ThreePointTakedown

So nothing. Got it. Can't provide sources. That tracks. Make assumptions in accordance with your existing opinions. Sure thing. Lazy coward.

can you explain how you came to that conclusion? BTW, 'because you do' is not a reason its your conclusion and that doesn't show your work.

Asking more questions doesn't prove your previous point. Until you provide evidence that I did not answer all your previous questions and because you are so dishonest I will refuse to answer your questions until you meet my standard. Any refusal, deflection, or obfuscation will be considered your confession of being a liar and a coward. Best of luck, cliche. But I'm happy to ask more that I know you can't answer: Do you understand the responsibilities of the VP and what are they? Who is third in line(that's 4th to people who don't understand simple things) in presidential succession?

You asked where your bias was. There it is. This is why judges need to recuse themselves. Because you're trying to be the only authority on whether or not I've met the standard that you are happy to move at any time. You know it. But you do this to make it seem as if I haven't answered them or that anyone can't just go back and simply look up the posts to see your blatant dishonesty. I'm sorry you feel so inadequate that you feel the need to do this to feel powerful. I hope it helped. You are a coward. Thank you for confirming it.

And how much red states are pushing back to change laws/rules to amend state constitutions because they know they'll lose. See Ohio and recently Arkansas. Shameful.

Hiding behind the group to vent your frustration and nurse your wounded ego when your lies and dishonesty are publicly challenged. Classic bully tactic. Well done. Truly living up to your goal of being a walking/typing cliche. I expected nothing less then for you to limp away to avoid any further embarrassment. Still waiting to see where I haven't answered questions btw. This would be three times you have avoided it. Should I go back and look for yours?

Put up or shut up.

Have I answered every question you've asked? Yes. Speaking of deflection. Your 'simple' question and the conclusion you came to tells me you that you didn't understand it in the first place and only wanted a way to get to 'I don't like this person and they are not qualified to be president'. Despite not doing any work to prove you understand the job of VP, the responsibilities or what they did to get to be VP. You don't like them. Then just say it. You don't have a good reason. You're working on it. You're not quite there yet but not for lack of trying. But as it stands you just don't like them. This dance that you're doing is embarrassing. At least it should be. No account for taste I guess. That you cannot see the how logically flawed your conclusion is, says a lot about how you make up your mind. Not much of a surprise at this point. You're more of a dunker than a thinker. I hope at least someone on here has learned a bit about the responsibilities of the VP. Residence is at the Naval Observatory btw. More fun VP info. I have lots. Stay tuned. This is where you hand wave and laugh me off. So you don't have to consider that YOU are actually the problem. Stay toxic.

Having the patience and empathy to specifically look for a fault to point out is a wonderful trait. I'll bet all your friends and family members really appreciate that about you. You know I'm not your enemy right? Do you know that? I don't like your opinions or how you come by them. I think they are dangerous and disgusting. I hope you will learn to do and be better. I am trying help you understand how harmful you and your opinions are and can be. Regardless of whether or not you see the results in your daily life.

Proof that you know how to find that info. Or that you've read it. Or that you verify that that IS what is said in the bill. Other then that you're taking someone's word that they've done all that. In my experience with you and others like you. You're lazy and will believe the first thing that someone says on a topic that agrees with your predetermined opinion. Regardless of how much effort they, themselves, have put into finding out the accuracy of the statement.

You know they won't/can't answer that question. Without looking like a jewish-space-laser nutjob.

I would love for you to untangle that logical knot for me. Because you aren't in the ballpark yet. I have a feeling you won't because you don't want to admit how you got there in the first place. But I'll just say that makes no sense. You are a dishonest interlocutor. You are bias among other things. You don't want to admit it because, I feel, you are embarrassed at the real reason you hold those opinions because the ones so far make no sense unless they were taught to you at an early age;)

This is going to age like milk

Post the text of the bill and where all those things are addressed?

Glad you weighed in out of turn. Well done.

If your question makes no sense, which yours did, I might need to understand what you are hoping to get from my answer. Seeing as the VP has no official duties other than preside over and break ties in the senate. The VP doesn't actually do anything. That means all VPs. Not just this one. They can speak on behalf of the administration but all successes and failures are of the administration and the leader of said administration. Seems as if you are looking to tie some failures around the neck of someone you don't like. Sorry, but they have no official responsibility. Kamala is just awesome and will be a great President someday.

Please expound on your question, what is it that you are looking for, bills signed, orders enacted, policies undertaken? Can you clarify?

I know you're just asking questions and that is laudable. But why are you not interested in finding the answers or offering possibilities. All the possibilities, not just the ones that make you feel vindicated? https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud do you trust these numbers or have any reason to believe they are not within a reasonable range? I mentioned these stats before. If this is a problem, which I don't believe it really is, why put so much effort into a crime with very little upside to those who commit it and very little pay off for getting away with it? Also, when voting is made harder to do, who is effected more/most, who's voices get shut out of the process, those who are rich and have means or those who are barely able to vote as is? I say barely able, but I mean barely willing because they've been marginalized and/or ignored for generations(pretty much everyone but white men). Now you might be thinking, 'here comes the victim mentality'. But seriously, some in this country, who vote almost exclusively for liberal candidates, have only been able to vote for the length of one lifetime. I mean African-Americans have been threatened, killed, red-lined, poll taxed, and gerrymandered(all legally at the time, mind you) out of their right to vote. Not to mention all other poor people in this country that find it hard to vote as is. Now you might say, 'if it means so much they'll find a way'. Which if you are thinking that, comes from a place of privilege for not having to weigh the cost of voting vs keeping your job or a hundred other things that might be at stake if you 'choose' to stand in a long line(sometimes for hours in some lower income areas) to vote. The party that has lost the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 federal elections has been beating the drum to restrict voting because 1500ish times someone has voted when they shouldn't have. 1500 in the last 40 years. That's looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Unless they're trying to apply that same solution to a different problem.

You just keep teeing me up to your ignorance or laziness. Was the pandemic raging in 2017? Nope. That's when 45 tried to ban travel from several countries. I'm sorry you need to believe 45 is not racist. But you're wrong. You'll need to come to grips with that on your own. Speaking of inferring, did I ever say I didn't want America to be 'better' like you claim? Nope. I'm inferring your bias because its clear as day. The nature of the bias is either your laziness or intent to inflict harm. Now it seems as if that ire has been turned to the one pointing it out, me. Which is a natural, emotional reaction. But you can work to train it out of you if you want to. Seems as though you're happier calling people a derogatory term. Hope its worth it.

It should be. More sunlight is better.

That 45 sued for being a bigot and a racist in the 70's. You consistently refused to call people going through the LEGAL asylum process as legal or non'illegal' so that you didn't say it doesn't mean you didn't infer it. You are still ignorant and I still feel sorry for you. But you can go ahead and work to convince yourself that you aren't. Which I imagine is the whole point of this exercise. Where were your answers from the first post that you didn't answer? Can someone help this person define 'travel ban' and what that might entail for people trying to immigrate through those means. Malicious or stupid? Nope just you, your ideas, and your rationalizations.

Do you know the constitutional responsibilities of the VP? If so please explain or just copy and paste.

Questions on asylum, first, yes, if they claim asylum they have arrived here LEGALLY. Does 'legal' mean 'citizen'? No. The legal process has begun so they are allowed to stay if they meet certain criteria and meet certain benchmarks. Wouldn't they be "un-legal" until they are determined to infact be "refugees"?? Is it the legal process? Yes. As I said before. You trying to rationalize it to keep using the term or avoid using a more appropriate term leads me to believe you don't want to for some reason. What reason could that be? Percentage: I can't seem to find a solid number but I did find that 40% of asylum seekers have been granted entry out of 700,000 cases since 2000. Which is not many, if we are to think millions upon millions have entered illegally in just the last few years. Which is also a stat I have not found a credible source for. Have you? I have not found a number either...my point was it appears as an easy way out to come here by just simply claiming asylum. I never claimed millions and millions have entered here illegally. I claim that to many come here illegally. There is a vetting process. Its filing for asylum. That is the process. Of course there is....do you know the process? Disproven or not proven enough. Supposedly about 60% of the time it can. These questions seem to highlight a lack of preparedness on your part. Did you even try looking for information on this topic or did you just latch onto the first bit of negative propaganda that was fed to you? Cuz the hook suck deep, in that case. I'm playing your game here...you like to ask a lot of questions that you don't take the time to look up...this is "fun" isn't it. Lets continue. The word 'illegal' if used in certain ways is racist. But lets move beyond that, its the wrong usage and you should be interested in that. There are several groups you are referring to and they should have different labels. Some are illegal immigrants, they are people and should be thought of as such. The other are asylum seeking immigrants or to use another word refugees. If you cared, which it seems as though you don't, you would work to differentiate them in your vernacular. If for no other reason than to not sound, at best ignorant, or at worst, racist. How is calling someone who comes into our country "illegal" racist or ignorant?? It is literally what they are if they don't come here and do what is expected in terms of being vetted and let into the country. How is this concept so hard to understand and why are you searching for the boogeyman in it?? Is it more racists to try and twist a word into being racist versus using a word as it's literal meaning? I've just explained it to you how you are incorrect. Some arrive and make there way through the legal process. But you still referr to them all with the same term. That is ignorant. If its racist is a little more complicated. Only you can answer that. But the more you use the wrong term on purpose, lends credence to the level of racism of you using it. I won't repeat the words of bigot/president but they were because 45 is a bigot and a racist. We all heard they utter the nickname of the virus. They said it multiple times. It is racist. No proof is required. Again, you won't repeat what he said because you don't have any examplesthat logic doesn't follow, please explain? THE RACIST NAME(npr article) of actual racist things he said other than what he called the virus. How have virus' been described in the past...that's right by where they were originated at...are all of those now racist?? Give me a break. Does the Trump say stupid things...absolutely...would never defend him on those things, but to say he is a bigot and racist is, as you describe it, is "ignorant at best". 'Illegal' until vetted: answered above. 'Unempathetic' without vetting first: It is. Analogy: if your neighbor's house is on fire you don't quibble about the cost of your garden hose. We trust them that they feel they were/are in danger. That's what friends do. Does it turn out not to be the case sometimes? Yes. But to lump everyone together as 'illegals' is to quote you, 'unempathetic' Have no idea how your analogy relates to anything. People that come here illegally are illegals...period...that has nothing to do with being empathetic to those trying to come here. I am empathetic to those people when they follow the law and do things the way they are supposed to in order to come here. Are they people? Are they human? Feel bad because of a word: I haven't. Nor should I need to considering my response above. I'm sure they don't care. But conversing with someone that purports to take the topic seriously. You should be interested in communicating more effectively, your points. Proper, or at least agreed upon, nomenclature would help. This sentence says it all "I'm sure they don't care." My point is made...the rest is just babble. What I read from this is, "i am wrong, I know I'm wrong, its a degrading term to people whose feelings I don't care about, but I'll keep saying it anyway because no one tells me what to do.' You're just a sad person, if that is the case. 'Quasi-isolationist': is what America First means. It was coined before ww2 when we didn't want to stop Germany from taking over Europe. A group was started to try to influence the country to stay out of ww2. Not a great slogan or opinion to resurrect. But that's par for the course of a party with no new ideas. LOL...then why did you resurrect it?? Sorry, conservatives and 45 specifically brought it back recently. I'm just reminding you how harmful it has been in the past. Considering the topic we are conversing about, it seems as if they are interested in doing the same things that happened preWW2. Which were cruel and wrong because they were racist. Woodrow Wilson, who coined the phrase, was a racist. Probably shouldn't make things so easy. Wrong with America First: see above. Make America First: Watch the Newroom. We are not first. Have never been first. I personally don't want us to be first. America is first at just three things: incarcerated prisoners per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending. So you don't want to make America better...got it. Seeing as those words never appeared in this paragraph. Was your incorrect interpretation based on your maliciousness or stupidity? Hanlon's razor is an adage or rule of thumb that states:[1] Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Immigration makes/made America a great country: sure, I can get behind that. Those immigrants were rarely treated/received well. Likely do to similar conversations happening at the time of their arrivals: Irish, Italian, Polish, German, Asian, Latin, African. People here, didn't want them because they were convinced that the new people would 'steal' what they had to fight for. Does that ever really happen? No. And your point is?? Thanks for repeating history...our history is what it is and clearly wasn't the best at times. We learn from it and try and do better...better than most counties in that regard. So yes immigration is one of the things that has and does make America a great country...I am for immigrants doing it legally. Point: you are engaging in xenophobic rhetoric that your 'legal' immigrant relatives had to deal with when they came to this country. Which probably but almost definitely made their lives harder and more dangerous. 45 was against people coming here legally. Lots of people that worked in the administration only wanted certain people to be allowed to come here. That's racist. On here, seeing as you conflate the legal entry process with the illegal entry process, either on accident or on purpose, you do. Since I know you can't provide actual evidence, this is absolutely false and pretty much discredits a lot of the things you say. It is hyperbole, and has no basis in facts or reality. Like I said I don't like the guy but this is utter nonsense. 45 Travel ban. And Steven Miller. Firstly, borders are imaginary lines. There are no borders. Help people make a better life. We do that, we all win. LOL..."imaginary lines" Are borders permanent? 'Fragile mind': honestly, is this your way of dismissing my opinions and critiques of your behavior so you don't have to take them seriously? Using 'illegals' in the way that you have done in the past is a way of Otherizing people. This is the thing you may be looking for as to what makes us the best. Because the United States is great at otherizing people. We did it with Native Americans to rationalize stealing their land for gold, oil, ore, or just the land for the land's sake. The Irish when they came over during a famine. Italians when they came over. Africans, when they... really ever since they were brought here or came over. We make enemies from 'different' people really well. Its dangerous and wrong and your rhetoric only adds to it. So either out of ignorance or on purpose you are leading to the endangerment of a group of people because you don't care enough to look at them as humans first. If the opposite of that is a 'fragile mind'. SIGN. ME. UP! Asking if you have a fragile mind and then you reply with this, which clearly shows you do. It's okay...glad you admit it...that is the first step. You're a horrible human being. But you're still a human being. I feel sorry for you and I cannot share your feelings about this situation. So I have a hard time feeling empathetic with you. I hope you change your opinions. Putting down the need to be so toxic would be a great first step. I'm happy, over joyed, that you think I am fragile minded because of these opinions. Makes me feel better and more secure that I am on the right side of history. That was fun. We should do it more often. If you've read this far, I challenge you to answer all of my questions that you decided not to with your first response. I look forward to reading them or your (less than)clever way of dodging the opportunity. Take a second or third swing at this one too .

Less than artful dodge. We both no you have nothing. So lets just leave it at that. You are a liar or a coward or both and you just don't want to embarrass yourself further. I get it. Thoughts and... well those other things don't work any way. So how about neither. Cheerrio.

Nope, all or none. That just gave you an easy out. You can slink away now. Coward!