(10-28-2019 04:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sorry, but when you guys try to claim that only leftists or democrats have these types of issues, it's fair game to point out that this is not true by providing specific examples which I did with Hunter. Apologies that it makes you look like hypocrites.

And feel free to point out the post where I defended ANY action of the congresswoman. I only pointed out that she claimed originally that her inappropriate behavior only applied to circumstances before she took office. Clearly, we know now that this appears to not be true and she has resigned, which is a decision I agree with.

Meanwhile, Duncan Hunter is still on Congress and he's not a leftist or a Democrat.

lol, you can't even come right out and state that what she is accused of IS true. Why continue couching your statement in such opague terms?

(10-29-2019 07:18 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 04:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sorry, but when you guys try to claim that only leftists or democrats have these types of issues, it's fair game to point out that this is not true by providing specific examples which I did with Hunter. Apologies that it makes you look like hypocrites.

And feel free to point out the post where I defended ANY action of the congresswoman. I only pointed out that she claimed originally that her inappropriate behavior only applied to circumstances before she took office. Clearly, we know now that this appears to not be true and she has resigned, which is a decision I agree with.

Meanwhile, Duncan Hunter is still on Congress and he's not a leftist or a Democrat.

lol, you can't even come right out and state that what she is accused of IS true. Why continue couching your statement in such opague terms?

Because that is what he is and what he does.. He speaks out both sides of his mouth so he can crawfish later... He's a hypocritical troll.

A different take on this. Hill(ary) is the first of many millenials to fall victim to putting their sex life online.

https://time.com/5712395/katie-hill-resi...de-photos/

"...Hill’s case lands smack in the middle of the three-way intersection between tech, sex, and power: Technology has changed sex; sex has changed power; and power is newly vulnerable to strains of disgrace that didn’t exist a decade ago. Technology provides new and humiliating ways to document sexual encounters, and all sexual encounters—especially when they involve a public figure—are now subjected to brutal public dissection. Hill may be the first millennial lawmaker to have to grapple with this particularly thorny 21st century code of conduct, but she won’t be the last.

Since millennials live most of their lives online, it’s only natural that their sex lives have gone digital as well, and Hill was no exception. One 2015 study found that, like Hill, 82% of adults had sexted in the past year, mostly with their partners in a committed relationship...."

<Which raises the question-are 82% of millennials morons?>

"...Ironically, the House rule that brought Hill under ethics review was new—and authored in part by Rep. Lauren Underwood, who was Hill’s D.C. roommate when she moved to D.C. Underwood told me in a previous interview that when she got to Congress, she had been surprised to learn that there was no rule against sexual relationships with staff, so she wrote one. She and Hill moved in together to save on costs of housing in DC, since the two millennial lawmakers were both short on cash compared to their older, wealthier colleagues. They posted Instagram videos of their “roomie” struggles with Ikea runs and furniture assembly, and Hill once helped Underwood put a bed frame together with duct tape. (Underwood declined to comment for this story.)

It was this image of a quintessential millennial—scrappy and resourceful, full of youthful chutzpah—that colored Hill’s arrival in Washington...."

<chutzpah isn't the word I would use to describe what she was full of when as a US representative she is complaining about having to go to IKEA. Her roomie writing the legislation does bring irony to the phrase-"karma is a b....">

Trying to be the victim while resigning for misconduct (which means the House Ethics Committee was going to decide unfavorably against her) is quite a spin indeed.

Her hypocrisy knows no limits.

(10-29-2019 09:49 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Trying to be the victim while resigning for misconduct (which means the House Ethics Committee was going to decide unfavorably against her) is quite a spin indeed.

Her hypocrisy knows no limits.

Some anonymous male Democrat representative made the comment that it would not have gone over very well if a male had played the victim card.

She was not a victim. She was basically becoming a bong wielding Matt Laeur in Stillettos.

MSNBC used to talk about her all the time. Now-silence. To CNN's credit, they are at least covering the story (even if they try to justify it).

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...rator.html

"...MSNBC was the first of the three news channels to begin covering her in July 2018 and has consistently paid more attention to her than the other two outlets. From June 2018 through the end of last month, MSNBC mentioned her 101 times, CNN 87 times and Fox News 61 times.

MSNBC’s mentions of Hill abruptly tailed off last month, with the channel mentioning her only a single time during October, focusing largely on her role as a victim of “revenge porn” – her characterization of nude photos of the congresswoman with a female campaign staffer. (Hill has blamed her husband -- with whom she is in divorce proceedings – along with “hateful political operatives” for releasing the photographs.)

The chart below compares the total number of mentions of Hill on each channel in October 2019 compared with the 16 months before, showing just how stark MSNBC’s radio silence on the story has been...."

Look, in this case revenge porn is illegal. This could ruin many people's lives. The ex-husband is mad at his ex because he can't have the staffer for himself.

(10-30-2019 02:01 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Look, in this case revenge porn is illegal. This could ruin many people's lives. The ex-husband is mad at his ex because he can't have the staffer for himself.

It's not revenge porn if she knowingly posted it or knew he posted it.

(10-29-2019 11:35 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  She was not a victim. She was basically becoming a bong wielding Matt Lauer in Stillettos.

What an awful vision to imagine. Some things you just can't unsee.

(10-29-2019 11:35 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  She was not a victim. She was basically becoming a bong wielding Matt Laeur in Stillettos.

I can't "like" this post enough....

I can't believe this is still a subject. There has to be a new Dem Talking point to deflect away from this by now?

(10-30-2019 02:01 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Look, in this case revenge porn is illegal. This could ruin many people's lives. The ex-husband is mad at his ex because he can't have the staffer for himself.

There are pics/videos of her having sex?

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/10/2...venge-porn
Vox calls it sexist and discouraging to young women and alphabet women.

Of course, she could simply not put weird nude pictures of herself on social media-duh!
And, as they point out in the article, not have inappropriate relationships with subordinates.

(10-31-2019 12:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/10/2...venge-porn
Vox calls it sexist and discouraging to young women and alphabet women.

Of course, she could simply not put weird nude pictures of herself on social media-duh!
And, as they point out in the article, not have inappropriate relationships with subordinates.

Did she?

(10-31-2019 12:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 12:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/10/2...venge-porn
Vox calls it sexist and discouraging to young women and alphabet women.

Of course, she could simply not put weird nude pictures of herself on social media-duh!
And, as they point out in the article, not have inappropriate relationships with subordinates.

Did she?

The implication from Vox and everything else was that these were social media or sexting. But they haven't specifically stated the source.

(10-31-2019 12:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 12:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 12:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/10/2...venge-porn
Vox calls it sexist and discouraging to young women and alphabet women.

Of course, she could simply not put weird nude pictures of herself on social media-duh!
And, as they point out in the article, not have inappropriate relationships with subordinates.

Did she?

The implication from Vox and everything else was that these were social media or sexting. But they haven't specifically stated the source.

Texting isn't social media. It's my understand that these photos were stolen and illegally posted.

(10-31-2019 12:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 12:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 12:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 12:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/10/2...venge-porn
Vox calls it sexist and discouraging to young women and alphabet women.

Of course, she could simply not put weird nude pictures of herself on social media-duh!
And, as they point out in the article, not have inappropriate relationships with subordinates.

Did she?

The implication from Vox and everything else was that these were social media or sexting. But they haven't specifically stated the source.

Texting isn't social media. It's my understand that these photos were stolen and illegally posted.

Texting is posting on the "air" so it is out there to a selected crowd, just like Facebook. And your understanding is just another case of you being gullible. You will believe any lie supporting a Democratic position.

Simple point is for Hill(ary), Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.

(10-31-2019 12:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 12:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 12:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 12:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/10/2...venge-porn
Vox calls it sexist and discouraging to young women and alphabet women.

Of course, she could simply not put weird nude pictures of herself on social media-duh!
And, as they point out in the article, not have inappropriate relationships with subordinates.

Did she?

The implication from Vox and everything else was that these were social media or sexting. But they haven't specifically stated the source.

Texting isn't social media. It's my understand that these photos were stolen and illegally posted.

Posted on Reddit.. That's a form of social media... Also it's unclear if her or her husband posted them, so that's hardly stolen.

I get it.. You've been proven wrong on this, trying to save face, and trying to cover for the democratic congresswoman...