Reasons -- Nov. 27, 2020

I want to explain what I said in blog Nov 16.

So I'll just start by saying: If by my previous blog I've said or done anything wrong I apologize.

Even though I don't feel I was doing anything wrong, I can't be 100% sure.
Having said that, please read the rest of this blog. I'll give an explanation for the previous blog (Nov. 16) here. I'll state my reasons for what I said and you can be the judge.
(Also realize without immediate direct feedback, it feels sometimes like I'm talking to air or the wall.)

To point at an exrtreme case to help people understand, I'll tell about a net video I saw. This is an extreme case not connected to people in or around the President's office.

This video was of a person who I believe had a high office - by how many supporters that gathered in an audience around him. We'll call him Mr. Guy.
Of the supporters, all but one were cheering for him. This one guy in the crowd said something rude to Mr. Guy. Mr. Guy who was held in high esteem heard what that one person said, and on cam in front of the eyes of the crowd walked over and punched that one person in the face - at the nose.
This was an extreme case.
Of course to many, this is unacceptable by many people's standards, young or older. For anyone who leads us he has to serve as a prime example for everyone to follow, and especially when given a great office and in the public eye.

To return to the explanation about the previous blog, some of the court cases heard about and presented that stands aside from the President's side can raise some very concerned eyebrows.

Also, the only way they can be overlooked entirely afterwards is if any person we have the concern about who stands on trial has the determination and dedication to not repeat an action that's under the court's consideration.

The way I understand it, whether a democrat or republican it's said that the people make up the power of the government, and the people need to be assured to stand on the side of someone or something.

From anyone on trial, to extreme (Mr. Guy), the only way concerns about someone can be completely erased is if people see a sure change away from the behavior that led to the trial. If this standard is met, there will be a full pardon. After the pardon, and without any further objections to any degree, people can once again stand confidently with and support someone again.

If a President is on trial, I for one, who wants him to keep his reputation completely intact wouldn't say anything less than (from a person who wants the best for him) : that if he does something that brings him back into the court's and people's consideration about the same thing, it shows there's no dedication and determination to change, and without this quality, he may likely be doomed to repeat something some people could find unforgivable. Just a reminder and guide.
(I think the expression about History is,"Those who don't learn from our mistakes are doomed to repeat them,"...or something.)

To bring back the extreme example again, if Mr. Guy hasn't changed his behavior of punching a person right in the face, then he again will be doomed to punch another guy, exactly like the first. Then another, and then another. For a person who has a respectable office as Mr. Guy it's unforgivable, without the required change needed for the behavior. What follows naturally is he'll be ejected out of office by the people, and probably won't be given another chance.

In the situation of the President, every little things helps, and we want to keep him in office.

That was the reason for the Nov. 16 blog. I was hoping despite any considerations against the side of the President that people can overcome their doubt and again stand firmly with him.

I hope everyone is okay. Goodluck.

(Note: I didn't proofread this blog.)

*Update: (none)