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 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 12/4/11 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 12/5/11 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 12/7/11 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.

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.

This is just...yeah.

soo...

Herman Cain has showed us, Life can be a challenge. Life can seem impossible. It's never easy when there's so much on the line. But you and I can make a difference. There's a mission just for you and me.

What an inspiration!

this could be a new meme. ;)

At 12/8/11 06:46 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/8/11 12:50 PM, WallofYawn wrote: this could be a new meme. ;)

you're late to the party. it already IS.

That's even better than my image. Now I feel sad. :(

At 12/8/11 09:26 AM, Korriken wrote: the other hides in the shadows, unwilling to show her face. why not come out? why not show your face and make your accusations in person? it's like sending a letter to the police that your next door neighbor assaulted you, then refuse to testify in court about what happened, and still expect a conviction on the charge.

Forgive me, but didn't you just say that that particular case was already settled? Doesn't that imply that there isn't any way in which Cain can be tried for the crime that was alleged in that case? Double jeopardy? So what court are you talking about? If Cain violated the confidentiality agreement of that case by releasing a number of details about it (which is what he did), then she can legally reveal all the details she wants about that trial herself. Doesn't mean Cain is going to be tried for the same thing twice, and nothing she does or doesn't do will change that. Really, what would be the purpose of revealing yourself in this case? What would this woman stand to gain by doing so, other than having her entire life picked apart by the media and political attack dogs alike?

This issue had been dead an buried for years until the media got wind of it and Cain decided to "explain" himself by releasing confidential information about her, violating the agreement, and now you're acting like she owes an explanation to you personally.

By the way, on that thing you guys were talking about, about why someone would choose not to report a crime until many years afterwards; it might be useful to know that only about 22% of rapes and sexual assaults that don't result in physical injuries are reported. I imagine that the numbers are even starker when it comes to mere sexual harassment, and particularly when the harasser is in a position of power (like if he's your boss).

It's been a real treat reading some of your posts Korriken. It's like watching a contortionist the way you twist and flip everything into how everyone is lying and conspiring to topple the one man in the world who has never told a lie in his life, Herman Cain.

At 12/9/11 12:54 AM, Korriken wrote: This isn't the first time Cain has ever run for any sort of office. He ran for president in the year 2000. no accusations sprang up. how very odd.

he ran for senate in 2004. again, no accusations sprang up. how very very odd.

but when he ran for republican nomination THIS year, no accusations sprang up. Indeed odd, that is, until he got ahead of everyone else, then all hell broke loose for him, even going so far as Gloria Allred appearing with a client to put a beating down on cain.

Hold on, you mean to tell me that a no nothing candidate for president who barely even qualifies as an also-ran and a Senatorial primary candidate who finishes 27 points behind the eventual winner is going to receive less media scrutiny than a candidate who is gaining some actual momentum in the race for the Presidency? That IS odd! I can't quite put my finger on why that might be.

I'm sorry if this offends your sensibilities, but it's simply common sense that when you become a national figure, you're going to be more thoroughly investigated than if you are a practical nobody. If you're running for dog catcher and you have a bunch of skelletons buried in your back yard, you can most likely get by without someone going through the effort of digging them up and it becoming headline news in the national media. A guy with a plausible shot at the White House (or at least the nomination) isn't going to be able to skate by so easily.

These allegations didn't spring from out of nowhere. It doesn't really matter who was digging into Cain's past, or why. The point is that they found something. They didn't make it up; Cain WAS accused by at least two women of sexual improprieties, and he did pay them off to go away.

Now, I don't know about you, but personally, if someone falsely accused me of sexual misconduct, I would fight tooth and goddamn nail to disprove their claims, and I certainly wouldn't want to give them a single cent, let alone 45,000 bucks, and let them get away with it. And if I was somehow manhandled by my attourneys into cutting a bullshit deal like that, there's no way in hell that I'd ever forget about it, like Cain originally claimed he had. More than anything, Cain's reaction and response to the allegations tell me he's as guilty as a nun squatting in a cucumber field. Either he's doing a piss poor job of lying through his teeth, or, the explanation you seem to prefer, he's merely a grossly incompetent politician who can't defend himself against these kinds of baseless allegations.

Herman Cain did Pokemon. And we respected him- as they say, "Life can be a challenge. Life can seem impossible"

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.

Respectability and 'Normal-ness' are always relatives, just as people are called front runners because they are CALLED front runners.

Like I said, when people were polled asking who they would vote for in the general election against Obama, Paul performs equally as well.

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

I misread him, The word base makes sense now.

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.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2 011/PPP_Release_US_1115513.pdf

These are the numbers for Obama and Romney. Read from top to bottom, Obama, Romney, undecided. From left to right, Base, Liberal, Republican, Independent

46% 82% 9% 38%
43% 13% 81% 38%
11% 5% 9% 24%

Paul and Obama

47% 81% 12% 39%
41% 12% 69% 48%
13% 7% 19% 13%

I don't think Independents actually Adore him like many paleocons, libertarians, and liberals do. But even though his approval with independents is lower than that of Romney, Independents are more likely to side with paul than with Romney.

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.

Yes, and unfortunately, if you want a candidate that has any chance of not killing the US economy, you need a candidate that does not have, and does not require, per say, the blessings of these people.

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.

Yeah, It made sense after I read it the second time.

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.

Again, Mainstream is a relative word. 'Mainstream' or 'undecided' voters are simply people who have zero convictions, and can be lead to believe anything if there appears to be enough consensus about it.

At 12/9/11 08:04 AM, Korriken wrote: whoa, hold on a moment, wasn't it argued earlier that there was no chance that this could be some sort of conspiracy? so now someone is saying that, yes, someone dug something up and now it might be plausible that there might be some sort of political motivation behind these accusations?

which may then lead to the possible scenario that beyond the 2 ppl got that paid off that the rest might be full of shit? but even then the ones who did get paid off might have a reason other than "he did this to me and he has to pay, again!"?

There you go again! It's a freak of nature that your spine doesn't snap into several little neat pieces.

The original accusations themselves were made years ago, long before Cain decided to run for any office. Whoever found the story might have been looking to dig up dirt on Cain, but that doesn't change the fact that they actually did find a sizable amount of dirt. Imagine if it had been a murder that had been covered up, would the motivations of the investigator for looking into the person in the first place matter in the slightest?

And if anything, I believe that it is infinitely more likely that the investigations were instigated by one of Cain's Republican rivals than by any Democratic group. Cain is likely to be one of the weakest candidates for the office on the Republican side, perhaps with the exception of Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum, so you're only kidding yourself if you think the Democrats would want to face a Romney, Gingrich, or Perry in the general election rather than a clown candidate like Herman Cain.

At 12/9/11 06:51 PM, Korriken wrote: what do they have on Cain? not nearly as much. Still, someone wanted Cain removed and they used the dirtiest tactic they could to do it.

Call the timing dirty if you want. Hell, call the accusations semi-truths if you want. But saying that there wasn't any ammo against Cain? Really? This guy was Palin-esque the way he created statements that just made him look bad and hardly capable to lead.

At 12/9/11 06:51 PM, Korriken wrote:

Whoever found the story might have been looking to dig up dirt on Cain, but that doesn't change the fact that they actually did find a sizable amount of dirt.

so basically, what you're saying is, "Yes, the resurfacing of the allegations ARE politically motivated"

No, I'm saying that it MIGHT be politically motivated, but that it doesn't matter either way.

If it had been a murder Cain would either still be in prison, or his record would prevent him from even being able to consider running.

It was just a hypothetical. I'm just saying that if someone has something hidden in their past that could be devestating to their public image if it ever came out, it's definitely relevant, and it doesn't really matter WHY it came out.

Romney would be an easy win for Obama. It wouldn't be too hard to say he's. "a white Obama with an R by his name.". Gingrich's past would give Obama plenty of ammo. he'll be labeled a hypocrite and a liar.

Perry will be labeled as someone who doesn't care about the rights of minorities over the execution of Humberto Leal. They could also use this to attack his knowledge (or care) of international law.

what do they have on Cain? not nearly as much. Still, someone wanted Cain removed and they used the dirtiest tactic they could to do it.

Look, I'm not saying those guys are "strong" candidates by any stretch of the imagination. The field of Republican candidates in this election cycle has been deeply flawed, which is a large part of the reason for why there has been such a wild flux from candidate to candidate in the polling. I mean, Donald fucking Trump came in at number 1 in the polling at one point! If that doesn't tell you what a joke these candidates are, I don't know what will.

I keep saying that this is Obama's biggest advantage going into this election, that his potential opponents are so laughably weak that he might eke out a win no matter which one of them he ends up facing.

Romney is a corporate tool who reaks of insincerity; he's flipped on so many core issues that hardly anyone trusts him, let alone the Republican base who will have to turn out for him in the general if he wants to have any chance (and being a scary Mormon isn't going to help him with those voters either). He still has the appearance of being somewhat moderate, and he definitely made the right move in pretending to be against cutting medicare and SS. Whether anyone will believe him is a different question. He's quite gifted at debating, as long as he's prepared ahead of time. Doesn't do so well when someone puts him on the spot.

Gingrich hasn't run a very smooth campaign so far, with many missteps and blunders, like the whole Tiffany's debt mess, half his campaign staff up and quitting, and now the latest revalation of his connection to Fanny and Freddie. He has a lot of baggage, including the vastly unpopular government shutdown that he spearheaded in the mid 90's that likely cost him his job as house speaker, and he might have some difficulty explaining his infidelity and multiple divorces to the values voters. Still, some people might fondly recall his Contract with America plan that propelled the Republicans into a landslide victory in the 1994 mid-terms, and accordingly, he's fairly popular with older voters, which is probably going to help him a lot in the important swing state Florida (where he's currently polling at around 50%).

Perry is a buffoon. He's cast in the same mould as George W. Bush, and his debating skills are at a similar level, which is to say they're horrendous. Obama would run circles around him in the Presidential debates. He also has a record of selling out to corporate interests and using the power of his office to give political donors big favors. On paper, he seems like an ideal candidate for President and he looks the part; long serving Governor of a big state, strong corporate connections and a war chest to match them. He's also one of the few candidates in this race to realize that it's a bad idea to alienate the fatest growing demographic, the Latino vote, so his record on immigration might help him in the general election (if he can get past the voters in the primaries). A Perry/Rubio ticket could spell trouble for Obama.

Now, Herman Cain. Where to start? I guess if you think that foreign policy doesn't matter AT ALL, then Cain is your guy. He just doesn't know what he's talking about. He's like Sarah Palin in this regard, just gets caught off gaurd and makes up something ridiculous, then comes back and tells everyone that he studied up on it over the last couple days, and now he's ready to deal with international affairs. He is about as inexperienced when it comes to running a political campaign as anyone can be, and it shows. His flagship policy, the 9-9-9 plan, is an overly simplistic plan that would decimate the economy by raising taxes drastically on the middle and lower class, while cutting the taxes for millionaires and billionaires enormously. The American people oppose extending the current Bush tax cuts by upwards to 70-80%; if you think they have any interest in a plan that not only cuts the taxes for the wealthy even more, but ALSO raises the taxes for most Americans, you might want to go see a doctor so you can have your brain examined. Cain being black isn't going to magically make black people want to vote for him; polling shows that Obama would beat Cain in the black vote 93-6, which is only marinally better than a Romney/Obama matchup.

In my opinion, one of the few candidates who could beat Obama, fairly easily even, isn't even in this race: Mike Huckabee. His credentials with the religious right are impeccable, but he's likeable enough that less religious voters aren't going to be intimidated by that. He's folksy enough that he can credibly argue from a populist perspective against big government. Why Huckabee ducked out this time is a mystery, but it is likely to have something to do with his couchy new job at Fox News and his nice new home down in sunny Florida. He might still be a contender for the VP slot, if he can be convinced to get off his fat ass and get out there and campaign.

At 12/8/11 09:26 AM, Korriken wrote: i suppose yellow journalism is still journalism.. and the norm these days.

To be honest, I didn't see a massive ton of yellow journalism here. At least not from the outlets I saw, they simply reported the facts as they came out. Inference of guilt, innocence, what have you has been applied elsewhere. But it's not like I followed this intently.

so sweet, near election time I think i might claim that Michelle Obama touched me as a child. who needs proof?

Point sailed right over your head...when you sue someone, or accuse them of criminal actions, it's customary to wait until you get into the actual court room to start presenting proof, arguments, etc. Not to run off to the nearest newspaper or TV camera and say "here's all my evidence and what my case is based on, blah blah blah". I'm hard pressed to think of a single time ANYONE has EVER done what you seem to want these women to do.

well, let's see. Karen Kraushaar works for the obama administration as communications director at the Inspector General's Office of the Treasury Department. # 2 and 3 who didn't share their identity, which of course makes proving/disproving their allegations impossible... so we can't say for certain.

Affiliation or lack thereof with the Obama Administartion is not a qualifier for identifying whether or not the allegations have merit. Come on, you're much smarter then your arguments are making you sound right now.

Bialek... it would seem most likely she jumped on the bandwagon looking for money, given her past.

Very possible. I guess we'll find out when and if the cases go to trial.

I find it mildly amusing that the news media didn't come out and say, "Anthony Wiener is full of shit, we all know its his crotch, he needs to just admit it!" when he said "I can't say its not me." instead, they report on how the Dems say its a non issue and that he is confusing the media by not admitting nor denying it.

I am failing to see how the Anthony Weiner case has anything to do with the validity of the women's claims, and the false assertion you (Korriken) posited, which is what I was specifically talking about. That you made some assertions that are demonstrably false...and you non-sequitor to the media again? If you've got no actual reply to the point I'm making, just don't reply.

and yet, when these people made their accusations, the media ran with it and began beating Cain over the head with it.

The Weiner case and other sex based scandals are covered just as intently. Stop acting like it's a Republican witch hunt and the media never brought down a Dem or placed such scrutiny on him it brought him down. Weiner only admitted wrong doing because he was so scrutinized and couldn't lie well enough on his feet and had been so prodigious in said wrong doing (which with the exception of the allegation he sent pics to a minor, is waaaaay more benign then what Herman Cain is being accused of).

or maybe they're full of shit, or worse, don't exist. I don't give much credibility to a person who makes an accusation and refuses to step forward.

Sounds like a personal problem that has nothing to do with the facts in the case. Like I say, until it goes to trial, or gets settled some other way, we're really just spit balling with the scant facts we have.

justice? what 3rd world country is Cain running in that he can be convicted without facing his accuser?

Uh, has the case gone to trial yet? Has a judge convicted him of anything? Just because their names aren't splashed around in public doesn't mean won't face them in court...this is common sense basic stuff now. Let's leave the ridiculous hyperbole at the door.

so simple... so simple.... question is. is it the truth?

That is indeed the question. Call me old fashioned, but I'm willing to wait for the trial before I make a firm decision one way or the other.

should we assume these women are being completely honest? I should think not.

Why? See, I don't understand why we automatically assume they all are lying unless it's because we have some kind of bias towards Herman Cain.

We don't know why exactly these women came forward, and they won't say, and yet people still take them at their word.

All I'm saying is where there's smoke there's usually fire. But I also readily acknowledge that with scant facts and evidence to go by, it's merely a suspicion on my part.

and to be clear, Cain handled the mess in a terrible fashion. Suppose he isn't used to the concept of damage control.

Guess that's what happens when unqualified novices with no political experience try to run for President :)

Had they come forward when he first announced his campaign and sunk him from the beginning I wouldn't have batted an eye. I wonder though, had a bunch of women come up and began accusing Obama once he was looking to be the frontrunner if the media would have handled it in the same way. Given the way the media gushed all over Obama, they would have probably had the women exposed and every dirty detail of their life put out for the world to see in order to discredit them.

So once again it's back to the media is unfair to Republicans...man I am so so tired of this line...there's bias everywhere. FOX News is Republicans R Us, MSNBC is the Democratic equivalent. Both sides have major network spin factories. That isn't news, and it isn't super relevant here, let's move on from this tedious shit already.

one phone call is all it'd take. but why not make the call? I wonder...

Well maybe if you did a little research into the subject instead of assuming that anything that doesn't make sense to you is automatically nefarious...you might wonder less.

those are also children, not adults.

Those are, but adult women don't always report rape, harassment, or assault either. I'm sure I could get some stats if it'd help you.

I kind of skipped the rest because it's either us agreeing, or seemed I'd just repeat stuff I already said. If I cut something you really think I should respond to though, lemme know.

At 12/11/11 02:03 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

those are also children, not adults.

Those are, but adult women don't always report rape, harassment, or assault either. I'm sure I could get some stats if it'd help you.

I got it covered. =)

Women who suffered physical injury in addition to the injury suffered from the rape or sexual assault reported 37% of those crimes, while only 22% of rapes and sexual assaults without an additional physical injury were reported.