PJM Sources Report Details of Alleged Cain Incident

PJMedia ^ | November 3, 2011 | Richard Pollock

[Paradox]

I see what happened, I thought I had originally replied to post #5, where someone brought up Clinton. That's the point of my posts, that defense just won't work for me.

As for the Rush to judgement, who is rushing? Those of us who want more info and are prepared to pull support for Cain if the facts show the worst, or those who are rushing to judgement about the accusations, that the women are lying? I am willing to wait it out to see what the truth is.

[Erik Latranyi]

What I’m doing is blaming Cain for the way he’s handled it and especially for trying to shift blame on others, notably Perry.

I don't understand this whole "the way he's handled it" stuff. Cain said he was accused, investgated and cleared. He did not know about any settlement.

Media reports support that as the "settlement" was more of a severance and the agreement does not have Cain's signature on it.

Everything else around this is hypothesis and heresay and Cain is correct in not responding to it.

I'm glad he does not have a "bimbo eruption team" like other candidates.

With regard to Perry, I will wait to see who is right on this.

[Tublecane]

“had consentual sex with a woman who happened to be drunk. it would not be genuine sexual harassment under a reasonable standard”

Certain people immediately think “rape” when the woman is anywhere from tipsy to loaded. Even when the man is, too. Blackout drunk is one thing, but alchohol alone does not invalidate consent. People who think otherwise either didn’t go to college or have forgotten. Because if drunk = rape we must shut down universities nationwide NOW! Stop the sexual holocaust!

By thye way, I’m not unaware that alchohol facilitates sexual abuse and rape. It is a real problem. However, per usual, overreaction is itself a problem, and only leads to more problems.

[Tublecane]

“Genuine sexual harassment, if the term has any valid meaning, would be based on either coercion and/or exchanging favors for sex by employers or co-workers”

Coercion, absolutely, but that would be handled by the criminal law. Exchange of favors I don’t get. What is the state’s interest in regulating favors? You’re free to turn offers down, every bit as much as males are free to turn down all the myriad informal, not strictly business-related routes to advancement open to us.

It may not be good business or morals, but company policy, Corporate Ethics, Community Standards, Family Values, and so on can take care of that. Why does the law have to intrude on every little thing? We’re talking about voluntary transactions, no different as regards a woman’s rights and a man’s duties (according to legal tradition, if not morals) than helping your buddy move. I realize the same argument can be made for prostitution and drug use, but so be it.