Cuomo acussed of sexual harassment twice

[+DieChecker]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Wronged is past tense. That is establishment isn't it?

Depends. The person making the accusations can be wronged. I can judge that someone was wronged. And then there's evidence that's proof one was wronged.

In which of those three does the perpetrator get a criminal sentence? Only the last. What the victim, you, or i, accuse someone of isn't an automatic conviction. Or at least shouldn't be.

Quote

I disagree. Why the fear exists should be established. Workplace bullying is a real thing. 

True. Investigate. Collect evidence. File charges. Have a trial.

People with any real level of conscience, or morals, will actually quit and remove themselves. But they're not required to. Or, rather, shouldn't be required to without due process.

Quote

Is a waiter in a position where your life is in his hands? 

That's up to you I guess. Reason would ask if that affects you and the choices you are making. If a waiter refuses to serve you a pork chop would you pick something else in the menu or ask for another waiter?

The profession is beside the point. Substitute "Jew", "Muslim", or "Gay", where you said "creationist", and it should be obvious. 

You'd think it fine that I disparaged a Jewish Doctor? For being Jewish?

Quote

If he assulted anyone else, they could not only sue him, but the system that left him in place as a workplace risk. That's going to cost a lot. That situation has to be evaluated for risk as well. Not worth the potential outcome. He can be replaced.

True. Like I said, a man of conscience, or morals, would quit. But until there's a judge that says "guilty", he doesn't have to.

[psyche101]

16 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Depends. The person making the accusations can be wronged. I can judge that someone was wronged. And then there's evidence that's proof one was wronged.

In which of those three does the perpetrator get a criminal sentence? Only the last. What the victim, you, or i, accuse someone of isn't an automatic conviction. Or at least shouldn't be.

If I was wronged the justice system is merely a hope. A strong hope, but a hope nonetheless. A Trump bashing example. He ripped of Americans building the Baja Condos. He got away with it. Many lost their life savings. Would you invest in Baja 2 ? Or would you consider those who had been wronged on Baja 1?

16 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

True. Investigate. Collect evidence. File charges. Have a trial.

People with any real level of conscience, or morals, will actually quit and remove themselves. But they're not required to. Or, rather, shouldn't be required to without due process.

Due process is actually my bugbear here. The evidence illustrates a perceived safety risk to others. That risk should be removed until identified. 

16 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The profession is beside the point. Substitute "Jew", "Muslim", or "Gay", where you said "creationist", and it should be obvious. 

It's not beside the point and I worked with it anyway. A life is precious enough to guard with caution. Beliefs that I find don't respect that won't be given access to my personal space. 

But as for my example. Again, if you were in a restaurant and wanted to order something from the menu, but the waiter refused because of his beliefs to touch the plate or serve it, would you order something else or ask for another waiter? 

16 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

You'd think it fine that I disparaged a Jewish Doctor? For being Jewish?

What's the reasoning behind the refusal? 

16 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

True. Like I said, a man of conscience, or morals, would quit. But until there's a judge that says "guilty", he doesn't have to.

Bit you said he should be allowed to serve our his term regardless. That's what I don't agree with. If he is charged with the allegations then he has breached policy and abused his position. He should be removed pending investigation and if found guilty removed from office immediately and his future benefits as well. 

[+DieChecker]

21 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

If I was wronged the justice system is merely a hope. A strong hope, but a hope nonetheless. A Trump bashing example. He ripped of Americans building the Baja Condos. He got away with it. Many lost their life savings. Would you invest in Baja 2 ? Or would you consider those who had been wronged on Baja 1?

Due process is actually my bugbear here. The evidence illustrates a perceived safety risk to others. That risk should be removed until identified. 

Baja project... I had to look that up. I'll admit it looks bad, but appears there was trouble from day one. Trump actually dropped out of it the year after it started, and they should have pulled out and returned what they could, but developers are rat b*******, and have to be sued to get anything back... ever... from any company... anywhere in the US. Looks like the developers settled, and Trump as well. I'm sure they got pennies on the dollar. 

Interesting in that people could buy a condo at all. I was under the impression US citizens can't own Mexican property. Let me check.

Quote

It's not beside the point and I worked with it anyway. A life is precious enough to guard with caution. Beliefs that I find don't respect that won't be given access to my personal space. 

But as for my example. Again, if you were in a restaurant and wanted to order something from the menu, but the waiter refused because of his beliefs to touch the plate or serve it, would you order something else or ask for another waiter? 

What's the reasoning behind the refusal? 

I'm not sure why it matters. In Australia if a minority, or person of religion, is someone you dont trust, you can ask for someone else?

That would not fly in the US. I can tell you. Rejecting a person for any service, or action, based solely on they're race, religion, or identity, will quickly end you up in Federal court for a hate crime.

If you came to the US, and rejected a Creationist doctor, it would be you going to prison, and the Crestionist collecting, possibly, a huge amount of money in damages.

Perhaps our two nations have different expectations?

Quote

Bit you said he should be allowed to serve our his term regardless. That's what I don't agree with. If he is charged with the allegations then he has breached policy and abused his position. He should be removed pending investigation and if found guilty removed from office immediately and his future benefits as well.

So the charges are the breach of policy? Or is guilt a breach of policy?

Actually. I suppose that could go either way, depending on the written policy involved.

Until proven guilty, I'd support a decision to remain in office. I'd even more support him leaving though. But, I recognize he shouldn't be forced without guilt being assigned.

Edited March 12, 2021 by DieChecker

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Baja project... I had to look that up. I'll admit it looks bad, but appears there was trouble from day one. Trump actually dropped out of it the year after it started, and they should have pulled out and returned what they could, but developers are rat b*******, and have to be sued to get anything back... ever... from any company... anywhere in the US. Looks like the developers settled, and Trump as well. I'm sure they got pennies on the dollar. 

Interesting in that people could buy a condo at all. I was under the impression US citizens can't own Mexican property. Let me check.

Here's a link with some of the buyers stories.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-baja-snap-story.html%3f_amp=true

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I'm not sure why it matters.

Reasoning is the difference between an informed decision and bigotry.

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

In Australia if a minority, or person of religion, is someone you dont trust, you can ask for someone else?

That would not fly in the US. I can tell you. Rejecting a person for any service, or action, based solely on they're race, religion, or identity, will quickly end you up in Federal court for a hate crime.

If you came to the US, and rejected a Creationist doctor, it would be you going to prison, and the Crestionist collecting, possibly, a huge amount of money in damages.

Perhaps our two nations have different expectations?

That seems ridiculous. You can't get a second opinion? You can't say who can access your personal space? 

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So the charges are the breach of policy? Or is guilt a breach of policy?

Actually. I suppose that could go either way, depending on the written policy involved.

I'd expect government to be one of the more stringent policies considering the size of the organisation and public exposure.

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Until proven guilty, I'd support a decision to remain in office. I'd even more support him leaving though. But, I recognize he shouldn't be forced without guilt being assigned.

Not suspended? 

What about workplace risk considering there are a substantial amount of claims?

[Myles]

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

 

Trump has taught you how to sink to new lows. 

The biden clan taught me how to treat the president and his family.   I'm just following their lead.  

[+DieChecker]

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Here's a link with some of the buyers stories.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-baja-snap-story.html%3f_amp=true

I would feel a lot worse, and angry at Trump, if this wasn't so common. 

https://www.constructiondive.com/news/using-technology-to-head-off-construction-fraud/560730/#:~:text=Angela Morelock%2C managing partner and,significant amount of money is

Quote

Angela Morelock, managing partner and forensics expert at BKD LLP in Springfield, Missouri, said that around 6% of annual industry revenue is lost to fraud, so taking into consideration that the U.S. construction industry is an approximately $1.2 trillion-per-year field, that means a significant amount of money is handed over to bad actors each year.

6% of 1.2 trillion dollars is 72 billion. Each year. Trumps troubles, where he basically took at least some of the money. Is approaching zero in relation to the problem overall.

Not defending him here, but this is a pretty typical "investment" opportunity that was fishing for suckers. 

Quote

Reasoning is the difference between an informed decision and bigotry.

That seems ridiculous. You can't get a second opinion? You can't say who can access your personal space? 

Yes, because racism/bigotry/intolerance isn't about You, it is about how the victim feels. If your demand of a second opinion is seen as offensive to a protected class... You're done for. Especially if you come across as an "Entitled White".

Thats the modern US environment. Critical Race Theory, but it applies to religion and LGBTQ also. 

Quote

I'd expect government to be one of the more stringent policies considering the size of the organisation and public exposure.

I think its rather the opposite in the US. Businesses, fearing lawsuits, have very detailed policies, and consequences. But government has often vague, or unclear, policies going back hundreds of years, that may apply, or not. Government rarely creates more rules for itself. It is more about controlling others. Their own rules are often hard to nail down.

Quote

Not suspended? 

What about workplace risk considering there are a substantial amount of claims?

I'm ok with suspended. Most agencies have policy that the person be suspended. 

Risk? He grabbed a handful of woman over a dozen years. Odds are he's not going to risk one right now. If he's found guilty, he's out. If his employees feel endangered, they are free to leave. Vote with their feet, as it were.

[acidhead]

 

 

[acidhead]

 

 

[Eldorado]

A group of 30 women on Friday spoke out about the bullying and harassment they faced while working with for Andrew Cuomo as the New York Governor insists he won't resign and is not guilty of abuse.

It came as a reporter came forward as Cuomo's seventh accuser, claiming she endured unwanted touching and humiliating comments while covering his administration. 

Jessica Bakeman claimed in a first-person article for New York Magazine that she was sexually harassed by Cuomo on several occasions since the start of her journalism career in 2012.

UK Mail

MSN

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

But Trump liked to grab women by the vagina....Biden’s DOG BIT SOMEONE.... Look at all the people getting thr Vaccine.... the military in Myanmar is WORNG..... THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE 

 

 

 

 

 

* this is sarcasm directed at the press. 

[+DieChecker]

Fox News: Cuomo staffers have stopped showing up to work as scandals mount, sources tell NYP.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cuomo-staffers-work-scandals-sources-tell-nyp

[psyche101]

On 3/12/2021 at 10:51 PM, Myles said:

The biden clan taught me how to treat the president and his family.   I'm just following their lead.  

What's Joe or Jill ever said or done? 

[psyche101]

On 3/13/2021 at 7:44 AM, DieChecker said:

I would feel a lot worse, and angry at Trump, if this wasn't so common. 

https://www.constructiondive.com/news/using-technology-to-head-off-construction-fraud/560730/#:~:text=Angela Morelock%2C managing partner and,significant amount of money is

6% of 1.2 trillion dollars is 72 billion. Each year. Trumps troubles, where he basically took at least some of the money. Is approaching zero in relation to the problem overall.

Not defending him here, but this is a pretty typical "investment" opportunity that was fishing for suckers. 

It sounds like you're defending him to be perfectly honest. There's no mitigating the very fact that he ripped of fellow Americans. This has nothing to do with fraud in the Industry. Those frauds are probably at least in part in jail. Trump got promoted to POTUS. 

Whataboutism again? Others do it, so can the POTUS? 

It's real easy. He did the wrong thing by his own people. And he can grab any woman on the privates to boot. And you think that person isn't dirty low down scum? 

On 3/13/2021 at 7:44 AM, DieChecker said:

Yes, because racism/bigotry/intolerance isn't about You, it is about how the victim feels. If your demand of a second opinion is seen as offensive to a protected class... You're done for. Especially if you come across as an "Entitled White".

Thats the modern US environment. Critical Race Theory, but it applies to religion and LGBTQ also. 

I don't think you're applying it as intended to be honest. Where I should spend my money is about me. 

I'd fight that in court I really don't think there's a case there.  No, I can ask for a second medical opinion and don't even have to give a reason. 

It's not racism, it's not bigotry. It's a conflict of interest regarding a personal matter.

What about the waiter? Would you choose something else from the menu or ask for another waiter? Do you also have to eat what you don't like in order to not cause offence? Could you end up in jail for refusing to eat what is served rather than what you actually want? 

On 3/13/2021 at 7:44 AM, DieChecker said:

I think its rather the opposite in the US. Businesses, fearing lawsuits, have very detailed policies, and consequences. But government has often vague, or unclear, policies going back hundreds of years, that may apply, or not. Government rarely creates more rules for itself. It is more about controlling others. Their own rules are often hard to nail down.

So why aren't the people demanding more reform? Sports stars are held to higher standards than that, how could the government possibly have power standards than those it polices?

On 3/13/2021 at 7:44 AM, DieChecker said:

I'm ok with suspended. Most agencies have policy that the person be suspended. 

Why isn't he though?

On 3/13/2021 at 7:44 AM, DieChecker said:

Risk? He grabbed a handful of woman over a dozen years. Odds are he's not going to risk one right now. If he's found guilty, he's out. If his employees feel endangered, they are free to leave. Vote with their feet, as it were.

Let's say it's your business. Let's say you let him back to work. Let's say he did the unthinkable and figured he did nothing wrong in the first place, he hadn't actually been punished so why not and did it again.

How you going to pay of the millions in lawsuits that are about to hit you? Do you find that a risk with taking for one person's employment, and a person that is easily replaced?

This isn't a 60k a year position. It's not a counter job at Macca's. People line up for it and others vote on it. He could be replaced within eight hours I reckon. 

[psyche101]

On 3/14/2021 at 8:43 AM, President Wearer of Hats said:

But Trump liked to grab women by the vagina....Biden’s DOG BIT SOMEONE.... Look at all the people getting thr Vaccine.... the military in Myanmar is WORNG..... THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE 

 

 

 

 

 

* this is sarcasm directed at the press. 

Just the press?

[acidhead]

#8 

 

[+DieChecker]

On 3/14/2021 at 5:47 PM, psyche101 said:

I don't think you're applying it as intended to be honest. Where I should spend my money is about me. 

I'd fight that in court I really don't think there's a case there.  No, I can ask for a second medical opinion and don't even have to give a reason. 

It's not racism, it's not bigotry. It's a conflict of interest regarding a personal matter.

Well, it seems in the US that religion is a protected class, just like race, and sexual preference. So stating openly that you will not accept a creationist doctor, because you think his ethics/reasoning/thinking is substandard would be like saying you can't have a black doctor, because they're mentally inferior. 

According to The Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 

It defines discrimination as:

(a) any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin that has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation;

I'd say basing your decision on religion alone would then qualify as discrimination. 

Quote

What about the waiter? Would you choose something else from the menu or ask for another waiter? Do you also have to eat what you don't like in order to not cause offence? Could you end up in jail for refusing to eat what is served rather than what you actually want? 

First off, I'd try never to duscriminate in the first place. If I felt very strongly, I'd go to a different establishment. 

If I was forced to order something, I'd order what I wanted, and waiter be damned. If he/she had a problem, I'd call the owner/manager over.

Quote

So why aren't the people demanding more reform? Sports stars are held to higher standards than that, how could the government possibly have power standards than those it polices?

Politics. As long as the people whom the rules are written for, are those writing the rules, things are unlikely to change. Nebulous wording profits both sides, so there's no motive for change.

Quote

Why isn't he though?

He's the governor. Who's going to tell him to? Apparently lots of people have asked him to, and he said no. 

Quote

Let's say it's your business. Let's say you let him back to work. Let's say he did the unthinkable and figured he did nothing wrong in the first place, he hadn't actually been punished so why not and did it again.

How you going to pay of the millions in lawsuits that are about to hit you? Do you find that a risk with taking for one person's employment, and a person that is easily replaced?

This isn't a 60k a year position. It's not a counter job at Macca's. People line up for it and others vote on it. He could be replaced within eight hours I reckon.

Well, first, he's an Elected Official. You can't just fire him. They'll have to impeach.

Second, he's at the point if the pyramid. He's got no one in oversight above him, so he can't be treated like an employee. 

If he was an appointed official, he'd be long gone.

It is interesting that you believe the governor of New York is easy to replace. Its the third highest economy in the US, and if ranked against the nations of the world, it would be tenth. Meaning a bigger economy than Canada, Russia, South Korea, or Australia.

Edited March 20, 2021 by DieChecker

[psyche101]

On 3/20/2021 at 10:41 AM, DieChecker said:

Well, it seems in the US that religion is a protected class, just like race, and sexual preference. So stating openly that you will not accept a creationist doctor, because you think his ethics/reasoning/thinking is substandard would be like saying you can't have a black doctor, because they're mentally inferior. 

According to The Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 

It defines discrimination as:

(a) any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin that has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation;

I'd say basing your decision on religion alone would then qualify as discrimination. 

I'd feel confident fighting any challenges. I do retain the right to feel comfortable with my physician and can refuse consent for a procedure based on my own values allowing a second opinion. Not a great deal of criteria of required for a second opinion. 

Quote

First off, I'd try never to duscriminate in the first place. If I felt very strongly, I'd go to a different establishment. 

If I was forced to order something, I'd order what I wanted, and waiter be damned. If he/she had a problem, I'd call the owner/manager over.

I'd say the former would be standard. I don't think many people would go where service was bad or couldn't get what they want. 

Regarding the latter, that's the point. There's no high ground because a person is religious. Both sides have a voice. 

Quote

Politics. As long as the people whom the rules are written for, are those writing the rules, things are unlikely to change. Nebulous wording profits both sides, so there's no motive for change.

What about the people? They are calling for the standards. I've shown you how people in Australia aren't scared to show politicians his they feel and that gets a say at the booths. It it that that in America people allow terrible behaviour because of political allegiance? The way I see politics, both parties are required to keep each other straight. Clinton is just a measure of how badly a POTUS can act, yet it seems to be more a depth marker. People seem to expect it and point at it to see if other presidents can sink as low rather than reprimand bad behaviour. Why isn't it uprooted and used as a wacking stick instead?

Quote

He's the governor. Who's going to tell him to? Apparently lots of people have asked him to, and he said no. 

The people who put him there. They should have the right to say he hasn't met the required standard. 

Quote

Well, first, he's an Elected Official. You can't just fire him. They'll have to impeach.

Second, he's at the point if the pyramid. He's got no one in oversight above him, so he can't be treated like an employee. 

If he was an appointed official, he'd be long gone.

Isn't he appointed by the people?

Quote

It is interesting that you believe the governor of New York is easy to replace. Its the third highest economy in the US, and if ranked against the nations of the world, it would be tenth. Meaning a bigger economy than Canada, Russia, South Korea, or Australia.

You have universities don't you? 

To my experience, nobody is irreplaceable. Michael Hutchence maybe, but that's it and a very specific skill set in that instance. There are other states, other ex governors. Some might even want to do a good job and respect the privilege that the position is. 

[+DieChecker]

7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

What about the people? They are calling for the standards. I've shown you how people in Australia aren't scared to show politicians his they feel and that gets a say at the booths. It it that that in America people allow terrible behaviour because of political allegiance? The way I see politics, both parties are required to keep each other straight. Clinton is just a measure of how badly a POTUS can act, yet it seems to be more a depth marker. People seem to expect it and point at it to see if other presidents can sink as low rather than reprimand bad behaviour. Why isn't it uprooted and used as a wacking stick instead?

The parties keep each other straight, unless one gets too much power. In our Senate it takes a 2/3 vote to pass a law. But now Democrats, who have a 51% vote, want to drop that to 51%, and if they do, there's nothing the Republicans can do about it.

Quote

The people who put him there. They should have the right to say he hasn't met the required standard. 

Isn't he appointed by the people?

Basically, once in office, the positions are protected in a number of ways, to protect against being forced to do things against their will.

For the Executive branch, the balance is the Legislature. Who need to impeach, and force out of office. The People have no vote in it.

Quote

You have universities don't you? 

To my experience, nobody is irreplaceable. Michael Hutchence maybe, but that's it and a very specific skill set in that instance. There are other states, other ex governors. Some might even want to do a good job and respect the privilege that the position is. 

Thats all true. I said about Trump, and Biden, that most if the work is done by aids and underlings. So the damage they can do if incompetent is limited. Regarding Trump, I guess I was wrong. Regarding Biden, time will tell.

I'd suggest very few people would WANT the job. 

[Hyperionxvii]

So, this is really old news, right? What's he up to now, 10?

I don't like Cuomo. Doesn't matter, he should be afforded the same right of innocent until proven guilty as all other Americans. 

Unfortunately, that right is going to be erased in favor of 'guilty until proven innocent'. With the burden of proof on the accused, with the media being the judge, jury, and executioner. 

[Trelane]

Here's an article on the man charged to investigate this;

https://buffalonews.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/meet-the-man-who-will-run-new-york-assemblys-impeachment-investigation-of-cuomo/article_0062c6d2-8811-11eb-add8-93ee7424df72.html#tracking-source=home-trending

 

[Trelane]

Some more information as this continues to develop. 

https://www.radio.com/wben/news/politics/cuomo-interfering-with-ags-probe-accusers-lawyer-claims

[aztek]

Quote

 

CNN’s primetime lineup completely skipped a bombshell report on Wednesday night that embattled New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo directed health officials to prioritize his family – including CNN host Chris Cuomo -- in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic.

The Albany-based Times Union newspaper reported Wednesday, prior to CNN’s primetime lineup kicking off, that "high-level members" of New York's Department of Health were directed to "conduct prioritized coronavirus testing on the governor's relatives as well as influential people with ties to the administration." 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-skips-cuomo-scandal-brother-chris-cuomo-prime-time

Quote

McEnany described the prioritized COVID test given to Chris Cuomo, which was difficult to acquire at that point of the pandemic, as further evidence of Cuomo utilizing his position of power to advance himself and his family's own interests over the people of New York. She said former President Trump did not want to get a coronavirus vaccine before Americans were able to start getting the shot. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/chris-cuomo-special-treatment-covid-testing-mcenany

[aztek]

Quote

 

CNBC News reports Debra Katz, an attorney representing former Cuomo staffer Charlotte Bennett, wrote a letter to Attorney General Letitia James objecting to a report that Cuomo's office had staff meet with "in-house attorneys" before they were questioned by investigators.

"It is my understanding that these attorneys are also 'debriefing' staffers after their interviews with investigators," wrote Katz.

"This is highly improper and we object in the strongest possible terms to this obvious interference with what you have stated would be a 'thorough and independent' investigation.

 

 

[+DieChecker]

Governor Cuomo should do a FAKE tell all with Oprah to get the Left back on his side. It seemed to work for Meghan Merkel.