ThreePointTakedown

Would it matter to you if they were in a 'well regulated militia' or not?

You are a liar and a coward and I site the fact that you refuse to provide your sources or how you come by your opinions.

Was it a typo or are you refusing/misspelling the current VP, Kamala's Harris's name on purpose? If on purpose what is the reason?

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.