Quote: @Vikergirl said:
@ Zanary said:
It's hardly news, the modern left screamed about "NO MORE OLD WHITE MEN", and got the oldest prez-elect...ever. They screamed about our police state, yet elected an architect of both the police state and the NDAA, and with him a shameless climber who slept her way (sorry, the married man was her visible patron during her climb. It doesn't get much more blatant) to a position where she fought and withheld evidence...while locking up many people of color and finding her conviction rate for marijuana an infamous matter of humor.
I really didn't think the "main party" bar would get lower than in 2016, where two candidates no-one trusted were somehow the biggest choices. Y'all found a way. Congrats...you f**ked our country in every possible orifice yet again.
That whole she slept her way to the top is such a grotesque talking point from conservatives. She had a relationship with Willie Brown who had been estranged from his wife for a decade. Harris and Brown dated briefly in the mid-1990s, after Brown had separated from his wife in 1981. The innuendo got really ugly during her presidential campaign. It seems as though he was trying to give himself credit for her success.
In regard to Harris’ marijuana conviction record, it's important to distinguish between her six-year tenure as attorney general of California and her seven-years as San Francisco district attorney. A 1500 figure is often cited but that comes from Harris’ time as attorney general rather than as district attorney. Harris did not prosecute such convictions as attorney general, which at the time fell under the jurisdiction of the district attorney.
At least ONE of the naysayers actually addressed the POINTS. I'm not surprised that it was you, VG.
The simple facts are based on the optics: whatever their relationship, he was a very visible patron of her career and...well, let's just say I triple-dog-dare you to claim that it wouldn't be a "talking point" for the other side in a reverse situation. She had an affair, and the man conspicuously boosted her career. Is it sexist if it's relating facts?
As for the convictions, I am FAR more worried about her fighting DNA evidence until after she had moved on from that office...and she won't comment on that.
She's junk...and that has nothing to do with her plumbing or ethnicity. She is in a position of prominence, and subject to all of the hellish scrutiny that comes with it.
Thank you for addressing the points, instead of just posting dumb little hacks with no substance.
Quote: @Vikergirl said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ Vikergirl said:
@ Zanary said:
It's hardly news, the modern left screamed about "NO MORE OLD WHITE MEN", and got the oldest prez-elect...ever. They screamed about our police state, yet elected an architect of both the police state and the NDAA, and with him a shameless climber who slept her way (sorry, the married man was her visible patron during her climb. It doesn't get much more blatant) to a position where she fought and withheld evidence...while locking up many people of color and finding her conviction rate for marijuana an infamous matter of humor.
I really didn't think the "main party" bar would get lower than in 2016, where two candidates no-one trusted were somehow the biggest choices. Y'all found a way. Congrats...you f**ked our country in every possible orifice yet again.
That whole she slept her way to the top is such a grotesque talking point from conservatives. She had a relationship with Willie Brown who had been estranged from his wife for a decade. Harris and Brown dated briefly in the mid-1990s, after Brown had separated from his wife in 1981. The innuendo got really ugly during her presidential campaign. It seems as though he was trying to give himself credit for her success.
In regard to Harris’ marijuana conviction record, it's important to distinguish between her six-year tenure as attorney general of California and her seven-years as San Francisco district attorney. A 1500 figure is often cited but that comes from Harris’ time as attorney general rather than as district attorney. Harris did not prosecute such convictions as attorney general, which at the time fell under the jurisdiction of the district attorney.
So sexal misdeeds are off limits for liberals but not for conservatives?
The way the brett kavanaugh was treated in my mind makes everyone fair game.
What are you even talking about? Seriously, no one brought up Kavanaugh in this conversation. Your talk of sexual misdeeds is not relevant here, no one said anything about liberals versus conservatives in regard to that. If you are trying to equate Kamala Harris with Brett Kavanaugh you are way off base. That is absolutely ridiculous.
Youre right. Kamala and Brett are not comparable. Harris actually slept her way to the top. Brett Kavanaugh didnt do anything other then be a conservative during the Trump administration. The entire serial gang rapist story was a complete fabrication cooked up by the democrats.
Quote: @Zanary said:
@ mblack said:
@ Zanary said:
It's hardly news, the modern left screamed about "NO MORE OLD WHITE MEN", and got the oldest prez-elect...ever. They screamed about our police state, yet elected an architect of both the police state and the NDAA, and with him a shameless climber who slept her way (sorry, the married man was her visible patron during her climb. It doesn't get much more blatant) to a position where she fought and withheld evidence...while locking up many people of color and finding her conviction rate for marijuana an infamous matter of humor.
I really didn't think the "main party" bar would get lower than in 2016, where two candidates no-one trusted were somehow the biggest choices. Y'all found a way. Congrats...you f**ked our country in every possible orifice yet again.
At the bold
I am not sure which is more pathetic? Your immature, juvenile rant or the fact that someone (you) still cannot see a successful woman for who she is without attributing it to sex. Should we be worried that you are or think like "them" (those that see women as sex objects)?
I would not be surprised if you continue to express your immaturity (or should I say stupidity) by stressing your "point". Feel free to post a link from any rubbish "conservative" source.
I am very aware an supportive of many successful women...who didn't have to bang married men to get to their positions, or engage in horrid abuses of power in the process.
What I find HILARIOUS about your post is that you tried to take me to task...but, didn't actually address the points you put in boldface.
That's pretty fuggin' funny!
There was nothing to address. The part in bold was simply pathetic as I stated. Like I said, I will not be surprised if you continued digging - which you just did. Have at it.
Quote: @mblack said:
@ Zanary said:
@ mblack said:
@ Zanary said:
It's hardly news, the modern left screamed about "NO MORE OLD WHITE MEN", and got the oldest prez-elect...ever. They screamed about our police state, yet elected an architect of both the police state and the NDAA, and with him a shameless climber who slept her way (sorry, the married man was her visible patron during her climb. It doesn't get much more blatant) to a position where she fought and withheld evidence...while locking up many people of color and finding her conviction rate for marijuana an infamous matter of humor.
I really didn't think the "main party" bar would get lower than in 2016, where two candidates no-one trusted were somehow the biggest choices. Y'all found a way. Congrats...you f**ked our country in every possible orifice yet again.
At the bold
I am not sure which is more pathetic? Your immature, juvenile rant or the fact that someone (you) still cannot see a successful woman for who she is without attributing it to sex. Should we be worried that you are or think like "them" (those that see women as sex objects)?
I would not be surprised if you continue to express your immaturity (or should I say stupidity) by stressing your "point". Feel free to post a link from any rubbish "conservative" source.
I am very aware an supportive of many successful women...who didn't have to bang married men to get to their positions, or engage in horrid abuses of power in the process.
What I find HILARIOUS about your post is that you tried to take me to task...but, didn't actually address the points you put in boldface.
That's pretty fuggin' funny!
There was nothing to address. The part in bold was simply pathetic as I stated. Like I said, I will not be surprised if you continued digging - which you just did. Have at it.
Pathetic, but predictable. So insecure in their masculinity, conservative men everywhere despise educated, successful women and condemn them for actions that wouldn't even raise an eyebrow if it were a man.
Women like Harris, Clinton, Warren, Pelosi can't even laugh without it being described as a "cackle" or "an insane joker laugh." Women are described as "shrill" and "annoying." A lot of them don't even realize it, but it's not the individual woman that bothers them; it's all women in positions of power.
Some of these yokels haven't even left the 50s. To gauge just how far we have to go, imagine a woman like Donald Trump running for president. A woman in her 70s, obese, brags about grabbing men by the dick, paid off a porn star while cheating on her third husband....
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ mblack said:
@ Zanary said:
@ mblack said:
@ Zanary said:
It's hardly news, the modern left screamed about "NO MORE OLD WHITE MEN", and got the oldest prez-elect...ever. They screamed about our police state, yet elected an architect of both the police state and the NDAA, and with him a shameless climber who slept her way (sorry, the married man was her visible patron during her climb. It doesn't get much more blatant) to a position where she fought and withheld evidence...while locking up many people of color and finding her conviction rate for marijuana an infamous matter of humor.
I really didn't think the "main party" bar would get lower than in 2016, where two candidates no-one trusted were somehow the biggest choices. Y'all found a way. Congrats...you f**ked our country in every possible orifice yet again.
At the bold
I am not sure which is more pathetic? Your immature, juvenile rant or the fact that someone (you) still cannot see a successful woman for who she is without attributing it to sex. Should we be worried that you are or think like "them" (those that see women as sex objects)?
I would not be surprised if you continue to express your immaturity (or should I say stupidity) by stressing your "point". Feel free to post a link from any rubbish "conservative" source.
I am very aware an supportive of many successful women...who didn't have to bang married men to get to their positions, or engage in horrid abuses of power in the process.
What I find HILARIOUS about your post is that you tried to take me to task...but, didn't actually address the points you put in boldface.
That's pretty fuggin' funny!
There was nothing to address. The part in bold was simply pathetic as I stated. Like I said, I will not be surprised if you continued digging - which you just did. Have at it.
Pathetic, but predictable. So insecure in their masculinity, conservative men everywhere despise educated, successful women and condemn them for actions that wouldn't even raise an eyebrow if it were a man.
Women like Harris, Clinton, Warren, Pelosi can't even laugh without it being described as a "cackle" or "an insane joker laugh." Women are described as "shrill" and "annoying." A lot of them don't even realize it, but it's not the individual woman that bothers them; it's all women in positions of power.
Some of these yokels haven't even left the 50s. To gauge just how far we have to go, imagine a woman like Donald Trump running for president. A woman in her 70s, obese, brags about grabbing men by the dick, paid off a porn star while cheating on her third husband....
Actually, I've lambasted Emperor Cheeto many, many times...so your stereotyping means nothing, here.
I've despised that mysogynist s**t for decades, and have never been shy about it.
What IS telling, however, is that you couldn't actually defend against the points...just made a sweeping (and wasted) generalization that didn't answer any of it.
Swing, miss.
Kamala's a liar. She's not alone in that, but she neglected to tell defense attorneys about issues with a crime lab under her authority (which is a legal requirement), calls Mike Brown's death a "murder" years later, despite the evidence and the court proving differently (she strangely doesn't like court decisions that disagree with her narrative), has parents potentially jailed for their kids' truancy (that's still running), managed to "protect" an unconstitutional prison snitch program...the list goes on.
I'll be relating more later, and all in addition to her ethically-challenged attainment of career patronage. I triple-dog-dare anyone defending her to claim that a reversed situation wouldn't be getting them making an even bigger fuss. In fact, given the absolute shit-show over a recent Supreme Court justice...well, yeah.
A trump supporter calling someone for lying or not being ethical is a thing of beauty. You can't make this up.
Even if you try to ignore the fake uproar you wonder where they've been the last five years. As Chad Ochocinco would say...."child please!".
A what...?
I've been very visibly against both "main" treason clubs for the whole time this board has existed, and years prior.
It ain't a secret.
You're utterly full of meaningless, fictional shit.
Quote: @Zanary said:
A what...?
I've been very visibly against both "main" treason clubs for the whole time this board has existed, and years prior.
It ain't a secret.
You're utterly full of meaningless, fictional shit.
Your bias is exhumed in your posts. Feel free to review and correct. Saying you are against both is not anything to be proud of. The fact that you seem to put both at same level is enough to know where your allegiance is. There is no way anyone with an ounce of objectivity will place Biden and Trump in terms of personel, character, ethics and governing on same level. The Trump regime was simply horrendous for America. Anything less is massaging the truth to help Trump - which is what you have been doing by trying to show how bad the Biden team is.
I see we resorted to foul language now huh?
Quote: @mblack said:
@ Zanary said:
A what...?
I've been very visibly against both "main" treason clubs for the whole time this board has existed, and years prior.
It ain't a secret.
You're utterly full of meaningless, fictional shit.
Your bias is exhumed in your posts. Feel free to review and correct. Saying you are against both is not anything to be proud of. The fact that you seem to put both at same level is enough to know where your allegiance is. There is no way anyone with an ounce of objectivity will place Biden and Trump administration on same level. The Trump regime was simply horrendous for America. Anything less is massaging the truth to help Trump - which is what you have been doing.
I see we resorted to foul language now huh?
Your judgemental wastes of time are nothingness, squared.
I've called out both of those horrid parties forever, and I've called Trump a drooling, horrid idiot for decades...so your froth about "bias" anywhere near him is true ignorance, by someone with more babble than brains.
They are both equally evil in my eyes, as they're complicit in the destruction of the country. One is a shameless, power mongering organization that gets a free pass from the media, the other is a shameless, power mongering organization that gets its "cred" from fighting with said media.
Keeping the country, largely, in an "us vs them" mentality has limited over 100 million people to thinking in moronic binary terms...and both "sides" believe in their imaginary moral superiority. You are a shining example of exactly that!
You can't debate the points, you just go at me...and look like an imbecile in the process. Go chew some crayons, and quit wasting bandwidth.
|
