Does Hastert Eventually Step Down?

#51
#51
Which do you believe is the most likely Republican approach to minimize political fallout from the Mark Foley scandal?


A. To accuse Democrats of conspiring to trap/set-up Mr. Foley

B. To drudge up Democratic lawmakers who were also embroiled in sex scandals.

C. To paint the minors involved as cunning participants rather than victims.

D. To downplay the seriousness of his actions.

E. All of the above.

F. It's too late, they have all been used already.
 
#54
#54
I've heard one person say this could make RatherGate look amateurish. Is this the new spin?
 
#57
#57
I still fail to see how a story about a homosexual man, making advances towards other consenting homosexual men (of the age of consent), warrants such outrage that people are calling for the heads of other politicians who were not involved.
 
#58
#58
If there was nothing criminal going on, which will turn up most likely right after the elections, then what was Hastert supposed to do? Even if he had known every last detail...End Foley's career because Hastert did not agree with his sexual orientation and his taste in young, but legal, males?

This will not even turn up as sexual harrassment. There is no evidence that says that these advances were unwanted or even that Foley initiated these relationships. These boys were not advanced or kept from advancing due to what occurred. There are not laws prohibiting sexual relations between employees and employers, the laws prohibit job advancement, evaluation, promotion, hiring, etc. to be based on things sexual. And, there is no indication that anything of the sort happened.
 
#59
#59
therealUT said:
I still fail to see how a story about a homosexual man, making advances towards other consenting homosexual men (of the age of consent), warrants such outrage that people are calling for the heads of other politicians who were not involved.
Click to expand...

Agreed, although I find his actions disgusting, this amounts to be persecuted by the "thought police".
 
#60
#60
therealUT said:
There are not laws prohibiting sexual relations between employees and employers, the laws prohibit job advancement, evaluation, promotion, hiring, etc. to be based on things sexual. And, there is no indication that anything of the sort happened.
Click to expand...

Actually, you're way off on this. Sexual harrassment laws don't just prohibit "job advancement, evaluation, promotion, hiring, etc. to be based on things sexual." Sexual harrassment laws are very vague and broad, and it doesn't matter whether the pages were of legal age of consent or not. If the sexual advances were unwanted, then it was sexual harrassment, and the pages don't even have to have told him that the advances were unwanted. If ANY of these pages say that the advances were unwanted, then he's guilty of sexual harrassment.

Many employers try to discourage relationships among employees due to the fact that pretty much any sexual advance at work can be construed as sexual harrassment.
 
#61
#61
No, he is not guilty of sexual harrassment until he is found guilty by a jury. I doubt that will ever happen. It is a he said he said case, and so far none of these pages seem to be claiming that it was unwanted.
 
#62
#62
therealUT said:
No, he is not guilty of sexual harrassment until he is found guilty by a jury. I doubt that will ever happen. It is a he said he said case, and so far none of these pages seem to be claiming that it was unwanted.
Click to expand...

My guess is that the pages are embarrassed by the story and wish that it would just go away. Of course, that works out great for Foley. Someone doesn't have to be found guilty by a jury to be guilty.
 
#65
#65
therealUT said:
No, he is not guilty of sexual harrassment until he is found guilty by a jury. I doubt that will ever happen. It is a he said he said case, and so far none of these pages seem to be claiming that it was unwanted.
Click to expand...

Also, it wouldn't be a "he said he said case" since they have copies of the correspondence.
 
#66
#66
Vol423 said:
Also, it wouldn't be a "he said he said case" since they have copies of the correspondence.
Click to expand...

Depends on how SH is defined - part of it has to do with unwanted contact - would the transcripts show that?

My guess is that some page would step forward and say it was unwanted contact.
 
#67
#67
volinbham said:
Depends on how SH is defined - part of it has to do with unwanted contact - would the transcripts show that?

My guess is that some page would step forward and say it was unwanted contact.
Click to expand...

No contact has to occur for sexual harrassment. You guys obviously have never taken any sexual harrassment training courses because neither one of you have a clue about what constitutes sexual harrassment.
 
#69
#69
Vol423 said:
No contact has to occur for sexual harrassment. You guys obviously have never taken any sexual harrassment training courses because neither one of you have a clue about what constitutes sexual harrassment.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to physical contact -- I was referring to communication (of some form).
 
#71
#71
The communications do not in any way lead to any sense that these were unwanted, on either side. Therefore, it would be a 'he said, he said' case. One side would say it was wanted, the other would say it was not.

Also, these men are now at least 20. If they are too timid to step forward now, then their loss.
 
#72
#72
therealUT said:
Therefore, it would be a 'he said, he said' case. One side would say it was wanted, the other would say it was not.
Click to expand...

That's sexual harrassment. That's precisely why intelligent adults don't get into these types of conversations at work.
 
#73
#73
It is not sexual harrassment. It is poor judgment. In fact, it is piss poor judgment. That is it though.
 
#75
#75
Vol423 said:
Wrong!
Click to expand...
Straight from the EEOC:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.
Click to expand...
As of the available evidence, this is not a case of sexual harassment.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top