Former San Francisco mayor claims extramarital affair with Kamala Harris

[TheGoverness]

Bull****. He was still married.


She ****ed him to advance her political career.


Deal with it.

No he wasn't. That is a fact; I don't care if you choose to deny it.

Deal with it, buddy. :2wave:

 

[Grokmaster]

No he wasn't. That is a fact; I don't care if you choose to deny it.

Deal with it, buddy. :2wave:

Got proof?


Didn't think so.


Harris + ****ing Brown = CUSH POLITICAL APPOINTMENT = FACT.


I don't care if you choose to deny it.

 

[TheGoverness]

Got proof?


Didn't think so.


Harris + ****ing Brown = CUSH POLITICAL APPOINTMENT = FACT.


I don't care if you choose to deny it.

I've already provided proof. There's a link attached to my post (which you so kindly ignored), so do yourself a favor and read it, absorb the information, and take it to heart. But alas you won't do that, because you can't have anything ruinnig your ALL CAPS RANTING, so I will leave you to your folly.

Toodles. :2wave:

 

[Felis Leo]

But she wasn't an adulterer. Neither she nor the mayor were married at the time of this 'arangement'. Apparently, they made no effort to hide it. However, it seems he did have affairs with other women.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tr...arried-man-used-launch-career-mostly-fiction/

Thank you for the article, TheGoverness. Brown appears to be an utter scumbag. But it takes two to tango. I happen to believe that it is immoral for married people to sleep around, whether or not they are said to be "separated" from their spouses (unless they file for legal separation or divorce, they are still bound to their marital vows). And I believe it is immoral for any man or woman, whether already in a relationship or single, to sleep with men and women they know to be married. Call me a moralistic dinosaur (because that is what I am), but I believe people who are adulterers suffer from a fundamental dishonesty, and I will not vote for adulterers for public office or believe they should hold public office.

But even if Brown was not married and the issue of adultery was not present, I do want to be clear: Appointing one's former paramour to public office definitely shows the appearance of impropriety if not outright corruption. And Kamala Harris did not have to accept that appointment. She could have declined it saying that it would appear improper, and then have run for public office on her own.

 

[TheGoverness]

Thank you for the article, TheGoverness. Brown appears to be an utter scumbag. But it takes two to tango. I happen to believe that it is immoral for married people to sleep around, whether or not they are said to be "separated" from their wives. And I believe it is immoral for any man or woman, whether already in a relationship or single, to sleep with men and women they know to be married.

But even if Brown was not married and the issue of adultery was not present, I do want to be clear: Appointing one's former paramour to public office definitely shows the appearance of impropriety if not outright corruption. And Kamala Harris did not have to accept that appointment. She could have declined it saying that it would appear improper, and then have run for public office on her own.

Well, that's fine. You and I have different persepctives on the matter, and that's okay. I personally don't jive with that, but I guess that's whatever. I do think Brown is a sleazebag, though. I agree with you on that.

I think Kamala Harris is a scumbag for other reasons that I personally find more concerning, like her history as a prosecutor, and the sort of scummy things she did to some people. That's honestly why I won't vote for her in the primaries, and I hope she doesn't win the nomination. We'll see how it goes.

 

[Cardinal]

How so? Because a couple of slanderous skanks tried to blackmail him?

Trump slept with those “skanks,” so what does that make him?

 

[Felis Leo]

Trump slept with those “skanks,” so what does that make him?

It makes him a garbage human unworthy of holding public office. If a person cannot be trusted to uphold their oath to be faithful to their spouse, they certainly cannot be trusted to uphold their oath to faithfully serve the country.

 

[Cardinal]

It makes him a garbage human unworthy of holding public office. If a man cannot be trusted to uphold his oath to be faithful to his wife, he certainly cannot be trusted to uphold his oath to faithfully serve the country.

In my opinion, it is not, in and of itself, a deal breaker. It is certainly a character flaw to have an affair outside your marriage, though extenuating circumstances can increase or decrease the severity of this act. Infidelity is human, but more important is whether it speaks to a larger pattern of low character.

So in the case of Trump, it's not only that he cheated on his wife; it's that he cheated on his wife and he appears to possess no redeeming values anywhere else either. As yet, I can see nothing in his life he considers sacred, which is why I don't dismiss his infidelity: it all fits into a consistent pattern in which he's just no damn good at all.

No action is an island; the total package must be taken into consideration. This is specifically why even if Kamala Harris did sleep with a married man (which I'm given to understand did not happen), this is not an issue because it doesn't appear to be packaged into a larger pattern of low character, and is therefore relegated into the "to err is human" drawer.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I get American Trump fans deluding themselves about Trump, but what's in it for you, Canada John?

I enjoy politics - nothing in it for me, personally.

 

[Felis Leo]

In my opinion, it is not, in and of itself, a deal breaker. It is certainly a character flaw to have an affair outside your marriage, though extenuating circumstances can increase or decrease the severity of this act. Infidelity is human, but more important is whether it speaks to a larger pattern of low character.

So in the case of Trump, it's not only that he cheated on his wife; it's that he cheated on his wife and he appears to possess no redeeming values anywhere else either. As yet, I can see nothing in his life he considers sacred, which is why I don't dismiss his infidelity: it all fits into a consistent pattern in which he's just no damn good at all.

No action is an island; the total package must be taken into consideration. This is specifically why even if Kamala Harris did sleep with a married man (which I'm given to understand did not happen), this is not an issue because it doesn't appear to be packaged into a larger pattern of low character, and is therefore relegated into the "to err is human" drawer.

Fair enough, Cardinal. But the reason I do not allow myself such thinking is because the idea that we should look at "redeeming qualities" or the "totality of one's character" quickly devolves into "did this politician further my partisan interests? If so, practically anything can be forgiven." How many Democrats are willing to excuse Newt Gingrich's disgusting and cold-hearted infidelities on the basis that he is a pretty decent science fiction author? How many Republicans should excuse the late Ted Kennedy's horrible treatment of women on the basis that he was just such a personally gregarious and likable fellow? I would wager practically none do, because looking at redeeming qualities for morally abhorrent politicians is almost always a partisan exercise. Really, it is just looking at their efficacy at enacting the policies desired by their constituents, and little else.

Just to be clear, Donald Trump has done several things in the office of the presidency that I approve of. Since I am ardently pro-Israel and anti-Iran, many his policies appear to be a Godsend. And in turn, I could turn a blind eye to my own moral principles and twist myself into a pretzel to justify or ignore them, or engage in whataboutisms and appeals to hypocrisy (For instance, "What about Bill Clinton??"). But I do not, because I believe that bad acts are typically the product of bad character, and should not be excused. Because when we do look for excuses for our favorite politicians, the quality of our politics devolves immensely.

 

[RAMOSS]

How so? Because a couple of slanderous skanks tried to blackmail him?

Well it comes to Stormy, I have 134,000 reasons to believe her.

 

[Grokmaster]

Well it comes to Stormy, I have 134,000 reasons to believe her.

Hardly. Wealthy men pay off lyingass, slandering, blackmailing skanks all the time...

That gruesome skeaze was never in Trump's league, ON HER BEST DAY. He let her have a PHOTO OP. Hardly the move of a man trying to have an illicit tryst.

As to my other point...beautiful women have thrown themselves at Trump his entire life...low hanging fruit like the BJ Queen were NEVER in the running.











AS OPPOSED TO THIS SKANK:

 

[Grokmaster]

 

[Saladin4]

Well, that's fine. You and I have different persepctives on the matter, and that's okay. I personally don't jive with that, but I guess that's whatever. I do think Brown is a sleazebag, though. I agree with you on that.

I think Kamala Harris is a scumbag for other reasons that I personally find more concerning, like her history as a prosecutor, and the sort of scummy things she did to some people. That's honestly why I won't vote for her in the primaries, and I hope she doesn't win the nomination. We'll see how it goes.

She would be better as a VP.....

 

[ultmd]

LOL at all of the low-information wingnuts (and their media sources) over this Nothing-burger.

Harris' relationship with Brown, when he was in the midst of a 6 year separation from his now-ex-wife and she was a single woman, has been a matter of public record for a long time.

Harris dated Brown for about a year. They stopped dating in 1995. She met and married her husband in 2014.

Let's compare that to any of the numerous wingnut political and pundit leaders of the last few decades (Drumpf/Trump....Newt....Hastert....Sanford....O'Reilly....Nikki Haley....etc. etc. etc.). Of course, the wingnut crowd can't be expected to do that, can they?

Bottom line: the idea that this non-story is "big news" among the wingnut crowd (who supported and STILL idolize Pres. Orange Orangutan himself) speaks to the ignorance and pathology the infests their brains.

In the end, this will be a non-story. But for some reason, with every new fake "scandal" that bubbles up from the bowels of the wingnut media, it consistently takes a while for the legitimate media to do the right thing. Very soon, this story will be limited to fake news crowd, only.

 

[Mr Person]

Group A: doesn't care about 16 sex assault accusers, doesn't care about bragging about peeping tom'ing teenage girls in owned teenage beauty pageants, doesn't care about three divorces and tons of cheating, tries to make hay out of one claimed non-illegal mid-divorce affair. (Literally a technicality. You divorce someone and you expect either partner to respect vows mid-divorce? The only reason to do that is incidental. Namely, you're too shaken up by the divorce to be thinking much about sex )

I think anyone who for some inexplicable reason still thought that maybe Group A has anything to say about reasonableness or morality can be safely ignored.



Who is in Group A? Well.....maybe people who don't know can also be safely ignored, and are probably in it anyway, hence their "ignorance."

 

[justabubba]

LOL at all of the low-information wingnuts (and their media sources) over this Nothing-burger.

Harris' relationship with Brown, when he was in the midst of a 6 year separation from his now-ex-wife and she was a single woman, has been a matter of public record for a long time.

Harris dated Brown for about a year. They stopped dating in 1995. She met and married her husband in 2014.

Let's compare that to any of the numerous wingnut political and pundit leaders of the last few decades (Drumpf/Trump....Newt....Hastert....Sanford....O'Reilly....Nikki Haley....etc. etc. etc.). Of course, the wingnut crowd can't be expected to do that, can they?

Bottom line: the idea that this non-story is "big news" among the wingnut crowd (who supported and STILL idolize Pres. Orange Orangutan himself) speaks to the ignorance and pathology the infests their brains.

In the end, this will be a non-story. But for some reason, with every new fake "scandal" that bubbles up from the bowels of the wingnut media, it consistently takes a while for the legitimate media to do the right thing. Very soon, this story will be limited to fake news crowd, only.

why was nikki haley among those names. i thought her personal life was publically pristine

 

[DiAnna]

At least not of the mushroom variety.

:lol:

 

[DiAnna]

I heard Kamala got her first endorsement.

Did she have to dust her knees off or pull her pants up after getting the guarantee?

Wow. I didn't expect to see you joining the "attractive female runs for president, must be a slut" crowd. I'm no Kamala Harris fan, but you continue to disappoint me with your crude comments.

 

[Fishking]

Yeah for the rabid right muck rakers to wallow in very old news. To be clear the 'affair' was with a couple in an open marriage as the mayor often attended parties with his wife on one arm and a pretty young thing on the other. (are ya'll jealous much???)

Anyway the former mayor claims to have helped a laundry list of politicians and is known for tooting his own horn. I doubt this changes the landscape much- those who watch the 700 Club weren't going to vote for her. Those who feign shock and dismay weren't going to vote for her. Like OC dancing in a college video, this seems more faux poutrage by the rabid right than a gamechanger....

but do enjoy rolling around on the dead squirrel like some apartment toy dog in a city park.... eace

Yeah...let's ignore her getting her start by unethically getting appointments because she was banging the boss.

 

[Fishking]

Did she use her lawyer's secret company to funnel money in order to pay off the affair?

Not but she sure benefited, professionally, from the relationship. No bigs though....I mean, you care more about private citizens doing wholly legal things with their own money than actual government corruption.

 

[Threegoofs]

Wow. I didn't expect to see you joining the "attractive female runs for president, must be a slut" crowd. I'm no Kamala Harris fan, but you continue to disappoint me with your crude comments.

Really?

Surprised?

 

[DiAnna]

Really?

Surprised?

Yes, frankly. I don't usually agree with his politics, but I never in a million years expected him to dive into a misogynist mud pit holding hands with the likes of Grokmaster, dobieg, marke and apdst. I've always liked Roadvirus.