A fraud.

She gets things done!

According to the Bipartisan Index created by the Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, Sinema was the sixth most bipartisan member of the U.S. House of Representatives during the first session of the 115th Congress. The National Journal's 2013 vote ratings placed Sinema near the center of their liberal–conservative scale. In 2015, she voted with the majority of her party 73% of the time.

In 2015 and 2016, Sinema did not vote for Nancy Pelosi for speaker of the U.S. House. In 2016, the National Journal gave her a composite ideology score of 57% liberal and 43% conservative. She was one of the most conservative House Democrats during her House tenure.

According to GovTrack, Sinema has a centrist to center-right voting record in the Senate, to the right of Republican Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. According to FiveThirtyEight, as of January 2021, Sinema had voted in line with Donald Trump's position on legislation about 50% of the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrsten_Sinema

to the maximum extent possible.

Generally loss of affection isn't easy to prove and usually it's reasonable to figure the cheating spouse had a change of heart and the jilted spouse is just out of luck.

But in this case there's a coercive:harassment element due to the employment relationship and that makes it much easier to believe that sinema acted inappropriately and that the jilted spouse was damaged as a result.

The idea that you can sue someone for having an affair with your wife or husband is ludicrous and has no place in the year 2026. And though it may be hundreds of years old, its definitely catnip for culture warriors who want to control people.

If your husband or wife cheats on you, your beef is with them for cheating on you.

because the vast majority of affairs are voluntary on the part of the cheater and it's silly to sue the "homewrecker" over the cheater's rotten ethics.

however, when there's a coercive element, i don't think it's unreasonable to say a spouse is injured by the person outside the marriage and therefore has a legitimate tort claim.

in an extreme case, if i'm kidnapped and tortured and brainwashed into being revulsed by the sight of my wife, or permanently nauseated by the thought of sex, don't you think she's injured by the kidnapper's actions and should have a right to sue for damages, independently from any claim i would have?

in this particular case, to the extent the bodyguard was a willing or even eager cheater, then i agree that the ex-wife's beef is with him and there's nothing to sue a third party over. but if she can make the case that he only did it because he thought he would lose his job, then i think she has a reasonable case.

the fact that they're now divorced does work against her; it suggests that she left him because she thought he voluntarily cheated rather than was completely coerced. if i was on the jury i'd want to see an explanation for the divorce more convincing than that she left him because he cheated. for instance, if he left her instead.

Its based on "alienation of affection". If you can prove that someone made your spouse not want to be with you anymore, you can sue them. There was a case in 2019 where some guy sued this other guy who had an affair with his wife and was awarded over 8 million dollars. And there definitely was no professional relationship in that case. He just said "he screwed my wife, it destroyed our marriage".

Based on the details I've read about the case, the wife isn't claiming that he was coerced either. She just claims that he was seduced. The truth is, her husband or ex-husband or whatever their status is now, is an asshole who betrayed her. If you are tempted to cheat on your spouse, you should go ahead and get separated. Its obvious that you aren't into the marriage anymore if you no longer want to be with just them and you aren't in some open marriage agreement.

And the whole thing was originally designed around the thinking that your spouse is your property, particularly women being the property of their husbands.

I understand your extreme case and I think there are probably a whole host of other laws that could cover compensation for something that insane. This law wasn't designed to punish an extreme case like that, though it incidentally would work I suppose.

If your wife or husband has an affair, its categorically stupid that people can sue the person they had an affair with. Its 18th century horse shit and only 6 states have been ass backwards enough to allow such a law to still exist.

Responsibility for an affair, as far as the married are involve, is on the person who had the affair. But go ahead and try to defend this nonsense.

Last edited Fri Mar 13, 2026, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)

she was a vile, indecent creature.

Would you call Bill Clinton a skank because he has had a whole lot of affairs? Gary Hart, JFK?

Or is it only a woman or a political opponent you would call that?

and on and on.

good choices.

as your choice of words?

Word, but wasn’t sure how others felt. For instances, I don’t object to calling vile men, dicks. But under the same gender rules of engagement it also should be avoided,

your lack of objection might be due to your being male.

As for calling vile men "dicks", I (and I'd guess the majority of women here) would gladly stop calling them that if they, in turn, stopped calling us "cunts", "whores" "bitches" and "sluts".

Just an old woman who has a lot of windmills to fight.

No wonder their lobbyists are welcoming her with open arms. She’d do well in a Republican primary somewhere. Florida of course, but perhaps Utah too. They seem ok with hypocrisy.

showed her true colors soon after she was elected…we should all be glad she’s finally out of government. Now we need to work on getting Fetterman out of Congress and replaced with a true progressive.

but I see more than a little 'slut shaming' in your subject line. The fact is, she did not say "Yes I banged my boyfriend in lots of places".
While you avoided putting quote marks around those words, the intention seems clear and it's not the kind of thing one sees when 'the accused' is male.

What?

the chargeable offense, but there used to be something called "Alienation of Affections"...Sounds very Victorian, so I don't know if it's still standing.

(sorry, gratuitous dig at North Carolina.)

towards rewarding the lowest common denominators among us with office, perks, and bennies if the stage-craft behind them is at least catoonishly plausible.

Dressed and acted like one as well.