Sexual Assault ~ Weinstein, Epstein, etc.

[Peter Brown]

|

I also think that the Dems are in this corner where they need to be zero tolerance in anything even bordering on Metoo, which the accusations about employee relationships does. And the R's understood this and went hard at it, wouldn't have stopped. The pictures, though, are what gave this the prurient interest.

Who knows, she may find another launch point in due course.

It's the Republicans' fault Katie Hill engaged in an intimate relationship with two staffers!

[MDlaxfan76]

|

I also think that the Dems are in this corner where they need to be zero tolerance in anything even bordering on Metoo, which the accusations about employee relationships does. And the R's understood this and went hard at it, wouldn't have stopped. The pictures, though, are what gave this the prurient interest.

Who knows, she may find another launch point in due course.

It's the Republicans' fault Katie Hill engaged in an intimate relationship with two staffers!

Silly. Of course not.
Just as it isn't the Dems fault that Trump deserves to be impeached or that it's the GOP's fault that HRC chose to have a private server.
Or all sorts of such examples.

But, yes, part of the explanation of why Hill resigned was that the public attention, the hate and death threats, were very likely going to continue, stoked by the GOP desire to put that district back into play.

And the Metoo aspects puts pressure on the Dem side in their zero tolerance box. So, of course the R's were going to press hard.

Is the hypocrisy appalling? Sure.
But politics ain't bean bag.

[Peter Brown]

(posted 2x, see below...sorry)

[Peter Brown]

Is that what I said, PB, that Kavanaugh is "scum"????

You gotta try reading PB.

My post is directly above, saying quite the opposite.

You are on record as saying his actions in college are 'believable', and therefore suggestive of someone who should not be on the court. You also continually dismiss the allegations against Hill as not in the same league as the allegations against Kavanaugh, even though Kavanaugh's allegations were totally bogus as shown in my post with links (which most sentient human beings knew from the beginning), and Katie's has actual, real evidence.

And as to Katie, the 'law' she broke is not a law but a rule, and a quite definitive rule:

https://ethics.house.gov/publication/co ... al-conduct

(a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not engage in a sexual relationship with any employee of the House who works under the supervision of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, or who is an employee of a committee on which the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner serves. This paragraph does not apply with respect to any relationship between two people who are married to each other
'

This is the undperpinning of the MeToo movement, the nature of consent and power. I do not understand (outside of partisan reasons) how anyone can not understand this most elemental issue. It bowls me over. This has nothing to do with optics, or squeamishness, or morals! It is all about how a relationship such as 'boss-to-employee' can start out quite innocently and yet without anyone understanding or noticing, move onto complete dominance and forcible sex. I am sitting here hoping I can explain it better to people who ought to understand this without it being explained. This is why Katie resigned. No one cares if she is a Nazi, a lesbian, had nudes on the internet. No one! What is concerning is a text from the girl in the relationship who admits she is 'scared' of Katie. Imagine if Katie was a man, and we read a text from his staffer saying the same.

Argh...I am throwing my hands up here! Why are people here ignoring this very obvious elephant. Help me, Old Salt.

[MDlaxfan76]

Is that what I said, PB, that Kavanaugh is "scum"????

You gotta try reading PB.

My post is directly above, saying quite the opposite.

You are on record as saying his actions in college are 'believable', and therefore suggestive of someone who should not be on the court. You also continually dismiss the allegations against Hill as not in the same league as the allegations against Kavanaugh, even though Kavanaugh's allegations were totally bogus as shown in my post with links (which most sentient human beings knew from the beginning), and Katie's has actual, real evidence.

And as to Katie, the 'law' she broke is not a law but a rule, and a quite definitive rule:

https://ethics.house.gov/publication/co ... al-conduct

(a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not engage in a sexual relationship with any employee of the House who works under the supervision of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, or who is an employee of a committee on which the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner serves. This paragraph does not apply with respect to any relationship between two people who are married to each other
'

This is the undperpinning of the MeToo movement, the nature of consent and power. I do not understand (outside of partisan reasons) how anyone can not understand this most elemental issue. It bowls me over. This has nothing to do with optics, or squeamishness, or morals! It is all about how a relationship such as 'boss-to-employee' can start out quite innocently and yet without anyone understanding or noticing, move onto complete dominance and forcible sex. I am sitting here hoping I can explain it better to people who ought to understand this without it being explained. This is why Katie resigned. No one cares if she is a Nazi, a lesbian, had nudes on the internet. No one! What is concerning is a text from the girl in the relationship who admits she is 'scared' of Katie. Imagine if Katie was a man, and we read a text from his staffer saying the same.

Argh...I am throwing my hands up here! Why are people here ignoring this very obvious elephant. Help me, Old Salt.

Right. A rule, not a LAW.
Some businesses have this rule as well, though sure is a lot of rule-breaking out there.
Doesn't pertain to the campaign staffer, but would if accurate about House staff.

But let's be clear, there's been no allegation by an employee of harassment, much less an allegation of "complete dominance and forcible sex". If there was such an allegation, I'd be 100% with you, PB.

And maybe there will be, if the young woman believes there was any sort of coercion involved. If so, #METOO definitely applies.

Now, as to Kav, thanks for admitting I made no such reference as "scum".
Indeed, I made a point of explaining that we have the rest of his life to look to, as well as the brain science I explained.

But I did find the original allegation credible; still do.
I would have been a close call as to putting him on the Court, but his demeanor during the hearing put me all the way into the not on the Court camp.


Back to Hill, who was it that posted about the Iron Cross on here?

[Peter Brown]

But let's be clear, there's been no allegation by an employee of harassment, much less an allegation of "complete dominance and forcible sex". If there was such an allegation, I'd be 100% with you, PB.

And maybe there will be, if the young woman believes there was any sort of coercion involved. If so, #METOO definitely applies.

Now, as to Kav, thanks for admitting I made no such reference as "scum".
Indeed, I made a point of explaining that we have the rest of his life to look to, as well as the brain science I explained.


Back to Hill, who was it that posted about the Iron Cross on here?

3 things.

On the Iron Cross, I brought it up, not because I give even half a heartbeat about it, but to show the embarrassing inconsistency from liberals had this tattoo been on Ivanka or Nikki. Everyone knows the unending internet howling had that been the case. For Katie it’s ‘looks like a 4 leaf clover’.

On Kavanaugh, the allegations were nonsensical, full stop. If you still think ‘something’ happened even after knowing each ‘victim’ was proved to be a liar or nutcase, well, ummm, good luck I guess.

Finally, maybe I’m not reading your MeToo posts clearly, because it’s clear to me you don’t understand MeToo. You write ‘if anyone alleges wrongdoing’ you’ll reconsider. Omg. The WHOLE POINT of MeToo is most ‘victims’ don’t report and the rest don’t even realize they are victims! The fact is she is as great a violator as Harvey Weinstein except for the numbers. You realize no one came forward or was believed on Weinstein for over two decades? You.Can’t.Have.A.Relationship.With.A.Person.Whose.Paycheck.You.Control.

This discussion is maddeningly frustrating for me. Our company has an iron clad rule on this: break it and you’re fired. You don’t seem to grasp the seriousness of the entire foundation of MeToo and yet you seem to be at least sympathetic to Democrats.

[MDlaxfan76]

But let's be clear, there's been no allegation by an employee of harassment, much less an allegation of "complete dominance and forcible sex". If there was such an allegation, I'd be 100% with you, PB.

And maybe there will be, if the young woman believes there was any sort of coercion involved. If so, #METOO definitely applies.

Now, as to Kav, thanks for admitting I made no such reference as "scum".
Indeed, I made a point of explaining that we have the rest of his life to look to, as well as the brain science I explained.


Back to Hill, who was it that posted about the Iron Cross on here?

3 things.

On the Iron Cross, I brought it up, not because I give even half a heartbeat about it, but to show the embarrassing inconsistency from liberals had this tattoo been on Ivanka or Nikki. Everyone knows the unending internet howling had that been the case. For Katie it’s ‘looks like a 4 leaf clover’.

On Kavanaugh, the allegations were nonsensical, full stop. If you still think ‘something’ happened even after knowing each ‘victim’ was proved to be a liar or nutcase, well, ummm, good luck I guess.

Finally, maybe I’m not reading your MeToo posts clearly, because it’s clear to me you don’t understand MeToo. You write ‘if anyone alleges wrongdoing’ you’ll reconsider. Omg. The WHOLE POINT of MeToo is most ‘victims’ don’t report and the rest don’t even realize they are victims! The fact is she is as great a violator as Harvey Weinstein except for the numbers. You realize no one came forward or was believed on Weinstein for over two decades? You.Can’t.Have.A.Relationship.With.A.Person.Whose.Paycheck.You.Control.

This discussion is maddeningly frustrating for me. Our company has an iron clad rule on this: break it and you’re fired. You don’t seem to grasp the seriousness of the entire foundation of MeToo and yet you seem to be at least sympathetic to Democrats.

Wow. Yup, you brought up the Iron Cross. And the pictures.

Yet you claim it's just your outrage about #METOO. Sorry, it doesn't hold water.

No, I don't agree about the allegations. Majority of folks found Ford credible.
Listening to Kav, I found them all the more credible.
Didn't want to, but I did.

But not proven. And that matters.
Particularly given the rest of his life.
His demeanor, though, was in real time.

You're absolutely off your rocker comparing Weinstein to Hill.

But we quite agree as to the merits of having a rule that avoids the risk of having someone feel coerced into a sexual relationship.
It's a serious risk.
But please, please don't equate consensual sex with harassment, assault or rape.

[a fan]

On Kavanaugh, the allegations were nonsensical, full stop. If you still think ‘something’ happened even after knowing each ‘victim’ was proved to be a liar or nutcase, well, ummm, good luck I guess.

You can't go five minutes without doing what you just complained about when others do it.

The Victims weren't "proven" to be "liars" or "nutcases" any more than Kav was proven to have raped them.

And yet here you are stating their "lies" as fact.

Pot. Kettle.

[DMac]

How much does being a D or R come into play in your company policy, Pete?
How 'bout you drop that part in this discussion as it has nothing to do with it.
Everyone here understands your point and doubt anyone disagrees with it.
That's the policy despite however commonplace it might be, so you pay the fiddler
if it happens to you. All the sanctimonious folk can use it as expolosive ammo
to blow someone's life up as they have to this gal. This is a matter of revenge
porn, and as I've said she likely could have got beyond the indescretion with
a subordinate with a few apologies, but she can't get by her immoral ex husband's
smut campaign and THAT is why she bowed out. It's really pretty simple. You guys
with daughters should pound home the fact that all their half (or likely full) naked
pictures they post of themselves will come back to haunt them in a big way when
their current becomes their ex. There are a lot of scumbags like this guy out there.

[Peter Brown]

My ‘outrage’ over Katie’s iron cross tattoo isn’t outrage; it’s laughing at the obvious hypocrisy of folks who, were that tat on Ivanka, wouldn’t be able to breathe for months on end with real outrage. The tat has zero to do with MeToo.

Honestly, you truly don’t understand MeToo. You keep thinking consent is possible when one party controls the power dynamic. Weinstein abused this dynamic in grosser ways and more often than Katie, but the underlying ‘crime’ is the same, The whole premise of MeToo is when the power dynamic places one party in control (paycheck, job), consent can not truly be given even when you give it.

[a fan]

My ‘outrage’ over Katie’s iron cross tattoo isn’t outrage; it’s laughing at the obvious hypocrisy of folks who, were that tat on Ivanka, wouldn’t be able to breathe for months on end with real outrage. The tat has zero to do with MeToo.

So you make up a scenario (ivanka has that tattoo) that doesn't exist the real world....

....and then get mad at the libs imaginary reaction to your imaginary scenario.


That about the score here?

Come on man. Post on other stuff. You have plenty to contribute other than "the libs are bad".

[seacoaster]

How much does being a D or R come into play in your company policy, Pete?
How 'bout you drop that part in this discussion as it has nothing to do with it.
Everyone here understands your point and doubt anyone disagrees with it.
That's the policy despite however commonplace it might be, so you pay the fiddler
if it happens to you. All the sanctimonious folk can use it as expolosive ammo
to blow someone's life up as they have to this gal. This is a matter of revenge
porn, and as I've said she likely could have got beyond the indescretion with
a subordinate with a few apologies, but she can't get by her immoral ex husband's
smut campaign and THAT is why she bowed out. It's really pretty simple. You guys
with daughters should pound home the fact that all their half (or likely full) naked
pictures they post of themselves will come back to haunt them in a big way when
their current becomes their ex. There are a lot of scumbags like this guy out there.

Right on the money, DMac.

[MDlaxfan76]

My ‘outrage’ over Katie’s iron cross tattoo isn’t outrage; it’s laughing at the obvious hypocrisy of folks who, were that tat on Ivanka, wouldn’t be able to breathe for months on end with real outrage. The tat has zero to do with MeToo.

Honestly, you truly don’t understand MeToo. You keep thinking consent is possible when one party controls the power dynamic. Weinstein abused this dynamic in grosser ways and more often than Katie, but the underlying ‘crime’ is the same, The whole premise of MeToo is when the power dynamic places one party in control (paycheck, job), consent can not truly be given even when you give it.

Sorry, PB, your (and lots of haters on the interwebs) suggestion was that Hill had Nazi sympathies...stupid on its face.

If Ivanka had a wild child past and had hung out with some bikers, including a tattoo like this, we wouldn't assume she had Nazi sympathies either...again, just stupid. Now, Ivanka probably would have had it cosmetically removed along with a few other alterations, but, then we might wonder about Tiffany...

Seriously, this was entirely prurient 'outrage', never any actual hypocrisy...My observation? You seem to have gone so far over into the hard right blogosphere that hating libs has become your religion. It's ugly.

Now on #METOO, when you show me one or more of your past posts ripping any specific GOP male member...heck the current POTUS... for abusing their 'power dynamic' with women, you'll begin to have some credibility with me about actually caring about those who face coercion. Until then, you just have no credibility.

But I do agree with you on why its such a fraught situation when there's an employer-employee, boss-subordinate, potential employer-potential employee, teacher-student, etc involvement. Regardless of the rules any given org has, I'd advise folks to avoid these particular relationships.

This does, of course, raise the challenge of folks actually falling in love, given lots of proximity.
Seems to me that if that happens, the two folks need to get their butts to HR before taking any sort of romantic action or the boss ought to find another employer...but if you feel the need to hide the relationship, nope, 'just say no'.

[old salt]

Sorry, PB, your (and lots of haters on the interwebs) suggestion was that Hill had Nazi sympathies...stupid on its face.

If Ivanka had a wild child past and had hung out with some bikers, including a tattoo like this, we wouldn't assume she had Nazi sympathies either...

No. You'd insinuate this was her new clothing line. ..

[Peter Brown]

How much does being a D or R come into play in your company policy, Pete?.

Ummm, none since I have no idea of employee's political leanings at our various locations. Nor does anyone mine; in fact most people here at Fanlax don't understand my political leanings because I'm neither D or R.

Political leanings on this board and in this thread are important for the topic at hand because of the way we approach the particular circumstances of Katie Hill, or Brett Kavanaugh. It's relatively easy to know which way people view these topics simply because of their Party choice. Which is sad.

[Peter Brown]

1. Sorry, PB, your (and lots of haters on the interwebs) suggestion was that Hill had Nazi sympathies...stupid on its face.


2. Seriously, this was entirely prurient 'outrage', never any actual hypocrisy...


3. You seem to have gone so far over into the hard right blogosphere that hating libs has become your religion. It's ugly.


4. Show me one or more of your past posts ripping any specific GOP male member...heck the current POTUS... for abusing their 'power dynamic' with women, you'll begin to have some credibility with me about actually caring about those who face coercion.

1. Uhhh, I never suggested Katie had Nazi sympathies; I wouldn't care if she carved Adolph Hitler's initials on her cheeks. I only care how we treat similar outrages even when proven false. Your continuing Kavanaugh persecution is a great example; every one of her accusers has been proven either to have lied, or is a bunny boiler, or is demented, all encouraged by known operatives of the Democratic Party, yet here you are still saying you 'think' he did something wrong. (btw, I share your disgust at his behavior under grilling...what he ought to have done is laughed at the inquisitors, all of whom knew he was being wrecklessly smeared)

2. Literally no one cares about her 'nudes', her bisexuality, or her Iron Cross. Nor does Katie. If Congressmen were shamed into retirement because of awful behavior, Bob Menendez would have resigned many moons ago. She resigned to escape a harsher glare of her life, and I suspect it has everything to do with the non-profit she ran and used to employ her husband and friends... If you want to cheat the charity game, be like Elijah Cummings and keep yourself out of running the charity; it gives you plausible deniability (oh I forgot, Elijah is a hero who got along with Joe Scarborough... )

3. I don't hate 'libs'...my best two friends are the biggest Bernie fans in the universe. What I hate is liberal hypocrisy. There is a wide chasm between hating the person versus hating the actions. I am careful in life to recognize that. Folks here seem sensitive to having that hypocrisy pointed out time and again. It's the easiest game in town btw.

4. I have previously stated here, not that I expect you to read every post of mine, that Trump's sleeping with Stormy (ie: cheating on his wife) plus saying what he did to Billy Bush nullify for me anything he does or has to say. Does that make me credible (for the moment)? Because my next comment is in a binary election, if you offer me Warren and Trump, I will choose Trump every day and Sunday. But between Biden and Trump, I will choose Biden every day plus Sunday. Many others are just like me...

[Peter Brown]

This is a matter of revenge porn, but she can't get by her immoral ex husband's
smut campaign and THAT is why she bowed out.

I understand why you would think that, however I would humbly suggest you could not be more wrong if you tried. It takes far more than a few nudes to make a congressman resign; generally they have egos that would make Adonis blush. What it takes to make one resign there is thinking the feds might start investigating your personal finances. Bowing out keeps that heat off. An opinion only, of course.

[a fan]

It's relatively easy to know which way people view these topics simply because of their Party choice.

Really?

Great. Who is a registered D and R here?

[Peter Brown]

My ‘outrage’ over Katie’s iron cross tattoo isn’t outrage; it’s laughing at the obvious hypocrisy of folks who, were that tat on Ivanka, wouldn’t be able to breathe for months on end with real outrage. The tat has zero to do with MeToo.

So you make up a scenario (ivanka has that tattoo) that doesn't exist the real world....

....and then get mad at the libs imaginary reaction to your imaginary scenario.


That about the score here?

Come on man. Post on other stuff. You have plenty to contribute other than "the libs are bad".

What would ever make me think that liberals would lose their sanity over something such as an Iron Cross tattoo being found on a Republican congressman?!?!? I mean, hypothetically speaking of course.

https://reason.com/2019/08/10/a-violent ... lture-war/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/politics ... index.html

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/l ... story.html

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/o ... 192627001/

https://ktrh.iheart.com/featured/housto ... n-911-pic/

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/ ... crats.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/opin ... ction.html

[a fan]

What would ever make me think that liberals would lose their sanity over something such as an Iron Cross tattoo being found on a Republican congressman?!?!? I mean, hypothetically speaking of course.

SIgh. Yep. You'd find libs that would have taken a blurry photo of what "might' be an iron cross out of context, and got worked up over it. My question was simply: why are YOU getting worked up over it?

And while we're at it: do you think that right wing Americans don't do the same thing? Because you're acting as though libs have a corner on this "get offended" schtick.