Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Count me as a dummy because I agree with Laura. My logic is simple. There are no specifics in the charges against Mr Cain. Just innuendo, water cooler smirks and assurances by an attorney (lots of credibility there) that it happened to his client, but she is just to private to speak out.
When details, like came out in the Lewinsky affair, are presented, then we can talk about the logic of the falsehoods and misrepresentations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur
Wherein Laura triumphantly knocks down the following feeble (and intellectually embarrassing) strawman:
"No one has a spotless past, therefore it is wrong for anyone to criticize the past of any candidate I like"
That might get you a passing grade on an elementary school debate team, Laura. But by Middle School you'd be getting an F.
So, if you're 12 years old or younger, Laura, keep trying! If you're at least 13, or older, well ... um ... I suggest you buy a copy of LOGIC FOR DUMMIES and read it. Or have someone read it to you, and explain it. Slowly. Very slowly. With pictures.
It depends on what the past is.
Illegal stuff is a no go. Sexual things, harrassment, etc is illegal. If you have that and covered it deviously it should haunt you and be used against you.
Affairs aren't illegel but if you're running on the side which acts like it's the only people who are Christians and the gatekeepers of morality family values you had better not have been caught with pants down or body parts in, on who you're not married to or someone jailbait, or whatever/
I'm looking at you Newt.
His ongoing affair with Callista at the time was okay because he wasn't president yet he was the ringleader finger pointer? That's hilarious
And the height of hypocrisy. But give the devil his due: Newt admitted it, albeit
long after we'd wasted 40 million on a ridiculous impeachment process which ultimately failed because the American people disapproved. Very few families have been untouched by adultery somewhere along the line.
Spotless past, no chance, mostly fights though no drugs, no harassment I never cheated on my wife of 16 years pay all my bills, typical 16 -25 year old male stuff for me. So I don't consider someones past a big deal unless its murder or rape or something.
I've said it before the most disgusting form of pre election crap was the swift boaters against Kerry, what a scam that turned out to be, they were just out for the money and yea I believe Rove was behind all of it. Just like he was behind calling McCain gay and how he may have fathered a black baby in 2000. I wasn't voting for Kerry and I didn't think he would of won, but after that I think the democrats should take the gloves off and nail whoever gets the republican nomination. Disrespecting Kerry was one thing he have deserved the way Rove went about it was disturbing. The $h!t he pulled on McCain back in 2000 should have been treason and Rove should of been dealt with by a firing squad.
This is why so many people that everyone thinks would just be the greatest candidate will not run. They know they have that one thing or more that will come out and it will hurt their families or be a huge embarrassment. Campaigns investigate their own candidates in order to prepare for this sort of thing.
This is why I am not really buying this Herman Cain thing totally. I am not sure it wasn't leaked now intentionally to get it out of the way. It's just not all ringing genuine to me.
of course it was leaked by someone who had a axe to grind: couldn't have been another candidate's campaign, could have been the liberal side or could have been someone who really dislikes him, maybe from the Restaurant Assoc, who knows? My biggest problem: he handled it poorly.
I tend to agree. America would be a better country if people voted for, or against Cain based on his tax plan, stances on foreign policy, etc.
I am personally against Cain because he is a neo-con, and the 9-9-9 tax plan will send my taxes through the roof. I couldn't really care less whether he is a philanderer, or not since that is a distraction rather then a legitimate issue.
They will: few are going to vote pro on con on this issue alone.
And the height of hypocrisy. But give the devil his due: Newt admitted it, albeit
long after we'd wasted 40 million on a ridiculous impeachment process which ultimately failed because the American people disapproved. Very few families have been untouched by adultery somewhere along the line.
it was lieing under oath that caused the inpeachment proceedings, not his affair with anyone.
of course it was leaked by someone who had a axe to grind: couldn't have been another candidate's campaign, could have been the liberal side or could have been someone who really dislikes him, maybe from the Restaurant Assoc, who knows? My biggest problem: he handled it poorly.
Nita
That's not really what I meant. Everyone presumes it was leaked by someone for revenge or to cause him to fall, etc. I am not so sure about those motives.
Campaigns investigate their own candidates in order to prepare for this sort of thing.
This is why I am not really buying this Herman Cain thing totally. I am not sure it wasn't leaked now intentionally to get it out of the way. It's just not all ringing genuine to me.
Well, if you are right and that was the case, that it was leaked to get it out of the way, then it makes Cain look even worse because he bungled it so completely. More than anything, I think the way he mishandled the whole affair is what is the most damaging for him. If he can't handle something surfacing from his own past (and for which he had a 10 day head's up to prepare) then what kind of confidence can anyone have that he can handle the real and challenging stuff that comes along in the course of any presidency? Hubris only gets you so far.
That's not really what I meant. Everyone presumes it was leaked by someone for revenge or to cause him to fall, etc. I am not so sure about those motives.
Do you think they wanted it out now when he still had time to deal with it, and then he'd either sink or swim? I honestly hadn't thought about that angle--that they did it early enough that he could possibly still recover? If that was the case, wouldn't Cain have been coached on how to deal with it? He bumbled all over--that's why I assumed it couldn't have been an internal move, and it was an outside job to take him out. The other option (outside of simply trying to take Cain out) is that someone did it to distract the public so Romney wouldn't have to spend too much time in the limelight before the primary--it would minimize his exposure to negative advertising and jabs from the other candidates. I'm not saying the Romney camp was part of that move at all, but there's a long list of establishment R's who want to make sure he gets the nomination.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you're at least 13, or older, well ... um ... I suggest you buy a copy of LOGIC FOR DUMMIES and read it. Or have someone read it to you, and explain it. Slowly. Very slowly. With pictures.
