Second Gentleman scandal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emhoff not such a mensch, if true. How did this not come out earlier?? Terrible timing! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13703933/Kamala-Harris-Doug-Emhoff-cheated-nanny-Najen-Nayler.html

Oh just shut up and come back when the opposition is lily white and has not been divorced twice and been unfaithful to all three wives and had unprotected sex with a porn star. Of a candidate who has not been convicted of 34 felonies as well as convicted of sexual assault with both convictions Leith over half a BILLION dollars in fines.

Sex with someone other than your wife is nothing in comparison to the GOP oinker.

Correct me if I’m wrong — orange man slept with the porn star literally two times in a hotel? Doug was carrying on a months long affair in his own home with the nanny. And knocked her up.

Trump cheated on both wife one and wife two. He’s been accused of sexual assault and creeping on minors. He has 5 kids by three wives. The first one accused him of rape. None of my business if people cheat on each other but rape and hush money is a much bigger issue than a run of the mill affair. And he’s running for president, not First Gentleman. This silliness can die.

First, as the kids say, with Trump, we been knew. Your ranting, and his disgusting personality, lost its impact long, long ago. Second, the current president had four kids by two wives, so I don't understand your point there.

But mostly, this thread isn't about him. Why can't you stop talking about him?

Emhoff's past is a nonissue as far as I'm concerned, unless additional stories of having sex with his employees emerge, but it is certainly an unsavory news item today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emhoff not such a mensch, if true. How did this not come out earlier?? Terrible timing! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13703933/Kamala-Harris-Doug-Emhoff-cheated-nanny-Najen-Nayler.html

Oh just shut up and come back when the opposition is lily white and has not been divorced twice and been unfaithful to all three wives and had unprotected sex with a porn star. Of a candidate who has not been convicted of 34 felonies as well as convicted of sexual assault with both convictions Leith over half a BILLION dollars in fines.

Sex with someone other than your wife is nothing in comparison to the GOP oinker.

Correct me if I’m wrong — orange man slept with the porn star literally two times in a hotel? Doug was carrying on a months long affair in his own home with the nanny. And knocked her up.

I feel like some posters are just now learning how babies are made

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is why democrats tried the whole Vance couch story. Meanwhile Kamala and Doug are the real weirdos.

God I love you and I really hope you're from America and not some Russian bot because you are hilarious. Keep it up hun

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emhoff had a position of power relative to the nanny, and he abused it.

Was the pregnancy terminated?

The gossip mill says maybe.

None of the rest of the world cares.

I care. The first guy sounds like a loose cannon sex pest who can be blackmailed and extorted. .

How can he be blackmailed now that it's all out?

He’s a creepy sex pest. You think this is the only time in his life he’s had poor judgment and low impulse around women? You think this is the only skeleton in his Hollyweird closet?

I mean on that logic should Trump even be a candidate?

He probably IS being blackmailed by the Russians.

[Anonymous]

It is not, of course, surprising but still a little sad that the same people who are finding excuses now for Doug's behavior were some of loudest "me too" screamers back in the day. Most of the posters seeking excuses for Doug Emhofff in this thread were genuinely horrified, to the core, when Trump's recording of "grab them by the p***y" went viral.

You see, the reason it is different for Trump and for the Republicans is that most of them were not really on the "Me Too" movement wagon. Most of them thought that some of the claims were exaggerated. They worried about presumption of innocence for men, they were concerned about destroying young men's lives over sexual misconduct accusations, rather than saying "believe women". They worried about the safety of their sons in college, even if they were terrified to question the "me too" dogma in public.

The leftist folks who are now excusing Doug Emhoff are doing it not (I would like to think?) because they think it's OK for a powerful white man to be knocking up his female employee, completely derailing her career in the process - right? RIGHT??? It's because they are seeking a victory in this election, and they are considering that victory more important than whatever moral high ground they positioned themselves on earlier in their lives.

Looking through the independent lens, the argument "but Trump did it also!" does not really help your cause. It really does not.

How do republicans and independents read this situation and the left response? They read it that there is no right or wrong, there is only our side and their side. This approach is actually in some ways refreshing; it allows the independent voters to focus on the issues instead of pretending that they are voting for the "good guys". And when it comes to the issues, Trump has some vague constitutional threats that primarily make sense to the lawyers, while Kamala Harris is on record supporting busing and DEI hiring all over the nation.

Dear left, let me give you a hint: if the accusations against Doug Emhoff are true, the right thing to do would be a divorce from his high-earning spouse, social ostracism, and likely jail time if the statue of limitations allows this. IT would benefit from good thorough investigation if other women were similarly propositioned. Are you unwilling to do it because there is an election coming up? Then you better offer a very good tax cut because there is no idealistic reason remaining to vote for you, dear people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is not, of course, surprising but still a little sad that the same people who are finding excuses now for Doug's behavior were some of loudest "me too" screamers back in the day. Most of the posters seeking excuses for Doug Emhofff in this thread were genuinely horrified, to the core, when Trump's recording of "grab them by the p***y" went viral.

You see, the reason it is different for Trump and for the Republicans is that most of them were not really on the "Me Too" movement wagon. Most of them thought that some of the claims were exaggerated. They worried about presumption of innocence for men, they were concerned about destroying young men's lives over sexual misconduct accusations, rather than saying "believe women". They worried about the safety of their sons in college, even if they were terrified to question the "me too" dogma in public.

The leftist folks who are now excusing Doug Emhoff are doing it not (I would like to think?) because they think it's OK for a powerful white man to be knocking up his female employee, completely derailing her career in the process - right? RIGHT??? It's because they are seeking a victory in this election, and they are considering that victory more important than whatever moral high ground they positioned themselves on earlier in their lives.

Looking through the independent lens, the argument "but Trump did it also!" does not really help your cause. It really does not.

How do republicans and independents read this situation and the left response? They read it that there is no right or wrong, there is only our side and their side. This approach is actually in some ways refreshing; it allows the independent voters to focus on the issues instead of pretending that they are voting for the "good guys". And when it comes to the issues, Trump has some vague constitutional threats that primarily make sense to the lawyers, while Kamala Harris is on record supporting busing and DEI hiring all over the nation.

Dear left, let me give you a hint: if the accusations against Doug Emhoff are true, the right thing to do would be a divorce from his high-earning spouse, social ostracism, and likely jail time if the statue of limitations allows this. IT would benefit from good thorough investigation if other women were similarly propositioned. Are you unwilling to do it because there is an election coming up? Then you better offer a very good tax cut because there is no idealistic reason remaining to vote for you, dear people.

You understand that Doug is not on the ballot, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emhoff not such a mensch, if true. How did this not come out earlier?? Terrible timing! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13703933/Kamala-Harris-Doug-Emhoff-cheated-nanny-Najen-Nayler.html

Oh just shut up and come back when the opposition is lily white and has not been divorced twice and been unfaithful to all three wives and had unprotected sex with a porn star. Of a candidate who has not been convicted of 34 felonies as well as convicted of sexual assault with both convictions Leith over half a BILLION dollars in fines.

Sex with someone other than your wife is nothing in comparison to the GOP oinker.

Correct me if I’m wrong — orange man slept with the porn star literally two times in a hotel? Doug was carrying on a months long affair in his own home with the nanny. And knocked her up.

I feel like some posters are just now learning how babies are made

Typically via raw unprotected sex over several months time and never bothering to pull out before ejaculating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not, of course, surprising but still a little sad that the same people who are finding excuses now for Doug's behavior were some of loudest "me too" screamers back in the day. Most of the posters seeking excuses for Doug Emhofff in this thread were genuinely horrified, to the core, when Trump's recording of "grab them by the p***y" went viral.

You see, the reason it is different for Trump and for the Republicans is that most of them were not really on the "Me Too" movement wagon. Most of them thought that some of the claims were exaggerated. They worried about presumption of innocence for men, they were concerned about destroying young men's lives over sexual misconduct accusations, rather than saying "believe women". They worried about the safety of their sons in college, even if they were terrified to question the "me too" dogma in public.

The leftist folks who are now excusing Doug Emhoff are doing it not (I would like to think?) because they think it's OK for a powerful white man to be knocking up his female employee, completely derailing her career in the process - right? RIGHT??? It's because they are seeking a victory in this election, and they are considering that victory more important than whatever moral high ground they positioned themselves on earlier in their lives.

Looking through the independent lens, the argument "but Trump did it also!" does not really help your cause. It really does not.

How do republicans and independents read this situation and the left response? They read it that there is no right or wrong, there is only our side and their side. This approach is actually in some ways refreshing; it allows the independent voters to focus on the issues instead of pretending that they are voting for the "good guys". And when it comes to the issues, Trump has some vague constitutional threats that primarily make sense to the lawyers, while Kamala Harris is on record supporting busing and DEI hiring all over the nation.

Dear left, let me give you a hint: if the accusations against Doug Emhoff are true, the right thing to do would be a divorce from his high-earning spouse, social ostracism, and likely jail time if the statue of limitations allows this. IT would benefit from good thorough investigation if other women were similarly propositioned. Are you unwilling to do it because there is an election coming up? Then you better offer a very good tax cut because there is no idealistic reason remaining to vote for you, dear people.

You understand that Doug is not on the ballot, right?

In my opinion, remaining married to a man like that is an immoral choice. I do not support that choice in my president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emhoff not such a mensch, if true. How did this not come out earlier?? Terrible timing! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13703933/Kamala-Harris-Doug-Emhoff-cheated-nanny-Najen-Nayler.html

The timing is interesting in that maybe it's a smokescreen to deflect from another scandal?

"[Doug] was at the Fire Island Pines yesterday (a gay beach). My brother works there and all the employees at the local store needed to get their id’s checked by secret service."

so being around gay people is a scandal?

Wasn't he away from his wife and with gay men back when Trump was shot? Some gay bicycling or spinning thing in California.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not, of course, surprising but still a little sad that the same people who are finding excuses now for Doug's behavior were some of loudest "me too" screamers back in the day. Most of the posters seeking excuses for Doug Emhofff in this thread were genuinely horrified, to the core, when Trump's recording of "grab them by the p***y" went viral.

You see, the reason it is different for Trump and for the Republicans is that most of them were not really on the "Me Too" movement wagon. Most of them thought that some of the claims were exaggerated. They worried about presumption of innocence for men, they were concerned about destroying young men's lives over sexual misconduct accusations, rather than saying "believe women". They worried about the safety of their sons in college, even if they were terrified to question the "me too" dogma in public.

The leftist folks who are now excusing Doug Emhoff are doing it not (I would like to think?) because they think it's OK for a powerful white man to be knocking up his female employee, completely derailing her career in the process - right? RIGHT??? It's because they are seeking a victory in this election, and they are considering that victory more important than whatever moral high ground they positioned themselves on earlier in their lives.

Looking through the independent lens, the argument "but Trump did it also!" does not really help your cause. It really does not.

How do republicans and independents read this situation and the left response? They read it that there is no right or wrong, there is only our side and their side. This approach is actually in some ways refreshing; it allows the independent voters to focus on the issues instead of pretending that they are voting for the "good guys". And when it comes to the issues, Trump has some vague constitutional threats that primarily make sense to the lawyers, while Kamala Harris is on record supporting busing and DEI hiring all over the nation.

Dear left, let me give you a hint: if the accusations against Doug Emhoff are true, the right thing to do would be a divorce from his high-earning spouse, social ostracism, and likely jail time if the statue of limitations allows this. IT would benefit from good thorough investigation if other women were similarly propositioned. Are you unwilling to do it because there is an election coming up? Then you better offer a very good tax cut because there is no idealistic reason remaining to vote for you, dear people.

You understand that Doug is not on the ballot, right?

In my opinion, remaining married to a man like that is an immoral choice. I do not support that choice in my president.

But Trump isn't immoral?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emhoff had a position of power relative to the nanny, and he abused it.

Was the pregnancy terminated?

The gossip mill says maybe.

None of the rest of the world cares.

I care. The first guy sounds like a loose cannon sex pest who can be blackmailed and extorted. .

How can he be blackmailed now that it's all out?

He’s a creepy sex pest. You think this is the only time in his life he’s had poor judgment and low impulse around women? You think this is the only skeleton in his Hollyweird closet?

I mean on that logic should Trump even be a candidate?

He probably IS being blackmailed by the Russians.

I am certainly not a Trump supporter. I am certainly not a Republican. Of course Trump should not be a candidate. And I also really don't want my female POTUS candidate married to some degenerate creep sex predator sociopath. This is not some "normal" affair. The guy clearly has a screw loose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is not, of course, surprising but still a little sad that the same people who are finding excuses now for Doug's behavior were some of loudest "me too" screamers back in the day. Most of the posters seeking excuses for Doug Emhofff in this thread were genuinely horrified, to the core, when Trump's recording of "grab them by the p***y" went viral.

You see, the reason it is different for Trump and for the Republicans is that most of them were not really on the "Me Too" movement wagon. Most of them thought that some of the claims were exaggerated. They worried about presumption of innocence for men, they were concerned about destroying young men's lives over sexual misconduct accusations, rather than saying "believe women". They worried about the safety of their sons in college, even if they were terrified to question the "me too" dogma in public.

The leftist folks who are now excusing Doug Emhoff are doing it not (I would like to think?) because they think it's OK for a powerful white man to be knocking up his female employee, completely derailing her career in the process - right? RIGHT??? It's because they are seeking a victory in this election, and they are considering that victory more important than whatever moral high ground they positioned themselves on earlier in their lives.

Looking through the independent lens, the argument "but Trump did it also!" does not really help your cause. It really does not.

How do republicans and independents read this situation and the left response? They read it that there is no right or wrong, there is only our side and their side. This approach is actually in some ways refreshing; it allows the independent voters to focus on the issues instead of pretending that they are voting for the "good guys". And when it comes to the issues, Trump has some vague constitutional threats that primarily make sense to the lawyers, while Kamala Harris is on record supporting busing and DEI hiring all over the nation.

Dear left, let me give you a hint: if the accusations against Doug Emhoff are true, the right thing to do would be a divorce from his high-earning spouse, social ostracism, and likely jail time if the statue of limitations allows this. IT would benefit from good thorough investigation if other women were similarly propositioned. Are you unwilling to do it because there is an election coming up? Then you better offer a very good tax cut because there is no idealistic reason remaining to vote for you, dear people.

Nobody is excusing Emhoff's behavior. What he did was vile, it broke up his previous marriage, and harmed his children. He was divorced in 2008, so this happened at least 16 years ago. Your solution makes no sense, as there is no non-consensual sex involved, and the nanny was a 30 year old, not under age. It is also irrelevant to Harris' candidacy, as she is not her spouse, nor did she know him at the time he was engaging in this behavior.

Trump gets brought into this, because HE is the candidate, at the top of the ticket of the "family values" party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emhoff had a position of power relative to the nanny, and he abused it.

Was the pregnancy terminated?

The gossip mill says maybe.

None of the rest of the world cares.

I care. The first guy sounds like a loose cannon sex pest who can be blackmailed and extorted. .

How can he be blackmailed now that it's all out?

He’s a creepy sex pest. You think this is the only time in his life he’s had poor judgment and low impulse around women? You think this is the only skeleton in his Hollyweird closet?

I mean on that logic should Trump even be a candidate?

He probably IS being blackmailed by the Russians.

I am certainly not a Trump supporter. I am certainly not a Republican. Of course Trump should not be a candidate. And I also really don't want my female POTUS candidate married to some degenerate creep sex predator sociopath. This is not some "normal" affair. The guy clearly has a screw loose.

Please explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not, of course, surprising but still a little sad that the same people who are finding excuses now for Doug's behavior were some of loudest "me too" screamers back in the day. Most of the posters seeking excuses for Doug Emhofff in this thread were genuinely horrified, to the core, when Trump's recording of "grab them by the p***y" went viral.

You see, the reason it is different for Trump and for the Republicans is that most of them were not really on the "Me Too" movement wagon. Most of them thought that some of the claims were exaggerated. They worried about presumption of innocence for men, they were concerned about destroying young men's lives over sexual misconduct accusations, rather than saying "believe women". They worried about the safety of their sons in college, even if they were terrified to question the "me too" dogma in public.

The leftist folks who are now excusing Doug Emhoff are doing it not (I would like to think?) because they think it's OK for a powerful white man to be knocking up his female employee, completely derailing her career in the process - right? RIGHT??? It's because they are seeking a victory in this election, and they are considering that victory more important than whatever moral high ground they positioned themselves on earlier in their lives.

Looking through the independent lens, the argument "but Trump did it also!" does not really help your cause. It really does not.

How do republicans and independents read this situation and the left response? They read it that there is no right or wrong, there is only our side and their side. This approach is actually in some ways refreshing; it allows the independent voters to focus on the issues instead of pretending that they are voting for the "good guys". And when it comes to the issues, Trump has some vague constitutional threats that primarily make sense to the lawyers, while Kamala Harris is on record supporting busing and DEI hiring all over the nation.

Dear left, let me give you a hint: if the accusations against Doug Emhoff are true, the right thing to do would be a divorce from his high-earning spouse, social ostracism, and likely jail time if the statue of limitations allows this. IT would benefit from good thorough investigation if other women were similarly propositioned. Are you unwilling to do it because there is an election coming up? Then you better offer a very good tax cut because there is no idealistic reason remaining to vote for you, dear people.

You understand that Doug is not on the ballot, right?

In my opinion, remaining married to a man like that is an immoral choice. I do not support that choice in my president.

But Trump isn't immoral?

If both tickets feature immoral couples acting with impunity, it changes the dynamics of the race.

It also makes any rhetoric by Harris about Trump's immoral behavior to be empty at best, as well as hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not, of course, surprising but still a little sad that the same people who are finding excuses now for Doug's behavior were some of loudest "me too" screamers back in the day. Most of the posters seeking excuses for Doug Emhofff in this thread were genuinely horrified, to the core, when Trump's recording of "grab them by the p***y" went viral.

You see, the reason it is different for Trump and for the Republicans is that most of them were not really on the "Me Too" movement wagon. Most of them thought that some of the claims were exaggerated. They worried about presumption of innocence for men, they were concerned about destroying young men's lives over sexual misconduct accusations, rather than saying "believe women". They worried about the safety of their sons in college, even if they were terrified to question the "me too" dogma in public.

The leftist folks who are now excusing Doug Emhoff are doing it not (I would like to think?) because they think it's OK for a powerful white man to be knocking up his female employee, completely derailing her career in the process - right? RIGHT??? It's because they are seeking a victory in this election, and they are considering that victory more important than whatever moral high ground they positioned themselves on earlier in their lives.

Looking through the independent lens, the argument "but Trump did it also!" does not really help your cause. It really does not.

How do republicans and independents read this situation and the left response? They read it that there is no right or wrong, there is only our side and their side. This approach is actually in some ways refreshing; it allows the independent voters to focus on the issues instead of pretending that they are voting for the "good guys". And when it comes to the issues, Trump has some vague constitutional threats that primarily make sense to the lawyers, while Kamala Harris is on record supporting busing and DEI hiring all over the nation.

Dear left, let me give you a hint: if the accusations against Doug Emhoff are true, the right thing to do would be a divorce from his high-earning spouse, social ostracism, and likely jail time if the statue of limitations allows this. IT would benefit from good thorough investigation if other women were similarly propositioned. Are you unwilling to do it because there is an election coming up? Then you better offer a very good tax cut because there is no idealistic reason remaining to vote for you, dear people.

You understand that Doug is not on the ballot, right?

In my opinion, remaining married to a man like that is an immoral choice. I do not support that choice in my president.

What do you mean by that? Apparently Emhoff told Harris about what he did before they got married.