The Lynching of Herman Cain

Posted:
in PoliticalOutsider edited January 2014
I'm surprised there isn't a thread on this. By now I assume most have heard of the sexual harassment allegations made against Herman Cain. Recently, one woman held a press conference with attorney Gloria Allred, where she detailed one alleged incident. Cain has denied all allegations.



Do you find these allegations credible?



How do you think Cain has handled this?



Who may have organized the attacks?



Other thoughts?





As for me, I'm not a Cain supporter (though I do find him interesting). That said, I don't find these allegations credible for a variety of reasons. The timing of them is beyond conspicuous. The latest woman's story simply sounded ridiculous. Here recall of detail, her weird smile as she spoke, all of it...it smelled funny. Thus far I've heard and seen nothing that substantiates any of the charges.
«13456710

Comments

  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Were you this incredulous regarding every potential scandal against the team you hate?
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,190member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Were you this incredulous regarding every potential scandal against the team you hate?



    I see you've chosen not to actually participate in the thread, and have instead decided to use your tried and true method of personally attacking the OP and other members for no apparent reason.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    So you are asking for evidence...and without evidence...you don't want to believe these seemingly (in your opinion) incredulous claims?



    Hmm. Evidence. Funny thing. When you start demanding evidence in one arena in life, but still refuse to demand evidence in others, it makes you what is commonly called a hypocrite.



    Want to know what else is seemingly incredulous? A perfect being sacrificing himself to himself because his creations got tricked by another one of his creations and killing all of his creations the first time didn't really solve the problem.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Who am I kidding? That seems totally plausible...but a powerful man sexually harassing women? That's nutso talk.
  • apple ][apple ][ Posts: 7,906member
    Most blacks are still living on the Democrat plantation. Herman Cain is one of the few to not follow the herd and he's forged his own path becoming a successful, self made business man in the US. He also happens to be a conservative and a black man, so the liberals are obviously going after him with everything that they got. He might as well be the devil.



    A black man who can think for himself and does not follow the herd is one of the worst nightmares for liberals. Many liberal commentators, who would fit perfectly in with a group like the KKK, have been mocking Herman Cain, using racial slurs and they're doing everything that they can to put this black man and uncle tom in his place.



    As for the alleged sexual harassment, so what? It's a non-story with a few women coming forth years later and some of them have suspicious motives.



    The one woman I saw was not very attractive and unattractive females should be flattered that any males would bother to show any interest in them. What's the problem? Did anybody get raped? Was any assault committed? Even if Cain tried to make a pass at one of the women before, then so what? That is not illegal. If the woman wasn't interested and Cain took no for an answer, then big fucking deal.



    These sexual harassment allegations are a bunch of crap, and it's merely an attempt by the liberal media and liberal racists to get rid of a black guy who they don't like and who they see as a threat. If only the liberal media had spent one tenth of the time vetting Obama as they are spending on Cain, then perhaps people would take them more seriously. Their credibility is gone.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,190member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    So you are asking for evidence...and without evidence...you don't want to believe these seemingly (in your opinion) incredulous claims?



    Hmm. Evidence. Funny thing. When you start demanding evidence in one arena in life, but still refuse to demand evidence in others, it makes you what is commonly called a hypocrite.



    Want to know what else is seemingly incredulous? A perfect being sacrificing himself to himself because his creations got tricked by another one of his creations and killing all of his creations the first time didn't really solve the problem.



    So because I believe in God, I must accept every claim ever made at face value? Because I choose to accept that one thing on faith, I should accept everything on faith?
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Don't let BR derail the thread, SDW2001. Just ignore him. It's worked well for me.
  • sequitursequitur Posts: 1,874member
    This thread is absolute nonsense. Since none of you were there to witness exactly what happened, how can you possibly make a positive statement pro or con. Of course this shouldn't be left up to anyone who wasn't there to say what happened or didn't happen.



    Wait until all the facts are in and 'tested' before jumping to any conclusion pro or con.

    In the meantime, it's all guess work. Therefore, anyone making a statement, pro or con, is just showing his own point of view.



    By making any statement, you are indicating your ignorance of the facts / bias / prejudice / and the political party of your choice.



    'nuff said.
  • apple ][apple ][ Posts: 7,906member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sequitur View Post


    This thread is absolute nonsense. Since none of you were there to witness exactly what happened, how can you possibly make a positive statement pro or con. Of course this shouldn't be left up to anyone who wasn't there to say what happened or didn't happen.



    This thread is not nonsense. What is nonsense is the lamestream media already passing judgement on it, and they're out to get the black guy.



    So the media is allowed to have an opinion on it and take sides, but people on a forum are not?



    If it comes down to he said, she said, then I'm going to believe the black conservative guy over unattractive liberal white women. I've seen the kinds of attacks being mounted against Cain, and the thread title is accurate. They're trying to lynch him.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Cain settled at least two sexual harassment claims out of court. When the allegations came up he denied any knowledge.
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Cain settled at least two sexual harassment claims out of court. When the allegations came up he denied any knowledge.



    Yes, he allowed his business legal department to handle the allegations and stayed out of it. Would it have been wiser for him to handle them directly?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    I'm surprised there isn't a thread on this. By now I assume most have heard of the sexual harassment allegations made against Herman Cain. Recently, one woman held a press conference with attorney Gloria Allred, where she detailed one alleged incident. Cain has denied all allegations.



    Darn it. I literally had a tab open starting a thread with that EXACT title. Great minds think alike obviously.



    Quote:

    Do you find these allegations credible?



    So far, no.



    Quote:

    How do you think Cain has handled this?



    I think he hasn't done as well as he could have with it. Most people who don't do things wrong though don't really have experience with responding to allegations of wrong doing.



    Quote:

    Who may have organized the attacks?



    I doubt we will ever know. I'm sure there will be a way to draw some links but I doubt it will ever move beyond the stage of inferring who did it.



    Quote:

    Other thoughts?



    As you said, it is akin to a media lynching and it is very clear the media will do this to any Republican candidate that has the possibility of causing a split in a key Democratic constituency. Sarah Palin could have done this with women, especially disenfranchised Hillary voters and it is clear Cain might do this with African-Americans.

    Quote:

    As for me, I'm not a Cain supporter (though I do find him interesting). That said, I don't find these allegations credible for a variety of reasons. The timing of them is beyond conspicuous. The latest woman's story simply sounded ridiculous. Here recall of detail, her weird smile as she spoke, all of it...it smelled funny. Thus far I've heard and seen nothing that substantiates any of the charges.





    The media have shown they will report on anything related to Cain and attempting to discredit him. As an example here is a fifth woman who declared it was wrong of Cain to.... eat dinner either alone or with their group




    Black men coming to take all your white women has been the classic Democratic smear tactic for hundreds of years.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sequitur View Post


    This thread is absolute nonsense. Since none of you were there to witness exactly what happened, how can you possibly make a positive statement pro or con. Of course this shouldn't be left up to anyone who wasn't there to say what happened or didn't happen.



    Wait until all the facts are in and 'tested' before jumping to any conclusion pro or con.

    In the meantime, it's all guess work. Therefore, anyone making a statement, pro or con, is just showing his own point of view.



    By making any statement, you are indicating your ignorance of the facts / bias / prejudice / and the political party of your choice.



    'nuff said.



    Nuff not said.



    The media have run 117 stories on these allegations and done nothing but repeated the same accusations without facts over and over. It is a pure smear.




    They have run 117 stories (99 at the time of that article) while having given a total of 8 stories to Bill Clinton and allegations from Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick.




    They've run more stories on Cain and these allegations in less than two weeks than they ran on Obama in 20 months regarding his ties to Ayers, Rezko or Wright.



    It's clear the media want Cain out because the Democrats can't get their base excited and he can split their base.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Cain settled at least two sexual harassment claims out of court. When the allegations came up he denied any knowledge.



    He did not personally settle them. He wasn't involved at all with those proceedings.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


    Yes, he allowed his business legal department to handle the allegations and stayed out of it. Would it have been wiser for him to handle them directly?



    The point is when you've got a big target on your back, people sue and if it is cheaper to pay them off than deal with the lawsuit, the business will often settle. Apple has this happen routinely. Apple also has $80 billion in the bank. A search for Apple and settle suit turns up dozens of instances.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    He did not personally settle them. He wasn't involved at all with those proceedings.



    So he had no knowledge of the settlements? Is that what you're saying? Because if it's not, then when he denied any knowledge, he was lying. If he allowed his legal team to settle on his behalf, implicating him in misdeeds, without his knowledge, then he's incompetent. So which is it?



    It's not just the allegations (and the fact that there was more than one victim) that's the problem. It's the allegations combined with his inappropriate and self-implicating response that make him unelectable. No one will vote for him except those few die-hard people who will vote for anyone as long as it's not a "filthy" Liberal (assuming they're old enough to vote).
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    So he had no knowledge of the settlements? Is that what you're saying? Because if it's not, then when he denied any knowledge, he was lying. If he allowed his legal team to settle on his behalf, implicating him in misdeeds, without his knowledge, then he's incompetent. So which is it?



    False dilemma. He could simply refer it to legal counsel and they report back on the outcome. Settlements specifically do not implicate him. Most settlements specifically declare that no admission of wrong-doing has occurred.



    So it is neither. It is no different than Apple or what any other company does. Was Steve Jobs lying or incompetent every time Apple settled?



    Quote:

    It's not just the allegations (and the fact that there was more than one victim) that's the problem. It's the allegations combined with his inappropriate and self-implicating response that make him unelectable. No one will vote for him except those few die-hard people who will vote for anyone as long as it's not a "filthy" Liberal (assuming they're old enough to vote).



    You're completely wrong about this. Most people do not live or think in terms of the liberal media microscope and they don't and won't buy the spin you clearly have bought. Someone staring at a watch too long, flubbing one answer or even having a bad press conference isn't the end of the world. It certainly hasn't been for Obama. It cumulatively damaged Bush over the long term but that was because the media have come off the sidelines and were relentless about it for years. Obama had a major flub just this week (not that they would report about) when he was caught bad mouthing a fellow head of state.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    False dilemma. He could simply refer it to legal counsel and they report back on the outcome. Settlements specifically do not implicate him. Most settlements specifically declare that no admission of wrong-doing has occurred.



    So it is neither. It is no different than Apple or what any other company does. Was Steve Jobs lying or incompetent every time Apple settled?







    You're completely wrong about this. Most people do not live or think in terms of the liberal media microscope and they don't and won't buy the spin you clearly have bought. Someone staring at a watch too long, flubbing one answer or even having a bad press conference isn't the end of the world. It certainly hasn't been for Obama. It cumulatively damaged Bush over the long term but that was because the media have come off the sidelines and were relentless about it for years. Obama had a major flub just this week (not that they would report about) when he was caught bad mouthing a fellow head of state.



    Cain originally told Politico that he was "not aware of any settlements".



    Now go and clean up your incorrect bullshit according to the facts.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    So because I believe in God, I must accept every claim ever made at face value? Because I choose to accept that one thing on faith, I should accept everything on faith?



    No, but when you start playing the facts and evidence card I get to call you out for being a ridiculous hypocrite.



    OH, SO NOW FACTS MATTER TO YOU. HA! THAT'S RICH! FROM YOU!



    You believe whatever is convenient for your personal gain. Furthermore, why did you use the word "lynching" in the title? I'm a little confused.
  • floorjackfloorjack Posts: 2,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


    Yes, he allowed his business legal department to handle the allegations and stayed out of it. Would it have been wiser for him to handle them directly?



    He couldn't even do that. The lawsuit is filed against the business and not the individual.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Cain originally told Politico that he was "not aware of any settlements".



    Now go and clean up your incorrect bullshit according to the facts.



    How does that change anything? Most of the reports I've read say the timeframe for this is 98-99ish. If it were handled apart from him and all he received was some sort of update on it, why would that be something to be immediately recalled 12-13 years later? Do you have instant recall of every facet of your life from 13 years ago?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    No, but when you start playing the facts and evidence card I get to call you out for being a ridiculous hypocrite.



    OH, SO NOW FACTS MATTER TO YOU. HA! THAT'S RICH! FROM YOU!



    You believe whatever is convenient for your personal gain. Furthermore, why did you use the word "lynching" in the title? I'm a little confused.



    Yes, you are a little confused because killing the messenger doesn't change the message. Lynching is a murder carried out by a mob. While it may not be an attempt to physically murder him, it figuratively is an attempt to murder his presidential ambitions, his public persona, and

    his overall reputation via a mob and smears. Meanwhile, it's pretty clear what you really want to discuss.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    How does that change anything? Most of the reports I've read say the timeframe for this is 98-99ish. If it were handled apart from him and all he received was some sort of update on it, why would that be something to be immediately recalled 12-13 years later? Do you have instant recall of every facet of your life from 13 years ago?



    If you're saying that you wouldn't remember being accused, TWICE, of sexual harassment, with full knowledge of the accusations, for the rest of your life, then either you are a fucking liar, or you think sexual harassment is no big deal. Either way, you're a dick if that's what you believe.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    If you're saying that you wouldn't remember being accused, TWICE, of sexual harassment, with full knowledge of the accusations, for the rest of your life, then either you are a fucking liar, or you think sexual harassment is no big deal. Either way, you're a dick if that's what you believe.



    Lash out much?



    What's the deal with the false dilemma's? Is it the new fallacy du jour?



    Let me ask a question for consideration. If Herman Cain was the type to always act this way, why would all the alleged incidents have only ever taken place during the same job, at the same place, during the same timeframe?



    This to me looks like an organization that didn't cover their bases, some people targeted the top, made some claims, and made some money but the door closed due to better representation, handbook guidelines, whatever.



    If Herman Cain is the type that would undertake these actions serially, then why didn't he do them as CEO of Godfather's Pizza, while working for Burger King, while he was in the Navy, etc.



    Which makes more sense, that he just lost his mind for one year out of the 65 years he has been alive or that something about the environment was the outlier. I'd say the latter and since it is clear Cain doesn't deal with claims that way or wasn't even well acquainted with the details since the organization handled it, I'd double down on on the credibility of it being about the organization and not the man who headed it for three years.



    Cain has volunteered to take a lie detector test as well. His statements indicate he doesn't even know who these people are making these allegations. A check into the background of the people making the allegations shows a lot of questionable character traits and also patterns of behavior.
Sign In or Register to comment.