• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Two women accused Herman Cain of inappropriate behavior

Sheik Yerbuti said:
That a couple of women made some accusations of some sort 20 years ago couldn't be more irrelevant.

What is relevant is the manner in how Cain responded to the issue being raised. His clumsy deflection exposed his lack of political savvy.
Click to expand...
i heard him on the news today say he couldn't remember the incident was his excuse. not being able to remember things isn't a good quality for a president imo.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:

What is relevant is the manner in how Cain responded to the issue being raised. His clumsy deflection exposed his lack of political savvy.
Click to expand...

nah, it just shows that, unlike Obama, Cain is not an experienced liar.
 
Crosscheck said:
How much did Obama pay him in settlement?
Click to expand...

A settlement does not necessarily mean guilt. In fact, if the settlement is rather small, it's likely that the charges/accusation are without merit. This practice is commonly used today as well. Its cheaper to settle than to litigate it out.
 
apdst said:
No, a bi-racial man won the Democratic nomination.

The Libbos won't sit still while the Republicans elect a black president. They'll lose trillions of dollars worth of political clout, for decades to come.
Click to expand...



I would love to see the Republicans nominate a black conservative. Let us know when you come up with a legitimate contender for the White House.

apdst said:
The whole, "Conservatives are racist", propaganda will be worthless and, omg, let's hope he doesn't pick Bachman as his VP, then the,
"Conservatives are sexists, too", propaganda will be worthless.
Click to expand...

No, then the libbos would just have confirmation that Conservatives are stupid.
 
If it turns out the woman in question is White, GOP voters (many of whom are racist) will put the pizza man in the oven.
 
solletica said:
If it turns out the woman in question is White, GOP voters (many of whom are racist) will put the pizza man in the oven.
Click to expand...

Losing-Liberals1.jpg

ah, the old failsafe
 
rocket88 said:
Well, let's wait and see what comes of it. I agree with what you said about Liberals that defended Clinton, but from what I've seen the converse is true of a lot of Conservatives -- the same people who wanted to crucify Clinton are defending Cain. Of course, they also defended Clarence Thomas no matter what.

I think it might have something to do with a person's political affiliations. It's just a hunch, though...
Click to expand...

Ironically, that's why I'm waiting for all the facts to roll in before making up my mind about this.

Some of Cain's more recent comments aren't helping him, however.
 
OscarB63 said:
Losing-Liberals1.jpg

ah, the old failsafe
Click to expand...

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of winning elections in Southern states by exploiting anti-African American racism and fears of lawlessness among Southern white voters and appealing to fears of growing federal power in social and economic matters (generally lumped under the concept of states rights)

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

If they do, we do it :)
 
Fishstyx said:
A settlement does not necessarily mean guilt. In fact, if the settlement is rather small, it's likely that the charges/accusation are without merit. This practice is commonly used today as well. Its cheaper to settle than to litigate it out.
Click to expand...

No kidding. Settling is often cheaper than litigation and the risk of having a potted plant jury get played by a plaintiffs attorney and cream the innocent defendent. The fact that these settlements are so small strongly suggests the women didn't have a case.....if they did they would have had a few hundred plaintiffs bar lawyers clammering to represent them and win a huge award. If managemet thought they had a real legal exposure, they would have easily paid a lot more.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That a couple of women made some accusations of some sort 20 years ago couldn't be more irrelevant.

What is relevant is the manner in how Cain responded to the issue being raised. His clumsy deflection exposed his lack of political savvy.
Click to expand...

I think he lacks campaigning savvy.
 
conservativeguy said:
No kidding. Settling is often cheaper than litigation and the risk of having a potted plant jury get played by a plaintiffs attorney and cream the innocent defendent. The fact that these settlements are so small strongly suggests the women didn't have a case.....if they did they would have had a few hundred plaintiffs bar lawyers clammering to represent them and win a huge award. If managemet thought they had a real legal exposure, they would have easily paid a lot more.
Click to expand...
Settlements are a double-edged sword. On the one hand they often are cheaper, when viewed as an individual case. On the other hand, they only serve to encourage more claims, many of which will be baseless as many will accept an easy settlement.
 
radcen said:
Settlements are a double-edged sword. On the one hand they often are cheaper, when viewed as an individual case. On the other hand, they only serve to encourage more claims, many of which will be baseless as many will accept an easy settlement.
Click to expand...
That's why virtually every settlement has a confidentiality agreement.
 
radcen said:
Settlements are a double-edged sword. On the one hand they often are cheaper, when viewed as an individual case. On the other hand, they only serve to encourage more claims, many of which will be baseless as many will accept an easy settlement.
Click to expand...

Its a pendulum. During the early 90s, that is exactly what was happening. Harassment were flying left and right in the corporate world. Some valid, some not. These days, things have calmed a bit and you'll have more attention paid to them. It has a lot to do with the improvement of the policies where just accusing someone doesn't cut it anymore.
 
Fishstyx said:
Its a pendulum. During the early 90s, that is exactly what was happening. Harassment were flying left and right in the corporate world. Some valid, some not. These days, things have calmed a bit and you'll have more attention paid to them. It has a lot to do with the improvement of the policies where just accusing someone doesn't cut it anymore.
Click to expand...
Agree on both points. It is a pendulum, and things have calmed from what they were. There are still plenty of people that have the perception that easy money is available, though.
 
conservativeguy said:
No kidding. Settling is often cheaper than litigation and the risk of having a potted plant jury get played by a plaintiffs attorney and cream the innocent defendent. The fact that these settlements are so small strongly suggests the women didn't have a case.....if they did they would have had a few hundred plaintiffs bar lawyers clammering to represent them and win a huge award. If managemet thought they had a real legal exposure, they would have easily paid a lot more.
Click to expand...

First of all, did you know of Herman Cain back then? Probably not and that is why there weren't "a few hundred plaintiffs bar lawyers clammering to represent them ".
Today, yes there would have been a a hundred plaintiff lawyers.

If you were accused by your neighbor of having sexual contact with his 9 yr old son would you fight to save your reputation or would you pay them a few thousands to just shut up?

I might be persuaded to do a settlement in cases of contract disputes or property claims but never would I okay a settlement of being accused of something so damming to my character. Just saying.
 
If I'm not mistaken, cain's offer is to pay anyone who accuses him of sexual harrassment $999,000 to shut up.
 
radcen said:
Agree on both points. It is a pendulum, and things have calmed from what they were. There are still plenty of people that have the perception that easy money is available, though.
Click to expand...

And there are still plenty of supervisors/managers/bosses that are deathly afraid of being accused. I've had both sex and racial discrimination accusations thrown at me during the counseling of personnel based on poor performance. In these instances, my response was identical. Ask for specifics on why they felt that way (always felt this important in case there is some miscommunication or misinterpretation) and if they feel their claim is valid, to seek the EER to file a complaint. I aslo warned if the accusation were deamed to be unfounded, their would be consequences. Fortunately, I operate under a policy that does not look favorable to false accusations. Needless to say, these were exploratory accusations to determine if I feared going down that road.
 
I once was the investigating officer on a sexual harassment claim. a couple of female soldiers accused their SGT of giving them crappy duty assignments because they wouldn't date him. My investigation revealed that these two idiots were just lazy, worthless POS that NOBODY on post wanted working for them, so their SGT was doing the best he could to find any assignment that would take them. They turned around and filed an EO complaint against me, claiming that the only reason I ruled in their SGT's favor was because they were black. I had been going to let the whole thing drop...but when they tried to be little bitches about it, I simply took their sworn statements and charged them both with violating article 107 of the UCMJ (filing a false official statement/report). They both were reduced one pay grade in rank, given 45 days additional duty and fined half a month's pay for two months. I made it a point every evening to drive by the warehouse where they were scraping old paint off the walls and wave to them.
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
I once was the investigating officer on a sexual harassment claim. a couple of female soldiers accused their SGT of giving them crappy duty assignments because they wouldn't date him. My investigation revealed that these two idiots were just lazy, worthless POS that NOBODY on post wanted working for them, so their SGT was doing the best he could to find any assignment that would take them. They turned around and filed an EO complaint against me, claiming that the only reason I ruled in their SGT's favor was because they were black. I had been going to let the whole thing drop...but when they tried to be little bitches about it, I simply took their sworn statements and charged them both with violating article 107 of the UCMJ (filing a false official statement/report). They both were reduced one pay grade in rank, given 45 days additional duty and fined half a month's pay for two months. I made it a point every evening to drive by the warehouse where they were scraping old paint off the walls and wave to them.
Click to expand...
[emphasis by bubba]
seems the military has changed significantly since my era. it appears that accepting troops to perform duty has now become discretionary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom