Export thread

Herman Cain has likely gone from short time GOP nominee front runner to not being able to be nominated Dog Catcher.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-herman-cain-crack-up/2011/11/02/gIQAfyuAgM_story.html

Herman Cain said:

“What part of ‘no’ don't some people understand?”

Click to expand...

Because he got pissed at the press, and now they're going to try and bury him harder than before?

Only people worse than the politicians are the reporters that cover them.

As someone who has seen people accused of sexual harassment for things that I considered to be normal banter by women who seemed to be looking to be upset about something I tend to withhold my derision for people accused of this until all facts are out in the open - if they ever are. Not saying he didn't do it or condoning his actions if he did - and having multiple women come forth is not a good sign for denial - but I'm not going to deride the guy without proof.

As for the tirade against the reporters...good for him. Once those vultures get their claws into a story nothing else he does matters.

I don't like him as a candidate and wouldn't vote for him based on his policies, but digging up dirt from 20 years ago is just stupid. 20 years ago I was a totally different person than I am now.

When he could not meet the scrutiny of Fox News, and kept changing his story... I knew he was done for.
Added at: 17:17

Dave said:

I don't like him as a candidate and wouldn't vote for him based on his policies, but digging up dirt from 20 years ago is just stupid. 20 years ago I was a totally different person than I am now.

Click to expand...

But he was your age then.

From that Politico report (which is the one that broke the news,) it sounds like it was someone from the National Restaurant association tipped them off to the harassment scandal.

Dave said:

As for the tirade against the reporters...good for him. Once those vultures get their claws into a story nothing else he does matters.

Click to expand...

If he can't handle this, how is he going to handle the daily crap he would have to put up with as president? Would a person burning him in effigy make him lose his temper? Would he declare war on a country if he saw some of their citizens screaming bad things about him on the news? Would he have the Secret Service push around reporters who ask hard questions? I get the whole hatred of the media, but sometimes they have every right to ask questions that the candidate doesn't want to hear. His reaction to all this has shown some serious flaws in his approach to leadership.

There are so many smart ways to handle such things. He's inviting them to attack him over two incidents in his life.

"There was no criminal investigation. There was no criminal wrongdoing. I was the target of two civil harassment lawsuits during my time at an association with deep pockets. It was more prudent for the business to settle the lawsuits than it was to fight them. They are sealed to protect everyone involved, both those named in the lawsuit, and other employees and people affected by the lawsuit. If I had a problem harassing others in any way, you would see more than just a few lawsuits, and doubtless you would be able to find unsealed lawsuits. I'm sure many of you have been digging for such records and are unable to find them - they do not exist because I do not sexually, or in any other way, harass women. I won't tell you what questions to ask and not ask, but my answer to all further questions regarding these two particular lawsuits is and will be: I will not comment on sealed orders in order to protect ALL those who were involved."

sixpackshaker said:

But he was your age then.

Click to expand...

So? 20 years is a long time. In 20 years I will be a different person than I am now.

And some of the things my workmates and I talk about might very well get me dinged for harassment. Not sexual because I don't usually do that, but inappropriate speech and or statements.

Again, not saying he didn't do it, just that I'm not in a rush for judgement or even really think it's salient to the conversation of his ability to be president.

How much do you expect his personality to change from 50 to 65?

If you are harassing a small number of employees, you will not get many people coming out of the wood work.

My problem is, he did not keep his mouth shut, or have a pat answer ready for a major mar on his record. He's run for national office twice before, and even told a staffer about the allegations and hush money during the 2004 Senatorial bid.

It's salient if he has a chronic problem with it. It's salient if it's truly sexual harassment, rather than inappropriate behavior.

But the plaintiffs in both cases agreed to a sealed case. Period. They chose to keep silent in exchange for money. They implicitly accepted that they would never be able to warn another woman regarding his behavior.

Perhaps they were abused and hushed up. If there was a string of such lawsuits, I might wonder about that - but this is just two cases in a lifetime of, what, 40 adult years?

Color me skeptical.

I will say this: if you are willing to give Bill Clinton a pass for the whole sex scandal thing, but want to claim that Herman Cain's alleged sexual harassment from the 90's might affect his ability to be president, you are a hypocrite. I'm not saying anyone here does that, but I have seen members of the press guilty of this double standard.

There is a difference between an unwanted sexual advance, and consensual sexual infidelity. Harassment is fundamentally different than immorality. Just because they both have to do with sex doesn't mean they are comparable.

If you wanted Clinton out of office and give Cain a pass (cough Ann Coulter) you are a hypocrite too.

Tress said:

I will say this: ...you are a hypocrite

Click to expand...

sixpackshaker said:

...you are a hypocrite too.

Click to expand...

Added at: 14:14
It's worth noting that hypocrite rhymes with cuckoo spit.

Tress said:

I will say this: if you are willing to give Bill Clinton a pass for the whole sex scandal thing, but want to claim that Herman Cain's alleged sexual harassment from the 90's might affect his ability to be president, you are a hypocrite. I'm not saying anyone here does that, but I have seen members of the press guilty of this double standard.

Click to expand...

No shit.

I don't like Cain or think he ought to be president but it's been feeling like the press have been slobbering over taking down him down for awhile.

“Stand back! . . . Do not push me! . . . Pushing is against the law!. . . Watch out!. . . Get a grip on yourself!” “What part of ‘no’ don't some people understand?”

Click to expand...

Reading this in Will Ferrell's voice makes it 100% more awesome.

Espy said:

I don't like Cain or think he ought to be president but it's been feeling like the press have been slobbering over taking down him down for awhile.

Click to expand...

He's just the craziest dog in the pound right now, and that grabs eyeballs, which results in more profitable advertising. Therefore it is the reporter's duty to keep poking at him to get the latest and greatest soundbite for their audience.

It isn't news if reporting on it doesn't feel just a little icky.

stienman said:

It isn't news if reporting on it doesn't feel just a little icky.

Click to expand...

Isn't that the truth?

you know. I don't agree with his politics, but I think this is a low blow digging up his past. Now granted some stuff in the past DOES matter in the present (like being a mass murderer or commit crime at some point)

Sexual harassment is a tricky subject really. My wife said I can be flirtatious but I just think being nice. Many people in the office are comfortable with it and didn't have a case against me, but I can see some women who might be intolerable saying that "you have nice legs" = sexual harassment (which happen at my work via someone else)

http://news.yahoo.com/harassment-allegations-grow-herman-cain-goes-offensive-140859971.html

It is interesting that while Cain is the one on the spotlight, Cain is quick to point fingers at his opponent saying it is their doing. Why not just man up and said "There were complaints due to my actions, but that is in the past" instead of spinning into a whirlwind of lies and deceit. Now anything that he does will just look negative.

The only thing that bugs me about the whole thing is that he HAD to have known this would come out, yet he had nothing prepared and seemed taken aback by it. This either means he sucks at planning anything or he's so arrogant that he thought nobody would dare attack him.

Either way he loses.

Dave said:

The only thing that bugs me about the whole thing is that he HAD to have known this would come out, yet he had nothing prepared and seemed taken aback by it. This either means he sucks at planning anything or he's so arrogant that he thought nobody would dare attack him.

Either way he loses.

Click to expand...

you are right. I was thinking of something similar. It happen one form or another, but have nothing prepare? It is not a good sign of a leader considering that when you become president, all kinds of stuff will get thrown at you.

Honestly, everything I ever needed to know about Herman Cain I learned from this debacle: His gross inability to ether fess up to it (like Clinton eventually did) or to at least form a coherent, believable lie and stick to it tells me he simply does not have the skills necessary to be a politician.

I don't even care if he actually did anything to those women. I'm just embarrassed that he's so bad at dealing with it. Definitely not the kind of shortcoming you want in a president.

He's purported to be in the lead. Dirt will be dug up. That's how this always works. Why are people surprised by this?

All he had to do was treat it like the non issue it is. Denying it and then the same day admitting to it was horribly stupid, and candidates have been denied the chance to become president because of much stupider issues.

It is not a good election to be a Republican voter.

Krisken said:

He's purported to be in the lead. Dirt will be dug up. That's how this always works. Why are people surprised by this?

All he had to do was treat it like the non issue it is. Denying it and then the same day admitting to it was horribly stupid, and candidates have been denied the chance to become president because of much stupider issues.

Click to expand...

I am surprise that his PR person didn't have better damage control or Cain didn't have something prepare for this.

Cain first denied everything, then forget, then remember, then talk about a little, and remember some more.

Chibibar said:

I am surprise that his PR person didn't have better damage control or Cain didn't have something prepare for this.

Cain first denied everything, then forget, then remember, then talk about a little, and remember some more.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it seems as if his campaign manager is doing a craptacular job.

Well if you remember Y2K, Cain ran just to get his name out there and increase his speaking fees and sell a few books. This year it looked like he was doing the same thing, but his wacky shenanigans caught on with the Tea Party.

Covar said:

Only people worse than the politicians are the reporters that cover them.

Click to expand...

Boo fucking hoo?

Dave said:

I don't like him as a candidate and wouldn't vote for him based on his policies, but digging up dirt from 20 years ago is just stupid. 20 years ago I was a totally different person than I am now.

Click to expand...

You're right, there's a huge difference. Twenty years ago he may have gone about sexually harassing women over whom he held power. Now he's just an attention-seeking clown shoes moron. Sweet change.

Man, I can't wait to see what slimy right-wing kook forces me to vote Obama again.

Don't worry you'll come up with an excuse regardless.

Of all of the Republican candidates, I like him the best.

Adammon said:

Of all of the Republican candidates, I like him the best.

Click to expand...

Please don't vote.

Tress said:

Please don't vote.

Click to expand...

Self-made man. Worked from humble, poor beginnings to CEO of a major corporation. There's a lot to like about him, especially in comparison to the rest of the Republican field.

Adammon said:

Self-made man. Worked from humble, poor beginnings to CEO of a major corporation. There's a lot to like about him, especially in comparison to the rest of the Republican field.

Click to expand...

Hermain Cain's problem is that all of his positive traits have nothing to do with politics. He has no government experience, no international experience, he lacks charisma in a debate, he lacks intelligence in a debate, his sole taxation plan is a gimmick, and he sure as hell doesn't know when to cut his losses.

I honestly have no fucking idea why he is the Republican front runner.

I'll give you no international experience, but that's basically it. (And it certainly didn't hurt Obama). He is charismatic, an excellent public speaker and I'll never understand where this 'lacks intelligence' comes from. I've watched every debate that he's participated in and I've never got the sense that he's not intelligent; especially with Perry and Bachmann on stage.

Every taxation plan a politician proposes is a gimmick. As for not cutting his losses, I think the upcoming press conference about what Cain's 'sexual harassment' actually entailed will be fairly illuminating.

Adammon said:

Self-made man. Worked from humble, poor beginnings to CEO of a major corporation. There's a lot to like about him, especially in comparison to the rest of the Republican field.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think he was just asking you not to vote because you're Canadian. It's illegal and everything.

Fun Size said:

Actually, I think he was just asking you not to vote because you're Canadian. It's illegal and everything.

Click to expand...

Makes sense.

Adammon said:

Makes sense.

Click to expand...

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

You are Canadian?

-10 Espy points.

Espy said:

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

You are Canadian?

-10 Espy points.

Click to expand...

Sorry. I don't make the rules.

Sorry man. I didn't mean to out you like that.

Fun Size said:

Sorry man. I didn't mean to out you like that.

Click to expand...

Hey, don't feel bad. It's +5 Espy points for outing a Canadian.

Espy said:

Sorry. I don't make the rules.

Click to expand...

Adammon said:

I'll give you no international experience, but that's basically it. (And it certainly didn't hurt Obama). He is charismatic, an excellent public speaker and I'll never understand where this 'lacks intelligence' comes from. I've watched every debate that he's participated in and I've never got the sense that he's not intelligent; especially with Perry and Bachmann on stage.

Every taxation plan a politician proposes is a gimmick. As for not cutting his losses, I think the upcoming press conference about what Cain's 'sexual harassment' actually entailed will be fairly illuminating.

Click to expand...

Mostly the lack of intellegence shots against Cain comes from his inability to articulate his position.

For example when he was asked a question about the "Right of return" one of the fundamental problems in the Isreal-Palestine conflict his initial response was "Of course the Palestinians should be allowed to return to their homes in Isreal." A little unrealistic and completely unexpected sure but a clear position. Then he talked to his people and realized that in no way should he indicate not supporting Isreal so he came out with the often repeated lie of "Those Palestinians were traitors who deserved to have their homes taken."

Then of course their was his belief that abortion should be left up to the woman and the government should have no say in it. Then one of his people talked to him and he rearticulated his opinion that it should undoubtably be illegal but it was still the woman's choice as to whether or not to get an abortion. Technically true that she could get an illegal abortion but making it illegal definately isn't leaving the government out of the choice.

There are numerous examples of this kind of "speak clearly now muddy the waters later" soundbites that come out of Cain. He may be intellegent but nothing I've seen have lead me to believe it.

There's a difference between being inarticulate and being unintelligent.

Adammon said:

There's a difference between being inarticulate and being unintelligent.

Click to expand...

Not in politics.

AshburnerX said:

Not in politics.

Click to expand...

Truer words were never spoken.

Adammon said:

There's a difference between being inarticulate and being unintelligent.

Click to expand...

He recently commented on how he views China as a military threat because they're trying to develop nuclear weapons. Now. In 2011.

How is that not unintelligent?

Tress said:

He recently commented on how he views China as a military threat because they're trying to develop nuclear weapons. Now. In 2011.

How is that not unintelligent?

Click to expand...

"And secondly, we already have superiority in terms of our military capability, and I plan to get away from making cutting our defense a priority and make investing in our military capability a priority, going back to my statement: peace through strength and clarity. So yes, they're a military threat. They've indicated that they're trying to develop nuclear capability, and they want to develop more aircraft carriers like we have. So yes, we have to consider them a military threat."

Click to expand...

Not one to parse words, but "developing nuclear capability" can mean that they're improving their existing capabilities, not that they're creating them. He did after all, in the context of this quote, say they are trying to develop MORE carriers like we have.

Per Cain:

Cain addressed the gaffe in an interview with Ginni Thomas of The Daily Caller on Wednesday evening, and attempted to clarify his comments.
"Maybe I misspoke," he said. "What I meant was China does not have the size of the nuclear capability that we have. They do have a nuclear capability. I was talking about their total nuclear capability."

I don't buy that for a second. Anyone talking about enhancing existing technology would never say "develop nuclear capability." You combine this with comments about "Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan" and boasts about not following foreign policy, and it all begins to paint a picture of a man who thinks foreign policy is unimportant. I bet money he couldn't find Uzbekistan on a map, couldn't say what language people speak in Switzerland, and wouldn't have the first clue about what to say and what not to say in a meeting with the Chinese. Foreign policy is hugely important, and it's going to take up a large chuck of the president's time... so why would you elect a person who views foreign policy with disdain?

I don't know. Obama was elected, so I'm assuming that knowledge in foreign policy isn't as important to the electorate as, well, anything.

Adammon said:

I don't know. Obama was elected, so I'm assuming that knowledge in foreign policy isn't as important to the electorate as, well, anything.

Click to expand...

Except Obama's been excellent in his foreign policy. I'd even go as far as to say it's the only thing he's consistently gotten right during his candidacy.

Adammon said:

I don't know. Obama was elected, so I'm assuming that knowledge in foreign policy isn't as important to the electorate as, well, anything.

Click to expand...

There's a fundamental difference in that he didn't make ignorant comments, then defend those comments as someone who doesn't care about foreign policy. Besides, he was well spoken, which suggested he could have the polish necessary for a diplomat. Herman Cain is continuously making verbal gaffes and confusing statements. Herman Cain also displays an almost aggressive tone when talking about foreign countries, reminiscent of the "you're with us or you're the enemy" style of diplomacy from the second Bush administration. That aggressive style was considered by many to have caused more problems in the world, especially relating to how foreign countries view the US.

Tress said:

There's a fundamental difference in that he didn't make ignorant comments, then defend those comments as someone who doesn't care about foreign policy. Besides, he was well spoken, which suggested he could have the polish necessary for a diplomat. Herman Cain is continuously making verbal gaffes and confusing statements. Herman Cain also displays an almost aggressive tone when talking about foreign countries, reminiscent of the "you're with us or you're the enemy" style of diplomacy from the second Bush administration. That aggressive style was considered by many to have caused more problems in the world, especially relating to how foreign countries view the US.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

AshburnerX said:

Except Obama's been excellent in his foreign policy. I'd even go as far as to say it's the only thing he's consistently gotten right during his candidacy.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Tress said:

There's a fundamental difference in that he didn't make ignorant comments, then defend those comments as someone who doesn't care about foreign policy. Besides, he was well spoken, which suggested he could have the polish necessary for a diplomat. Herman Cain is continuously making verbal gaffes and confusing statements. Herman Cain also displays an almost aggressive tone when talking about foreign countries, reminiscent of the "you're with us or you're the enemy" style of diplomacy from the second Bush administration. That aggressive style was considered by many to have caused more problems in the world, especially relating to how foreign countries view the US.

Click to expand...

Agree. I know that some people might say "well Obama got great speech writers" true and Obama uses the teleprompter a lot BUT at least Obama keep in mind of foreign policies. I don't see that in Cain doing that.

no matter what people view our country or other country, foreign policy is big now compare 30-50 years ago. It is a world market now and we can't really close off to the world. Depending on what you say and how you say it, some countries will take great offense.

Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc surrounded themselves with smart people, and consulted with them before talking. Bush was prone to bush-isms, but the thing is that they trusted their people and learned from them before speaking, nevermind making policy decisions.

I don't see this from what little I've seen of Cain. He seems to think he already has enough information, and makes decisions based on his limited perspective. I could be very wrong - in which case the problem is that he's surrounded himself with equally stupid people, but in general successful people surround themselves with smart people and hash things out continuously with them until they understand the situation well enough to make a decision.

Half of politics is networking, the other half is superior firepower.

Stienman, I think he's surrounded himself with stupid people, which is evidenced by how terrible they handle any adversity in the campaign.

Exhibit A:

Tress said:

Exhibit A:

Click to expand...

I know that's being used as an example of a terrible campaign, but that damn ad has gotten more views than Jesus. Simply based on this apoplexy from the left on "Look at how terrible this ad is!", it's seen more prime time airings that any other political ad yet.

Well, maybe the demon sheep ad was comparable.

I was using it more as an example of the people he surrounds himself with, since his chief of staff seems to think smoking into the camera would get votes. I know Cain is still doing well in the polls, but I don't think anyone ever said they like Cain because of those nice ads on YouTube.

Tress said:

I was using it more as an example of the people he surrounds himself with, since his chief of staff seems to think smoking into the camera would get votes. I know Cain is still doing well in the polls, but I don't think anyone ever said they like Cain because of those nice ads on YouTube.

Click to expand...

It did work though. They're up in the polls and in fundraising, despite the sexy harassment controversy. I don't know how, I don't know why. But it worked because people saw it.

Name recognition and branding is important. Bad publicity is still publicity. There's also a certain element of anti-PC that appeals to many. I don't care for smoking, but be true to yourself. There is a mild hypocrisy to presenting a squeaky clean PC image, but being yourself when you think no one is looking.

Adammon said:

It did work though. They're up in the polls and in fundraising, despite the sexy harassment controversy. I don't know how, I don't know why. But it worked because people saw it.

Click to expand...

This right here is some really shoddy fundraising and calls into question whether he is capable of giving accurate fundraising estimates.

I'd take any fundraising estimates from the Cain campaign with a grain of salt.

Espy said:

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

You are Canadian?

-10 Espy points.

Click to expand...

Hey! What if you're half & half?

You bastards. You hid. A political thread. Under a heading I had absolutely NO INTEREST in. I only stumbled across it by accident because I was looking for a suitable thread to post "NOOOOOOO!" about dippin' dots going bankrupt.

sixpack, you are officially on my shit list.
Added at: 16:55
Well, I'm hopelessly late to the party, so screw it. I'll just say these two things -

Clinton had 2 women name themselves publicly and accuse him of sexual harassment. In the words of the washington post, you couldn't walk through JFK's white house without having cakes constantly ejecting nude women onto you. Even FDR philandered on his wife for nigh on 30 years.

But now Herman Cain is accused anonymously, and we get treated to dozens upon dozens of shouts of "LOL CAIN'S DONE! ROFL" from the media that studiously ignored or excused clinton 15 years ago.

Thing two:
I saw a bumper sticker that said "If you voted for Obama to prove you weren't racist, now you can vote for Cain to prove you're not retarded."

GasBandit said:

dippin' dots going bankrupt.

Click to expand...

NOOOOOOOOOOO!
Added at: 18:26

GasBandit said:

You bastards. You hid. A political thread.

Click to expand...

In the politics subforum no less. Like a needle in a haystack, no?

stienman said:

In the politics subforum no less. Like a needle in a haystack, no?

Click to expand...

Using the XenMinimal skin, on the "what's new" screen, the name of the subforum is tiny and light-grey-on-white.

GasBandit said:

You bastards. You hid. A political thread. Under a heading I had absolutely NO INTEREST in. I only stumbled across it by accident because I was looking for a suitable thread to post "NOOOOOOO!" about dippin' dots going bankrupt.

sixpack, you are officially on my shit list.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as Black Walnut Ice Cream (any longer, but I am sure Hagen Daz will dig the recipe back up.) So it only applies to Cain now.

GasBandit said:

Well, I'm hopelessly late to the party, so screw it. I'll just say these two things -

Clinton had 2 women name themselves publicly and accuse him of sexual harassment. In the words of the washington post, you couldn't walk through JFK's white house without having cakes constantly ejecting nude women onto you. Even FDR philandered on his wife for nigh on 30 years.

But now Herman Cain is accused anonymously, and we get treated to dozens upon dozens of shouts of "LOL CAIN'S DONE! ROFL" from the media that studiously ignored or excused clinton 15 years ago.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but they were also in office when it happened. If you go too far against a sitting president, your network/organization loses it's privilege with the White House.

http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-woman-claims-herman-cain-wanted-her-trade-152635377.html

new article (4th woman and spoke up) I love it when Cain's spokeman still go with (today) "Cain campaign spokesman J.D. Gordon immediately responded with a statement that said, "All allegations of harassment against Mr. Cain are completely false. Mr. Cain has never harassed anyone."

uh-huh.

If you can't beat 'em with facts, beat 'em with numbers.

Gloria Allred. Amazing how she found an accuser willing to speak up, when politico couldn't. Even though the accuser in question doesn't want to sue....

... but then why hire a famous lawyer and go public?

Something about this just smells off.

Well the first two can't come forward, because of the confidentiality clause and the hush money that they took.

When Cain misspoke that the money given to the accusers was only two month's salary... he meant his two months equaling their yearly salary...

sixpackshaker said:

Well the first two can't come forward, because of the confidentiality clause and the hush money that they took.

When Cain misspoke that the money given to the accusers was only two month's salary... he meant his two months equaling their yearly salary...

Click to expand...

The NRA has allowed those first two to speak. They still aren't.

Adammon said:

The NRA has allowed those first two to speak. They still aren't.

Click to expand...

I think because it would ruin their reputation in the work they are in now.

The gag order is to protect the women. If there isn't one, then the file would be public record for anyone to see. They are sealed for the protection of the women. They don't want to speak now because it will do more damage to THEM than to Cain (at least from what I can understand)

Chibibar said:

I think because it would ruin their reputation in the work they are in now.

The gag order is to protect the women. If there isn't one, then the file would be public record for anyone to see. They are sealed for the protection of the women. They don't want to speak now because it will do more damage to THEM than to Cain (at least from what I can understand)

Click to expand...

Pivotal to the US Legal system is the right to confront your accusers. Without that, this becomes barely more than slander.

GasBandit said:

Pivotal to the US Legal system is the right to confront your accusers. Without that, this becomes barely more than slander.

Click to expand...

well. I think the only two women who had a settlement (for whatever reason) maybe HAD something and it would have been damaging to Cain or NRA so the lawyers decide to settle and gag order, but I guess with Cain being ahead in the polls (or frontrunner whatever) these women feel that such a man should not be a candidate BUT now it comes down to which is more important

saving one's face (i.e. not coming forward themselves) or showing another true face (or at least facts on the case)

now other women? it could be true, it could be false, but it comes down to he say/she say, but at least two of the four women filed and have sealed records.

GasBandit said:

Pivotal to the US Legal system is the right to confront your accusers. Without that, this becomes barely more than slander.

Click to expand...

Both of those are legal terms, though. The right to confront means in a court of law. Slander and libel mean what is spoken has to be demonstrated as both false and damaging. None of that (probably) applies here. It would be like asking Cain to swear on a bible to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth while be interviewed on Fox News. It doesn't much matter since he isn't in a court of law.

GasBandit said:

Pivotal to the US Legal system is the right to confront your accusers. Without that, this becomes barely more than slander.

Click to expand...

This is already in the courts? Wow, I just thought the NRA rolled over on their former boss that left the same year that the first two accusers were paid off.

MindDetective said:

Both of those are legal terms, though. The right to confront means in a court of law. Slander and libel mean what is spoken has to be demonstrated as both false and damaging. None of that (probably) applies here. It would be like asking Cain to swear on a bible to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth while be interviewed on Fox News. It doesn't much matter since he isn't in a court of law.

Click to expand...

I think it's obvious that "damaging" applies, and it's not like there hasn't been a precedent set of people being paid to just go away, regardless of veracity. This was supposedly in the 90s, after all, when everyone was still discovering that pretty much every single social interaction could be taken as harassment, and companies were erring on the side of caution.

Chibibar said:

well. I think the only two women who had a settlement (for whatever reason) maybe HAD something and it would have been damaging to Cain or NRA so the lawyers decide to settle and gag order, but I guess with Cain being ahead in the polls (or frontrunner whatever) these women feel that such a man should not be a candidate BUT now it comes down to which is more important saving one's face (i.e. not coming forward themselves) or showing another true face (or at least facts on the case)

Click to expand...

That's all very nice, but in my opinion trying to hide your own identity while trying to use the gravity of your accusation alone to affect the outcome of a presidential election surrenders your high ground pretty fast.
Added at: 17:03

sixpackshaker said:

This is already in the courts? Wow, I just thought the NRA rolled over on their former boss that left the same year that the first two accusers were paid off.

Click to expand...

If you ask me, there's an argument for it to end up in the courts - and not necessarily with Cain as the defendant.

GasBandit said:

I think it's obvious that "damaging" applies

Click to expand...

But it needs to be both.

MindDetective said:

But it needs to be both.

Click to expand...

Has it been proven to be a true accusation? Then by legal definition, it is false.

GasBandit said:

Has it been proven to be a true accusation? Then by legal definition, it is false.

Click to expand...

Again, we're not in a court room. That aside, the evidence has to be considered before a verdict can be given. Sounds like you've made up your mind before court is in session, though.

MindDetective said:

Again, we're not in a court room. That aside, the evidence has to be considered before a verdict can be given. Sounds like you've made up your mind before court is in session, though.

Click to expand...

I definitely have a preconceived notion - from observing anonymous parties attempt to influence an election without stepping into the light... seems like trying to have your cake and eat it too. With this latest accuser, at least there could be an investigation of the facts. With these others, I definitely have a disdain of the seventy-someodd stories run about them by a media absolutely ACHING to pick the republican's nominee for them.

I understand the settlement was out of court and it is possible NRA just do it to cover "their butt" in the 90s but you would think there will be more. Consider the court release the record (to a certain extent) it would be nice to see what was the accusation and resolution.

GasBandit said:

With these others, I definitely have a disdain of the seventy-someodd stories run about them by a media absolutely ACHING to pick the republican's nominee for them.

Click to expand...

Source? Because I just see the media as a bunch of gossips. It seems like the hens can cluck up a storm about whatever they like without needing a motivation behind it.

Chibibar said:

I think the two women ... HAD something ... so the lawyers decide to settle and gag order

Click to expand...

If the women had a case, they would NOT have settled for a measly year's salary. The fact that they did settle suggests that they thought they were better off settling. The fact that the lawyers offered that settlement indicates more that the company wasn't interested in justice and proving the case either way - they were merely trying to "contain" the situation before their PR image was hurt.

In other words, they had enough to cause the organization pain, but not enough to really drag them through the mud and extract millions.

It's unlikely, therefore, that the women had much.

Not that this proves he didn't harass them - I'm just trying to point out that your logic isn't the most likely explanation, though it's possible that it's correct, especially if the women were at risk of damaging their own reputation. For instance, they might have been lovers of his, but then things got out of control and he did harass them - in that case they might not want to reveal their entire situation publicly, but still want to get compensated for the harassment.

I'd say that only if they were risking personal damage could your statement hold water. Otherwise the best explanation is that they didn't have a strong case.

MindDetective said:

Source? Because I just see the media as a bunch of gossips. It seems like the hens can cluck up a storm about whatever they like without needing a motivation behind it.

Click to expand...

I heard the 70-since-breaking number on the radio today, so I can't link it yet, but earlier in this thread I linked the 3-day figures, which were something like 50 vs 5.

Wow, the media really seems to have this guy tried and convicted.

Espy said:

Wow, the media really seems to have this guy tried and convicted.

Click to expand...

What else is there to talk about? The OWS protests aren't as violent as the media are hoping. No major world figure is newly dead or dying. The biggest recent news was the divorce of some stupid celebrity couple. I think the protestors should protest that - "You paid 10million for the wedding, the divorce should cost at least as much, and that money should go to the 99%!"

It's a sex scandal involving a candidate for president. I doubt they care if the stories they print are accurate or not. They just smell blood in the water.

What's sad is all the crazy crap he says is much more interesting than this stupid distraction.

GasBandit said:

I heard the 70-since-breaking number on the radio today, so I can't link it yet, but earlier in this thread I linked the 3-day figures, which were something like 50 vs 5.

Click to expand...

But the correlation doesn't imply the causation. It doesn't mean they are motivated to destroy the man, it just means they are gossipy journalists excited at the prospect of a scandal.

Anyone who steps up and presents themselves for the office is going to scrutinized and lambasted for months (and years if they're elected). They're prisoners. It's part and parcel of the whole public office gig. Phenomenal parliamentary powers, itty-bitty head-space.

5th Woman Comes forward...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fift...-alleges-she-was-asked-to-broker-dinner-date/

I'd say it's getting ridiculous, but we're long past that point.

Or, even better. The named accuser #4 hugging Cain last month at a Tea Party convention:
http://www.suntimes.com/8592168-417...him-during-tea-party-meeting-a-month-ago.html

So now people are treating allegations of hypothetical sexual harassment as news? The 5th woman essentially says she was asked to set up Cain and a female supporter for a dinner date and she declined, at which point he asked her out to dinner, and she went with him and several other friends to dinner.

Given his history, she was probably wise to go in a pack, and to decline setting him up with another woman, but this is the "fifth woman"? Allegations of suspicions of harassment that might have occurred if she had set him up on a date?

That's a stretch.

stienman said:

If the women had a case, they would NOT have settled for a measly year's salary. The fact that they did settle suggests that they thought they were better off settling. The fact that the lawyers offered that settlement indicates more that the company wasn't interested in justice and proving the case either way - they were merely trying to "contain" the situation before their PR image was hurt.

In other words, they had enough to cause the organization pain, but not enough to really drag them through the mud and extract millions.

It's unlikely, therefore, that the women had much.

Not that this proves he didn't harass them - I'm just trying to point out that your logic isn't the most likely explanation, though it's possible that it's correct, especially if the women were at risk of damaging their own reputation. For instance, they might have been lovers of his, but then things got out of control and he did harass them - in that case they might not want to reveal their entire situation publicly, but still want to get compensated for the harassment.

I'd say that only if they were risking personal damage could your statement hold water. Otherwise the best explanation is that they didn't have a strong case.

Click to expand...

Honestly I don't think that the case being settled speaks at all about the merits of the case. Bringing suit against a corporation like the NRA is a long complex and expensive undertaking. The corporation will also drag the person's name through the mud however possible making it hard for the person bringing suit to find a new job. And even if they did win the amount they would get would be entirely up to the judge who probably wouldn't give a high punitive ruling unless it was found that it was a systemic problem. So it's entirely possible they had a slam dunk case that a person would take a year's salary and move on with their life.

On the other hand it's expensive for the Corporation as well and damaging to their PR so even if the case was garbage the corporation might just settle in order to keep the case out of the news and the fight off their bottom line.

As for damaging reputations look at Anita Hill. It's incredibly clear that she was sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas but during her testimony she was attacked by Democrat and Republican alike and afterwords she was criticized and doubted because she was "too composed" and no matter what else she has done with her life she will always be the woman who claimed Justice Thomas sexually harassed her. So I could see a woman holding back from talking openly about the incident.

MindDetective said:

But the correlation doesn't imply the causation. It doesn't mean they are motivated to destroy the man, it just means they are gossipy journalists excited at the prospect of a scandal.

Click to expand...

If there had been a proportional response to democrat sex scandals, I'd agree with you.

Adammon said:

I'd say it's getting ridiculous, but we're long past that point.

Or, even better. The named accuser #4 hugging Cain last month at a Tea Party convention:

http://www.suntimes.com/8592168-417...him-during-tea-party-meeting-a-month-ago.html

Click to expand...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...

GasBandit said:

If there had been a proportional response to democrat sex scandals, I'd agree with you.

Click to expand...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...

Third accuser has been identified:

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/11/08/110811-news-cain-accuser-1-3/

I can understand why she wanted to remain anonymous...

GasBandit said:

If there had been a proportional response to democrat sex scandals, I'd agree with you.

Click to expand...

Anthony Weiner anybody?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner

I say if you want to throw out allegations that could not only destroy someones presidential run but their life and marriage, you cannot remain anonymous.

Espy said:

I say if you want to throw out allegations that could not only destroy someones presidential run but their life and marriage, you cannot remain anonymous.

Click to expand...

No one is anonymous... Cain knew the first two, and everybody now knows the second two.

sixpackshaker said:

No one is anonymous... Cain knew the first two, and everybody now knows the second two.

Click to expand...

It appears he didn't. He never signed off on the settlement and was only informed recently about the whole shebang. That's kinda lame.

I don't buy that for a minute. He was in charge of the organization. He then left at the same time. I imagine some one told him why.

sixpackshaker said:

I don't buy that for a minute. He was in charge of the organization. He then left at the same time. I imagine some one told him why.

Click to expand...

The settlement was signed 4-5 months after he'd already left.

The only sexual harassment suite that I know of is in its second year, these things don't get settled quickly. No one is going to hand over $35-45,000 bucks under 4 months.

$35,000 is chickenfeed for a settlement. Paula Jones received $850,000 for her lawsuit against clinton.

GasBandit said:

If there had been a proportional response to democrat sex scandals, I'd agree with you.

Click to expand...

No, you're right. Democrat sex scandals are blown way out proportion compared to when conservatives do it.

And how is her public perception?

These other women were complaining about the offer, not actually seeing the Governor's Peen.

Tress said:

No, you're right. Democrat sex scandals are blown way out proportion compared to when conservatives do it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, poor John Edwards only getting media attention in The Enquirer...

hmmm.. I heard about the John Edwards Scandal for years now, and I don't read the Enquirer.

sixpackshaker said:

No one is anonymous...

Click to expand...

The first two are anonymous to the public, who they are reporting their accusations to.

Espy said:

The first two are anonymous to the public, who they are reporting their accusations to.

Click to expand...

No... they were involved with sexual harassment suits which were then reported on by the media they themselves haven't talked to any reporters or media.

From Politico, it was some people currently involved with NRA when asked how the lobby group was under Cain's leadership.

"..." Then they spilled the beans about the allegations and settlement.

Ah, gotcha, I thought I had heard on NPR that they "wanted" to go public but their settlement didn't allow it so they could only accuse anonymously.

Either way, this guy is done. Good job press, you took out the black guy in the race.

Espy said:

Ah, gotcha, I thought I had heard on NPR that they "wanted" to go public but their settlement didn't allow it so they could only accuse anonymously.

Either way, this guy is done. Good job press, you took out the black guy in the race.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the press doesn't care about the color of his skin. We're talking about an opportunistic group of piranhas who would push Mother Teresa down a flight of stairs if it meant more readers/viewers.

Tress said:

I'm pretty sure the press doesn't care about the color of his skin. We're talking about an opportunistic group of piranhas who would push Mother Teresa down a flight of stairs if it meant more readers/viewers.

Click to expand...

stienman said:

Click to expand...

I warned you about stairs bro. I told you dog.

http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/the-face-of-republican-stupidity

Heh. I am not sure if this is a legit source, but I wouldn't be surprise one bit
summary: basically there isn't a real candidate for Republican and Cain is just a "running joke" for now to "test the waters" of the public (from what I understand)

Chibibar said:

http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/the-face-of-republican-stupidity

Heh. I am not sure if this is a legit source, but I wouldn't be surprise one bit
summary: basically there isn't a real candidate for Republican and Cain is just a "running joke" for now to "test the waters" of the public (from what I understand)

Click to expand...

I need to punch whoever wrote that Chibi, punch them hard.

I quote:

Every idea adopted by American conservatives immediately finds its worst form. That includes the idea of racial equality. Cain joins Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, as a blithering mediocrity elevated beyond his talents because he’s the right color presented in the right style—meaning not just that he’s black, but a black man who is tall, bald, and peppy

Click to expand...

Ignorance hurts.

I think it's sad that Michael Steele had to play an idiot on tv while head of the RNC. Now when I see him I find him fantastic to listen to.

Dammit, now I want ice cream. Mint Chocolate Chip is my favorite flavor, too.

Tress said:

I'm pretty sure the press doesn't care about the color of his skin.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it's cause he's black. Charlie told me.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57321187/cain-accuser-filed-complaint-at-next-job/

A woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in 1999 complained three years later at her next job about unfair treatment, saying she should be allowed to work from home after a serious car accident and accusing a manager of circulating a sexually charged email.

The complaint also cited as objectionable an email that a manager had circulated comparing computers to women and men, a former supervisor said. The complaint claimed that the email, based on humor widely circulated on the Internet, was sexually explicit, according to the supervisor, who did not have a copy of the email. The joke circulated online lists reasons men and women were like computers, including that men were like computers because "in order to get their attention, you have to turn them on." Women were like computers because "even your smallest mistakes are stored in long-term memory for later retrieval."

Click to expand...

One more little tidbit that came out today. Anonymous Accuser #2 is "Sharon from Chicago".

Accuser #4 is Sharon Bialek from Chicago.

Anonymous Accuser #2 may well be Accuser #4. (They both went to the same attorney who released a statement about the accusations. Accuster #4 eventually went to Gloria Allred instead)

Adammon said:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57321187/cain-accuser-filed-complaint-at-next-job/

A woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in 1999 complained three years later at her next job about unfair treatment, saying she should be allowed to work from home after a serious car accident and accusing a manager of circulating a sexually charged email.





One more little tidbit that came out today. Anonymous Accuser #2 is "Sharon from Chicago".

Accuser #4 is Sharon Bialek from Chicago.

Anonymous Accuser #2 may well be Accuser #4. (They both went to the same attorney who released a statement about the accusations. Accuster #4 eventually went to Gloria Allred instead)

Click to expand...

ah. so pretend to be another so to keep her "identity" now I am changing my view on this if the above article is accurate (in terms that the woman who filed sexual harassment on basis that she can't take any humor or criticism at all)

If the original harassment is similar to the email (i.e. it was a joke and she took it personally) then I DON'T feel sorry for the women and Cain is improperly slanders (not sure of the women 1 but that is a different story) I don't agree with Cain's politics but hopefully he can put this behind him.

Unfortunately it's probably too late at this point and the guy is already labelled. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, the damage is done.

He's still ahead in the polls, but now he, Romney and (wonder of all wonders) Gingrich are all pretty much within the margin of error of each other. Perry has pretty much gone down in flames, thankfully.

Funny, the complaint mentioned the email but it was NOT about the email. The complaint was that she was injured in a car crash and wanted to work from home.

Man has expensive voice stress analyzer software, gets on CBS news.

GasBandit said:

Man has expensive voice stress analyzer software, gets on CBS news.

Click to expand...

LOL. It is not a lie if a person believe to be the truth.

Chibibar said:

LOL. It is not a lie if a person believe to be the truth.

Click to expand...

Is it a lie if someone tells the truth believing it to be a lie?