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.

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.

So to review:

Trump is running for president, liable for rape, has multiple accusers, and bragged about ogling beauty contestants in their dressing room.

Emhoff had an affair 20 years ago, has not been accused of sexual assault, and is not running for president.

Therefore Harris shouldn't be president? What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not understanding how this reflects on Kamala Harris… at all?

Tacky! Birds of a feather flock together!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean who hasn’t impregnated their daughter’s nanny/school teacher and blown up their family over it? It’s totally no big deal. I mean sure it was the most humiliating and traumatic experience in his ex wife’s and kids’ lifetimes, but so what, sociopath Doug is going to be First Husband!

Do you have any evidence that Emhoff did this?

[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.

DP. Uh, ok, sure you're a Democrat There is no comparison between Trump and Harris on moral grounds. Absolutely none.

[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?

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

So to review:

Trump is running for president, liable for rape, has multiple accusers, and bragged about ogling beauty contestants in their dressing room.

Emhoff had an affair 20 years ago, has not been accused of sexual assault, and is not running for president.

Therefore Harris shouldn't be president? What?

These are the times when I wish I could see these anonymous posters' IP addresses so I can see if they're trolling or not.

[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?

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

So to review:

Trump is running for president, liable for rape, has multiple accusers, and bragged about ogling beauty contestants in their dressing room.

Emhoff had an affair 20 years ago, has not been accused of sexual assault, and is not running for president.

Therefore Harris shouldn't be president? What?

This featured story is so egregious, and the behavior towards the nanny was so callous, that my best guess is that multiple accusers are just a matter of investigation and time.

[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?

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

So to review:

Trump is running for president, liable for rape, has multiple accusers, and bragged about ogling beauty contestants in their dressing room.

Emhoff had an affair 20 years ago, has not been accused of sexual assault, and is not running for president.

Therefore Harris shouldn't be president? What?

These are the times when I wish I could see these anonymous posters' IP addresses so I can see if they're trolling or not.

lol they are. This story isn’t going anywhere. I’m sure Trump will use it during a debate to try to throw Kamala off… but why would she even care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I’m verrry far left but I can’t stand this guy. “Whoremonger” is IMO hateful not to Trump (deserved!!!!) but rather unduly snide to the women (probably actually legally girls) he abused. I hate how imprecise people get in their insult-sprees. Be precise please.

On topic: Doug Emhoff is vile; it’s evident he barebacked a woman with less power in what was either fully or effectively an employee situation — and it has NOTHING to do with Kamala Harris, or Kerstin Emhoff. He’s always given nasty vibes so this doesn’t surprise me but he slithered below expectations. And again - it doesn’t matter.

[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?

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

So to review:

Trump is running for president, liable for rape, has multiple accusers, and bragged about ogling beauty contestants in their dressing room.

Emhoff had an affair 20 years ago, has not been accused of sexual assault, and is not running for president.

Therefore Harris shouldn't be president? What?

This featured story is so egregious, and the behavior towards the nanny was so callous, that my best guess is that multiple accusers are just a matter of investigation and time.

You know I think the Daily Mail hunting this woman down, publishing this story, and publishing unflattering photos of her without her permission is pretty abusive. But she’s collateral damage for the GOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

So to review:

Trump is running for president, liable for rape, has multiple accusers, and bragged about ogling beauty contestants in their dressing room.

Emhoff had an affair 20 years ago, has not been accused of sexual assault, and is not running for president.

Therefore Harris shouldn't be president? What?

These are the times when I wish I could see these anonymous posters' IP addresses so I can see if they're trolling or not.

lol they are. This story isn’t going anywhere. I’m sure Trump will use it during a debate to try to throw Kamala off… but why would she even care?

Post-Clinton, I don’t think anyone really cares about stuff like this. The point it drove home to me is how little vetting she has been subjected to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

So to review:

Trump is running for president, liable for rape, has multiple accusers, and bragged about ogling beauty contestants in their dressing room.

Emhoff had an affair 20 years ago, has not been accused of sexual assault, and is not running for president.

Therefore Harris shouldn't be president? What?

This featured story is so egregious, and the behavior towards the nanny was so callous, that my best guess is that multiple accusers are just a matter of investigation and time.

You know I think the Daily Mail hunting this woman down, publishing this story, and publishing unflattering photos of her without her permission is pretty abusive. But she’s collateral damage for the GOP.

I think the Second Gentleman is gross AF but I agree. How would this even get out? His first wife is a real saint and seems very cool, so it’s obvious it wasn’t her, and she and Harris have a great relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

So to review:

Trump is running for president, liable for rape, has multiple accusers, and bragged about ogling beauty contestants in their dressing room.

Emhoff had an affair 20 years ago, has not been accused of sexual assault, and is not running for president.

Therefore Harris shouldn't be president? What?

These are the times when I wish I could see these anonymous posters' IP addresses so I can see if they're trolling or not.

lol they are. This story isn’t going anywhere. I’m sure Trump will use it during a debate to try to throw Kamala off… but why would she even care?

Post-Clinton, I don’t think anyone really cares about stuff like this. The point it drove home to me is how little vetting she has been subjected to.

Why would that have any effect on her vetting? I mean, Laura Bush literally killed someone, and that didn't effect W's vetting.

[Anonymous]

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

Perfect timing to do a Schwarzenegger

[Anonymous]

There is literally one person who keeps this thread alive by being contrary because they keep using the same phrase over and over and over again. Yawn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is literally one person who keeps this thread alive by being contrary because they keep using the same phrase over and over and over again. Yawn

You are incorrect.

I am the writer of the long thread which started the debate of what moral lens we should use to view Doug Emhoff’s behavior through in a post “me too” world.

Most of the other supportive replies are by other posters. I think mine are clearly identifiable, but if it somehow became important, I am happy to pinpoint them.