Should we trust Cain?

[Mexdeaf]

So, you are claiming slander against them, you are attacking their motives without any evidence.

Look in the mirror, substitute "Cain" for "them" and "him" for "their motives" and that's how we see you.

 

[targus]

It tells me all those who slandered this person in wanting their five minutes of "fame" were doing just that, slandering them. A rape or a sexual assault victim normally does not want to revisit the issue and that is exactly what they said in their letter.

She is not in this for political gain, she is not in this to make a point. Rather, she moved on with her life and has chosen not to get into the fray. Which is basically what she said. I think it probably validates her claim even more. Cain bashed her and she did not return the favor. I think it shows more about her and less about Cain.

Then why did she and her lawyer keep saying that they wanted to be released from the non-disclosure agreement so that she could get her story out?

Then when she is released from the non-disclosure agreement suddenly no longer wants to talk about it?

And she is bashing Cain and doing so in a way which makes it impossible to defend himself. Make an accusation then refuse to provide enough information for anyone to come to a conclusion about it.

In my opinion, now that the settlement is available for everyone to learn the details, she is refusing to release it because it favors Cain and not her.

And also in my opinion, now that she has made her public accusations she now has a moral obligation to prove it.

And you should be joining in the demand for that information from her.

 

[HankD]

First, this is not a court of law thus there is no bill of rights.

Secondly, the courts do acknowledge anonymity in many cases. The Supreme Court recognizes times when you can remain anonymous. Why? Because the public does not need to know the people.

Finally, you are basing your answer upon a presupposition where there is not precedence to base it upon. Legal precendence allows for anonymity and anonymity does not mean they are lying. As well, they have faced the accused, for some reason you don't understand that but you really want them to fact the public so they can be maligned like Anita Hill, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, and others. Again, I don't believe all of their testimony, but how they were treated when they went public is a disgrace.

His reputation has been publicly maligned and we need to know the exact nature of what he did. Therefore it probably should become a matter to decide in court.

e.g. He might have simply put his arm around someone to try to comfort them for some reason.

Or even used a term of endearment like "dear".

Until such time I repeat, I presume innocence.

When I see/hear the evidence then I may decide differently.

If nothing is brought forth then I will continue to make the presumption of innocence.

HankD

 

[freeatlast]

Politico has published about 90 stories on Cain. Their infatuation of him shows their fear of him.

Let me throw this out there. I think because of the environment of the world and this country and the mind-set of most people we need to fear every person who wants to be in political power. We need to be open to all information and examine it for accuracy before we put another politician into office who will keep us on the path to destruction.


In the case of politico they gave Mr. Cain ample warning that they were investigating this harassment claim before they ever released it. They did not drop a bomb shell on him. In fact they told him 10 days prior to the release and he did not prepare for what was coming. In that he is to blame. Now he has to do clean up and it is not nice as he keeps changing his story. We will see where this goes and if he will be able to stand in the mist of these allegations.

 

[Arbo]

Look in the mirror, substitute "Cain" for "them" and "him" for "their motives" and that's how we see you.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[HankD]

One more thing, the letter today from one of the lady's lawyers specifically states the claim against Cain was sexual harassment.

Maybe, but what was the final outcome and what are the details.

Sorry, but by allowing this to become public the accused has the legal right to face the accuser to determine if there has been libel or slander.

HankD

 

[Arbo]

Greed of the alleged victim. They took the money (and not much, either) and were silent afterward. That is until Cain became nationally recognized.

So, you are claiming slander against them, you are attacking their motives without any evidence.

No, just living in the real world.

1.Please tell me who, as in names you claim I'm slandering.
2.Please tell me how you know their motives are pure.

That seems like a Rush Limbaugh approach to this issue, not anything based on any rationality.

Typical liberal-invoke the name of Rush Limbaugh when the house of reason is collapsing.

 

[Ruiz]

Look in the mirror, substitute "Cain" for "them" and "him" for "their motives" and that's how we see you.

The difference is, I am claiming Cain cannot be trusted. His actions since and the accusations by a number of people seem consistent. His seems consistent as well. Calling people racists, attacking Rick Perry's campaign, attack.. attack.. attack. I think he cannot be trusted.

You have no reason not to trust others, I have a myriad of issues not to trust him.

 

[Ruiz]

No, just living in the real world.

1.Please tell me who, as in names you claim I'm slandering.
2.Please tell me how you know their motives are pure.




Typical liberal-invoke the name of Rush Limbaugh when the house of reason is collapsing.

How do you know their motives are not pure. I know that Cain immediately resulted in slander by claiming the race card. Attacked the reporters of the incidents, like Clinton did Kenneth Star. He attacked Perry. I have not seen this type of actions out of the victims. If four of mine are lying with impure motives, there still is atleast one who is not. Even on this list people attacked Politico for "sleazy" reporting. This was ridiculous.

Sorry for accusing you of slandering, that is meant to relate to the Cain campaign.

 

[Ruiz]

Maybe, but what was the final outcome and what are the details.

Sorry, but by allowing this to become public the accused has the legal right to face the accuser to determine if there has been libel or slander.

HankD

Yes, in two instances he faced them and a settlement was made. He, thus, has faced his accusers and through the company which we was CEO, settled with his accusers. Why do people insist that he hasn't not "faced" his accusers? That is absolutely going against the evidence.

Two accusers since are publicly known. Thus, they have made accusations public.

There is only one person who is silent.

The public, according to years of precedence, does not need to know who these people are. If you want to argue otherwise then you are combating precedence. Can we get under this situation even without knowing their identity? Yes! That was what happened in the Duke Rape trial. For a while, the media reported the incident but after later investigation recused the Duke players. That will happen here if he is innocent.

 

[Mexdeaf]

The difference is, I am claiming Cain cannot be trusted. His actions since and the accusations by a number of people seem consistent. His seems consistent as well.

Yes, his actions have been consistent- those of an innocent man- "If there is proof, let them bring it, otherwise I will keep my nose to the grindstone."

So far their proof is non-existent. Even when given the right to show their proof, there is nothing but more innuendo.

I will not allow "unnamed sources", "the left", or the media to decide for me, we as Americans have done that for far too long. It's time for a "regular guy", a man who has worked for a living and who knows the value of a buck, to have the job.

The opposition cannot stand him because he is conservative. He thinks for himself and does not allow himself to be cowed by threats. Until I see EVIDENCE by REAL PEOPLE, I will stand by Herman Cain and continue to send him financial support, and I will encourage every one of my friends to do likewise. It's time "we the people"- the REAL 99%- took back our country.

 

[Ruiz]

His reputation has been publicly maligned and we need to know the exact nature of what he did. Therefore it probably should become a matter to decide in court.

e.g. He might have simply put his arm around someone to try to comfort them for some reason.

Or even used a term of endearment like "dear".

Until such time I repeat, I presume innocence.

When I see/hear the evidence then I may decide differently.

If nothing is brought forth then I will continue to make the presumption of innocence.

HankD

Hank,

It will only go to court if Cain decides to sue. If he does, I actually welcome this because he will be forced to testify. The victims, still, would not be known even if they testified. And the documents of accusations would be brought before the court. This would allow for full disclosure.

Thus, if this is a matter of the court, Cain should get on it because a myriad of people would be called to testify under oath.

Yet, I would counter-sue for slander in calling these same people racists and other things he called them early on, even breaking the agreement that the NRA had with the victims. He probably would be out more money.

I think the reason they settled was to avoid a trial. Having a trial now could be the best thing for the political process, but will only hurt him more.

 

[Ruiz]

Yes, his actions have been consistent- those of an innocent man- "If there is proof, let them bring it, otherwise I will keep my nose to the grindstone."

So far their proof is non-existent. Even when given the right to show their proof, there is nothing but more innuendo.

I will not allow "unnamed sources", "the left", or the media to decide for me, we as Americans have done that for far too long. It's time for a "regular guy", a man who has worked for a living and who knows the value of a buck, to have the job.

The opposition cannot stand him because he is conservative. He thinks for himself and does not allow himself to be cowed by threats. Until I see EVIDENCE by REAL PEOPLE, I will stand by Herman Cain and continue to send him financial support, and I will encourage every one of my friends to do likewise. It's time "we the people"- the REAL 99%- took back our country.

His actions in defaming people's character is consistent with a guilty person. Will you be consistent and condemn his call that others are racist? Will you condemn him for accusing the Perry campaign or bashing Politico despite them accurately reporting? Will you condemn him for these issues? Or do you only condemn victims of sexual harassment?

BTW, he has not been consistent. He has changed his story a number of time. Rather inconsistent for a campaign that knew about these charges and "prepared" for them when he ran for Senate.

So please, will you condemn him for calling others racists?

 

[Mexdeaf]

For Ruiz' reading pleasure.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/01/politics/gloria-cain-profile/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

 

[Mexdeaf]

His actions in defaming people's character is consistent with a guilty person. Will you be consistent and condemn his call that others are racist? Will you condemn him for accusing the Perry campaign or bashing Politico despite them accurately reporting? Will you condemn him for these issues? Or do you only condemn victims of sexual harassment?

BTW, he has not been consistent. He has changed his story a number of time. Rather inconsistent for a campaign that knew about these charges and "prepared" for them when he ran for Senate.

So please, will you condemn him for calling others racists?

No to all your questions.

 

[InTheLight]

His actions in defaming people's character is consistent with a guilty person.

So innocent people just remain silent and just keep on taking hits without fighting back?

I think it is instructive to note that Cain has not said a word about the integrity (or lack of integrity) of the women involved. This is in great contrast to Bill Clinton's Team Bimbo that would be sent out to squelch 'bimbo eruptions'. Does anybody else remember James Carville's quote regarding one of Clinton's accusers-- "If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park you never know what you'll find."

 

[poncho]

So what are we hearing now?

That the Restaurant Association has released this woman from the nondisclosure agreement and she is free to talk...

And her response is...

"I don't want to discuss the details."

This is priceless !!!

So Ruiz, what does that tell you?

Don't know what it tells Ruiz but it tells me I'm right. This is just political theater to keep us from thinking about our real problems. Like being looted by an unelected unaccountable global banking cartel.

Which Cain and InTheDark proudly support.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I think it is instructive to note that Cain has not said a word about the integrity (or lack of integrity) of the women involved. This is in great contrast to Bill Clinton's Team Bimbo that would be sent out to squelch 'bimbo eruptions'. Does anybody else remember James Carville's quote regarding one of Clinton's accusers-- "If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park you never know what you'll find."

A very salient point.

 

[HankD]

Hank,

It will only go to court if Cain decides to sue. If he does, I actually welcome this because he will be forced to testify. The victims, still, would not be known even if they testified. And the documents of accusations would be brought before the court. This would allow for full disclosure.

Thus, if this is a matter of the court, Cain should get on it because a myriad of people would be called to testify under oath.

Yet, I would counter-sue for slander in calling these same people racists and other things he called them early on, even breaking the agreement that the NRA had with the victims. He probably would be out more money.

I think the reason they settled was to avoid a trial. Having a trial now could be the best thing for the political process, but will only hurt him more.

You may be right. But it's now become the only way to settle it.

We (I) don't want an innocent man to suffer unjustly, on the other hand we don't need another womanizer in the white House.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Don't know what it tells Ruiz but it tells me I'm right. This is just political theater to keep us from thinking about our real problems

Political theater yes, but the motive might just be greed and fame for the media via the resultant higher ratings and viewership.

HankD