Kamala's main role

[Lucidus]

(11-10-2020, 05:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, this only holds water if two things are true; 1. that men could not also be someone's "side piece", and 2. that what he was saying wasn't a known fact.  Calling someone a handmaiden doesn't meet either of those two criteria.

The pure crassness was unnecessary and neither pertain to her political qualifications. The same can be said for the multiple references to her vagina. It's unneeded and only serves to pollute the conversation.

[Lucidus]

(11-10-2020, 05:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: True. But everyone can read what I wrote and not here or anywhere else have a stated that being a woman was her only qualification; I simply stated Biden said not being one was automatic dis-qualification. Folks will have to excuse me if i took the liberty of phrasing that as his #1 Qualification, but it's how i infer it.

What are your feelings about Kamala Harris then? Aside from meeting Mr. Biden's baseline criteria of being a female, do you feel she was qualified to not only be chosen but to also serve as the Vice President? 

[fredtoast]

(11-10-2020, 05:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is why folks grow tired of discussing with you. Mr "I'm man enough to own my mistakes"

I made no implication of the sort; I simply stated it was Biden's #1 qualification, but in your desire to slur folks on this board you changed it to mean what you wanted it to mean.

Why is it unfair to assume that the #1 qualification is also the #1 reason?

Seems perfectly logical to me.

[hollodero]

(11-10-2020, 05:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Disparaging, absolutely.  Inherently sexist, no.  That being said I am well aware that successful women are often accused of sleeping their way to the top, which is absolutely sexist if it isn't true.

Also, while it sure is within the realms of possibilities, a man in all likelihood would not get disparaged by being called someone's side piece. It seems like a line of insult that actually indeed is more or less exclusively reserved for women.

Admittedly, I also in general have a hard time to fully accept microsearching Kamala Harris for her early life decisions and going after her over them, after having witnessed four years of Stormy's side piece, who in the eyes of the same Kamala-disparaging people got "attacked so unfairly" by "haters" or "hypocritical" or even "deranged" people for things a thousand times more worrying then if young Kamala had an inappropriate affair.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2020, 06:02 PM)Lucidus Wrote: The pure crassness was unnecessary and neither pertain to her political qualifications. The same can be said for the multiple references to her vagina. It's unneeded and only serves to pollute the conversation.

To be fair, he said that in another thread.  As to the vagina references, I'd agree that's not necessary.  As for he being qualified, I don't think she's qualified at all, but then I didn't think Trump or Obama were qualified to be POTUS either.

[Lucidus]

(11-10-2020, 06:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To be fair, he said that in another thread.  As to the vagina references, I'd agree that's not necessary.  As for he being qualified, I don't think she's qualified at all, but then I didn't think Trump or Obama were qualified to be POTUS either.

This seems a fair response.

[fredtoast]

(11-10-2020, 05:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Being a male is the ONLY thing we know he used as an automatic dis-qualifier; therefore, I phrased it as his #1 Qualification,

So you are admitting that you don't really know if it was really his #1 qalification.

But we still need to go back to the original point. If she is qualified, which you have admitted she is, then it does not matter if she is a woman.

People who complain about a qualified person getting a job just because she is a woman are being sexist.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2020, 06:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: Also, while it sure is within the realms of possibilities, a man in all likelihood would not get disparaged by being called someone's side piece. It seems like a line of insult that actually indeed is more or less exclusively reserved for women.

I think claiming a man only got his position from sleeping with someone would absolutely be a topic of ridicule.

Quote:Admittedly, I also in general have a hard time to fully accept microsearching Kamala Harris for her early life decisions and going after her over them, after having witnessed four years of Stormy's side piece, who in the eyes of the same Kamala-disparaging people got "attacked so unfairly" by "haters" or "hypocritical" or even "deranged" people for things a thousand times more worrying then if young Kamala had an inappropriate affair.

Daniel's was the side piece, not Trump.  Using that analogy though, it would have been like Trump giving Daniels a cabinet position. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2020, 06:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But we still need to go back to the original point. If she is qualified, which you have admitted she is, then it does not matter if she is a woman.

It mattered to Biden.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Here's really how this position should be framed. Harris didn't get the job because she's a woman, but if she wasn't a woman she wouldn't have gotten the job.

[fredtoast]

(11-10-2020, 06:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It mattered to Biden.

Biden is not complaining about the selection.

He selected a fully qualified choice.

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 06:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why is it unfair to assume that the #1 qualification is also the #1 reason?

Seems perfectly logical to me.

You keep saying only reason. 

"She was selected just because she's a woman" Does that quote sound familiar to you? Let me give you a hint: I'm not the one who has ever stated it. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 06:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Biden is not complaining about the selection.

He selected a fully qualified choice.

Why do respond to things not said?

No one has said Biden is complaining or that she's not fully qualified. Simply pointing out was a qualification was being a woman. 

With Biden's criteria Mayor Pete was not fully qualified. Why? 

[hollodero]

(11-10-2020, 06:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think claiming a man only got his position from sleeping with someone would absolutely be a topic of ridicule.

Sure... I just never saw it being actually used against a male politician, or a male whatever for that matter. At least never outside the gossip columns.

(11-10-2020, 06:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Daniel's was the side piece, not Trump.  Using that analogy though, it would have been like Trump giving Daniels a cabinet position. 

I know. I used that in jest.

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 06:08 PM)Lucidus Wrote: What are your feelings about Kamala Harris then? Aside from meeting Mr. Biden's baseline criteria of being a female, do you feel she was qualified to not only be chosen but to also serve as the Vice President? 

Sure she's qualified.

I guess my point is Mayor Pete was not and it's not because of my qualification criteria; it's because of Joe's. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 06:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's really how this position should be framed. Harris didn't get the job only because she's a woman, but if she wasn't a woman she wouldn't have gotten the job.

My correction in bold. 

[Lucidus]

(11-10-2020, 06:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure she's qualified.

I guess my point is Mayor Pete was not and it's not because of my qualification criteria; it's because of Joe's. 

I agree with that, however every candidate who runs for POTUS has certain baseline criteria they would use to choose their running mate. That minimum criteria should in no way be held against the person who is chosen, as long as they are considered qualified to fill the position above and beyond said criteria. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 06:58 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I agree with that, however every candidate who runs for POTUS has certain baseline criteria they would use to choose their running mate. That minimum criteria should in no way be held against the person who is chosen, as long as they are considered qualified to fill the position above and beyond said criteria. 

I haven't held the fact that Biden said his selection must be a woman against Harris. 

My first post in the OP was to a poster calling another poster sexist for pointing out she's a woman. 

I simply asserted that Joe made it clear it was his #1 Qualification and that perhaps Joe was the one being sexist.

Since no one could argue with the assertion that Biden eliminating half the selection pool based on nothing other than sex as sexist; they chose to assert I said it was her only criteria, Now when that's been proven to be a lie, they now cling to "You said it was his #1 Qualification"; like that matters.

He said it was a qualification and the only one I'm aware of that he set in stone. 




Quick someone take exception with the phrase set in stone,

[fredtoast]

(11-10-2020, 07:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I simply asserted that Joe made it clear it was his #1 Qualification

I don't recall him ever saying it was his #1 qualification.

[fredtoast]

(11-10-2020, 06:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess my point is Mayor Pete was not and it's not because of my qualification criteria; it's because of Joe's. 

Lots of people were not qualified for lots of reasons.