Kamala's main role

[*michaelsean*]

(11-09-2020, 01:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So DOJ oversight and criminal justice reform were suggested back when this was a thread about her role in the administration. I see those as being goals for the first year or two (though it's hard to say what may happen with a McConnell control Senate).

In the final two years, I could see her taking the lead on foreign policy as Biden sets her up to take over in 2024. I said before that I think her running mate will be Buttigieg, but whoever it is could then be put into a position to help in that arena (Sec of State for example).

I can see this administration serving as a training ground for future party leaders.

Her final two years she will be completely in charge of foreign affairs in her position as POTUS.

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2020, 11:34 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Except that's not what fred's doing. Fred is saying that ALL woman had it tougher than ALL men. He's saying that it's impossible for a man to have had more obstacles than a woman simply by virtue of his gender.

I am not saying anything like that.

I am saying that women face obstacles that men don't.

This is 100% true.

Like I have said many times.  It cracks me up when straight white men try to play the victim and claim no one else has faced as many obstacles as they have.

"There were black people that owned slaves in the south before the civil war.  This proves that there was no racism and black people in the south had it just as good as white people back then. Derp."

[CKwi88]

(11-09-2020, 01:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I sure hope so, because the Democrats have been failing hard at that.

Oh the leaders are there, the DNC just has trouble embracing them.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-09-2020, 02:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not saying anything like that.

I am saying that women face obstacles that men don't.

This is 100% true.

No, it's not. Yes, there are many women that face obstacles that many men don't. Likewise there are many men that face obstacles that women don't. It depends on the, gasp, individual and their circumstances.

(11-09-2020, 02:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Like I have said many times.  It cracks me up when straight white men try to play the victim and claim no one else has faced as many obstacles as they have.

"There were black people that owned slaves in the south before the civil war.  This proves that there was no racism and black people in the south had it just as good as white people back then. Derp."

There's only one person on here saying the entirety of a certain group of people haven't faced as many obstacles as others and it isn't me. 

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2020, 02:38 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No, it's not. Yes, there are many women that face obstacles that many men don't. Likewise there are many men that face obstacles that women don't. It depends on the, gasp, individual and their circumstances.

Of course.

But, all things being equal, women face challenges that men don't.

Like I said before, pointing out that there are exceptions to a rule does not mean a rule does not exist.

Pointing out that there were black slave owners in the south before the Civil War does not prove that black people in the south suffered from discrimination before the Civil War.  And that is the same argument you are trying to make.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-09-2020, 02:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Of course.

But, all things being equal, women face challenges that men don't.

This is just not true in all circumstances. Hell, I'd argue it's not true in most circumstances. Certainly not to the point that you can make a sweeping and sexist generalization as this.

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2020, 12:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fred has ignored every fact presented just so he can make his false claims that someone is being sexist.

I have no ignored any facts at all.

And I have not called anyone sexist for criticizing Kamala unless their ONLY criticism is that she is a female.

(11-09-2020, 12:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  He has been presented with 2 simple questions but has refused to answer them because if he does it will shoot down his baseless claims.

I have not refused to answer them.  Instead I have pointed out the false implications in the form of the question.  

What you are doing is the same as telling someone they can only answer "yes" or "no" to the question "Are you still beating your wife."  The only way to answer that question properly is to point out the false implications.

(11-09-2020, 12:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Would Harris be VP elect if she were a male?

This question contains the false implication that a man with the exact same achievements as Kamala would be equally qualified.  This is not true because women have to overcome the barriers of sexism to achieve the same goals as men.

(11-09-2020, 12:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If a person is against women of power why would Amy klobachar be that person's #1 candidate for President in a field of 18-20 other Democrats.

How could I have any idea why you liked Klobacher?  It might be because you are sexually attracted to her, or she reminds you of your mother, or some other silly reason like that.

All I know is that you can't stop whining about Biden picking Kamala to be VP "because she is a woman" even though you admit that she is qualified for the job.

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2020, 03:16 PM)PhilHos Wrote: This is just not true in all circumstances. Hell, I'd argue it's not true in most circumstances. Certainly not to the point that you can make a sweeping and sexist generalization as this.

You are just ignorant of the dozens of studies using identical applications with alternating female and male names that prove there is a broad level of discrimination against women.

I suggest you educate your self instead of just saying "I'd argue" when you have no clue what you are talking about.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2020, 03:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have no ignored any facts at all.

And I have not called anyone sexist for criticizing Kamala unless their ONLY criticism is that she is a female.






I have not refused to answer them.  Instead I have pointed out the false implications in the form of the question.  

What you are doing is the same as telling someone they can only answer "yes" or "no" to the question "Are you still beating your wife."  The only way to answer that question properly is to point out the false implications.




This question contains the false implication that a man with the exact same achievements as Kamala would be equally qualified.  This is not true because women have to overcome the barriers of sexism to achieve the same goals as men.




How could I have any idea why you liked Klobacher?  It might be because you are sexually attracted to her, or she reminds you of your mother, or some other silly reason like that.

All I know is that you can't stop whining about Biden picking Kamala to be VP "because she is a woman" even though you admit that she is qualified for the job.

States this and provides these "answers"

However, I will answer them; being as you are unable and really anyone that can read knows you're just being intellectually dishonest at this point:

Would Kamala Harris be VP if she weren't a female?
No. The person making the selection made it clear he was only choose a woman.

If a person is against women of power why would Amy Klobachar be that person's #1 candidate for President in a field of 18-20 other Democrats?
Because that person's really not against women of power after all. 

See those are answers. Not that BS you keep typing.

The only people being sexist in this instance is you and Joe Biden.

Joe Biden for making a vagina a qualification
You for employing The soft bigotry of lowered expectation directed toward women.

Here's a third simple question you won't be able to answe:

Why was Mayor Pete unqualified to be Biden's choice for VP?

[*PhilHos*]

(11-09-2020, 03:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are just ignorant of the dozens of studies using identical applications with alternating female and male names that prove there is a broad level of discrimination against women.

I suggest you educate your self instead of just saying "I'd argue" when you have no clue what you are talking about.

Broad discrimination doesn't mean that EVERY woman has faced discrimination. Also doesn't mean that sometimes men face discrimination.

That fact of the matter is that I can present 2 people before you: one male and one female with the same qualifications and you cannot say with any kind of certainty that one faced more hardship than the other. And claiming that the female one did simply because she's female, well, that's the very definition of sexist. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2020, 01:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So DOJ oversight and criminal justice reform were suggested back when this was a thread about her role in the administration. I see those as being goals for the first year or two (though it's hard to say what may happen with a McConnell control Senate).

In the final two years, I could see her taking the lead on foreign policy as Biden sets her up to take over in 2024. I said before that I think her running mate will be Buttigieg, but whoever it is could then be put into a position to help in that arena (Sec of State for example).

I can see this administration serving as a training ground for future party leaders.

I dislike when a thread gets off subject as much as anyone and will gladly stop once an OP feels I off subject. 

But when to OP is being intellectually dishonest in efforts to continue the tangent point; the I do not feel compelled to cease. 

This is Fred's thread and he's wrecking it through dishonesty and others are not helping the fact by watching him do so in silence or worse yet give their support. 

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2020, 04:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Here's a third simple question you won't be able to answe:

Why was Mayor Pete unqualified to be Biden's choice for VP?

I'd say he probably was qualified.  In fact there were probably were probably several men and women qualified to be Joe's Vice President.  But Joe picked the one he felt was MOST qualified.


The fact that he felt that at this time being a woman should be a qualification does not bother me.  He may have lots of reasons to feel it was in the best interest of the country to finally have a woman in this high of a position.  Women have been discriminated against for a long time.  Perhaps he felt that having a female in such a high position would validate the abilities of other women.  Maybe he felt it was only fair to pick a woman since they have been oppressed for so long.  I don't really care.  The only reason I would have been upset is if I felt he chose an unqualified woman for the position over a qualified man.  But that did not happen.  Even YOU admit she is qualified.

But instead of criticizing Kamala for not being qualified all you do is attack her selection based on the fact that she is a woman and then claim that your objection has nothing to do with her being a woman.

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2020, 04:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is Fred's thread and he's wrecking it through dishonesty

You are crossing a line here with direct personal attacks.

Please post a link to my "dishonesty" or STFU.

What have I said that you can prove is false?

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2020, 04:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I'd say he probably was qualified.  In fact there were probably were probably several men and women qualified to be Joe's Vice President.  But Joe picked the one he felt was MOST qualified.


The fact that he felt that at this time being a woman should be a qualification does not bother me.  He may have lots of reasons to feel it was in the best interest of the country to finally have a woman in this high of a position.  Women have been discriminated against for a long time.  Perhaps he felt that having a female in such a high position would validate the abilities of other women.  Maybe he felt it was only fair to pick a woman since they have been oppressed for so long.  I don't really care.  The only reason I would have been upset is if I felt he chose an unqualified woman for the position over a qualified man.  But that did not happen.  Even YOU admit she is qualified.

But instead of criticizing Kamala for not being qualified all you do is attack her selection based on the fact that she is a woman and then claim that your objection has nothing to do with her being a woman.

Oh so you have no problem with discriminating against Gay Men. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2020, 04:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are crossing a line here with direct personal attacks.

Please post a link to my "dishonesty" or STFU.

What have I said that you can prove is false?

You've continually called/indicated I'm a sexist because Joe Biden made gender a qualification for VP and I'm the one crossing the line with direct personal attacks?

WTS, I'm don't with this thread, as you are definitely going to discuss the matter earnestly. argue with Phil 

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2020, 04:13 PM)PhilHos Wrote: . And claiming that the female one did simply because she's female, well, that's the very definition of sexist. 

You obviously don't know the definition of "sexist".

The fact is that broad discrimination against women exists.  Sometimes there is no smoking gun evidence that a woman is a victim, but the problem is that it still happens a lot of times when there is no smoking gun evidence.

Just like with racism you refuse to acknowledge that any discrimination exists unless there is irrefutable proof.  And that does nothing to solve the problem because we all know there are many racist/sexist actions taken when there is no direct irrefutable proof.  So all that level of denial does is support the racists and sexist people out there who do not openly admit it.

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2020, 04:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You've continually called/indicated I'm a sexist because Joe Biden made gender a qualification for VP and I'm the one crossing the line with direct personal attacks?

No.  I am saying you are sexist because the only criticism you have of Kamala Harris is that she is a woman.

As long as you agree Kamala is qualified to be VP then attacking her appointment just because she is a female is sexist.  You are not attacking her qualifications.  You are just attacking her gender.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-09-2020, 04:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are crossing a line here with direct personal attacks.

Pointing out your being dishonest when you're being dishonest is not a personal attack

Quote: Please post a link to my "dishonesty" or STFU.

This right here is a far greater personal attack than anything I've seen on here for some time.  Be the change you want to see it others, Fred.

[GMDino]

(11-09-2020, 04:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  I am saying you are sexist because the only criticism you have of Kamala Harris is that she is a woman.

As long as you agree Kamala is qualified to be VP then attacking her appointment just because she is a female is sexist.  You are not attacking her qualifications.  You are just attacking her gender.

Not fair.  He also criticizes her for having a boyfriend who got her a job once making her his "ex side chick".

Because a woman's past dating history can be used to oppose her but not her current political or religious stands apparently.

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2020, 04:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh so you have no problem with discriminating against Gay Men. 

It was not "gay men" it was "all men".

And, no, I have no problem with giving a position to FULLY QUALIFIED member of a class that was a victim of discrimination over a member of the class that practiced the discrimination.