CMON MR CUOMO

Lust for power, prestige and the perks of office, I presume. Politics as a profession draws a lot of people who care to do good for the community but it also draws less noble personality types which includes people who gain a sense of identity through being on top.

I won't pick an argument.

Sorry. I might have been speaking to a different question than you were pondering. ie "why is he not resigning now?"

Any idea of what his brother, the news anchor, thinks of him or what he should do? Has he covered his brother's crimes?

Not quite as bad, but still reprehensible, as the sexual harassment claims, is the toxic environment of fear of retribution and coercion. Puts me in mind of the offices of our recent former Governor General, the former astronaut (I've forgotten her name, but she wasn't memorable in a good way, anyway).

I can't say specifically. The brother was helping him but may be distancing himself now.

I think Cris Cuomo has recused himself from reporting on his brother's situation. I also think it's probably the best thing to do because anything he might say would be met with skepticism and then he could be treated as an apologist or co-offender with his brother. Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon have both reported very critically of the Governor, so CNN is reporting just not Cris Cuomo. I can't imagine anyone in the Cuomo family is happy about any of this.......but for them, it's a family issue, they still need to be family after everything is over.

Apparently I was mentioned earlier in this thread for some reason. What was not a surprise is that it was made by Max. I think you all remember Max, don't you. He the guy who claims that I follow him from thread to thread being mean to him. Lately he has been accusing Mame of the same thing.
I copied this line from Max's comment

"When Mame or Glitterbag push their views on woman's rights, and I (as a man) disagree with them, I am "mansplaining". I am a misogynist for disagreeing with them because I am a man, and as a man I should shut up about woman's issues."

I take offense at this because I'm pretty sure that I have never called Max a "misogynist" nor accused him of "mansplaining" for disagreeing with me. I don't necessarily always disagree with Max, I just find him to be disagreeable and at times his comments are cringe-worthy. My preference is to avoid him, although there have been times when I found his comments to be so offensive I didn't avoid making a comment.

I don't think men have to 'shut up' about 'women's issues' and I certainly believe Max is man. I just wish he would stop accusing me of following him around, especially since he brings me up often even when I have made not even one teeny tiny remark. A psychologist might say he's trying to get my attention, but I'm not a psychologist so I won't make such a claim.

It is interesting how much the fellow misconstrues (if that's the right word).

And, let me just say, isn't that Canadian women's soccer team a group of fine feminine types.

Please note, Max, how you have lied about me.

I also have never used the word 'mysogynist' and personally do not think Max is one. He seems to like women - he's been married twice, I think he said, and has a girlfriend. He also seems to like advising women on relationship issues.

And I've never said or thought any man should 'shut up about women's issues'.

And I can't honestly believe he thinks I try to 'push' my 'views on women's rights' on anyone. I rarely, if ever, talk about 'women's rights'. I mainly comment more on 'human rights'.

To digress for a moment, I think what he was upset about in the A2k People thread and prompted that diatribe was that he wasn't included in this "LIST":

"So thank God there are a few of you left - roger the rat, izzythepush, GB, Linkat, Jes and Reg, JoeBlow, Punkey, CJ (yes, I saw her here!), Georgeob1, of course, and others."

But so many 'others' weren't mentioned, either (Ragman, edgarblythe, ehBeth, hightor, to name just a few), and, despite what you might think, it was not a personal dig at you, max. But none of those people didn't respond as you did, did they?

To return to your accusations, I've mocked you, yes, but not "others" as you have claimed.

And the main reason I did mock you is because you make your arguments in a very condescending manner then you run away from the ones you're either losing or unable to convince other(s) of. I've commented on this, as have others, and you've not explained or defended yourself. You cherry-pick points that work for you, which results in an inequitable and lop-sided discussion.

And I say "did" because I still have you on Ignore. I think that's the only way we can get along.

Yes, I'm sure they are. I'm equally sure the mens team is a finely tuned masculine group. I love this equality stuff like crazy.

Didn't you love how a celebrity offered to pay the Norway Women's team's fines (for not wearing bikini bottoms)? What a bunch of maroons.

Innocent until proven guilty, yes. Ailes should not have been forced to resign

Thanks for the reply. Would you then take away the right or ability of an employer to let go of an employee unless and until that employee is convicted in a court of some crime? Would you disallow any political party from forcing or encouraging the resignation of a sitting party member where there is compelling evidence of serious misbehavior (of corruption, say, where he/she is filmed accepting a bribe) discerned through a thorough investigation, but before a criminal trial is completed?

Ailes violated rules of the workplace. There was no need for a trial because he wasn't charged criminally it was settled outside of court. Not every dispute has to be handled in a court of law. You may be thinking of Harvey Weinstein, who was charged with sexual assault.

1. Anyone can read the report on the investigation of Cuomo. It is 168 pages, but it is summarized well and each section has the corraborating evidence. I recommend anyone to read the report.

2. I read the report. I believe it is damning. The accounts of the women are consistent. Each alleged act was investigated and facts were checked. In my opinion, there is no question as to Cuomo's intent. He was seeking sexual interactions with these women.

3. Blatham is correct. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to every circumstance. Your boss can fire you for mere suspicion (like it or not). This does not apply in cases where it is not a criminal trial.

4. The only way to force Cuomo to resign is to impeach him. I supose there can be some back room dealing to convince him to step out of the way.

5. By the way, an impeachment trial is also not a criminal trial. It doesn't require someone to be "innocent until proven guilty".

6. Again... let me make it clear. In my opinion Cuomo is indefensible.

The report has enough solid evidence to prove him guilty. I don't see how anyone who has read the report (and I suggest you read the report) can support him.

Cuomo is using Bill Clinton's playbook for squirming out of credible allegations of sexual harrassment.

He is denying
He is explaining way things
He is blaming poltical enemies.

It worked so well for Clinton who was rewarded with 8 years in office and a cult following that still loves him. I don't know why Cuomo wouldn't try to do the same.

(of course, Cuomo is finding out that he isn't as sleazy as Bill Clinton and Cuomo doesn't have a Hillary to force alleged victims to shut up... and that is hurting his chances).

But someone has wriggled out of worse charges so it is seriously possible, and that is why Cuomo isn't giving up easily.

good post (the first one)

If you arent under contract with reasons for dismissal spelled out then an employer can pretty much let you go for anything and i dont favor the govt forcing anything. The dems can do whatever they want to Cuomo. They have the legal recourse of impeachment if they want to use it.