Maggie's Farm

I don't understand the latest scandal about Rob Porter and his alleged domestic violence. Assuming the worst and he hit his spouse. There are remedies and his divorce is obviouxly one of those remedies. What is the point now? Is the point that anyone accused of domestic violence can never work again or appear in public? What? This is something between these two people why is it part of a public discourse. Yes, one could certainly argue that anyone who hits their spouse is a horrible person but can anyone tell me what actually happened here? Did she hit him first (which is often the case) and he hit her back? Did she physically and mentally abuse him (which is often the case) until he reacted to it? Is it all a lie and she is simply guilty of revenge "porn" (which is often the case)? What, exactly, requires that this man be hounded out of his job for the rest of his life? And who gets to decide? It should be clear by now that the #metoo movement was set up to push out political opponents and has mostly worked with a few backfires.

Have you seen the interview with Rob Porter's wife? Isn't it obvious that she genuinely enjoys the pain she is causing her ex? So again let's assume he did exactly what he is accused of her revenge is justified, right? But still why are we forced to participate in it? Why can't she go on TV and destroy his life without us saying "me too"? Let the guy work his job. Let the ex spread rumors and spend the rest of her life trying to destroy him. Let the other 320 million of us stay out of it.

What, exactly, is a "history of domestic violence? I knew a divorce lawyer who would not take a divorce case for the woman (all his clients were women) unless she would claim domestic violence. But what is a HISTORY of domestic violence? Is it one ex claiming domestic violence? If so what is the remedy if the ex and the lawyer made it up? There is none. It is like being called a racist or a white supremacist; the accusation doesn't need proof and there is no appeal, repeal or justice. In this case it is "the politics of personal destruction" right out of the Clinton/Alinsky playbook. This is filthy, dirty politics at it's worst and the smirking ex being interviewed was used by filthy dirty politicians. But the thing is, if she knew that, she wouldn't care. Because she had her own revenge porn to spew on national TV. She had an axe to bury in her ex's head and she did it in public just as she intended to.

I don't hate my ex and after 30 years I'm not mad or unhappy about it all anymore. But even at it's worst I would not have exposed things she did publicly just to destroy her life. I cannot fathom sinking that low and it makes me very suspicious of anyone who would. Would they lie? If there goal was to destroy their ex (and in this case that is clearly true) would they lie to do it???

"In this case, it involved both of his ex-wives."

I know I saw them and seriously would you believe what they said? One used that phrase "he put his hands on me". WTF does that mean? Not believable. If someone pushes me or hits me I would say that. The ONLY reason I would ever use that phrase "he put his hands on me" was if nothing happened and I needed to make it appear that something happened.


"Spousal abuse shows bad character, poor judgment, and lack of responsibility."

And yet women are responsible for 66% of spousal abuse 75% of killing their own children (not even counting abortions) and all the focus is put on the men. I understand part of the problem is because men are far less likely to whine and blame others. And as we can see from this latest case far less likely to coomme back 13 years later to torpedo the ex's life.

SO what actually happened? Not what she said I know what she said and saw the smirk and dramatic pause at appropriate times. What actually happened? Did she hit him first and he returned the favor? Did she throw something at him? What? We don't know and llikely will never know. But it all begs the question. WHAT is the resolution, the punishment, the absolution for a accusation of domestic violence or "he put his hands on me" or whatever??? Should we burn him at the stake? Or if the charge turns out to be false/hyped burn her at the stake? Should we lynch him/her? Should we harass him/her for the rest of his life getting him fired from every job??? What? What will make you happy?

IMHO this is no one's business but the two involved AND if it is investigated and a crime was committed it becomes the courts business. Should we fire everyone who ever committed a crime or even worse everyone who was accused of a crime??? Spell it out so we all know the rules.

This was/is dirty politics; a witch hunt. It is what #metoo was intended to do to create an atmosphere where enemies can be harmed and destroyed for political or personal reasons. There is zero reason for me or anyone to care what arguments, fights or revenge porn these women are into.

"When there is more than one accuser, then it is reasonable to believe there is a pattern."

I agree, except when politics enters into the equation then it is more likely that there is an ulterior motive.

"It's not a criminal case. Employers have a right to set standards."

Again I agree with what you said but not what you imply. If employers have a right to set their own standards why not just ignore these two Harpies? There is ZERO chance that the left would let Trump ignore them. If the president was a left wing Democrat this would never come up. This is a politically motivated witch hunt to try to cripple Trump's White House. Most likely Porter was getting to close to something the Democrats want to keep secret so they pulled this rabbit out of their hat.

"Don't exaggerate. He doesn't have a security clearance. That's the extent of it. "

Did he have a security clearance the day before his ex's dropped their revenge porn???

"a reason to deny someone a security clearance, and it has never required proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

Then how did Hillary ever get a security clearance?