Cottle does not delve into this "built differently" hypothesis or the reasons why people believe it and choose to condone bad behavior. She seems to hope to light a fire under these weaker people and motivate them to oppose the "powerful, ambitious men" who — supposedly — are fueled by sexual desire.
Maybe she doesn't delve into the hypothesis because she thinks it's true and self-evident. Maybe she's too puritanical to open up the subject. "Built differently." Say it clearly and explicitly. When I was a child, circa 1960, I asked my mother how babies were born. That was long ago, but I remember her answer verbatim: "Well, you know how men and women are built differently."
Can we please grow up and say it bluntly? There's no reason to be polite here. Powerful, ambitious men are built differently... the idea is if we want truly great men in our positions of power, we need to accept the component of their psyche that is a drive for sex — a lot of sex, with young, beautiful women. We're diminishing ourselves if we filter out the men who have it. Look at JFK. Look at Trump. And by the way, it's also the reason why none of the women are truly great political leaders.
That's not my personal belief. That's the hypothesis Cottle gestures at, and I'm just putting it bluntly. Maybe you can put it more bluntly, so I'll turn the conversation over to you.
পোস্টগুলি
১৩৪টি মন্তব্য:
This guy's not actually a rapist, he's just a pig.
My favorite take is the reporter at The Hill who said she knew but didn't rep[ort on Swalwell because "it wasn't my beat" and her editor didn't give her permission to write about Swalwell. Mort Kondrake would never have had that stupid policy.
But in Jorn-0-lism now it's easier to write blatant fiction about Trump and call it news but the actual truth "everybody knows" about (D) politicians cannot be told without expressed written permission.
You might look at the other end of this that "women will be women", using men for their own betterment. Nance Pelosi knew what trash Swalwell was from the start. She hand-picked him for Congress, gave him the front mic on all of the fraud investigations or media posts on Trump. He was the dirt carrier. She pointed him in the directions she wanted.
She even made his sleeping with the CCP an 'oh...everybody makes mistakes' moment, and he somehow got cover to remain in Congress after offering up the notes of the US Congress to the CCP.
Pelosi has used people all around her to enrich herself beyond anyone in Congressional history (except possibly Joe Biden). Yet, like the dirty Ted Kennedy, she gets a pass as Madame Speaker. Please. She's dirt, just like Swalwell.
Boys will be boys. Girls will be girls. Everyone in this stinks to high heaven.
Convenient excuses the Order of the Day
If you want better leaders you need to support them so they get elected. You want more scumbags keep falling for whatever political strategy NYT and WaPo are peddling on behalf of the politicians…
Nothing new. Grover Cleveland famously defended his having fathered a child out-of-wedlock: "I don't believe the American people want a gelding in the White House."
The Althousians get it- he isn’t being ejected because he’s a scumbag it’s because he risks diluting the vote in California’s goofy election laws, potentially handing a victory to Republicans. Sex is just the convenient excuse that prevents the supporters from getting the urge to look behind the curtain…
Ah yes bethany allen (id never heard of her before) now i know why
This guy's not actually a rapist, he's just a pig
Yes. That’s why they kept him so long. That Gaetz guy wasn’t a rapist either. He was booted hours after his arrival because he wouldn’t play ball and demanded regular order. Again, sex a convenient excuse…
Althouse, “ And by the way, it's also the reason why none of the women are truly great political leaders.”
Hillary to Bill, “I need to be fucked more than twice a year.”
That’s why Hillary lost. It wasn’t the Russians.
I wouldn’t classify Swalwell as a great man. I’m not sure that great men would ever (or need to) send unsolicited photos of their private parts.
"Nance Pelosi knew what trash Swalwell was from the start."
Hillary knew what her husband was, and stuck by him even after it all came out in public. Jackie Kennedy put up with her husband's sex-crazed antics in the White House. Women who want to be part of a power couple take the bargain.
Did she ask around, rhetorical?
"I wouldn’t classify Swalwell as a great man."
The hypothesis is not that there is greatness in every man who is driven by desire for a lot of sex, with young, beautiful women. It's that the great political leaders will be in that set, so we'll lose our best leaders if we filter them all out.
Power/b> is an incredible aphrodisiac. I've been around political circles for four decades and have watched countless women throw themselves at politicos. I guarantee you that Swalwell didn't have to work that hard to bag most of these gals.
It's not that powerful ambitious men are built differently, but as Trump pointed out lo those many years ago, "they let you."
And that is the answer. Swalwell grabbed them because they let him--the media as much as the women.
But doesn’t the headline explicitly name Swalwell? Why name him if he wasn’t part of the hypothetical set?
How Many People Heard About Swalwell and Did Nothing?" (NYT).
The issue, of course, isn't how many people knew, but who knew. Hint: It's the same people who pretended not to know Biden's brain was turning into scrambled eggs.
Can we please grow up and say it bluntly? There's no reason to be polite here. Powerful, ambitious men are built differently... the idea is if we want truly great men in our positions of power, we need to accept the component of their psyche that is a drive for sex — a lot of sex, with young, beautiful women. We're diminishing ourselves if we filter out the men who have it. Look at JFK. Look at Trump. And by the way, it's also the reason why none of the women are truly great political leaders
I will put it more bluntly: Women vote for these types of men.
Ann Althouse voted for Bill Clinton, an man she knew was a rapist, for... abortions?
The abortions were the excuse. There was no logical reason. The problem is in the female head wiring.
The problem is we are letting people who have no stake in the future vote.
...the idea is if we want truly great men in our positions of power, we need to accept the component of their psyche that is a drive for sex — a lot of sex, with young, beautiful women.
That's applicable to all men, not just the ambitious and powerful.
To put this delicately as I can, I'd like to know from the PAM's (powerful ambitious men), how often the aggressive strategy succeeded. I mean, if that strategy got them sex with, say, 20 young women who seemed plenty willing to join in the experience with no regrets. But the 21st threw down a red flag, then let's channel Gary Becker and calculate risk/reward. The strategy may be rational.
How is this any different from the 60s rock groupies?
People enter these public arenas for the sex.
What Temujin said. Swalwell was picked because he was useful and not particularly bright.
I will put it more bluntly: Women vote for these types of men.
Yup. Too many vote for a guy they’d want to date. It’s the charisma plus political power. Intoxicating. Obama the boyfriend. Clinton and the Kennedys the bad boys winkwink. There’s some pull from the guys who like guys like that, too. Nobody likes the nerdy boring candidates. We have derogatory names for them, like policy wonk.
My opinion is that Trump explained it better than Cottle on that famous Billy Bush Access Hollywood tape that the leftish people here love to misquote. They repeat with their own bias added because the blunt truth hurts them:
"I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything."
This is also obviously applicable to very wealthy and/or powerful men in politics, business, etc. Notive Trump did not say rape, or imply forcing anything. "They let you do it." And if "they" will "let you" then a large percentage of men will "do it" because they can.
Well said, Howard @8:04am!
Have the allegations been proven?
This is how we operate now. Allegations.
Ann Althouse said...
"I wouldn’t classify Swalwell as a great man."
The hypothesis is not that there is greatness in every man who is driven by desire for a lot of sex, with young, beautiful women. It's that the great political leaders will be in that set, so we'll lose our best leaders if we filter them all out.
This is the attempt to avoid responsibility.
(Democrat) women like rapists. That is the way they want men to act. Read all of women's literature.
If you read close enough you see they would actually prefer if their politicians would suck their blood too or turn into a werewolf and beat them up.
Sense of resignation. LOL. She means willingness to turn a blind eye as long as its a Democrat they like. Its just the same ol' Leftist attitude. "Sure we're against X, but the most important thing is to beat the other team".
Its why that French socialist leader Strauss-Kahn was able to rape leftwing women and they said nothing. The women didn't want to help those Goddamn Rightwingers. So, they took one for the team.
I agree with someone upthread. Swalwall must have become a liability and the Democrats are using the sex scandal as an excuse to get rid of him.
"..Powerful, ambitious men are built differently....."
yep, and ".. young, beautiful women..." like that,
and will let them grab them by their..
of course, Swallowwell's problem was the same problem that Biden and Clinton had.. They WEREN'T powerful ambitious men;
they were second rank grifters that advanced far beyond their abilities..
A career in porn is so much more difficult to establish and manage than a career in politics, plus the real money is in politics. That said, if you're goal in life is sex with young, attractive women, a career in music offers the greatest rewards both in terms of women and money. Even if you're caught with an underage girl, it just adds to the legend.....Being a successful Hollywood producer also has more perks than politics, but rock stars definitely lead the best possible life for horn dogs.
So an affair with a Chinese spy does not get you fired but workplace harassment does. Makes sense.
See diane feinstein
Look, if Swallow did commit crimes against these four women, it's really up to them to report it to the police and stop him. If you want to complain about Swallow running around free, then blame the four alleged victims for failing to call the cops when he committed his alleged crimes.
I suspect this was a political hit job to get him out of the race, engineered by Katie Porter.
We know the name of one of the alleged victims: Ally Sammarco, an online "influencer." She claims that he sent her a dick pic. She is in cahoots with Cheyenne Hunt, a lawyer with ties to Porter.
But get this, the one who supposedly started this hit job was Annika Albrecht, who said she was "physically sick and nauseous" at the idea of Swalwell becoming governor of California.
That's like these damn girls who were physically sick and nauseous at the idea of Roe v. Wade being overruled. Who gives a fuck about your feelings? You don't get to decide who the governor will be. It's up to the people of California.
And what did Swalwell do to upset her so much? Invite her to his hotel room.. That's it, that's the crime.
"We didn't know each other before. I didn't know any of the other women," Sammarco said. "I knew nothing about them. We got connected through this process, and I'm so glad we did."
What process? Which attorneys contacted you? Who made the decision to time the attack 28 days before the election?
I’m fine with the hypothesis and give it some credibility. But let’s not be half ass about it. There are a few important corollaries that need to be fleshed out.
Women are attracted to confident men.
It takes a lot of ego to be a politician, which is seen as confidence.
Most men, especially egotistical men, will happily enjoy a woman willing to stroke their ego and physical things.
Plenty of woman, especially those also egotistical and seeking power, will prey on male ego if they think it will advance their career.
Plenty of weaker woman will give themselves to a confident man simply for the false hope they’ll either gain confidence themselves or at least be protected by it.
There are men and women capable of being politicians without engaging in these behaviors, but they don’t tend to last long and/or rise to higher levels of politics. And if they do, there avoidance of these behaviors make them uninteresting and boring, so we forget they existed at all.
I'd guess that it's the kind of man that women throw themselves at. Many of them change their mind and there's your rape charge.
I’m not sure that great men would ever (or need to) send unsolicited photos of their private parts.
Exactly a great man doesn't send "unsolicited" dick pics because the ladies are begging for them.
And her driver office manager
Convincing a crowd of your worthiness and charisma is an act of seduction. If you have that power, there will always be a temptation to use that power on selected members of the crowd. The wonder is not that it happens, but that it happens so infrequently. (That's not to say that it happens all that infrequently.)
When you can pull a lot of women - you will. A certain percentage of those will be unhappy after the fact about their own behavior and to live with themselves, or their idea of themselves, they deflect the happenstance to their partner in lust. A priority of any and all lotharios is to spot those types before they become radioactive. Liquor aldays clouds the radar screen of incoming targets. That's what ejection seats are for - punching out instead of riding it into a crater on the ground. Eric didn't punch out until after he already cratered.
"....The hypothesis is not that there is greatness in every man who is driven by desire for a lot of sex, with young, beautiful women. It's that the great political leaders will be in that set, so we'll lose our best leaders if we filter them all out...."
Swalwell wasn't filtered out because of sex. Swalwell was filtered out using sex as the pretext, to accomplish a clear set of political objectives. He had outlived his usefulness and his ego had become a problem.
He's a creep and a dirtbag, but pictures of him swapping tongues with a hooker is not rape, and drunken consensual sex a decade ago isn't, either.
The real exposé here is not Swalwell, but the way the Democrat party operates, calling it good governance. You notice they had his destruction pre-planned and ready to go, careful to make sure he had nothing that could potentially damage the party, once they pulled the trigger? It wouldn't surprise me to learn the Mafia uses Democrat examples at their executive leadership conferences.
So I guess any dirtbag can go into politics and sleep with lots of beautiful young women and get a pass while we wait to see if he turns out to be a great man? Nice job.
Winston Churchill tests this hypothetical set.
Human behavior and sexual politics mirrors other animal species. Body size (larger males; smaller females) is a simple, direct predictor of male relationship power and mating dynamics.
Elephant seals have incredible size differences between males and females. The males are 16' to 20' long, while the females are 9' to 10' long. In terms of mass, the females are skinny little things. This pattern follows from how they raise their pups on a limited number of Pacific Ocean beaches -- the toughest males grab and control all the spaces and allow large harems of females to give birth and raise young before heading back to sea.
Among humans and other great apes, males are routinely much larger than females. Similar functional logic applies. If you (female) can't beat 'em on size, you tend to cozy up to 'em for protection and assistance with babies.
If humans were like deep sea anglerfish, the females would be 10x the size of the males. Males are little parasites that attach to the female mothership and fuse in place. Akin to the children of DEI mothers...similar economics...
“Exactly a great man doesn't send ‘unsolicited’ dick pics because the ladies are begging for them.”
What was your sentence and were you on probation upon your release, DeeDee?
Normal primate behavior. The big, tough monkeys get the girls, and that's because the girls prefer the the big, tough monkeys.
Blunt enough for ya?
Men are "built different" because they are wired to pursue the unattainable...go where no man has gone before...fight the unbeatable foe...fuck the unfuckable woman, etc. And women are wired to not just let such men fuck them, but to WANT such men to do it. That is why the human race not simply survives, but dominates.
Remember the Plaster Casters?
Democrat media: Swalwell may be a repulsive horndog, but Kavanaugh ...
I’m sure we can all agree their rapey-fingered philanderers are evil, degenerate perverts while our rapey-fingered philanderers are healthy, manly, virile American heroes.
It's commonly call demagogy. They have to be watched and squashed when they get out of hand.
That's why we have democracy, to squash them. Alcibiades to Trump.
The "oh no we're a republic not a democracy" types play into the hands of demagogues, that's why we got trump.
Hopefully the morons wake up.
The Democrat Party is what's "built differently"
I cannot emphasize enough how phony this all is.
The damn NY Post runs this headline
New Eric Swalwell victim speaks out for first time, reveals moment that shook her to her core
What was the moment? She dodged a bullet.
A real bullet?
No. He invited her to his hotel room. And she didn't go.
I really don't like calling a beautiful woman a liar. But my ass that you started this process.
Phony, full of shit beautiful girls, with their phony "I was almost in his hotel room" dramas. Is every woman in California an aspiring actress?
“Men” are built different. See, Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA) who resigned after less than one year in office in 2019. She was accused of an affair between Hill and her legislative director, which they both denied. Hill then admitted that she had had an inappropriate relationship with a campaign staffer before she became a member of Congress. She resigned after nude pictures were released.
Handwringing opinion article. Notably absent any woman. I suppose since it's the NYTs, if a woman did it they would applaud it.
Juxtapose this take with the reactions towards Trump during his "grab them by the pussy" faux-scandal. It was the same when Bill Clinton was staining blue dresses.
Its a variant of the "civility bullshit" operation.
"Me Too Bullshit" perhaps?
jimmy numbers, your party was wilfully enabling Swalwell for years so spare us the lectures about demagogues.
Only successful men gain competent followers, which is the main requirement to be a leader. Followers. Most successful men are successful with women.
Yeah, but Q, these aren't the big tough strong monkeys. These are the silver tongue d'evils and moneychangers of modern civilization. Look at all the dweeby wimps of Epstein Island fame. Modern times in the concrete jungle are ruled by the gammas of the jungle jungle. Hence their attraction to the youngest and weakest of compliant females.
He'll end up being OK....he knows where the bodies are buried, so to speak.
The bottom line is that this is only partially about sex, it's mostly about Power. If you want to propose that, in order to have 'truly great men in our positions of power, we need to accept the component of their psyche that is a drive for sex', then you need to accept that you cannot have a political party that operates the way the Democrats do.
The problem with the Democrats is they have no real moral framework in matters of sex because they have shouted through the culture, loud and clear, that consent is the only moral absolute. So the sin is lack of clear consent, not adultery.
It might help if every show or movie didn’t present the modern woman as eager and willing to have sex 10 minutes after she meets a guy. It might help if women didn’t dress like hookers at the office.
Democrats are in rebellion against human nature. It’s their platform. Men have always been weak, visually stimulated tomcats, unless they govern themselves for the good of their marriages and their consciences before God. Democrats believe freedom means license to do whatever “feels good .” Men like sex. Women use sex to gain power over men. Sometimes that means seduction toward some personal goal; sometimes it means eking revenge on an affair gone bad by yak yakking about it. It has always been thus.
What people "hear" may only be rumors, a legend. Some politicians in the past were said to "have an eye for the ladies," which didn't mean that they had an aesthetic appreciation for female faces and forms, but that they were willing to jump on just about every woman. How many people had actually seen them in action? How many had heard about their activities? And having heard, how many people attributed all that to the legend, rather than take the rumors as facts? Stories about a politician groping women become part of a legend, and others around him think 'no harm, no foul.' When more serious accusations surface, there's a tendency to dismiss them.
This is a little related to the idea that we forgive (and hold to a different standard) promiscuity and some deviancy (even sex w/ 15 years olds) in great artists, actors and musicians (David Bowie, Jimmy Page, Elvis, Don Johnson, Luc Besson, etc.). If you read Dark Side of Camelot (Seymour Hersh), it's pretty obvious lots of people knew about JFK's sexcapades, but did not think they were disqualifying. They were part of the package.
The Access Hollywood tape involved the sort of locker room bragging that half the presidents (well, maybe a little less than half) in my lifetime indulged in.
IMHO, Strauss-Kahn was set up. He was a philanderer -- possibly with his wife's permission (the French being like that) -- but wasn't it more likely that Sarkozy wanted to eliminate a likely rival than that DSK would be raping maids? Well, if not more likely, then at least as likely.
It seems to me we have broaden the cache of great leaders for review to see if there is correlation with womanizing across the board. Evaluating only the ones without the control over their dick seems a bit sketchy if you’re sincerely looking for a rule of thumb regarding why they are or could be great leaders.
Assuming the allegations against Swalwell are true, consider this: the only window in which the SF Chronicle and all the other follow-ons were going to publish this story was basically now until June 2nd- after June 2nd, assuming Swalwell made it to the general election, the story would have been smothered with a pillow.
Hey its just locker room play right? The guy in top seat is only court adjudicated sexual abuser in this group so far..ROLE MODELS LEAD BY THEIR ACTIONS..
The problem for any of these High Powered Men is whether their sexual encounters are consensual in all cases.
Marilyn Monroe was a willing participant with JFK. Angie Dickinson was not.
JFK fucking a press intern is despicable behavior.
Male politicians exhibit behaviors akin to chimpanzees competing for dominance. Chimpanzee Politics is a good book to read. Your blog is full of these primates.
Justabill: "Winston Churchill tests this hypothetical set."
Yes, and Harry Truman. In McCullough's biography, there's a bit about how Bess had to make a sheepish call to the White House Usher after she and Harry broke the bed. CC, JSM
One problem is that 'feminism' has downplayed the explosive impact of female hormones on girls as they enter puberty. Their extreme and comical meltdowns for Rudolph Valentino, the Beatles, the Monkees, JUSTIN BIEBER, and many more reveals the power of biology during this phase.
If not for natural hormones they'd make other 'choices' or take other courses. They used to be protected by older women and responsible men -- and generally would have gotten pregnant and taken a grounded mommy path. Feminism wiped away the shepards and guardians along with the predators and control freaks, and led to modern anxious-angry-confused-nun-like female behavior.
Weaselly assholes are built differently. They just try to achieve power to facilitate their baser urges.
Dylan explained Swalwell's transactional approach in 1966:
You might think he loves you for your money, but
I know what he really loves you for
It's your brand new leopard-skin pill-box hat
An’ I say, “Aw come on now
You must know about my debutante”
An’ she says, “Your debutante just knows what you need
But I know what you want”
Swalwell took the canoodling, Katie Porter took the cannoli. It's not personal -- it's strictly business.
The problem is SO obvious - -
The do it because they CAN! No one inside the beltway is EVER held accountable for ANYTHING.
Think about - - Congress pays beaucoup dollars out to settle harassment claims … and it's all done surreptitiously. As long as that's the ethos in DC, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly.
Albrecht and Sammarco vehemently deny any accusations they were part of a coordinated campaign from a rival candidate or party.
I suppose it's possible that Katie Porter is innocent. Maybe these women decided to blow up the Swalwell campaign on their own. Why would they do that, though? Maybe they were motivated by sexual hysteria or sexual panic.
Here's Sammarco:
She said she met Swalwell in 2021, when she was 24 and working in an entry level role on a political campaign for former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe.
She said she messaged Swalwell on Twitter because they had similar upbringings - both grew up in homes with Republican parents. She figured he wouldn't even see her message, but says he responded "fairly quickly" and the two continued messaging each other over the next day before moving to text messages, which CBS News has reviewed.
In the messages, he said he wanted to help her further her career in politics, and the two kept in touch. "I felt like a million bucks" she said, adding, "I was thrilled, and I was flattered."
Sammarco said Swalwell eventually began to send her messages that "I thought had a weird connotation to them," but she said she "trusted that he was an established figure who wouldn't put his credibility on the line."
Eventually, he asked her to communicate via Snapchat, a messaging app that deletes messages after they're sent. She said she thought it was unusual for a man in his 40s who was married and had children to be using such an app, but she was afraid of possibly losing such an important professional connection.
She said the messages again started out professional but then slowly became more explicit.
"He was sending me photos of his face….he was drinking in a lot of them. He would ask me if I was drinking too or tell me I should have a drink with him," she said. Sammarco said he never directly asked her to send him any explicit pictures of her, but that one night he sent her a photo of his penis.
"I was shocked," she said.
She told CBS News, "I don't think I responded," and said he changed the subject and moved on.
That's it, that's what makes her a "victim". A dick pic on Snapchat, five years ago. (It's not illegal to send a dick pic in California). She made no move whatsoever to stop him in Congress. But she was willing to join this effort to stop him.
jim said...
It's commonly call demagogy. They have to be watched and squashed when they get out of hand.
That's why we have democracy, to squash them. Alcibiades to Trump.
The "oh no we're a republic not a democracy" types play into the hands of demagogues, that's why we got trump.
Hopefully the morons wake up.
Swalwell slept with a Chinese Spy and helped her get government information so he could keep sleeping with her.
Democrats loved this guy until his governor run threatened to get a republican elected in California.
Now they are concerned about "rape."
You are right. Democrats are the dumbest pieces of shit on the planet.
These people shouldn't be allowed to vote. They are traitors that should be shipped to China where they belong.
DINKY DAU 45 said...
Hey its just locker room play right? The guy in top seat is only court adjudicated sexual abuser in this group so far..
"Court adjudicated sexual abuser." You idiots just love saying this, along with "34 time convicted felon."
OJ was a court-adjudicated non-murderer.
All's fair in lust and abortion. #RAAT #NoJudgment #NoLabels #MeToo
Catherine the Great apparently followed the great-man pattern. Elizabeth I sort of.
But even they were using their feminine skills to keep alpha males working for them - not just notching their bedposts with pretty boys for fuck's own sake (wow, you can actually use that expression literally!).
Maybe Madame Curie? CC, JSM
A very sketchy one is Albrecht.
She says she met Swalwell while on a class trip in college. She and a group of other students met with him to discuss issues they thought were important, and Swalwell appeared interested and passionate, she said.
At the end of the meeting, she says he asked the students to create a group chat so he could continue discussing the issues with them. Albrecht said after that group chat was created, he added her on Snapchat almost immediately.
"I was really surprised. I was confused. I didn't think it was him," she said. Albrecht said she asked the others in the group if Swalwell had also added them as contacts on Snapchat, but they said he had not. Albrecht added that she was the only woman in the group.
Albrecht, like Sammarco, also dreamed of working in politics, and said Swalwell began talking to her "under the guise of professional mentorship," telling her he could help her achieve her dream job of one day becoming a chief of staff.
She said the Snapchat messages "started to take a turn and they started to get flirty," but she responded in a "platonic and professional manner." Eventually, she said, Swalwell's messages crossed the line into "sexually inappropriate."
Albrecht said one night, Swalwell invited her to a hotel to meet him, and it was "very clear what the connotation was." She says she didn't respond.
And that's it, that's the crime.
What's super sketchy about this, is that Albrecht claims that she is the one who first wanted to stop Swalwell. She didn't get a dick pic. They didn't have sex. She didn't go to his hotel room. He didn't kiss her or touch her. Nothing happened, other than some flirty messages that she said crossed a line.
Several years after this non-crime happened, in 2026, Albrecht claims that she contacted her good friend, Cheyenne Hunt, the executive director of Gen-Z for change. (Hunt is the one who has a relationship with Katie Porter).
Why did Congressman Swalwell get a free pass for flirty texts, while Candidate Swalwell had to be stopped, four weeks before voting started in the California election? We might never know. But these girls swear that Katie Porter had nothing to do with it. And no money has exchanged hands.
Let’s cut through the bullshit, to the chase and summarize:
After Fang Fang he stuck his Wang Wang in someone’s Thang Thang and they said wait a Dang Dang minute here and they went to the DA and Sang Sang.
h/t not a biscuit
Hmm. Special elections in California typically called if the days to the next election exceed 148 days. That would make it, June 8th. So what if Swalwell says he's giving up his House seat, but doesn't set a date? How can Gavin Newsom call for an election and name a day, when Swalwell is being coy about his date of departure? I guess we'll just have to roll out a little more dirt to help him along. Oh look ! A press conference !
The old formula was that 20% of the men get 80% of the women. That's probably true in life--girls love them some bad boys. Or women are attracted to alpha males--whether the alpha shows it by physical beauty, great power or lots of money. Any of those things will pull at least some compliant women.
JFK and BillyJeff Clinton were cooze hounds. But LBJ was no slouch. As Lady Bird said (in terms of turning a blind eye to LBJ's "peckerdillos"---"He loves all the people in the world--and half of them are women."
Remember that Bill Clinton sold China missile technology to help their space program and China gave Democrats a boatload of money.
China promptly used that technology to build their ICBM nuke stockpile.
Democrats have been traitors for decades. Swalwell isn't hte first democrat chinese spy in our government.
Yes, women are "built differently" - look at recent leaders of the female persuasion: Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir. None of them appeared to be driven by sexual urges. Maybe they just surrounded themselves with cucks.
It really shouldn't matter that he, or anyone, is "built differently." We should all be held to the same standard, the summation of which is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Do his circumstances of birth, wealth, or postion make this difficult? Maybe. But even if we stipulate that they do, there is no codicile that justifies ignoring the rule. "Unless its difficult," "unless no one will find out," or "except when it can't be proven," does not appear in the text. Don't be a creepy jerk. You'll never have to worry.
Democrat Senator Kelley is currently making millions of dollars a year as a spokesman for...
A Chinese supplement company owned by the CCP.
Swalwell should have hung years ago for being a traitor. Senator Kelley is right now as we speak on the Chinese government payroll.
Barrack Obama has multiple mansions and a 1 billion dollar library in Chicago.
Really it is time to cut the crap. Swalwell should have been executed years ago. This is all a farce.
Oh, they are built differently. Who built them?
I take this as cover for Swalwell. It's not that he's individually terrible, which would look bad for the Dems. It's just that the whole lot of them are at risk and we just have to accept some amount of it.
“I agree with someone upthread. Swalwall must have become a liability and the Democrats are using the sex scandal as an excuse to get rid of him.”
I agree with others here. He most likely wasn’t taken out because of sex, but because he stood in someone’s way. The Dems didn’t care about him banging the Chinese spy. Everyone knew about that too. Why now? The most likely culprit was overweight Batgirl, Katy Porter. And her constituency is just the type of women who would participate and help her - ugly feminist women. My one question is what is she planning to do to get around (or over) Tom Steyer?
And by the way, it's also the reason why none of the women are truly great political leaders.
Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, and Indira Gandhi would probably disagree. But they all came up through a male-dominated political world and had to think and act like the men around them. It's different today, when women play a larger role in politics. Women can rise by complaining about the men who stand in their way, rather than by outthinking them. They maybe tough minded about hardball politics, but they tend not to be tough-minded about governing. To be fair, male politicians nowadays also avoid the difficult decisions and aren't great either.
Regarding Ally Sammarco (Saint Croix @10:37 AM)...
She told CBS News, "I don't think I responded," and said he changed the subject and moved on.
She remembered all that stuff that came before but "I don't think I responded"? Ok then.
“Oh, they are built differently. Who built them?”
Where’s the Church Lady when we need her?
Robert Penn Warren dealt with this in All the King's Men. Jack Burden courts a very classy woman who ends up in the swinish Stark's bed. I forget how she actually justifies it, but as Kissinger said "Power is an aphrodisiac." ATKM was published what--75 years ago. Nothing new under the sun in American politics.
Rehajim, I usually agree with you, but he is an equal-opportunity scumbag, just like his creepy dad in Tallahasee. I had to babysit his bullshit one night after driving 8 hours to his district and then waiting hours for him to arrive drunk. Feeling up young waitresses, ignoring his constituents, getting loaded. He is human waste of a very easy seat.
Most politicians are idiots. It's only the real idiots you remember in vivid detail.
Caroline said,
" for the Democrats...... consent is the only moral absolute "
I agree this is heart of the problem, but I would add one corollary, no agreed upon definition of consent, will be stated or enforced.
Your supposed paraphrase distorts the quotation. Cottle doesn't say "truly great men," she says "powerful ambitious men." And she wouldn't say "Look at Trump" as an example of a truly great man. Quite a pileup.
We all know the obvious: Washington runs on blackmail. It’s everyone in power there, regardless of party. If you run for office because you “want to make a difference”, sooner or later you get a little call or visit from someone to let you know there’s a set of rules you’re going to have to follow, and this means you don’t get anywhere unless you allow yourself to be set up in compromising situations, have it recorded, and tucked away “for a rainy day”. These people consent to this willingly, and every step up the ladder means something else (worse?) needs to happen to advance. What must there be on Lindsey Graham to keep him in the position he has? He wins election after election, and I'll bet there’s a large contingent of South Carolina voters who want him out. Swalwell knew the score, proved himself willing to do what was necessary to advance his career, and was told he would be protected. Until he wasn't. Because he had no choice. He consented and was owned.
Remember Madison Caulfield? His career in politics came to a screeching halt when he broke the rule and refused to play ball. And more, he committed the cardinal sin of spilling the beans on the entire sordid episode. Then, suspiciously timed events happened and he was out.
And yes, I also believe Strauss-Kahn was set up.
See mark sanford john ensign
They can't bring up Trump here in this context, because they all choke on the accusations, whereas they need Swalwell gone. Plus, they have to dance around the "great men" of the party past. They can't quite ignore their history, not yet.
Cawthorne is running again,
I believe Grover Cleveland said that he didn't think the American people were interested in having a gelding as President. He reputedly had an illegitimate child.
“ The hypothesis is not that there is greatness in every man who is driven by desire for a lot of sex, with young, beautiful women. It's that the great political leaders will be in that set, so we'll lose our best leaders if we filter them all out.”
And so, we propose the unified theory of bad boys. Girls want bad boys, girls want to screw bad boys, girls want to vote for bad boys. This gives bad boys power. What is called the alpha male is going to succeed in every venue that does not require specific individual intellectual, artistic, or athletic output. This includes high level corporate management and politics. Cause and effect are controversial. Does availability of multiple sex partners create psychological conditions resulting in ability or does genetics create behavior that results in both multiple sex partners and better performance in leadership in correlation.
But there is a subset of girls who want nice kind men, or men with artistic talent, or smart men who perform in science or law, so the bad boys and the good boys both win, bad boys get the sluts and good boys get the smart girls.
Swalwell got fang fang.
Media accounts so far do not support claims of “rape.” Sexual misconduct OTOH seems to be the norm for Swalwell. It is an unfortunate comment on the morality of Congressthings from both parties that no one says anything until some Democrat partisan interest is at stake.
I get it. All men are terrible.
But some are more terrible than others, and I'm telling you that you really don't want to know what's in Adam Schiff's panty drawer.
If you want better leaders you need to support them so they get elected.
We will NEVER get "better" leaders. That's a fool's game. The power and prestige and opportunity for graft that inheres in government always attracts the worst elements of any society.
I think it was Milton Friedman who said we have to arrange our society so that bad people are incentivized to do good things, rather than hugging the phantasm of being able to elect angelic politicians who won't let us down.
I quite agree with him, although my preferred arrangements encompass somewhat freer use of tar and feathers and horsewhips and ropes thrown over stout oak branches than his.
That's applicable to all men, not just the ambitious and powerful.
I was thinking the same thing. Millions of years of evolutionary reproductive success have wired men's brains in a way that most women will never be able to fully grasp. For the vast majority of human history, the fate of women was to be seized and raped and forced to bear the children of the strongest and most aggressive men. Socialization and civilization in modern times have made this comparatively rare, but that is a very thin veneer, and it is being greatly corroded by the kind of politicians women tend to vote for and the kind of immigrants women welcome to our shores.
Swedish women are already being told by their government and media to get used to being raped by Muslim savages as the price of not being thought racist or right wing, and the same is going to be the fate of the entire West.
I predict that a century from now, every young woman will be forcibly raped many times a year, and beaten, imprisoned or worse if she resists.
Brokeback Congress!
https://x.com/Phyllis94584953/status/2044047988582920422?s=20
I hope Swallowswell hang hang.
People: Someone executed by hanging is "hanged." "Hung" is for pictures on the wall and such. In the Middle Ages people could be hanged and the bodies hung up on the castle wall. Pedantic perhaps, but a pet peeve.
Shakespeare had a take on it that didn't involve "good boys/bad boys":
"We have willing dames enough. There cannot be
That vulture in you to devour so many
As will to greatness dedicate themselves,
Finding it so inclined."
narciso said...
Cawthorne is running again,
The Republican party and women teamed up to remove Cawthorne.
Cawthorne was probably the lone decent human being in DC.
We should throw everyone in that city in jail.
The 10 or so decent people in DC that would get swept up in the purge would be an unfortunate but acceptable loss.
"We have willing dames enough. There cannot be
That vulture in you to devour so many
As will to greatness dedicate themselves,
Finding it so inclined."
That is EXACTLY what Trump was saying in his "grab them by the pussy" escapade. Much more genteel and even poetic, to be sure, but precisely and perfectly, the very same thing.
We don't get to select our hungers. Any hunger that impairs good judgment and hurts others is a potentially serious character flaw.
Cottle is wrong to believe these people are "built differently". What is different about this group is opportunity to achieve these goals. If you swapped out the thousand most powerful people in America for a random thousand people we'd immediately start evolving back into the same corruption problems we have now. In fact the problem might be worse because the group of randoms have been propagandized to believe misuse of power is universal and thus should be embraced as seems to have happened to the BLM groups.
https://x.com/grandoldmemes/status/2044131132644417817?s=20
I do not accept that premise.
Where does this leave our great LGBTQ+ leaders?
Bill Cosby for President.
Libs of TikTok
@libsoftiktok
Wild that banging a Chinese spy wasn’t what got Swalwell out of Congress, rather it was the democrat ruling class machine deciding he isn’t useful to them anymore.
I confess I am predisposed to believe all the accusations against Swalwell not because he seems like a "powerful, ambitious man" -- ambitious, sure, but he doesn't seem powerful or influential -- but for reasons of pure physiognomic prejudice. With his squinty eyes and scraggly neckbeard and caveman brow, he looks like the kind of man who would do those things. Irrational perhaps, but there it is.
How many think Achilles believes he has that "it" quality--absolving himself from disgrace, let alone prosecution, for committing sexual felonies?
> Maybe they just surrounded themselves with cucks.
Well, after that unfortunate little misunderstanding in Amritsar, Gandhi at least should have stopped surrounding herself with Sikhs.
I usually agree with you, but he is an equal-opportunity scumbag
…but there’s no morality clause to serve in Congress. Convenient but coincidence he’s gone because he wouldn’t play ball…
“Human behavior and sexual politics mirrors other animal species. Body size (larger males; smaller females) is a simple, direct predictor of male relationship power and mating dynamics.”
“Elephant seals have incredible size differences between males and females. The males are 16' to 20' long, while the females are 9' to 10' long. In terms of mass, the females are skinny little things. This pattern follows from how they raise their pups on a limited number of Pacific Ocean beaches -- the toughest males grab and control all the spaces and allow large harems of females to give birth and raise young before heading back to sea.”
“Among humans and other great apes, males are routinely much larger than females. Similar functional logic applies. If you (female) can't beat 'em on size, you tend to cozy up to 'em for protection and assistance with babies.”
It’s called sexual dimorphism. Several factors fit in. One big one is pair bonding. The more frequent the pair bonding, the less sexual dimorphism. On the flip side, there is significant sexual dimorphism with harems. Elephant seals, gorillas, and lions are harems species, and, thus, exhibit large sexual dimorphism. We have some, but not a lot of it, because we tend to pair bond. With our long dependency period, the children of women who pair bond, and share raising their kids, with the kids’ fathers do better long run, than those who go with the shared harem leader.
There is another dynamic - testicle size. Species where males share breeding opportunities, like Chimps, have relatively large testicles, to produce relatively more sperm. Chimps have little sexual dimorphism, but relatively large testicles. We have somewhat more sexual dimorphism, but relatively smaller testicles.
There are species where make size provides security for females and young. That isn’t necessary in chimps, and to a lesser extent, humans. We have the tribe or family group for that. What is interesting is that sexual dimorphism appears to have a racial correlation - greatest with eastern Asians and least with Africans, with Europeans between, but closer to the East Asians. One theory is that African descended women have less need to pair bond to take care of their children. East Asians have the most need, due to the quantity of food available, and a greater need for a stronger community.
The reason that we don’t have huge size differences between our sexes is how we live. If it were a large evolutionary advantage for a small number of males to have most of the mating opportunities, then more of the children would die.
What keeps men awake at night is not the memory of the time they over-reached and came on too strong - grabbed some poor girl's ass, had an affair with a student, made a fool of themselves at their best friend's wedding. No, it's the ass we didn't grab that haunts us. LOL. "Did I miss something? maybe if I had just pressed harder, she probably thought I was insecure and not confident, which is true".
Meanwhile, on the train home, Little Miss Can't Be Wrong is furiously texting her three best friends at the same time: "OH MY GOD he would NOT stop touching his face! It was so creepy. I wanted to scream STOP TOUCHING YOURSELF! What, are we at a baseball game? Are you trying to signal the runner on 2nd base? STOP@
"I suspect this was a political hit job to get him out of the race, engineered by Katie Porter."
I think you have good instincts. I'm seeing this pattern with entitled American women who are playing foul, weaponizing victimhood to play the crybully. Very similar to the rising number of women who think they can strike a man with impunity and not get hit back.
I think it's a result of the corruption from America's success. We are so free, so advanced, surrounded by so much luxury. It's so unfair from a Civ5 perspective - you do everything right and your people still fall apart...because you were successful. We've lost the values that got us to this point.
I don't know how to fix that. But it doesn't bother my like it used to. I look around and see Americans that don't deserve to be free, that don't deserve a Republic - and I'm talking about people on the right, the ones who claim to be patriotic. Thank God for Trump, but once he's gone they will lose the Republic. And that's a good thing. If someone were to hand me the match I would light it all up.
What excuse does Nancy Pelosi have? She knew scumbag Eric had an affair with a Chinese Communist spy who, correct me if I'm wrong was a staffer too. What did Nancy do about that? She assigned Eric the scumbag to an elite committee - The Foreign Intelligence Select committee, where he had access to very sensitive national security material. Pfft.
Stop making excuses for Democrat politicians that winked at Eric the scumbag's predatory behavior.
What's really important to Democrats? Power. Absolute power. Period. They're scumbags too. All their "we didn't know" is straight up hogwash served up for their gullible parishioners.
"Foster had in common with every great religious leader of that planet two traits: he had an extremely magnetic personality, and sexually he did not fall near the human norm. On Earth great religious leaders were always either celibate or the antithesis. Foster was not celibate."
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.