Second Gentleman scandal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why would Harris marry such a creep?

Maybe she loves him and felt he learned and changed?

Fall in love with a creep. Weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even my Republican grandma said I really don't understand why anyone cares about this. Lol

She does not understand because she is:
1. Republican
2. Grandma (from another generation)

That is not surprising.

I suspect the answer may be different for younger democratic women.

I am a “younger democratic woman” and… LOL. You think I would stay home or vote for a full on RAPIST over THIS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why would Harris marry such a creep?

Maybe she loves him and felt he learned and changed?

Fall in love with a creep. Weird.

Three women married Donald Trump!

At least Doug has normal posture and his suits fit 🤣😂🤣😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why would Harris marry such a creep?

Maybe she loves him and felt he learned and changed?

Fall in love with a creep. Weird.

A cursory review of DCUM would reveal this is seemingly very common…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why would Harris marry such a creep?

Because she is quite familiar with marital infidelity herself. Ask Mrs. Brown about it.

Mrs. Brown was technically still married but had been estranged from her husband for ten years at that point. People stay married for all sorts of reasons (usually financial) but maintain completely separate lives.

Yup. My brother is separated from his wife, but they're not divorced because she has medical conditions, and he's providing the insurance. He has a girlfriend, and she has a boyfriend.

Yup. I have a relative who has been with a married but separated man for 10 years. The man could have divorced earlier but is here on a work visa and his family would have lost visa status and health benefits. His wife has also moved on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OMG shut up. She worked at the school his daughter attended and then moonlighted as a nanny for his family. She was in her 30s not a 19 year-old. Sounds like it was consensual to me.

You need to stop defending workplace sexual harassment and stop blasting out your profound ignorance to the world. You are excusing the inexcusable. “Consensual” doesn’t matter when it comes to workplace sexual harassment, which this was. What matters is the employer-employee status.

This was textbook harassment, something that the #metoo movement was highlighting, and you make yourself look like a hypocritical fool defending it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even my Republican grandma said I really don't understand why anyone cares about this. Lol

She does not understand because she is:
1. Republican
2. Grandma (from another generation)

That is not surprising.

I suspect the answer may be different for younger democratic women.

Nah. Younger Democratic women are just going to demonstrate that they didn’t actually care about #metoo and will go through a million hypocritical gyrations to defend and justify the behavior and why they think it is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even my Republican grandma said I really don't understand why anyone cares about this. Lol

She does not understand because she is:
1. Republican
2. Grandma (from another generation)

That is not surprising.

I suspect the answer may be different for younger democratic women.

Nah. Younger Democratic women are just going to demonstrate that they didn’t actually care about #metoo and will go through a million hypocritical gyrations to defend and justify the behavior and why they think it is irrelevant.

You think only Dem women care about the MeToo movement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OMG shut up. She worked at the school his daughter attended and then moonlighted as a nanny for his family. She was in her 30s not a 19 year-old. Sounds like it was consensual to me.

You need to stop defending workplace sexual harassment and stop blasting out your profound ignorance to the world. You are excusing the inexcusable. “Consensual” doesn’t matter when it comes to workplace sexual harassment, which this was. What matters is the employer-employee status.

This was textbook harassment, something that the #metoo movement was highlighting, and you make yourself look like a hypocritical fool defending it.

That’s an interesting theory that the woman in question doesn’t seem to share. She in fact described herself as “creeped out” by the Daily Mail who *showed up at her house* and she had leveled no accusations. Don’t presume to speak for women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OMG shut up. She worked at the school his daughter attended and then moonlighted as a nanny for his family. She was in her 30s not a 19 year-old. Sounds like it was consensual to me.

You need to stop defending workplace sexual harassment and stop blasting out your profound ignorance to the world. You are excusing the inexcusable. “Consensual” doesn’t matter when it comes to workplace sexual harassment, which this was. What matters is the employer-employee status.

This was textbook harassment, something that the #metoo movement was highlighting, and you make yourself look like a hypocritical fool defending it.

Exactly.

And what is particularly jarring is that Doug is a lawyer. He knows the law.

I expect this is a pattern of behavior, not an isolated instance.

Every news media which picked up the story states that Kamala was aware of the specifics of the affair before the couple married, per Doug’s own report. At the time or shortly thereafter, she became the attorney general of California.

None of this negates Trump’s indiscretions. It shows that people are the same at baseline. Our R and D divisions are largely artificial. When it comes down to biology, successful males of our species behave in roughly the same patterns. As a voter, it is even possible that being exposed to this reality makes politicians more astute, more able to predict human reactions, possibly better negotiators.

But I think the tacit tolerance of this behavior also damningly demonstrates the hypocrisy of the current democratic establishment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why would Harris marry such a creep?

Maybe she loves him and felt he learned and changed?

Fall in love with a creep. Weird.

A cursory review of DCUM would reveal this is seemingly very common…

That’s why the wealthy DCUMs are falling out of their chairs to defend this. Their own husbands do this to their employees and they want to excuse it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OMG shut up. She worked at the school his daughter attended and then moonlighted as a nanny for his family. She was in her 30s not a 19 year-old. Sounds like it was consensual to me.

You need to stop defending workplace sexual harassment and stop blasting out your profound ignorance to the world. You are excusing the inexcusable. “Consensual” doesn’t matter when it comes to workplace sexual harassment, which this was. What matters is the employer-employee status.

This was textbook harassment, something that the #metoo movement was highlighting, and you make yourself look like a hypocritical fool defending it.

That’s an interesting theory that the woman in question doesn’t seem to share. She in fact described herself as “creeped out” by the Daily Mail who *showed up at her house* and she had leveled no accusations. Don’t presume to speak for women.

None of that matters in the face of the law. You are squirming to avoid the facts here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even my Republican grandma said I really don't understand why anyone cares about this. Lol

She does not understand because she is:
1. Republican
2. Grandma (from another generation)

That is not surprising.

I suspect the answer may be different for younger democratic women.

Nah. Younger Democratic women are just going to demonstrate that they didn’t actually care about #metoo and will go through a million hypocritical gyrations to defend and justify the behavior and why they think it is irrelevant.

You think only Dem women care about the MeToo movement?

Nobody cares about MeToo. Not Republicans, not younger Democrats, nobody. They give it lip service but do they actually care about it? No. This is an exact demonstration of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OMG shut up. She worked at the school his daughter attended and then moonlighted as a nanny for his family. She was in her 30s not a 19 year-old. Sounds like it was consensual to me.

You need to stop defending workplace sexual harassment and stop blasting out your profound ignorance to the world. You are excusing the inexcusable. “Consensual” doesn’t matter when it comes to workplace sexual harassment, which this was. What matters is the employer-employee status.

This was textbook harassment, something that the #metoo movement was highlighting, and you make yourself look like a hypocritical fool defending it.

That’s an interesting theory that the woman in question doesn’t seem to share. She in fact described herself as “creeped out” by the Daily Mail who *showed up at her house* and she had leveled no accusations. Don’t presume to speak for women.

None of that matters in the face of the law. You are squirming to avoid the facts here.

Which law are you talking about, exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OMG shut up. She worked at the school his daughter attended and then moonlighted as a nanny for his family. She was in her 30s not a 19 year-old. Sounds like it was consensual to me.

You need to stop defending workplace sexual harassment and stop blasting out your profound ignorance to the world. You are excusing the inexcusable. “Consensual” doesn’t matter when it comes to workplace sexual harassment, which this was. What matters is the employer-employee status.

This was textbook harassment, something that the #metoo movement was highlighting, and you make yourself look like a hypocritical fool defending it.

That’s an interesting theory that the woman in question doesn’t seem to share. She in fact described herself as “creeped out” by the Daily Mail who *showed up at her house* and she had leveled no accusations. Don’t presume to speak for women.

None of that matters in the face of the law. You are squirming to avoid the facts here.

Yes it does. The law would require an accusation of wrongdoing. None has been made.