I can understand some of your concerns and don't get me wrong - Trump ain't perfect.
But let me point out two issues I have with your statements.
the Constitution is not some living document that changes with norms. The norms you are used to with previous Presidents are the exact norms that have put us to sleep with enemies such as Russia and China, but also with internal enemies such as radical leftism and socialism.
What you see as being people lashing out at Trump this past summer as being racist, was actually the intolerant left who, fueled by money from Democrats and a delusional media, decided to spend several months burning America.
Trump didn't make people do this - the Left hated Trump and would do anything to bring down his reputation. That is now very clear.
Trump followed the Constitution in its original form actually very well. He is continually freeing America from the Establishment grip that has held it and it's people in basic bondage to a corrupt system.
Trump did win this election. If you think his claims are baseless and conspiracy driven, think again.
I know this will be difficult given the amount of censorship, but I'd advise you to go even just watch all the legislative sessions where teams have laid out the evidence of fraud. It is staggering. Why has CNN and the like not reported it? Because they are clearly biased and won't.
In fact there is even recent new and updated documentation showing the fraud and how it happened. A famous analyst in one of the latest Georgia hearings actually hacked into Dominion voting systems live during the session. Watch that session and see for yourself.
You won't know the truth unless you start digging beyond MSM articles.
Norms change with every president. There is a reason why people criticized Obama's and Trump's use of executive orders and Trump's pardons.
"Do your own research."
Ah, the age old distrust in institutions. The idea of conspiracy. The idea that bias is somehow exclusive to one side. The idea that people without years of experience in an area somehow compete against those who do.
I will eventually be a part of these institutions you distrust so much. Sometime soon (hopefully this year, fingers crossed) I will be studying what is known as political psychology. The most well known finding is what is known as motivated reasoning. I won't bore you with how it works at the cognitive level, but basically it finds that all individuals have an internal fight between accuracy and ditectional motives. For politics, these directional motives win out. This means that all partisans think they seek the "truth," when really they simply seek to serve their ideological beliefs and identity.
Because of things like peer review, empiricism, and training to mitigate these biases, institutions are much less prone to this. Billions are pumped into these institutions, not to serve some ideological goal (grants are based on impact and need).
Experts come from this process. Fact checkers come from this process. I've spoken with one before (Factcheck.org) and learned the process. They literally ask the person who made the original claim to explain and defend themselves. Amd they ask the people affected as well (like Coomer from Dominion systems). And they ask witnesses. Then, the fact check is fact checked itself, eventually published. Bias is out the equation as well, once you learn the hiring process and how they decide what to fact checks (user requests and media use).
Meanwhile, what sources do these conspiracies use? Someone like Ron and (Paul?) Watkins, 8chan administers who got their money from porn. Or Sidney Powell, who has a clear bias. Or Lin Wood, same thing. All who make claims, without definite evidence.
In the absence of clear evidence, complete ambiguity, partisans have split responses. Some simply accept that the truth will come later, when explained by people who spend their entire lives on subjects such as fraud. Some can't accept it, mapping their own truth or seeking alternative "truth" to serve their ideological needs. Which one is you?
I can understand some of your concerns and don't get me wrong - Trump ain't perfect.
But let me point out two issues I have with your statements.
What you see as being people lashing out at Trump this past summer as being racist, was actually the intolerant left who, fueled by money from Democrats and a delusional media, decided to spend several months burning America. Trump didn't make people do this - the Left hated Trump and would do anything to bring down his reputation. That is now very clear.
Trump followed the Constitution in its original form actually very well. He is continually freeing America from the Establishment grip that has held it and it's people in basic bondage to a corrupt system.
You won't know the truth unless you start digging beyond MSM articles.
Norms change with every president. There is a reason why people criticized Obama's and Trump's use of executive orders and Trump's pardons.
"Do your own research."
Ah, the age old distrust in institutions. The idea of conspiracy. The idea that bias is somehow exclusive to one side. The idea that people without years of experience in an area somehow compete against those who do.
I will eventually be a part of these institutions you distrust so much. Sometime soon (hopefully this year, fingers crossed) I will be studying what is known as political psychology. The most well known finding is what is known as motivated reasoning. I won't bore you with how it works at the cognitive level, but basically it finds that all individuals have an internal fight between accuracy and ditectional motives. For politics, these directional motives win out. This means that all partisans think they seek the "truth," when really they simply seek to serve their ideological beliefs and identity.
Because of things like peer review, empiricism, and training to mitigate these biases, institutions are much less prone to this. Billions are pumped into these institutions, not to serve some ideological goal (grants are based on impact and need).
Experts come from this process. Fact checkers come from this process. I've spoken with one before (Factcheck.org) and learned the process. They literally ask the person who made the original claim to explain and defend themselves. Amd they ask the people affected as well (like Coomer from Dominion systems). And they ask witnesses. Then, the fact check is fact checked itself, eventually published. Bias is out the equation as well, once you learn the hiring process and how they decide what to fact checks (user requests and media use).
Meanwhile, what sources do these conspiracies use? Someone like Ron and (Paul?) Watkins, 8chan administers who got their money from porn. Or Sidney Powell, who has a clear bias. Or Lin Wood, same thing. All who make claims, without definite evidence.
In the absence of clear evidence, complete ambiguity, partisans have split responses. Some simply accept that the truth will come later, when explained by people who spend their entire lives on subjects such as fraud. Some can't accept it, mapping their own truth or seeking alternative "truth" to serve their ideological needs. Which one is you?