Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/4/11 04:38 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: 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.

he wasn't impeached for the sex scandal. he was impeached for lying under oath. Apparently it was all a huge misunderstanding. Clinton thought that oral didn't count.

still, its politics.

---

At 12/4/11 11:32 AM, Ericho wrote: 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.

What about claiming that all black democrats are brainwashed, or that abortion clinics were invented to try and exterminate the black race?

Dude has said some pretty fucked up things in the past, besides his preposterous political plan(all I can say is, neine, neine, neine to 999)

As for someone saying the independents have to take stage: I'm surprised no democrats are running, and the independents never win.(almost seems like they're not allowed to)

The only Libertarian candidate among them is Ron Paul, and he's running as a Republican. He's for less government and less taxes, but beyond that the guy is a liberal. He is running as a republican, because no one in their right mind runs as an independent. I don't think there has ever been an independent president, since the two parties formed.

Everyone always expects you to be one or the other anyways. Tell them you're for less taxes/government, they call you a conservative republican. Tell them you want more funding for education and infrastructure, they call you a democrat. Claim you want both, they look at you funny.

Independents don't run as independents, because independents lose. That's why you see a libertarian running as a republican. Though personally, I think we need to get rid of both these parties, because they're both as equally fucked up, in my opinion. They both have similar agendas, and they both are controlled like puppets by big corporate lobbyists. Fuck em both.

---

Herman Cain was a complete idiot, glad he is out of the way, altough I am sad as this means I will no longer hear stories of how incompetent he was.

---

At 12/4/11 09:04 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Herman Cain was a complete idiot, glad he is out of the way, altough I am sad as this means I will no longer hear stories of how incompetent he was.

yeah last time we elected an incompetent politician... well he's still in office.

---

Herman Cain was woefully unqualified to be president. The joke, however, is that he knew it all along. He had to know the scandals would break, he just had to get enough national attention to bolster his book sales and make him a known name to take on the commentator circuit, give speeches, and be a pundit for the Repubs on Fox. I think he got exactly what he was looking for, he accomplished exactly the goals he set out to meet, and we're all the suckers for paying enough attention to him to allow it.

---

Is it just me, or does anyone else think the US presidential elections are a bit like reality TV shows?

I swear I remember seeing some sexual scandals in an episode of Bridezilla, and I saw the same thinking's of the GOP's candidates on an episode in Cops when they arrest two skinheads growing pot!

---

At 12/4/11 09:29 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/4/11 09:04 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Herman Cain was a complete idiot, glad he is out of the way, altough I am sad as this means I will no longer hear stories of how incompetent he was.

yeah last time we elected an incompetent politician... well he's still in office.

Oh god, Bush is still president? Dear lord!

---

If Herman Cain ends his campaign because of a Sex Scandal, Someone like Gingrich should be kicked out of the primary immediately. But unfortunately we live in a world where private adultery is more extraneous a crime as a presidential candidate [or president] Than public adultery; lobbying and flip flopping.

---

At 12/4/11 09:11 AM, Korriken wrote: I have yet to see any solid proof.

So then, of course logically, that means you just jump to the conclusion that they're lying? Yep, perfect sense that makes.

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 won't deny the timing seems very suspicious. But this could be more about "let's go get ourselves a pay day now that he's got some serious money coming in, and every reason in the world to settle". On the other hand it could be a case where they were harrassed, and felt like they couldn't come forward until now for whatever reason (sometimes people don't report these sorts of things immediately).

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.

Eh, while I certainly can't dismiss it since people have done some shady shit in primaries (Hilary's camp starting all that "stealth Muslim" crap on Obama), this one just seems the least likely conclusion to draw without evidence. Especially since it's more likely that this is either a true thing, or if it's false, it's more the scenario I laid out. That makes more sense to me then the other, especially since this primary has really been all about certain candidates getting super hot, and flaming out at some point down the line. I couldn't see Cain getting the nod, I really couldn't. I still say it's Romney until I see somebody "better" and more able to sustain a lead popping up. I think Cain said a lot of things that conservatives like to hear, but when actually pressed for details, ideas, and understanding...fell sort of flat.

intimidated? doubt it.

Based on what?

As far as the race itself...yeah, as already is pointed out, the Republican electorate is confusing me enormously here.

The guiding light has seemed for awhile "anybody but Romney". Trying to find a superstar that appeals to the two base constituencies (evanlegicals and neo-cons) but can also sway independents in the way Obama did in 08. Good luck with that! Especially because I think a lot of people who bought into that cult of personality and were then disappointed will be less likely to fall for that again no matter the party affiliation of the candidate.

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.

We are seeing some uptick. He's got that, he's got the fact that he can say he kept the promise on Iraq, and a few other things going for him. Also if he's running against Romney, the healthcare card is dead...since essentially what got passed is Mitt Romney's plan he was touting during his last campaign. Can't rail against something that was your idea to begin with.

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

Call me a hopeless optimist, but I have to think we'll figure out a way through the current quagmire...or maybe that's just a case of "you HAVE to hope for that...the alternative is too scary to even contemplate"

---

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.

This is a bit dubious. Cain can certainly turn around and sue them should he prove victorious in court, and he's spend less time and money doing it that way, because a slander case would be a slam dunk if he walked into that case as the plaintiff with a declarative court judgement that cleared him of the claims the women made. I think it would actually be smarter on his part of he was innocent and thinking about suing for slander to go the route he's going: public denial, let it go to trial, prove his innocence, then turn around and sue for slander to completely clear his reputation.

---

At 12/5/11 07:03 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

The guiding light has seemed for awhile "anybody but Romney". Trying to find a superstar that appeals to the two base constituencies (evanlegicals and neo-cons) but can also sway independents in the way Obama did in 08. Good luck with that! Especially because I think a lot of people who bought into that cult of personality and were then disappointed will be less likely to fall for that again no matter the party affiliation of the candidate.

Romney doesn't really have a foreign policy record, just statements. He might be a closet dove as well as being a closet progressive, but who knows.

---

At 12/5/11 08:02 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Romney doesn't really have a foreign policy record, just statements. He might be a closet dove as well as being a closet progressive, but who knows.

I don't think you put up Romney because he's great and electable...I think you put up Romney because he has the best chance out of the field you've got...you look at pretty much every body else and it's either that they're unelectable (Bachmann, Perry, etc) or might have a chance with the swing voters, but no way does the base get behind them (Paul). I know conservatives are salivating at the chance to oust Obama...but more and more I get the feeling that they don't have a candidate that can beat him. That even people not impressed with Obama are still going to vote him in because he's the devil they know.

---

At 12/5/11 07:03 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

So then, of course logically, that means you just jump to the conclusion that they're lying? Yep, perfect sense that makes.

nah, I'm just saying that I want to see some solid proof. course, its always funny when things like this crop up.

I won't deny the timing seems very suspicious. But this could be more about "let's go get ourselves a pay day now that he's got some serious money coming in, and every reason in the world to settle". On the other hand it could be a case where they were harrassed, and felt like they couldn't come forward until now for whatever reason (sometimes people don't report these sorts of things immediately).

I doubt they were harassed for that many years and all of a sudden couldn't take it anymore. "let's go get ourselves a payday" is a possibility. I think i'm gonna do some digging and see if i can find anything, perhaps some are Obama supporters. That'd be a damned fine reason to want to sink Cain.

I did find this one. a vegas bookie wouldn't touch a bet on whether or not that was politically motivated.

intimidated? doubt it.

Based on what?

based on timing of course. if they wanted to "right a wrong" they would have taken him to court back in the 90's not wait til now.

We are seeing some uptick. He's got that,

the election is a year away, anything can still happen.

he's got the fact that he can say he kept the promise on Iraq, and a few other things going for him.

yeah he did get that much done. course, Gitmo is still open.

Also if he's running against Romney, the healthcare card is dead...since essentially what got passed is Mitt Romney's plan he was touting during his last campaign. Can't rail against something that was your idea to begin with.

which is why the GOP is most likely trying their damnedest to stop him from being the nominee. that's gonna be one of their biggest weapons against Obama. well the fact he passed it at all, along with the timing of the passage.

Call me a hopeless optimist, but I have to think we'll figure out a way through the current quagmire...or maybe that's just a case of "you HAVE to hope for that...the alternative is too scary to even contemplate"

depends on your point of view. Obama now is a lot better than he was when he first started. when he first took office he was.. awful. He's learned a lot in 3 years, but, I want someone in the office (left or right, doesn't really matter to me anymore) that has an iron spine (metaphorically speaking) that will do more than just make political decisions on whether he'll get reelected. Those that spend all their time worrying about reelection often find themselves thrown out of office for being ineffective.

hell, put Hillary Clinton in, I'm sure she'd love a shot at it, if she can do it like slick willy (bill clinton) did.

Clinton did a good job imo, a democrat reforming welfare in a way the working man can agree with, that's leadership.

---

At 12/5/11 08:19 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 12/5/11 08:02 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Romney doesn't really have a foreign policy record, just statements. He might be a closet dove as well as being a closet progressive, but who knows.

I don't think you put up Romney because he's great and electable...I think you put up Romney because he has the best chance out of the field you've got...you look at pretty much every body else and it's either that they're unelectable (Bachmann, Perry, etc) or might have a chance with the swing voters, but no way does the base get behind them (Paul). I know conservatives are salivating at the chance to oust Obama...but more and more I get the feeling that they don't have a candidate that can beat him. That even people not impressed with Obama are still going to vote him in because he's the devil they know.

You? Who's you? I'm not running the republican primary.

Romney's been put up because people think he has the best chance of beating Obama. And people think he has the best chance of beating Obama because he's been put up. Though In polls where Romney competes with Obama, he tends to do about as well [sometimes slightly better, sometimes slightly worse] against him as Paul does.

I'm not sure what 'Base' you're talking about with Respect to Paul, surely not the main republican Base. If Paul had the main republican Base he would beat Romney hands down.

Ron Paul is more popular with independents, and republican outcasts.

---

At 12/5/11 10:33 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Romney's been put up because people think he has the best chance of beating Obama. And people think he has the best chance of beating Obama because he's been put up. Though In polls where Romney competes with Obama, he tends to do about as well [sometimes slightly better, sometimes slightly worse] against him as Paul does.

Romney has the best chance because he can come off as semi-normal, and not batshit crazy. Ron Paul can only pull off the latter.

I'm not sure what 'Base' you're talking about with Respect to Paul, surely not the main republican Base. If Paul had the main republican Base he would beat Romney hands down.

I think he said that the base is not behind Paul.

Ron Paul is more popular with independents, and republican outcasts.

I don't see this group of independents that loves Ron Paul. I keep looking and looking and looking, but I can't find it. Paul is popular among libertarians and liberals. Among independent and average folk, Paul is looked at as just plain weird. When it comes to independents and average folk, image is twice as important as any stance on the issues.

---

At 12/3/11 08:21 PM, WallofYawn wrote: Herman Cain just announced he's no longer running.

And nothing of value was lost.

I'd like to think that his embarrassing stumbles on questions of foreign policy did more to sink him than the allegations of sexual improprieties against him did, but my guess is they didn't, which is really sad. Still, doesn't really matter what you noticed first, the big, floppy shoes or the bulbous red nose, before you realized the guy was a clown.

---

At 12/5/11 10:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Romney has the best chance because he can come off as semi-normal, and not batshit crazy. Ron Paul can only pull off the latter.

I agree, all elections should be between candidates who have the exact same policies on everything that matters. nothing wrong with that at all. no sir democracy is about who would look the best with their head printed on your money. I'll be damned if i grow up in a world where one candidate has any significant difference from his opponent. this is just the way i like it thank you very much this election isn't about left or right its about black or mormon.

---

Did anyone else notice that he mentioned his quote from "Pokemon The Movie 2000" on December 3rd, the exact same day that the latest pokemon movie "Pokemon The Movie: White - Victini and Zekrom" came out in the USA in limited theaters? That movie does have quite a limited release, because there aren't even any reviews of it on RottenTomatoes. That really made my day, or rather, my night, when I heard that.

---

At 12/6/11 11:06 AM, Ericho wrote: Did anyone else notice that he mentioned his quote from "Pokemon The Movie 2000"

you know, pointing out one line from one song on a kid's movie made 11 years ago... someone must have dug deep to find that one.

---

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?

Cheating and lying in a marriage is in fact, unethical.

A direct breach of ethics such as this is in an indicator that the CIC will likely have no problem being unethical in other dealings such as executive orders and policy.

---

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.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Herman cain is my hero and deserves a herman cain collab

---

At 12/6/11 05:49 PM, PowerRangerYELLOW wrote: You took the words right out of my mouth. Herman cain is my hero and deserves a herman cain collab

You must admit that regardless of any social or sexual shortcomigns the man was about as qualified for the Presidency as the average OWS protestor...

9-9-9... Was he drunk when he played Sim Cit... er, came up with this?

---

At 12/6/11 10:45 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

You must admit that regardless of any social or sexual shortcomigns the man was about as qualified for the Presidency as the average OWS protestor...

at least he had an idea more specific than "hope and change! vote for me I give you change!" (not much has changed in washington)

Strangely enough "hope and change" worked.

here's to Bobby Jindal '16

---

At 12/5/11 09:23 PM, Korriken wrote: nah, I'm just saying that I want to see some solid proof. course, its always funny when things like this crop up.

Nah, you clearly made the case that they were full of shit and this was a baseless attack on Cain. Don't back pedal now please.

I doubt they were harassed for that many years and all of a sudden couldn't take it anymore.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen though and that the conclusion then should be that it didn't happen.

"let's go get ourselves a payday" is a possibility.

Sure. It's I think the most likely scenario if it turns out the allegations are not based in fact.

I think i'm gonna do some digging and see if i can find anything, perhaps some are Obama supporters. That'd be a damned fine reason to want to sink Cain.

Riiight, because it's always a conspiracy by those damn Obama supporters...and JFK was killed by the CIA, the government did 9/11, etc. Hey, if you get something credible, I'll eat my words...but right now it seems patently ridiculous for anyone to assume this is some sort of conspiratorial character assassination of a guy that had no real hope of winning the nod, let alone the White House, in the first place.

I did find this one. a vegas bookie wouldn't touch a bet on whether or not that was politically motivated.

Oh...so if a bookie won't touch it, surely that means it's a conspiracy! Because surely the bookie must have some inside info! Or maybe for whatever other completely innocent reason (maybe a reason non-gamblers wouldn't get) he decided it wasn't something he was willing to set odds on. Could even be as simple as he didn't know how to do so, or saw the motive in it for him.

based on timing of course. if they wanted to "right a wrong" they would have taken him to court back in the 90's not wait til now.

Uh huh...let's ignore the mounds of evidence we have that sexual types of crimes don't tend to cause a reaction in most victims where they run out to report it, but actually cause the opposite reaction in that they bury it. I'm not saying that it's a slam dunk that's what happened here...just that your "timing is my evidence" argument isn't as water tight as you might think. I'm not saying you have no hope of being right, I clearly and fully acknowledge you do. But I think it's more then a little specious given what we know about the way people can react to such situations to assume the "victims" are guilty until proven innocent.

the election is a year away, anything can still happen.

Agreed 100%. Let's face it, the economy doesn't collapse in October of 08, McCain had just as much opportunity to get the White House as Obama did. The economic collapse gave him that victory on a silver platter.

yeah he did get that much done. course, Gitmo is still open.

And that is a major black mark in my book. I don't defend that. But at the same time, what president didn't break promises? Including major promises their feet should be held to the fire over? That's why you have to look at the totality of what they did on the job, not just one or two decisions.

which is why the GOP is most likely trying their damnedest to stop him from being the nominee. that's gonna be one of their biggest weapons against Obama. well the fact he passed it at all, along with the timing of the passage.

I think it's a big reason, but there's also the fact that Romney alienates the evangelicals (cause he's a Mormon which they seem to think is a cult), and the neo-cons suspect he might be too liberal (a problem McCain had as well). He takes the biggest arrow they want to run out of their quiver, and he won't bring the two most consistent base factions to the polls, three strikes they're fucked. Here's the problem though...what can run in his place that makes those factions happy, but can still get the independents to vote red? If it's out there, I sure haven't seen it yet. :)

depends on your point of view. Obama now is a lot better than he was when he first started. when he first took office he was.. awful. He's learned a lot in 3 years, but, I want someone in the office (left or right, doesn't really matter to me anymore) that has an iron spine (metaphorically speaking) that will do more than just make political decisions on whether he'll get reelected. Those that spend all their time worrying about reelection often find themselves thrown out of office for being ineffective.

Agreed, and agreed. The thing is, he's in a very good place for that as well right now since he can now run that very card "hey, I've learned a lot about what does and doesn't work in 3 years...and over the next 4 I don't have to worry about re-election or playing nice...I just need to get shit done". Couple that with a Republican challenger that may not be all that inspiring, and it seems to me Obama can win this one pretty handily. Of course, then it becomes all about hoping that with re-election out the window, he finds his balls (which I think he's slowly but surely done) and buckles down to get things done for the good of the public he serves.

hell, put Hillary Clinton in, I'm sure she'd love a shot at it, if she can do it like slick willy (bill clinton) did.

Clinton did a good job imo, a democrat reforming welfare in a way the working man can agree with, that's leadership.

---

At 12/5/11 10:33 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: You? Who's you? I'm not running the republican primary.

You're not? I have gotten some bad info then...

All kidding aside, sorry I was unclear with my hypotheticals and personal pro-nouns there :)

Romney's been put up because people think he has the best chance of beating Obama. And people think he has the best chance of beating Obama because he's been put up.

That and I think the prevailing opinion and flavor of the pollings and what not shows that pretty much nobody else in that field has a lasting shot at it. That's why there was so much thrown at Chris Christie to run.

Though In polls where Romney competes with Obama, he tends to do about as well [sometimes slightly better, sometimes slightly worse] against him as Paul does.

But the problem is Paul has never been able to get traction with the big groups that decide Republican nominations. I'm not saying Paul would be a bad candidate per se. I'm saying that as long as he runs Republican, he has to know he's Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

I'm not sure what 'Base' you're talking about with Respect to Paul, surely not the main republican Base. If Paul had the main republican Base he would beat Romney hands down.

The evangelicals the neo cons. The two bases that will not vote for a Paul or a Romney, but tend to wield the most power within the Republican Party.

Ron Paul is more popular with independents, and republican outcasts.

But not the mainstream, and the mainstream is who is going to decide the nominee. That's my whole point. It's not a slight on Paul in any way, it's an attempt at a realistic assessment of what the mainstream Republicans are going to do when it finally comes down to picking the nominee.

---

At 12/6/11 11:35 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Nah, you clearly made the case that they were full of shit and this was a baseless attack on Cain. Don't back pedal now please.

don't recall any backpedaling. what I'm saying is, we got all these allegations, the media ran with it, used it like a block of concrete to beat Cain's presidential bid over the face with, and no one asks "where's the proof/motivation?".

That doesn't mean it didn't happen though and that the conclusion then should be that it didn't happen.

I just don't see it happening.

Riiight, because it's always a conspiracy by those damn Obama supporters...and JFK was killed by the CIA, the government did 9/11, etc. Hey, if you get something credible, I'll eat my words...but right now it seems patently ridiculous for anyone to assume this is some sort of conspiratorial character assassination of a guy that had no real hope of winning the nod, let alone the White House, in the first place.

If you liked someone you worked for, and had the opportunity to sink a very dangerous rival, you'd do it.

Oh...so if a bookie won't touch it, surely that means it's a conspiracy! Because surely the bookie must have some inside info!

Obama supporter alleges harassment against someone that's got a good shot to run against him that can nullify one of his strongest assets, race. Can't scream "Racist!" at Cain, he's a black man! he can say whatever he wants about Obama and you can't play your race card, unlike the other ghost white candidates. you can only yell "Uncle Tom!" at him.

based on timing of course. if they wanted to "right a wrong" they would have taken him to court back in the 90's not wait til now.

Uh huh...let's ignore the mounds of evidence we have that sexual types of crimes don't tend to cause a reaction in most victims where they run out to report it, but actually cause the opposite reaction in that they bury it.

assuming they are all true. looking at the accusers...

accuser 1, Karen Kraushaar has a some credibility (despite her claims are so very very vague, and there's always a chance that they accused him for a big cash payout back then as well), accusers 2 and 3... do they even exist? why you no come forward accusers? oh that's right, you would be identified and your past would be looked at which could disprove your allegations. nice.

and for the last one, Sharon Bialek. she's full of shit. running your hand up a woman's skirt forcefully will get your landed in prison. you REALLY gonna tell me you waited THIS long without filing any form of complaint? riiiight.

and then you got Ginger White, the person who literally got sued for sending a mass email talking bad about her business partner. what a fine upstanding woman, surely despite her past we should lap up every word for speaks and believe it (despite the fact that every time someone shows up on a morning talk show they get paid quite a bit). surely she didn't do this to get herself out a bad financial situation after seeing other women appear on talk shows and with talking heads and realized "this woman is being paid for this.. ooh IDEA!"

Agreed 100%. Let's face it, the economy doesn't collapse in October of 08, McCain had just as much opportunity to get the White House as Obama did. The economic collapse gave him that victory on a silver platter.

and now the tables have turned. Obama's in the white house and if the economy sinks again close to election time, he is toast.

And that is a major black mark in my book. I don't defend that. But at the same time, what president didn't break promises? Including major promises their feet should be held to the fire over? That's why you have to look at the totality of what they did on the job, not just one or two decisions.

If I look at the totality of the first 3 years, I can't imagine voting for him.

I think it's a big reason, but there's also the fact that Romney alienates the evangelicals (cause he's a Mormon which they seem to think is a cult), and the neo-cons suspect he might be too liberal (a problem McCain had as well).

that much goes without saying.

He takes the biggest arrow they want to run out of their quiver, and he won't bring the two most consistent base factions to the polls, three strikes they're fucked. Here's the problem though...what can run in his place that makes those factions happy, but can still get the independents to vote red? If it's out there, I sure haven't seen it yet. :)

this might just be crazy talk, but I would keep an eye on the moderate democrats. they might be the ushers of a surprising upset come election time.

Agreed, and agreed. The thing is, he's in a very good place for that as well right now since he can now run that very card "hey, I've learned a lot about what does and doesn't work in 3 years...and over the next 4 I don't have to worry about re-election or playing nice...I just need to get shit done".

his mistakes will still be put on display for all to see, just like anyone else running for reelection.

Couple that with a Republican challenger that may not be all that inspiring, and it seems to me Obama can win this one pretty handily. Of course, then it becomes all about hoping that with re-election out the window, he finds his balls (which I think he's slowly but surely done) and buckles down to get things done for the good of the public he serves.

we'll have to wait to see how many "anyone but Obama" voters come out of the woodwork. Also, I think Obama showed his hand pretty well right from the beginning when he fought to push through the health care reform while ignoring the economy, he called many meeting to get it done, but when it comes to other things, like the "dead super committee" he was eerily silent on the matter. IF the GOP doesn't capitalize on that, then, they don't desert to win the election.

they say independents make or break elections, which is sad given how blissfully ignorant many are of the current issues and make decisions based on what they saw on TV.

---

At 12/7/11 08:37 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/6/11 11:35 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Oh...so if a bookie won't touch it, surely that means it's a conspiracy! Because surely the bookie must have some inside info!

Obama supporter alleges harassment against someone that's got a good shot to run against him that can nullify one of his strongest assets, race. Can't scream "Racist!" at Cain, he's a black man! he can say whatever he wants about Obama and you can't play your race card, unlike the other ghost white candidates. you can only yell "Uncle Tom!" at him.

Obama doesn't really use the "Race Card". If you recall, just a few months ago he gave a speech to the Congressional Black Caucus and told them to "quit complaining". Basically telling the black community that race cannot be used as a very legitimate excuse anymore.

---

At 12/7/11 12:01 PM, BUTANE wrote:

Obama doesn't really use the "Race Card". If you recall, just a few months ago he gave a speech to the Congressional Black Caucus and told them to "quit complaining". Basically telling the black community that race cannot be used as a very legitimate excuse anymore.

he's telling them to shut up because their complaining is going to hurt the black turnout for his reelection.

course thats a discussion for a different topic.

---

I agree with John Stewart, this batch of republican candidates is just comedy gold. They're all such awful hypocritical liars.

---

At 12/7/11 08:37 AM, Korriken wrote: don't recall any backpedaling.

When you flat out call the accusers liars (you did in your first post). Then back away from that position (your last post) that's backpedaling.

what I'm saying is, we got all these allegations, the media ran with it, used it like a block of concrete to beat Cain's presidential bid over the face with, and no one asks "where's the proof/motivation?".

Well, the media reported it because it was news. So let's not act like this was some kind of unprovoked attack on their part or anything. It was news, and it's big news when it relates to someone looking to lead the country. So yeah.

As far as the proof: what? You expect the accusers to sit there and try their case in the media? We'll see what proof they do or don't have when the trial occurs. Same with motivations and all that. It's like expecting that when OJ was arrested and charged with murder that the prosecution would lay all it's cards on the table before going to trial. That's not what you do.

I just don't see it happening.

That still doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just because you personally can't conceive of it, does not make it false. You should probably make that more clear next time. :)

If you liked someone you worked for, and had the opportunity to sink a very dangerous rival, you'd do it.

So now you suddenly know all about me? Well...we all know what assumption is the mother of....

Next time try actually rebutting my point...or just let it slip away.

Obama supporter alleges harassment against someone that's got a good shot to run against him that can nullify one of his strongest assets, race.

Huh? How do you know all the accusers are Obama supporters? You have proof? You know how they voted in the last election? Careful of that windmill!

Can't scream "Racist!" at Cain, he's a black man! he can say whatever he wants about Obama and you can't play your race card, unlike the other ghost white candidates. you can only yell "Uncle Tom!" at him.

Well, conspiracies are fun...proof for these assertions would be even more fun. Gotta say, I prefer the current George R.R. Martin book I'm reading to this piece of fantasy.

assuming they are all true. looking at the accusers...

Of course assuming they are true. I'm just providing a counter explanation to your false assertion that if true, it would have been reported, that such a thing happens 100% of the time.

accuser 1, Karen Kraushaar has a some credibility (despite her claims are so very very vague, and there's always a chance that they accused him for a big cash payout back then as well), accusers 2 and 3... do they even exist? why you no come forward accusers? oh that's right, you would be identified and your past would be looked at which could disprove your allegations. nice.

Or maybe they just don't want the scrutiny? Maybe they don't want the cameras and the media in their faces while all this is going on? Maybe they just want justice, not attention?

See? Look how that took me all of 5 seconds to come up with alternate reasons that don't involve the alleged victims being scumbags. It isn't that hard as long as you can take a moment not to be the same kind of person that you bitch about when you say "Obama supporter". You know, the person who blindly follows a candidate and always assumes whatever bad gets said or written about them is false and concocted by some evil bogeyman.

and for the last one, Sharon Bialek. she's full of shit. running your hand up a woman's skirt forcefully will get your landed in prison.

Not if it's never reported.

you REALLY gonna tell me you waited THIS long without filing any form of complaint? riiiight.

Again, see cases in which rape or sexual assault victims don't come forward for years and years. We're seeing that in the Sandusky case. I know this is not comparable to that, of course...but I'm just saying it's plausible the alleged victims's reactions are similar.

and then you got Ginger White, the person who literally got sued for sending a mass email talking bad about her business partner. what a fine upstanding woman, surely despite her past we should lap up every word for speaks and believe it (despite the fact that every time someone shows up on a morning talk show they get paid quite a bit). surely she didn't do this to get herself out a bad financial situation after seeing other women appear on talk shows and with talking heads and realized "this woman is being paid for this.. ooh IDEA!"

Well, as I said before, I'm sure these are all things that will be sorted out at trial.

and now the tables have turned. Obama's in the white house and if the economy sinks again close to election time, he is toast.

Yes...I don't think the "tables have turned though". That's only apt if it actually happens. Which I don't necessarily see myself, since things seem to be going in the direction economists predicted a couple years ago.

If I look at the totality of the first 3 years, I can't imagine voting for him.

Alrighty then.

that much goes without saying.

Well, I said it anyway. So there! :)

this might just be crazy talk, but I would keep an eye on the moderate democrats. they might be the ushers of a surprising upset come election time.

Possible, but I think that only works if we get a moderate candidate on the other side for them to switch to. The Republican Party has not been about "moderates" the last few election cycles.

his mistakes will still be put on display for all to see, just like anyone else running for reelection.

I don't dispute that, I'm just saying without the prospect of another re-election run coming, he may be able to use that to his advantage.

we'll have to wait to see how many "anyone but Obama" voters come out of the woodwork.

I honestly think that faction is pretty small. Just like I think the left overs of the 08 "Obama is black Jesus" contingent have faded.

Also, I think Obama showed his hand pretty well right from the beginning when he fought to push through the health care reform while ignoring the economy, he called many meeting to get it done, but when it comes to other things, like the "dead super committee" he was eerily silent on the matter. IF the GOP doesn't capitalize on that, then, they don't desert to win the election.

I think they'll try, but in the end most voters are pretty fuckin uninformed, they only understand black and white. Oh, and blame assignment. So in the end it comes down to which side can more successfully pin the tail on the blame donkey.

they say independents make or break elections, which is sad given how blissfully ignorant many are of the current issues and make decisions based on what they saw on TV.

Agreed.