Let me make my position very, very clear: Saying someone lacks political ambition does not mean they're lazy. I have no idea how you misconstrued that, but I hope I made myself clear. If I wanted to call someone lazy, I would just do it. But are you denying it's easier for people to be critics than actually do better than that which they criticize?

And you can’t just declare you proved something.

Well when there is no substantive or sourced rebuttal and I sort of, well, did... Then yes, I am going to say that.

Reuters:

RAGS TO RICHES

Obama has a rags-to-riches side to his story he hopes will resonate with middle-class voters. His mother Ann Dunham was just 18 when she married Barack Obama Sr. and became a single parent when Obama was only two. Obama has recalled that his mother sometimes relied on food stamps to get by when he was growing up and used to wake him at 4 a.m. five days a week to tutor him during the time the family lived in Indonesia. She and Obama's grandparents, who helped to raise him, managed to get him accepted to Punahou Academy, a prestigious private school in Hawaii. He later attended Columbia University and Harvard Law School.

I don't know. Anyone whose parents depended on food-stamps may not fit your literal definition of "rags," but I think I made my case. But it's awfully convenient that you can continue to lie about his stepfather's fortunes and giving Obama a cushy life while -- let me check -- giving absolutely zero sources thus far while obviously distorting the "oIl eXeCuTiVe" caricature for which you've clearly deflected because you know you're full of shit on this front. Then finally just denouncing any biographical or autobiographical account of their status as being PR (without any actual evidence).

Then let's turn a different way: We've proved you can go from middle-class to President, but that's not enough for you and means 99.9% can't be president ("banned", as you explicitly wrote)? Finally: I thought I made myself clear in solving issues related to outside money influencing elections and largely agreeing with you in this respect.

Meanwhile you still dodged the questions, and now I'll add to that list:

Unanswered questions by you:

• The pathway of more choice is through the Democratic party and no other viable way. Do you agree?

• The better CHOICE between Biden and Trump is an obvious one, yes?

• Relative to the user whom I originally responded, America has more choice than most nations of the world, yes?

• Who is closer to reality: "99.9% of people just don't want to become President because they have other interests and ambitions and life circumstances" or your claim, "99.9% CAN'T become President" because they are, in your words, "banned"?

Anyways, this has been an interesting conversation and appears to have been exhausted, I'll leave it there and oblige you with the final response.