Not as sad as your apparent unwillingness to see any others.
Failed to be ladylike, apparently.
Nevertheless, she persisted.
I do think after The Trump disaster, and the people who hated Obama, there is going to be a pendulum swing toward a desire for experience in 2020, which does nothing to help a first termer like Harris, but is just one factor of course.
Still dunning the sexism angle? Get over it.
If it’s accurate, I’m not the one with a change to make.
If it’s inaccurate, you have done nothing to demonstrate it.
Clear?
I’ve given half a dozen motivations as equally if not far more likely. What have you demonstrated other than your own militancy? (And not because you’re a woman, since I’m pretty sure you’re not.)
I’d just like to throw Burr on there. After all of the Trump nonsense, he could probably run for President and get it.
Unfortunately, I suspect that he’s the type who would have to be press-ganged into taking the job, rather than taking the mantle willingly.
Why not? I don’t see how resolving differences via pistol duels would be any worse than what we have now.
Or did you mean Richard instead of Aaron?
A murdering traitor who’s been dead for 200 years might be an improvement, actually.
Johnny, you might try taking your own advice, hmm? First Rule of Holes.
…you haven’t really. Sexism seems to be the most likely answer. This was an eye-rolling moment for half the people on the planet. That many of the other half don’t see it is just because we don’t have to live with it every single day.
You bought into a talking point. You’ve already had to concede that the exchange wasn’t as bad as you thought. But this is how narrative’s are born. “Harris was too militant.” “Harris was hysterical.” “Hillary’s emails.” “Deplorables.” Repeat a talking point often enough and it becomes real: even if the talking point is an exaggeration, or a complete and utter lie. So yeah, when you characterize completely normal behaviour as “militant” you are going to get push back. Harris did what I would expect any member of the House or the Senate to do. Holding people to account is not a bad thing. Sessions wasn’t answering the question. And thanks to the interruption he got away with not answering the question. That isn’t a good thing for a democracy.
It had nothing to do with a talking point. First, I’m fairly resistant to conditioning (literally almost contrary), and have a very jaundiced view of talking points, particularly with things that tend to come from the conservative side.
It was my judgment at the time. I’m not sure exactly why, but I tend to discount preconceived notions of people based on their sex, color, creed, etc. I’d know if I thought it because she was a woman, and I didn’t. Period. I voted for her in both the primary and the general (granted, in the general she was running against another woman, so that part isn’t a great supporting argument, but…), for the simple reason that I thought she was better qualified than anybody else.
As for Sessions, he wasn’t going to answer the question anyway. I’d like nothing better than to see him grilled over a slow flame, but I doubt he’s done. Mueller will get it out of him if anybody can, especially if he can get some kind of leverage over Sessions from somebody else. He won’t be able to claim ‘phantom privilege.’
You may well be right that there are still too many people who would never vote for an ambitious woman with qualities that would be “leadership” for a man, who would claim any on the level of Harris to be “too militant” or some such lame excuse, and who would simultaneously actually pride themselves on that meaning they are *not *socially conditionable (!), for her to be elected. But you don’t have to defend them or be one of them.
Oh FFS. Are you serious with this bullshit? I have substantially more self-awareness than your average tree stump or Trump supporter. My knowledge that I’m not socially conditionable comes from a whole lot more than that. For instance, I’m one of those people who, if I’m annoyed by advertising for a certain product/service, will go out of my way NOT to buy it (hence the ‘contrary’ thing, though I should’ve said ‘contrarian.’)
You’ve already shown with your posts (especially the last one) that you’re mortally certain of both my and Burr’s motivations in this. Either I’m a conditioned sexist or it’s by choice, according to you, but one way or the other I’m sexist. You might be right about Burr, I don’t know any more than you do. But as for me, you’re dead fucking wrong.
So get off your high horse. Or don’t, but quit trying to paint me falsely. I don’t care if you, personally, think I’m Johnny Antediluvian. I do care when you’re actively going out of your way to smear me.
As a resident of North Carolina I’d just like to say no. No. No. No. No. No with a side of Hell No.
Also he’s publicly stated that last year was hislast run for public office. I know a politician’s word in this regard is worth the paper it’s printed on, but in this case I really want it to be true.
You’d be the last person to know that, wouldn’t you? So would anyone making that claim. Hannity listeners claim they’re thinking for themselves just because he tells them they are, too.
And yet your views on women’s behavior *bespeak *being conditioned in that way, don’t they? To the point where even having the possibility mentioned elicits a hostile response from you.
No, I’m just asking you to consider some evidence that suggest you may not entirely be the kind of thinker you believe yourself to be. One can only learn when one is willing to learn, no?
All you know of me is from my posts. So I’ll thank you not to judge who I am, because you CLEARLY do not have near enough information.
My views on a woman’s behavior which I later recanted. Sorry, you don’t get to generalize that to the entire feminine gender. Don’t even talk to me about hostile responses when you’ve set yourself up as judge, jury, and executioner, and then decided to mete out your particular conception of justice.
The hell you are. You’ve decided who I am based on some seriously paltry evidence, and proceeded from there as if you’re some kind of final authority. Hell, go back and read my posts on particular issues regarding women when I first came on this board if you want to get a slightly more complete view. There was an abortion thread that (I think, not sure about this one) Euphonious Polemic and I were on the pro side of against the usual suspect conservatives here, for instance.
I’ll tell you what, though, you’re really testing my tolerance of you. You’re not the first person I’ve seriously considered ignoring here, but you’re the first one where I’m getting into action territory. You wanna be Gloria Steinem, fine. But I’m not going to listen to your judgmental and opinionated bullshit anymore. So push it. Just one more time.
(I’m sure you’ll assume I’m in denial, and that I really am the way you’ve pigeonholed me, but you’ve pushed me well beyond the point of caring.)
What the hell does this back and forth bickering on sexism have to do with this thread at this point?
Nothing whatsoever. Sorry for the derail, but I’m not about to let some tunnel-visioned fanatic throw false accusations at me in public.
All this from one person not liking a single word that I used. And not one that most people would deem anywhere in the league of offensive.