Second Gentleman scandal

[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.

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 “grown 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.

See also Roger Ailes and all the Fox News settlements. Most of those female victims were in the 30s, 40s, even 50s.

[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.

Ok fine, go ahead and vote for Trump. It’s really not worth 30 pages arguing with you whack jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Trump had bareback sex with a pron start while his third wife was home with a baby.

Emhoff is not a candidate.
Trump is.

What is your point?

[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.

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.

I am not defending anyone, but suggesting that the 30 year old was some waif is misplaced. No, she should not have been forced to have sex if that is what happened.

Emhoff is not a candidate. None of this happened when the person who is the candidate even knew Emhoff.

This is nothing more than the GOP trying to create an issue where there isn't one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And traumatized and disrupted the lives on all innocent parties involved -- nanny, nanny's unborn baby, his children, his wife -- while he carries on to be a multi-millionaire entertainment lawyer. Is it any wonder how this stayed out of the press? It's literally his professional forte.

[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.

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?

If Harris was the one doing the harassment, then I could see your point. She wasn't. So no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Trump had bareback sex with a pron start while his third wife was home with a baby.

Emhoff is not a candidate.
Trump is.

What is your point?

The point is they're both sick puppies. You don't think Doug is cheating on Kamala? Are you kidding me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And traumatized and disrupted the lives on all innocent parties involved -- nanny, nanny's unborn baby, his children, his wife -- while he carries on to be a multi-millionaire entertainment lawyer. Is it any wonder how this stayed out of the press? It's literally his professional forte.

Well, then I won't vote for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Trump had bareback sex with a pron start while his third wife was home with a baby.

Emhoff is not a candidate.
Trump is.

What is your point?

The point is they're both sick puppies. You don't think Doug is cheating on Kamala? Are you kidding me?

Do you have any proof that he is?

No?

Then it is all conjecture. Maybe he grew up after he saw the damage he caused.

[Anonymous]

Dems, don't feed the troll(s). I feel like there's only one or just a few. They sense a vulnerability on our side and are coming at us hard. No rejoinder from us is going to shut them up so just don't engage. They are literally getting off on the back-and-forth. Let the thread die a quick death by not engaging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I am not defending anyone, but suggesting that the 30 year old was some waif is misplaced. No, she should not have been forced to have sex if that is what happened.

Emhoff is not a candidate. None of this happened when the person who is the candidate even knew Emhoff.

This is nothing more than the GOP trying to create an issue where there isn't one.

I’m a Democrat but absolutely disgusted by people like you, and I’m sure I’m not alone.

Your problem is exactly what another PP pointed out: your attacks on the victim of sexual workplace abuse just go to highlight that the Democrats are no better morally than the Republicans. So that means people are free to vote on other issues. If Democrats are as morally bereft as Trump is — and you are certainly acting like that — the argument against voting for Trump on moral grounds goes away.

A lot of people find Trump morally reprehensible. If that crowd starts to find Harris as morally reprehensible as Trump by virtue of her tacit support of sociopathic sexual harassment of an employee, that is going to change some swing state voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

If Harris was the one doing the harassment, then I could see your point. She wasn't. So no.

But she supported it. She is fine marrying a man who thinks that kind of workplace harassment is fine. And apparently based on this thread, a lot of the Democrats attacking Trump think his behavior was fine too.

None of you have any decency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I am not defending anyone, but suggesting that the 30 year old was some waif is misplaced. No, she should not have been forced to have sex if that is what happened.

Emhoff is not a candidate. None of this happened when the person who is the candidate even knew Emhoff.

This is nothing more than the GOP trying to create an issue where there isn't one.

I’m a Democrat but absolutely disgusted by people like you, and I’m sure I’m not alone.

Your problem is exactly what another PP pointed out: your attacks on the victim of sexual workplace abuse just go to highlight that the Democrats are no better morally than the Republicans. So that means people are free to vote on other issues. If Democrats are as morally bereft as Trump is — and you are certainly acting like that — the argument against voting for Trump on moral grounds goes away.

A lot of people find Trump morally reprehensible. If that crowd starts to find Harris as morally reprehensible as Trump by virtue of her tacit support of sociopathic sexual harassment of an employee, that is going to change some swing state voters.

no one attacked the victim

the issue here is whether Emhoff is fit for office, but since he isn't a candidate, it seems rather moot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

If Harris was the one doing the harassment, then I could see your point. She wasn't. So no.

But she supported it. She is fine marrying a man who thinks that kind of workplace harassment is fine. And apparently based on this thread, a lot of the Democrats attacking Trump think his behavior was fine too.

None of you have any decency.

She didn't support anything. She didn't know him when this all went down.

People change over time. By the time Harris met him, it was a decade later. if the Ex-wife and the kids are ok with him, then why is this an issue. He has clearly atoned for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think this story has any bearing on the election, but I also think your argument here is full of it.

"he clearly got his act together by the time they met" Because men who cheat on their wives and sleep with their employees are known to change? None of us knows what happens behind closed doors, and you cannot say that he got his act together, either before he met Harris or after.

"have a close relationship with him" Because that's what mature women do when their ex is a jerk in general but not of the sort that puts the kids in danger: you suck it up and co-parent to the best of your ability and support your kids' relationship with their father. His success and stability is good for the kids, and it would be poor parenting to blow that up. We don't know if Kerstin Emhoff is truly "close" with him behind closed doors. We just know that she is committed to supporting her kids' ability to have close relationships with their father and his wife.