CDZ Have you heard anyone "screaming" that Roger Ailes is a rapist?

[320 Years of History]

Each of the men noted below is powerful, well off, and something of a celebrity.

• Bill Clinton: No conviction of sexual assault, but people on the right have vociferously called him a rapist.
• Bill Cosby: No conviction of sexual assault, but people on the right (and left I presume) have vociferously called him a rapist.
• Roger Ailes: No conviction of sexual assault, but I have yet to hear loud outcries that he's a rapist, least of all from the right.

So what is one to infer from that observed pattern of behavior:

• One must be a non-Republican for accusations of sexual assault to be true.
• One must be a Republican in order for the "court of public opinion" to give one the benefit of the doubt.
• One must be black for accusations of sexual assault to be true.
• One must be less well off than Roger Ailes for accusations of sexual assault to be true.

So much for GOP integrity.....

 

[OldLady]

I heard the allegations were sexual harassment, not rape. Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby were actually accused of rape. Maybe that's why? Although Ailes apparently needing to take a quick bow off the stage is something of a "punishment," don't you think? Sexual harassment is a civil, not criminal, matter, so if he quits before he gets fired, more power to him. There are a lot of pigs like him out there; people seldom blow the whistle. But he seems to have been caught and he has paid with public embarrassment, if nothing else.

 

[Tresha91203]

Each of the men noted below is powerful, well off, and something of a celebrity.

• Bill Clinton: No conviction of sexual assault, but people on the right have vociferously called him a rapist.
• Bill Cosby: No conviction of sexual assault, but people on the right (and left I presume) have vociferously called him a rapist.
• Roger Ailes: No conviction of sexual assault, but I have yet to hear loud outcries that he's a rapist, least of all from the right.

So what is one to infer from that observed pattern of behavior:

• One must be a non-Republican for accusations of sexual assault to be true.
• One must be a Republican in order for the "court of public opinion" to give one the benefit of the doubt.
• One must be black for accusations of sexual assault to be true.
• One must be less well off than Roger Ailes for accusations of sexual assault to be true.

So much for GOP integrity.....

Who has claimed Ailes raped her?

 

[320 Years of History]

Each of the men noted below is powerful, well off, and something of a celebrity.

• Bill Clinton: No conviction of sexual assault, but people on the right have vociferously called him a rapist.
• Bill Cosby: No conviction of sexual assault, but people on the right (and left I presume) have vociferously called him a rapist.
• Roger Ailes: No conviction of sexual assault, but I have yet to hear loud outcries that he's a rapist, least of all from the right.

So what is one to infer from that observed pattern of behavior:

• One must be a non-Republican for accusations of sexual assault to be true.
• One must be a Republican in order for the "court of public opinion" to give one the benefit of the doubt.
• One must be black for accusations of sexual assault to be true.
• One must be less well off than Roger Ailes for accusations of sexual assault to be true.

So much for GOP integrity.....

Who has claimed Ailes raped her?

I don't know. I don't hear folks "screaming" that Mr. Ailes is a sexual predator or sexual assailant either. The big deal is that folks aren't saying a damn thing about it other than that he's in talks to leave Fox.

 

[Tresha91203]

Each of the men noted below is powerful, well off, and something of a celebrity.

• Bill Clinton: No conviction of sexual assault, but people on the right have vociferously called him a rapist.
• Bill Cosby: No conviction of sexual assault, but people on the right (and left I presume) have vociferously called him a rapist.
• Roger Ailes: No conviction of sexual assault, but I have yet to hear loud outcries that he's a rapist, least of all from the right.

So what is one to infer from that observed pattern of behavior:

• One must be a non-Republican for accusations of sexual assault to be true.
• One must be a Republican in order for the "court of public opinion" to give one the benefit of the doubt.
• One must be black for accusations of sexual assault to be true.
• One must be less well off than Roger Ailes for accusations of sexual assault to be true.

So much for GOP integrity.....

Who has claimed Ailes raped her?

I don't know. I don't hear folks "screaming" that Mr. Ailes is a sexual predator or sexual assailant either. The big deal is that folks aren't saying a damn thing about it other than that he's in talks to leave Fox.

No one is calling him a rapist because no one has claimed he raped her. The ones claiming sexual harassment are Republicans, so I'm not sure how one can say Republicans are silent.

Most defended Cosby at first, but slowly turned. I don't hear Republicans defending Ailes, so he is treated worse than Cosby IMO. As facts come out, I expect Republicans to defend the women. Maybe, there won't be so much evening attire and stripper shoes on a serious broadcast.

 

[OldLady]

320, what I'm reading between the lines here is that when Fox looked into the allegations, they found he had indeed done what whatshername said. Otherwise, don't you think they would have defended him? It just seems to be a business decision. I'm sure some democrats are chortling, though, that the conservative newschannel in Fair and Balanced Land has been tarnished with this scandal.

 

[320 Years of History]

320, what I'm reading between the lines here is that when Fox looked into the allegations, they found he had indeed done what whatshername said. Otherwise, don't you think they would have defended him? It just seems to be a business decision. I'm sure some democrats are chortling, though, that the conservative news channel in Fair and Balanced Land has been tarnished with this scandal.

Red:
Frankly, I don't think they had any business judging whether the "did it" or not until a jury (assuming criminal charges) determines whether he did it or not. If they want to boot the guy upon the reading of a "guilty" verdict, fine, but until then, he's innocent until proven guilty. That's the same way I feel about Messrs. Cosby and Clinton, and everyone else who is accused criminally of something. Similarly, I think the "court of public opinion" needs to keep its opinion to itself.

Blue:
I'm pretty sure Fox is more concerned about its business than it is about whether it should or should not stand behind Mr. Ailes on the presumption of innocence. I think Fox, and conservatives in general, have invested so much into the machinery of innuendo that they are now too "chickensh*t" to show some backbone and treat people as they deserve to be treated, to treat them as though they are innocent until proven otherwise.

Yes, they can call it "just a business decision." One can call pretty much any action by that nebulous moniker. It's the easy road to take. What they should be doing is leading by example and standing behind the man, if nothing else than out of regard for his having made Fox what it is today. I mean let's be real. What good is all the money, wealth and power in the world when the people whom one thought were friends desert one? And they do so under the auspices of "just a business decision." How many "fair weather friends" do you want? I don't want any.

Pink:
In my mind, whatever Mr. Ailes is accused of having done isn't what's tarnishing Fox. That they aren't standing behind that man is what I find scandalous and what I find tarnishes their reputation and the integrity of the people who sit on that organization's board.

This idea of somebody or several somebodies saying someone did something being enough to cast a pall over the accused person and everyone and everything vaguely associated with them is just silly. After a person has been convicted and depending on their role in perpetrating their foul deeds, it may be perfectly rational to infer the scope of their thoughts and deeds spread beyond just them, assuming there's some evidence that is so. Otherwise, neither the alleged offender nor the people around them deserve the disdain that our society currently expresses toward them.

It'd be different were it so that "whatever" is proven true. When the charge may be as true as not, when "you" can know or not know as well as and no better than I can, yet "you" or I have a conclusive opinion on the matter, well, that's that's pretty shameful. America too often seems a nation that runs on gossip. Can we be no better than that in the 21st century?

 

[Tresha91203]

There is a civil suit for harassment, not a criminal trial such as rape cases. Sexual harassment is not a crime, but it violates civil agreements, so victims can sue for monetary damages.

Rape and sexual harassment aren't even in the same ballpark.

 

[OldLady]

320, what I'm reading between the lines here is that when Fox looked into the allegations, they found he had indeed done what whatshername said. Otherwise, don't you think they would have defended him? It just seems to be a business decision. I'm sure some democrats are chortling, though, that the conservative news channel in Fair and Balanced Land has been tarnished with this scandal.

Red:
Frankly, I don't think they had any business judging whether the "did it" or not until a jury (assuming criminal charges) determines whether he did it or not. If they want to boot the guy upon the reading of a "guilty" verdict, fine, but until then, he's innocent until proven guilty. That's the same way I feel about Messrs. Cosby and Clinton, and everyone else who is accused criminally of something. Similarly, I think the "court of public opinion" needs to keep its opinion to itself.

Blue:
I'm pretty sure Fox is more concerned about its business than it is about whether it should or should not stand behind Mr. Ailes on the presumption of innocence. I think Fox, and conservatives in general, have invested so much into the machinery of innuendo that they are now too "chickensh*t" to show some backbone and treat people as they deserve to be treated, to treat them as though they are innocent until proven otherwise.

Yes, they can call it "just a business decision." One can call pretty much any action by that nebulous moniker. It's the easy road to take. What they should be doing is leading by example and standing behind the man, if nothing else than out of regard for his having made Fox what it is today. I mean let's be real. What good is all the money, wealth and power in the world when the people whom one thought were friends desert one? And they do so under the auspices of "just a business decision." How many "fair weather friends" do you want? I don't want any.

Pink:
In my mind, whatever Mr. Ailes is accused of having done isn't what's tarnishing Fox. That they aren't standing behind that man is what I find scandalous and what I find tarnishes their reputation and the integrity of the people who sit on that organization's board.

This idea of somebody or several somebodies saying someone did something being enough to cast a pall over the accused person and everyone and everything vaguely associated with them is just silly. After a person has been convicted and depending on their role in perpetrating their foul deeds, it may be perfectly rational to infer the scope of their thoughts and deeds spread beyond just them, assuming there's some evidence that is so. Otherwise, neither the alleged offender nor the people around them deserve the disdain that our society currently expresses toward them.

It'd be different were it so that "whatever" is proven true. When the charge may be as true as not, when "you" can know or not know as well as and no better than I can, yet "you" or I have a conclusive opinion on the matter, well, that's that's pretty shameful. America too often seems a nation that runs on gossip. Can we be no better than that in the 21st century?

Okay. It wouldn't bother me if allegations such as these were not reported on until they are adjudicated. Until that happens, we are going to wonder if the allegations are true. The fact that Fox is not standing behind him and that Meghyn Kelly has also said Ailes sexually harassed her, and that Fox is giving him the bum's rush....well, okay, 320. He's innocent until proven guilty. But I still believe it's a civil, not criminal, charge.

 

[2aguy]

Each of the men noted below is powerful, well off, and something of a celebrity.

• Bill Clinton: No conviction of sexual assault, but people on the right have vociferously called him a rapist.
• Bill Cosby: No conviction of sexual assault, but people on the right (and left I presume) have vociferously called him a rapist.
• Roger Ailes: No conviction of sexual assault, but I have yet to hear loud outcries that he's a rapist, least of all from the right.

So what is one to infer from that observed pattern of behavior:

• One must be a non-Republican for accusations of sexual assault to be true.
• One must be a Republican in order for the "court of public opinion" to give one the benefit of the doubt.
• One must be black for accusations of sexual assault to be true.
• One must be less well off than Roger Ailes for accusations of sexual assault to be true.

So much for GOP integrity.....

The two women....Gretchin Carlson...and Megyn Kelly claimed he made sexual comments to them....

3 women stated bill clinton raped them....

See the difference?

Two women say that Roger Ailes made sexual comments to them....

12-13 women that we know of say that bill clinton actually laid hands on them, attempted to have sex with them against their will........

See the difference?

It isn't republicans saying this...it is the actual women.....

 

[JoeMoma]

320, what I'm reading between the lines here is that when Fox looked into the allegations, they found he had indeed done what whatshername said. Otherwise, don't you think they would have defended him? It just seems to be a business decision. I'm sure some democrats are chortling, though, that the conservative news channel in Fair and Balanced Land has been tarnished with this scandal.

Red:
Frankly, I don't think they had any business judging whether the "did it" or not until a jury (assuming criminal charges) determines whether he did it or not. If they want to boot the guy upon the reading of a "guilty" verdict, fine, but until then, he's innocent until proven guilty. That's the same way I feel about Messrs. Cosby and Clinton, and everyone else who is accused criminally of something. Similarly, I think the "court of public opinion" needs to keep its opinion to itself.

Blue:
I'm pretty sure Fox is more concerned about its business than it is about whether it should or should not stand behind Mr. Ailes on the presumption of innocence. I think Fox, and conservatives in general, have invested so much into the machinery of innuendo that they are now too "chickensh*t" to show some backbone and treat people as they deserve to be treated, to treat them as though they are innocent until proven otherwise.

Yes, they can call it "just a business decision." One can call pretty much any action by that nebulous moniker. It's the easy road to take. What they should be doing is leading by example and standing behind the man, if nothing else than out of regard for his having made Fox what it is today. I mean let's be real. What good is all the money, wealth and power in the world when the people whom one thought were friends desert one? And they do so under the auspices of "just a business decision." How many "fair weather friends" do you want? I don't want any.

Pink:
In my mind, whatever Mr. Ailes is accused of having done isn't what's tarnishing Fox. That they aren't standing behind that man is what I find scandalous and what I find tarnishes their reputation and the integrity of the people who sit on that organization's board.

This idea of somebody or several somebodies saying someone did something being enough to cast a pall over the accused person and everyone and everything vaguely associated with them is just silly. After a person has been convicted and depending on their role in perpetrating their foul deeds, it may be perfectly rational to infer the scope of their thoughts and deeds spread beyond just them, assuming there's some evidence that is so. Otherwise, neither the alleged offender nor the people around them deserve the disdain that our society currently expresses toward them.

It'd be different were it so that "whatever" is proven true. When the charge may be as true as not, when "you" can know or not know as well as and no better than I can, yet "you" or I have a conclusive opinion on the matter, well, that's that's pretty shameful. America too often seems a nation that runs on gossip. Can we be no better than that in the 21st century?

Okay. It wouldn't bother me if allegations such as these were not reported on until they are adjudicated. Until that happens, we are going to wonder if the allegations are true. The fact that Fox is not standing behind him and that Meghyn Kelly has also said Ailes sexually harassed her, and that Fox is giving him the bum's rush....well, okay, 320. He's innocent until proven guilty. But I still believe it's a civil, not criminal, charge.

Businesses are free to do their own internal investigations concerning HR issues. They don't have or need to wait on court rulings to fire people. Assuming that Ailes did resign over the sexual harassment issue, it would had been better for Fox News if the matter had been handled internally, firing (retiring ) Ailes and keeping Gretchen Carlson.