Herman Cain ends presidential bid

[WallofYawn]

Herman Cain just announced he's no longer running. What are your thoughts on this? Personally, I think it was because of all this sexual harassment/mistress talk. I never liked the guy much, tbh. He's said some things that have really irked me.

Now, if only all the other candidates weren't running. ;)

But anyways, discuss Herman Cain, I guess. Your opinions on him and his reasons for throwing in the towel?

[mloloya1]

Newt Gingrich never ever cheated on his wives.

[WallofYawn]

I dunno if he did or not, but he financed fanny maye and freddy mack, which makes him a hypocritical tool. I will say one thing, tho, at least he's not Richard "cranium" Perry.

[Sense-Offender]

At 12/3/11 10:51 PM, mloloya1 wrote: Newt Gingrich never ever cheated on his wives.

lol

[Korriken]

yet another successful character assassination.

Personally I think he should sue every one of them women for slander, especially if they're unable to come up with any real proof.

Wonder how much they got paid to come up with the accusations. the timing is a little TOO convenient that so many suddenly come forth once he's on top.

[Camarohusky]

Now can we get rid of the rest of the riff raff in the GOP primary?

There are only two GOP candidates that can woo the independants and guess what, neither has ever lead the running (and they both likely have very large families)

[Cootie]

Why do people care if the president is a cheater? Does this effect his ability to lead?

[Korriken]

At 12/4/11 12:14 AM, Cootie wrote: Why do people care if the president is a cheater? Does this effect his ability to lead?

It only matter if the person is a conservative.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/4/11 12:17 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/4/11 12:14 AM, Cootie wrote: Why do people care if the president is a cheater? Does this effect his ability to lead?

It only matter if the person is a conservative.

Somebody clearly doesn't remember the late 1990s.

[RydiaLockheart]

Can someone please explain to me how it's perfectly OK to have legally actionable sexual harassment claims against you, but a consensual affair derails a campaign?

[Sense-Offender]

At 12/4/11 12:07 AM, Korriken wrote: yet another successful character assassination.

I doubt that. You know that one of the women was paid about 45,000 dollars to keep her mouth shut, right? And the amount of women makes it seem more legit. He probably did that shit.

At 12/4/11 12:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Somebody clearly doesn't remember the late 1990s.

Well, I think some people argued that the big deal was the fact he got it on in the Oval Office, but I really doubt he was the first president to do that. I dunno.

[WallofYawn]

Bill Clinton was, and always will be, THE presidential pimp of the white house. I mean, what other president would you honestly wanna party with? And trust to do their job well on top of it.(compare his economy to Bush's and there's no comparison)

Not to mention he was the first black president. ;)

[aviewaskewed]

At 12/4/11 12:07 AM, Korriken wrote: yet another successful character assassination.

Because you can prove there's no validity to any of these rumors?

Personally I think he should sue every one of them women for slander, especially if they're unable to come up with any real proof.

What happens if they can? Because I'm very much wondering how you seem to be immediately jumping to the conclusion that they're full of shit.

Wonder how much they got paid to come up with the accusations.

So now you just go right ahead and assume it's all lies? Wow, just wow.

the timing is a little TOO convenient that so many suddenly come forth once he's on top.

Perhaps they got settlements prior. Perhaps they were too intimidated to come forward (it happens). Or yeah, perhaps they had legit claims, but just waited till he was at his most prominent to bust him. Perhaps there's nothing to it (of course, if Gloria Allred is willing to put her very prominent ass and rep onto the first case, I'd have to think she feels there's at least SOMETHING to take to trial). Now, obviously he's innocent until proven guilty...but with so many people coming forward, I think the preponderance of the evidence says there's a little fire to all this smoke. Interestingly, that's the exact burden of proof these ladies will need to satisfy.

As far as the race itself...yeah, as already is pointed out, the Republican electorate is confusing me enormously here. They are presumably abandoning Cain (and I'd say this is probably more about his backers deciding he was a toxic asset and pulling out then just the allegations themselves...more like a case of thing A caused thing B), because they think he can't be elected after all the negative pub and what not. But now the voters are getting behind Newt Gingrich, a man we KNOW has been unfaithful in two prior marriages, and just generally is a typical scumbag politician. Are they REALLY this desperate not to put up Mitt Romney? Really? I think the primary will be way more fun then the actual election.

[aviewaskewed]

At 12/4/11 12:49 AM, Sense-Offender wrote: Well, I think some people argued that the big deal was the fact he got it on in the Oval Office, but I really doubt he was the first president to do that. I dunno.

He's the first to get caught at it and then impeached from the consequences of it (lying about it under oath). But yeah, we know Kennedy and Roosevelt fucked around on their wives (and Eleanore fucked around herself, so that does make it kind of even).

[Thecrazyman]

I'm not surprised Herman Cain gave up the Presidential bid, he wasn't meant to take Obama's place anyways.

In any case, a new political party will rise to power in due moment, if any party is to rise to power, I choose the Independents.

[Gario]

At 12/4/11 12:49 AM, Sense-Offender wrote: Well, I think some people argued that the big deal was the fact he got it on in the Oval Office, but I really doubt he was the first president to do that. I dunno.

I think it had more to do with the fact that he swore under oath to the entire country that he didn't have an affair with the woman. Bald-face lying to your nation and getting caught for it is pretty hard to sweep under the rug.

As for Herman Cain, I thought he was going to try to be the very best. He seemed to understand that life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible and that it's never easy when there's so much on the line.

I guess I thought wrong on that front.

[BUTANE]

I think everyone knows that the reason Herman threw in the towel is that he is guilty of both cheating on his wife and sexually harassing ex employees (right or wrong is up to your own morals). Unfortunately for Cain, he was a republican (even though a dem would have been just as fucked) and his party likes to pretend that they believe in "morals" and therefore he could never be the candidate.

As far as im concerned his cheating was the most attractive thing about the the guy. As a candidate his 999 plan was straight up impractical and stupid (it never would have come into existence). He didn't even know what country libya is even though it had been national headlines for weeks prior to being asked about it. Basically the guy was just there to show that republicans aren't racist.

[Korriken]

At 12/4/11 01:52 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Because you can prove there's no validity to any of these rumors?

I have yet to see any solid proof.

What happens if they can? Because I'm very much wondering how you seem to be immediately jumping to the conclusion that they're full of shit.

So now you just go right ahead and assume it's all lies? Wow, just wow.

nah, i just find that all of a sudden all these women almost at the same time all come rushing out with their accusations to take cain down to be too convenient. I get the feeling someone (probably another republican) (perry perhaps?) pulled their strings, and put some money or something in their pocket to come out and say something because they realized cain was one hell of a threat to their campaign.

Perhaps they got settlements prior. Perhaps they were too intimidated to come forward (it happens). Or yeah, perhaps they had legit claims, but just waited till he was at his most prominent to bust him.

intimidated? doubt it.

Perhaps there's nothing to it (of course, if Gloria Allred is willing to put her very prominent ass and rep onto the first case, I'd have to think she feels there's at least SOMETHING to take to trial).

Dunno, then again, she may have done it for the attention, knowing it would never actually go to trial.

Now, obviously he's innocent until proven guilty...but with so many people coming forward, I think the preponderance of the evidence says there's a little fire to all this smoke. Interestingly, that's the exact burden of proof these ladies will need to satisfy.

As far as the race itself...yeah, as already is pointed out, the Republican electorate is confusing me enormously here. They are presumably abandoning Cain (and I'd say this is probably more about his backers deciding he was a toxic asset and pulling out then just the allegations themselves...more like a case of thing A caused thing B), because they think he can't be elected after all the negative pub and what not. But now the voters are getting behind Newt Gingrich, a man we KNOW has been unfaithful in two prior marriages, and just generally is a typical scumbag politician. Are they REALLY this desperate not to put up Mitt Romney? Really? I think the primary will be way more fun then the actual election.

yeah the primary is gonna be fun, and nasty. if the economy doesn't pick up a lot more, or worse, if it actually goes deeper into the shitter, the election is going to be a LOT of fun watching Obama's campaign throw every negative ad they can at the republican candidate.

on the bright side, there's always 2016.. if we ever get that far.

[Ericho]

I never cared much for Cain, but I do find this strange considering that he was apparently the most popular Republican candidate. I wouldn't vote for him, but then again, I haven't heard much about his political views except that he took heat for joking about building an electric fence to kill Mexicans. Gee, maybe I should stop using "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" for my biggest news sources.

[morefngdbs]

At 12/4/11 11:32 AM, Ericho wrote: Gee, maybe I should stop using "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" for my biggest news sources.

;;;
Seems to me every news publication is slanted one way or another.
The trick seems to be reading a bunch of publications from far left & right...the suck ups & the ones you know wouldn't say shit even if its running out of both ears of the writer or broadcaster...Look at what the local news says about it.

Then surf the net... but it seems that many have an agenda or support one group over another. Some are not as bad as others & I like the independant publications .
then try & figure out some truth from there.

[Sense-Offender]

At 12/4/11 09:11 AM, Korriken wrote: nah, i just find that all of a sudden all these women almost at the same time

I thought this all started in the '90s.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/4/11 09:11 AM, Korriken wrote: nah, i just find that all of a sudden all these women almost at the same time

This really isn't that suspicious.

The nature of sexual harassment in our society is such that the victims often don't want to come forward, or in many cases, are looked down upon for coming forward. So once one woman comes forward a huge barrier gets knocked down for the others that were holding back.

If you want an example of this, take a peek at the Penn State scandal. It's 'convenient' that all these kids are now coming forward, so they must be lying and must be part of the Ohio State conspiracy machine, and therefore 100% a lie and falsehood.

Sorry there. It's not an indication of fallacy, rather a sad truth of our social treatment toward any unwanted sexual conduct.

[BUTANE]

At 12/4/11 12:07 AM, Korriken wrote: yet another successful character assassination.

Personally I think he should sue every one of them women for slander, especially if they're unable to come up with any real proof.

Wonder how much they got paid to come up with the accusations. the timing is a little TOO convenient that so many suddenly come forth once he's on top.

It's actually not "TOO" convenient for them to come out when he is on top. If you have something that is both embarrassing for yourself and a candidate, and you don't like the candidate, you would naturally wait to release the information until it would be politically advantageous. Why embarrass yourself for no reason at all? Back when Cain was polling in the single digits there was no need to knock him down...since he already was.

As far as suing the women for slander, my guess is that he would have perused that route if the accusations were truly false. The fact that he has not taken any legal action against them just goes to show that he clearly indulged in inter-marital affairs.

[mloloya1]

At 12/3/11 11:39 PM, WallofYawn wrote: I dunno if he did or not, but he financed fanny maye and freddy mack, which makes him a hypocritical tool. I will say one thing, tho, at least he's not Richard "cranium" Perry.

I guess I should have been more obvious with the sarcasm. The point is Newt Gingrich did indeed cheat on two of his wives.. and yet it does not matter. I think ultimately Cain just did a terrible job handling the situation. Otherwise I bet you it would have been a non issue and he would still be ahead.

[Sense-Offender]

At 12/4/11 02:56 PM, mloloya1 wrote: The point is Newt Gingrich did indeed cheat on two of his wives..

And yet, he's supposed to be a champion of family values and goes on about the "sanctity of marriage". What a prick.

and yet it does not matter. I think ultimately Cain just did a terrible job handling the situation.

Yeah, well as far as I know, he wasn't accused by several women of sexual harassment.

[mloloya1]

Your second statement is indeed true.

[Korriken]

At 12/4/11 01:59 PM, BUTANE wrote:

As far as suing the women for slander, my guess is that he would have perused that route if the accusations were truly false. The fact that he has not taken any legal action against them just goes to show that he clearly indulged in inter-marital affairs.

that's like saying me not taking revenge on my stepfather for walking off when my mother was dying of cancer means that I condone his actions.

Another way to look at it would be "what's the point of suing them? none of them have anything he could take."

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

Why couldn't they have done this to Mitt Romney instead?

[Sense-Offender]

Korriken, the more reasonable way to lean here is that he likely did it. innocent until proven guilty, sure. But to think it's more likely that it's some conspiracy is ludicrous.

[Iron-Hampster]

there are some double standards going on here. How come the same man who impeached Clinton for his sex scandal can now run for office after having MORE sex scandals than the man he impeached? He should have been forced to resign like Wiener but guess what, he didn't.

Imo, adultery shouldn't be grounds for resignation to begin with, if we get party animal dickheads in congress, who cares. Its the bribery, abuse of power and blackmail that should get you kicked out. aka, things that actually matter. Although if its a crime like rape or sexual harassment then that's different.

to my understanding, the founding fathers weren't so puritanical themselves.