The Kamala Harris conundrum.

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
68,183
Reaction score
12,328
Points
2,220
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.

I don't believe that is true. I did not vote for Trump because he is from NYC, or a white male. Hell, NYC, is a minus in my book and just about all the other candidates in the primaries were white males, so, that was a wash. And I liked Ben Carson, and Bobby Jindal. indeed, I had a better initial opinion of them than of Trump.

THe portion of your reply about her record, I did address, and did not disagree with, other than that Palin's had a good record too.

But my point stands. you agree with me that Harris was chosen based on her race and sex. That is racist and sexist discrimination, openly practice and even celebrated by the democratic party.
 

Dr Grump

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
27,653
Reaction score
4,585
Points
280
Location
From the Back of Beyond
I don't believe that is true. I did not vote for Trump because he is from NYC, or a white male. Hell, NYC, is a minus in my book and just about all the other candidates in the primaries were white males, so, that was a wash. And I liked Ben Carson, and Bobby Jindal. indeed, I had a better initial opinion of them than of Trump.

THe portion of your reply about her record, I did address, and did not disagree with, other than that Palin's had a good record too.

But my point stands. you agree with me that Harris was chosen based on her race and sex. That is racist and sexist discrimination, openly practice and even celebrated by the democratic party.
Anybody who voted for Trump has no cause to complain about sexism or racism. The guy is a poster boy for both. "Grabbed a pussy" lately Correll. Owned 300 apratments in one of the most multi-cultural cities in the world Correll, and rented not one to a couple of colour?

Please, Harris is a political appointment as are all politician, judges et al in the US. Harris isn't the problem. Your shit political system is. She is just a symptom, not the cause.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
68,183
Reaction score
12,328
Points
2,220
I don't believe that is true. I did not vote for Trump because he is from NYC, or a white male. Hell, NYC, is a minus in my book and just about all the other candidates in the primaries were white males, so, that was a wash. And I liked Ben Carson, and Bobby Jindal. indeed, I had a better initial opinion of them than of Trump.

THe portion of your reply about her record, I did address, and did not disagree with, other than that Palin's had a good record too.

But my point stands. you agree with me that Harris was chosen based on her race and sex. That is racist and sexist discrimination, openly practice and even celebrated by the democratic party.
Anybody who voted for Trump has no cause to complain about sexism or racism. The guy is a poster boy for both. "Grabbed a pussy" lately Correll. Owned 300 apratments in one of the most multi-cultural cities in the world Correll, and rented not one to a couple of colour?

Please, Harris is a political appointment as are all politician, judges et al in the US. Harris isn't the problem. Your shit political system is. She is just a symptom, not the cause.


1. That you have to go back to the 70s, when his dad was in charge, to back up your wacism accusation, shows that it is bullshit, so drop it.

2. You admitted that Kamala was hired based on her gender and race. That is sexism and racism, right there. Celebrated by the dem party. Discussing it is a valid policy issue.

3. Harris is a political appointment. The flaws of the concept of political appointments are not the topic, and not why I oppose her appointment.
 

Dick Foster

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Messages
7,269
Reaction score
3,650
Points
1,065
Location
The People's Republic of the Californicated
How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.
The Democrats could have put anyone in the VP nomination slot and they would be treated poorly by the GOP; and vice versa. Racist? I don't think so in general. Individual comments may be but the opposition trashes the other party's ticket. Just the way it is.

thank you for your honesty.


tommy knows that, he is just playing the race card. it is a false accusation of racism, for partisan political advantage.
Its not false. Its accurate.
It's bullshit to be precise.
 

Dr Grump

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
27,653
Reaction score
4,585
Points
280
Location
From the Back of Beyond
I don't believe that is true. I did not vote for Trump because he is from NYC, or a white male. Hell, NYC, is a minus in my book and just about all the other candidates in the primaries were white males, so, that was a wash. And I liked Ben Carson, and Bobby Jindal. indeed, I had a better initial opinion of them than of Trump.

THe portion of your reply about her record, I did address, and did not disagree with, other than that Palin's had a good record too.

But my point stands. you agree with me that Harris was chosen based on her race and sex. That is racist and sexist discrimination, openly practice and even celebrated by the democratic party.
Anybody who voted for Trump has no cause to complain about sexism or racism. The guy is a poster boy for both. "Grabbed a pussy" lately Correll. Owned 300 apratments in one of the most multi-cultural cities in the world Correll, and rented not one to a couple of colour?

Please, Harris is a political appointment as are all politician, judges et al in the US. Harris isn't the problem. Your shit political system is. She is just a symptom, not the cause.


1. That you have to go back to the 70s, when his dad was in charge, to back up your wacism accusation, shows that it is bullshit, so drop it.

2. You admitted that Kamala was hired based on her gender and race. That is sexism and racism, right there. Celebrated by the dem party. Discussing it is a valid policy issue.

3. Harris is a political appointment. The flaws of the concept of political appointments are not the topic, and not why I oppose her appointment.
1) Racism is racism. Don't care if you go back to Donald being at the military academy. Leopards don't change their spots. His history shows he has been a piece of shit since high school. Nothing has changed.
2) She was hired due to those reasons and her ability. What you think George Bush Jnr didn't get to where he is today due to politics.
3) Er, the flaws in the political appointment and the reason she got the job are ABSOLUTELY interrelated and part of the topic. And if you can't see that, then you certainly have comprehension issues.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
68,183
Reaction score
12,328
Points
2,220
I don't believe that is true. I did not vote for Trump because he is from NYC, or a white male. Hell, NYC, is a minus in my book and just about all the other candidates in the primaries were white males, so, that was a wash. And I liked Ben Carson, and Bobby Jindal. indeed, I had a better initial opinion of them than of Trump.

THe portion of your reply about her record, I did address, and did not disagree with, other than that Palin's had a good record too.

But my point stands. you agree with me that Harris was chosen based on her race and sex. That is racist and sexist discrimination, openly practice and even celebrated by the democratic party.
Anybody who voted for Trump has no cause to complain about sexism or racism. The guy is a poster boy for both. "Grabbed a pussy" lately Correll. Owned 300 apratments in one of the most multi-cultural cities in the world Correll, and rented not one to a couple of colour?

Please, Harris is a political appointment as are all politician, judges et al in the US. Harris isn't the problem. Your shit political system is. She is just a symptom, not the cause.


1. That you have to go back to the 70s, when his dad was in charge, to back up your wacism accusation, shows that it is bullshit, so drop it.

2. You admitted that Kamala was hired based on her gender and race. That is sexism and racism, right there. Celebrated by the dem party. Discussing it is a valid policy issue.

3. Harris is a political appointment. The flaws of the concept of political appointments are not the topic, and not why I oppose her appointment.
1) Racism is racism. Don't care if you go back to Donald being at the military academy. Leopards don't change their spots. His history shows he has been a piece of shit since high school. Nothing has changed.
2) She was hired due to those reasons and her ability. What you think George Bush Jnr didn't get to where he is today due to politics.
3) Er, the flaws in the political appointment and the reason she got the job are ABSOLUTELY interrelated and part of the topic. And if you can't see that, then you certainly have comprehension issues.

1. Wacism is wacism. My point stands. I did not vote for Trump because of where he came from or his sex or race. I doubt that any significant portion of voters did.

2. And to the extent that those reasons, were standards the barred whites or males, from consideration, it was sexism and racism.

3. But my complaint is the sexism and racism. a more general discussion of political appointments, is another topic.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
64,569
Reaction score
9,766
Points
2,030
How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.
The Democrats could have put anyone in the VP nomination slot and they would be treated poorly by the GOP; and vice versa. Racist? I don't think so in general. Individual comments may be but the opposition trashes the other party's ticket. Just the way it is.

thank you for your honesty.


tommy knows that, he is just playing the race card. it is a false accusation of racism, for partisan political advantage.
Its not false. Its accurate.
It's bullshit to be precise.
This board and reality tell a different story.
 

Dogmaphobe

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
15,596
Reaction score
6,045
Points
1,095
Location
Or uh gun
I don't believe that is true. I did not vote for Trump because he is from NYC, or a white male. Hell, NYC, is a minus in my book and just about all the other candidates in the primaries were white males, so, that was a wash. And I liked Ben Carson, and Bobby Jindal. indeed, I had a better initial opinion of them than of Trump.

THe portion of your reply about her record, I did address, and did not disagree with, other than that Palin's had a good record too.

But my point stands. you agree with me that Harris was chosen based on her race and sex. That is racist and sexist discrimination, openly practice and even celebrated by the democratic party.
Anybody who voted for Trump has no cause to complain about sexism or racism. The guy is a poster boy for both. "Grabbed a pussy" lately Correll. Owned 300 apratments in one of the most multi-cultural cities in the world Correll, and rented not one to a couple of colour?

Please, Harris is a political appointment as are all politician, judges et al in the US. Harris isn't the problem. Your shit political system is. She is just a symptom, not the cause.


1. That you have to go back to the 70s, when his dad was in charge, to back up your wacism accusation, shows that it is bullshit, so drop it.

2. You admitted that Kamala was hired based on her gender and race. That is sexism and racism, right there. Celebrated by the dem party. Discussing it is a valid policy issue.

3. Harris is a political appointment. The flaws of the concept of political appointments are not the topic, and not why I oppose her appointment.
1) Racism is racism. Don't care if you go back to Donald being at the military academy. Leopards don't change their spots. His history shows he has been a piece of shit since high school. Nothing has changed.
2) She was hired due to those reasons and her ability. What you think George Bush Jnr didn't get to where he is today due to politics.
3) Er, the flaws in the political appointment and the reason she got the job are ABSOLUTELY interrelated and part of the topic. And if you can't see that, then you certainly have comprehension issues.
Have you ever considered developing a set of values and principles instead of just relying on the idiotic tribalism of identity politics to form your world view?
 

katsteve2012

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
7,924
Reaction score
3,443
Points
430
Location
California
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.

1. That is not a known fact. Does this person have a name and did he go public with any examples as to him being the better candidate? If so, what did he say? It is entirely possible that she was the better candidate, and just happened to have a relationship with her supervisor. Either way, we don't know for certain.
I am not going to assign victim hood to someone that I know absolutely nothing about.



2. Why would I care about someone who I know nothing about and a situation from decades ago, in which obviously the true facts are only known by the people who were involved?

3. Obviously you are free to state that you THINK that I disagree with the people who believe that she was subjected to racism/, if it makes you feel better, however, I was very clear in stating that her campaign is still too new for me to agree or disagree, and when more information as to what she is experiencing is available, I might possibly have an opinion.

As of today, I do not.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
68,183
Reaction score
12,328
Points
2,220
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.

1. That is not a known fact. Does this person have a name and did he go public with any examples as to him being the better candidate? If so, what did he say? It is entirely possible that she was the better candidate, and just happened to have a relationship with her supervisor. Either way, we don't know for certain.
I am not going to assign victim hood to someone that I know absolutely nothing about.



2. Why would I care about someone who I know nothing about and a situation from decades ago, in which obviously the true facts are only known by the people who were involved?

3. Obviously you are free to state that you THINK that I disagree with the people who believe that she was subjected to racism/, if it makes you feel better, however, I was very clear in stating that her campaign is still too new for me to agree or disagree, and when more information as to what she is experiencing is available, I might possibly have an opinion.

As of today, I do not.


1. I guess technically there is a real possibility that the 29 year old woman,dating the 60 year old man, was actually in love with him AND just happened to be the best candidate for the two jobs he gave her while they were dating. I mean, I'm not that far from 60 and I have women in their twenties making passes at me all the time, so, there is that.


2. Because it is wrong and it reflects on the vp candidate that she was wiling to do that and it reflects on biden that he has no problem with it.


3. YOU STATED that you don't know yet. That is you disagreeing with those that it is obviously wacism. I'm just the person thanking you for your support in dismissing their hysteria.
 

katsteve2012

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
7,924
Reaction score
3,443
Points
430
Location
California
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.

1. That is not a known fact. Does this person have a name and did he go public with any examples as to him being the better candidate? If so, what did he say? It is entirely possible that she was the better candidate, and just happened to have a relationship with her supervisor. Either way, we don't know for certain.
I am not going to assign victim hood to someone that I know absolutely nothing about.



2. Why would I care about someone who I know nothing about and a situation from decades ago, in which obviously the true facts are only known by the people who were involved?

3. Obviously you are free to state that you THINK that I disagree with the people who believe that she was subjected to racism/, if it makes you feel better, however, I was very clear in stating that her campaign is still too new for me to agree or disagree, and when more information as to what she is experiencing is available, I might possibly have an opinion.

As of today, I do not.


1. I guess technically there is a real possibility that the 29 year old woman,dating the 60 year old man, was actually in love with him AND just happened to be the best candidate for the two jobs he gave her while they were dating. I mean, I'm not that far from 60 and I have women in their twenties making passes at me all the time, so, there is that.


2. Because it is wrong and it reflects on the vp candidate that she was wiling to do that and it reflects on biden that he has no problem with it.


3. YOU STATED that you don't know yet. That is you disagreeing with those that it is obviously wacism. I'm just the person thanking you for your support in dismissing their hysteria.
1. That is entirely possible.


2. So, Harris was involved with Willie Brown when she was 29. She is now 55.
If everyone was judged based upon what they did 26 years ago, that was not a crime of any kind, there would be quite a few notable people out there who would have never received a chance to better themselves or even contribute to society.

3. I stated that I have no opinion at this time. Again, if it makes you feel better to view it as me "disagreeing", that is up to you.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
68,183
Reaction score
12,328
Points
2,220
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.

1. That is not a known fact. Does this person have a name and did he go public with any examples as to him being the better candidate? If so, what did he say? It is entirely possible that she was the better candidate, and just happened to have a relationship with her supervisor. Either way, we don't know for certain.
I am not going to assign victim hood to someone that I know absolutely nothing about.



2. Why would I care about someone who I know nothing about and a situation from decades ago, in which obviously the true facts are only known by the people who were involved?

3. Obviously you are free to state that you THINK that I disagree with the people who believe that she was subjected to racism/, if it makes you feel better, however, I was very clear in stating that her campaign is still too new for me to agree or disagree, and when more information as to what she is experiencing is available, I might possibly have an opinion.

As of today, I do not.


1. I guess technically there is a real possibility that the 29 year old woman,dating the 60 year old man, was actually in love with him AND just happened to be the best candidate for the two jobs he gave her while they were dating. I mean, I'm not that far from 60 and I have women in their twenties making passes at me all the time, so, there is that.


2. Because it is wrong and it reflects on the vp candidate that she was wiling to do that and it reflects on biden that he has no problem with it.


3. YOU STATED that you don't know yet. That is you disagreeing with those that it is obviously wacism. I'm just the person thanking you for your support in dismissing their hysteria.
1. That is entirely possible.


2. So, Harris was involved with Willie Brown when she was 29. She is now 55.
If everyone was judged based upon what they did 26 years ago, that was not a crime of any kind, there would be quite a few notable people out there who would have never received a chance to better themselves or even contribute to society.

3. I stated that I have no opinion at this time. Again, if it makes you feel better to view it as me "disagreeing", that is up to you.


1. Of course, I am in better shape than willie was, and a nicer person. He did have power, though. NOt mentioned as proof of whoring, just some women find that attractive. So, yes, a very real possibility. True Love, is never something to be discounted.

2. I'm not really concerned about how this reflects on her, but what it says about biden and the dems that they have no problem with it. any of it. I agree that it was a long time ago. Not as long ago as when Trump was sued for racial discrimination in housing, but still a long time ago.

3. not about my viewing of it. They insist that it is obviously wacism. YOu do not think there is enough evidence to decide as of yet. your position is very much not agreeing with them. If you were white, they would tear your head off and call you wacist. Luckily you get a pass.
 

Dogmaphobe

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
15,596
Reaction score
6,045
Points
1,095
Location
Or uh gun
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.

1. That is not a known fact. Does this person have a name and did he go public with any examples as to him being the better candidate? If so, what did he say? It is entirely possible that she was the better candidate, and just happened to have a relationship with her supervisor. Either way, we don't know for certain.
I am not going to assign victim hood to someone that I know absolutely nothing about.



2. Why would I care about someone who I know nothing about and a situation from decades ago, in which obviously the true facts are only known by the people who were involved?

3. Obviously you are free to state that you THINK that I disagree with the people who believe that she was subjected to racism/, if it makes you feel better, however, I was very clear in stating that her campaign is still too new for me to agree or disagree, and when more information as to what she is experiencing is available, I might possibly have an opinion.

As of today, I do not.


1. I guess technically there is a real possibility that the 29 year old woman,dating the 60 year old man, was actually in love with him AND just happened to be the best candidate for the two jobs he gave her while they were dating. I mean, I'm not that far from 60 and I have women in their twenties making passes at me all the time, so, there is that.


2. Because it is wrong and it reflects on the vp candidate that she was wiling to do that and it reflects on biden that he has no problem with it.


3. YOU STATED that you don't know yet. That is you disagreeing with those that it is obviously wacism. I'm just the person thanking you for your support in dismissing their hysteria.
I know what you mean. I am 65 and I get SO tired of all those women looking me up and down like I am nothing more than one big delicious piece of man candy.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top