CEOExpress Blogger Private Label
 CEOExpress Home


 Total visits to this poll: 5785

This icon appears on your homepage
when there are new posts.

      Search Messages:           
 
AllThis Forum

When a highly visible someone is accused of 'inappropriate conduct,' how should he (or she) respond?

Stand his (or her) ground if innocent, and await the legal process
Resign, retreat, and/or withdraw
Admit if true, and hope to move on
Something else — what?



Forum View Preference: Basic | AdvancedOpen Forums/Previous Polls | Suggest a Poll
Return to Today's Poll

Sort By Newest Sort By Newest 1-10 of 403 11-20 >>  Last >

1. Patricia Pomerleau CEOExpressSelect Member
     Forum Moderator
     (11/14/2017 12:03:14 PM)
     Message ID #293571

View All Related Messages

The most recent round of accusations, denials, and innuendo of 'inappropriate sexual conduct' started in Hollywood and has spread to Washington. While the accusations may have validity and the denials merit, is it right for the accused to be judged by the public in the shallow courtroom of the press?

Gossip and rumors have been with us for centuries. It's only in the last few hundred years that we developed legal systems to deal with such. Trouble is, legal systems move deliberately, and news organizations ... don't. Add in the finite timeline of an election cycle, and suddenly, political operatives have a new weapon, and politicians have another challenge.

There are all kinds of creatures in the Swamp that is Washington (and, we suppose, Hollywood). In both accusers and accused, we assume they span the gamut of truth and lies, innocence and guilt, and include a gray area in the middle. With a voracious press, the court of public opinion, and immutable campaign timelines, how do we sort out the truth — from a tainted Hollywood director or star to a politician running for or already in office?

There is a lot to consider:

  • Assuming you're mildly interested, have you stopped to study accusers, accusations, and accused, or are you satisfied with press clippings and sound bites?

  • From Presidents Bill Clinton to George H. W. Bush and the women who accused them, whom do we believe?

  • Hollywood directors and stars love publicity ... but this kind?

  • What about political campaigns with timelines? Should someone drop out just because of an accusation?

  • What responsibility does the press have when accusers step forward and the accused step back?

  • Why do some people fail to understand that attention or affection may be unwanted?

  • If an accuser fails to prove a charge, what should happen?

  • Why should a comment in the press carry the weight of a charge in the judicial system?

  • Salem witch trials, anyone?


Editor's Note:
Comments Policy — We welcome comments, posts, and informed debate from a wide range of perspectives. Personal attacks, insulting/ vulgar posts, or repetitious/ false tirades have no place and can result in moderation or banning.
Civility — Clear-minded criticism is welcome, but play the ball and not the person. This includes speculation about motives or what ‘sort of person’ someone is. Civility, gentle humor, and staying on topic are superior debating tools.
Relevance — Please maintain focus on the topic at hand. Do not attempt to solve big problems in a single comment or to offer as fact what simply are opinions.
Ponder before you post — It’s bad form to dominate a discussion either by multiple posts in a row or too many posts in a given forum.


Message edited by user at 11/14/2017 9:16:08 PM

2. Rick T CEOExpressSelect Member
     (11/15/2017 2:34:27 AM)
     Message ID #293608

This message is in response to Patricia Pomerleau ( message id #293571 )  View All Related Messages

Moore is toast, Weinstein is likely toast and, Cosby, if there's any justice, should be toast.

Message edited by user at 11/15/2017 2:36:07 AM

3. Noel Meyer
     (11/15/2017 4:30:45 AM)
     Message ID #293609

This message is in response to Patricia Pomerleau ( message id #293571 )  View All Related Messages

1. When only one person comes forward with charges, proof is mandatory. When MULTIPLE people come forward, a pattern emerges and proof is still needed, but the number of independent sources lowers the amount of proof required.

2. "Where there is smoke there is fire"

a. Catholic priests and sexual abuse followed a similar pattern, first dismissed, then covered up, then disbelieved without mountains of proof, now accepted at face value.

b. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". The REALITIES of abuse show the lack of power the accusers had then. That society NOW recognizes that discrepancy has replaced proof of fact with proof of inequality.

3. 'SALEM witch trials' --- 'fake news'? Perhaps America is too litigious but when you listen to the absurd arrogance of those RESPONDING to such accusations such claims appear believable at face value alone.

4. '•From Presidents Bill Clinton to George H. W. Bush and the women who accused them, whom do we believe?'

Simply looking at the hatred and distrust of figures in power and how they seek no accountability for their actions, is it any wonder that the extremes believe in their extremes and forsake American values and standards.

5. You want power - you want fame, then the mere appearance of impropriety is a warning sign you have lost your way. Powerful Americans are sloppy with their arrogance of that power. They believe they can just bully their way through. What was it that O.J. replied to accusations he killed his wife and needed to stand trial? "But I'm O.J." and remember Nixon, "When the president does something its NOT illegal".

6. "•Why should a comment in the press carry the weight of a charge in the judicial system?"

Because a comment in the press carries the weight of endorsements for people not supported by facts. Remember "DEFLATE GATE"? How about WMD in Iraq? the only "Check" on the powerful is the OPENNESS and POWER of the press to investigate facts with the authority to print such information supposedly truthfully so the press is not sued for libel or slander.

4. Thomas C CEOExpressSelect Member
     (11/15/2017 5:59:29 AM)
     Message ID #293610

View All Related Messages
There are three infallible truths in this world,

Sex, Money, and gravity. Everything else is just a symptom.

5. D Robb
     (11/15/2017 7:18:31 AM)
     Message ID #293611

View All Related Messages
I answered “Something else” because I think the answer depends heavily on the position held by the accused. It also depends on the words and actions of the accused. Noel correctly brought up the issue of pedophile priests. The church defended them, and then moved them around to multiple parishes because the church did not want to deal with an issue they knew was a major problem in the church. Judge “Mary and Joseph Moore” is another example of the same problem. Nobody disputes that he was stalking and dating teenage girls when he was in his thirties, therefore, it is ludicrous to attempt to say his multiple accusers are not telling the truth.
Another aspect of the problem is the belief that all men, or all male politicians are like that. Women should be home barefoot and having babies. Therefore, if women insist on taking these jobs as interns, soldiers, actresses, etc., they should not be surprised when it happens. The Prince Charles and Princess Diana example comes to mind.
Finally, we have the political divide where, since the other guys are the enemy, you have to defend your guy.

6. Domenick Aulozzi CEOExpressSelect Member
     (11/15/2017 9:03:16 AM)
     Message ID #293612

This message is in response to Patricia Pomerleau ( message id #293571 )  View All Related Messages

It is nearly impossible in today's ramped up emotions to have a meaningful discussion about an issue like this. As the first few comments expose.

No one should be able to be tried and convicted by the media, regardless of their political affiliation. There is a reason why our court system functions like it does. All accusations have to be proven not just stated. That does not have to happen in the media.

If a "highly visible" person is actually innocent of what is being accused, they must stand up and defend themselves; for the sake of everyone not just themselves. If what has been alleged is an actual "crime", then that should go to a court of law and all the evidence or lack there of can be fully vetted by a jury. No one has the right to make judgments about guilt or innocence based on the tidbits of information that may or not be true as reported in the media.

But that is the world we now live in.

7. scott walker
     (11/15/2017 9:11:10 AM)
     Message ID #293613

View All Related Messages
When a highly visible someone is accused of 'inappropriate conduct,' how should he (or she) respond?
if innocent, and await the legal process

The people of Alabama will decide the fate of Roy Moore.

These same people who lecture us on morality won’t talk about Ted Kennedy, Bob Menendez, and George H.W. Bush. The people of Alabama will decide if they believe in the allegations against Moore or not. Shouldn’t there at least be some kind of a hearing or Committee Review to find out the facts? It is outrageous that you have Senators talking about expelling a U.S. Senator without having any more information other than media reports. Let’s try a lie detector on all

8. scott walker
     (11/15/2017 9:18:57 AM)
     Message ID #293614

This message is in response to scott walker ( message id #293613 )  View All Related Messages

Whether innocent or guilty the problem with the Roy Moore accusation is that there is no way to resolve the issue one month before the election. The timing of this makes it impossible to sort through the facts and find the truth. The Washington Post reported that 4 women didn’t come forward, the Washington Post found them. This whole thing doesn’t smell right. This story was planted and perfectly timed in their hopes to doom Moore’s campaign. We don’t know anything more than what the Washington Post has told us. How did the Post even know there were 4 women, who they were, and how to contact them? You don’t just hear that, especially since the women didn’t know each other. The Post was fed this information by someone, called Mitch McConnell

9. D Robb
     (11/15/2017 9:39:57 AM)
     Message ID #293615

This message is in response to scott walker ( message id #293614 )  View All Related Messages

The Senate describes itself as the world's most exclusive club. It is no surprise that they don't want someone like Moore as a member.

10. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (11/15/2017 9:43:00 AM)
     Message ID #293616

View All Related Messages
OK so I did my usual ("Something Else") even though "Admit if true, and hope to move on." also fits my choice.


Actually I'd use different verbiage instead of the "Admit ..." verbiage. I'd use "Be honest, regardless of whatever that entails".

Yeah, I know it sounds corny due to it's "old fashioned" nature but then I'm old fashioned as well so there ya have it. I still believe in the old mantra "Honesty is the best policy" and I've always tried my best to live by that mantra and always will.

Being "Honest" has nothing to do w/ whether or not a person is "Right or Wrong" but it does have major implications on how a person is "seen", "thought of" and "dealt with" by their peers. An "Honest" person may not always come out on top of a given situation but they'll always be respected by their peers for who they are so it boils down to whether a person wants to win at any cost regardless of how they are perceived or be human (meaning you win some and lose some) and have the respect of their peers. For myself I choose the latter because I am human.

Don't care for my position??? Fine, it's a free country and you're welcome to your opinion, provided you welcome me to mine.

Message edited by user at 11/15/2017 9:55:14 AM
  1-10 of 403 11-20 >>  Last >