Which scenario regarding Hermann Cain is most likely? (see post)

VanceMack said:

MSNBC contributors losing their mind because even though Cain is black white voters are STILL supporting him...

just...wow.

Click to expand...

Not really. Cain retains support because everyone else sucks. Romney is slimy, Perry's an idiot. Gringrich has baggage only a freight train could carry. Huntsman is WAAAAAYYY to reasonable to even have a chance, Bachmann is bloody crazy. Santorum can't get off the gay bashing horse. It's not really a big guess why Cain isn't suffering as much as he should from this. The alternative choices are bad. Darkwizard for once has stated he'd rather vote for Obama then Romney. With that kind of hate, it makes sense why Cain is staying where he is.

obvious Child said:

Not really. Cain retains support because everyone else sucks. Romney is slimy, Perry's an idiot. Gringrich has baggage only a freight train could carry. Huntsman is WAAAAAYYY to reasonable to even have a chance, Bachmann is bloody crazy. Santorum can't get off the gay bashing horse. It's not really a big guess why Cain isn't suffering as much as he should from this. The alternative choices are bad. Darkwizard for once has stated he'd rather vote for Obama then Romney. With that kind of hate, it makes sense why Cain is sThtaying where he is.

Click to expand...

I think the whole field is lost (the best candidate is Huntsman)...Ive said before the GOP race began Obama would win reelection (and the field only reinforces that). Still...The media and GOP haters in the media are just DESPERATE for the GOP to turn on Cain and when/if THAT happens they will just absolutely flip with joy and charges of racism.

obvious Child said:

Be that as it may, the fact that several of his accusers actually got decent money in a settlement suggests that 3 isn't as realistic as you want it to be.

Click to expand...

Being paid off doesn't necessarily mean anything except that it was easier to settle. I'd like to know the particulars.

nota bene said:

Being paid off doesn't necessarily mean anything except that it was easier to settle. I'd like to know the particulars.

Click to expand...

Not really. If the case was truly frivolous just threatening to go to court and have the judge throw it out would be cheaper. It would be pretty cheap as the necessary work to actually file for a case you know will be tossed is far less than actually preparing for a real case. The fact they settled for real money suggests that something that wouldn't get thrown out of court happened.

"A large corporation or government agency that is the target of a lawsuit may
find it cheaper to settle out of court at the beginning instead of paying the
defense cost even the cost of proving the case is frivolous."

Covering Crime and Justice

If you Google "frivolous lawsuits-cheaper to settle" you'll find articles ranging from medical malpractice to product liability that argue that settling is often cheaper.

nota bene said:

"A large corporation or government agency that is the target of a lawsuit may
find it cheaper to settle out of court at the beginning instead of paying the
defense cost even the cost of proving the case is frivolous."

Covering Crime and Justice

If you Google "frivolous lawsuits-cheaper to settle" you'll find articles ranging from medical malpractice to product liability that argue that settling is often cheaper.

Click to expand...

When it comes to politicians another thing to think about is self image. A court preceeding is a very public thing and more often than not just the claim of wrong doing is enough to ruin a political career no matter if the judgement turns out to be that the politician is innocent.

nota bene said:

"A large corporation or government agency that is the target of a lawsuit may
find it cheaper to settle out of court at the beginning instead of paying the
defense cost even the cost of proving the case is frivolous."

Covering Crime and Justice

If you Google "frivolous lawsuits-cheaper to settle" lawsuits-cheaper to settle" you'll find articles ranging from medical malpractice to product liability that argue that settling is often cheaper.

Click to expand...

True, but the fact that it happened several times suggests otherwise. A corporation would be stupid to allow that to keep happening. You settle once for a frivolous lawsuit you know it frivolous and you open yourself up. At some point, it is better to fight them in court and stop the avalanche.

Besides, many of those links aren't truly "frivolous" as people are trying to cast the Cain scandals. Many of them have some decent legal standing. The amounts asked may be insane, but the basis for the suit isn't always so. If these women were really totally making it up, they wouldn't have settled. Not to mention that if you lose one of these cases, the loser has to pay attorney's fees.

obvious Child said:

....

Click to expand...

BTW OC, about your sig and sorry to detour slight from the OP but the thing your missing in your OP is that Conservative obviously states that he is talking about "modern history". Lincoln is not modern history.

Kal'Stang said:

BTW OC, about your sig and sorry to detour slight from the OP but the thing your missing in your OP is that Conservative obviously states that he is talking about "modern history". Lincoln is not modern history.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, when challenged on that very point, he refused to clarify it or even state he was talking about "modern." I brought up the fact that there were worse presidents well before Obama and he simply keeps rambling on with the same argument.

obvious Child said:

Not really. If the case was truly frivolous just threatening to go to court and have the judge throw it out would be cheaper. It would be pretty cheap as the necessary work to actually file for a case you know will be tossed is far less than actually preparing for a real case.

Click to expand...

You realize this is the same country that awarded a dumb ass for spilling coffee all over herself? And there a plenty of retards out there who actually think that it is mostly the fault company who brewed the coffee at optimum temperature and served at optimum temperate(according to actual coffee aficionados/experts) and despite the billions of other people who have had this same coffee and not burned themselves with it. That is hard evidence that a judge is not going to throw out a frivolous lawsuit.

The fact they settled for real money suggests that something that wouldn't get thrown out of court happened.

Click to expand...

The fact they settled out of court just means they found it cheaper to settle out of court than to go with a lengthy expensive trial. And against this a country that allows frivolous lawsuits to go forward.