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

Dems are not squirming.

Emhoff is not the candidate, so the whole attempt to both sides this simply falls short, no matter how much one or more MAGAs on this thread are trying.

[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?

This all happened before the couple ever met. Years before. I suspect he told her all about it as they got serious. The ex-wife and the kids clearly have a good relationship with him, so it is a non-issue.

[Anonymous]

I do marvel at how the political scale between the 2 parties rises and falls so quickly. I am sure there will be something else soon to tip the scale back to the other side, and so forth

[Anonymous]

We’re seeing the real Emhoff behind the squeaky clean image the campaign was trying to present. It’s always best to know the truth about people, IMO.

[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?

This all happened before the couple ever met. Years before. I suspect he told her all about it as they got serious. The ex-wife and the kids clearly have a good relationship with him, so it is a non-issue.

The existence of a good relationship has nothing to do with whether the spouse of the potential president has committed serious workplace sexual harassment that the potential president knew about and excused. I mean, we’ve seen Democrats make that argument before (and like this time, viciously attack the victim) but it wasn’t right then and it’s not right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’re seeing the real Emhoff behind the squeaky clean image the campaign was trying to present. It’s always best to know the truth about people, IMO.

is it really, PP? I mean, do we all need to know what our friends, neighbors, loved ones—or even our politicians—did in the past? I think we would all be in for some nasty surprises and it would make the functioning of society so much more difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol I mean Trump - the guy who was actually President and is running for a 3rd time - is guilty of the same thing as Doug Emhoff!

Personally, I think this was a leak from within the Dems to try to jawbone Harris on her VP pick.

Agree. There is absolutely o point for republicans to bring this up.

If this was a Republican leak, they would wait to hold this info until after the convention in order to turn the news cycle in a Trump-led narrative.

This leak - right before Harris is about to pick her VP - is clearly coming out from some group on the Dem side of the spectrum. It’s a warning shot to Harris. My guess is that Wall Street and other special interests have their favored choice for VP and if they don’t get it, they are willing to declare war on Harris.

You are very stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re seeing the real Emhoff behind the squeaky clean image the campaign was trying to present. It’s always best to know the truth about people, IMO.

is it really, PP? I mean, do we all need to know what our friends, neighbors, loved ones—or even our politicians—did in the past? I think we would all be in for some nasty surprises and it would make the functioning of society so much more difficult.

When they are married to the leader of the free world, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’re seeing the real Emhoff behind the squeaky clean image the campaign was trying to present. It’s always best to know the truth about people, IMO.

This is why they are keeping Kamala hidden. Can’t have the REAL Kamala revealed or voters will reject her like they did in 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re seeing the real Emhoff behind the squeaky clean image the campaign was trying to present. It’s always best to know the truth about people, IMO.

is it really, PP? I mean, do we all need to know what our friends, neighbors, loved ones—or even our politicians—did in the past? I think we would all be in for some nasty surprises and it would make the functioning of society so much more difficult.

When they are married to the leader of the free world, yes.

And to be clear, I feel the same way about Trump and Melania.

[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?

Are you suggesting he disclosed all of this to Kamala pre-marriage? I call BS on that. Who would marry a man like this? These are the actions of a sociopath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Broke nanny gets pregnant with a rich lawyer’s kid and she aborted it? Nanny’s love kids. It’s pretty abnormal for such a woman to abort, especially since he had money.

The daily mail said that there were no babies born during that period with either her last name or Emhoff’s last name.

Readers prefer to skip over this fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re seeing the real Emhoff behind the squeaky clean image the campaign was trying to present. It’s always best to know the truth about people, IMO.

is it really, PP? I mean, do we all need to know what our friends, neighbors, loved ones—or even our politicians—did in the past? I think we would all be in for some nasty surprises and it would make the functioning of society so much more difficult.

When they are married to the leader of the free world, yes.

Such a great reminder of how awful Trump is as a. Hoice that I literally can't bring myself to care about Emhoff

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Broke nanny gets pregnant with a rich lawyer’s kid and she aborted it? Nanny’s love kids. It’s pretty abnormal for such a woman to abort, especially since he had money.

The daily mail said that there were no babies born during that period with either her last name or Emhoff’s last name.

Good grief. Ever heard of adoption?
DP

The biological mother (father) remain on a second birth certificate. Hospitals maintain bio mother birth records.

[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

I'm not squirming. I actually love that this is all the MAGAs could come up with, even with Russia helping with the dirty work. Makes Kamala look even better to me if this is all they could find.