Kansas Crimson

Walrus wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:18 pm I don't "only care only in this instance" -- not sure where you came to that conclusion. If the best candidate happens to be a woman, then great. My point is, a job should be chosen on merit and who is the best person for the job. I had no issue with Clinton being a woman, but rather, she was as corrupt as they come. Obama won because he appeared to be the best candidate -- same with Trump. The main point I'm making here is that if you are about to go under for a life-threatening surgery, are you going to ask if the team of surgeons are "diverse" or are you going to be more interested if they do their job well? The fact we have had more men presidents is just a natural thing in nature -- men tend to thrive in leadership roles.

Women also thrive in leadership roles.

Sometimes...

The ones that can think logically and keep their emotions in check, yes.

This company made up of all women, collapsed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... lict-.html

Walrus wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:22 pm How sad is it that we have people choosing people for a very important job based on their sex and what color their skin is. This goes against all logic and reason, and you could even say it is racist.

So, when white males were chosen for all but one election over the past 240+years as the vice-presidential candidates--that had nothing to do with racism/sexism, they were just the best candidate?

However, when the potential Veep candidates are women and possibly black women, suddenly they're not being chosen for being the best candidate, but being a woman and black.

But perhaps it's far too difficult for you to understand that to get this very important job, part of the qualification is fitting on some checklist of what's most politically feasible. Since women did quite well in 2018 and since many of those who got elected were black women, those are two boxes checked off, just like being a white male was on the checklist for almost all of the other elections. But, does your raging misogyny seriously tell us that Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren are not as qualified as Mike Pence?

ETA: Didn't see Phd's post before adding mine.

Walrus wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:26 pm Sometimes...

The ones that can think logically and keep their emotions in check,

I mean, that's true of men too.

Of course. BIden is an example that does not fit the description of a good leader. Andrew Yang is a much better leader and would have been a much better option. Tulsi Gabbard too, would have been a better leader than Biden. See, I support women when they are competent.

I'll just close by saying I've met a lot of professional women over the years that told me they prefer to work with men. The reason? Less drama, the men get their shit done.

In my experience women also get their shit done.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:50 pm In my experience women also get their shit done.

I was just about to post this

Walrus wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:49 pm See, I support women when they are competent.

Where would you like your trophy shipped to?

Walrus wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:26 pm Sometimes...

The ones that can think logically and keep their emotions in check, yes.

This company made up of all women, collapsed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... lict-.html

Good grief. The best you can do is a 15 year old company of half a dozen women.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:44 am

Joe has had some pretty sick burns latey.

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 8:40 am

Walrus wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:26 pm Sometimes...

The ones that can think logically and keep their emotions in check, yes.

This company made up of all women, collapsed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... lict-.html

Good grief. The best you can do is a 15 year old company of half a dozen women.

Just because something dated doesn't mean it's not valid today. Women are known to cause more problems in the workforce than men. Doesn't mean they always do, but everyone on here knows this, whether they would admit it or not. A lot of it stems from women struggling to make a decision. Men are (in general) better at making decisions. A man who can make decisions is very attractive to women, as I've learned in my own life.

Hey man, logically speaking, that comes across as misogynistic as fuck.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 4:15 pm Hey man, logically speaking, that comes across as misogynistic as fuck.

Stop saying comes across as, when it just is. Especially considering it's based on nothing but his own broken life experience.

Walrus wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:49 pm Of course. BIden is an example that does not fit the description of a good leader. Andrew Yang is a much better leader and would have been a much better option. Tulsi Gabbard too, would have been a better leader than Biden. See, I support women when they are competent.

I'll just close by saying I've met a lot of professional women over the years that told me they prefer to work with men. The reason? Less drama, the men get their shit done.

I'm being dead serious in saying I am curious as to why you feel Yang and Gabbard are and would be much better leaders than Biden. Care to elaborate on your feelings? I would appreciate it if you would.

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 8:40 am

Walrus wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:26 pm Sometimes...

The ones that can think logically and keep their emotions in check, yes.

This company made up of all women, collapsed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... lict-.html

Good grief. The best you can do is a 15 year old company of half a dozen women.

and from another continent.

If he's interested in tv, why not bring up Jenji Cohen or Shondra Rhimes...I guess because they've been incredibly succesful. Much more than he's ever been.

Walrus wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 3:34 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 8:40 am

Walrus wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:26 pm Sometimes...

The ones that can think logically and keep their emotions in check, yes.

This company made up of all women, collapsed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... lict-.html

Good grief. The best you can do is a 15 year old company of half a dozen women.

Just because something dated doesn't mean it's not valid today. Women are known to cause more problems in the workforce than men. Doesn't mean they always do, but everyone on here knows this, whether they would admit it or not. A lot of it stems from women struggling to make a decision. Men are (in general) better at making decisions. A man who can make decisions is very attractive to women, as I've learned in my own life.

Good grief, so dumb.

Grandma wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 4:45 pm

Walrus wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:49 pm Of course. BIden is an example that does not fit the description of a good leader. Andrew Yang is a much better leader and would have been a much better option. Tulsi Gabbard too, would have been a better leader than Biden. See, I support women when they are competent.

I'll just close by saying I've met a lot of professional women over the years that told me they prefer to work with men. The reason? Less drama, the men get their shit done.

I'm being dead serious in saying I am curious as to why you feel Yang and Gabbard are and would be much better leaders than Biden. Care to elaborate on your feelings? I would appreciate it if you would.

Because he thinks Gabbard is hot and has lots of right leaning stances. Gabbard was with Sanders and Warren below Biden on my list.

And he'd probably bitch about Yang if he was the nominee and he got to know his platform better.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 4:38 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 4:15 pm Hey man, logically speaking, that comes across as misogynistic as fuck.

Stop saying comes across as, when it just is. Especially considering it's based on nothing but his own broken life experience.

Careful bro, you’re gonna scare him off again.

Then the only place he’ll have his “logical discussions” is on some back room 4chan echo chamber or something.

Let’s try to save him from himself.