Second Gentleman scandal

[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.

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.

Why should a man who made these errors in judgment have the ear and teh trust of the sitting US president?
Do you genuinely think this is an isolated incident?

Also, how exactly do you define "consent" between the man of the house and the nanny? And how exactly do you define "equality" when, in the aftermath, she either has an abortion or gives up a child for adoption, is fired from her private schoolteacher job, and moves across the country to work for another family as a nanny? Let's bring up some "me too" cases. Was it really a movement that focused on the abuse of underage minors?

No, it was a movement that focused on sexual harrassment in all settings, often at work between a supervisor and a junior employee.

[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.

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

You got it, that's a huge problem and speaks volumes about her character.

[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.

Well said and as a moderate Democrat horrified by the responses in this thread, I completely agree. If it is confirmed, what Emhoff did is horrifying. He destroyed the career of an employee. An employee! I’m not sure that all of Trump’s affairs that all of you are mentioning are worse because I don’t think any of them were with someone he employed (but I might be wrong). This is severe sexual harassment, something that should be grounds for a lawsuit.

I have felt for a long time that the Democratic Party is as harmful to women as the Republicans are, and the responses in this thread from Democratic partisans are just convincing me further. You are willing to ignore serious sexual abuse of an employee if it’s someone on your team. You aren’t any better than the MAGA you deride.

[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.

Being ENM is a common thing now a days. Kamala and Doug should both own it!

[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.

All of this stuff happened before they even met. You are either a troll or are falling for right win BS. Either way, if you think Trump is immoral and you are complaining about this guy who isn't even on the ballot, your complaining leads to Trump winning. You have every right to complain about it, but your complaining may not end the way you want it to, and it certainly won't end with Harris not leading the Dem ticket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If Emhoff was at the top of the ticket, then perhaps. But he isn't a candidate at all. So your attempt at "both siding" this is a total fail.

[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.

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.

Why should a man who made these errors in judgment have the ear and teh trust of the sitting US president?
Do you genuinely think this is an isolated incident?

Also, how exactly do you define "consent" between the man of the house and the nanny? And how exactly do you define "equality" when, in the aftermath, she either has an abortion or gives up a child for adoption, is fired from her private schoolteacher job, and moves across the country to work for another family as a nanny? Let's bring up some "me too" cases. Was it really a movement that focused on the abuse of underage minors?

No, it was a movement that focused on sexual harrassment in all settings, often at work between a supervisor and a junior employee.

The "nanny" was a grown-ass 30 year old woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

You got it, that's a huge problem and speaks volumes about her character.

Why? She isn't the one who did this and he clearly got is act together by the time they met. The Ex-Wife and the kids all have a close relationship with him.

[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.

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.

Why should a man who made these errors in judgment have the ear and teh trust of the sitting US president?
Do you genuinely think this is an isolated incident?

Also, how exactly do you define "consent" between the man of the house and the nanny? And how exactly do you define "equality" when, in the aftermath, she either has an abortion or gives up a child for adoption, is fired from her private schoolteacher job, and moves across the country to work for another family as a nanny? Let's bring up some "me too" cases. Was it really a movement that focused on the abuse of underage minors?

No, it was a movement that focused on sexual harrassment in all settings, often at work between a supervisor and a junior employee.

I’m sure you agree Trump should not be the GOP nominee, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

All of this stuff happened before they even met. You are either a troll or are falling for right win BS. Either way, if you think Trump is immoral and you are complaining about this guy who isn't even on the ballot, your complaining leads to Trump winning. You have every right to complain about it, but your complaining may not end the way you want it to, and it certainly won't end with Harris not leading the Dem ticket.

+1 GOP is desperate for a Dem candidate that is not Harris bc they know she will win

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Let me spell it out: He presumably had countless unprotected sex rendezvous in he and his wife's bed with the nanny who was paid to watch/teach his young daughter. This is totally sociopathic behavior.

[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.

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.

Why should a man who made these errors in judgment have the ear and teh trust of the sitting US president?
Do you genuinely think this is an isolated incident?

Also, how exactly do you define "consent" between the man of the house and the nanny? And how exactly do you define "equality" when, in the aftermath, she either has an abortion or gives up a child for adoption, is fired from her private schoolteacher job, and moves across the country to work for another family as a nanny? Let's bring up some "me too" cases. Was it really a movement that focused on the abuse of underage minors?

No, it was a movement that focused on sexual harrassment in all settings, often at work between a supervisor and a junior employee.

I’m sure you agree Trump should not be the GOP nominee, right?

Not PP, but yes, Trump should not be. And Kamala should ALSO get away from this creep she's married to.

[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.

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.

Why should a man who made these errors in judgment have the ear and teh trust of the sitting US president?
Do you genuinely think this is an isolated incident?

Also, how exactly do you define "consent" between the man of the house and the nanny? And how exactly do you define "equality" when, in the aftermath, she either has an abortion or gives up a child for adoption, is fired from her private schoolteacher job, and moves across the country to work for another family as a nanny? Let's bring up some "me too" cases. Was it really a movement that focused on the abuse of underage minors?

No, it was a movement that focused on sexual harrassment in all settings, often at work between a supervisor and a junior employee.

The "nanny" was a grown-ass 30 year old woman.

I can’t believe you are defending this kind of workplace sexual harassment. You have the morals of Trump.

[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.

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.

Why should a man who made these errors in judgment have the ear and teh trust of the sitting US president?
Do you genuinely think this is an isolated incident?

Also, how exactly do you define "consent" between the man of the house and the nanny? And how exactly do you define "equality" when, in the aftermath, she either has an abortion or gives up a child for adoption, is fired from her private schoolteacher job, and moves across the country to work for another family as a nanny? Let's bring up some "me too" cases. Was it really a movement that focused on the abuse of underage minors?

No, it was a movement that focused on sexual harrassment in all settings, often at work between a supervisor and a junior employee.

I’m sure you agree Trump should not be the GOP nominee, right?

I’m not the PP but YES. I’m horrified that Kamala is apparently fine with marrying a man who sexually harassed his employee and destroyed her career, and I’m horrified that Trump is on the ballot. Is there literally any presidential candidate with any moral compass whatsoever?

[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.

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.

Why should a man who made these errors in judgment have the ear and teh trust of the sitting US president?
Do you genuinely think this is an isolated incident?

Also, how exactly do you define "consent" between the man of the house and the nanny? And how exactly do you define "equality" when, in the aftermath, she either has an abortion or gives up a child for adoption, is fired from her private schoolteacher job, and moves across the country to work for another family as a nanny? Let's bring up some "me too" cases. Was it really a movement that focused on the abuse of underage minors?

No, it was a movement that focused on sexual harrassment in all settings, often at work between a supervisor and a junior employee.

The "nanny" was a grown-ass 30 year old woman.

Wasn’t Monica a “gross ass” 23 or 24? Wasn’t the man that accused the CPAC guy of alleged assault around 30 years old too? Authority figures who control people’s livelihoods can exploit victims at any age.