• 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

[emphasis by bubba]
seems the military has changed significantly since my era. it appears that accepting troops to perform duty has now become discretionary

this was a medical retention unit where soldiers who had been injured on deployment were sent to recover. they were assigned to work for different units around the post according to what their injury/recovery status allowed. some drove the post shuttle taxis, some worked as office clerks, some worked in the DFAC. The intent was to keep them as gainfully employed as their medical status would allow, instead of just allowing them to lay around doing nothing and collecting a check. (it seemed that if they actually had to work, they seemed to "recover" faster and could be returned to full active duty status)

but hey....nice try at calling me a liar. thanks for playing ;)
 
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.
and as the investigating officer, what information did you learn which enabled you to absolutely conclude that their allegation of sexual harassment was baseless?
 
and as the investigating officer, what information did you learn which enabled you to absolutely conclude that their allegation of sexual harassment was baseless?

I simply interviewed all of the NCOs and officers that he had previously sent them to work for and, without exception, they all told me that within a week they called the medical retention center and told them that the services of these two individuals was no longer needed or wanted. the terms "dishonest", "disrespectful" and "dirtbag" were used early and often to describe them.

according to one MSG: and I quote "SPC X and Y routinely reported late for duty, made false statements concerning medical appointments in order to leave work, failed to return to work after legitimate appointments and performed their duties in a substandard manner" She emphasized that it was she, and not their SGT, who initiated the reassignment. She further asserted that "SPC X and Y's dishonesty and poor performance were the reason for their reassignment"

As to the assignment they were complaining about being given:

from an email sent to their SGT from a CPT XYZ: "I need urgent help: I need to staff SGT X with at least 48 drivers. Come see me for details. URGENT"

other than the two accusers, I could not find a single person who had ever heard the SGT make any comments or take any actions towards them that could be considered to be harassment.

so, basically these were two lazy POS bitches who thought they could get out of having to do any work if they accused their boss of harassment.
 
Last edited:
A week into this there was one...no...two...now three allegations of some form of sexual misconduct. The allegations came from the Romney camp...no...wait...the Perry camp...no..no...it came from Rahm Immaneul...

OK...its just becoming a little silly. We dont know if these folks were legitimately harassed or just disgruntled former employees going for a paycheck. We really know very little about anything. The only thing I know FOR SURE and that has swayed my opinion somewhat (and again...I wouldnt have voted for him anyway) is HIS response...which has been very much not stellar. If it comes out that he was/is just a flirtatious type that had people mistake his behaviors rightly or wrongly, then I could probably over look that. Im betting we all have done things that could be taken a certain way. But his public comments were not "well...I know there were some folks that misinterpreted some things...nothing untoward was ever met...Im sorry they took it the wrong way and those have been settled-no harm, no foul, press on" then I would be fine. But thats not what his response has been. Regardless of what actually happened, I dont dance on what the meaning of 'is' is, and when someone says 'I dont know' or 'I dont remember' or point blank I have NEVER done anything untoward....well...you damn sure better be squeaky clean.
 
This thread is dedicated to the issue of the TWO women who accused Cain of improper behavior. Is it okay to still post here and discuss the THREE women who have now been discussed?

Will we need to keep adding threads as more and more women are added to the list?

News from The Associated Press
 
I'll bet he made boobies out of the pizza dough.
 
I don't see how this is even an issue. how many women came forward and accused Bill Clinton of harassing, molesting or outright raping them and we were told that what he does in his personal life is none of our business?

just seems a bit hypocritical to try to assassinate Cain's character over something that may or may not have happened a decade ago.

put in perspective of the timeline:

at the time these two were accusing Cain of harassment...Clinton was allegedly raping Paula Jones
 
Last edited:
I don't see how this is even an issue. how many women came forward and accused Bill Clinton of harassing, molesting or outright raping them and we were told that what he does in his personal life is none of our business?

just seems a bit hypocritical to try to assassinate Cain's character over something that may or may not have happened a decade ago.

Your knee just got hit again with that little rubber hammer. ;)
 
I don't see how this is even an issue. how many women came forward and accused Bill Clinton of harassing, molesting or outright raping them and we were told that what he does in his personal life is none of our business?

just seems a bit hypocritical to try to assassinate Cain's character over something that may or may not have happened a decade ago.

put in perspective of the timeline:

at the time these two were accusing Cain of harassment...Clinton was allegedly raping Paula Jones

Maybe it's not the accusations that are important, but how Cain has handled this "crisis". He's looked like a bumbling fool, especially compared to how Clinton handled his "crisis".
 
IOW, you cannot refute the point. ;)

"sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik"

You made no point that needed to be refuted. All you did was give us a typical right wing knee jerk response defending your own by attacking your enemy. Think back to your days on the elementary school playground when the high point of intellectual retort was

"I know you are but what am I".
 
A week into this there was one...no...two...now three allegations of some form of sexual misconduct. The allegations came from the Romney camp...no...wait...the Perry camp...no..no...it came from Rahm Immaneul...

OK...its just becoming a little silly. We dont know if these folks were legitimately harassed or just disgruntled former employees going for a paycheck. We really know very little about anything. The only thing I know FOR SURE and that has swayed my opinion somewhat (and again...I wouldnt have voted for him anyway) is HIS response...which has been very much not stellar. If it comes out that he was/is just a flirtatious type that had people mistake his behaviors rightly or wrongly, then I could probably over look that. Im betting we all have done things that could be taken a certain way. But his public comments were not "well...I know there were some folks that misinterpreted some things...nothing untoward was ever met...Im sorry they took it the wrong way and those have been settled-no harm, no foul, press on" then I would be fine. But thats not what his response has been. Regardless of what actually happened, I dont dance on what the meaning of 'is' is, and when someone says 'I dont know' or 'I dont remember' or point blank I have NEVER done anything untoward....well...you damn sure better be squeaky clean.

Well, I think we can remove one of the accusers off the "spill the beans" list. Apparently, one of the accusers (on the advice of her attorney :roll:) has decided not to go public with her side of the story.

The National Restaurant Association on Friday confirmed that it granted a financial settlement to a woman after she filed a sexual harassment complaint against Herman Cain in 1999.

The trade group also freed her from her confidentiality agreement, although her attorney said she doesn’t intend to speak publicly on the matter. “Notwithstanding the Association’s ongoing policy of maintaining the privacy of all personnel matters, we have advised [her attorney] that we are willing to waive the confidentiality of this matter and permit [Joel] Bennett’s client to comment,” Dawn Sweeney, president of the National Restaurant Association, said Friday in a news release.

Bennett, the attorney for the woman, on Thursday submitted a request to release her from the agreement.

The association announced its decision just as Bennett was telling reporters that the complaint against Cain involved “more than one incident” that, in the woman’s opinion, qualified as sexual harassment.

“My client stands by the complaint that she made,” he said.

Bennett declined to give additional details about the nature of the incidents, citing the woman’s desire to stay out of the spotlight.

...

“Based upon the information currently available, we can confirm that more than a decade ago, in July 1999, Mr. Bennett’s client filed a formal internal complaint, in accordance with the Association’s existing policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment. Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint. The Association and Mr. Bennett’s client subsequently entered into an agreement to resolve the matter, without any admission of liability. Mr. Cain was not a party to that agreement.”

Now that this one accuser has back pedalled on her decision to tell her side of the story, her refusal to talk removes some credibility from this story. Doesn't mean Herman Cain didn't do something wrong; it just means maybe the situation (at least with one woman) wasn't as bad as it's been made out to be. And remember, there's still one accuser left and one alleged "eye witness" to Cain's past inappropriate behavior along the lines of what he's being "accused" of having done.

The story...accusations...rumors...what the hell?....continues.
 
Last edited:
Based on some recent revelations, I'd say that this situation is much more serious than I first imagined.

Perry and Romney will probably say very little about this. Their tactic will probably be to let Cain self-destruct.
 
I would feel better about the situation if the women themselves came forward, and didn't hide behind attorneys and confidentiality agreements. I also have questions about THEIR character as they agreed to keep the issues confidential in exchange for money and then sought ways around that by using attorneys to speak for them. In my mind they have already broken the spirit of the agreements, if not the letter, and should return the money.
 
We have already agreed that even if it did happen, sexual harrassment doesn't disqualify one from being president.
In this you are absolutely correct. And the group that supports Cain may be reduced by a little, but that doesn't matter. In fact sexual harassment by someone in power illustrates how they will behave in other similar situations in the future and that behavior is in alignment with his supporters. He'll be the Boss.
 
I would feel better about the situation if the women themselves came forward, and didn't hide behind attorneys and confidentiality agreements. I also have questions about THEIR character as they agreed to keep the issues confidential in exchange for money and then sought ways around that by using attorneys to speak for them. In my mind they have already broken the spirit of the agreements, if not the letter, and should return the money.

They have kept to the agreement. As for who brought this up is unknown. Cain believes it was the Perry camp and Perry camp thinks it the Romney camp.

What is known that Cain has had to back track so many times in this revelation. Probably the most irriatating thing to the women is to listen to Cain now say that he only said one was tall as his wife and put his hand up in the air. I think there was a little more to that and Cain knows it.

At first his convenient lack of memory of any such harrassment claim is so over the board bogus. I kind of think most people would remember something like that. He has bumbled and danced around this issue so much I hate to picture him as president and dealing with someone as sharp and hard as Putnin. Putnin would eat him up for breakfast.
 
They have kept to the agreement. As for who brought this up is unknown. Cain believes it was the Perry camp and Perry camp thinks it the Romney camp.

What is known that Cain has had to back track so many times in this revelation. Probably the most irriatating thing to the women is to listen to Cain now say that he only said one was tall as his wife and put his hand up in the air. I think there was a little more to that and Cain knows it.

At first his convenient lack of memory of any such harrassment claim is so over the board bogus. I kind of think most people would remember something like that. He has bumbled and danced around this issue so much I hate to picture him as president and dealing with someone as sharp and hard as Putnin. Putnin would eat him up for breakfast.
I would suggest that, if they have attorneys speaking for them, they have not kept the agreement. To me, keeping the agreement is not responding at all. Just letting it hang out there for speculation.

As far as how Cain has handled it, that is another issue, albeit a very legitimate one in its own right.
 
The clip is awful, but yes, Cain is a serious candidate. The question is whether he will now be taken seriously after this.
 
The clip is awful, but yes, Cain is a serious candidate. The question is whether he will now be taken seriously after this.

He won't be. He's done an exceptionally poor job of controlling the damage.

Of course, what goes down in the Republican camp never ceases to amaze me, so you never know.
 
He won't be. He's done an exceptionally poor job of controlling the damage.

Of course, what goes down in the Republican camp never ceases to amaze me, so you never know.

Yes, I agree. The story here is not the accusations, but Cain's inability to deal with this situation. I have heard a few of his speeches lately about the subject, and they were pretty good, but it was too little too late. That was already a week after being asked if he had ever sexually harassed anyone and he said, "No, I have never harassed anyone outside of the restaurant association" or some nonsense like that.

All he had to do is say, "that depends on what the definition of 'is' is". Clinton showed him the playbook already! Cmon Cain!
 
Yes, I agree. The story here is not the accusations, but Cain's inability to deal with this situation. I have heard a few of his speeches lately about the subject, and they were pretty good, but it was too little too late. That was already a week after being asked if he had ever sexually harassed anyone and he said, "No, I have never harassed anyone outside of the restaurant association" or some nonsense like that.

All he had to do is say, "that depends on what the definition of 'is' is". Clinton showed him the playbook already! Cmon Cain!

I heard that for every one woman he met who accused him, there were 999 women who didn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom