Sexual harassment claims against Herman Cain

[samsmart]

How much does the sexual harassment claims made against Herman Cain affect your opinion of him running for the office of President?

While I am against Cain's positions, I have to say I couldn't give less of a **** whether he settled some sexual harassment claims made against him. After all, I don't oppose Cain based on him making unwanted sexual advances against women - rather, I oppose Cain based on his political policies, his lack of understanding on foreign policy, and because I just think he wouldn't make a good President.

And let's say that he did sexually harass some women and he settled it. Doesn't that mean he was duly punished for it? And, hopefully, he learned his lesson?

And that's even assuming that, despite settling, he was guilty, as settlement is not always admittance of guilt. Sometimes, people settle because just being accused of things like this can be traumatic and rather than prolong that trauma they just want to get it over with as soon as possible so they can move on with their lives, which I can understand.

But I don't know if I'm the only one who feels this way, so I'd like to ask the DPers here what they think on the issue.

 

[liblady]

How much does the sexual harassment claims made against Herman Cain affect your opinion of him running for the office of President?

While I am against Cain's positions, I have to say I couldn't give less of a **** whether he settled some sexual harassment claims made against him. After all, I don't oppose Cain based on him making unwanted sexual advances against women - rather, I oppose Cain based on his political policies, his lack of understanding on foreign policy, and because I just think he wouldn't make a good President.

And let's say that he did sexually harass some women and he settled it. Doesn't that mean he was duly punished for it? And, hopefully, he learned his lesson?

And that's even assuming that, despite settling, he was guilty, as settlement is not always admittance of guilt. Sometimes, people settle because just being accused of things like this can be traumatic and rather than prolong that trauma they just want to get it over with as soon as possible so they can move on with their lives, which I can understand.

But I don't know if I'm the only one who feels this way, so I'd like to ask the DPers here what they think on the issue.

i would never vote for him anyway. otherwise, i don't care. he's a liar just like most of them. i saw some of the clips of cain answering questions and he's very incredible. he doesn't remember? what a joke. you know what the worst thing about him is, though? his stupid-assed 9-9-9 plan. that's the real crime.

 

[samsmart]

i would never vote for him anyway. otherwise, i don't care. he's a liar just like most of them. i saw some of the clips of cain answering questions and he's very incredible. he doesn't remember? what a joke. you know what the worst thing about him is, though? his stupid-assed 9-9-9 plan. that's the real crime.

Actually, I'm more disturbed by his "clear" stance on abortion.

 

[Ockham]

Actually, I'm more disturbed by his "clear" stance on abortion.

I didn't know your were a registered Republican. (?)

 

[jamesrage]

It doesn't effect my opinion about him at all.These claims are suspicious seeing how that they are just now coming out while the man is running for president.

You should have picked public option. .

 

[liblady]

It doesn't effect my opinion about him at all.These claims are suspicious seeing how that they are just now coming out while the man is running for president.

You should have picked public option. .

running for office brings close inspection of a person's past. this is EXACTLY when these types of allegation surface. there was a settlement, only now cain says it might have been an "agreement". first he denied, and lately says maybe there was an agreement. he's a liar, period. and not a very good one.

 

[liblady]

sam i can't see youtube at work. what is his stance please?

 

[roguenuke]

Don't like him for his views on other things. Could care less about this, mainly because it happened in the past. If this had happened recently and seemed to be a huge problem, sure it might be another strike against him. Honestly, though, since I have no intention on voting for him if he gets the nomination, it doesn't change anything for me on him at all.

 

[Ockham]

Don't like him for his views on other things. Could care less about this, mainly because it happened in the past. If this had happened recently and seemed to be a huge problem, sure it might be another strike against him. Honestly, though, since I have no intention on voting for him if he gets the nomination, it doesn't change anything for me on him at all.

See I'm the direct opposite, there's literally no chance of me voting for Obama, so whoever is the nominee is irrelevant. My vote is anti-Obama not pro-GOP candidate.

 

[radcen]

I've been very leery of him from the beginning, so I wouldn't be prone to vote for him to begin with, but... as far as this issue goes I really have to take the "wait and see" approach. I think more will come out later and I don't feel there is enough info just yet to make a valid conclusion.

 

[jamesrage]

See I'm the direct opposite, there's literally no chance of me voting for Obama, so whoever is the nominee is irrelevant. My vote is anti-Obama not pro-GOP candidate.

And this is why the parties are the way they are now. Every time you vote for a McCain, Romeny or some other RINO you basically giving the go ahead for republicans to become more and more liberal.The candidate you vote for should get your vote because you believe he is the right man for the job and shares most of your views, not because you do not want the other guy to win. I do not think the democrats and republicans became they way they are overnight, It was because of lazy people voting straight party not paying attention to what the candidates actually stand for and people with the idiotic mentality that their party is good and the other party is evil regardless of how ****ed up their candidate is. If you are going to vote for Cain then he should get our vote because you actually believe he is the right man for the job and he shares most of your views(not views he claims to share).

 

[Ockham]

And this is why the parties are the way they are now. Every time you vote for a McCain, Romeny or some other RINO you basically giving the go ahead for republicans to become more and more liberal.

I can't change the system. And I sure as hell don't want to give a vote to someone who I know already supports 0% of what I know and believe will help this country and I won't just NOT vote which is the same as voting for Obama and the Democrats. :shrug:

It's just the lesser of two evils....

 

[radcen]

And this is why the parties are the way they are now. Every time you vote for a McCain, Romeny or some other RINO you basically giving the go ahead for republicans to become more and more liberal.The candidate you vote for should get your vote because you believe he is the right man for the job and shares most of your views, not because you do not want the other guy to win. I do not think the democrats and republicans became they way they are overnight, It was because of lazy people voting straight party not paying attention to what the candidates actually stand for and people with the idiotic mentality that their party is good and the other party is evil regardless of how ****ed up their candidate is. If you are going to vote for Cain then he should get our vote because you actually believe he is the right man for the job and he shares most of your views(not views he claims to share).

But, isn't voting for the "lesser of two evils" also voting for the candidate who shares *more* of your views, if not most?

Disclaimer: I do not share the "lesser of two evils" point-of-view, btw, just asking the question in an intellectual sense.

 

[roguenuke]

I can't change the system. And I sure as hell don't want to give a vote to someone who I know already supports 0% of what I know and believe will help this country and I won't just NOT vote which is the same as voting for Obama and the Democrats. :shrug:

It's just the lesser of two evils....

See, I feel honestly the same, only in the opposite.

So far, the Republican candidates (for the most part) have expressed themselves negatively (from my position on those issues) on some very big issues for me (crappy tax plans, which also seem to be their main economic plans, most supporting an anti-SSM amendment, or there are things they have done or have said that put me off to them). These are the things that make me way more willing to vote for Obama rather than a GOP candidate this next election. I will say that Romney and definitely Huntsman would likely not get me to vote for Obama, but probably some 3rd Party candidate instead. Huntsman I might even vote for, but I highly doubt he will get the nom.

There really isn't a party that suits me. I have mixed views on pretty much all major issues. Some things I side pretty soundly right on (illegal immigration, military, gun laws), other things I side pretty soundly left on (gay rights/SSM, environment, NHC system), although most things I want a compromised version of that basically neither side proposes (taxes, regulations, worker's rights, basically any social issues not above, welfare). I go with whatever candidate I think is most likely to get those things that are most important to me at the time through or the candidate to get the least amount of stuff through that might go against my lean on the most important things to me at the time through. In general, no candidate works completely for me. I usually just get as much info as I can and muddle through.

 

[ksu_aviator]

I voted that it doesn't change my opinion at all because it does seem like both claims were bogus. However, if it turns out to be more insidious, the yes it would sway me.

 

[justabubba]

should have learned from clinton

tell us straight. don't lie

that this self proclaimed 'problem solver' can't figure out how to extinguish this issue establishes that he is an even weaker candidate than might have earlier been thought

 

[rathi]

I'll wait for solid evidence to come out about allegations before I start making judgements. I hate how all these cases are treated by the media. Its all about wild speculation and trying to character assassinate both the accuser and the accused.

 

[radcen]

should have learned from clinton

tell us straight. don't lie

A perfect case study for this is the baseball steroid issue. How did that play out?

Rafeal Palmiero: Outright lied. Waived his finger and everything. Ostracized.

Mark McGwire: "I'm not here to talk about the past." Not a lie, but not being forthright, either. Still pretty much ostracized, though not as much as Palmiero.

Sammy Sosa: "No habla". :roll:

Jason Giambi: Didn't come right out and say "Yeah, I did it.", but we all knew what he meant. And, he sort of apologized. He was the butt of some jokes afterward, but he was forgiven (for the most part) and continued to play.

Unless it's for something like molestation or rape or murder or treason, the American public WANTS to forgive, but just be straight with us. That's really all we ask.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

See I'm the direct opposite, there's literally no chance of me voting for Obama, so whoever is the nominee is irrelevant. My vote is anti-Obama not pro-GOP candidate.

I think that is the case for a lot of anti-Obama people. This race is starting to eerily resemble the Bush/Kerry race.

 

[lpast]

i would never vote for him anyway. otherwise, i don't care. he's a liar just like most of them. i saw some of the clips of cain answering questions and he's very incredible. he doesn't remember? what a joke. you know what the worst thing about him is, though? his stupid-assed 9-9-9 plan. that's the real crime.

I agree its not so much that he paid off two women who alleged he sexually harrassed them...it was the disengenuous disbelievable way he handled it. Him and his campaign had a full 10 days to get it together and STILL he stumbled and bumbled answering the question and lied about it...

 

[radcen]

I think that is the case for a lot of anti-Obama people. This race is starting to eerily resemble the Bush/Kerry race.

It really is. In fact, the last few elections where the President was running for re-election have been this way. It seems the only time we get a real choice is when the President has been termed out and both candidates are completely new.

 

[Catawba]

The charges don't affect my opinion of him, but his reaction to them sure has!

Did anyone see his interview with Greta last night? He kept repeating the claims were baseless, and all of a sudden Greta asked him how they were found to be baseless? He was dumbfounded, he said he did not recollect how they were found baseless or by whom, but he was sure they were found to be baseless.

I sure don't buy it.

 

[EarlzP]

I voted that it doesn't change my opinion at all because it does seem like both claims were bogus. However, if it turns out to be more insidious, the yes it would sway me.

You have to be kidding right? Mr Cain changes his political stance so much you have to wonder if he actually has one, he said he is against abortion but the person involved should make the final decision and the government should stay out of it, then changed his mind to the acceptable right to life answer, he said he would negotiate with terrorist and then claimed the question confused him, he said he was not against same sex marriages and then changed his mind.

I would love to see him get the republican nomination that would ensure another 4 years for President Obama, Herman Cain would not be able to remember what he said from one debate to the next

 

[samsmart]

I didn't know your were a registered Republican. (?)

Indeed I am.

 

[samsmart]

sam i can't see youtube at work. what is his stance please?

Even after watching that video, I don't know, and neither does anyone else.