What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Kamala Harris' border crisis. Biden put her in charge. (2 Viewers)

ekbeats said:
Wait, so 22 current and former aides to Kamala are criticizing her because they are sexist?
Click to expand...
Not what I’m saying. What I am saying is that we rarely hear the same type of criticisms about men in charge. 
For example, I just finished re-reading William Manchester’s wonderful biography of Winston Churchill, The Last Lion. There is not one criticism of Kamala in that article that didn’t also apply to Churchill. Not a single one. He was guilty of all of the exact same traits. 
And no I am NOT comparing Kamala Harris to Winston Churchill; I don’t think she’s about to save western civilization any time soon. I’m simply pointing out that male leaders are often given credit for the same exact traits that we criticize women for. 

 
timschochet said:
Not what I’m saying. What I am saying is that we rarely hear the same type of criticisms about men in charge. 
For example, I just finished re-reading William Manchester’s wonderful biography of Winston Churchill, The Last Lion. There is not one criticism of Kamala in that article that didn’t also apply to Churchill. Not a single one. He was guilty of all of the exact same traits. 
And no I am NOT comparing Kamala Harris to Winston Churchill; I don’t think she’s about to save western civilization any time soon. I’m simply pointing out that male leaders are often given credit for the same exact traits that we criticize women for. 
Click to expand...
That may not be true.   Did Churchill hold grudges and act passively  aggressive.   Or look to shift blame?

 
timschochet said:
Not what I’m saying. What I am saying is that we rarely hear the same type of criticisms about men in charge. 
For example, I just finished re-reading William Manchester’s wonderful biography of Winston Churchill, The Last Lion. There is not one criticism of Kamala in that article that didn’t also apply to Churchill. Not a single one. He was guilty of all of the exact same traits. 
And no I am NOT comparing Kamala Harris to Winston Churchill; I don’t think she’s about to save western civilization any time soon. I’m simply pointing out that male leaders are often given credit for the same exact traits that we criticize women for. 
Click to expand...
A couple of things.

1. What was generally acceptable in 1941 is different than what's accepted in 2021.

2. Winners get the benefit of the doubt. Especially historically.

Bill Belichick can get away with things Adam Gase would be shredded for doing. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
A couple of things.

1. What was generally acceptable in 1941 is different than what's accepted in 2021.

2. Winners get the benefit of the doubt. Especially historically.

Bill Belichick can get away with things Adam Gase would be shredded for doing. 
Click to expand...
That’s fair. Particularly your second point but it’s fair. 
But I still think we make distinctions between women and men in terms of how we regard their behavior in leadership positions. We expect women to be less aggressive, more fair, more reasonable, less ruthless, less ambitious. And we’re critical when they’re not, when they behave like men. 

 
I have found it interesting Harris is seeing so much criticism from sites like Daily Beast and others who are normally much more sympathetic to the Dem side.

Good to know we still have some folks though that will dig in and deflect any criticism... ;)  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
I have found it interesting Harris is seeing so much criticism from sites like Daily Beast and others who are normally much more sympathetic to the Dem side.

Good to know we still have some folks though that will dig in and deflect any criticism... ;)  
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to do that. I’m simply pointing out a discrepancy which really has nothing to do with the specifics of how Harris is performing. 

Ultimately I think your main point is correct: Harris will be judged, with regard to the border, not on her personality traits but on how successful she is. And right now, truth be told, she’s not very successful. 

 
And what I mean by that is i find it fascinating people can't see something negative about their side and say, "That's bad. We should do better." Full Stop.

Instead, it's "That's troubling. But what about..." It's fascinating. 

 
timschochet said:
Not what I’m saying. What I am saying is that we rarely hear the same type of criticisms about men in charge. 
For example, I just finished re-reading William Manchester’s wonderful biography of Winston Churchill, The Last Lion. There is not one criticism of Kamala in that article that didn’t also apply to Churchill. Not a single one. He was guilty of all of the exact same traits. 
And no I am NOT comparing Kamala Harris to Winston Churchill; I don’t think she’s about to save western civilization any time soon. I’m simply pointing out that male leaders are often given credit for the same exact traits that we criticize women for. 
Click to expand...
off the top of my head….

Bill Clinton

Donald Trump 

Kacey Kasem

Tom Cruise

Bill O’Reilly

 
Joe Bryant said:
And what I mean by that is i find it fascinating people can't see something negative about their side and say, "That's bad. We should do better." Full Stop.

Instead, it's "That's troubling. But what about..." It's fascinating. 
Click to expand...
It may be fascinating to you but the example you’re using isn’t a good one. I’m not a fan in particular of Kamala Harris. I’ve been pretty critical of her especially on this issue. My point about regarding women differently was not a “what about” or an attempt at deflection, it was an honest expression of a thought that occurred to me. 
There are plenty of “what about” posts in this forum and I’ve been guilty of more than my share. But this wasn’t one of them. 

 
timschochet said:
It may be fascinating to you but the example you’re using isn’t a good one. I’m not a fan in particular of Kamala Harris. I’ve been pretty critical of her especially on this issue. My point about regarding women differently was not a “what about” or an attempt at deflection, it was an honest expression of a thought that occurred to me. 
There are plenty of “what about” posts in this forum and I’ve been guilty of more than my share. But this wasn’t one of them. 
Click to expand...
We'll disagree. In my opinion, that was text book whataboutism deflection. I saw it for four years with Trump. I know what it looks like. And to be clear, I don't care at all. I just find it super interesting. The social dynamics in play here are infinitely more interesting to me than any policy discussions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
We'll disagree. In my opinion, that was text book whataboutism deflection. I saw it for four years with Trump. I know what it looks like. And to be clear, I don't care at all. I just find it super interesting. The social dynamics in play here are infinitely more interesting to me than any policy discussions.
Click to expand...
It’s one thing to disagree with me about policy. It’s quite another to disagree with me about my own intention for posting something. When you do that, you’re essentially calling me a liar. I told you what my intention was; I’m asking you, politely, to take my word for it that I’m not lying to you or anyone else here. 

 
timschochet said:
It’s one thing to disagree with me about policy. It’s quite another to disagree with me about my own intention for posting something. When you do that, you’re essentially calling me a liar. I told you what my intention was; I’m asking you, politely, to take my word for it that I’m not lying to you or anyone else here. 
Click to expand...
Zero question about your intent. I'm telling you what it looks like. 

 
timschochet said:
It may be fascinating to you but the example you’re using isn’t a good one. I’m not a fan in particular of Kamala Harris. I’ve been pretty critical of her especially on this issue. My point about regarding women differently was not a “what about” or an attempt at deflection, it was an honest expression of a thought that occurred to me. 
There are plenty of “what about” posts in this forum and I’ve been guilty of more than my share. But this wasn’t one of them. 
Click to expand...
But Tim,

We're in the Kamala Harris thread.  This is her supposedly biggest priority.  And you yourself said she's doing a bad job.  But rather than just talk about her and the job she's doing--you go off on a several post aside about how we're not fair to women.  Why not discuss Kamala?  Why the aside? Seems like a lot of deflection and protection when it's a Dem.  The thought occured, so let's span several posts NOT talking about the job Kamala is doing?  You're telling me in the same breath that she's done a poor job--but also people are saying she's doing a poor job because she's a woman?

The other day there was a post about Facebook and Twitter censoring something.  Rather than discussing social media restricting news stories--you went off on a tangent about the definition of censorship.

I don't mean this as an attack.  I honestly like you as a poster and enjoy our interactions.  But you often seem determined to undermine the subject matter when it's potentially sympathetic to the GOP or looks unfavorably for Dems.  

And I think a lot of posters do that.  And I think that's what Joe is getting at.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192 said:
But Tim,

We're in the Kamala Harris thread.  This is her supposedly biggest priority.  And you yourself said she's doing a bad job.  But rather than just talk about her and the job she's doing--you go off on a several post aside about how we're not fair to women.  Why not discuss Kamala?  Why the aside? Seems like a lot of deflection and protection when it's a Dem.  The thought occured, so let's span several posts NOT talking about the job Kamala is doing?  You're telling me in the same breath that she's done a poor job--but also people are saying she's doing a poor job because she's a woman?

The other day there was a post about Facebook and Twitter censoring something.  Rather than discussing social media restricting news stories--you went off on a tangent about the definition of censorship.

I don't mean this as an attack.  I honestly like you as a poster and enjoy our interactions.  But you often seem determined to undermine the subject matter when it's potentially sympathetic to the GOP or looks unfavorably for Dems.  

And I think a lot of posters do that.  And I think that's what Joe is getting at.  
Click to expand...
I don’t mind Joe or you or anyone else reading what I wrote and then making assumptions about my motive for writing it. But if I correct you guys and inform you of exactly what my motive really was, then if someone continues to assume my previous motive, then I do mind because that means they assume Im not telling the truth. 
In the case of the censorship thread, what I wrote was to me a very important point that I’ve made for months now: Facebook and the others are private companies so IMO it’s not really censorship and it’s certainly not a violation of the 1st Amendment. That was not meant to undermine or distract from the issue; that WAS the issue. 
In this case I noticed a pattern regarding articles about women in power and I wanted to address it. It was not meant to undermine or distract. It was meant to bring up a new aspect for discussion. That was my motive. 

 
timschochet said:
I don’t mind Joe or you or anyone else reading what I wrote and then making assumptions about my motive for writing it. But if I correct you guys and inform you of exactly what my motive really was, then if someone continues to assume my previous motive, then I do mind because that means they assume Im not telling the truth. 
In the case of the censorship thread, what I wrote was to me a very important point that I’ve made for months now: Facebook and the others are private companies so IMO it’s not really censorship and it’s certainly not a violation of the 1st Amendment. That was not meant to undermine or distract from the issue; that WAS the issue. 
In this case I noticed a pattern regarding articles about women in power and I wanted to address it. It was not meant to undermine or distract. It was meant to bring up a new aspect for discussion. That was my motive. 
Click to expand...
Sorry but I’ve seen you tell plenty of others what their intent behind posts are and you hammer them the hell out of them even after they correct you.  You aren’t the arbiter of every opinion and every thread here even though you win them all with volume.  Just saying if you don’t like it done to you don’t do it to others and choose your words more carefully.  In this case keep it about the job Harris is doing and not about her gender 

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Sorry but I’ve seen you tell plenty of others what their intent behind posts are and you hammer them the hell out of them even after they correct you.  You aren’t the arbiter of every opinion and every thread here even though you win them all with volume.  Just saying if you don’t like it done to you don’t do it to others and choose your words more carefully.  In this case keep it about the job Harris is doing and not about her gender 
Click to expand...
The part about doing it to others is a fair criticism. 

 
Kamala has some work to do before 2024.

That race is coining to be wide open for the Dems. She has a huge advantage but if I had to bet now she won’t be the nom. 

 
timschochet said:
I don’t mind Joe or you or anyone else reading what I wrote and then making assumptions about my motive for writing it. But if I correct you guys and inform you of exactly what my motive really was, then if someone continues to assume my previous motive, then I do mind because that means they assume Im not telling the truth. 
In the case of the censorship thread, what I wrote was to me a very important point that I’ve made for months now: Facebook and the others are private companies so IMO it’s not really censorship and it’s certainly not a violation of the 1st Amendment. That was not meant to undermine or distract from the issue; that WAS the issue. 
In this case I noticed a pattern regarding articles about women in power and I wanted to address it. It was not meant to undermine or distract. It was meant to bring up a new aspect for discussion. That was my motive. 
Click to expand...
I don't mean to call you dishonest.  There just seems to be a pattern of "I won't discuss this big issue.  But hey, let's talk about this tangent I find important."  

I'll take you at your word.  But you can see how several posts about gender based criticism with 1 sentence about how Kamala has done poorly on the border creates that perception.

 
The General said:
Kamala has some work to do before 2024.

That race is coining to be wide open for the Dems. She has a huge advantage but if I had to bet now she won’t be the nom. 
Click to expand...
I'd bet the farm she won't be.

 
If Joe doesn’t run, then the formula is unchanged: whoever gets the support of Jim Clyburn and the black voters of South Carolina (mostly women, mostly churchgoers) will be the nominee. At the moment it’s hard to see how that wouldn’t be Kamala but who knows? It won’t be anyone too progressive. 

 
@timschochet I'd also like to add:

It seems odd to feel the need to bring up gender.  You said yourself she's doing a bad job.  But then perhaps she's being criticized too harshly because she's a woman.  

Are you being too harsh on her due to her gender?

Is it possible--that since you agree she could have handled this a lot better--that she's getting an appropriate amount of criticism--and the fact that she is a female has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 
timschochet said:
You’re assuming Joe won’t run again. I think it’s still over 50% that he will. 
Click to expand...
He'll be 81.  Will voters worry about his health/ability to survive the term at that age?

He's vanilla.  He was the ideal guy after Trump.  Is he the ideal guy for 2024? Especially if Republicans aren't turning to Trump?

I think for a number of reasons, it's unlikely he runs again.  Maybe I'll be wrong on that.  But If I were a betting man, I think the 2024 nominee isn't Biden or Harris.

 
jm192 said:
He'll be 81.  Will voters worry about his health/ability to survive the term at that age?

He's vanilla.  He was the ideal guy after Trump.  Is he the ideal guy for 2024? Especially if Republicans aren't turning to Trump?

I think for a number of reasons, it's unlikely he runs again.  Maybe I'll be wrong on that.  But If I were a betting man, I think the 2024 nominee isn't Biden or Harris.
Click to expand...
JHC.  We're all worried about it now!  ;)

It's not debatable that there is something seriously wrong with Biden's cognitive abilities.  We've seen it in just about every old person since the beginning of time but the left wants to pretend what they're seeing now isn't really what they're seeing.

My personal opinion is that Joe doesn't run and Kamala will.  Kamala will because the Democrat Party will support her because she was the VP.  For better or for worse, they will stand behind her.  She won't win, of course, but the DNC will go down with the horse they brought to the race.

There is simply no way Joe can or will run again.  TBH, if there is one person the DNC won't stand behind, it's an 81 year old handicapped POTUS.  That's why Kamala will fall backwards into the nom.  Just like she's done at every stage of her political career.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192 said:
@timschochet I'd also like to add:

It seems odd to feel the need to bring up gender.  You said yourself she's doing a bad job.  But then perhaps she's being criticized too harshly because she's a woman.  

Are you being too harsh on her due to her gender?

Is it possible--that since you agree she could have handled this a lot better--that she's getting an appropriate amount of criticism--and the fact that she is a female has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
My criticism of Harris on the border is based on policy (actually lack of it,) The article in question criticizes her management style, and as I wrote I’ve noticed that whenever these type of articles appear they tend to be more critical of women than men. That’s my impression anyhow and why I pointed it out. 

 
It's a long way until 2024 and a lot can change, but right now it's hard to see Harris beating any Republican nominee.  She's kind of the presumptive nominee right now if Biden doesn't run again (I think he will, in the absence of some sort of health scare) but that presumption won't last long if she continues to struggle.  The Democrats have a pretty decent bench and there's no reason why they need to hitch their wagon to a loser.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
It's a long way until 2024 and a lot can change, but right now it's hard to see Harris beating any Republican nominee.  She's kind of the presumptive nominee right now if Biden doesn't run again (I think he will, in the absence of some sort of health scare) but that presumption won't last long if she continues to struggle.  The Democrats have a pretty decent bench and there's no reason why they need to hitch their wagon to a loser.
Click to expand...
I would hope they think long and hard about and their chances.  I am also hoping for no Trump b/c I really hated casting the "whoever is not that guy" vote.  I'd like to get back to voting for someone I actually want to vote for.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
It's a long way until 2024 and a lot can change, but right now it's hard to see Harris beating any Republican nominee.  She's kind of the presumptive nominee right now if Biden doesn't run again (I think he will, in the absence of some sort of health scare) but that presumption won't last long if she continues to struggle.  The Democrats have a pretty decent bench and there's no reason why they need to hitch their wagon to a loser.
Click to expand...
I disagree with this. 
Assuming it’s Harris- if she’s running against a Trumpy she wins. If she’s running against a decent opponent that will be more difficult. But right now the Republicans seem incapable of putting up a candidate who isn’t either Trump endorsed or the man himself. And that would give Harris the strong edge no matter what her weaknesses might appear to be. 

 
I guess I'm wondering why put the blame on Kamala for the border crisis when the border problems are a direct result of the white house directives.  she is 2nd in charge but make no mistake this open borders thing is from all the Dems because they want open borders because it means more votes & damn upholding the law.

this is really pretty simple.

 
shadrap said:
I guess I'm wondering why put the blame on Kamala for the border crisis when the border problems are a direct result of the white house directives.  she is 2nd in charge but make no mistake this open borders thing is from all the Dems because they want open borders because it means more votes & damn upholding the law.

this is really pretty simple.
Click to expand...
Democrats do not want open borders. We do not have open borders. This is simply false. 

 
People seem to think that encounters = people staying in the country.  We are still turning away 1000s and 1000s, which is I believe what Tim is getting at.  

 
I wish everyone would stop for a moment, today on the 4th of July, and consider why these people make the long trek to come to our borders, risking their lives, and then are willing to risk their lives and freedom further crossing our borders without papers? They’re not coming here for welfare checks, and they’re not coming here to vote Democrat in the next election. 

They come because for all our faults, America remains what my Jewish ancestors called “the Golden Medina”: the land of opportunity like no other. We remain, for most of the world, the most desirable country to live and prosper in human history, quite literally the shining city on the hill, the land of dreams. 

Let’s not give that up. Happy 4th of July everyone. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
It's a long way until 2024 and a lot can change, but right now it's hard to see Harris beating any Republican nominee.  She's kind of the presumptive nominee right now if Biden doesn't run again (I think he will, in the absence of some sort of health scare) but that presumption won't last long if she continues to struggle.  The Democrats have a pretty decent bench and there's no reason why they need to hitch their wagon to a loser.
Click to expand...
If Harris were the default nominee then she would not have been put in charge of a losing proposition like the border. 

 
MAC_32 said:
If Harris were the default nominee then she would not have been put in charge of a losing proposition like the border. 
Click to expand...
I wondered about this too.  If I were Biden -- or more likely an extremely influential person in Biden's orbit -- and I wanted to destroy Kamala Harris, I would have put in charge of the border and voting rights.  Two very high-profile issues that the base feels passionately about and that are completely outside a VP's ability to influence.

 
John123 said:
Biden is re-importing previously deported illegals,. and flying them back at our expense.  Don't tell me they don't want open borders.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that would allow certain previously deported immigrants to apply to return to the U.S. for humanitarian reasons (who I imagine shouldn't have been deported in the first place or perhaps were done so without due process). 

 
Up Up and Away!

6 straight months encounters have increased at the border.  Another all time high.  Momala's visit to the border patrol station didn't seem work.  They're doing nothing to stop this.

#1 voting issue in 2022.

 
tonydead said:
Up Up and Away!

6 straight months encounters have increased at the border.  Another all time high.  Momala's visit to the border patrol station didn't seem work.  They're doing nothing to stop this.

#1 voting issue in 2022.
Click to expand...
It’s disgusting.  These sleezy Dems are circumventing the voters and the law.  The good news is that DACA just got shot down by a Federal judge.

 
jm192 said:
He'll be 81.  Will voters worry about his health/ability to survive the term at that age?

He's vanilla.  He was the ideal guy after Trump.  Is he the ideal guy for 2024? Especially if Republicans aren't turning to Trump?

I think for a number of reasons, it's unlikely he runs again.  Maybe I'll be wrong on that.  But If I were a betting man, I think the 2024 nominee isn't Biden or Harris.
Click to expand...
To be fair, it's entirely possible that the GOP puts Trump up there again in 2024, in which case, pretty much all of the bolded doesn't really matter.

 
Rich Conway said:
To be fair, it's entirely possible that the GOP puts Trump up there again in 2024, in which case, pretty much all of the bolded doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...
100% correct.  
 

I’m holding out hope the GOP comes to it’s senses but they’re definitely keeping that door open.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
US Border Patrol Seizes Fentanyl Bricks Labeled With ‘CNN’ Logo (4/30/22 00:41 PST)
Replies
48
Views
1K
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
(Media Optics) Should Biden Apologize To Border Patrol For False Migrant Whipping Claims? (4/19/22 18:50PST)
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
Boston
Boston
GordonGekko
(Baby Formula Shortage): Biden ADMITS He Knew Of Crisis In Early April (4/27/22 23:53 PST)
8 9 10
Replies
494
Views
12K
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top