• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supporting Cain, GOP base evokes Thomas hearings

Don't look at Cain, look at Clinton! It never stops...More cheeze!

Liberals have gone out of their way to defend Clinton and his infidelity with woman. Herman Cain doesn't even remotely come close to what slick Willie has done in the department of sexual infidelity.
 
Don't look at Cain, look at Clinton! It never stops...More cheeze!

What's the matter? are we only to focus on republicans? Demo's get a pass? Sounds like you are the one in need of cheese.

j-mac
 
"high-tech lynching" was from the news story. You should ask the author which conservatives made those statements instead of indicating that all republicans chose the phrase.

Ahh.

So like just because one person sees something in a racial context and writes about it, doesn't mean everyone remotely related to that person also sees it that way?

Fascinating concept.
 
Your accusation has about zero chance of having meaningful repercussions.
An accusation of sexual harassment has the potential for actual real-world repercussions. For example, the NRA settled with the ladies. That money came from somewhere.

One is an opinion, (the calling someone an idiot), and the other is a matter of facts. They would not have settled with you for accusing Cain of being an idiot.

There are more differences than these two. Since there are these major differences, I don't find your analogy to be compelling at all.

It was earlier this year when he acted dodgy about it. And, to be fair, he is asking us, the electorate to make a judgment about his fitness for the presidency.

If the US public is going to dismiss a candidate because of sexual innuendos and gossip then they deserve what they get. I have confidence enough in the electorate though that if Herman Cain is not a viable candidate then it will be for reasons other than as a result of political smearing.
 
Don't look at Cain, look at Clinton! It never stops...More cheeze!

Clinton and Ted Kennedy had the worst reputations of any DC politicians, including charges of rape. Clinton was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury of course and Ted Kennedy had Chappaquiddick.

The left has defended these serial gropers for decades but will rise up in righteous indignation against Herman Cain because of a innuendo from 12 years ago.

Is it any wonder that the Left is so frequently the subject of ridicule and not often thought of as serious adults?
 
If the US public is going to dismiss a candidate because of sexual innuendos and gossip then they deserve what they get. I have confidence enough in the electorate though that if Herman Cain is not a viable candidate then it will be for reasons other than as a result of political smearing.

You are aware that generally a "smear" campaign means it's untrue right?
 
Dude, I'm from Arkansas. I knew about Clinton long before the rest of America.

I hear ya...However we are being told that during those years that Clinton's personal life was off limits as to how he would govern the country, however now it seems to have bearing..I am just wondering why, considering that what ever charge seems frivolous on its face.

Seems like a set up.

j-mac
 
If the US public is going to dismiss a candidate because of sexual innuendos and gossip then they deserve what they get. I have confidence enough in the electorate though that if Herman Cain is not a viable candidate then it will be for reasons other than as a result of political smearing.
I can't speak for the rest of America. I don't give a crap about the allegations. My objection is to how he has handled them.
Anyone can be sued for most anything. And just because someone decides to settle doesn't mean they even think there's a basis for the case against them. But, what someone is in control of is how they handle things afterward. Cain being unable to recall that the events even occurred are what strikes me as dodgy.

I used to teach a prominent MD in LR who had a sexual harassment suit brought against him. It wasn't because he was trying to bed his office staff or anything like that, but merely because he liked to tell off-color jokes. [Yes, I read the publicly available info and that is all that was alleged.] He didn't hem and haw around or "forget" it happened. He said, "They can't take a joke." The reason why is because he wasn't trying to hide anything.

So, a vague allegation of sexual harassment isn't that big of a deal to me. But acting as if he suddenly remembered is.
 
There was a payout and a non-disclosure agreement. It was handled internally. There was no exoneration, it never saw a courtroom.


20 years ago, my goodness....And we wonder why it is that we can't get anyone worth anything to run....good job!


j-mac
 
I hear ya...However we are being told that during those years that Clinton's personal life was off limits as to how he would govern the country, however now it seems to have bearing..I am just wondering why, considering that what ever charge seems frivolous on its face.
Seems like a set up.
j-mac
Even if it is or was, if Cain had just told his side of things instead of failing to recall the events in question, he wouldn't look like yet another scummy politico. He should have just said, "Yes, these allegations were made and the matter was settled quite some time ago. I can't say anymore w/o coming across as vindictive toward someone who caused trouble for me or w/o violating the NDA around the matter." But he didn't.
 
Why do Republicans always play the race card?

"High-tech lynching." What, because he's black that means they MUST be attacking him because he's black?

Indeed, because never in history has any white politician been attacked! :mrgreen:

Bah, this is... or should be... a non-partisian dust-up. The GOP should be every bit as interested in the character of a candidate with absolutely no political history on which to draw, who just popped up out of nowhere. If crap like this comes up next year, and he is the GOP candidate, well... I'd think they'd appreciate this early heads-up.

Me, I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher. He's unqualified. If the GOP wants my vote, they're going have to put up a heavyweight who's ready for the job.
 
20 years ago, my goodness....And we wonder why it is that we can't get anyone worth anything to run....good job!


j-mac

I actually would give him the benefit of the doubt until the whole story is played out....but......Cain said he didn't remember, then he said that he did remember but didn't remember the details, then he remembers there ways a payout.

Honestly, if it turns into some ridiculous case, no big deal. He is running for President of the United States of America. Honesty is important to me and a lot of voters. If Cain would of said "yes, there was a case...blah blah blah" whatever I would probably give him some slack. The issue is old like you mention. The fact his first reaction is to lie about though is troubling.
 
Even if it is or was, if Cain had just told his side of things instead of failing to recall the events in question, he wouldn't look like yet another scummy politico. He should have just said, "Yes, these allegations were made and the matter was settled quite some time ago. I can't say anymore w/o coming across as vindictive toward someone who caused trouble for me or w/o violating the NDA around the matter." But he didn't.


Meh, he isn't a politician, so I think that is insignificant....But we will see.

j-mac
 
I actually would give him the benefit of the doubt until the whole story is played out....but......Cain said he didn't remember, then he said that he did remember but didn't remember the details, then he remembers there ways a payout.

Honestly, if it turns into some ridiculous case, no big deal. He is running for President of the United States of America. Honesty is important to me and a lot of voters. If Cain would of said "yes, there was a case...blah blah blah" whatever I would probably give him some slack. The issue is old like you mention. The fact his first reaction is to lie about though is troubling.

Why? is there some reason to believe that you would vote for a Cain? Or any republican for that matter?

j-mac
 
Why? is there some reason to believe that you would vote for a Cain? Or any republican for that matter?

j-mac

Because he's running for President of the United States! Because he's leading the Republican Primary! This guy could possibly be my President.
 
He was exonerated meaning that the charges against him were later found to be without merit.

No he wasn't. A settlement was reached, dollars were paid, silence was purchased. Not the same thing at all.
 
Because he's running for President of the United States! Because he's leading the Republican Primary! This guy could possibly be my President.

then we should look at what he can do with this mess, rather than some frivolous crap 20 years ago.

j-mac
 
Yeah, now. What is evident is that his staff are not top tier at all.

j-mac

He needs a top-tier staff to tell him not to lie on television?
 
Back
Top Bottom