• 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

Thorgasm said:
Would you vote for a man who came out as being able to fellate himself?
Click to expand...
Yes. Most important issue facing our country, IMO.
 
It sounds like the guy is a little crude. The question becomes, is that enough of a negative to eliminate him from the possibility of holding office? We'll know more as more comes out in the next few news cycles, but it is interesting to see all these libs that I'm sure would have bent over backwards to excuse Clinton in his misdeeds that include violating the law where as Cain was never found guilty of violating any laws.
 
What was Cain's response to the german woman who said he touched her...he said "nein nein nein".. :)
 
VanceMack said:
Surely you dont think the dirty tricks started with Clinton? I doubt it was other republicans, just as I doubt the Perry/racism thing was republicans (however the Romeny/illegal immigrant thing was DEFINITELY from Perry). Could have been...I just dont think other republicans see him as a threat.
Click to expand...

not dirty tricks, per se....but i had never seen anything like that in my adult life. it was a colossal waste of time and money. and remember those who cried out against clinton for his behavior while hiding their own dirty secrets is certainly entertaining. next, for example.

i think perry sees cain as a threat, and i think romney wouldn't stoop to that.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Did what you say cause the Dairy Queen owners pay the person some money to keep quiet about what you said?


If not I think what Cain probably said is rather more significant.
Click to expand...

What did he say?


Most organizations do not give payouts without a rather good reason
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily true. Orgs settle out fo court all the time, for the simple fact that it's cheaper and quieter. It's not an admission of any wrong doing.
 
ksu_aviator said:
It sounds like the guy is a little crude. The question becomes, is that enough of a negative to eliminate him from the possibility of holding office? We'll know more as more comes out in the next few news cycles, but it is interesting to see all these libs that I'm sure would have bent over backwards to excuse Clinton in his misdeeds that include violating the law where as Cain was never found guilty of violating any laws.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton was an actual rapist and he won two terms.
 
apdst said:
Bill Clinton was an actual rapist and he won two terms.
Click to expand...

why do post things that are your opinion as fact? this isn't about clinotn, it's about cain.
 
Here's the deal:

1) Herman Cain said that he was falsely accused. That is an admission that he was accused, whether falsely or not.

2) The Restaurant Association, of which he was Chairman at the time, paid off both women, on condition that neither party be allowed to disclose the circumstances.

Here is where it gets very interesting:

3) After the Politico article came out, Herman Cain said that the women falsely accused him.

4) In making that statement, the confidentiality agreement is now voided.

5) Which means the women who made the accusations are no longer bound by that agreement. They are free to come forward and speak up.

6) If they don't, then nothing happened in the first place, and both women were out to extort a buck by making the accusations in the first place.

Put it all together, and it shows that:

a) At this time, Herman Cain appears to be telling the truth.

b) Cain chose an ingenious method with which to defend himself from a false accusation. Had he not violated the confidentiality agreement, he could very well have been tarred and feathered with this accusation. Now, he dares the accusers to come out with their accusations, and gets to face his accusers.

Whatever you might say about Cain, he is a pretty savvy guy, and until some proof is brought forward that he committed sexual harrassment, his stock just went up in my book. I still would not vote for him, but he earns my respect.
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
why do post things that are your opinion as fact? this isn't about clinotn, it's about cain.
Click to expand...

I was only using an historical reference to show that just because Herman Cain is accused of doing, something, it doesn't necessarily diminish his chances of getting elected.
 
Objective Voice said:
Piggy backing on danarhea's comments above, here is an Washington Post opinion piece on the matter.

Enjoy. :wave:
Click to expand...

Except that I do not believe that this was a bad move on Cain's part. In making his denial, he effectively voided the confidentiality agreement. If there really was sexual harrassment of those 2 women, they are now free to disclose it.

So my question is going to be "Where's the beef"?
 
You know I have managed to work in the professional world for 15 years now and have yet to be accused by any woman of sexual harassment. I would imagine that most people that defend Cain have managed not to be accused of it themselves either.
 
danarhea said:
Except that I do not believe that this was a bad move on Cain's part. In making his denial, he effectively voided the confidentiality agreement. If there really was sexual harrassment of those 2 women, they are now free to disclose it.

So my question is going to be "Where's the beef"?
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with you. Whether the charges were sexual harrassment or inappropriate sexual behavior, he took the gloves off on this one. So, it's now up to the women to risk coming forward to confront the issue. Risky move...he'd better hope it doesn't backfire on him though.

(Of course, there is one thing folks might not have considered...what if the women are both dead? What a convenience for Herman Cain, huh? I'm just saying...:shrug: )
 
danarhea said:
Here's the deal:

1) Herman Cain said that he was falsely accused. That is an admission that he was accused, whether falsely or not.

2) The Restaurant Association, of which he was Chairman at the time, paid off both women, on condition that neither party be allowed to disclose the circumstances.

Here is where it gets very interesting:

3) After the Politico article came out, Herman Cain said that the women falsely accused him.

4) In making that statement, the confidentiality agreement is now voided.

5) Which means the women who made the accusations are no longer bound by that agreement. They are free to come forward and speak up.

6) If they don't, then nothing happened in the first place, and both women were out to extort a buck by making the accusations in the first place.

Put it all together, and it shows that:

a) At this time, Herman Cain appears to be telling the truth.

b) Cain chose an ingenious method with which to defend himself from a false accusation. Had he not violated the confidentiality agreement, he could very well have been tarred and feathered with this accusation. Now, he dares the accusers to come out with their accusations, and gets to face his accusers.

Whatever you might say about Cain, he is a pretty savvy guy, and until some proof is brought forward that he committed sexual harrassment, his stock just went up in my book. I still would not vote for him, but he earns my respect.
Click to expand...

We don't have the "confidentiality agreement" so we don't know what it says, or even if Cain is a party to it. All he has said is that he did nothing wrong and the accusations are baseless. I assume he said the same then, and that any release agreement he signed also says he admitted to no wrongdoing.

It's not like he has disclosed the names of the women involved, or their accusations, or the amount paid to them.

This story will only get more interesting when it is revealed that the WH is behind it.
 
lpast said:
During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.
The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.
Click to expand...


This seems awfully thin on facts and proof, and the timing (coming out just when Cain is gaining momentum) seems very suspicious.

I have my doubts that it will be widely accepted as true without a lot more compelling evidence.
 
If I assume it's true, Herman Caine is no saint. I haven't seen, hear of or read about a politician who's a saint yet... Caine's human after all. Well garsh ... :2razz:
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You know I have managed to work in the professional world for 15 years now and have yet to be accused by any woman of sexual harassment. I would imagine that most people that defend Cain have managed not to be accused of it themselves either.
Click to expand...
I'll say this, sexual harrassment laws have grown to an extent that if you tell a dirty joke to your male colleagues and a third party hears it in the other room they can slap you for it, even though you didn't have the intent to offend, or that the outside party wasn't even supposed to be included in the activity. Heck, my dad knew an older guy who got fired for calling a woman hon, she assumed he was being a dirty old man but he literally called all women hon, it was just his way of speaking. In my opinion there are legitimate cases of sexual harrassment and then there is the other 95% that was in the catagory of someone making things bigger than they were.
 
lpast said:
During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.
The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.
Click to expand...
This shouldn't matter, but sadly, I suspect it will to many.
 
iliveonramen said:
"High tech lynching"? The fact is anytime there's a scandal it's plastered all over the news especially when leading the Republican Primary. I honestly don't care about his past regarding that. It's 10 years ago, the issue was resolved and there's much worse characteristics a President could have.

It is extremely whiney though to blame it on some "liberal media" smear campaign. The media treats everybody like this. Get off your cross Herman....
Click to expand...

remember a guy named Clarence Thomas?
 
ksu_aviator said:
It sounds like the guy is a little crude. The question becomes, is that enough of a negative to eliminate him from the possibility of holding office? We'll know more as more comes out in the next few news cycles, but it is interesting to see all these libs that I'm sure would have bent over backwards to excuse Clinton in his misdeeds that include violating the law where as Cain was never found guilty of violating any laws.
Click to expand...

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...
 
LuckyDan said:
This story will only get more interesting when it is revealed that the WH is behind it.
Click to expand...

I think it's more likely Romney or Perry. Unless you have some proof to back up your claim, which I doubt.
 
iliveonramen said:
"High tech lynching"? The fact is anytime there's a scandal it's plastered all over the news especially when leading the Republican Primary. I honestly don't care about his past regarding that. It's 10 years ago, the issue was resolved and there's much worse characteristics a President could have.

It is extremely whiney though to blame it on some "liberal media" smear campaign. The media treats everybody like this. Get off your cross Herman....
Click to expand...

The Libbos aren't going to sit back and let some uppity nigger steal their spotlight. Not to mention the political clout they will lose, if Herman Cain wins the Republican nomination.

Let's face it folks, Liberalism is already on the ropes. A black Republican winning the presidential nomination will only serve to drive another nail in the coffin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom