HawkShack.com

Boy, if this hasn't been a roller coaster for the NY Governor and son of one of the more notable politicians of the late 20th century. About this time last year, Andrew Cuomo was must see TV, with his very passionate responses to the pandemic which hit his state first and the hardest as he openly sparred with the Trump Administration. He was seen by many to be a viable POTUS candidate at some point in the near future.

But what a difference a year can make. Cuomo has two completely separate scandals to fend off. The first is the nursing home scandal. Cuomo made a very controversial decision in the early days of the pandemic to bring COVID infected nursing home residents from the hospitals back into nursing homes and is under fire for supposedly altering the data he used to support his defense of his decision.

The other scandal is allegations of sexual harassment. So far, there have been 3 female employees come forward and accuse him of inappropriate behavior, essentially trying to talk them into having sex with him. The allegations themselves don't seem all that serious as there's very little in the way of physical advances, at least when compared to Joe Biden's accuser, who claimed that he penetrated her vagina with his fingers. An investigation has begun and there have been calls for him to resign. He's now considered by his fellow Dems as being radioactive as none of them are rallying to his defense.

Is there anyone out there in public life who's not a scumbag?
I'm sure there are some, but it's getting harder and harder to find them these days.

NorthHawk wrote:Is there anyone out there in public life who's not a scumbag?
I'm sure there are some, but it's getting harder and harder to find them these days.

Think of what the job of politician requires, then imagine trying not to be a scumbag when your job requires you to lie to win office. You have to tell different groups what they want to hear to win their votes even if these groups have completely opposed interests. This is why we went with a Republic in America with lots of power divested at all levels of government. The only way The Founders could find that nearly guaranteed corruption would not destroy the nation is to divest power as much as possible amongst as many different people as possible. I highly support it. Democracy requires too much wheeling and dealing and lying and huge egos that lead to all types of issues with corruption and misbehavior. It's best to keep power as divested as possible so you don't end up with a Saddam or Xi type of situation.

Surprisingly, Mike Pence was probably one of the more moral and trustworthy politicians to hold office, but he pretty much disgraced himself with his unwavering support of Trump. He recovered a bit with his unwillingness to support the election fraud claims and he executed his office even with The Narcissistic Scumbag coming down him. And Obama seemed like a pretty stand up guy as far as personal morals and not cheating around. He executed his office as required, but didn't get involved in personal scandals with money or women. I always liked Obama's personality, but I knew he was on a tough spot and his political stances were not in line with mine economically.

Trump, Clinton, Bush Jr., Reagan, Hilary, Andrew Cuomo, Pelosi, Schumer, Bush Sr., and the like, don't look away too long or they'll be getting us into things and doing things that aren't good for the nation. They'll try to toss the blame to someone else to hold on to their positions and they don't care.

NorthHawk wrote:Is there anyone out there in public life who's not a scumbag? I'm sure there are some, but it's getting harder and harder to find them these days.

I wouldn't call Cuomo a "scum bag". Outside of an unwelcome kiss on the cheek or inappropriate hug, there are no accusations of anything physical in nature and are are relatively lame. I'm not by any means defending his actions as if they are true, they are completely inappropriate, especially considering that he's in a position of authority, ie employer to employee. But his behavior doesn't hold a candle to true "scumbags" like Jeffery Epstein, Maxine Gliswell [sp?} or Harvey Weinstein. I'd place him more in the "creepy" category along people like Joe Biden, Jerry Richardson, and Clarence Thomas.

The nursing home scandal is a different matter as it has more to do with business or governmental ethics than it does personal morals. If the accusations are true, then it would be a clear abuse of power that he should be removed from office for. He's cooking the books to make a bad decision look not so bad.

Cuomo is a scum bag. Numerous allegations now coming out from young beautiful women in their mid 20s of unwanted touching , kissing , sexually probing questions .it’s creepy I’m sure it’s the tip of the iceberg . Many questioned Cuomos lack of urgency in national politics and now we see why . I believe those who sexually harass others are scum bags no matter what their position in life . He’s no where near trump as far as I know where actual rapes were committed but it’s bad enough . I know Democrats are sick of doing the right thing and seeing republicans support a guy with 25 victims at least .

Hawktawk wrote:Cuomo is a scum bag. Numerous allegations now coming out from young beautiful women in their mid 20s of unwanted touching , kissing , sexually probing questions .it’s creepy I’m sure it’s the tip of the iceberg . Many questioned Cuomos lack of urgency in national politics and now we see why . I believe those who sexually harass others are scum bags no matter what their position in life.

I guess we have a different definition of the word "scumbag". Cuomo's alleged activities, even if true, are not criminal in nature, more like what you said, he's "creepy". That doesn't by any means suggest that I'm good with it.

Dems are anxious for him to resign as they see him as a political liability. I don't think that the allegations, even if proven to be true, are of a serious enough nature that it should disqualify him from holding office. Let the voters decide. He's up for re-election in 2022.

He’s in a position of power and asked at least one young woman working for him if she liked sex with older men among other things.
To me that’s a scumbag.

NorthHawk wrote:He’s in a position of power and asked at least one young woman working for him if she liked sex with older men among other things.
To me that’s a scumbag.

Bill Clinton, while holding the most powerful office in the world, received oral sex in the Oval Office from a naïve 21 year old intern, used his cigar on her as a French tickler, put it between his lips, then exclaimed "Tastes good!" If Cuomo's dirty talk with other women qualifies him as a scumbag, where does that place Clinton?

RiverDog wrote:Bill Clinton, while holding the most powerful office in the world, received oral sex in the Oval Office from a naïve 21 year old intern, used his cigar on her as a French tickler, put it between his lips, then exclaimed "Tastes good!" If Cuomo's dirty talk with other women qualifies him as a scumbag, where does that place Clinton?

That's the main indiscretion he was known for. I do wonder why people are not consistent in believing the accusations against Clinton with the barest of evidence given this it the era of believe every accusation without much evidence.

RiverDog wrote:Bill Clinton, while holding the most powerful office in the world, received oral sex in the Oval Office from a naïve 21 year old intern, used his cigar on her as a French tickler, put it between his lips, then exclaimed "Tastes good!" If Cuomo's dirty talk with other women qualifies him as a scumbag, where does that place Clinton?

Aseahawkfan wrote:That's the main indiscretion he was known for. I do wonder why people are not consistent in believing the accusations against Clinton with the barest of evidence given this it the era of believe every accusation without much evidence.

It's not about believing or not believing him. Cuomo has admitted to quite a bit of stuff that at the very least is very inappropriate in a manager/subordinate relationship. They're just characterizing it differently. Cuomo is calling it "misinterpreted as unwanted flirtation" while his accusers are calling it "sexual harassment".

I have mixed emotions about it. The accusations are very lame and the type of behavior that Cuomo has engaged in is very typical of interactions in everyday life. Any relatively attractive waitress has to deal with those types of things on a routine basis. There are no accusations of a proposition and nothing he said or did was against the law. The kicker is that Cuomo was engaging in that behavior while he was in a position of authority, and it's very understandable for a woman to feel uncomfortable when the boss is behaving in that manner. The waitress can refuse to serve or sick a bouncer on customer that's making those kinds of comments. Not so with a government staffer.

RiverDog wrote:It's not about believing or not believing him. Cuomo has admitted to quite a bit of stuff that at the very least is very inappropriate in a manager/subordinate relationship. They're just characterizing it differently. Cuomo is calling it "misinterpreted as unwanted flirtation" while his accusers are calling it "sexual harassment".

I have mixed emotions about it. The accusations are very lame and the type of behavior that Cuomo has engaged in is very typical of interactions in everyday life. Any relatively attractive waitress has to deal with those types of things on a routine basis. There are no accusations of a proposition and nothing he said or did was against the law. The kicker is that Cuomo was engaging in that behavior while he was in a position of authority, and it's very understandable for a woman to feel uncomfortable when the boss is behaving in that manner. The waitress can refuse to serve or sick a bouncer on customer that's making those kinds of comments. Not so with a government staffer.

It most assuredly is about believing the victim. I have seen many here and in the public mediums posting, "I believe the victim." Kavanaugh was accused of much, much lesser indiscretions done as a teenager at a drunken party on the barest of evidence from 30 years ago, but people were visiting upon Kavanaugh utter faith with all of his accusers, two of them. One a claim he assaulted her by grabbing her for about 30 seconds groping on her while a teen at a drunken party and the other basically teabagging her at a drunken party which both voluntarily attended in college. Do you know how many guys could claim sexual assault from other guys at drunken parties for that type of behavior? Hell, if we did an inventory of the behavior of High School and college age kids visiting upon them punishment for their behavior, not sure how many would still be standing at the end of it.

I'll reiterate again that I saw a guy's eyebrows shaved off, his faced colored with markers, by drunken dudes at a party because he passed out drunk. I've seen all kinds of inappropriate behavior invited and uninvited with women at drunken parties. I've seen drunken people start crap with each other. Once alcohol is involved, bad stuff happens at parties. Yet Kavanaugh was guilty forever based on 30 year old memories.

So now here's Cuomo and Clinton having excuses made for their behavior. Back when Bill was in trouble Hilary herself was questioning the veracity of the victim's claims back when Bill was the one being accused. The Democrats sacrificed Al Franken, who did less than Cuomo, to toss blood to their followers. Suffice it to say I'd love to see some consistency from the clowns that were shouting, "I believe the victim" with the barest of evidence. Cuomo deserves at least the Kavanaugh treatment by the press and Democrat supporters. He should be pushed to resign like Franken at least. It's only fair.

Aseahawkfan wrote:It most assuredly is about believing the victim. I have seen many here and in the public mediums posting, "I believe the victim." Kavanaugh was accused of much, much lesser indiscretions done as a teenager at a drunken party on the barest of evidence from 30 years ago, but people were visiting upon Kavanaugh utter faith with all of his accusers, two of them. One a claim he assaulted her by grabbing her for about 30 seconds groping on her while a teen at a drunken party and the other basically teabagging her at a drunken party which both voluntarily attended in college. Do you know how many guys could claim sexual assault from other guys at drunken parties for that type of behavior? Hell, if we did an inventory of the behavior of High School and college age kids visiting upon them punishment for their behavior, not sure how many would still be standing at the end of it.

Oh, I realize that there are some here that believe any and all accusations. My comments were about how I perceive the situation.

There's a lot of differences between the Cuomo accusations and those of Kavanaugh/Biden. First of all, there isn't the time lapse. Both the Kavanaugh and Biden claimants were from 25+ years ago. Secondly, there aren't the numbers of them. Cuomo now has 5 accusers, several alleging very recent encounters within a couple of years vs. decades, that have come forward. They can't be dismissed as disgruntled employees or politically motivated. And lastly, Cuomo hasn't denied that certain, very inappropriate conversations took place, like wanting to play strip poker or asking if they liked sex with older men. I don't have to pick sides or believe this person over that one. His admitted behavior alone is damning enough.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I'll reiterate again that I saw a guy's eyebrows shaved off, his faced colored with markers, by drunken dudes at a party because he passed out drunk. I've seen all kinds of inappropriate behavior invited and uninvited with women at drunken parties. I've seen drunken people start crap with each other. Once alcohol is involved, bad stuff happens at parties. Yet Kavanaugh was guilty forever based on 30 year old memories.

Agreed as far as it relates to Kavanaugh, but he was in his late teens/early 20's. I'll bet that you haven't seen too many drunken parties with 50-60 year old men shaving their eyebrows off.

Aseahawkfan wrote:So now here's Cuomo and Clinton having excuses made for their behavior. Back when Bill was in trouble Hilary herself was questioning the veracity of the victim's claims back when Bill was the one being accused. The Democrats sacrificed Al Franken, who did less than Cuomo, to toss blood to their followers. Suffice it to say I'd love to see some consistency from the clowns that were shouting, "I believe the victim" with the barest of evidence. Cuomo deserves at least the Kavanaugh treatment by the press and Democrat supporters. He should be pushed to resign like Franken at least. It's only fair.

The Al Franken case is a good analogy to the situation with Cuomo. Even if the Dems felt that the claims were lame or questioned their accuracy, they'd throw those guys under the bus because they can't risk alienating a constituency group like young women.

I agree with what you're saying about Cuomo. Unless something more serious comes out of the investigation, I have not seen anything that would cause me to demand that he resign. Let the voters decide if they want a creepy governor sitting in their state capitol.

To me, the accusations in the nursing home scandal are much more serious. If Cuomo or his surrogates were intentionally misreporting numbers to make a bad decision look not so bad, then that would be a clear abuse of power.

Oh boy Kavanaugh again. So rather than re litigate that whole thing may I assume there are those who believe the allegations against him but dont find them disqualifying to sit in judgement of all of us for the next 30 years or more. I disagree.

I dont think a high school senior and star athlete and his drunk buddy ripping at the clothes and attempting sexual assault on a little underage girl is OK, normal kid drinking behavior at all. I've been at many hell raising parties and seen plenty of consensual stuff after the booze flows but everyone understands the difference here. I believe its unacceptable to tea bag a a woman in a room full of people and lie to the senate about it.I believe those women and also the over 40 college friends who approached the FBI about evidence he was perjuring himself in the hearing regarding not only these allegations but other provable lies. When you are gonna sit on a court shaped by who croaks when under whose presidency you better be of the highest character. Hes not.

scumbags all. I believe Clinton's accuser. I believe trumps 25 accusers too. I believe Cuomo is a disgrace and pretty damn arrogant too carrying on like this in the me too era. Men like this are scum.

Hawktawk wrote:scumbags all. I believe Clinton's accuser. I believe trumps 25 accusers too. I believe Cuomo is a disgrace and pretty damn arrogant too carrying on like this in the me too era. Men like this are scum.

So all anyone has to do is point a finger and you believe them? Boy, I sure hope I never have you sitting on my jury. Perhaps you'd best read up on the Duke lacrosse scandal.

As far as the accusations against Cuomo goes, I don't necessarily believe or disbelieve any of his individual accusers. But when multiple accusers start coming out of the woodwork and make similar complaints, a picture begins to take shape and things begin to smell. A pattern of behavior emerges that is consistent with the allegations, making them more believable as a whole. One or two women might be motivated to lie or misinterpret a situation, but 3? Or 4? I think the number is now up to 6. That doesn't mean that any individual accuser is right, just that it's very unlikely that they're all false.

In addition, Cuomo has confirmed critical aspects of some of the accusations and has attempted to put his own spin on them, so I am not required to pass judgement on who's telling the truth and who's not. What he has admitted to is enough for me to condemn his behavior.

Once again, I am reluctant to use such terms as "scum" and "scumbag" to characterize Cuomo. He is not accused of sexual assault or rape and even his accusers haven't claimed that he made any overt propositions.

Regarding Cuomo (in contrast to Clinton and Trump), he's single. And asking a woman if she's open to a relationship or if he can kiss her is what men are supposed to do now isn't it? But he is still at the very least a overbearing womanizer who uses his position of power to try to pressure women to acquiesce.

A bit disgusting and distasteful but not on the same level of Clinton who I view as the same but while married and certainly not as Trump who is also be an admitted serial molester.

c_hawkbob wrote:Regarding Cuomo (in contrast to Clinton and Trump), he's single. And asking a woman if she's open to a relationship or if he can kiss her is what men are supposed to do now isn't it? But he is still at the very least a overbearing womanizer who uses his position of power to try to pressure women to acquiesce.

A bit disgusting and distasteful but not on the same level of Clinton who I view as the same but while married and certainly not as Trump who is also be an admitted serial molester.

I agree with your first paragraph, but the same level of Clinton with the only difference being that Clinton was married? I think you have either a short or a selective memory regarding Slick Willy's accusations:

Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States (1993–2001), has been publicly accused of sexual assault and/or sexual misconduct by four women: Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of raping her in 1978; Leslie Millwee[1] accused Clinton of sexually assaulting her in 1980; Paula Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself to her in 1991 as well as sexually harassing her; and Kathleen Willey accused Clinton of groping her without her consent in 1993.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clin ... llegations

And that doesn't even speak to his use of cigars. Cuomo's accusations amount to passing notes in the classroom compared to Slick Willy's.

c_hawkbob wrote:Regarding Cuomo (in contrast to Clinton and Trump), he's single. And asking a woman if she's open to a relationship or if he can kiss her is what men are supposed to do now isn't it? But he is still at the very least a overbearing womanizer who uses his position of power to try to pressure women to acquiesce.

In the workplace? I'd be fired if I did that in the workplace. Are you telling me that you can do the type of behavior Cuomo is accused of with your coworkers?

You can't manage people and be in a position of power over them and then create a terribly uncomfortable work environment with unwanted advances. I'd be fired. The company would be sued. It's not legal or ethical. I'm not sure what you mean by this. I always try to treat employees in a neutral fashion in the workplace.

c_hawkbob wrote:Regarding Cuomo (in contrast to Clinton and Trump), he's single. And asking a woman if she's open to a relationship or if he can kiss her is what men are supposed to do now isn't it? But he is still at the very least a overbearing womanizer who uses his position of power to try to pressure women to acquiesce.

A bit disgusting and distasteful but not on the same level of Clinton who I view as the same but while married and certainly not as Trump who is also be an admitted serial molester.

RiverDog wrote:I agree with your first paragraph, but the same level of Clinton with the only difference being that Clinton was married? I think you have either a short or a selective memory regarding Slick Willy's accusations:

Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States (1993–2001), has been publicly accused of sexual assault and/or sexual misconduct by four women: Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of raping her in 1978; Leslie Millwee[1] accused Clinton of sexually assaulting her in 1980; Paula Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself to her in 1991 as well as sexually harassing her; and Kathleen Willey accused Clinton of groping her without her consent in 1993.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clin ... llegations

And that doesn't even speak to his use of cigars. Cuomo's accusations amount to passing notes in the classroom compared to Slick Willy's.

I'm restricting my comments to things known or admitted to, not allegations. Allegations are too slippery a slope for what I had to say. And "use of cigars" is pure semantics you don't seem to be able to mention Clinton's name without including, consensual sex in the WH while married is the important operative and all though yes that may be more than is proven with Cuomo I still say the fact that he is single and the Clinton married is the prime differentiating factor.

c_hawkbob wrote:I'm restricting my comments to things known or admitted to, not allegations. Allegations are too slippery a slope for what I had to say. And "use of cigars" is pure semantics you don't seem to be able to mention Clinton's name without including, consensual sex in the WH while married is the important operative and all though yes that may be more than is proven with Cuomo I still say the fact that he is single and the Clinton married is the prime differentiating factor.

Most of the discussion and nearly all of the last couple of posts has been about allegations. You didn't restrict your comments when you referred to Donald Trump as a "serial molester" (a description I agree with) even though very few of his allegations have been proven, but for some reason, Clinton gets the benefit of the doubt because allegations are a "slippery slope"? BTW, not all of Clinton's allegations involve consensual sex.

I agree somewhat about your distinction between being single vs. married, but not when you throw the age difference between Cuomo and his accusers into the equation. For a 60 year old man to be making unsolicited, suggestive remarks to 20 something year old women I find very inappropriate, single or married.

"Or admitted to" Riv. I know you read this stuff, why do you intentionally leave out important qualifiers like that? And I don't care that the rest of you had been talking allegations this whole time, I sad that I was restricting my comment to things known or admitted to and that all that needs to be said about it.

YOU are the one that's always saying someone is innocent until proven guilty aren't you? Yet you seem to have no problem dragging out allegations when it suits your argument. I chose not to in that statement because I am not sure allegations belong in this comparison. Why is that a problem?

And you are both ok with doing this in the workplace with co-workers? Maybe I was raised differently, but geez, this is wrong on so many levels. It's something I could not imagine doing. I'm very careful with women. I was always taught speaking to women in such a fashion in the workplace is ethically wrong and illegal. If a female complains about your behavior, you can be fired immediately, do not pass go. Weird that this is considered acceptable behavior in the workplace to you guys. I think you might be a generation behind me.

As far as being single and aren't we supposed to kiss girls or pursue them, not in the workplace. Though I imagine if you worked in a strip club then that's a different environment. In the corporate environment that is just not allowed or tolerated. It's asking to get fired. That's why I'm surprised at all these allegations given I was raised with very strict parameters about treating women and people in the workplace, especially so if you are a manager.

Elected officials apparently can't get fired for behavior that would get a regular working person fired with possible sexual harassment charges against them and the company if they did not fire you. It's a huge legal liability nowadays and every company has a hotline for reporting this type of behavior anonymously that I've worked for. I imagine more and more men are being made aware this is not tolerable behavior any longer. As that older generation raised to think this behavior is ok dies off, it will change dramatically. It's definitely already at the point where Cuomo/Trump/Clinton/Weinstein-type behavior is like a signing a career death sentence. Even elected officials will have to be far more cognizant of their behavior in the workplace with women.

c_hawkbob wrote:"Or admitted to" Riv. I know you read this stuff, why do you intentionally leave out important qualifiers like that? And I don't care that the rest of you had been talking allegations this whole time, I sad that I was restricting my comment to things known or admitted to and that all that needs to be said about it.

YOU are the one that's always saying someone is innocent until proven guilty aren't you? Yet you seem to have no problem dragging out allegations when it suits your argument. I chose not to in that statement because I am not sure allegations belong in this comparison. Why is that a problem?

Along with you and the others, I have expressed my opinion about the believability of accusations, that the number of accusers counts, that similarity in their content counts, that elapsed time counts, etc. If I were sitting on a jury, things would be different. The believability bar would be set much higher.

Regarding Cuomo I am not required to choose which party to believe, the accuser or the accused, in order to come to the conclusion that what he did was inappropriate for a person in his position. His own rendition of events is enough for me to condemn his behavior.

As far as "admitted to" behavior goes, Clinton didn't admit to anything until he was confronted with irrefutable evidence. When that happens, it damages the credibility of previous denials in other cases, that if they were willing to lie about something under oath, they would likely be willing to lie about similar activities in other situations. Prosecutors are well aware of that logic, which is why they often times examine other seemingly unrelated incidents, to see if they can catch a witness in a lie and damage their credibility.

Aseahawkfan wrote:And you are both ok with doing this in the workplace with co-workers? Maybe I was raised differently, but geez, this is wrong on so many levels. It's something I could not imagine doing. I'm very careful with women. I was always taught speaking to women in such a fashion in the workplace is ethically wrong and illegal. If a female complains about your behavior, you can be fired immediately, do not pass go. Weird that this is considered acceptable behavior in the workplace to you guys. I think you might be a generation behind me.

As far as being single and aren't we supposed to kiss girls or pursue them, not in the workplace. Though I imagine if you worked in a strip club then that's a different environment. In the corporate environment that is just not allowed or tolerated. It's asking to get fired. That's why I'm surprised at all these allegations given I was raised with very strict parameters about treating women and people in the workplace, especially so if you are a manager.

I've stated repeatedly that the major reason for my condemning Cuomo's behavior is that he holds a position of authority over most of those women. If it wasn't for that aspect, if it were a simple co-worker to co-worker relationship, although still not acceptable, wouldn't be quite as bad. A lot of relationships start out as an office romance.

My former employer operates facilities that employ 500+ in communities that have populations under 10,000. It's an extremely difficult topic for them to navigate as it seems that just about everybody, especially those that are single and need the income, work for the same employer.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Elected officials apparently can't get fired for behavior that would get a regular working person fired with possible sexual harassment charges against them and the company if they did not fire you. It's a huge legal liability nowadays and every company has a hotline for reporting this type of behavior anonymously that I've worked for. I imagine more and more men are being made aware this is not tolerable behavior any longer. As that older generation raised to think this behavior is ok dies off, it will change dramatically. It's definitely already at the point where Cuomo/Trump/Clinton/Weinstein-type behavior is like a signing a career death sentence. Even elected officials will have to be far more cognizant of their behavior in the workplace with women.

That I agree with. I've seen a number of my co workers, mostly supervisors or managers, that lost their jobs over essentially the same type of behavior Cuomo has admitted to. The problem is that Cuomo and other elected officials don't have a single individual they answer to. They answer to the voters.

You're absolutely right about a company's liability, especially in the private sector as they are more susceptible to being sued for permitting a toxic work environment. That's somewhat different from government organizations, although I suspect they're pretty sensitive to it, too.

It looks like Cuomo's problem is getting worse:

Albany Police Department officials said on Thursday that they had been notified by the New York State Police and the governor’s office about an alleged incident at the Executive Mansion involving Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and a female aide that may have risen “to the level of a crime.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cuomo ... d=msedgntp

This changes things. It's no longer about dirty talk and unwanted flirting, the accusation is sexual assault.

It's hard to see how Cuomo survives this scandal. Nearly every pol in his party is calling for his resignation.

I imagine the police are happy to go after Cuomo and probably any Democrat after the Democrats sold them out so terribly. Democratic politicians as a group basically said, "Hey, we're the government. We're going to make a bunch of laws that lead to you guys ending up in violent interactions with people, expect you to enforce them, then sell you out when something bad happens as a bunch of racists and criminals. Have fun being a cop!"

Aseahawkfan wrote:I imagine the police are happy to go after Cuomo and probably any Democrat after the Democrats sold them out so terribly. Democratic politicians as a group basically said, "Hey, we're the government. We're going to make a bunch of laws that lead to you guys ending up in violent interactions with people, expect you to enforce them, then sell you out when something bad happens as a bunch of racists and criminals. Have fun being a cop!"

The police are not opening an investigation, at least not yet. The accuser hasn't filed a complaint. The state government merely advised the police that an allegation involving physical contact exists and gave them the contact info for the accuser's lawyer:

As a matter of state policy, when allegations of physical contact are made, the agency informs the complainant that they should contact their local police department,” Ms. Garvey said in a statement. “If they decline, the agency has an obligation to reach out themselves and inform the department of the allegation.”

Aseahawkfan wrote:I imagine the police are happy to go after Cuomo and probably any Democrat after the Democrats sold them out so terribly. Democratic politicians as a group basically said, "Hey, we're the government. We're going to make a bunch of laws that lead to you guys ending up in violent interactions with people, expect you to enforce them, then sell you out when something bad happens as a bunch of racists and criminals. Have fun being a cop!"

Come on man. What an over reaction. In other news the cop who was the lead officer who crushed George Floyds neck while training officers in their first week on the department as they sat and watched and nobody said anything is on trial. Thats the one where the police blue lives jumped the shark. It's why we are4 here. That was bad. And more evidence arises all the time of white supremacists joining law enforcement and the military, participating in insurrections etc. Cops aren't 99.9% good people . A majority are but not as many as i used to think.

It has nothing to do with Cuomo's situation. I said it a week ago, its the tip of the iceberg. Any guy in a position like his that is as aggressive and invasive with young women in public as he was even after me too is surely much worse when the door is closed. He should resign. His career is derailed as it should be.

RiverDog wrote:The police are not opening an investigation, at least not yet. The accuser hasn't filed a complaint. The state government merely advised the police that an allegation involving physical contact exists and gave them the contact info for the accuser's lawyer:

As a matter of state policy, when allegations of physical contact are made, the agency informs the complainant that they should contact their local police department,” Ms. Garvey said in a statement. “If they decline, the agency has an obligation to reach out themselves and inform the department of the allegation.”

I think the police feel good when can stick it to a politician.

Hawktawk wrote:I said it a week ago, its the tip of the iceberg. Any guy in a position like his that is as aggressive and invasive with young women in public as he was even after me too is surely much worse when the door is closed. He should resign. His career is derailed as it should be.

I am beginning to come to that conclusion as well. That doesn't mean that I believe any individual accuser, but the weight of them combined is an indication of overall guilt. I can't see him being completely innocent of all those allegations, and now that they involve sexual assault, it elevates the scandal to a whole new level. I still want to see what the investigation reveals before I kick him into the gutter, but I can't see him recovering politically and he'll be lucky if he doesn't find himself in court.

Hawktawk wrote:Cops aren't 99.9% good people . A majority are but not as many as i used to think.

There are over 900,000 full time law enforcement officers in this country. Even if 99.9% of all cops are 'good people', that still leaves 900 bad cops. That illustrates just how demanding we are of that profession.

https://usafacts.org/articles/police-de ... explained/

RiverDog wrote:There are over 900,000 full time law enforcement officers in this country. Even if 99.9% of all cops are 'good people', that still leaves 900 bad cops. That illustrates just how demanding we are of that profession.

https://usafacts.org/articles/police-de ... explained/

Cops may not be all good people, but neither are politicians. Politicians make the laws, expect the police to enforce them, then throw them under the bus when it goes wrong, at least the Democrats. They have created especially problematic drug laws as well as traffic laws that allow the police to stop a person on a whim for almost anything. So they create this situation where the police are empowered to enforce thousands of little laws, then when this goes wrong the cops are the bad guys.

Why no one asked why a group of cops needed to arrest Eric Garner for selling loose cigarettes on the street? Who made that law?

You have 900,000 cops enforcing thousands of laws created for arbitrary reasons that allow them to stop any citizens on a whim with some loose reason as to why. I still recall getting stopped for crossing lanes too fast at night on a completely empty street. Why is that even a thing? No one was even there to be endangered, yet here was a police office stopping me for crossing to a turn lane without establishing myself in the next lane over when no one was around.

If the politicians really wanted to reduce crime and problems between police and citizens, they would reduce the number of laws police get to enforce. Who can know all these laws? Certainly not your average citizen. Yet politicians often get a pass with no one asking, "Why the hell is this law in place to start with? Why are you creating so many laws empowering the police to go after citizens?"

Who suffers more from these tickets? Some wealthy European ancestry citizen making enough money to pay off parking tickets like it's nothing? Or some poor minority these politicians are claiming to want to protect that over-priced parking in cities creates a financial burden for when driving to work? Politicians spend a lot of time creating additional hidden costs for working people with all these laws and fines, yet shift the blame off on the police as they hide behind them.

RiverDog wrote:There are over 900,000 full time law enforcement officers in this country. Even if 99.9% of all cops are 'good people', that still leaves 900 bad cops. That illustrates just how demanding we are of that profession.

https://usafacts.org/articles/police-de ... explained/

Aseahawkfan wrote:Cops may not be all good people, but neither are politicians. Politicians make the laws, expect the police to enforce them, then throw them under the bus when it goes wrong, at least the Democrats. They have created especially problematic drug laws as well as traffic laws that allow the police to stop a person on a whim for almost anything. So they create this situation where the police are empowered to enforce thousands of little laws, then when this goes wrong the cops are the bad guys.

Why no one asked why a group of cops needed to arrest Eric Garner for selling loose cigarettes on the street? Who made that law?

You have 900,000 cops enforcing thousands of laws created for arbitrary reasons that allow them to stop any citizens on a whim with some loose reason as to why. I still recall getting stopped for crossing lanes too fast at night on a completely empty street. Why is that even a thing? No one was even there to be endangered, yet here was a police office stopping me for crossing to a run lane without establishing myself in the next lane over when no one was around.

If the politicians really wanted to reduce crime and problems between police and citizens, they would reduce the number of laws police get to enforce. Who can know all these laws? Certainly not your average citizen. Yet politicians often get a pass with no one asking, "Why the hell is this law in place to start with? Why are you creating so many laws empowering the police to go after citizens?"

Who suffers more from these tickets? Some wealthy European ancestry citizen making enough money to pay off parking tickets like it's nothing? Or some poor minority these politicians are claiming to want to protect that over-priced parking in cities creates a financial burden for when driving to work? Politicians spend a lot of time creating additional hidden costs for working people with all these laws and fines, yet shift the blame off on the police as they hide behind them.

You bring up some good points.

I will say something about traffic tickets, though. If a person of few means takes their ticket to court and argues a financial hardship, there's a good chance that the judge will suspend or significantly reduce the fine.

But I hear what you're saying. My step son could never get his life straight, and a lot of it had to do with his driving record. He had his license suspended on his 18th birthday when he was driving while his two 'friends' were using a .22 to shoot empty, parked vehicles. They convicted him using a law designed for drive by shootings and he served some time. Even when his license was re-instated, he couldn't get insurance, so he'd get pulled over for not having tabs on his care and they'd suspended his license again and impound his car. With no means of transportation, he had a hard time finding work, so even if he found an old beater of a car, he couldn't afford the insurance. It was a vicious circle. I'm not making excuses for him, but I never realized how tough society makes it for a slightly dysfunctional person that isn't a bad guy, just a perpetual f-up until I saw it close up.

RiverDog wrote:You bring up some good points.

I will say something about traffic tickets, though. If a person of few means takes their ticket to court and argues a financial hardship, there's a good chance that the judge will suspend or significantly reduce the fine.

But I hear what you're saying. My step son could never get his life straight, and a lot of it had to do with his driving record. He had his license suspended on his 18th birthday when he was driving while his two 'friends' were using a .22 to shoot empty, parked vehicles. They convicted him using a law designed for drive by shootings and he served some time. Even when his license was re-instated, he couldn't get insurance, so he'd get pulled over for not having tabs on his care and they'd suspended his license again and impound his car. With no means of transportation, he had a hard time finding work, so even if he found an old beater of a car, he couldn't afford the insurance. It was a vicious circle. I'm not making excuses for him, but I never realized how tough society makes it for a slightly dysfunctional person that isn't a bad guy, just a perpetual f-up until I saw it close up.

Some of this is what I'm talking about. It puts a person in a vicious cycle. Even the welfare system is similar where they tell you if you have a job, you get nothing in welfare. Yet the job may not cover all that welfare is covering. But they don't have a sensible system in place meant to help them get back to work rather than punish them for not finding a job that covers everything when they may not have the skills to get such a job. A lot of these systems aren't created in a sensible fashion. Then the various government workers are sent out there to manage these systems, while the politicians hide behind them letting them take the heat for the problem like they can make adjustments on the fly without breaking the law. It's stupid.

I don't know how you get these politicians to act in a fashion that is good for humanity in more than words. It never seems to work.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Some of this is what I'm talking about. It puts a person in a vicious cycle. Even the welfare system is similar where they tell you if you have a job, you get nothing in welfare. Yet the job may not cover all that welfare is covering. But they don't have a sensible system in place meant to help them get back to work rather than punish them for not finding a job that covers everything when they may not have the skills to get such a job. A lot of these systems aren't created in a sensible fashion. Then the various government workers are sent out there to manage these systems, while the politicians hide behind them letting them take the heat for the problem like they can make adjustments on the fly without breaking the law. It's stupid.

I don't know how you get these politicians to act in a fashion that is good for humanity in more than words. It never seems to work.

I agree about the problem, but I don't know what the solution is. The best we can hope for is to give these folks that find themselves in that vicious cycle a change to break out of it. In the case of my step son, he certainly had tons of chances as we threw countless thousands of dollars down a chit hole trying to help him out. We bought him a car once and he spent a couple grand putting in a stereo system, new wheels, etc, but wouldn't get insurance or license tabs for it. That's not the politicians fault.

RiverDog wrote:I agree about the problem, but I don't know what the solution is. The best we can hope for is to give these folks that find themselves in that vicious cycle a change to break out of it. In the case of my step son, he certainly had tons of chances as we threw countless thousands of dollars down a chit hole trying to help him out. We bought him a car once and he spend a couple grand putting in a stereo system, new wheels, etc, but wouldn't get insurance or license tabs for it. That's not the politicians fault.

Ok. I'm sorry, but he sounds like he has excrement for brains. You can't do much when someone is just careless and stupid.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Ok. I'm sorry, but he sounds like he has excrement for brains. You can't do much when someone is just careless and stupid.

No need to apologize as I agree. The problem is that he was by no means the lone exception. That's why I'm saying that I don't have a solution to some of the problems you cited. There are a lot of people that are just plain irresponsible, and they're the ones that get caught up in that viscous circle.

I’ve got a son who has had a similar driving record , crashed cars , no insurance . He’s perpetually upside down . All you can hope is they get enough footprints on their third member they stop stepping on it I have employed many people on golf course crews driving without a license etc . The job pays terrible so they choose between a car and gas or beg rides walk and pay off your fines. It’s a vicious cycle

Hawktawk wrote:I’ve got a son who has had a similar driving record , crashed cars , no insurance . He’s perpetually upside down . All you can hope is they get enough footprints on their third member they stop stepping on it I have employed many people on golf course crews driving without a license etc . The job pays terrible so they choose between a car and gas or beg rides walk and pay off your fines. It’s a vicious cycle

Even if they can't pay off the entire fine, they should at least pay what they can even if it's only $20. Most judges are sympathetic and will work with them to get them straight with that aspect of the law if they'll just show up at their court date and take some responsibility for their actions. That was one of the mistakes my step son made. He would never pay anything even when he was working and making decent money, miss his court date, they'd issue a warrant for him, he'd get pulled over for no license tabs because the idiot didn't buy a $35 tab for his car, get thrown in jail for driving on a suspended license, and lose his job, and the vicious cycle would repeat itself.

The sad thing was that he wasn't a hardened criminal. Outside of a couple petty burglaries, the worst of his offenses were traffic related. He wasn't a bad guy, just a phuck up.

Petty burglary is a problem, especially more than once. I am a lot more sympathetic to traffic offenses as I operated numerous muscle car throttles like an on off button with the traffic tickets to prove it but I didn't steal from others:D Not wanting to judge but people who steal other than to feed themselves are not good people at least at that stage of life. Not gonna belabor the point as you know him and I don't other than what you've described.

I had a brother in law who entered the family with petty theft, minor drug raps and a horrible driving record. I refused to get in a car with him. My mom kept telling me he was a good kid, just having a tough time in life.I told her he was no good. After he started beating my sister she finally left him. A year or so later he and an 18 year old girlfriend attempted to kill her mother. he wound up doing 30 years for attempted murder. I am usually a pretty good judge of character.am .

He publicly put in his two week notice yesterday. Proving that there is still at least one party capable of registering shame.