^ ^This is an astounding denial of fundamental reality.
I don't know that it really is though except in a handful of situations. I still maintain that most people prefer people with a bit of diplomacy/tact regardless of gender over someone who is confrontation/aggressive in most situations. I think women just aren't as experienced as men when it comes to flexing without alienating.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way would be to say that people just aren't as comfortable with women flexing.
An another is that women flex they tend to make it more personal.
No, it wouldn't be, and that's my point. It's easy to find examples of women who have been criticized for being aggressive. It is less easy to find examples of men who have been criticized for the same thing.
You didn't. You showed up in a thread that you weren't able to understand and misinterpreted my OP even though I explained it to you a number of times.
So you are just trolling. Got it now.
Trump supporters have been creaming their panties for years about Trump's strength, take no prisoners tough guy act, forecefulness in international relations, and standing up to everyone who's been ripping the US off while laughing at us. Then they show up in a thread about female aggression and say that Trump is the biggest victim of criticism to aggressiveness so racism doesn't exist.
Surprise. Surprise.
No, he absolutely is not. Trump is criticized by some people for being aggressive. He is not criticized generally for being aggressive. You and the other poster seem to be having the same problem.
Please.
Trump is never criticized by the "general public."
Tens of thousands of posts attacking him on this forum alone are a figment of your imagination.
:thumbs:
Annd?
altho familiar with the squeeze play, i was at a loss to understand how harris was seen as the sacrifice bunter
while i don't agree with your assessment of harris taking one for the female team (because i have yet to see her as anything but self-serving), i appreciate your response to my question
Males are criticized ALL THE TIME for being too aggressive.
And for not being aggressive enough.
The War On Men?
That's constant and real.
And the solution isn't special privileges for horrible women.
Harris = Thug
Klobuchar = Abusive dry drunk
:shrug:
I didn't get through? :shock: (Color me shocked.) You don't seem to understand your own thread, and your claims have been completely obliterated at this point. :shrug: You've explained nothing; you're completely lost.
Pro tip: Don't post this way to me again.
^ ^Literally makes no sense.
Word salad.
Trump has been ENDLESSLY, MASSIVELY criticized for EVERYTHING.
:shrug:
Honestly, that's pretty silly. He's been known for decades as a hard line negotiator - making and remaking deals, holding employees to high standards. He even had a television show where they highlighted him firing a person each week, often noting 'it's not personal, it's just business'. He'll hold grudges over seemingly insignificant slights, and lapse into insults of those who disagree with him.
But if you think he's a big softie, OK.
and what?
We're having what Hunter S. Thompson would call a failure to communicate. There are 2 or 3 of you posters who don't understand the difference between being criticized generally/widely and being critized by partisans for partisan reasons. People generally/widely criticize Harris and other women for being too aggressive, including people who would otherwise support her. People who support Trump do not criticize him for being too aggressive. They applaud it. They celebrate it. They starch their MAGA hats in honor of it. Never did I say or suggest that Trump is a big softie, but if you must have a conversation with yourself because you can't stay grounded in the one we're having, then I ask that you find someone else to listen to you.
Who would have been the right person to leave the campaign? You obviously have something to say.
Pro tip: When you tell a poster that he doesn't understand his own thread, you're the one who can't understand it.
I agree that we're having a failure to communicate. Note that it's hard to have a conversation when you are lobbing out personal attacks at anyone. This is especially true in a case like this, where you are using your own yardstick to measure people, not sharing it, and accusing anyone who disagrees as being wrong and stupid.
I think you are actually giving more clarity here - If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Harris is 'criticized' (in a negative way) for being too aggressive by both sides. Whereas Trump is 'criticized' (negative) by the left, and complimented (positive) by the right for being too aggressive. Does that sum it up?
And if so - I still respectfully disagree. Both have received 'criticism' (positive, negative, and constructive) for being aggressive, from both supporters and detractors.
and since you think I have something to say, you clearly know the answer to your question. And the right person has finally left that campaign.
Maybe with normal posters, but in this case he has characterized your lack of understanding your own post with perfect clarity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?