Rep. Katie Hill announces resignation

Ziggurat said:
No, she doesn't have to explain. It's a private tattoo, the public was never supposed to see it. She doesn't owe anyone an explanation for that.
Click to expand...

Wrong. She's a public figure and -- until today -- a public official whose success depends on the image she presents to the public. Once something that she intended to keep private is known publicly, the public is entitled to ask questions and demand answers. Suppose the tattoo had been an actual swastika; is that still nobody's business? Suppose she had sent a "private" email to somebody saying something like "I can't tell you how much I hate [insert ethnic slur here]! I'd kill'em all if I could!" Still private? Nobody's business? Once we know something, we can't unknow it.
 
Bob001 said:
Wrong. She's a public figure and -- until today -- a public official whose success depends on the image she presents to the public. Once something that she intended to keep private is known publicly, the public is entitled to ask questions and demand answers. Suppose the tattoo had been an actual swastika; is that still nobody's business? Suppose she had sent a "private" email to somebody saying something like "I can't tell you how much I hate [insert ethnic slur here]! I'd kill'em all if I could!" Still private? Nobody's business? Once we know something, we can't unknow it.
Click to expand...

No, I disagree. The public has a right to ask anything. Whether she has a duty to answer about anything is another matter.
 
acbytesla said:
No, I disagree. The public has a right to ask anything. Whether she has a duty to answer about anything is another matter.
Click to expand...

Sure, she doesn't have any legal obligation. But if she expects to win votes or gain support for anything she might do, she better not let people think she's a Nazi or a racist. Q: "Are you a Nazi?" A: "None of your damn business!" won't take her far. The public is entitled to judge her by her answers.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Sure, she doesn't have any legal obligation. But if she expects to win votes or gain support for anything she might do, she better not let people think she's a Nazi or a racist. Q: "Are you a Nazi?" A: "None of your damn business!" won't take her far. The public is entitled to judge her by her answers.
Click to expand...

I agree. But that is true about any question. Considering she just resigned, the question is kind of moot for the foreseeable future.
 
Bob001 said:
Sure, she doesn't have any legal obligation. But if she expects to win votes or gain support for anything she might do, she better not let people think she's a Nazi or a racist. Q: "Are you a Nazi?" A: "None of your damn business!" won't take her far. The public is entitled to judge her by her answers.
Click to expand...

But the question wasn’t whether or not she’s a Nazi, but what that tattoo meant. Even politicians deserve some privacy. When you’re ******* someone of the Congressional payroll, that’s not just your business anymore. A tattoo on a part of your body you don’t expose in public is still private.
 
smartcooky said:
Its also very similar to the Maltese Cross, and the Crux Pattee, the symbol of the Knights Templar.

The Iron Cross dates back to the early 19th century, to the time of King Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia. Even if her tattoo is an iron cross, it is not the Nazi symbol unless is has a swastika at a 45° angle in the centre.
Click to expand...

But it may be a white supremacist symbol, they love appropriating such things see the recent change in the OK hand gesture.
 
angrysoba said:
Revenge porn is bad!

Now, what’s wrong with having sex with a staffer?
Click to expand...

Having sex with an employee is problematic because of power imbalances like a professor having sex with a student. So improper and if pursued in certain ways illegal(see sexual harassment). But not as fundamentally wrong in all instances as revenge porn.
 
Bob001 said:
Once again, i ask why does anybody need to put naked pix of themselves on their phones and send them to others, who can send them on and on and on forever? At least film prints and negatives could be kept locked up and destroyed if necessary. For the rest of her life, no matter what she does, these silly pictures will haunt her. How could a moment's fun be worth it?
Click to expand...

The answer is : **** you, they are consenting adults in their own bedroom. It is none of our business what kink any of them are into, so long as everyone was a willing participant.*


*the fact that one of the participants was a staffer is problematic in another way, but that has nothing to do with the revenge porn.
 
Donal said:
The answer is : **** you, they are consenting adults in their own bedroom. It is none of our business what kink any of them are into, so long as everyone was a willing participant.*


*the fact that one of the participants was a staffer is problematic in another way, but that has nothing to do with the revenge porn.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I echo this as well. As long as no one is forced to do anything, everyone is consenting, and from all the video\pictures I've seen, everyone was all smiles. Hopefully we find that to be the truth throughout.

Campaign funds and other sketchy behavior deserves ridicule, but who she dicks and vice versa is completely her business.
 
Donal said:
The answer is : **** you, they are consenting adults in their own bedroom. It is none of our business what kink any of them are into, so long as everyone was a willing participant.*

*the fact that one of the participants was a staffer is problematic in another way, but that has nothing to do with the revenge porn.
Click to expand...

The issue isn't what anybody does in their bedroom. The issue is being dumb enough to document it in a way the whole world can see forever -- and use it to hurt you.

And their are rules about how congresspersons treat their staffs, and actual laws about how campaign money can be spent.
 
Last edited:
It only hurts because people can't mind their own business and want to shame a woman who was enjoying sex.

Has the ex-husband been arrested?
 
Donal said:
It only hurts because people can't mind their own business and want to shame a woman who was enjoying sex.

Has the ex-husband been arrested?
Click to expand...


The person who has to be worried about getting arrested is the representative who misappropriated campaign money.

Like this guy:
SAN DIEGO — Rep. Duncan Hunter won’t go on trial until next year on corruption charges that involve the spending of campaign cash on vacations, extramarital affairs and other items, a U.S. judge decided Tuesday.
.....
He and his wife were indicted a year ago after authorities said they used more than $250,000 in campaign funds for personal expenses ranging from groceries to golf trips and family vacations.

Prosecutors also say Hunter spent campaign money on extramarital affairs.
Click to expand...
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/13/duncan-hunters-trial-pushed-back-1461344
 
Duncan Hunter is still in Congress, so I am not sure what you are trying to say. Also, he did waaaaaay worse than having one affair with one staffer. He was messing around with lobbyists and "consultants" as well. That opens quite a few more boxes.

Revenge porn is illegal. So, the ex-husband can be arrested.
 
Donal said:
Duncan Hunter is still in Congress, so I am not sure what you are trying to say. Also, he did waaaaaay worse than having one affair with one staffer. He was messing around with lobbyists and "consultants" as well. That opens quite a few more boxes.

Revenge porn is illegal. So, the ex-husband can be arrested.
Click to expand...


Sure, Hunter's worse. And Hill's hubby should be arrested. But she is (or was) a public official misusing funds and doing stupid stuff. This isn't over for her.
 
Bob001 said:
The issue isn't what anybody does in their bedroom. The issue is being dumb enough to document it in a way the whole world can see forever -- and use it to hurt you.

And their are rules about how congresspersons treat their staffs, and actual laws about how campaign money can be spent.
Click to expand...

Bah like they matter, see Stormy Daniels.
 
Bob001 said:
Sure, Hunter's worse. And Hill's hubby should be arrested. But she is (or was) a public official misusing funds and doing stupid stuff. This isn't over for her.
Click to expand...

Has anyone said otherwise, other than a few Twitter accounts? I think it is safe to say we all agree that, at the very least, it is wrong to have a relationship with a subordinate. Hill resigned and may face disciplinary action for that. Do we really have to add that qualifier every time? Its going to be like a really lame version of the RIGBY bit from Silicon Valley.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom