Kamala's main role

[GMDino]

(11-10-2020, 04:15 PM)Lucidus Wrote: One doesn't necessarily follow from the other. Mr. Biden and his camp obviously wanted a woman, and seemed to prefer a minority as well. Those seemed to indeed be minimum qualifications to be the choice, however, the pool of candidates meeting those requirements contained many possible options. 

While it's fair to say those qualifications were seemingly required, it's not fair to say that criteria was the only reason Kamala Harris was chosen. There were others who met said criteria who were not chosen, so it would follow that in Biden's view, Harris was the most qualified of those that met the initial criteria. 

Your logic is correct.  If Biden wanted to select a woman and chose the best one then she met every qualification...not just the first one.

However he person in question also referred to Harris as someone's "ex side piece".  His intention to make it all about her being only a woman...and one that should qualified by how she got her first job...is pretty clear also.    

[Lucidus]

(11-10-2020, 04:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Your logic is correct.  If Biden wanted to select a woman and chose the best one then she met every qualification...not just the first one.

However he person in question also referred to Harris as someone's "ex side piece".  His intention to make it all about her being only a woman...and one that should qualified by how she got her first job...is pretty clear also.    

I read through his responses. Unfortunately, he seems more fixated on the word vagina than a serious discussion on the topic.

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 04:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You have repeatedly said it was his #1 qualification, but it was just one of many qulifications.

By saying it was the # 1 qualification you are implying that that was the #1 reason she was selected. But that is not true.

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. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 04:15 PM)Lucidus Wrote: One doesn't necessarily follow from the other. Mr. Biden and his camp obviously wanted a woman, and seemed to prefer a minority as well. Those seemed to indeed be minimum qualifications to be the choice, however, the pool of candidates meeting those requirements contained many possible options. 

While it's fair to say those qualifications were seemingly required, it's not fair to say that criteria was the only reason Kamala Harris was chosen. There were others who met said criteria who were not chosen, so it would follow that in Biden's view, Harris was the most qualified of those that met the initial criteria. 

You've not said one thing I have not said throughout this thread. Nowhere have I said being a woman was her only qualification. it's just something Fred made up in his head

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 05:13 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I read through his responses. Unfortunately, he seems more fixated on the word vagina than a serious discussion on the topic.

Unfortunately sometimes we have to be a little more base in our discussions.

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 04:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Your logic is correct.  If Biden wanted to select a woman and chose the best one then she met every qualification...not just the first one.

However he person in question also referred to Harris as someone's "ex side piece".  His intention to make it all about her being only a woman...and one that should qualified by how she got her first job...is pretty clear also.    

My intention is nothing of the sort. Biden made that choice not me.

I freely admit i pointed to unique methods she may have employed to advance her career IN ANOTHER THREAD; I have done the same with males. Feel free to go in there and discuss it within the context, just don't bring it up in another thread because it's the onlt way you can make a feeble attempt at White Knighting Fred and disparaging me.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2020, 05:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My intention is nothing of the sort. Biden made that choice not me.

I freely admit i pointed to unique methods she may have employed to advance her career IN ANOTHER THREAD. Feel free to go in there and discuss it within the context, just don't bring it up in another thread because it's the onlt way you can make a feeble attempt at White Knighting Fred and disparaging me.

My intention is nothing of the sort.  

My intention is to say that you can't disparage her as someone's "Side piece" in one breath and then claim you aren't disparaging her for "only being a woman" in the next.  It was the initial dismissal of any of her accomplishments that led to folks reading your current train of though as less than sincere.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2020, 05:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: My intention is to say that you can't disparage her as someone's "Side piece" in one breath and then claim you aren't disparaging her for "only being a woman" in the next.  It was the initial dismissal of any of her accomplishments that led to folks reading your current train of though as less than sincere.

This argument would hold water if a guy couldn't be someone's "side piece".  

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 05:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: My intention is nothing of the sort.  

My intention is to say that you can't disparage her as someone's "Side piece" in one breath and then claim you aren't disparaging her for "only being a woman" in the next.  It was the initial dismissal of any of her accomplishments that led to folks reading your current train of though as less than sincere.

As I said: two different threads. Feel free to discuss my thoughts in THAT thread so I can defend them in the context given. I think it's a rule around here

Of course it was a dismissal of her accomplishments, but you don't automatically get to say "bfine dismissed Kamal's accomplishments. he's sexist".

Should I have said Willie Brown was her Sugar Daddy/ At least the way I phrased it I gave her credit for the act.

[GMDino]

(11-10-2020, 05:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said: two different threads. Feel free to discuss my thoughts in THAT thread so I can defend them in the context given. I think it's a rule around here

Of course it was a dismissal of her accomplishments, but you don't automatically get to say "bfine dismissed Kamal's accomplishments. he's sexist".

To the bold...that's why it seems insincere for you to say NOW that you don't mean to suggest being a woman is her only qualification.

But yeah, calling her a "side piece" was as sexist as calling someone a "handmaiden"...which you would not stand for.

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 05:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: To the bold...that's why it seems insincere for you to say NOW that you don't mean to suggest being a woman is her only qualification.

But yeah, calling her a "side piece" was as sexist as calling someone a "handmaiden"...which you would not stand for.

Now you're not even bringing in things from other threads you're lying about what was said.

I balked at ACB being called "that weirdo religious lady". Another forum member had issue with the handmaiden part. But you seemed to not have issue with either, but you do here. What's the difference?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2020, 05:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: To the bold...that's why it seems insincere for you to say NOW that you don't mean to suggest being a woman is her only qualification.

He never said that.  He did say it was the #1 qualification, which I don't agree with, but he never said it was her only qualification.

Quote:But yeah, calling her a "side piece" was as sexist as calling someone a "handmaiden"...which you would not stand for.

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.

[Benton]

(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. 

Personally, I appreciate your insight. It's good to hear from someone in the know on how Biden ranked his list of qualifications.there could've been literally dozens (law enforcement experience, gender, age, weight, familiarity with laws, lack of political skeletons, personality, etc) but you're the lone guy with proof positive it was just her beinga woman was the chief reason.

[Lucidus]

(11-10-2020, 05:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You've not said one thing I have not said throughout this thread. Nowhere have I said being a woman was her only qualification. it's just something Fred made up in his head

Only you know your actual intent, but you certainly did yourself no favors with the way you worded and approached the subject. 

It left the door wide open for others to infer something far different than what you're stating your position is.

[Benton]

(11-10-2020, 05:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This argument would hold water if a guy couldn't be someone's "side piece".  

I think almost everybody would admit calling anyone of any gender a side piece is only meant in a disparaging manner.

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 05:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: He never said that.  He did say it was the #1 qualification, which I don't agree with, but he never said it was her only qualification.


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.

This is fair, but I didn't even say it was Harris' #1 Qualification. I simply said that Biden made it clear that being a woman was his #1 qualification criteria.

Being a male is the ONLY thing we know he used as an automatic dis-qualifier; therefore, I phrased it as his #1 Qualification,

Folks are too blinded by hate and must call other sexist, stupid, childish,ect...to actually read what is presented.  

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 05:49 PM)Benton Wrote: Personally, I appreciate your insight. It's good to hear from someone in the know on how Biden ranked his list of qualifications.there could've been literally dozens (law enforcement experience, gender, age, weight, familiarity with laws, lack of political skeletons, personality, etc) but you're the lone guy with proof positive it was just her beinga woman was the chief reason.

(11-10-2020, 05:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is fair, but I didn't even say it was Harris' #1 Qualification. I simply said that Biden made it clear that being a woman was his #1 qualification criteria.

Being a male is the ONLY thing we know he used as an automatic dis-qualifier; therefore, I phrased it as his #1 Qualification,

Folks are too blinded by hate and must call other sexist, stupid, childish,ect...to actually read what is presented.  

You don't think the bold is a fair assessment?

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 05:51 PM)Benton Wrote: I think almost everybody would admit calling anyone of any gender a side piece is only meant in a disparaging manner.

Yes. I stated it was. I'm glad some folks got the true meaning for using the term IN ANOTHER THREAD.

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2020, 05:50 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Only you know your actual intent, but you certainly did yourself no favors with the way you worded and approached the subject. 

It left the door wide open for others to infer something far different than what you're stating your position is.

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.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2020, 05:51 PM)Benton Wrote: I think almost everybody would admit calling anyone of any gender a side piece is only meant in a disparaging manner.

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.