Progressive Ideology

[jhu72]

I got it, but was referring to others without the sarcasm font on.

Hill did resign. But no need to move on. This thread is about progressive ideology. And Katie was one of the "young risers" shaping democratic, progressive ideology.

I guess she showed that creepy sexually abusive relationships outside of marriages aren't just for men like Clinton anymore. How very woke and progressive of her!

"Shaping democratic progressive ideology" -- hardly. More like she was doing her job well as a freshman congresswomen, regardless of her sexual proclivities.

Doing her job well. Except for the whole abuse of power thing, right?

There are multiple examples of this exact same thing over at the Me Too, thread.

Sexual proclivities do not include abuse of power. Who knows, was she a "Weinstein in training?"





Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? If I knew that that sort of thing was frowned upon...

How did she abuse her power sparky? Exactly what did she do? What you have is YOU assume she abused her power. The fact that a relationship exists/existed does not prove abuse of power. Has the "girl friend" complained? Has she even spoken? Maybe Hill did abuse her power, but you have ZERO PROOF.

Catch up. As I posted in the story from the Atlantic above:

In a time when Americans are remapping the difficult landscape of sex and power in the workplace, it would be willfully naive to shove aside the uncomfortable dynamics of Hill’s relationship with a staffer who was almost a decade her junior, and a recent college graduate

But I don’t expect you to understand the dynamics of today’s world, grandpa. You probably still think blackface makes for a swell Halloween costume...

Really weak. That's all you have? You have nothing. I repeat, exactly what action did Hill take that negatively impacted the young miss? You have ZERO PROOF of any harm. I understand perfectly a lame answer when I receive one.

[Peter Brown]

You have nothing. I repeat, exactly what action did Hill take that negatively impacted the young miss? You have ZERO PROOF of any harm. I understand perfectly a lame answer when I receive one.

This is the dumbest hill for a Democrat to die on.

jhu72: let's say the other woman and the other man never complain about abuse of power in the relationships they had with Katie Hill (btw, we'd have to extend an entire lifetime for them to reflect and say this never occurred; abuse can take decades to process), but let's skip past that time hurdle because I surely won't be around to quiz them when they reach 90 years of age.

How about every other person who worked alongside these three? Did anyone take umbrage over not being promoted, maybe not receiving a bonus equal to the two involved with Katie? How about the financial angle? Would you expect that katie abused her government Amex on behalf of these two to rendezvous every so often? What if Katie asked these two to tag along to a conference but didn't ask others in her office? What if Katie merely said something to someone inside the office and that person muttered under his breath something along the lines of not being in Katie's 'inner circle'? What if the two-involved just weren't in the mood one night but didn't want to lose their job? What if everyone ends up in a lawsuit and every person inside the office is deposed and so must hire expensive lawyers?

We could go on for hours about how many pitfalls can occur when situations like this arise. You are looking for the shiny red toy, but the reality is far less glamorous...what she caused is exactly what Weinstein caused, with less drama, less crudeness, and less numbers, but in the end, it really is not different.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You have nothing. I repeat, exactly what action did Hill take that negatively impacted the young miss? You have ZERO PROOF of any harm. I understand perfectly a lame answer when I receive one.

This is the dumbest hill for a Democrat to die on.

jhu72: let's say the other woman and the other man never complain about abuse of power in the relationships they had with Katie Hill (btw, we'd have to extend an entire lifetime for them to reflect and say this never occurred; abuse can take decades to process), but let's skip past that time hurdle because I surely won't be around to quiz them when they reach 90 years of age.

How about every other person who worked alongside these three? Did anyone take umbrage over not being promoted, maybe not receiving a bonus equal to the two involved with Katie? How about the financial angle? Would you expect that katie abused her government Amex on behalf of these two to rendezvous every so often? What if Katie asked these two to tag along to a conference but didn't ask others in her office? What if Katie merely said something to someone inside the office and that person muttered under his breath something along the lines of not being in Katie's 'inner circle'? What if the two-involved just weren't in the mood one night but didn't want to lose their job? What if everyone ends up in a lawsuit and every person inside the office is deposed and so must hire expensive lawyers?

We could go on for hours about how many pitfalls can occur when situations like this arise. You are looking for the shiny red toy, but the reality is far less glamorous...what she caused is exactly what Weinstein caused, with less drama, less crudeness, and less numbers, but in the end, it really is not different.

Katie Hill raped those guys and forced herself on them? Bill Clinton would be a closer comp.... not Weinstein.

[foreverlax]

You continue with an alleged assumption....there is still no proof she had an affair with a staffer....making everything you say moot.

[Peter Brown]

You continue with an alleged assumption....there is still no proof she had an affair with a staffer....making everything you say moot.

I'm not even certain how to reply to this. Sure, you can believe she resigned for no reason at all, or maybe she was so embarrassed that a photo of her naked brushing the hair of the staffer is overwhelming and she saw no other option. But that would take a leap of logic that you probably should not take. Congresspeople are famously egotistical...it takes a core violation to get them to resign. Larry Craig resigned from the Senate because he had always portrayed himself as a tough Idaho family man...when he got caught (no photos even!) knocking boots with some fella's in public restroom stalls, he hit the road as he should. Bob Menendez is not a good guy and we all know it, yet he serves comfortably as the senior Senator from New Jersey. No photos, but that was a close call for Bob, he almost got caught. One photo and he would have been gone.

Sometimes the easiest answer is right in front of you. Katie portrayed herself as a savior of MeToo, ripping Kavanaugh every second. As it turns out, the Kavanaugh allegations were complete bs while Katie was the violator!

[a fan]

How about every other person who worked alongside these three? Did anyone take umbrage over not being promoted, maybe not receiving a bonus equal to the two involved with Katie?

Ah, so you understand that conflicts of interest are bad. That's a helpful stake in the ground.

You are looking for the shiny red toy, but the reality is far less glamorous...what she caused is exactly what Weinstein caused, with less drama, less crudeness, and less numbers, but in the end, it really is not different.

Steak dinner says that you could tell the massive difference between what Weinstein did and what Hill did if your daughter was involved.

"If I don't sleep with you, you'll end my career?"

versus, "I'd like to sleep with you, my direct boss"

Weinstein is going to jail. You think Hill is, too?

[Peter Brown]

Steak dinner says that you could tell the massive difference between what Weinstein did and what Hill did

The PowertPoint study on Weinstein's abuses is thick with endlessly awful slides; the one on Katie has just two slides. The summary page detailing the core issue for both however are exactly the same: abuse of power in an intimate relationship.

A very good article with a fascinating study if you have the time:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... r-dynamics

Victims of sexual abuse or harassment who have been locked in a state of powerlessness without a voice have a malignant process going on in their minds and bodies. A woman may become trapped in the position of powerlessness because she needs the job to take care of a family, or because she is told explicitly that if she tells anyone the people she loves will be hurt.

[foreverlax]

You continue with an alleged assumption....there is still no proof she had an affair with a staffer....making everything you say moot.

I'm not even certain how to reply to this.
Well you could try using facts to make your argument vs your opinion.

Let me be crystal clear...when I say staffer, I am talking about someone on her congressional staff. She admitted to having an affair with a female on her campaign staff. And she has stated that was an epic error in judgement.

Sure, you can believe she resigned for no reason at all, or maybe she was so embarrassed that a photo of her naked brushing the hair of the staffer is overwhelming and she saw no other option. But that would take a leap of logic that you probably should not take.
I am not making any argument as to why she resigned...this is your rabbit hole. You are correct that she was mortified the photos were released without her permission.

Congresspeople are famously egotistical...it takes a core violation to get them to resign. Larry Craig resigned from the Senate because he had always portrayed himself as a tough Idaho family man...when he got caught (no photos even!) knocking boots with some fella's in public restroom stalls, he hit the road as he should.

Bob Menendez is not a good guy and we all know it, yet he serves comfortably as the senior Senator from New Jersey. No photos, but that was a close call for Bob, he almost got caught. One photo and he would have been gone.
He almost got "caught"...what are you claiming he did that supports your narrative ?

Sometimes the easiest answer is right in front of you. Katie portrayed herself as a savior of MeToo, ripping Kavanaugh every second. As it turns out, the Kavanaugh allegations were complete bs while Katie was the violator!
Who did Hill violate?
Has her campaign staffer come forth with any allegations of being "violated"?
So far, you are the one driving the unsubstantiated narrative that she abused her office through a sexual relationship with one of her congressional staffers.
Has any staffer come forward to support your claims?

[Peter Brown]

You continue with an alleged assumption....there is still no proof she had an affair with a staffer....making everything you say moot.

I'm not even certain how to reply to this.
Well you could try using facts to make your argument vs your opinion.

Let me be crystal clear...when I say staffer, I am talking about someone on her congressional staff. She admitted to having an affair with a female on her campaign staff. And she has stated that was an epic error in judgement.

Sure, you can believe she resigned for no reason at all, or maybe she was so embarrassed that a photo of her naked brushing the hair of the staffer is overwhelming and she saw no other option. But that would take a leap of logic that you probably should not take.
I am not making any argument as to why she resigned...this is your rabbit hole. You are correct that she was mortified the photos were released without her permission.

Congresspeople are famously egotistical...it takes a core violation to get them to resign. Larry Craig resigned from the Senate because he had always portrayed himself as a tough Idaho family man...when he got caught (no photos even!) knocking boots with some fella's in public restroom stalls, he hit the road as he should.

Bob Menendez is not a good guy and we all know it, yet he serves comfortably as the senior Senator from New Jersey. No photos, but that was a close call for Bob, he almost got caught. One photo and he would have been gone.
He almost got "caught"...what are you claiming he did that supports your narrative ?

Sometimes the easiest answer is right in front of you. Katie portrayed herself as a savior of MeToo, ripping Kavanaugh every second. As it turns out, the Kavanaugh allegations were complete bs while Katie was the violator!
Who did Hill violate?
Has her campaign staffer come forth with any allegations of being "violated"?
So far, you are the one driving the unsubstantiated narrative that she abused her office through a sexual relationship with one of her congressional staffers.
Has any staffer come forward to support your claims?

Look, you can educate yourself on this matter or not...that's up to you. If you want a helpful study (which should change your mind as to how 'innocent' the Katie Hill events are), read the below link.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... r-dynamics

[MDlaxfan76]

There would be no confusion for these faux outrage types if it was a GOP Congressman or Senator...they'd be all be arguing, 'no harm, no foul...not the same as Weinstein and hey, what about Bill?

Of course, if Hill had a relationship with an office staffer, she broke a House rule and would receive an Ethics censure. Serious slap on the wrist, better say sorry and better darn tootin not do it again. If she actually assaulted or harassed a staffer, she'd likely have been given the boot.

That's what would have happened with any GOP Congressman in the current era.
Most Dems as well, though the zero tolerance box they've put themselves in is a difficult one.

But this involved hugely more prurient interest, the haters came out of the woodwork with the nastiest of social media and death threats. The ex is/was going to fan those flames with more pictures, and the GOP had an interest in fanning the outrage as well...they want the seat back.

[foreverlax]

You continue with an alleged assumption....there is still no proof she had an affair with a staffer....making everything you say moot.

I'm not even certain how to reply to this.
Well you could try using facts to make your argument vs your opinion.

Let me be crystal clear...when I say staffer, I am talking about someone on her congressional staff. She admitted to having an affair with a female on her campaign staff. And she has stated that was an epic error in judgement.

Sure, you can believe she resigned for no reason at all, or maybe she was so embarrassed that a photo of her naked brushing the hair of the staffer is overwhelming and she saw no other option. But that would take a leap of logic that you probably should not take.
I am not making any argument as to why she resigned...this is your rabbit hole. You are correct that she was mortified the photos were released without her permission.

Congresspeople are famously egotistical...it takes a core violation to get them to resign. Larry Craig resigned from the Senate because he had always portrayed himself as a tough Idaho family man...when he got caught (no photos even!) knocking boots with some fella's in public restroom stalls, he hit the road as he should.

Bob Menendez is not a good guy and we all know it, yet he serves comfortably as the senior Senator from New Jersey. No photos, but that was a close call for Bob, he almost got caught. One photo and he would have been gone.
He almost got "caught"...what are you claiming he did that supports your narrative ?

Sometimes the easiest answer is right in front of you. Katie portrayed herself as a savior of MeToo, ripping Kavanaugh every second. As it turns out, the Kavanaugh allegations were complete bs while Katie was the violator!
Who did Hill violate?
Has her campaign staffer come forth with any allegations of being "violated"?
So far, you are the one driving the unsubstantiated narrative that she abused her office through a sexual relationship with one of her congressional staffers.
Has any staffer come forward to support your claims?

Look, you can educate yourself on this matter or not...that's up to you. If you want a helpful study (which should change your mind as to how 'innocent' the Katie Hill events are), read the below link.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... r-dynamics

Let's make this really simple - which of her congressional staffers has come forth to say they were sexually abused or felt sexual harassment by Hill.

Can you provide a link...I can't find one.

IF there isn't one, what makes you think your version, unsupported by facts, is anything other then just your opinion?

[a fan]

Steak dinner says that you could tell the massive difference between what Weinstein did and what Hill did

The PowertPoint study on Weinstein's abuses is thick with endlessly awful slides; the one on Katie has just two slides. The summary page detailing the core issue for both however are exactly the same: abuse of power in an intimate relationship.

I understand the underlying point you're making. Really, I do. But these situations are not the same, and you know it.

[Peter Brown]

Steak dinner says that you could tell the massive difference between what Weinstein did and what Hill did

The PowertPoint study on Weinstein's abuses is thick with endlessly awful slides; the one on Katie has just two slides. The summary page detailing the core issue for both however are exactly the same: abuse of power in an intimate relationship.

I understand the underlying point you're making. Really, I do. But these situations are not the same, and you know it.

Absolutely agreed. Weinstein seems to be a very sleazy character, and Hill not. But the core issue is what is most critical, not the optics.

[Peter Brown]

There would be no confusion for these faux outrage types if it was a GOP Congressman or Senator...they'd be all be arguing, 'no harm, no foul...not the same as Weinstein and hey, what about Bill?

Not accurate.

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/spe ... 85262.html

[MDlaxfan76]

There would be no confusion for these faux outrage types if it was a GOP Congressman or Senator...they'd be all be arguing, 'no harm, no foul...not the same as Weinstein and hey, what about Bill?

Not accurate.

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/spe ... 85262.html

Really, so that's the same thing?

Nope, not even close.

Craig was a self righteous right winger, who got caught solicited sex in a public bathroom from an undercover male police officer. The offense, from a GOP perspective, was that he was gay and his hypocrisy would cost them the next election, Senate seat.

[jhu72]

Unless and until the campaign staffer speaks out about some abuse, you have nothing. Hill broke a House rule. A rule that does not require any actual abuse occur, just the potential for abuse. She resigned. Period, full stop. In the meantime we have much worse characters running around DC that haven't resigned and who's supporters think are just fine. Hill is a tempest in a tea cup!

[seacoaster]

There would be no confusion for these faux outrage types if it was a GOP Congressman or Senator...they'd be all be arguing, 'no harm, no foul...not the same as Weinstein and hey, what about Bill?

Not accurate.

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/spe ... 85262.html

Really, so that's the same thing?

Nope, not even close.

Craig was a self righteous right winger, who got caught solicited sex in a public bathroom from an undercover male police officer. The offense, from a GOP perspective, was that he was gay and his hypocrisy would cost them the next election, Senate seat.

Damn, haven't thought about Larry "Wide Stance" Craig in, like, forever. Thanks!

[Peter Brown]

Someone asked why I think Bob Menendez isn't an entirely good guy; I can't find my post or the other guy's

This article captures some of that explanation (also relevant to ask those who demand that Republicans forsake Trump, have you asked Democrats to forsake Menendez too?):

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/ ... leaze.html

[foreverlax]

Someone asked why I think Bob Menendez isn't an entirely good guy; I can't find my post or the other guy's

This article captures some of that explanation (also relevant to ask those who demand that Republicans forsake Trump, have you asked Democrats to forsake Menendez too?):

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/ ... leaze.html

That's your money shot?? Good one!!

his Republican opponent, Bob Hugin, released the day prior, in which Hugin accused Menendez of having sex with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic.

[jhu72]

Someone asked why I think Bob Menendez isn't an entirely good guy; I can't find my post or the other guy's

This article captures some of that explanation (also relevant to ask those who demand that Republicans forsake Trump, have you asked Democrats to forsake Menendez too?):

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/ ... leaze.html

That's your money shot?? Good one!!

his Republican opponent, Bob Hugin, released the day prior, in which Hugin accused Menendez of having sex with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic.

Menendez is hardly new. The guy ran and was re-elected under a cloud. Like so many slime bags on both sides of the aisle. He has taken a page out of the republican playbook. Deny everything even if they have pictures.