|
Post by elephant on Nov 5, 2011 8:13:16 GMT -5
www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57318924-503544/herman-cain-accuser-stands-by-complaint-wont-go-public/Anyone want to discuss this issue? Obviously not really having any details (and unlikely that we will) it is difficult to judge. From the limited information we know, I suspect could be a gentleman that became more comfortable with some employees and may have make joking comments he thought was in fun that they did not think were fun. Having worked with primarily men for my entire professional career, I can imagine several situations similar - and if I had had to work with some of these men on a day to day basis, I guess it could have gotten uncomfortable - or if I had agreed to go out for drinks instead of saying no thank you, etc. back when i was young and cute the issue came up a lot more often than it does now - though I did have a situation a few years ago that really bothered me. It was a client - not a co-worker. I did check on our professional relationship with him as I thought it could become an issue. I would not have wanted to be a woman who worked in his company. How will this affect Herman Cain? I am not sure. I like Herman Cain. If it is true is it important? Could it be a cultural thing? Clearly he is a self-made man - I have not researched his family life but men (and women) often reflect the behavior they grew up around. If the primary men in his life were flirtatious in such situations, he likely would be as well had there not been a reason to understand that it was not appropriate. Again - having no idea just what was said... news suggesting it was not "overtly sexual" it may not be obvious it was inappropriate. Trying to remember when my company required sexual harassment training. This was indicated to have occurred in about 1999. I would guess our training was probably in 2003 or so (I really am not sure). I would guess my company likely required this training in the earlier time frame though not the first. So, I'm not sure - guess it is just something else to consider along with everything else in the campaigns.
|
|
|
Post by pinkpanther on Nov 5, 2011 20:24:27 GMT -5
I tend to agree with your views on about everything you stated, ele.
So many times, people Just set out to ruin other peoples' lives, not thinking what it may cost them in the future. These women, if there are really those women out there who have a true story of sexual harrassment, may think they will get more money to Keep quiet, since it is such an important election, but they also may live to regret it later.
Things like this usually tend to drive me closer to the accused, unless they come up with real proof and names, dates, passed polygraphs, instead of remaining anonymous.
I like Herman Cain also. And I saw on fox news where Cain has been meeting with Henry Kissinger about foreign affairs.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Frost on Nov 5, 2011 21:33:12 GMT -5
There is another former co-worker (a male) who says he and a group of others witnessed Cain "going way too far" in his talk to a woman at a restaurant in the 90's. He says Cain made them all uncomfortable in the way he talked to the woman. This guy is a Republican.
So that's three separate women and one man (so far). Two of the women said he harassed them long before they could have possibly known he would ever run for President, so destroying his political aspirations could not have been a motive. I lean toward believing that Cain actually did run his mouth and said things he shouldn't have... My opinions on these incidents is not effected by the fact that I do not like his new national sales tax idea. I had a positive opinion of the man before that.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Frost on Nov 7, 2011 20:16:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by elephant on Nov 7, 2011 21:10:13 GMT -5
well, honestly the last one really doesn't sound very logical. All the "smoke" does make one wonder if there is "fire".
I don't know - he was definitely my favorite candidate - not sure if I'll continue to support him or look elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by pinkpanther on Nov 8, 2011 22:58:23 GMT -5
Well, I don't make a practice of believing or giving much credit to any accusations that are brought out 14 or 15 years after they allegedly happen for the purpose of political assasination. It was reported on Fox News that one of the accusers sons, works for Politico and Politico is the origin of the first accusation....it was put out to the media by Politico. And now the woman and the man at politico are claiming not to be related and that they just have the same last names. What's the chances of that? The 4th woman (Sharon B), it was discovered, lives in the same Apt. Building as one of Obama's staff members, David Axelrod. Although Sharon B. claims she is a republican, her prominent lawyer, Gloria Alred, is a democrat donor. She grabs the spotlight everytime she gets an opportunity, by representing these kinds of cases. So I am sticking by Cain until there is real proof of these alegations. I hope Cain doesn't take a polygraph, which he suggested doing himself, because even if he passes it, Gloria Alred will have it changed to look like he didn't pass it and will bury him with it. I know for a fact it can be done. That's why they want him to take one. I hope they will advise him not to take one. Although they aren't supposed to be used in court, Gloria will use it anyway against him, while not allowing the women to take one. Does anyone remember that the other day, the Democrats had admitted out right that they were going to pull every string in the book to hedge around the election laws to make sure Obama is re-elected? Just something to think about.....I don't have a link to that....just from the news comments on TV. I wonder if this is one way to do it.....Obama's staff member Axelrod who happens to live in the same apt building as Sharon B. one of the accusers? ? Cain had come up and ahead in a poll where it was to determine whether he could beat Obama......and he was a few points ahead of Obama......and guess what, the next day is when this came out about the first allegation.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Frost on Nov 9, 2011 22:15:08 GMT -5
"Well, I don't make a practice of believing or giving much credit to any accusations that are brought out 14 or 15 years after they allegedly happen for the purpose of political assasination. "
That's not exactly accurate. Two of the five accusations were made over a decade ago, therefore they had no political motivation. The fact that they were made public knowledge during the election, well, how is that any different than bringing up the past of any other person who has ever run for President? That has always been a part of the process, and always will (and should be).
Also, it seems to me, it would be utterly stupid for the Democrats to have anything to do with expending energy on attacking Cain, when he is not even the Republican nominee yet. Smart politics would be to save any and all ammunition (especially ammunition this good) until the battle starts, the actual election! It would be absolutely stupid for the Dems to use this info this early. They would be hoping and praying that Cain wins the nomination, and THEN they would put it out there... Why ruin the man now, and then face a stronger candidate like Romney in 2012? No, that doesn't make a lick of sense to me (and I have been involved in several campaigns as a volunteer over the years). This ammunition is being used by those who are benefited now, either Romney, or most likely Perry. And just because they are using it for political gain, does not mean it is not true.
|
|
|
Post by pinkpanther on Nov 10, 2011 23:56:18 GMT -5
You could be right, but I have my doubts about some of these alegations. So why bring it up again? They brought it up, you said 10 years ago......severence pay was involved, not settlements. That don't mean he was guilty. That is the way businesses do to just get it out of the way, not that he was guilty. And you can bet a book is in the works for Sharon Bialek. I believe it was she who owes thousands of dollars for a law suit against her.....I believe it was her. One of them had already filed a claim against another man for sexual harrassment.
|
|
|
Post by elephant on Nov 11, 2011 8:45:48 GMT -5
I did see an article yesterday about someone who does "voice" lie detectors who indicated that Cain's voice/speech indicated that he was not lying, but the accuser's indicated she was.
I doubt there is a lot of validity in a lie detector done the way he did it, but, supposedly, he is an "expert". (I walk around with a clipboard so people call me an expert at times - lol)
|
|
|
Post by pinkpanther on Nov 11, 2011 19:13:45 GMT -5
Would that work around the house, ele? Probably not.
|
|