Again, it has nothing to do with the 15 to 17 cases about presidential qualifications. You and others throw it out there to try and muddy the water. Debate the facts of the current cases.
“Debate the facts of the current cases.”
Exactly. The sign of a weak defense is the defendant ignoring the facts and law, and abusing the plaintiff or “poisoning the well.”
The larger questions is: why are some here defending Obama? If they think this is a waste of time, well, then go over to chat or just stay the hell off these threads.