Cain has a Clarence Thomas problem

So all charges of sexual harassment are automatically true as long as they’re Republicans? :rolleyes:

I don’t see anyone in this thread automatically assuming it’s true.

So reading things isn’t necessary as long as you’re defending Republicans? :dubious:

It is a pretty good start. they are really uptight type people. Want the list?

They paid off at last 2 women in a fit of generosity. That’s what most people would do. They just needed money and they felt they should give it to them as along as they were prevented from saying why and how much.

Stuff like this I mean:

Please don’t be stupid. I’m not sure why you’re pretending to not understand the distinction between “it would be relevant if he sexually harassed his employees” and “he is guilty.”

Ah, I didn’t realize you were addressing Buck Godot specifically and interpreting his post that way. What’s your reading of the allegations and Cain’s response so far? I can’t speak to whether or not he did anything wrong, but it seems to me they’ve fumbled the response so far. Why waste time acting like he had no idea what anyone was talking about?

Well he is a politician and it is definately better politically to pretend nothing ever happened than to admit there were such charges and fight them. I don’t approve of it.

Cain is suddenly showing some memory. Oh Those cases?
Just another lying hypocritical Repub.

I’m no fan of Cain, but there’s something wrong when a settlement for what could lead to a scandal (even though it may not be criminal) is now considered an admission of guilt. You pay for someone to shut the fuck up, and that’s that.

It still looks bad though.

In a just world, he would have faced his accusers head on and prevailed if he is indeed innocent as presumed.

In an unjust world, he pays his accusers off. Why? Because he couldn’t afford for the allegation to get out, whether true or not? Because it was true? Because it was false and he didn’t have the time/energy/etc to fight it? Even if that is the case, who in their right mind pays someone off for telling lies about them? There’s a good racket to be had here! I can accuse Herman Cain of raping or molesting me, collect my $100,000 and never have to worry about any awkward questions because of the gag order attached to the check!

And yes, I will submit for the jury that paying someone off, for any reason, reeks of guilt. Especially in today’s 24-hour news cycle. There’s just no way to make it look good.

He didn’t pay off his accusers. His employers did. As he said, he wasn’t even aware of the second accusation.

Who pays off people for lies? Everyone, everyday. Companies do this on a regular basis because it takes a lot of time and money and it comes down to, like other complaints, “if I give you what you want, will you go away?”

In a just world, every false accusor would end up in jail. Guess what. The Universe is neither fair nor just.

It’s funny how all these sexual harassment allegations always seem to come to light when someone’s running for public office. Yawn.

  • Agent Foxtrot, liberal independent

There’s actually nothing wrong with that.

Right, and before that, he said he didn’t know anything about any settlements only to turn around and say he knew exactly which comments had gotten him sued. You’ll have to forgive me for not taking that statement at face value right away. I don’t know how lawyers handle these kinds of things, but I find it a little surprising that nobody would talk to him about his second sexual harrassment lawsuit.

What this primarily points to is his incompetance to run a Presidential campaign. Any schmuck with half a brain, or any brain with half a schmuck, knows you line up all your possible issues (disgruntled ex-business partners, previous alllegations of electoral misconduct, flipflops, etc) and you make a plan for how you’ll deal iwth them when they surface. If they don’t surface, fine, you’ve wasted a day or two. But not to anticipate? There’s someone you don’t want in any leadership position, be it President or Pizzamaker in chief.

It’s not just surprising; it’s completely implausible. There would at least be a “this person says X. What’s your story?” conversation.

This didn’t happen when he was in office, or even running for office. This happened when he was a lobbyist, a job I don’t think this kind of this would affect very much. While a payoff is not proof of guilt, it is proof that something was happening. As for the second one, either Cain was lying about not knowing about it or when investigating the first case they came across enough evidence to make the second accusation plausible.

I wish this was the worst thing wrong with him. It pales in comparison to his general economic illiteracy and stupidity.

I’m annoyed by Cain’s weasel wording his answers about this issue.

Everybody has something that shows them in a less than flattering light, but first Cain said he didn’t know anything about it but he hopes they didn’t get a lot of money, then he didn’t remember anything about it, then maybe he recalled something about one incident, then he remembered holding his hand ‘like this’ that somehow offended that one lady and oh, yes, maybe he said something to someone at that convention once, but hey, he was talking to lots of folks that night- pretty much 4 or 5 stories in less than 24 or 36 hours. Sheesh.

The women involved are under non disclosure agreements as part of their financial settlements. He could say anything he want to about these charges and won’t be contradicted. He just should have said “Yeah, I had two minor incidents more than 15 years ago and they were resolved then. Old news. Move on”.

Was he not CEO or “hhead of the National Restaurant Assn” or something?

You say “his employers did”, like he worked as a lower level employee, and his superiors did something without his knowledge. Did he not wonder as CEO or “head” of the association, where the 5 figures were going out of his budget? Was he running the show, or what?