. So what's new about that.. I LIKE TRUMP and think he is shaking things up in a good way..

@polyandrym66 If what it is correct that he indeed with held money, which was promised to Ukraine by a vote in the legeslative branch. Because he wanted Ukraine to investigate information on his political opponent, thus for his own gain. Do you believe that this goes against the integrity of his office?

@JAYS21 I thought the problem was not that there was an investigation by itself. The problem is that the legeslative branch voted to donate money for Ukraine for tactical reasons of your countries intrest. That months later, they found out that the excecutive branch withheld this order, without reason. They asked for the reasons, and didn't get ans answer [i](which is kinda disrespectfull to begin with)[/i], then they find out later that Trump withheld it. And then much later we find out that Trumps Attorney was overseeing the team that was working on Ukraine and asked from the president to look into his political opponent. And now, people from the team are speaking up that there was a link between the investigation and giving the money. We don't have a link from attorney to Trump, but that would mean Trumps' attorney would be working for himself and under the president.

That is... if I'm correct, is what is being discussed.

@JAYS21 👏

@JAYS21 But every witness, even the one that said he didn't want Trumps' impeachment, testified against that narrative.

When you have 3 people in the office, that says James stole a cookie. And James himself says: "Well I didn't do that, everyone is just against me.". Do you think that we might doubt what James says about himself?