Reply With Quote
hey, this is about harassing women!
for republicans, this is progress.
Notice the pattern: AmSpec and NR sowing doubt while the liberal nest of snakes at TPM urges caution and minimizes the payoffs.
hey, this is about harassing women!
for republicans, this is progress.
LOL
Have you ever seen what has cons uted sexual harassment at times, and in people's opinions?
Without specifics, this is entirely a joke.
like when you stalked that chick online?
You don't know who Jennifer Rubin and Quin Hillyer are, do you?
They make money writing about such things. So what.
I worked in a corporate atmosphere in 1999. Things were considered sexual harassment that were not legal sexual harassment. This doesn't mean squat without specifics.
ULTIMATE WIN.
/thread
Rubin, Hillyer and Williamson are all notably conservative journalists. Why is the right getting in on the whispering campaign against Cain?
I know they are to the right. That doesn't mean they shouldn't report what is out there. I just don't see it as anything important without something of substance. For all I know, they could be prejudice, or simply like a different candidate that stands in the way. They might consider it newsworthy regardless. I can only speculate why they see this as a story worth reporting.
Still, without specifics, it is pointless. During that time, with evolving ideas of what sexual harassment was, these women could have complained about something they saw amplified by their own imagination. Corporations wanted anything reported that anyone thought "might be" sexual harassment because they wanted to stop real cases. Like so many settlements, even if proof is on your side, it is often cheaper to settle if it can be kept from the public eye. Now consider the amount. "five figures." Where between $10,000 and $99,999 do you think that is? Don't you think if it was an actionable claim, they could have settled or won six figures in court?
Again, this story is nothing without specifics.
How many people here worked in a large corporate environment following the Clinton scandal? Am I right or wrong about how touchy they were?
The problem is him lying now. He initially claimed that no accusations were ever even made. Then, the story changed.
Not necessarily. 12 years ago, and something so meaningless if not real... Do you remember every unimportant detail over a decade old?
Yes, I think he would have remembered, but not necessarily, and I would have to review at the available context again. However, time to leave for work.
Worse case, he told a white lie. Who hasn't.
The accusers may have had reasons for keeping their own complaints as quiet as possible. Concern for their future employability in trade associations for example.
Lying about his own state of knowledge wrt to the settlements wouldn't be a white lie. It'd be a big fat one.
Exactly. Who in the world can possibly remember all the times they've been accused of sexual harassment?Not necessarily. 12 years ago, and something so meaningless if not real... Do you remember every unimportant detail over a decade old?
I can only wonder why you don't.
Here, I'll go first: GOP party muckety-mucks are alarmed at Cain's popularity because he has no organization, very little money, a minimal grasp of policy and poor chances in the general election. So they're pouring cold water on Cain now, to benefit the anointed (and supposedly more electable) frontrunners, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.
I'm not so sure Perry is on the GOP's acceptable list anymore. I think it's down to just Mitt Romney. Should be interesting to see what happens when Newt becomes the Romney alternative.
The appearance of Newt Gingrich as yet another GOP flavor of the month so quickly after Bachmann, Perry and Cain would mainly underscore the weakness of the field and the skittishness of GOP primary voters about Mitt Romney.
If it happens, Gingrich will crater flamboyantly. He can't help it.
If he can hang on, money-wise, this is who I think it will come down to. Newt and Romney.
As of 9/30, Jon Huntsman had doubled Newt Gingrich's total in fundraising. Jon Huntsman!
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
Thus the qualifier.
Who is the only party to have a President credibly accused of rape? To have a Bimbo Eruption Squad? To have his wife say, "he's a hard dog to keep on the porch?"
Yeah, Republicans are the party with women issues.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
