Should we trust Cain?

[Ruiz]

The accusations against Cain saddens me. These charges are serious and should not be something that is swept under the rug, nor are these charges something we think of as political opportunity.

Now, there is a third girl coming forward with very specific accusations. As well, there has been a couple of people who have come forward claiming they have witnessed indiscretions by Herman Cain. If this does not cause your heart to ache, you are too political. If this causes you to attack the people, you too are too political.

Even if we grant Cain the respect we should grant an Elder, there are more than two witnesses who have come forward with very specific charges. At this point, I must assume that he is not fit to be our President.

We should encourage him to seek counseling and to work on his marriage. Those seem to be more important now than any Presidential bid.

 

[carpro]

He's a conservative black man.

The viscious attacks by the liberal media attack dogs will continue. If it's not one thing, it will be another. All must be taken with a grain of salt considering the source and the reason.

Especially sexual harrassment charges. They are notoriously easy to make and hard to disprove or prove. Many people have an inflated opinion of the sexual attraction others have for them.

 

[mandym]

The accusations against Cain saddens me. These charges are serious and should not be something that is swept under the rug, nor are these charges something we think of as political opportunity.

Now, there is a third girl coming forward with very specific accusations. As well, there has been a couple of people who have come forward claiming they have witnessed indiscretions by Herman Cain. If this does not cause your heart to ache, you are too political. If this causes you to attack the people, you too are too political.

Even if we grant Cain the respect we should grant an Elder, there are more than two witnesses who have come forward with very specific charges. At this point, I must assume that he is not fit to be our President.

We should encourage him to seek counseling and to work on his marriage. Those seem to be more important now than any Presidential bid.

There are not now nor have there been any specific accusations. Slander is an ungodly thing. And yes Cain should be trusted.

"Politico won't release any documentation or even admit they spoke to these two women," he said. "Why? Because they have nothing and cited unnamed sources."

The arguments are being played out as two new accusers claim Cain made them feel uncomfortable during their interactions, and details emerged about the two women who left the NRA.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ork-in-government-related-jobs/#ixzz1ceDNNY6w

 

[sag38]

No one has been identified. It's all speculation unlike the real and named accusers of "Slick Willy" who was given a free pass by most libtards. Ruiz, you seem to have a problem making a connection here. Do you not remember Clarence Thomas. That's the real shame. Herman is being given the same treatment that Clarence Thomas was given. How dare a black man be conservative?

 

[Mexdeaf]

I trust Herman Cain more than I trust ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Politico, or 'anonymous sources'.

I'll send him a few more $ today just to put my money where my mouth is.

 

[Ruiz]

There are not now nor have there been any specific accusations. Slander is an ungodly thing. And yes Cain should be trusted.

I have read specific accusations. Currently, there are three women, two of whom have been paid a settlement (assumes guilt). One woman never filed charges but claims sexual harassment. Finally, a man who said he witnessed the harassment by Cain and is openly testifying.

At this point, it is not the media or racism but there are sufficient witnesses by a variety of people. This is also not a Clarence Thomas issue, only one person stepped forward there. Rather, this is a character issue with Cain. As well, how he reacted by doing exactly what Clinton did during his accusations is almost as disturbing as the accusations. He is attacking the messengers rather than dealing with the issues, that he admits were charges filed against him. To me, he is a despicable person.

Finally, Politico has not been known as the "liberal media." Rather, politico became popular in part because of Rush Limbaugh.

 

[mandym]

I have read specific accusations. Currently, there are three women, two of whom have been paid a settlement (assumes guilt).

Now your lack of credibility is showing. It does not assume guilt. But more slander we see.

 

[Ruiz]

I trust Herman Cain more than I trust ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Politico, or 'anonymous sources'.

I'll send him a few more $ today just to put my money where my mouth is.

None of these were anonymous. The two settlements require the persons to not talk about the issue again. Yet, they filed complaints and there was a settlement. Chris Wilson is not anonymous. Yes, the third woman is anonymous, but given the string of testimony thus far, it is not ABC, CBS, NBC, or Politico. Rather, it is two substantiated claims (that Cain admits were filed against him) and one public witness along with an anonymous witness.

To me, I am hearing four different people testify in accord against a single individual. I think it is foolish to not take these serious. I think it is more foolish to attack the messengers, like Clinton, than to deal with the issues.

In fact, when Clinton attacked the people behind his accusations, I thought he was a despicable man for doing such. I think Cain could be less of a man than Clinton.

 

[sag38]

Seems that Ruiz needs to learn the real meaning of "assume." How are the claims "substantiated?" A settlement in no way admits guilt unless you are good at assuming.

 

[Ruiz]

No one has been identified. It's all speculation unlike the real and named accusers of "Slick Willy" who was given a free pass by most libtards. Ruiz, you seem to have a problem making a connection here. Do you not remember Clarence Thomas. That's the real shame. Herman is being given the same treatment that Clarence Thomas was given. How dare a black man be conservative?

The problem with your statement, it is inaccurate. There were two settlements given to two women. They obviously came forward to be identified at one time. Secondly, there is Chris Wilson who said he personally witnessed indiscretions by the candidate. Finally, there is another woman who remains anonymous, but did talk to the AP. Thus, there are three people who have come forward publicly, only one who is anonymous.

Clarence Thomas is a different story. Only one person came forward and that person's testimony could not be validated by anyone or anything. In this case, we have four people who are testifying to the character of this man, one saying he can produce others who saw the same thing.

Per the Bible, the testimony of two is sufficient at this point. I have the testimony of four.

 

[Ruiz]

Seems that Ruiz needs to learn the real meaning of "assume." How are the claims "substantiated?" A settlement in no way admits guilt unless you are good at assuming.

The Bible's criteria are two witnesses. I have four witnesses that have been brought forth. Cain offers no additional support. I am concluding that he cannot be trusted at this point. Thus, all his arguments against the other side, much of which are Clintonesque attacks, come into question.

 

[Ruiz]

There are not now nor have there been any specific accusations. Slander is an ungodly thing. And yes Cain should be trusted.

Here is the problem. THe initial report was validated by Herman Cain. He admitted these women accused him of sexual harrassment. He admitted there were settlements made with these women. Thus, the initial report by Politico was accurate and substantiated by Cain himself. Thus, demanding their sources is a moot point since he agrees with their points. This is not slander, but we are only dealing with facts in the initial report. Rather, slander occurred from Cain when he accused those attacking him of doing so under racist motives and as a part of a conspiracy. That is slander and that is why Cain is a horrible man.

Secondly, a third woman has come forward. It is not slander if what she says is correct. It is also not gossip if what she says is correct. Rather, it is slander to attack her if she is correct in what she says.

As well, Chris Wilson has come forward testifying he witnessed sexual harassment by Cain. Again, this is not slander if true. I have no reason to doubt Chris, even thought he Cain campaign has already tried to slander this person.

Thus, you say this is slander, but I do not see slander. If any of these people lied, it is slander. However, four different individuals testifying to the same thing who had no collaboration with the other ones and have nothing to gain but being attacked back, is substantial.

Where are the four people collaborating Cain's message? I don't see them. Rather, I see him as the slanderer calling this a racist attack. It is not a racist attack, and he should be ashamed of such attacks.

 

[mandym]

Here is the problem. THe initial report was validated by Herman Cain. He admitted these women accused him of sexual harrassment. He admitted there were settlements made with these women. Thus, the initial report by Politico was accurate and substantiated by Cain himself.

Poltico has apparently removed their original story and now only post Cain's responses. Why? The original story by politico was incomplete. Thus us was not accurate.

"Politico won't release any documentation or even admit they spoke to these two women," he said. "Why? Because they have nothing and cited unnamed sources."

The arguments are being played out as two new accusers claim Cain made them feel uncomfortable during their interactions, and details emerged about the two women who left the NRA.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ork-in-government-related-jobs/#ixzz1ceTStZEQ

 

[Mexdeaf]

Just because a settlement was given does not assume guilt. Settlements are given in cases all of the time to save money and time spend on spurious lawsuits.

Here's my problem with all this. HC has had an active business role as a restaurant manager, as a Board member of several large corporations, and as a private businessman. Why then are all of these UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS coming from ONE place he worked at? Logically speaking there should be more "victims" coming from other places where HC has worked closely with the opposite sex.

Where there is smoke, there is not always fire- sometimes it is FAKE SMOKE.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I "feel uncomfortable" around some women (who are not my wife) also- but that does not equal "sexual harassment".

 

[Ruiz]

Poltico has apparently removed their original story and now only post Cain's responses. Why? The original story by politico was incomplete. Thus us was not accurate.

You go, once again, to attack. The story was accurate. Give me how it was innaccurate. They reported two women who claimed they were sexually harrassed and they received a settlement. What is innaccurate about that? The Cain camp has since responded calling it baseless, but offered no outside evidence to support their claim, including the NRA official report which would have stated as such.

If anything, the innaccuracy of the report was under reporting the problem. If Chris Wilson is correct and several people can testify to these issues, then they didn't do a good enough job on this issue.

The person who is slandering here that I know from my personal observation who is slandering is Herman Cain himself. I think he is worse than Bill Clinton. His slander of people ranks up there with Clinton's slander of Lewinsky and Kenneth Star... Clinton called it a vast right wing conspiracy, Cain is calling it "Racist" and a "media frenzy." Clinton attacked "That woman" and Cain has had his own statements against these women. This is slander.

I think he is a despicable man. I have voted in every election since 18 and have voted for a Republican for President since that time. If Cain wins, I will not vote for him. His slander and actions are what I have fought against in politics. If this is the "Tea Party" candidate, the Tea Party is no better than Moveon.org.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Well, since you have come to your own apparently unshakable convictions regarding Mr. Cain, then there is no further use for us to comment- is there?

Have a nice day.

 

[mandym]

You go, once again, to attack. The story was accurate. Give me how it was innaccurate. They reported two women who claimed they were sexually harrassed and they received a settlement. What is innaccurate about that? The Cain camp has since responded calling it baseless, but offered no outside evidence to support their claim, including the NRA official report which would have stated as such.

If anything, the innaccuracy of the report was under reporting the problem. If Chris Wilson is correct and several people can testify to these issues, then they didn't do a good enough job on this issue.

The person who is slandering here that I know from my personal observation who is slandering is Herman Cain himself. I think he is worse than Bill Clinton. His slander of people ranks up there with Clinton's slander of Lewinsky and Kenneth Star... Clinton called it a vast right wing conspiracy, Cain is calling it "Racist" and a "media frenzy." Clinton attacked "That woman" and Cain has had his own statements against these women. This is slander.

I think he is a despicable man. I have voted in every election since 18 and have voted for a Republican for President since that time. If Cain wins, I will not vote for him. His slander and actions are what I have fought against in politics. If this is the "Tea Party" candidate, the Tea Party is no better than Moveon.org.

You have reached such an over the top position on this you have no credibility. Assuming guilt because of a settlement only shows you have no interest in the truth you just want him to be guilty. Comparing him to these extremes is just absurd and over the top. You have a wonderful day in your continued slander.

 

[Ruiz]

Just because a settlement was given does not assume guilt. Settlements are given in cases all of the time to save money and time spend on spurious lawsuits.

Here's my problem with all this. HC has had an active business role as a restaurant manager, as a Board member of several large corporations, and as a private businessman. Why then are all of these UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS coming from ONE place he worked at? Logically speaking there should be more "victims" coming from other places where HC has worked closely with the opposite sex.

Where there is smoke, there is not always fire- sometimes it is FAKE SMOKE.

I "feel uncomfortable" around some women (who are not my wife) also- but that does not equal "sexual harassment".

Mex,

There are four different sources, not one different sources. Two of those sources were confirmed by Cain himself.

Secondly, there is Chris Wilson who testifies that he has personally witnessed indescretions from Cain.

Thirdly, there is another lady who is anonymous who says that Cain made suggestive actions and remarks to her, even suggesting she join him in his corporate apartment. I doubt they were going to watch Mr. Rogers Neighborhood.

Finally, the only reason we think these are "unfounded" is because of Herman Cain. At this point, I have four witnesses who say he did sexually harass women. Where there are two witnesses, you should begin to take this charge serious. Now there are four witnesses. Do I trust one person, Herman Cain, over four different people? One person is a respected public relations expert, one lady has an earned Masters degree and works for a communications company. Another woman is afraid of being identified for fear of her job. Steve Deace, a conservative talk radio host, accused Cain of saying inappropriate things to his staff.

Wow, and we have people willing to take Cain's statements over four first hand testimonies and one talk radio personality who claims very inappropriate comments to his staff.

So, do I believe Herman Cain, or five different people? Some on here are giving Cain more respect than the Bible says should be given to an Elder. If anything, a full investigation should be made. However, Cain's slander is enough for me to say he should not be trusted.

 

[Ruiz]

You have reached such an over the top position on this you have no credibility. Assuming guilt because of a settlement only shows you have no interest in the truth you just want him to be guilty. Comparing him to these extremes is just absurd and over the top. You have a wonderful day in your continued slander.

No, if you recall in the other conversation, the two settlements I still said that I believed Cain was probably not guilty. However, since then we have had a conservative talk radio host, another woman, and Chris Wilson come forward. Since then, Cain called these attacks racist and attacked one of the ladies who made the claim. Before, I was ready to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now, I am not willing to do that.