Tough call. If you don't believe the women are you making others afraid to come forward when they are harassed? Is he being too dismissive?
Why wait so long to come forward? Did they finally get the courage to come forward rather than let him get away with it? Is it just for publicity?
I think this question brings up more questions than answers and a comprehensive legal investigation may be able to find the answers. I say may because its been so long and so many are involved.
There are not enought facts available to make a fair determination.
I think there is some truth to them, maybe not as severe as we may be led to believe, but it was on record before he became a presidental candidate that he did pay money to silence some of the women. By doing so, it kept him from being "guilty" in a courtroom, but guilty in the eyes of the media. It's still too early to tell...
As I learned in private investigations; where there is smoke, there is fire. Also, a good investigator always follows the money trail. Substantial sums were paid to certain women, which may have been "hush" money.
I'm not saying he did it, but an official investigation is warranted. Of course, this could always be a ploy by one or more of his competitors to crush his credibility. Nearly anyone who ascends to such a high station generally makes quite a few enemies along the way.
I believe that he did something that he should not have done. It took him ten days to respond to the initial allegations, with representatives from his camp saying they needed to get their story straight. Then his story changed a few times.
Then it came out that the National Restaurant Association settled with one woman for $45,000. While a settlement is not an admission of guilt, businesses do not just had out $45,000 for nothing. Finally, he said he would only take a polygraph if he had to.
While none of this proves anything, taken all together it indicates he is hiding something.
No, I don't believe the allegations. It's just more character assassination tactics to smear the front runner of the moment. Cain is a good candidate and I would vote for him.
Of course, I'll vote for anyone other than Obama.
In my most recent job position, there was worse actions by my fellow workers. Honestly, I think the women are being paid and are weeping over spilled milk. The "harrassment" for them to go through, is over.
To me they are just pathetic women who can't hold themselves up. Cain has done jobs in plenty of different economy situations, so I have no doubt that he at some time acted wrongly. Obviously everyone has done that in their life, especially in their early years.
So I do not see how it matters if he didn't have sex with those women. They all claim he made advances or gestures. Big deal!
That is nothing compared with what is behind the scene at a restaurant. And if you think that is "horrible" or "worth taking a vote away", I believe you are not thinking this through. Cain appears nice and decent in his outward appearance.
But if you are changing your vote on five women's complaints when nothing actually happened, then you are forgetting how nice and appealing serial killers look when they are so dangerous. They are kind, gentle, the ones you would never expect. But when they are caught, the horrible acts they have committed come out.
Since Cain's "secrets" have come out, I am happy that is all that is wrong with him. A.K.A.- I will be voting for Cain because of what I have said and his beliefs.
I am not certain that allegations are true. It often seems that people cry sexual harassment other some other allegation when someone is running for office. Why bring it up so late?
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.