You can't tell the difference?

I don't understand how you can't know the difference, because this is your own claim.

Where's that "legal route of succession" that's already in the US Constitution? You know, the "national divorse" by way of the "constitutional way of states removing themselves from the Federal Government" you led with. You openly claimed,

There’s literally a constitutional way of states removing themselves from the Federal Government, that’s what national divorse means.

Your exact words. So, where is it? A simple enough question for someone as conversant with the US Constitution as you are, right?

This is very interesting to me because you have a lemmy account that's barely a month old, and much of the time you are fluent in English, and other times -- like in your interactions with me -- you seem to be barely hanging on by your fingernails. But either way, you're always desperate to push a narrative, and never able to answer any questions put to you about what you've already written.

So let's talk about that "legal route of succession" that's already in the US Constitution, the "constitutional way of states removing themselves from the Federal Government," because YOU cared enough about it to bring it up.

Better yet, let's talk about constitutionally evicting that orange kiddie rapist and doing a 25 for 47, because I'd far rather keep Minnesota in the union. No need to throw out a perfectly good state when one useless syphilitic pedo is the real problem. Do you think he's being paid by Russia, Putin's bitch? Or do you think that $500 million he banked in Qatar from selling stolen Venezuelan oil is the real story? I'm interested in your views on this.

EDITED to add direct quotes