Vote for one of these Democratic primary candidates:
A black liberal woman from CA is going to have trouble (or at least is easily attackable), but Klobuchar has already been tainted with the ‘mean boss’ brush, so I went with the one I felt was more electable.
I like Harris better than I thought I would, but Klobuchar might be my top candidate at this point, so I went with her.
Harris. I think they are both phonies, but at least Harris pretends to be progressive.
Really? “MEAN BOSS?” I’d love an example of a man who was tarred with that brush and failed as a result. And not sexual harassers, but simply MEAN BOSS.
There aren’t any. Men are tough and decisive, demanding the best. Women are mean harpy shrew bitchy scolds.
Jesus fucking Christ. In 2019.
Being abusive and disrespectful towards those who cannot fight back is a character flaw. So is emotional instability.
Richard Nixon was emotionally unstable. He used to get drunk and tell the military to nuke nations. The military ignored him.
Lots of us do not want an emotionally unstable person who doesn’t respect or value people beneath them in charge of the country. We already have that. No, Trump didn’t lose because he has those things but America is worse off because of it.
Also Klobuchar’s fake midwest charm is obnoxious to me. I don’t find it charming at all.
Kamala Harris FTW!
I am not happy with Harris being one of the Democrats who called by tweet what happened to Jussie Smollett an attempted modern day lynching and now she is going to wait for the truth. I don’t know if it’s because he is a friend of hers and that clouded her judgment at the time. Given her previous professions, she should have known better.
You put more separation between yourself and Trump in terms of sane leadership by waiting for facts or by delicately using conditional phrases in such a scenario. This is more helpful for real victims too. Much of the media cares more about being first to report something juicy than being accurate. I think Klobuchar understands this, is above it, and could be considered the most measured candidate from what we see on the surface. I absolutely don’t know who she is behind the scenes and will try to objectively evaluate anything relevant, which I haven’t done because it’s early.
I’ve been arguing with my wife (who will be pissed that Hillary lost until the day she dies) that what Klobuchar is accused of wouldn’t have been considered that big a deal if a man did it. She disagrees with me.
I think I personally prefer Klobuchar, but the ‘bitchy woman’ thing is something that she will have to deal with.
And another reason (well four reasons) to pick Harris is Minnesota’s track record of losing nominations and/or elections (Stassen, McCarthy, Humphrey and Mondale).
no - The Bern is on.
I’d like to think I treat both genders equally on this issue, but realistically I’m sure I’m guilty of some sexism on the issue.
However, an abusive boss to me implies many things, all bad.
- Emotional instability and an inability to handle stress
- An inability to attract and retain quality talent (people with talent and options generally move on to better jobs)
- Incompetence at social intelligence
- Cruelty and indifference to the weak and powerless
Overall, I think I’d be as opposed to a man doing this as a woman. But I’m sure there are some gender biases in there.
But I don’t get why some people are just writing this off as ‘worrying over nothing’. Its not nothing. If someone does the things above, that shows they may lack the temperament for president. When Donald Trump watches a fox news story critical of flag burning, and immediately tweets that flag burners should have their citizenship taken away that is a bad thing. When Nixon gets drunk and paranoid and trys to start a nuclear war that is a bad thing.
The only other men who seem to have been accused of the same are Trump & Nixon. I’m not sure which democrat males have been accused of the same, although I’m sure they are out there.
Do we have any concrete details of what she did that was abusive, or is it just the vague “she was an abusive boss”?
Agreed. Abusive ≠ Tough. Stories of Steve Jobs being an abusive jerk as a boss did not serve him well. He got away with it only because he had major results under his belt. Klobuchar does not. Being a good president in particular means being able to run a team well. We currently have a crappy boss in charge and another one is not the best choice even if that bosses goals overlap with mine. We want someone who can manage people well.
Maybe “we” are more willing to call out a woman who is an abusive boss than a man who is, maybe we expect better from a woman as a matter of stereotypes, maybe. So, for example, Bernie Sanders has not suffered as greatly from similar charges that
But in my book any abusive boss has a big strike against them as a presidential nominee. It speaks to a needed part of the skillset.
Chronos, yes.
Didn’t know that about Sanders, that is disappointing.
And yes, abusive doesn’t mean the same as tough or effective. Maurice Hilleman was supposedly a very tough boss, but he invented 40 vaccines and had a very loyal staff.
Klobuchar just sounds like she is driving away all the talented people underneath her.
I don’t feel at all confident in my sense of either of them, and they seem a lot alike politically. It’s hard to make a choice. Kamala is probably better in that she’s clever enough to see that she has to go way to the left.
But I voted for Amy. I picked the white lady with native-born parents this time, because I think Kamala is a little “too foreign” to lead a country that picks on Barack Obama & Ted Cruz as much as we seem to have done.