What Does "Sexual Harassment" Have To Do With Being POTUS??......

What did Clinton do with .... never mind, he said he didn;t and he was still president.

Are you really asking this question? It shows no self respect, no respect for other people, no self control, no respect for the law and no morals. Do you really want him leading our country?

Immoral persons have proved to be very capable heads of state. The immorality of Kennedy did not affect his ability to lead did it?

He may have been capable but I'm sure there are other actually decent People
who would be just as capable. Kennedy and Clinton among others have left me with no respect for them what so ever. Human yes but is that the excuse for bad behavior now?

My views of politicians is worse than yours. As far as I'm concerned, the decent ones almost never get elected no matter how capable or competent they are. That is because they are much too decent to deceive the electorate.

We are of like minds Dennis. It's so sad. I wish they had to take psychological testing and lie detectors before they could even run. Might not solve it all but it would weed out some of the bad ones maybe.

Nancy: "It shows no self respect, no respect for other people, no self control, no respect for the law and no morals. Do you really want him leading our country?"

You ARE talking about Obama, right? Because he fits this description completely.

I think if someone were harassing me, I would get out of the car. Plain and simple. Actions speak louder than words. The fact that the woman claims she was being sexually harassed, but then stayed with him in the car, speaks volumes to the validity of her claims.

Lets see...its against the law. It shows a blatant disregard for women who equal over half the population of this country.

what ever happen to innocent untill proven guilty,,

Yet immoral heads of state have proven to be very capable leaders.

And Charles Manson was a decent singer Dennis.

These people have the same mentality as a rapists, they are sexual predators.

Well Steph innocent people dont pay off the accusers.

And no where in the constitution or bill of rights does it say innocent until proven guilty.

"These people have the same mentality as a rapists, they are sexual predators."

Applying that to all immoral persons is illogical and very unfair. None of the immoral persons I know are rapists or even sexual predators. Those I know look upon such persons with scorn. They pride themselves in getting the lady's complicity.

Its not applied to all immoral persons it is specifically targeting those who use sex for power.

No where did I state all immoral persons.

"
Lori F. Nov 13, 2011, 2:11am EST
And no where in the constitution or bill of rights does it say innocent until proven guilty."
were the 5th and 14th amendments repealed?
pretty sure i would have seen that in the paper somewhere if they were.
not saying anything about this situation, but to say the above, is blatantly wrong. dfw as my old boss used to say.

ok lori
i have to challenge you on this as you are so far off, and telling what any rational person would consider to be an outright lie.
charles manson was/is a horrible singer - get your facts straight, and site a reputable reference (lol - sorry, just had too)

Del I heard he was a decent singer:) And the phrase innocent til proven guity is not in the bill or rights. It is accepted here because of a supreme court ruling that followed old english law.

well - the thing on manson was (an apparently) vain attempt at
humor - but.
of course the bill of rights does not have the exact words 'innocent
until proven guilty'. But it does say due process, and several other phrases that have that meaning.
no where does it specifically say the words that there is a “right to protest”, it only talks of free speech, and right to assemble.
the supreme court ruiling only clarified what the constitution and bill of rights means - the scotus does not make law, they define was is not explicitly defined already.
to say the meaning is not there, is proposterous, and twisting specifics, to make a lie look true.

I am so tired of people posting what they "heard" instead of facts. These same people simply believe everything they HEAR, whether it's true or not. They have itchy ears, when it comes to tearing down conservatives, and will use any gossip that surfaces, to do it.

Cain is not my candidate of choice, but not because of this stupid gossip MSM attempt to take him down. I don't like the fact that he worked for the FED and thinks they are a-ok. That kind of thinking has brought us into the mess we are in now.

The MSM is blacking out the only candidate who will make a real difference in WA, and that is Ron Paul. He gets a few seconds of airtime in debates as opposed to others' dominating the debates with their theatrics.

I am so tired of people posting what they "heard" instead of facts.

And what are your facts Bonie? That Cain says it isnt true?

This just reminds me of all those stories you hear that a child goes to a parent with the information that they are being sexually abused and the parent thinks they are lying. So when do we decide to not prosecute the victims?

4 count them 4 women have come forward.....are all of them out for money?

yet it has to be proven there other things we need to worry about.. I really dont think he did, it an all he say she say thing,,

Actually, it was a "He Said...", "She Said...", She Said...", She Said...", She Said...", She Said..." thing. I believe he is up to five different women, from five different incidents. THAT alone leads us to believe it might have some substance to the claim. That he LIED (and continued to lie) about not remembering anything is just plain stoopid. But what do you really expect to get from the pizza delivery guy who's business it is to sell "personality, prosperity and propaganda?" Nine-Nine-Nine.

And there was a mediated settlement. I don't think it's easy to get 45 thousand dollars on the basis of a false accusation. If it were I would be driving a Mercedes.

You're right, jj. It's very easy. Ask any doctor whose insurance company paid off when there was no evidence of wrong doing. The small amount shows it was nothing about which to be concerned.

A company I worked for tried to buy me off for a hefty chunk of change and sign a nondisclosure agreement when I was medically terminated over a disability. I didn't even think they did anything wrong really, but I think their bean-counters were nervous about a lawsuit, LOL. Not quite the same, but shows the mindset about possible court actions and bad mouthing about them.

Everyone has a past, when it comes to politicians its who can dig it out the most. It doesn't matter if its true or not. What I find real funny in all this politician stuff is the ones who sit there and talks about how they are such terrible people over "stories" and "hear say" well those people have four fingers pointing back at them. As Steph said innocent till proven guilty.

Apparently some (many?) past presidents have had issues in this regard. Weaknesses in some areas are met with strengths in other areas. One may turn in a wallet with hundreds of dollars, but not be able to pass up chocolate. We are all human. This is not to diminish the severity of the offence, just answering Berf's question.

they are suppose to be a role model for the rest of the country to follow after, if they did or do something bad it is like saying it is ok but then again someone can change

Why are they expected to be role models in all areas? They're human just like everybody. Only religious leaders should definitely be role models as to morals. The head of state needs to be a capable leader. Immoral persons can and have accomplish that.

Like I said people can change

And we have no proof that the charges ARENT true.

"Lori F. Nov 13, 2011, 8:33pm EST
And we have no proof that the charges ARENT true. "
so based on that we do what - take em to the woods and shoot em?
forget trials. miranda rights, investigations - if two or more people think they are guilty - juice em - is that what you are saying lori?
get off this kick, it makes you look childish, unread, and ignorant - and i know you are none of those.

How does wanting to know the truth from a person who is running for the highest office in this country make me childish and unread?

I would think NOT wanting to know the truth and blaming the alleged victim would make you look childish, unread, and ignorant.

"We want to and should be able to, look up to someone who is leading us as someone who is better than the normal slob."

We'll get that wish granted in paradise, not before. In the mean time the winners almost always get chosen from among the best deceivers.

jj has made an important point. The position is of such great trust, so important, that the one chosen should not merely be guiltless, he/she should be irreprehensible.

I have never ever seen any elected head of state who meets that criterion.

jj this article isnt about Obama.

But Lori, you never cared to know truth about Obama...and still don't.

I would love to know the truth...however I dont remember seeing this in the news...please provide a link to the story from a credible news site...no blogs no right wing sites...something like CBS or ABC or PBS so I can familiarize myself with it.

And Marilyn dont ASSume you know anything about me.

lori,
first, lets remember i said it makes you look childish, unread and ignorant, and that i specifically stated you are none of those.
and the reason is simple, you, i, and any resaonable person, it is impossible to prove a negative.
e.g. prove you did not steal, lie, or cheat.
you cant, because no one can.
which brings us back to a major part of your comments, insisting that 'innocent until proven guilty' is not in the constitution or the bill of rights.
the actual phrase isnt, but it is a succinct and accurate paraphrase, of what is in the 5th and 14th amendment.
can anyone explain why it is there, unless there is absolute truth, that a negative can not be proven?
otherwise, the burden of proof would be on the accused!
and of course, it would be ignorant to not want the truth, but some truths can not be dis-proven in any absolute manner.

Del so you would rather us just shut up and not bring this out...how very Penn State of you.

Frankly if you want to know what sounds ignorant is the people that are willing to accept the word of someone just because you may like them or in this case because you feel you are on the opposite side of the ones that are questioning this.

If it had been 1 woman I might feel different but 4...come on you are smarter than that.

lori,
you apparantly did not unsderstand a wored i said.
yes it has to be talked about, yes it has to be investigated.
but you are not the judge and jury.
you are permitted to have the opinion that he is guilty, you do not have the right to try to deny others in voicing their opinion.
that is what you are doing by comparing me to penn stgate, and for rhat young lady - go to hell!
ho DARE you compare me to people that hid child molesation.
that is the moswt viole depsicable thing you could say and you know it.
you have just proven thatno comment is too ugly,m no accusation is too abhorant if, no attitude is too evil and ugly, as long as you feel it will help you to stifle anyone that dares disagree with you.
with that one - you have managed to fuilly disgust me, keep your ugly words away from me in the future!
i say again go to hell.

how am I denying others by name calling and putting them down..no that was YOU.

And I will be happy to stay away from you...I dont surround myself with people who support this type of deviant.

Lori.....you are way off base by comparing Del to Penn State. Funny that you...who has a record of complaining about personal attacks against you...and has actually had people kicked off of Gather...decides to deliever a personal attack yourself.

Really I complain about personal attacks against me...dont think so because I really dont care.

I cannot see why the morals of the candidate relate to his/her ability to lead the nation. John Kennedy was very immoral. He cheated on his wife constantly. Did his immorality prejudice his ability as a head of state?

BTW, were Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot immoral persons? I am just asking because I really don't know.

As far as I know, Hitler had one constant mistress, Eva Braun, who died together with Hitler. About immorality, Hitler was incapable of any sexual relationship. Stalin was paranoid and always suspected enemies were around him waiting to assasinate him. For this reason, he was wary of women, who could be used for this purpose. About Pol Pot I have no idea.

There's a difference between cheating on your spouse and trying to take advantage of a woman who's coming to you for help.

I assume you mean "sexual immorality" when you're asking about Hitler et al., because otherwise I'd think murdering millions would cover the definition... I don't know, and it's besides the point. The problem with what Cain allegedly (most likely) did was not that he approached women he was not married to in a sexual way. It's that he abused his power in approaching them.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious because someone had to. It's all about abuse of power.

Correct Aniko, I did mean sexual immorality. If the issue is abuse of power or betrayal of trust, then I agree; anybody who abuses power or betrays such trust as you mention is not eligible for the office of president. That person is not simply sexually immoral, he's a rapist!

Hi jj. Did any of those women claim that they were forced or deceived? If so, then yes Clinton is guilty of rape. However, if they were seduced by him, how can one justify that it was rape?

Thomas makes a good point: ". . . would a woman who was alledly raped or attempted rape actually stay in the same car after the alledged rape and ask for a ride home?" If that is what happened, then it seriously cripples the rape charge. As Thomas added, ". . . how do we know she isn't making this up. 15 years later . . .?"

Even with the Lewinsky incident which is called consensual and perhaps suggested as no business of anyone by some, Clinton lied about it to everyone/staff around him, during the investigation, under oath to a Grand Jury, his wife, and perhaps worse went on national TV and flat-out lied to the entire country. He was desperate to keep it covered up. How open would he have been to political blackmail, what lengths would he have ultimately gone to in order to keep it that way? In my mind things like that can absolutely have an impact on the ability to govern. What other things would he be willing to lie about or do as well having already gone that far if the truth hadn't been revealed? Personally, I can't believe how many so easily look past what he did in total, and that he isn't some recluse somewhere keeping out of sight.

Thanks Thomas. If those can be proven, then he is a rapist. However, as Chuck has shown, it will be difficult, if not impossible to prove.

John S. A politician will lie about anything to get in office or to stay there. Those are almost the only types of persons who get elected. The honest ones have vanishingly small chances of ever getting elected.

The mere accusation is sufficient to kill a candidate's chances. Innocent or guilty, his/her chances plummet.

O.K. Many thanks.

That evidence is insufficient for a court of law, but more than sufficient to kill his chances.

I know what you meant Thomas.

Please remember that this is politics. The truth is not what is needed to accomplish the aim of acquiring office or destroying your opponent's chances. You only need to get enough voters to doubt. Just make the accusation and state why the accusation is made. The evidence need not even be acceptable in a court of law.

That tactic is so dangerous that even if the accused proves his/her innocence, great damage has already been done.

wow I had no idea my comment would do all of this

POTUS serves as a role model to the entire nation. Whatever he does will be repeated by millions of others, who will cite his example to justify their actions. He cannot take action against someone on moral grounds, if he is himself immoral. So, being immoral does hamper his work and exposes him to enemy fire at the time of crisis.

POTUS, like every other head of state in the world is a politician. I have never expected any of them to set an example worthy of imitation.

Richard Regener's comment below says it all.

interesting

It is politics and diversion Berf...anything to get our minds of what is really going on in America...can you say...The Wizard of Oz..or America?? Listen to Alex Jones, Radio Liberty, FutureQuake, etc...The Truth is Out There and it is NOT on the BoobToob....

The media decides what is truth jj. The U.S. media even decided not to reveal that Martin Luther King jr. once cheated on Coretta because they decided that it would have conveyed the incorrect message.

That detail is actually very unimportant, so I agree with the media for having not run with it in spite of all the efforts of J. Edgar Hoover to get it publicized.

Just once? :)

We have been too quick to condemn everyone who supposedly had affairs or is guilty of sexual harrassment. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? I know a lady who alleged a taxi driver committed sexual harrassment against her because he told a dirty joke and he asked her if she minded a dirty joke before he told it! I might also ask here what does being a Mormon have to do with being President? It's a protestant religion just like any other, there are over 14 million Mormons in the world. People will find excuses for their irrationalities in any place they look. My advice, don't vote for any of them!

Don't vote for any of them?

There are better choices out there, myself, I vote Libertarian. But there are much better candidates out there that want to represent us and work for us not just stay in office and follow the party line.

Whew. I thought you meant don't vote!

I'm relieved to hear it's okay to vote for Mitt because Mormons are Protestant. Whew!

The first answer that came to me was that if he has sexually harassed someone then he obviously cannot handle any form of power. For the most part women are seen as and treated as the weaker sex in our society, not that this is always necessarily so, but if a POTUS cannot handle the every day built in power of being a man and trying to coerce a woman into having sex with him how in the heck is he going to handle the power of being POTUS???

I'm not sure where to draw the line on what immoral or unlawful behaviors should be considered as grounds to legitimately determine whether or not a candidate should receive a vote. We need a rulebook.

Maybe it's like porn, can't describe a good line, but know it when you see it, LOL!

Thanks for the visual, John ;)

I like Herman Cain, the incident occured well over 14 years ago, granted something happened we don't know, we were not there to witness the events as stated, it won't change my mind in terms of my vote 2012 . . . see my group 2012 HOT TOPICS . . .

"And.....why do so many people think that it does have anything to do with it??"

Because the Republicans, those paragons of "Family Values" and "Character Matters," have been telling us it does for... oh, forEVER! Buncha hypocritical twits... *mutter... mutter... grumble*

C'mon BERF, even from you... no, ESPECIALLY from you... that's a silly question.

As you were so happy to point out the spelling errors (above) from the other Kid on the block, may I make so bold as to point out HYPOCRIT has an E on the end?

I've seen several "whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty?'" comments above. And there's the rub. Men don't tend to do this where others can see. Part of the whole business is making sure the woman knows she has no ability to effectively punish him. It's all part and parcel of the power game.

"He said, she said" is non-provable almost every time, and a no-win game for the woman EVERY time. For the man, it's usually a position killer, as in Cain's case. Whether or not he harassed a single woman, he's done. He may still be the darling of the folks watching the debates, but most of us who will vote aren't watching.

catt,
you really equate being an "ass" as the same as raping, beating or killing????
is stupidity a crime now?
if it is, there should have been flashing lights outside my ex's window for the last 20 years - not to mention a few bosses i have had!
and yes, if a corporation can pay 5, 10, even 50m to avoid a lawsuit, in spit3e of its validity, instead of the 100 or 200m it takes to get all the lawyers involved, they will do it - again and again and again.
apparantly you do not know what a 'retainer' is. it is a pre-paid sum, that will be applied to any work done, if the retainer is 50m, once the lawyers have spent that, they come back for more and more and more.
it is not money that gives a company free legal representation.
i have no clue if the accusers are right or wrong, but i do know companies will settle either way. the more they believe the charges, the more they settle for.
so if they thought these charges were true, the settlement would have been in the 250m to 1mm range - not 10 or 30m.
and also consider this - if a woman is willing to make it public, and press charges, is it really "all better" for a few lousy grand?
i know there are many that do not want to go thru the public embarrassment of a trial, but in that case, they would most likely, not file a complaint now would they?
and dragging it out, does not matter, if the complaint is true - they will re-coup all of their own costs in addition to damages.
so stop the faux outrage already, and zip up, your intolerance is showing.

I agree with Chuck, view.

Catt it is exactly this type of ignorance by the people in these comments that explain how parents still let their children spend the night in Michael Jacksons bed AFTER he had paid off several kids.

And if Cain is guilty?

Simple. People get mad and jealous because that what they want to do. So they don't want anyone else to get away with it.

Perhaps a definition of "harassment" is needed here. I often think that what is normal male/female attractions and expressions of the same are confused and abused.

Men and women are different, in case some have not noticed, and I am really glad for the difference. I see absolutely nothing wrong in expressing a physical attraction for a member of the opposite sex and consider it a compliment so long as it is done with no demeaning intent.

Harassment, on the other hand is going beyond that line and attempting to coerce someone into an unwanted and unwelcomed sexual exchange. It does seem to me that the line between the two are often very confused.

Right on Mr. Right.

Ms. Bialek's story clearly involves what you describe in your last paragraph, Clifford, not an unappreciated compliment.

I hate to follow Aniko around and cheer her on, but sometimes it's the right thing to do. If Cain's behavior in the cases that resulted in settlements and nondisclosure agreements is like what Bialek's accusation, it's an entirely different thing from someone being thin skinned. I had to take HR approved sexual harassment training a couple of times in the last few years I worked. The definition includes behavior like what Bialek discribed and also "hostile work environment," meaning sexual innuendo, porn pictures posted on the wall, etc. My wife worked in a nearly all male environment for thirty years. She has plenty of stories about herself and other women she worked with. It's not pretty.

Thanks, jj. We need to keep pointing all of that out.

so what if she is a neighbor JJ...I have lived in the same house for years and have no idea what the neighbors directly across the street do for a living or what their names are.

Neither her history of debt or who she lives next to is relevant here. If she hadn't told two people about this soon after it happened and those people hadn't signed statements about it, I would agree that it's true that anyone can make up a story. But she did, and they did.

(S/N "nor")

Let's see ...

Sexual harassment is against the law. While there is the problem of "innocent until proven guilty", there have been settlements (or "arrangements", depending on your semantics). There is also an acknowledgment that one person's innocent comment may be another's harassment. It charge only becomes operative when there are multiple complaints.

An affair may or may not be an issue, depending on whether we think keeping promises matters. It is important to recognize that marriages can be complex and some are more "open" than others (which is not a definition all of us would appreciate). Deception, circumstances, and whether the split results in further life of or destruction of one party should be instructive in whether we wish either party to "lead" us.

Neither of these areas should be "the" deciding factor. That would fly in the face of forgiveness, or if someone doesn't believe in that, learning from past errors. More importantly, though, the salaciousness in these topics should not distract us from looking at the person's preparedness on the issues.

Sexual harrassment is about power....just like RAPE! We know you are asking about Herman Cain so why not address his actions (or words of harrassment) directly? As I see things so far he has danced the dance of the guilty....trying his best to shift oppinion by saying "I never sexually harrassed" to "I just now learned there was money paid"....Do we really need someone who tries to cover up for himself in a the Whitehouse again? We know about his alleged transgressions before he is elected President. Forwarned is forarmed!

@ jj: I NEVER said ONE thing about Obama, did NOT vote for him and as far as I am concerned, Cain is not yet on the ticket......Do NOT put words in my mouth that are not there! I AM allowed to have an opinion and since I was asked nicely I gave it!

i dont think there is a straightfoward answer berf.
was it once in their youthful exuberance and arrogance (decades ago), and they learned, and never again?
is it a repeated pattern that continued into the current times?
was it proven or rumors?
was it an inappropriate joke, or a grabbing and groping?
the range is simply too wide.
i know of a situation, where a guy was honestly trying to read a t-shirt and was charged (happened in the office I managed - i saw it happen).
i know a man (now in his 80's) that 'everyone in the area knows for a fact has slept with at least 50 women' (except it is really only 10 - and why would a guy lie that the number is lower?).
i also know a uy (now deceased) that would "accidentily" bump into women in the pool and was never convicted (saw him pull that one - but try to prove it).
there is entirely too much gray area in your questions!
but - if there is any kind of behavior, that would show a disregard, disrespect and even borderline sociopathic behavior (in the common sense - not a clinical sense), then yes, i would say that wiil effect the decision process of the candidate.

If he doesn't respect the women who worked for him, he sure won't respect our interests when he gets nto office.

The Republicans had lots to say about Bill Clinton's affairs. But at least Monica Lewinsky was willing and even flirting with Clinton. Cain forced himself on several women and now he thinks he will be elected president. I don't think so.

offer some proof he didnt jj.

He says he didn't and he's much more believable than the women.

How do you know that he is more believable than the women since we havent heard all the women speak.

Don't think of it as a POTUS. Think of it as a job interview - you're interviewing someone for a high-stress job, and he'll have a LOT of people who are reporting to him, approximately half of them will be women. If there are outstanding complaints of sexual harassment against him, would you think twice about hiring this employee? I know I would. I want someone trustworty who will focus on the job and treat his colleagues with the respect and courtesy they deserve.
All THAT said, I'm not even following the sexual harassment debacle going on. I'm all too aware that things like this are NOT objectively being reported to us, and thus we cannot make an informed decision regarding what did or didn't happen.

Gosh, this is one of those "Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?" questions. Like Louis Armstrong is supposed to have said when someone asked him to define jazz, "If you don't know what it is, don't mess with it."

A history of sexual harassment indicates a serious character problem. Denying it if it's true or trivializing it are two more indications of character defects that would help me make up my mind whom to vote for.

Aside from the issue of Morality and fidelity, Cain is promoting a heavy increase in the amount of tax paid by working people. His 9 9 9 proposal would raise taxes on low to middle incomes.

Cain has a lot of negatives. I've said it before, but it's almost like he carries around an explosive driven nail gun for shooting himself in the foot.

Nippy, If he only shoots his right foot, he will end up going in circles. OH WAIT!!! He is going in circles all of them to the right. I mixed him up with NASCAR they only turn left.

Time for everyone to start paying taxes.

Everyone does pay taxes, Marilyn. Some of us just pay a larger percentage of our wealth than others. And, Marilyn, when one of the wealthiest people in the world reveals that he pays a lower percentage of his income than his secretary, there are some changes in order.

That would include you.

Also I think that anyoen that is now complaining about no payment of taxes or welfare that someone else gets and they themselves have been on welfare should pay it back in full one lump sum payment with interest to the taxpayers and if their parents have received welfare and they got something out of the estate they should pay back the welfare that their parents received after all as a taxpayer it is not MY job to look after YOUR parents if they didnt live their life right and provide for themselves.

One there is no proof. Two, with the state that we're in now who cares what he is "accused" of doing if he can get us out of this rut. After that kick him out. The story has been the same for years the one with the most money wins.