Herman Cain

[garentee]

It absolutely amazes me that with all we know about sexual abuse assault and harassment that in 2011 when more than one person comes forward with allegations about a certain person that there is nothing but denial going on. It should be noted that most of these allegations happened in conjunction with alcohol. Now I am not going to go out on a limb and say that Mr Cain is an alcoholic, but it does beg the question especially since he is known to drink in the morning. Alcoholism is a disease of denial.. and Mr Cain seems to be in denial...

[taylor]

In your mind not only is this guy guilty of sexual harassment but now maybe alcoholism?

Do you not need evidence to believe this kind of thing?

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by garentee

with all we know about sexual abuse assault and harassment

Uhh... what?

We don't know anything about what happened or didn't happen.

All we know is that as soon as this guy runs for President and becomes popular, suddenly 3 anonymous women and one named woman come forward and accuse him of sexual harassment.

If he was guilty of sexual harassment, why didn't they do something back when it happened, twelve years ago?

My guess is: Because it didn't happen. Or, because they have absolutely no evidence of it happening, and could never have gotten him convicted of anything.

The three anonymous women who complained about him are probably being influenced by someone who is trying to discredit his Presidential candidacy. As for the woman who came out in public, there could be any reason for that. For all we know, she could be being paid by someone to do this.

[JDuff]

The only evidence we have is: Cain has been accused by 4 different women. 3 chose to remain anonymous, although 1 was uncovered by the media. 1 has already received a financial settlement from the National Restaurant Settlement. Cain has made several statements that he has had to withdraw as false.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by taylor

In your mind not only is this guy guilty of sexual harassment but now maybe alcoholism?

Do you not need evidence to believe this kind of thing?

I did not say anything about weather he definitely did or did not harass any of the women.. my point was mostly that when that many people come out and say that they had a similar experience with the same man it may be a good idea to actually believe the accusers. Thats just the problem with our society we do not believe it when some one accuses public figure of such behavior or even a not so public figure. We as a society are in denial about sexual abuse and harassment and the people that suffer at the hands of abusers etc have to sit and be quiet about it a lot of the time... Sexual abuse and harassment are not at all about sex.. but power...

[taylor]

I get that you want to give sympathy to those who might have been harassed by him, however...

Why believe or doubt?

Why not just say "I don't know" (because you don't) and go on about your day.

That's not denial, it's honesty.

I fail to see how believing in someone's guilt without evidence is a virtue.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by taylor

I get that you want to give sympathy to those who might have been harassed by him, however...

Why believe or doubt?

Why not just say "I don't know" (because you don't) and go on about your day.

That's not denial, it's honesty.

I fail to see how believing in someone's guilt without evidence is a virtue.

I guess I am not making myself clear enough...I would believe those accusers enough to follow that lead.. of course Mr Cain will deny it..but there has to be an investigation if you ask me...People in positions of power should definitely not be sexual abusers or use sex as a tool of power.. Um Penn state anyone? Follow the allegations and if they are false, then that is great.. I mean 4 allegations is quite a lot of allegations..I say investigate. Of course it probably will not happen because there were settlements for silence...

[Gabo]

This discussion about Cain's personal morals and past is completely irrelevant, because he is already a horrible candidate based upon his ideas and policy choices. Can't we just put the personal stuff behind us when there is no reason to support the candidate anyway?

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by Gabo

This discussion about Cain's personal morals and past is completely irrelevant, because he is already a horrible candidate based upon his ideas and policy choices. Can't we just put the personal stuff behind us when there is no reason to support the candidate anyway?

Exactly. Nothing else to say except Cain is just another mainstream candidate that offers no serious change.

[supertom]

Herman Cain is just a blacked up version of John Mccain, I suspect the name her-man is just to appeal to female voters.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by Gabo

This discussion about Cain's personal morals and past is completely irrelevant, because he is already a horrible candidate based upon his ideas and policy choices. Can't we just put the personal stuff behind us when there is no reason to support the candidate anyway?

It is just further fuel to the fire to show that he is unfit for office....

[desertrat]

There is a story that one of the ladies that have acused Mr. Cain of sexual harrasement , did the same thing at the next place she worked . There are people that will fake harrassment , or injury just to get some money . desert rat

[taylor]

Originally Posted by Gabo

This discussion about Cain's personal morals and past is completely irrelevant, because he is already a horrible candidate based upon his ideas and policy choices. Can't we just put the personal stuff behind us when there is no reason to support the candidate anyway?

I agree with your sentiment, but it's unrealistic. Human beings are usually interested in sensationalism and image NOT ideas or policy. Like it or not, this is how people decide elections.

[Gabo]

Originally Posted by taylor

I agree with your sentiment, but it's unrealistic. Human beings are usually interested in sensationalism and image NOT ideas or policy. Like it or not, this is how people decide elections.

Human beings are capable of adapting too, so speaking up about the ridiculousness of judging a political candidate based upon their personal life can help influence how people make political decisions.

[JSB]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

If he was guilty of sexual harassment, why didn't they do something back when it happened, twelve years ago?

They did, and they received settlements for it. These are not new accusations.

[James Fletcher]

Something similar happened to Ted Kennedy (Chappaquiddick incident) when he was contesting the Democratic nomination for presidential candidate in 1980. It's similar in that when the incident actually occurred people forgave him and he was able to keep his job as a senator.

I guess it depends on the circumstances. Chris Lee was forced to resign over a measly little shirtless photo incident that didn't harm anyone. And then you have good old Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi, with the amount of inappropriateness he's been involved him you would think he would be in jail by now, but apparently it took a dire financial crisis to get him booted.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

Something similar happened to Ted Kennedy (Chappaquiddick incident) when he was contesting the Democratic nomination for presidential candidate in 1980. It's similar in that when the incident actually occurred people forgave him and he was able to keep his job as a senator.

And it's completely dissimilar in that Ted Kennedy's drunk driving killed the girl riding with him in his car. That's much worse than anything Cain's accused of doing even if all the accusations are true (and we have no evidence any of them are).

[James Fletcher]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

And it's completely dissimilar in that Ted Kennedy's drunk driving killed the girl riding with him in his car. That's much worse than anything Cain's accused of doing even if all the accusations are true (and we have no evidence any of them are).

True.

Seems the media in general have been coming down hard on all of the high profile Republican candidates. Most recently it's been Rick Perry who has suffered, even if it is partially deserved.

But it is very interesting that Cain's philandering and Perry's mental blank get more exposure than Obama recently being caught insulting the Israeli PM in an overheard conversation with Sarkozy.

[justhopingandsearching]

I find it really annoying that politicians aren't allowed to make mistakes. Seriously, every mistake and any wrongdoing you've ever made in your life comes into play if you're politician. Peed your pants when you were five, obviously you lack self discipline, even if it's been 40+ years.

Can we as a society get over what someone did 20+ years ago, and instead focus on what they're doing (or not doing) today.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

Seems the media in general have been coming down hard on all of the high profile Republican candidates. Most recently it's been Rick Perry who has suffered, even if it is partially deserved.

In Cain's case it's easy to understand - there's nothing the left fears more in terms of an outcome of this election than the idea of a successful, non entitlement minded black winning the presidency as a Republican. That's not a statement about Cain as a candidate - personally I don't like him or his policies much. But he is the worst possible outcome for the left. The next worst possible outcome is a red state governor with long political experience - Perry.

The left's best possible outcome short of Obama's re-election (which looks unlikely) is a blue state Democrat masquerading as a Republican winning - either Huntsman or Romney.

The press knows who their masters prefer and have biased the coverage accordingly.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by justhopingandsearching

I find it really annoying that politicians aren't allowed to make mistakes. Seriously, every mistake and any wrongdoing you've ever made in your life comes into play if you're politician. Peed your pants when you were five, obviously you lack self discipline, even if it's been 40+ years.

Can we as a society get over what someone did 20+ years ago, and instead focus on what they're doing (or not doing) today.

I think a large part of society has this preference as well. But the media enjoys focusing on whatever will get people's attention (because more attention = higher revenues), so they focus on the most negative and "scandalous" possible things that happen.

Most people might not realize that "the news" is not a public service as it sort of feels like it should be. "The news" is just another business model that is intended to make the company money. If all news stations were a public service, their coverage would probably be a lot more neutral and focus on important things over stuff that doesn't matter.

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

And it's completely dissimilar in that Ted Kennedy's drunk driving killed the girl riding with him in his car. That's much worse than anything Cain's accused of doing even if all the accusations are true (and we have no evidence any of them are).

Oranges and apples. I feel like sexual abuse is worse than drunk driving because the intention is clear. Drunk driving is usually a stupid mistake made by a person who's already under the influence. They don't usually plan ahead of time that they will be driving drunk later and kill somebody. I know the result of the action is usually worse, however. But if intention matters, I'd rather trust a guy who made a bad mistake in his past, than somebody who intentionally sexually assaulted/harassed multiple women. That being said if it's all alcohol related then I'm wrong, and both situations may have been bad mistakes. Obviously they are both horrible situations. I have a friend who got toasted in a casino once and just felt the need to grab a waitress's backside, something he normally would not do. Needless to say he got banned for life from the casino, but it wasn't something he did on purpose, he just drank too much and lost his composure.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by Barcs

Oranges and apples. I feel like sexual abuse is worse than drunk driving because the intention is clear.

Really? Ask yourself this: as she drowned in Ted Kennedy's car, do you think Mary Kopechne would have traded being sexually harassed by Herman Cain in exchange for her life? Obviously purely hypothetical, but which do you think she would pick?

I don't think the two are even close to being on the same level.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by justhopingandsearching

I find it really annoying that politicians aren't allowed to make mistakes. Seriously, every mistake and any wrongdoing you've ever made in your life comes into play if you're politician. Peed your pants when you were five, obviously you lack self discipline, even if it's been 40+ years.

Can we as a society get over what someone did 20+ years ago, and instead focus on what they're doing (or not doing) today.

Sexual abuse /harassment is about abuse of power.. The fact that mosst of the women in these claims were paid a settlement does not excuse this fact and it does not mean that he has been rehabilitated. Quite to the contrary.. dismissing the claims as false in spite of the fact that he settled does not sit well with me.

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by Barcs

Oranges and apples. I feel like sexual abuse is worse than drunk driving because the intention is clear. Drunk driving is usually a stupid mistake made by a person who's already under the influence. They don't usually plan ahead of time that they will be driving drunk later and kill somebody. I know the result of the action is usually worse, however. But if intention matters, I'd rather trust a guy who made a bad mistake in his past, than somebody who intentionally sexually assaulted/harassed multiple women. That being said if it's all alcohol related then I'm wrong, and both situations may have been bad mistakes. Obviously they are both horrible situations. I have a friend who got toasted in a casino once and just felt the need to grab a waitress's backside, something he normally would not do. Needless to say he got banned for life from the casino, but it wasn't something he did on purpose, he just drank too much and lost his composure.

WTF?

The guy drives off the bridge and leaves the scene. Some even speculate he left the girl to die and that to you s worse than sexual harassment?

So if someone Drunkingly drove off a bridge with your mother, fled leaving her to die and doesnt report it that to you is much better than sexual harassment? Really?

You say drunk drivers don't plan ahead of time? Wrong

Drunk drivers never drink and drive once. They usually do it again and again if not caught. It's not getting caught that gives them the confidence to do it on the day they cause harm. Just because they never intended to cause harm with their drink driving doesn't mean they didn't intend to drink drive.

When a person causes death with careless excessive speed the intention doesn't make it better. If a child is run over outside of a school by a drunk driver driving at 100mph does his mistake make it any better? If no one sees him and he leaves the child lying on the ground and goes home will the fact he didn't intend to harm a child that morning take away from the fact he is an ass?

By the way alchohol is not an excuse. Everyone in the western world has been extensively educated to give someone your car keys or don't drive to the bar before you drink your first drop. If you start drinking while having your car keys on you or not organising how you will get home, you obviously intend to drive under the influence

Ps. Getting drunk is not an excuse to sexually abuse women. Anyone who has that little control should obviously not be drinking.

I take it this was not the first time your buddy drank.so how comes he hasn't touched women's butts before? Or has he? If the 'alcohol' made him do it like you suggest, then what is he capable of EVERYTIME HE DRINKS?

[SnerpGoodWord]

Nearly every company has a policy to settle any meritless sexual harassment claim for a small amount of money (generally in the same realm as termination costs). Because of the absurdity of our legal system, it simply doesn't make sense to fight.

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

Nearly every company has a policy to settle any meritless sexual harassment claim for a small amount of money (generally in the same realm as termination costs). Because of the absurdity of our legal system, it simply doesn't make sense to fight.

One of he women got 35k, one years salary. Doesn't seem a small amount to me

[justhopingandsearching]

Originally Posted by garentee

Sexual abuse /harassment is about abuse of power.. The fact that mosst of the women in these claims were paid a settlement does not excuse this fact and it does not mean that he has been rehabilitated. Quite to the contrary.. dismissing the claims as false in spite of the fact that he settled does not sit well with me.

Have there been any recent allegations? (I'm truly curious because I don't keep up with the news, but still manage to hear about this stuff ... sigh ...) If there has been just ignore what I say below.

For now, let's assume those things really did happen. How do you know he hasn't been "rehabilitated?"

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by Orecle

One of he women got 35k, one years salary. Doesn't seem a small amount to me

Given the cost to litigate, that's nothing. Typically it costs about a quarter million dollars to defend that type of case as an employer. Depends on what state etc. of course.

That's assuming you're 100% sure you're going to win.

[James Fletcher]

I realize now that using Ted Kennedy as an example was a poor choice on my part because in doing so I inadvertently trivialized an innocent woman being killed by the reckless actions of another.

In my opinion, Ted Kennedy should never have been able to run for the candidacy because he should have, at the very least, lost his job after the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.

But back on the issue of Cain, basically, facts before pitchforks.