Was it only a few days ago that the husband of Kamala Harris was calling Vance and Trump weird? Absolutely hilarious and predictable. Screwing the help is an old Democrat tradition going back to slavery. Could this campaign get more surreal?
Well yes it could. From the first Mrs. Emhoff who is a fanatic Democrat:
These people are beyond parody. They assume, because our media is so biased, that their misdeeds will never surface. Trump is far from an angel in this aspect of life, but how dare these bizarros call anyone else weird. The only serious element in this bad farce is what became of the innocent child?
It will come as a surprise to absolutely no one that the Second Gentleman is an advocate of abortion:
It’s California, what do you expect?
I dunno, cheating spouses and comments about crazy cat ladies seems like apples and oranges to me … But, until they go after leftist’s favorite son Matt Greonig, it all seems pretty hypocritical.
My first question regarding this story is: what does it have to do with Kamala? The affair and pregnancy occurred when Emhoff was married to his FIRST wife. Kamala probably didn’t even know Doug Emhoff at the time. So how does this reflect on HER character or fitness (or lack thereof) for office? If I were running for public office and some media outlet dug up the fact that one of my husband’s former girlfriends had an abortion (against his wishes) 30+ years ago, before I ever knew him, how would that be a reflection on MY character?
OTOH this story might go a long way toward explaining why the Veep and Second Gentleman are such loud and proud advocates of abortion….
This man(?) should have BETA MALE FOR ABORTION tattooed across his forehead.
The term “sneaky f-ers” was coined by evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith to describe “subordinate males who take advantage of the opportunity to mate with females while dominant males are otherwise occupied, leading to their reproductive success.”
That “term” fits perfectly, except he then seeks the ok to kill offspring and avoid responsibility.
She’s a producer of documentaries. Hollywood is repellent.
Emhoff, his ho’, his estranged wife, his peculiar daughter. The son is the only one around him that does not induce a gag reflex.
Elaine, I would ask the reverse question: What does this not have to do with Kamala?
Maybe she didn’t know him during his first marriage, …she surely SHOULD have known about his past when she married him. If nothing else, ..how could she expect him being faithful to her when he wasn’t faithful to his first wife? Why would she expect a long, fulfilling relationship with him when his first marriage ended in divorce? Or if she couldn’t, …why did she still marry him? It ultimately becomes very much a question of her competence in making serious decisions.
There is no such thing as “Second Gentleman”. There is no such thing as “First Lady”. Nor, for that matter, is there either a “First Dog” or a “First Cat”. Time and past that these pseudo-aristocratic neologisms were unceremoniously dumped. (Although, I must admit that for a time, years ago, I referred to Linda Ronstadt as California’s First Lay.) Titles are temporary and go with elected or appointed office. Anything else is spurious and, in my view, outright un-American. End of rant.
If nothing else, ..how could she expect him being faithful to her when he wasn’t faithful to his first wife? Why would she expect a long, fulfilling relationship with him when his first marriage ended in divorce?
==
I suspect she has a more transactional approach to human relations.
“It ultimately becomes very much a question of her competence in making serious decisions.”
IMO that would depend on whether, at the time of their marriage, her husband had recognized the error of his ways and shown “firm purpose of amendment” to not do those things again, or whether he was still attempting to justify his actions and/or disavow responsibility for them. (It appears that the latter is the case.) I have mentioned there being an abortion in my husband’s past; it took place totally against his will (he tried to talk his girlfriend out of it, to no avail) and he has always regretted it, so I do not hold that against him in any way. However, if he had argued that the decision was justified or that the girlfriend had “every right” to do what she did, I would not have married him.
IMO that would depend on whether, at the time of their marriage, her husband had recognized the error of his ways and shown “firm purpose of amendment”
==
The smart money says KH has never engaged in the sort of moral reasoning you’re attributing to her.
At a public event in the stands Jill came over to Emhoff and planted a long smooch full on Emhoff’s lips. He didnt look surprised; he looked like he enjoyed it. Joe was unaware. Jill and Doug both have adultery in their backgrounds.