Cain Now Has 3 Harassment Accusers

[Seth]

Back to two now, since the first one has stated, through her lawyer, that she settled the claim and will not speak on it further.

Um, no, Seth, that's still three. Whether she settled or not doesn't absolve him of having harassed her.

You can't even count.

He is not, as you suggest, guilty until proven innocent,

This isn't a court.

Quite right. It fits the classic definition of "kangaroo court" and an exercise in vigilante "justice." And it's just as immoral.

You seem to be having a great deal of trouble with reality.

You seem to be having trouble with proper reading and interpreting of simple declarative sentences. No big surprise there though.

[Poto]

You seem to be having a great deal of trouble with reality.

Thanks for the opportunity to point.

[Seth]

You seem to be having a great deal of trouble with reality.

Thanks for the opportunity to point.

We would like to welcome Juror number two to Rationalia's Kangaroo Court of Injustice.

[Robert_S]

Need I remind everyone of Bill Clinton and his proclivities in that regard?

I've not kept up with what the GOP has been up to, but I think this guy's now my favorite. I miss the '90s.

[Poto]

Politicians need to be vetted. Reagan was, Cain has not been. Even someone like Clarence Thomas had trouble advancing because he was not known. Same with Alito.

Seth, you are as old as me. You must know by now politics has no right and wrong, no morals. Only winners and losers. Just pointing that out, I am not arguing.

[Schneibster]

Back to two now, since the first one has stated, through her lawyer, that she settled the claim and will not speak on it further.

Um, no, Seth, that's still three. Whether she settled or not doesn't absolve him of having harassed her.

You can't even count.

He is not, as you suggest, guilty until proven innocent,

This isn't a court.

Quite right. It fits the classic definition of "kangaroo court" and an exercise in vigilante "justice." And it's just as immoral.

The Republicans were the ones who impeached a President for a blowjob. I'm just pointing out that if you're gonna impeach a President for a blowjob, this guy's not qualified to be President.

It's called being "hoist by your own petard." Get over it.

[Warren Dew]

They're popping out of the woodwork

To the contrary, they're staying in the woodwork. When one of these women - or men, if there's a man, since we don't know who they are - makes their name public, I'll pay attention, but they are all choosing to remain anonymous.

The fact of the matter is that some people file specious harassment claims in the hopes of getting monetary settlements, so without any facts, we don't know whether the claims are true, specious, or just a matter of a someone taking an innocent remark the wrong way. Right now, it's just a matter of unsubstantiated rumors.

You actually think he's a "loser" I suspect simply because he's a black man who doesn't fit the liberal/progressive mould and you can't stand the idea of a conservative black as President. Neither, I suspect, can Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is on record that Cain would be much preferable to Obama as president. This incident almost certainly originated with Perry supporters. Maybe God made it happen, since He's presumably on Perry's side.

[Schneibster]

They're popping out of the woodwork

To the contrary, they're staying in the woodwork.

Well, one comes up through somebody (Cain's campaign alleges somebody in Perry's campaign, who denies it) about a US$35,000.00 settlement, and all of a sudden the Cain campaign (!) is discussing the US$45,000.00 settlement, and everybody's like, "Ummm, what US$45,000.00 settlement?" and they're like, "Duuuhhhh ummmm."

Next thing you know another one says she was gonna go after him for it too but when she heard one of her friends had already gotten after him she decided she was OK not pursuing it (and given the rate at which retaliation occurs since the Republican Teagagger Party started suppressing enforcement, I'm not surprised).

Now, I dunno what you wanna call that. I'm gonna call it "popping out of the woodwork." I think most people would agree, and I think the fact you're trying not to is a measure of your bias, not of the truth.

[JimC]

I find it amusing how American politicians within the same party give each other such a hard time publically on their road to the selection process...

In Australia, we leave all that messy business to the back room party apparatchiks, while it's all smiles in the public gaze...

[Robert_S]

I find it amusing how American politicians within the same party give each other such a hard time publically on their road to the selection process...

In Australia, we leave all that messy business to the back room party apparatchiks, while it's all smiles in the public gaze...

I used to find the primaries amusing really. Now I just get embarrassed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We would like to welcome Juror number two to Rationalia's Kangaroo Court of Injustice.

So sayeth our Judge/Jury/Executioner.

[Seth]

Politicians need to be vetted. Reagan was, Cain has not been. Even someone like Clarence Thomas had trouble advancing because he was not known. Same with Alito.

Absolutely true. I'm not complaining about the allegations coming forth, I'm merely pointing out that assessing the validity of the accusations requires more than blind partisan acceptance of any charge merely because its being levied against a political enemy.

Seth, you are as old as me. You must know by now politics has no right and wrong, no morals. Only winners and losers. Just pointing that out, I am not arguing.

I disagree. There is right and wrong in politics, the problem is that people often don't use their critical faculties and fall prey to partisanship and demogoguery when analyzing those claims. I think it's worthwhile pointing out when someone is engaging in mindless partisan demogoguery and is not being rational, that's all.

Interestingly, our Founders knew exactly what they were doing when they protected political speech and the free press as our most important free speech. Campaigns of the day and indeed throughout the 18th century, until government started meddling with campaign speech with the Progressive Tillman Act of 1907, were much more rough-and-tumble than they are today. The founders knew full well that political speech would be fiery, and they themselves were the objects of much vitriol in the press, but they knew that the public did not need protection from political campaign speech because the People were, and still are perfectly capable of discerning truth from lies and are well able to hold liars accountable. More importantly, free political speech, free of government control and the corruption inherent in such control that always favors incumbents, is a right of the people, whether they use their judgment wisely or poorly.

[Seth]

The Republicans were the ones who impeached a President for a blowjob. I'm just pointing out that if you're gonna impeach a President for a blowjob, this guy's not qualified to be President.

It's called being "hoist by your own petard." Get over it.

He wasn't impeached for a blow-job, he was impeached for lying about it in court and to the People. I can easily tolerate a President getting an illicit blow-job. I cannot tolerate a President lying to my face about it.

The distinction here is that none of these allegations against Cain have been vetted, or for that matter even clearly made, much less adjudicated in court, and the partisan nitwits are already rendering judgment on Cain's guilt.

[Seth]

They're popping out of the woodwork

To the contrary, they're staying in the woodwork.

Well, one comes up through somebody (Cain's campaign alleges somebody in Perry's campaign, who denies it) about a US$35,000.00 settlement, and all of a sudden the Cain campaign (!) is discussing the US$45,000.00 settlement, and everybody's like, "Ummm, what US$45,000.00 settlement?" and they're like, "Duuuhhhh ummmm."

Next thing you know another one says she was gonna go after him for it too but when she heard one of her friends had already gotten after him she decided she was OK not pursuing it (and given the rate at which retaliation occurs since the Republican Teagagger Party started suppressing enforcement, I'm not surprised).

"Suppressing enforcement?" What the hell are you talking about? You're really going off the reservation now.

Now, I dunno what you wanna call that. I'm gonna call it "popping out of the woodwork." I think most people would agree, and I think the fact you're trying not to is a measure of your bias, not of the truth.

I see, so now refusing to pile on to the partisan bandwagon by immediately assuming and pronouncing guilt based on vague allegations, innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations and awaiting some actual, credible evidence of wrong doing is a "measure of your bias?"

That's about as nit-witted as it gets.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This from Bandwagon Party McLine?