The Lynching of Herman Cain

Originally Posted by sequitur

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.

Originally Posted by tonton

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

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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.

Originally Posted by sequitur

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.

Originally Posted by tonton

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

Originally Posted by NoahJ

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?

Originally Posted by trumptman

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

Originally Posted by tonton

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).

Originally Posted by trumptman

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.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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?

Originally Posted by NoahJ

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?

Originally Posted by tonton

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

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

Originally Posted by BR

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.

Originally Posted by trumptman

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?

Originally Posted by tonton

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.

Originally Posted by trumptman

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.

Originally Posted by tonton

Bull. Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he blocked out the memory and honestly can't recall, one doesn't block out a memory when it's a serious issue and they're innocent, but they might block out a memory if they're guilty and it's something they might want to forget.

But anyway, none of that matters. We've found our answer.

It's just not a serious issue to him.

Unelectable.

(And you know I was using the editorial "you", not referring to Trumptman.)

Meanwhile, as extensively detailed in my book Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America, the only reason Obama became a U.S. senator -- allowing him to run for president -- is that David Axelrod pulled sealed divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama's Democratic primary opponent, and then against Obama's Republican opponent.

One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was way down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader.

But then The Chicago Tribune -- where Axelrod used to work -- began publishing claims that Hull's second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.

From then until Election Day, Hull was embroiled in fighting the allegation that he was a "wife beater." He and his ex-wife eventually agreed to release their sealed divorce records. His first ex-wife, daughters and nanny defended him at a press conference, swearing he was never violent. During a Democratic debate, Hull was forced to explain that his wife kicked him and he had merely kicked her back.

Hull's substantial lead just a month before the primary collapsed with the nonstop media attention to his divorce records. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.

Luckily for Axelrod, Obama's opponent in the general election had also been divorced.

The Republican nominee was Jack Ryan, a graduate of Dartmouth and Harvard law and business schools, who had left his lucrative partnership at Goldman Sachs​ to teach at an inner-city school on the South Side of Chicago.

But in a child custody dispute some years earlier, Ryan's ex-wife, Hollywood sex kitten Jeri Lynn Ryan​, had alleged that, while the couple was married, Jack had taken her to swingers clubs in Paris and New York.

Jack Ryan adamantly denied the allegations. In the interest of protecting their son, he also requested that the records be put permanently under seal.

Axelrod's courthouse moles obtained the "sealed" records and, in no time, they were in the hands of every political operative in Chicago. Knowing perfectly well what was in the records, Chicago Tribune attorneys flew to California and requested that the court officially "unseal" them -- over the objections of both Jack and Jeri Ryan​.

Your honor, who knows what could be in these records!

A California judge ordered them unsealed, which allowed newspapers to publish the salacious allegations, and four days later, Ryan dropped out of the race under pressure from idiot Republicans (who should be tracked down and shot).

With a last-minute replacement of Alan Keyes as Obama's Republican opponent, Obama was able to set an all-time record in an Illinois Senate election, winning with a 43 percent margin.

And that's how Obama became a senator four years after losing a congressional race to Bobby Rush​. (In a disastrous turn of events, Rush was not divorced.)

Axelrod destroyed the only two men who stood between Obama and the Senate with illicitly obtained, lurid allegations from their pasts.

In 2007, long after Obama was safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, The New York Times reported: "The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece (on Hull's sealed divorce records) later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had 'worked aggressively behind the scenes' to push the story."

Some had suggested, the Times article continued, that Axelrod had "an even more significant role -- that he leaked the initial story."

This time, Obama's little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the Republican primary, but are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist.

Originally Posted by Northgate

What's fucking hilarious is that these guys want you to believe that if this happened to Obama that they'd exercise restraint.

This thread had me belly laughing after the first sentence.

Originally Posted by Apple ][

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.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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.

Originally Posted by sequitur

One of the women is a Republican Tea Party member.

Originally Posted by trumptman

The Tea Party is not a formal party and you cannot register for it with regard to primaries, etc.

So aside from a spokesperson or couple media members mouthing it, what about her actions makes you think she would be conservative?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

He doesn't have to prove a negative. You have to prove she is, and no just in name only.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

He doesn't have to prove a negative. You have to prove she is, and no just in name only.

Originally Posted by sdw2001

Prove it wasn't divine intervention. And don't start with the burden of proof shit, either.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

He doesn't have to prove a negative. You have to prove she is, and no just in name only.

Originally Posted by sdw2001

Prove it wasn't divine intervention. And don't start with the burden of proof shit, either.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

He doesn't have to prove a negative. You have to prove she is, and no just in name only.

Originally Posted by sdw2001

Prove it wasn't divine intervention. And don't start with the burden of proof shit, either.