Exclusive: Two women accused Herman Cain of inappropriate behavior (compare, claims, supporters)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama's team is looking for anything to discredit a candidate. In business it is not uncommon for someone to get their back up at something said, whereas someone else wouldn't give it a second thought. It's possible the "cash" settlement was given as severance pay, not as a "shut your mouth." Obama's getting desperate.
Then why was the settlement accompanied by a non-disclosure agreement, which in effect says "I agree to shut my mouth"?
News reporters did not investigate Barack Obama. You would think during this election there would be a more thorough vetting by the news media of all candidates.
If the Cain rumors were true, Cain has been working at so many different jobs you would think he might have the same problem at other jobs. Maybe someone should check out why he left positions with one organization for new positions at another. He's says he's not a politician where it's pretty obvious why someone is voted out of office and/or resigns or runs for a bigger office. Why did Herman Cain change jobs? It doesn't have to be nefarious. More money, better connections, more power, bigger challenge could be the reason(s) but someone should check out those reasons to make sure he wasn't asked to leave by an employer.
I did not see any of his interviews but if I was questioning him, I would have asked how long after the settlement did he change jobs and was he asked to leave. Frankly, I would also be checking out how well he did his jobs. We know about Godfather's, what about the rest of them? We know this stuff about politicians because what they have done is public. Herman Cain has to be vetted differently, not because he's black but because he never held public office before.
Doesn't surprise me. Makes me wonder if this is a GOP ploy to exploit the misguided, ridiculous stereotype that black men are sexual predators and use it against Cain. They have to find a way to take the wind out of Cain's sails, since they don't want a black man representing their party for the next election.
I hope it's not true. I'd like to see him go down in defeat because of his ridiculous policies, policies that reflect GOP ideological regression and ineffectiveness.
I don't think it's because he's black, although I do think there are lots of folks in the GOP establishment who would want to take Cain out so he stops being a distraction from Romney or Perry. They know that Cain can't win the general, because he can't carry the independent and moderate vote. Why would the D's do it now? They see Cain as much easier to beat than Romney--if this was a D thing, they'd wait to release the information until after Cain was nominated (which he won't be) to do the most damage, and they'd do it much closer to the general election so he wouldn't have time to recover.
Honestly--I don't think the people who already support Cain are really going to care about these allegations, unless it turns out that there's way more to them. It does keep Cain busy responding to this issue, and leaves less time for him to campaign and take shots at Romney or Perry. He can't strengthen his base in the GOP while he's dealing with this, which was probably the goal in outing him to begin with.
who is trying to get away with anything? Just because someone makes a claim doesn't mean it is true. It appears, if there was anything to the stories and quite possibly there isn't, it was simply a comment not what most would call a true sexual harrassment situation. Stop trying to find someone guilty before they have had a fair trial. Maybe he did something inappropriate, maybe not. Most likely this is being blown all out of proportion..When there are names and those names come forward, I will take this a little more seriously.
Nita
I'm looking for a candidate who can "talk straight" and discuss things out in the open. (Versus someone who tries to "sweep things under the rug" hoping that an issue will just "fade away.") Too many politicians in both parties have tried to "skirt issues."....Herman Cain had many days to prepare a response before the story broke. Why didn't he get his "act together" during this time so he was prepared to "clear things up?"...There aren't "special rules" for Herman Cain or any candidate who decides to run for the presidency or any office. All of their "skeltons" will most likely be pulled out of the "closet." And they need to be prepared for all of it before they decide to become a candidate. This is all part of the vetting process when elections roll around....Elected officials should be prepared for questions while they are in office too. Everyone is subject to scrutiny. (Everyone on both "sides.")
Then why was the settlement accompanied by a non-disclosure agreement, which in effect says "I agree to shut my mouth"?
If there were just accusations alone this might be different. (And investigations that cleared the matter up.) But the notion of settlements and "gag orders" raises a few eyebrows. I think the public deserves more information and more details about all of it...I don't automatically "make excuses" for any candidate (of either party) when something "pops up." I want to hear all of the facts straight from the candidate's own mouth...When someone seems evasive this makes me suspicious. When will candidates (and politicians) learn that they can't "run away" from things forever?
Dude, I understand. That's why I said on principle.
The point being that I'm still well off and the scumbag gets zero and may even have to work even longer and harder to have even less than they did before they got froggy.
Dude, if you understand then why are you saying "I'm"......it's an association, not an individual.....they (it) doesn't care about principal.....they care about money. They can't allow it to become something personal.
Last edited by Danno3314; 11-01-2011 at 09:43 AM..
Not that I am interested in any of this, but while your argument is technically correct, it is rather disingenuous considering that Cain was the CEO and a member of the board.
The accusations were baseless...as a CEO he's an employee of the association so he can't take this personally.
On another note, if you watch MSNBC this morning, you'd think Cain was involved in a real sex scandal. They keep going on about this matter as though Cain hasn't said anything about this. Turn on FOX and you'll see Cain explaining EXACTLY what happened. All he said was that the woman was the same height as his wife....that's all. MSNBC keeps playing that he botched his response....as if he's hiding something. It's out in theopen what happened and they're trying to make something out of nothing.
allegations? And yet they took a payoff? Its common for big business to do a payoff. Its cheaper than proving no wrong doing and a lot less public.
Add to the mix deep pocket mentality jurists. Prime example the woman that sued McDonalds over hot coffee.The sad thing is it happens about everyday. Ever wonder why ladders have so many warning stickers? Each one represents a lawsuit by idiots who needed to be told not to stand on the top rung. LOL
To be honest the woman who sued McDonalds over the hot coffee incident had a lot more valid case than most people think and did not receive as much money as often portrayed ($640,000 as opposed to the claims of millions).
It turned out that McDonalds had a type coffeemaker made specially for them that would heat coffee far hotter than other industrial scale coffeemakers (the reason was they were promoting that you could put your coffee in a thermos and it would keep hot all day). They company that made the coffeemaker initially refused to do so warning of potential injuries to staff and customers if they were to serve boiling coffee. McDonalds pressured them to into making the device, but the company did so only if McDonalds signed a document stating that they had been warned of the potential dangers by the company and would take all responsibility for any lawsuits that might arise. McDonalds also skimped on lids that were more durable and less prone to spillage to save about one cent per lid. Also, the woman in question did receive third degree burns and required two years of medical therapy.
Now, there were other factors that made McDonalds a bit less culpable, but there is more to the story than "Dumbass spills coffee on self and blames the restaurant".
Obama's team is looking for anything to discredit a candidate. In business it is not uncommon for someone to get their back up at something said, whereas someone else wouldn't give it a second thought. It's possible the "cash" settlement was given as severance pay, not as a "shut your mouth." Obama's getting desperate.
Clinton was fooling around in the WH with Monica, lying to American people....what's the big deal?
Was it Obama's people who brought them out? Do you remember the Swift Boaters?
This election is gonna get real ugly. I wasn't voting for Kerry anyway but that stuff went to far IMHO. You reap what you sow.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
