• 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

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

j-mac
Click to expand...

Sure, I can agree with that. Lying though is a character flaw. How am I going to trust someone not to lie on important things if they apparently won't tell the truth on harrassment cases that supposedly was fradualent?
Before you say anything I was like in middle school when the Clinton stuff came out
 
DiAnna said:
He needs a top-tier staff to tell him not to lie on television?
Click to expand...

If there's one thing I've seen about Presidential politics, what he needs is a top-tier staff to tell him HOW to lie on television.
 
iliveonramen said:
Sure, I can agree with that. Lying though is a character flaw. How am I going to trust someone not to lie on important things if they apparently won't tell the truth on harrassment cases that supposedly was fradualent?
Before you say anything I was like in middle school when the Clinton stuff came out
Click to expand...

Unfortunatly lying is part and parcel of the definition of being a politician.

Not saying it makes it right.
 
j-mac said:
What's the matter? are we only to focus on republicans?
Click to expand...

Are there other republican presidental candidates with sexual harrassment suits too? I believe it is just Herman Cain with the dirty laundry.

As Simon W Moon has said here that it is Cain's shuffling to cover it up that makes it worst for him.

First he said he didn't remember any such incident.... And to that I say baloney. I remember my first speeding ticket at age 17. I think I definitely would remember a sexual harrassment charge.
Even if it is 20yrs ago it still counts. Jane Fonda's big gaff in going to North Vietnam was almost 40 yrs ago and I don't see anyone forgetting about that.
 
j-mac said:
Even though it is irrelevant...The birth of a talking point.

j-mac
Click to expand...

It's relevant in the sense that it b*tchslapped your claim of liberal media bias. :lol:
 
AdamT said:
It's relevant in the sense that it b*tchslapped your claim of liberal media bias. :lol:
Click to expand...


Good thing we are focused on the real issues then....


j-mac
 
Grant said:
........... This is a time when the country needs adults, not juvenile gossip mongers.
Click to expand...
, i
Which is why its time to move past Cain (and Bachman and Perry and Santorium...and now even "I stand for nothing or everyting" Romney) and nominate an adult. The problem for the regressives, however, is the adults in the party are either not running or poll as less than 5%.
 
Last edited:
Jaaaman said:
He was exonerated meaning that the charges against him were later found to be without merit.
Click to expand...

Absolute delusional goobly-gook. If there was a settlement, that was the end of the matter. There was no forum or means by which the party could be found guilty or exonerated as the parties agreed not to pursue the matter.

There is NO exoneration (nor admission of guilt) in a settlement. Though a settlement should technically mean nothing, conventional wisdom generally ascribes admission by the parties involved or there would be no settlement.

BTW... in the future if you wish to present a statement in a factual manner (such as you did) that is contrary to conventional wisdom or knowledge, please provide a cite. Obviously you can not do that in this case as no such cite exists.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Oh please, I thought that Clinton taught us that claims of indiscretion are meaningless due to the fact that 1. a Presidential level person should not have their personal life taken against them. 2. The women making the charge always have to be outed and labeled. So as long as Cain doesn't lie to a Federal Judge he should be in the clear, right?

j-mac
Click to expand...

J, you're being selective and arguing with some one other than the person before. Clinton was a womanizer. Few doubt that. Are you saying now that you did not and would not hold Clinton's womanizing against him?

And there are fewer words on Clinton and Edwards from us here as few disagree on the womanizing claim. Some might note Monica was willing and thus not one claiming anything, but that's another story. Few back Edwards either. Nor should they.

So, what's you defense of Cain if charges are true?
 
Again, this is all silliness as the point is not whether Cain was involved in sexual harassment but how he handles crisis.

Look, every politician has skeletons in their respective closets. Even if those skeletons aren't very ugly, the press will make a big deal out of them (with Obama they had to turn Bill Ayers into an active terrorist AND make it look like Obama was his best friend). The press will find them and have fun with them to see how you respond. This is a part of the vetting process. The test in this is not usually about the matter itself, but in how you respond to the arrows being shot in your direction. The important question is can you handle the press?

Unfortunately for Cain this whole matter has been handled very poorly. As seems to be his MO, he can't give you a straight, crisp and consistent answer to anything (abortion, 999, razor's on the fence, now this). He is failing this part of his test miserably and showing himself to be far from ready for prime time.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Absolute delusional goobly-gook. If there was a settlement, that was the end of the matter. There was no forum or means by which the party could be found guilty or exonerated as the parties agreed not to pursue the matter.

There is NO exoneration (nor admission of guilt) in a settlement. Though a settlement should technically mean nothing, conventional wisdom generally ascribes admission by the parties involved or there would be no settlement.

BTW... in the future if you wish to present a statement in a factual manner (such as you did) that is contrary to conventional wisdom or knowledge, please provide a cite. Obviously you can not do that in this case as no such cite exists.
Click to expand...

Don't have a link yet, but I heard on the radio this morning that one of them women has taken acception to this claim of him being exonerated and is seeking permission to break the confidentuality clause in her settlement.
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't have a link yet, but I heard on the radio this morning that one of them women has taken acception to this claim of him being exonerated and is seeking permission to break the confidentuality clause in her settlement.
Click to expand...
Where does the "exonerated" bit come from?
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't have a link yet, but I heard on the radio this morning that one of them women has taken acception to this claim of him being exonerated and is seeking permission to break the confidentuality clause in her settlement.
Click to expand...

Of course ! This is about a couple of bimbo's, now that Herman is higher up the ladder, trying to cash-in ala Anita Hill.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Of course ! This is about a couple of bimbo's, now that Herman is higher up the ladder, trying to cash-in ala Anita Hill.
Click to expand...

So, they are automatically bimbo's, and Cain is automaticaly innocent. And we know this how?
 
Boo Radley said:
So, they are automatically bimbo's, and Cain is automaticaly innocent. And we know this how?
Click to expand...

Too late for your concern. Herman has been lynched. It was near "automatic". :)
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Too late for your concern. Herman has been lynched. It was near "automatic". :)
Click to expand...
They just gave Cain enough rope. He did the rest. If he had handled this differently, it would be over by now.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Too late for your concern. Herman has been lynched. It was near "automatic". :)
Click to expand...

And once again the conservatives play the race card.

I guarantee you that this would have come out no matter who the candidate was, or what his or her race was. Same thing with Thomas.

Incidentally, in case you missed it, a former long-time girlfriend of Thomas' recently confirmed many of Anita Hill's allegations. Thomas should never have been confirmed.

Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't have a link yet, but I heard on the radio this morning that one of them women has taken acception to this claim of him being exonerated and is seeking permission to break the confidentuality clause in her settlement.
Click to expand...

She's bluffing.
 
apdst said:
She's bluffing.
Click to expand...

Why would she bluff? She won a $35,000 settlement. The NRA would not have paid that settlement if she had no case at all.
 
I agree absolutely. Republicans should use this as a rallying cry to get behind Cain. Reject Romney....he is way too much of a moderate RINO for today's GOP. Cain is the only legitimate challenger in Romney's path and as true Republicans, you guys should do everything that you can to prevent Romney from getting the nomination. Cain much better represents the GOP values of today and hopefully these allegations will serve only to rally the Republican party behind Cain!
 
AdamT said:
Why would she bluff? She won a $35,000 settlement. The NRA would not have paid that settlement if she had no case at all.
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily true and we all know it.
 
disneydude said:
I agree absolutely. Republicans should use this as a rallying cry to get behind Cain. Reject Romney....he is way too much of a moderate RINO for today's GOP. Cain is the only legitimate challenger in Romney's path and as true Republicans, you guys should do everything that you can to prevent Romney from getting the nomination. Cain much better represents the GOP values of today and hopefully these allegations will serve only to rally the Republican party behind Cain!
Click to expand...

You're going to feel awful silly when Herman Cain spanks Obama's ass in the general election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom