I encourage you to engage rationally and dispassionately with the scholars writing about this. You may disagree with their arguments, but those arguments are based on the text of the Constitution.
So are MY arguments. Why do you presume that the "scholars" are right and I am wrong? Why do you presume there is no constitutional or legal basis for what I've said?
I you'd care to express your own interpretations, I'd be glad to hear them. But do not represent to me that I should just take their word for anything, because they're "scholars".
There are those who have dedicated their lives to subject matter expertise. If you're one of the ones who had done so with the Constitution, that is an admirable dedication. I do not see any in-depth analysis in your comments, which doesn't mean you can't provide it. If you want others acknowledging your expertise, it would make sense to make a strong argument for your case. Aggression is not an effective argument, and unfortunately, for a stranger on the internet, it does a disservice to the point you want to make since people can just choose to ignore.
People with 'expertise' claimed that Trump colluded with Russians. They were lying. The Mueller 'investigation' is a certifiable sham. At any rate, it found no collusion. I knew all along that the 'investigation' was a sham. Did you? Or did you simply trust people that you shouldn't have been trusting?
How about the first impeachment? Do you simply trust the expertise of 'experts'? Do you have any idea what it was about? Do you believe that it wasn't entirely politically based, having nothing to do with the constitution? Or do you believe the lies of 'experts'? What did Trump actually do that was impeachable? You have no idea, right? You just trust the 'experts'. The facts are, Trump was impeached for a phone call. That's right, a phone call. EVERY one who was a party to that phone call, including Volodymyr Zelinsky, was incredulous that Trump was impeached for it. But you know all that. Right? Wrong? You trusted the 'experts'?
Did Trump wreck the economy? 'Experts' told us he would. Did he start WWIII? 'Experts' told us he would.
Second impeachment: Allegedly Trump fomented an insurrection, except there was no insurrection. No, don't take my word for it, take the 'expert's' word for it. Merick Garland, Joe Biden's hitman has arrested NO ONE for insurrection on Jan 6. He's the expert, right?
Take a look at all those 'experts'. Have you noticed something? They are all democrat party hacks. Coincidence? Don't be absurd. These are people who have no conscience about trying to illegally and unconstitutionally remove a legitimate citizen and candidate from what they allege will be a legitimate election. If Trump is not on the ballot in every state, it will be for political reasons only. And I will not sit quietly and accept the tyranny of party hack 'experts'. Neither should you. Neither should anyone.
I encourage you to engage rationally and dispassionately with the scholars writing about this. You may disagree with their arguments, but those arguments are based on the text of the Constitution.
So are MY arguments. Why do you presume that the "scholars" are right and I am wrong? Why do you presume there is no constitutional or legal basis for what I've said?
I you'd care to express your own interpretations, I'd be glad to hear them. But do not represent to me that I should just take their word for anything, because they're "scholars".
There are those who have dedicated their lives to subject matter expertise. If you're one of the ones who had done so with the Constitution, that is an admirable dedication. I do not see any in-depth analysis in your comments, which doesn't mean you can't provide it. If you want others acknowledging your expertise, it would make sense to make a strong argument for your case. Aggression is not an effective argument, and unfortunately, for a stranger on the internet, it does a disservice to the point you want to make since people can just choose to ignore.
Let's review:
People with 'expertise' claimed that Trump colluded with Russians. They were lying. The Mueller 'investigation' is a certifiable sham. At any rate, it found no collusion. I knew all along that the 'investigation' was a sham. Did you? Or did you simply trust people that you shouldn't have been trusting?
How about the first impeachment? Do you simply trust the expertise of 'experts'? Do you have any idea what it was about? Do you believe that it wasn't entirely politically based, having nothing to do with the constitution? Or do you believe the lies of 'experts'? What did Trump actually do that was impeachable? You have no idea, right? You just trust the 'experts'. The facts are, Trump was impeached for a phone call. That's right, a phone call. EVERY one who was a party to that phone call, including Volodymyr Zelinsky, was incredulous that Trump was impeached for it. But you know all that. Right? Wrong? You trusted the 'experts'?
Did Trump wreck the economy? 'Experts' told us he would. Did he start WWIII? 'Experts' told us he would.
Second impeachment: Allegedly Trump fomented an insurrection, except there was no insurrection. No, don't take my word for it, take the 'expert's' word for it. Merick Garland, Joe Biden's hitman has arrested NO ONE for insurrection on Jan 6. He's the expert, right?
Take a look at all those 'experts'. Have you noticed something? They are all democrat party hacks. Coincidence? Don't be absurd. These are people who have no conscience about trying to illegally and unconstitutionally remove a legitimate citizen and candidate from what they allege will be a legitimate election. If Trump is not on the ballot in every state, it will be for political reasons only. And I will not sit quietly and accept the tyranny of party hack 'experts'. Neither should you. Neither should anyone.