Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| That's all. c: |
Anonymous
| Racist |
Anonymous
Exactly. Now it's time to call Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton!! ...oh, wait... |
Anonymous
|
Herman Cain Is Cashing In On His Harassment Scandal With Huge Money Bomb Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/herman-cains-harassment-scandal-is-actually-raking-in-dough-for-his-campaign-2011-11#ixzz1cevexuUA
Come on all those racist Republicans flocking to Cain love a good sexual harassment scandal. Everyone knows Republicans don't respect women any more than they respect blacks. |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
I think you've confused yourself. Rep support for Cain is evidence that they're not racist, so youre sarcasm on that point makes sense. But Rep support for someone accused of sexual harassment would indicate that they don't respect women, so your sarcasm makes no sense. |
Anonymous
| It's pretty clear that the Huffington Post (among others) has had a lot of fun skewering Cain all week! Love their headline this morning -- "Herman's Squirmin'"!! (-: |
Anonymous
"and Clinton's spermin" |
Anonymous
One think to keep in mind on all of these settlements, is that while the media is trumpeting their amounts (35k-45k) and comparing them to the salary of the complainants, these look to me like basically costs-of-defense settlements. I.e., it would cost that much to defend the case, if tried. This means that its a perfectly reasonable business decision to settle the cases even if the claims are bogus. This does not necessarily mean that they are bogus, of course, but no one should be drawing inferences from the amount of the settlement that the claims had merit. |
takoma
Member Offline
Member Offline
|
It looks to me like the most likely explanations are
(a) He made insensitive remarks, (b) He came on to some women, or (c) He used his position to try to get sex. Instead of evasion, he ought to have admitted to (a) and let the issue die away, rather than letting us all assume (c), which is now looking more likely. |
Anonymous
If it is a or b, I think this is a non-issue. (Others here will certainly disagree.) If it's c, he's someone who can't be trusted with power and I'd never vote for him. My guess is that it's a murky situation where he thought he was doing a or b, and she thought he was doing c. Different people have different views on those types of situations, but I would not personally hold that against him, unless he did something objectively unreasonable. Until an actual named source comes forward with her side of the story, however, I think it is not fair to hold this against Cain. |
Anonymous
| I don't think people get a year's severance pay if someone just makes a few insensitive remarks. Also, if they are going to hold her to a confidentiality agreement it's hard not to assume there's something serious they don't want disclosed. |
takoma
Member Offline
Member Offline
| Clinton has been brought up several times, as though to say that we elected Clinton despite worse stories. But given how Clinton's Monication messed up the country, it may be no favor to Cain to connect him to Clinton. |
Anonymous
They well might if they were threatening to sue and it would cost more than that year's severance to defend the case. That is just how big companies think about litigation. And once I'd paid for a confidentiality agreement, I damn well would hold the person to it, unless they wanted to give the money back. |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
As said, some companies prefer just to get out of the litigation. Confidentiality clauses are ubiquitous. It's worth something to the defendant and costs the plaintiff nothing, so it's existence doesn't mean that it was fought for. FWIW, I haven't followed the story and I have no opinion about what happened. |
Anonymous
| a lot depends on if the company has insurance for these sorts of claims - the insurance company may just rather pay that amount instead of defending. |