The Kamala Harris conundrum.

[katsteve2012]

If not for her sucking Brown's Willie (while he was married to someone else), Ms. Harris' career would consist of pursuing emergency medical vehicles, and very few of us would have ever heard of her.

But she did. And here she is. If...if...if... If you took out half The Orange Buffoon's antics throughout his life (including daddy starting him out), he'd be nothing more than a terrible used car salesman. Yet, here he is. Woulda, shoulda, coulda...

we acknowledge that trump inherited wealth.

you acknowledge that harris traded sex for value.


thus, trump is not a "self made man" and harris is a whore.

we are in agreement. the question is, does any of this matter to anyone?

i don't care that trump is not a self made man.


none of you libs care that harris is a whore.


so what is your point?

I know for a fact Trump is not a self-made man.
You have no idea if Harris is a whore. Just fits your story.
And that is the difference between us.

A little mentioned fact about Harris dating Brown is that during that time, yes he WAS married, however he was estranged from his wfe, and had been since 1981, which is why he didn't deny it when asked about it.


Those who are so quick to label HER a "whore" should compare her morality to the pussy grabbing, porn star trick who is currently in office.

i'm happy to make the comparison. trump is certainly a cheater and indeed, a whore monger. that is his biggest single flaw.

harris is a whore.

trump paid a woman to have sex with him. harris was paid to have sex with a man.

imo, the fact that harris victimized the person that should have got the job willie gave her, makes her action worse.

Correct for once....... "In YOUR opinion".

how would you feel if you applied for a job, and found out that the job went not to you, but to the young woman sleeping with the boss?

and the young woman, built on that career making move, that she denied to you, to now be a vp candidate with a good chance of winning?

I've had that happen before. The world is full of opportunists as well as well as those seeking to provide opportunity for a price.

I got over it. And I certainly did not label her a "whore".

I took the high road, continued to do my job and was rewarded eventually.

And part of taking the high road was that after the woman got the job that I was more qualified for, I worked with her, and she actually ended up reporting to me a few years later....after I got the job that the person who she was sleeping with had before he got an "early retirement package".

In other words he was encouraged to cash out his stock options and leave.

As far as how Harris she got where she is, if it is TOTALLY because of sleeping around as you and others here claim, that reflects even more poorly on the "men" who rewarded her for doing it.

1. You managed to recover from being fucked. Good for you. Not everyone gets another chance. Taking the "high road" then, is just letting them fuck you.

2. The thread is specifically about the reaction to harris, and whether or not it is caused by wacism. That her start came because of her sleeping with a powerful man, is a valid criticism. Discussing it is not wacism, nor sexism.

3. Never said it was solely responsible for her future rise. That is a whole other issue. Her start was from whoring.

4. Agreed that the men involved, it reflects poorly on them too. "more"? mmm, maybe. That's debatable. And off topic.

No. Taking the high road in my case was strategic. I had the last laugh. The old man who was sleeping with the woman stayed long enough to hang himself for inappropriate behavior. The woman is now an out of work hag whose looks faded, and I am retired and happy, simply because I saw all of it unfolding and didn't overract.

This thread is not about me, but you asked the question.

As far as who said that she soley got to where she is by sleeping around may have been someone else, but quite a few people here all sound the same after awhile, either way, it was said.

As far as whether the reaction to her was racism or sexism, as a female and minority, it is likely that she has experienced both before and will again.

How she deals with it will play a part in her success or failure.

1. So, you agree with my point, that cheating someone out of a job, is a serious harm to them?

2. The thread op made the claim, that the opposition to her, is primarily wacism and sexism. Saying that she has experienced both is too vague, it does not answer, nor really, even address the question.

1. It depends on the circumstances. What I view as "being cheated" may be different than how you view it.

Personally I tend to believe that there is no expiration date on karma.
So what goes around, comes around.


2. As for her having experienced sexism or racism I stated it was "likely" that she has experienced it, I did not state that she absolutely has, because I can't speak for her, so there is no right answer except an answer from her .

Anyone else is just speculating.

1. A man in a position of power, gives a job not to who deserves it, but to the young woman having sex with him. do you view that as "being cheated"?

2. What "circumstances" does it depend on, whether being denied a job you deserve, is not a serious harm?

3. The thread topic is whether or not the opposition to harris or harris being picked is primarily because of wacism and sexism. if true, that should be called out. if not true, then a lot of good people are being smeared by assholes. do you have soemthing to say relevant to the topic?

1. I would view it as an abuse of power by the man or WOMAN in the position of authority, because that is what it is.
I would not take it as being "personally cheated". The system eventually catches up to those kind of people in some way. I've never seen that outcome fail to happen, and even helped it along when I had the opportunity to.

2. Not sure what your asking here. The dominant circumstance should be measurable performance. Usually by a set of metrics or operational objectives, as well as people skills and thr ability to function within a diverse organization. Obviously if a decision maker has a history of overlooking those attributes in a candidate and selecting one who has no credibility based on performance and results, that person should not be in their position.

3. As far as whether Harris is or was being subjected to racism or sexism, there are over 70 days left in the campaign. And her nomination is still new. It will not take long for it to surface if it is happening. As far as "good people being smeared", both sides are going to take shots at each other, questioning everything from their country of origin to what they did prior to venturing into politics.

1. Which is nice, but my question was about the person who did not get the job they deserved. How does you not see that they were personally cheated?

2. not the guy giving the job. the guy who did not get the job he deserved. IN what circumstances is that not a harm to him?

3. according to the op, and the other libs, it is already obvious to them, ie wacism. if you have not seen it yet, then you are in agreement with me, that the opposition is partisan, political or ideological, not wacism or sexism.

1. I don't know the history of the person. If you are referring to who you are saying was passed over for Harris.
2. If the person who does not get the job is aware of concrete facts that prove he or she was unfairly passed over most organizations have a hearing process involving HR,, the person who believes they were treated unfairly and the person who made the decision.

3. I'm not in total agreement with anyone yet. As I stated it is early into the campaign and a lot will likely happen between now and November that will answer the question.

1. What do you need to know about him, other than he was passed over?

2. I'm not asking if he has recourse. I'm asking you to admit that he was harmed.

3. The op and his ilk, say it is already obvious. It is wacism. If you don't see that already, then you disagree with them.

1. What do you normally want to know about people before determining if they were actually passed over or if they were actually not the better candidate?

2. Harmed in what way? Unable to be employed elsewhere? Salary cut? Benefits taken away?

3. Last time repeating myself. It is early in her campaign and I have yet to see enough being said by both sides to determine whether she is being subjected to racism or sexism. I don't have an opinion, I don't agree or disagree yet because there is not enough information at this time.

 

[Correll]

If not for her sucking Brown's Willie (while he was married to someone else), Ms. Harris' career would consist of pursuing emergency medical vehicles, and very few of us would have ever heard of her.

But she did. And here she is. If...if...if... If you took out half The Orange Buffoon's antics throughout his life (including daddy starting him out), he'd be nothing more than a terrible used car salesman. Yet, here he is. Woulda, shoulda, coulda...

we acknowledge that trump inherited wealth.

you acknowledge that harris traded sex for value.


thus, trump is not a "self made man" and harris is a whore.

we are in agreement. the question is, does any of this matter to anyone?

i don't care that trump is not a self made man.


none of you libs care that harris is a whore.


so what is your point?

I know for a fact Trump is not a self-made man.
You have no idea if Harris is a whore. Just fits your story.
And that is the difference between us.

A little mentioned fact about Harris dating Brown is that during that time, yes he WAS married, however he was estranged from his wfe, and had been since 1981, which is why he didn't deny it when asked about it.


Those who are so quick to label HER a "whore" should compare her morality to the pussy grabbing, porn star trick who is currently in office.

i'm happy to make the comparison. trump is certainly a cheater and indeed, a whore monger. that is his biggest single flaw.

harris is a whore.

trump paid a woman to have sex with him. harris was paid to have sex with a man.

imo, the fact that harris victimized the person that should have got the job willie gave her, makes her action worse.

Correct for once....... "In YOUR opinion".

how would you feel if you applied for a job, and found out that the job went not to you, but to the young woman sleeping with the boss?

and the young woman, built on that career making move, that she denied to you, to now be a vp candidate with a good chance of winning?

I've had that happen before. The world is full of opportunists as well as well as those seeking to provide opportunity for a price.

I got over it. And I certainly did not label her a "whore".

I took the high road, continued to do my job and was rewarded eventually.

And part of taking the high road was that after the woman got the job that I was more qualified for, I worked with her, and she actually ended up reporting to me a few years later....after I got the job that the person who she was sleeping with had before he got an "early retirement package".

In other words he was encouraged to cash out his stock options and leave.

As far as how Harris she got where she is, if it is TOTALLY because of sleeping around as you and others here claim, that reflects even more poorly on the "men" who rewarded her for doing it.

1. You managed to recover from being fucked. Good for you. Not everyone gets another chance. Taking the "high road" then, is just letting them fuck you.

2. The thread is specifically about the reaction to harris, and whether or not it is caused by wacism. That her start came because of her sleeping with a powerful man, is a valid criticism. Discussing it is not wacism, nor sexism.

3. Never said it was solely responsible for her future rise. That is a whole other issue. Her start was from whoring.

4. Agreed that the men involved, it reflects poorly on them too. "more"? mmm, maybe. That's debatable. And off topic.

No. Taking the high road in my case was strategic. I had the last laugh. The old man who was sleeping with the woman stayed long enough to hang himself for inappropriate behavior. The woman is now an out of work hag whose looks faded, and I am retired and happy, simply because I saw all of it unfolding and didn't overract.

This thread is not about me, but you asked the question.

As far as who said that she soley got to where she is by sleeping around may have been someone else, but quite a few people here all sound the same after awhile, either way, it was said.

As far as whether the reaction to her was racism or sexism, as a female and minority, it is likely that she has experienced both before and will again.

How she deals with it will play a part in her success or failure.

1. So, you agree with my point, that cheating someone out of a job, is a serious harm to them?

2. The thread op made the claim, that the opposition to her, is primarily wacism and sexism. Saying that she has experienced both is too vague, it does not answer, nor really, even address the question.

1. It depends on the circumstances. What I view as "being cheated" may be different than how you view it.

Personally I tend to believe that there is no expiration date on karma.
So what goes around, comes around.


2. As for her having experienced sexism or racism I stated it was "likely" that she has experienced it, I did not state that she absolutely has, because I can't speak for her, so there is no right answer except an answer from her .

Anyone else is just speculating.

1. A man in a position of power, gives a job not to who deserves it, but to the young woman having sex with him. do you view that as "being cheated"?

2. What "circumstances" does it depend on, whether being denied a job you deserve, is not a serious harm?

3. The thread topic is whether or not the opposition to harris or harris being picked is primarily because of wacism and sexism. if true, that should be called out. if not true, then a lot of good people are being smeared by assholes. do you have soemthing to say relevant to the topic?

1. I would view it as an abuse of power by the man or WOMAN in the position of authority, because that is what it is.
I would not take it as being "personally cheated". The system eventually catches up to those kind of people in some way. I've never seen that outcome fail to happen, and even helped it along when I had the opportunity to.

2. Not sure what your asking here. The dominant circumstance should be measurable performance. Usually by a set of metrics or operational objectives, as well as people skills and thr ability to function within a diverse organization. Obviously if a decision maker has a history of overlooking those attributes in a candidate and selecting one who has no credibility based on performance and results, that person should not be in their position.

3. As far as whether Harris is or was being subjected to racism or sexism, there are over 70 days left in the campaign. And her nomination is still new. It will not take long for it to surface if it is happening. As far as "good people being smeared", both sides are going to take shots at each other, questioning everything from their country of origin to what they did prior to venturing into politics.

1. Which is nice, but my question was about the person who did not get the job they deserved. How does you not see that they were personally cheated?

2. not the guy giving the job. the guy who did not get the job he deserved. IN what circumstances is that not a harm to him?

3. according to the op, and the other libs, it is already obvious to them, ie wacism. if you have not seen it yet, then you are in agreement with me, that the opposition is partisan, political or ideological, not wacism or sexism.

1. I don't know the history of the person. If you are referring to who you are saying was passed over for Harris.
2. If the person who does not get the job is aware of concrete facts that prove he or she was unfairly passed over most organizations have a hearing process involving HR,, the person who believes they were treated unfairly and the person who made the decision.

3. I'm not in total agreement with anyone yet. As I stated it is early into the campaign and a lot will likely happen between now and November that will answer the question.

1. What do you need to know about him, other than he was passed over?

2. I'm not asking if he has recourse. I'm asking you to admit that he was harmed.

3. The op and his ilk, say it is already obvious. It is wacism. If you don't see that already, then you disagree with them.

1. What do you normally want to know about people before determining if they were actually passed over or if they were actually not the better candidate?

2. Harmed in what way? Unable to be employed elsewhere? Salary cut? Benefits taken away?

3. Last time repeating myself. It is early in her campaign and I have yet to see enough being said by both sides to determine whether she is being subjected to racism or sexism. I don't have an opinion, I don't agree or disagree yet because there is not enough information at this time.

1. We already know there was a better candidate. hence the sexual relationship. why do you not care about the victim?

2. loss of a the job. Why do you not care about that?

3. and I appreciate that you disagree with the people who claim it is already obvious that it is wacism.

 

[Dr Grump]

how would you feel if you applied for a job, and found out that the job went not to you, but to the young woman sleeping with the boss?

and the young woman, built on that career making move, that she denied to you, to now be a vp candidate with a good chance of winning?

Too many unknowns. Massive leap to make.

 

[Correll]

how would you feel if you applied for a job, and found out that the job went not to you, but to the young woman sleeping with the boss?

and the young woman, built on that career making move, that she denied to you, to now be a vp candidate with a good chance of winning?

Too many unknowns. Massive leap to make.

so, you support subordinates dating the boss and getting promotions while doing it?

interesting. i guess this won't actually be applied to anyone else, cause there is a limit to how much pretzel logic even hr departments can swallow.

 

[Dr Grump]

so, you support subordinates dating the boss and getting promotions while doing it?

interesting. i guess this won't actually be applied to anyone else, cause there is a limit to how much pretzel logic even hr departments can swallow.

I have no idea if that is what happened. Neither do you. That aside, as far as US politics go, that is your high ground? Harris got to where she is via dubious means? Can you link to even ONE politician who HASN'T gotten to their position doing the same? Grow the fuck up. Do I like it? No. That is why the US system sucks. It's a shit system, but it's yours to deal with.

 

[22lcidw]

so, you support subordinates dating the boss and getting promotions while doing it?

interesting. i guess this won't actually be applied to anyone else, cause there is a limit to how much pretzel logic even hr departments can swallow.

I have no idea if that is what happened. Neither do you. That aside, as far as US politics go, that is your high ground? Harris got to where she is via dubious means? Can you link to even ONE politician who HASN'T gotten to their position doing the same? Grow the fuck up. Do I like it? No. That is why the US system sucks. It's a shit system, but it's yours to deal with.

The entertainment industry has a lot of that. But the ladies get older and the work dries up a bit and they get venomous. In politics age means much less as we see.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

so, you support subordinates dating the boss and getting promotions while doing it? interesting. i guess this won't actually be applied to anyone else, cause there is a limit to how much pretzel logic even hr departments can swallow.

I have no idea if that is what happened. Neither do you. That aside, as far as US politics go, that is your high ground? Harris got to where she is via dubious means? Can you link to even ONE politician who HASN'T gotten to their position doing the same? Grow the fuck up. Do I like it? No. That is why the US system sucks. It's a shit system, but it's yours to deal with.

Mr. “Wacism” does indeed need to “grow the fuck up.” Political appointments are political appointments, not Civil Service jobs given on the basis of test scores. Patronage jobs are patronage jobs. Nobody’s job was “taken” from them.

Some don’t like It when political appointments go to young talented lawyers ... sleeping with powerful self-made black men. Too bad. Maybe they should go to the highest bidder? To the old white boys clubs?

Nobody denies Harris did the jobs she was appointed to. Nobody should doubt that her profile as somebody close to Brown gave her a step up, a chance to meet people, to stabilize her shaky finances, to show she could shine in the world of politics. She obviously was ambitious and genuinely admired Brown. She’s a tough and competent lawyer, prosecutor, politician. What do people think capitalist politics is all about, anyway?

Our President has a right to pick his own people for countless jobs — in his case mostly fellow grifters, conmen, criminals, incompetents and family.

Some just can’t stand it when elected officials who are African American use their patronage powers — the way whites have done for ages. Well, most of the time in the past the women were just talentless bimbos, and the patronage went to stuffed suits from white boy fraternities. That’s the only difference.

 

[Correll]

so, you support subordinates dating the boss and getting promotions while doing it?

interesting. i guess this won't actually be applied to anyone else, cause there is a limit to how much pretzel logic even hr departments can swallow.

I have no idea if that is what happened. Neither do you. That aside, as far as US politics go, that is your high ground? Harris got to where she is via dubious means? Can you link to even ONE politician who HASN'T gotten to their position doing the same? Grow the fuck up. Do I like it? No. That is why the US system sucks. It's a shit system, but it's yours to deal with.

So, will that be the new standard for sexual harassment lawsuits going forward?

YOunger woman having sex with the boss, gets big promotion, but no one has any "idea if that is what happened" so no harm, no foul?


No, this is just you libs giving one of your own a pass. and trying to spin it.


Biden picked her for her race and gender, and she got her start in her career by sleeping with the boss.


That is your ticket. racism and sexism and sexual harassment. for starters.

 

[Correll]

so, you support subordinates dating the boss and getting promotions while doing it? interesting. i guess this won't actually be applied to anyone else, cause there is a limit to how much pretzel logic even hr departments can swallow.

I have no idea if that is what happened. Neither do you. That aside, as far as US politics go, that is your high ground? Harris got to where she is via dubious means? Can you link to even ONE politician who HASN'T gotten to their position doing the same? Grow the fuck up. Do I like it? No. That is why the US system sucks. It's a shit system, but it's yours to deal with.

Mr. “Wacism” does indeed need to “grow the fuck up.” Political appointments are political appointments, not Civil Service jobs given on the basis of test scores. Patronage jobs are patronage jobs. Nobody’s job was “taken” from them.

Some don’t like It when political appointments go to young talented lawyers ... sleeping with powerful self-made black men. Too bad. Maybe they should go to the highest bidder? To the old white boys clubs?

Nobody denies Harris did the jobs she was appointed to. Nobody should doubt that her profile as somebody close to Brown gave her a step up, a chance to meet people, to stabilize her shaky finances, to show she could shine in the world of politics. She obviously was ambitious and genuinely admired Brown. She’s a tough and competent lawyer, prosecutor, politician. What do people think capitalist politics is all about, anyway?

Our President has a right to pick his own people for countless jobs — in his case mostly fellow grifters, conmen, criminals, incompetents and family.

Some just can stand it when elected officials who are African American use their patronage powers — the way whites have done for ages. Well, most of the time in the past the women were just talentless bimbos, and the patronage went to stuffed suits from white boy fraternities. That’s the only difference.

You'll really focused on the racial aspect of the play for pay portion of this discussion, trying to imply that the only reason someone could complain about the vp's moral character, or lack there of, was because of...


wacism.


you know, if you go back to when Trump was running, and liberals brought up his failed marriages and cheating, especially with the porn star,

i admitted that those actions did not reflect well on his character and were serious minuses to be considered by voters.


That you cannot do the same, is it a reflection of your reflexive dishonesty? or is it that you don't feel that you can justify still support her based on her other qualifications or policies?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Arguing with children is such a waste of time.

 

[Dr Grump]

so, you support subordinates dating the boss and getting promotions while doing it? interesting. i guess this won't actually be applied to anyone else, cause there is a limit to how much pretzel logic even hr departments can swallow.

I have no idea if that is what happened. Neither do you. That aside, as far as US politics go, that is your high ground? Harris got to where she is via dubious means? Can you link to even ONE politician who HASN'T gotten to their position doing the same? Grow the fuck up. Do I like it? No. That is why the US system sucks. It's a shit system, but it's yours to deal with.

Mr. “Wacism” does indeed need to “grow the fuck up.” Political appointments are political appointments, not Civil Service jobs given on the basis of test scores. Patronage jobs are patronage jobs. Nobody’s job was “taken” from them.

Exactly. Next thing Correll will be expousing the point that all such appointments should be made like they do with the USSC justices. You know, based on their ability not their political affliations <rolls eyes>. Fuck me. That aside, Slick Willie got her on a couple of commissions. Big fucking deal.

 

[Dr Grump]

Biden picked her for her race and gender

Yep. Absolutely I agree. I also believe he picked her because she is/was a very good prosecutor. I doubt he would have picked her if she didn't have that pedigree also. Fifty times more ability than Palin.

 

[Correll]

Talking to children is such a waste of time.

Did you go back to check my claims about how I responded to criticisms of Trump? Or do you just know that I'm telling the truth, because of the feel you get of my sincerity?

Cause, after me shooting my mouth off liket that, if you could have posted a quote of me being dishonestly defensive on the cheating/divorces issue, that would have been the thread winner.


Did you go looking to check my claims? Or did you just trust my sincerity?

 

[Correll]

so, you support subordinates dating the boss and getting promotions while doing it? interesting. i guess this won't actually be applied to anyone else, cause there is a limit to how much pretzel logic even hr departments can swallow.

I have no idea if that is what happened. Neither do you. That aside, as far as US politics go, that is your high ground? Harris got to where she is via dubious means? Can you link to even ONE politician who HASN'T gotten to their position doing the same? Grow the fuck up. Do I like it? No. That is why the US system sucks. It's a shit system, but it's yours to deal with.

Mr. “Wacism” does indeed need to “grow the fuck up.” Political appointments are political appointments, not Civil Service jobs given on the basis of test scores. Patronage jobs are patronage jobs. Nobody’s job was “taken” from them.

Exactly. Next thing Correll will be expousing the point that all such appointments should be made like they do with the USSC justices. You know, based on their ability not their political affliations <rolls eyes>. Fuck me. That aside, Slick Willie got her on a couple of commissions. Big fucking deal.

strawman.

 

[Correll]

Biden picked her for her race and gender

Yep. Absolutely I agree. I also believe he picked her because she is/was a very good prosecutor. I doubt he would have picked her if she didn't have that pedigree also. Fifty times more ability than Palin.

Thank you for your honesty. most liberals on this site, are denying it.

Palin had a pretty good record as a governor of a state. That is a much bigger "pedigree" than prosecutor or senator.

that being said, since you admit that she was picked because of her race and gender, and you are fine with that,


that means that Biden, and you, and dems support anti-white and anti-male racist and sexist discrimination.


that is a policy point, worthy of consideration by voters.

ie, no white man should be voting for the dems.


no one else, who has any family or friend who are white males, should vote for the dems.


no one else, who doesn't want to see white males discriminated against, should vote for the dems.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

... more proof that we are dealing with a “wacism” baby.

 

[Correll]

... more proof that we are dealing with a “wacism” baby.

Dr Grump admitted that Harris was picked because of gender and race.


That is wacist and sexist discrimination.


your inability to challenge my points is clear to us all. Being snide and aloof, is a weak dodge.

 

[Dr Grump]

Dr Grump admitted that Harris was picked because of gender and race
That is wacist and sexist discrimination.

your inability to challenge my points is clear to us all. Being snide and aloof, is a weak dodge.

I said more than that. You can't pick and choose my quotes. Well, you can, but people can read ya know...
Almost every politician is picked due to where they come from, their race, their gender.

 

[Dr Grump]

strawman.

I think you need to look up the definition.

 

[Correll]

... more proof that we are dealing with a “wacism” baby.

Dr Grump admitted that Kamala Harris was chosen based on sex and race. That is actual racism and sexism.


Discussing that fact that Biden and the dems open practice and celebrate anti-white and anti-male discrimination, ie racism and sexism,

is completely relevant to the topic of whether opposition to her appointment is solely based on wacism.


Do you disagree with Dr Grump, that Kamala Harris was chosen based on sex and race?