Second Gentleman scandal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s so funny watching the Dems squirm. They spent weeks fictionalizing couch sex regarding the other side’s VP and now Kamala, current VP’s husband, has a love child scandal and probably many more scandals coming down the pipeline depending on who she chooses as VP

It’s not a love child scandal. It’s a workplace sexual assault and harassment scandal. Be accurate.

The posters here defending Emhoff and attacking the victim are the same vile Democrats who attacked Monica Lewinsky back in the day.

[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.

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.

True. There is no comparison because both Trump and Harris are fully amoral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so funny watching the Dems squirm. They spent weeks fictionalizing couch sex regarding the other side’s VP and now Kamala, current VP’s husband, has a love child scandal and probably many more scandals coming down the pipeline depending on who she chooses as VP

It’s not a love child scandal. It’s a workplace sexual assault and harassment scandal. Be accurate.

The posters here defending Emhoff and attacking the victim are the same vile Democrats who attacked Monica Lewinsky back in the day.

Your excitement is palpable, pp.

We don’t know any details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so funny watching the Dems squirm. They spent weeks fictionalizing couch sex regarding the other side’s VP and now Kamala, current VP’s husband, has a love child scandal and probably many more scandals coming down the pipeline depending on who she chooses as VP

It’s not a love child scandal. It’s a workplace sexual assault and harassment scandal. Be accurate.

The posters here defending Emhoff and attacking the victim are the same vile Democrats who attacked Monica Lewinsky back in the day.

There hasn't been a single post attacking the victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so funny watching the Dems squirm. They spent weeks fictionalizing couch sex regarding the other side’s VP and now Kamala, current VP’s husband, has a love child scandal and probably many more scandals coming down the pipeline depending on who she chooses as VP

It’s not a love child scandal. It’s a workplace sexual assault and harassment scandal. Be accurate.

The posters here defending Emhoff and attacking the victim are the same vile Democrats who attacked Monica Lewinsky back in the day.

There hasn't been a single post attacking the victim.

Stop gaslighting. We can literally read.

[Anonymous]

I could not care less about this entire thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Omg who cares. He’s not running for office.

Exactly!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so funny watching the Dems squirm. They spent weeks fictionalizing couch sex regarding the other side’s VP and now Kamala, current VP’s husband, has a love child scandal and probably many more scandals coming down the pipeline depending on who she chooses as VP

It’s not a love child scandal. It’s a workplace sexual assault and harassment scandal. Be accurate.

The posters here defending Emhoff and attacking the victim are the same vile Democrats who attacked Monica Lewinsky back in the day.

There hasn't been a single post attacking the victim.

Calling her a homewrecker is ok but calling Kamala a homewrecker is not ok

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I could not care less about this entire thing.

So why did you enter this thread and post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kamala had an affair with a married man; she and Doug are well matched.

I’m fairly convinced their marriage is a sham. They have zero chemistry or spark.

Really?? Totally disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kamala had an affair with a married man; she and Doug are well matched.

I’m fairly convinced their marriage is a sham. They have zero chemistry or spark.

Really?? Totally disagree.

I also disagree but wish she’d found someone way better. I wish Kerstin was the Emhoff she married!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so funny watching the Dems squirm. They spent weeks fictionalizing couch sex regarding the other side’s VP and now Kamala, current VP’s husband, has a love child scandal and probably many more scandals coming down the pipeline depending on who she chooses as VP

It’s not a love child scandal. It’s a workplace sexual assault and harassment scandal. Be accurate.

The posters here defending Emhoff and attacking the victim are the same vile Democrats who attacked Monica Lewinsky back in the day.

There hasn't been a single post attacking the victim.

Calling her a homewrecker is ok but calling Kamala a homewrecker is not ok

Are you friends with Kamala Harris to the extent that you're on a first bame basis with her?

[Anonymous]

Questions for those of you who think this is irrelevant, has no reflection on Harris, think that this kind of workplace sexual harassment is fine, are calling the nanny a homewrecker and worse, and more: Did you attack Lewinsky back in the day too? Did you wear a pussy hat at a march? Did you support the goals of the #metoo movement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Questions for those of you who think this is irrelevant, has no reflection on Harris, think that this kind of workplace sexual harassment is fine, are calling the nanny a homewrecker and worse, and more: Did you attack Lewinsky back in the day too? Did you wear a pussy hat at a march? Did you support the goals of the #metoo movement?

I think this is irrelevant, but I do object to being lumped in with people who would attack the victim (of which I've only seen 1 post calling her a homewrecker). I was in high school during Lewinsky so didn't care. I didn't go to the march, so I didn't wear a pussy hat. I support the goals of the #metoo movement, as everyone should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Questions for those of you who think this is irrelevant, has no reflection on Harris, think that this kind of workplace sexual harassment is fine, are calling the nanny a homewrecker and worse, and more: Did you attack Lewinsky back in the day too? Did you wear a pussy hat at a march? Did you support the goals of the #metoo movement?

I think this is irrelevant, but I do object to being lumped in with people who would attack the victim (of which I've only seen 1 post calling her a homewrecker). I was in high school during Lewinsky so didn't care. I didn't go to the march, so I didn't wear a pussy hat. I support the goals of the #metoo movement, as everyone should.

Do you think it’s fine for an employer to sleep with his employee and then destroy her career? You seem to be fine with that if you think it is irrelevant. I can’t understand thinking this is irrelevant, and yet claiming to support the goals of #metoo.