That's the 5th paragraph of the New York Times article
"Why Gender May Be the Defining Issue of the Election/The issue is rarely directly addressed by either Vice President Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. But the 2024 contest is, in ways overt and subtle, a referendum on the role of women in American life."
I wonder how the NYT heard the "quiet conversations" and how, assuming you could hear them, you would know that the interlocutors had a particular feeling and it was unshakable, and how, assuming you would know that, the feelers of the unshaken feeling felt that they knew the contents of the mind of the man in her life, that he both wants to support the woman and doesn't want to admit he's having trouble doing what he thinks he is trying to do.
“If she were a man, would this race be this close?” Gov. Janet Mills of Maine asked a clutch of Democratic women after campaigning for Ms. Harris in suburban Pittsburgh. Joyce Reinoso, one of those women, shot back, “Oh, she would’ve won three weeks ago.”...
If Kamala Harris were a man, she would not have been chosen for Joe Biden's Vice President, and if she were not Vice President, she would not have been the one that the nomination that was stolen from him got handed to. She wouldn't be anywhere near the presidency.
পোস্টগুলি
২৪৮টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 248 এর 201 – থেকে 248You're supporting a sh*tty candidate because she's a woman. At least have the presence of mind to realize that and not burden "your man" with the same baggage.
When a man has a problem it’s the man’s fault. When a woman has a problem it’s the man’s fault.
At the staged event, Trump put on an apron to work as a fry attendant and handed people food at the location, which had been closed for the campaign stop. All of the customers were pre-screened to be Trump supporters.
"If Kamala Harris were a man, she would not have been chosen for Joe Biden's Vice President, and if she were not Vice President, she would not have been the one that the nomination that was stolen from him got handed to. She wouldn't be anywhere near the presidency."
She was chosen cause she was so easy to order around. She did what she was told and did not give them any lip... and that is why she became VP. Just a puppet for a puppet.
And she got the nomination cause... well hell they didn't have anyone else that wanted it and no doubt Obama would love to have another puppet that won't give him any lip.
That's one of the more irritating things about Meghan Markle--to her, everything is about women and girls.
Don’t undersell the (dot) Indians. Vance’s wife is wicked smart. Managing editor of HLS law review and SCOTUS clerk.
How's your finger, buddy?
Cruel neutrality. Ambiguous choice. Toxic genderism?
Female narcissists outnumber male narcissists 1000 to 1. To a narcissist like Markle males are a fashion statement, just like her royally queer husband.
Alternative Sub-Head "Partners of female Harris supporters quietly think they're unhinged".
Well played, MG.
This about sums it up…
https://x.com/WeGotsTheMeats/status/1848936836447522845
At the staged event, Trump put on an apron to work as a fry attendant and handed people food at the location, which had been closed for the campaign stop. All of the customers were pre-screened to be Trump supporters.
Really? That happened? I did not know that. I mean, you'd think we would've seen something about it.
Do you have a point?
We were told women no longer needed men. #MessageReceived
Make that last supposition suppositories and that’s a good prescription for what ails teh Left.
Really?
I have to admit that I'm kind of impressed by her ability to put forth such flowery language that ultimately says nothing. There is some talent in being able to do that. Not useful talent though.
And why “south Asian” rather than Indian? Serious question.
“Indian” (and “India”) is Western colonialist terminology anyway. It should be “Bharat-ese”—Bharat being the official name of the subcontinent (now nation) traditionally known as “India” in the West.
Drago nails it.
Gabbard actually got delegates (2 from American Samoa)
can it be called free prose to paralalel free verse?
why did not Clyburn grab for throne?
There are not a lot of women leaders in history. If women made good leaders, societies wouldn't be patriarchal. The truth of this is being borne out with increasing frequency as we see planes with female pilots crash and ships with female captains wreck and companies with female CEO's tank. Women make lousy leaders.
I want the first female president to be competent. Apparently, Harris -- the daughter of two professors -- was admitted to Hastings Law School under a program for students from "disadvantaged educational and economic backgrounds." https://redstate.com/jimthompson/2024/10/22/kamala-got-into-law-school-based-on-program-she-didnt-quality-for-n2180892
That Maria Shriver thing was a pretty quiet conversation.
You got all that from "That Kamala chick, I dunno"?
Hillary had plenty of ability and detailed plans, and zero integrity.
She definitely showed her aft.
Women don't have a mission. They are "the mission". 99 times out of 100 an organization that is female led will cease to be about making money, or being safe, or killing bad guys, or engineering something spectacular, or following the rules. It becomes about following their rules. That entity must A) celebrate them and B) benefit them and them alone.
When a woman takes the helm of anything you're involved in, make a hasty exit. The end is nigh.
"99 times out of 100 an organization that is female led will cease to be about making money, or being safe, or killing bad guys, or engineering something spectacular, or..."
I might have posted a link to this before...
Catfights over handbags and tears in the toilets. When this producer launched a women-only TV company she thought she'd kissed goodbye to conflict...
The venomous women were supposedly the talented employees I had headhunted to achieve my utopian dream - a female- only company with happy, harmonious workers benefiting from an absence of men.
It was an idealistic vision swiftly shattered by the nightmare reality: constant bitchiness, surging hormones, unchecked emotion, attention-seeking and fashion rivalry so fierce it tore my staff apart.
When we had meetings with men, staff turned ferocious, each out to prove that they were the sexiest in the room. With a male commissioner at Channel 4, one employee said 'Watch this!', then stuck her hand down her bra and tweaked her nipples. The man and I were speechless.
In this climate, I didn't dare employ any men because of the distraction and - even worse! - catfights they created. I hate how much that sounds like stereotyping, but I'm afraid it's what I found to be true.
And while I stand by my initial reason for excluding male employees - because they have an easy ride in TV - if I were to do it again, I'd definitely employ men. In fact, I'd probably employ only men.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html
The "quiet part" nobody wants to say is that Harris is where she is because she slept with Willie Brown, who then appointed her to patronage political positions in order to "build her resume". She then ran for various offices IN CALIFORNIA, using the support of Mr. Brown and his massive fundraising machine. She defeated fellow Dems in those races because California has ranked choice voting, so no Republicans ran against her. She ran a terrible race for President in 2020 and dropped out before ANY primaries. She was then picked by Biden for VP, and was SELECTED by Party Leaders to replace him. She has no capacity to be President. If she manages to win it will be Obama's 4th term.
Ambiguity again. "I'm not voting for her because she's a woman" is a sentence that can be read in two different ways. If you aren't voting for someone just because she's a woman, her supporters will assume that you aren't voting for her just because she's a woman. So many women voted for Hillary Clinton because she was a woman and assumed that anyone who voted against her just didn't want a woman president. It's the same with Kamala.
Harris is typical of America's ruling class. Buttigieg and Raimondo are Harvard and Oxford products (Rhodes Scholars). They must be bright and educated, but do they really make more sense or have more substance than Harris? Toss in Yale and Oxford products like Jake Sullivan and Anne Applebaum. None of them were racial minorities either. In today's world, you don't have to be stupid or a moron to be incompetent. It may not even help much.
Something I noticed today while walking through the crowded concourse at love field today: at least one out of four women are wearing t shirts with some kind of “woman power” messaging. One said, “women kicking ass in trades.” Then there’s the evergreen “we’ll behaved women seldom make history.” I should pay more attention and catalogue all the platitudes. Anyway, I find this so tedious. Men just don’t do this sort of thing. They fix your air conditioner, but they don’t don a t-shirt to signal their HVAC supremacy.
Kamala is the perfect distillation of the modern female who is in constant need of contrived affirmation. I just can’t stand it.
AI uses the prompt to accumulate words with mapped potentialities of being related together to produce a response to the prompt.
I asked husband and sons if they'd have any problems voting for a woman. They discussed the question and agreed that they'd have absolutely no problem voting for a woman as long as she was a cross between Golda Meir, Elizabeth I, and Margaret Thatcher.
After America's experience with the first black president, maybe we're just reluctant to tolerate a second one.
Just because you want a woman president does not mean you are obligated to pick the dumbest woman. Plan ahead and nominate a smart one.
she does not resemble Indira Gandhi who sent her grandfather emissary to African revolutionaries
I thought that Kamala had this problem solved by promising $20K "repayment optional" loans exclusively to black men to "start a business."
+1
Joanne Jacobs said…
“Apparently, Harris -- the daughter of two professors -- was admitted to Hastings Law School under a program for students from ‘disadvantaged educational and economic backgrounds.’”
Considering the modern state of higher education, being the child of two professors could plausibly be considered a handicap. Hastings was just ahead of the curve.
During the 2020 Democrat presidential primaries, after Kamala Harris was forced to drop out for lack of support, there was criticism in the mainstream media back then that it was due to sexism. I was quite surprised by that criticism because the people being accused of sexism were necessarily limited to Democrat primary voters.
Brutality! 😁
“She's been bad at every job she's ever had.”
Not every job!
Why not 'gaggle'? If they were conservative women it would be an 'assortment'. But democratic women? A pod?
Then how did Kamala get where she is?
Daughter of two PhDs at Stamford, Stamford professor's child, and self-defined black woman, chose Howard University, the 3rd-rate law school. She would have received a triple-plated admissions bump at Stamford, and perhaps at other linked colleges and universities. It's common for professors to receive both admissions preference and tuition discounts, or even tuition forgiveness, for their children, as another professors' perk. Harris went to 3rd-rate schools, clearly wasn't outstanding student at any of her school.
Curious that no Harris academic records, or graduating GPAs, or SAT/LSAT scores have been released for public information. No statements from her schools, no comments from her teachers or professors, no fellow students publicly supporting her. No discussion of her Canadian high school time-period. Remarkably unknown candidate, with exception of her arm-candy escort past dating-history.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন