Getting back to Guiliani, I was trying to figure out why he made statements that his dealings in Ukraine was on the behest of the President as his lawyer. Then it hit me, you make a public statement like that sending a nice broadside to the president, Do not F with me. I will not roll over and die on the sword for you so do not try to make me the scapegoat. I believe the person who may be playing 4D chess is Guiliani. I remember when there was some grubbling to try to pin this all on G when he came out with this statement. G was having none of that.

Maybe no one has ever been removed because they're putting the decision in the hands of people with conflicting interests instead of, you know, the judicial branch.

God, it's always so infuriating to watch a country that is so incredibly backwards and actually revels in it. I feel sorry for about 30% of the people who have to live in that hell hole. I'm just so glad that I'm living in an actual democracy.

The circus started when Trump was elected in the first place and not immediately rejected as a candidate because he's unfit for office. Then the circus continued by letting him do whatever he wants and irreparably damage the country's reputation without any consequences. Then the impeachment started and the fact that there is even a chance that no trial will happen is just another act in the circus. The whole political and judicial system in the US is a circus and it's been treated like that by the public as well, which is the reason why it will always stay that way. It's a spectacle, entertainment for the masses. It's the equivalent of gladiator fights in the ancient Roman circus, except the Roman circus had more integrity because things had actual consequences. I'm amazed how the suicide rate among intellectuals in that country isn't skyrocketing towards 100% already.

I find it hard to live with that kind of ludicrousness and I'm not even living there.

We're talking calmly about democratic processes in a country that can't even clear the first hurdle of being called a democracy.

Still only a partual democracy since we have the european parlement as our overlords that have been ignoring democracy since its birth and i'm no expert on Germany but the votingpower of Belgians is a joke.

Well, at least we have the part down where the candidate with the most votes wins. Democracy will always just be a compromise, it's controlled by humans after all and humans are mostly comprised of dickbags. But there is certainly a line and I would like to consider Germany and even the EU to be over the line of what constitutes a democracy and the US desperately out of reach far behind that line.

The corruption, the systematic ineffectiveness of each of the branches and the thoroughly embraced anti-democratic policies disqualify them completely from any discussion about democracy.

This comment is, let's just say, out there. You said you live in an "actual democracy" yet you understand that also necessitates people being allowed to vote for who they want. Trump did that and appeals to voters in areas that were historically Democrat strong holds. And he did this with a populist platform which can become more and more popular in the western world (Look at Boris for a more recent example). Democracy necessitates people choosing who is unfit or not. So Trump was fit to serve because he met the criteria (US citizen, at least 35 years old ect). His victory is proof he was fit to be president. 

Trump also hasn't been able to do whatever he wants. He's been restrained by congress and the courts. This is factually untrue. 

The rest is just fluff. The impeachment move was a circus in of itself. Democrats have wanted Trump out of office since he got elected. This move was always either to distract from something or a hope to get Democrat voters out in 2020. 

I believe your viewpoint is tainted.  Trump got elected because he ran a successful race.  What he does in the office in his 4 years weather good or bad does not make him illegitimate leader.  As long as he stays within his power and doesn't do anything to get him out then really its all opinion.  Some believe he is an idiot like myself, others believe he is a saint.  Either way he still have 4 years to convince the country that he is effective or not.

Before you make up your mind if the system doesn't work, you have to see the process happen.  Right now you are making assumptions before we even get to see how this will go in the Senate.  Nothing is written in stone just yet so before you make up your mind wait and see how the process goes.  There is a lot of things that will go into place so this is interesting times.

This is a process and how do you correct a process if it doesn't actually operate. THere is no way to show a weakness in a process unless its exposed and examined and then the country gets to vote.  That is how democracy works, just because things do not always work as designed doesn't mean its not working, just like any process it needs to get refined.

So, do you believe that Trump did no wrong, that he was acting in good faith for the US and not for personal interest.  Yes, the Dems wanted Trump out of office just like the GOP wanted Obama out of office.  The difference between the 2 is that One did not give them something to impeach them over.

There is so much to address within this post and your several follow ups, but many people have also made many points, so I just want to address one: Trump was just trying to fight corruption.

Ukraine announcing it was investigating the Bidens wouldn't be taking a public stance against corruption. Why? Well, first of all, they had already done that. Zelenski's (aka "Z") entire platform was a public stance against corruption. Virtually everything he had done until that point was making a public stance against corruption. This wouldn't be any sort of victory showing that Z is anti-corruption. It would be the opposite. As many have said, making those statements would basically be Z interfering in foreign politics, which isn't exactly anti-corruption.

Further, there is a lot of evidence that this wasn't about being "anti-corruption". For one, there are dozens of instances of corruption within Ukraine, yet Trump decided to pick the one that would benefit him politically. Further, he picked the one that had already been debunked by both his own intelligence agencies and Ukraine.

So, what if we make the assumption that Trump thought that this would be anti-corruption, but it actually wasn't. Good intentions, and all that. Well, it doesn't seem like Trump actually cared about the investigations themselves, just their announcement. How exactly does that factor into this? This point completely undercuts any assertion that this was actually about fighting corruptions. He was after the effect of the announcement, not the effect of the investigation, and what is the effect of the announcement?

Now, lets take a step back to the Biden's. This has been covered in depth so many times, so I will give the cliff notes. No, Hunter Biden's company was not under investigation when the Prosecutor was fired. The prosecutor was not fired for investigating Burisma, he was actually largely fired for not going after Ukrainian companies such as Burisma, and this move was in step with virtually the entire world's opinion that this prosecutor was actually terribly corrupt.

And what did Trump say about this corrupt prosecutor again? Something to the effect of "He was great and it is awful what happened to him". "Anti-Corruption" my ass.

To assume that this was all just an entirely innocent attempt to fight Ukrainian corruption is absolute nonsense and required a great deal of ignorance and assumptions of good faith that the evidence simply doesn't support. It is absolutely unfounded and it is a ludicrous conclusion to jump to given the evidence.

Further, I just want to make one more statement: Impeachment is not a criminal trial. You keep making references to crimes and laws. They don't really matter. You don't have to break any law to be impeached, because impeachment is not a criminal process. That isn't to say that no laws were broken, but only that in order to prove impeachable conduct, you don't have to first point to a law and say "this is where the bad man touched me".

Another great example of the ever expanding egos of people today.

Maybe I am childish for pointing out this guy is slanted and just obsessed with hate for Trump.  Ok fine.


But why should I be convincing you of anything on how to vote.   You either believe that posts like this are so important that I must be the voice of a group of people, and not just one lone individual.  OR you think you are so important that it is my goal to persuade you somehow.    You must seek information on your own and likely a place like this isn't going to find anything of much value in regards to politics.   The ego is that everyone things their opinions are so valuable on the internet in message boards, mine is of no value, OP's is of no value and yours is of no value as one we should be convincing.