Kamala's main role

[*michaelsean*]

(11-11-2020, 03:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK cool, so the next dark conspiracy is that Nancy Pelosi works on the 25th amendment to betray the voters and get rid of Biden so Kamala can run the show. What one can say just because, it's democrats, they are always evil and bad.

This is just as real as systematic election fraud. Might as well take the jump and just run with the stolen election narrative at this point. Wouldn't be any darker and any more made up.

Oh that’s definitely happening. Probably voluntary. Feb 2023. (Place ninja here. Sorta.)

[GMDino]

(11-11-2020, 09:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh that’s definitely happening. Probably voluntary. Feb 2023. (Place ninja here.  Sorta.)

Right after he finishes Obama's "take all your guns" program! 

[*bfine32*]

(11-11-2020, 09:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh that’s definitely happening. Probably voluntary. Feb 2023. (Place ninja here.  Sorta.)

It's going to be a strange dynamic.

For the last 4 years the Left has put forth a concerted effort to have POTUS removed from office; which would mean the VP assumes Command.

I think the next 4 years the Right will put forth a concerted effort to make sure this POTUS stays in office.

Go Joe!! 'till November 2024. 

[GMDino]

I was discussing this thread at work yesterday and even the conservatives found it amusing that the same people are going after Harris as "unqualified" also think Ivanka would be a good choice to run in 2024.

I mean they say Harris is a sidepiece who only got picked because of her genitalia.  And no matter what else she accomplished in life she got her start from her boyfriend at the time.  

But Ivanka?  Well that girl worked her way to the top!  Qualified to nth degree!

Got a good laugh out of it.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-11-2020, 09:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: I was discussing this thread at work yesterday and even the conservatives found it amusing that the same people are going after Harris as "unqualified" also think Ivanka would be a good choice to run in 2024.

I mean they say Harris is a sidepiece who only got picked because of her genitalia.  And no matter what else she accomplished in life she got her start from her boyfriend at the time.  

But Ivanka?  Well that girl worked her way to the top!  Qualified to nth degree!

Got a good laugh out of it.

Who said she wasn’t qualified? This all started because I made a joke directed at Biden. 50 pages later it’s still going on. The tediousness has to be exhausting.

[GMDino]

(11-11-2020, 10:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Who said she wasn’t qualified?  This all started because I made a joke directed at Biden. 50 pages later it’s still going on.  The tediousness has to be exhausting.

It was implied that her qualification was #1) female.

All of her other qualifications are swept up with her being a side piece.

And understand I'm just poking fun at those who say those things because they don't deserve to be taken seriously.  I've see more "Joe and the Hoe" posts on social media SINCE the election than before.  Republican males just seem to have a hard time discussing strong liberal women without casting them as hoes and side pieces and anything can making them seem less than.  So I make fun of them and laugh at them saying things like "Ivanka will be make a great candidate".

If this thread was serious then those who said such things would have said something along the lines of "Fine she has qualification a b and c but I just don't like her policies on d e and f" instead they continue to insist they didn't say what they said or mean it,

It's hilarious.  

[BmorePat87]

(11-11-2020, 10:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Who said she wasn’t qualified?  This all started because I made a joke directed at Biden. 50 pages later it’s still going on.  The tediousness has to be exhausting.

Patient ***** zero over here.


Edit: nah, you're Gavrilo Princip and your post was you shooting Franz Ferdinand. Now it's World War PnR.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-11-2020, 10:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: It was implied that her qualification was #1) female.

All of her other qualifications are swept up with her being a side piece.

And understand I'm just poking fun at those who say those things because they don't deserve to be taken seriously.  I've see more "Joe and the Hoe" posts on social media SINCE the election than before.  Republican males just seem to have a hard time discussing strong liberal women without casting them as hoes and side pieces and anything can making them seem less than.  So I make fun of them and laugh at them saying things like "Ivanka will be make a great candidate".

If this thread was serious then those who said such things would have said something along the lines of "Fine she has qualification a b and c but I just don't like her policies on d e and f" instead they continue to insist they didn't say what they said or mean it,

It's hilarious.  

I said she’s qualified. She’s old enough, she’s a naturalized citizen and she received the votes. Outside of that, qualified is pretty subjective. Is prosecutor and senator qualified? Good enough for me. I’ll take responsibility if it wasn’t obvious I was directing my comment towards Joe if we can just stop this.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-11-2020, 10:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Patient ***** zero over here.


Edit: nah, you're Gavrilo Princip and your post was you shooting Franz Ferdinand. Now it's World War PnR.

I feel like I just ate a bat at a Wuhan market.

[BmorePat87]

(11-11-2020, 10:24 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I feel like I just ate a bat at a Wuhan market.

[*bfine32*]

(11-11-2020, 10:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Who said she wasn’t qualified?  This all started because I made a joke directed at Biden. 50 pages later it’s still going on.  The tediousness has to be exhausting.

No one has said she isn't qualified

No one has said her only qualification is being a woman

Folks have just made it up in their heads that those things were said and then have set out on a rampage against their own fabrications. 

Admittedly some have seen the folly in this so they've turned to "but the hurtful words" so they can avoid the point made.

Biden eliminated 50% of the population because of gender and the liberal defends it by any means necessary. You cannot make this shit up.

[Benton]

(11-11-2020, 10:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I said she’s qualified. She’s old enough, she’s a naturalized citizen and she received the votes. Outside of that, qualified is pretty subjective. Is prosecutor and senator qualified? Good enough for me.  I’ll take responsibility if it wasn’t obvious I was directing my comment towards Joe if we can just stop this.

(11-12-2020, 12:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: No one has said her only qualification is being a woman

...

Biden eliminated 50% of the population because of gender and the liberal defends it

Unfortunately, michaelsean, some folks are only looking for someone to light the match. 

There's no gray any more, no room to make jokes. Some people only see extremes.

PNR is what we make it. If it's going to be a realm of extremists and extreme views, does anyone really want that?

[*bfine32*]

(11-08-2020, 09:45 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I thought woman was her main role. Or was that just the qualifications?

(11-08-2020, 10:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'd suggest you be careful about crossing the "sexist" line but Harris isn't a conservative so around here she is fair game apparently.

(11-12-2020, 12:42 AM)Benton Wrote: There's no gray any more, no room to make jokes. Some people only see extremes.

It is sad. 

[fredtoast]

(11-12-2020, 12:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Biden eliminated 50% of the population because of gender and the liberal defends it by any means necessary. You cannot make this shit up.

I have repeatedly explained why Biden would have legitimate reasons to select a woman as VP other than being sexist but the conservatives ignore those posts and act like the only possible explanation is sexism.

You can not make this shit up.

[GMDino]

(11-12-2020, 12:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It is sad. 

Hey, I'll be fair even if other won't:

You called a "side piece".

You said Biden picked her because of her genitalia.

But at least you didn't say "I'd hit that" or talk about being in favor her because she's "stacked"

Oh wait...you said that wasn't sexist either.

Wonder what the difference is here?

It is sad.

[*bfine32*]

(11-12-2020, 12:42 AM)Benton Wrote: Unfortunately, michaelsean, some folks are only looking for someone to light the match. 

There's no gray any more, no room to make jokes. Some people only see extremes.

PNR is what we make it. If it's going to be a realm of extremists and extreme views, does anyone really want that?

(11-12-2020, 09:34 AM)GMDino Wrote: Hey, I'll be fair even if other won't:

You called a "side piece".

You said Biden picked her because of her genitalia.

But at least you didn't say "I'd hit that" or talk about being in favor her because she's "stacked"

Oh wait...you said that wasn't sexist either.

Wonder what the difference is here?

It is sad.

I thought the one example I provided to prove Benton's point was enough. But no one can fault you for showing more.

[GMDino]

(11-12-2020, 11:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought the one example I provided to prove Benton's point was enough. But no one can fault you for showing more.

I'll fully admit I was poking fun when I commented on michaelsean's post.  It was low hanging fruit given the hypocrisy between how B arrett was defended and Harris was disparaged.

To the rest...is there a lie in there somewhere?

I'm glad Harris was treated as just an object to ogled even if I'm sad she was dismissed in other posts.

[Lucidus]

(11-12-2020, 12:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Biden eliminated 50% of the population because of gender and the liberal defends it by any means necessary. You cannot make this shit up.

You continue to assert this notion that Mr. Biden is sexist for establishing the baseline criteria which required his running mate to be of the female persuasion, thereby eliminating male candidates from consideration. However, the simple act of concluding that a female running mate would be more beneficial and advantageous to your ticket does not equate to a sexist act -- either tacitly or overtly. Rather, it's an obvious political calculation; one that all Presidential candidates make when establishing an initial criteria for what type of person would best suit their needs in terms of appealing to the majority of the electorate. Regardless of what criteria is established for a candidate's choice in a running mate, that criteria will invariably create a specific pool and eliminate all that are not part of said pool. There's literally nothing to defend in this case. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-12-2020, 03:01 PM)Lucidus Wrote: You continue to assert this notion that Mr. Biden is sexist for establishing the baseline criteria which required his running mate to be of the female persuasion, thereby eliminating male candidates from consideration. However, the simple act of concluding that a female running mate would be more beneficial and advantageous to your ticket does not equate to a sexist act -- either tacitly or overtly. Rather, it's an obvious political calculation; one that all Presidential candidates make when establishing an initial criteria for what type of person would best suit their needs in terms of appealing to the majority of the electorate. Regardless of what criteria is established for a candidate's choice in a running mate, that criteria will invariably create a specific pool and eliminate all that are not part of said pool. There's literally nothing to defend in this case. 

He made it known that he eliminated 1/2 the population based on gender.

What if he determined he needed a male? Would you state that OK if he "concluded that a white male running mate would be more beneficial and advantageous to his ticket" and clearly stated it as a qualification?  

[Lucidus]

(11-12-2020, 03:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He made it known that he eliminated 1/2 the population based on gender.

What if he determined he needed a male? Would you state that OK if he "concluded that a white male running mate would be more beneficial and advantageous to his ticket" and clearly stated it as a qualification?  

Even if he [Mr. Biden] had concluded that a male running mate would be more beneficial, it wouldn't qualify as sexist. The decision would have been made for reasons deemed to be advantageous as to appealing to the electorate, not for reasons involving prejudice, discrimination or stereotyping -- which would be required to properly assert sexism. Rather, it would simply be a political calculation; a purely self-serving decision that every campaign makes in hopes of bolstering overall support and appealing to as many of the electorate as possible.