Larry Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 1). There's some differences between the two. One is the matter of CONSENT. 2). There's another difference, too. The voters found out about Clinton after he was President. So, the voters based their decision on Clinton's entire record. On the allegations AND on the state of the country. Cain doesn't have that advantage, either. With Clinton, it was a case of "he fools around, and he's doing a great job as President". With Cain, it's a case of "he fools around, and he promises, if elected, that he'll make things vastly worse". 3). And there's another difference. Clinton's fooling around was an act oh High Treason to the Republicans, and "doesn't really affect his job much" to Democrats. Cain's fooling around is a Constitutional Right to the Republicans, and "doesn't really affect his job much" to Democrats. :secret: if you're going to be chewing people out for having morals that reverse polarity based on Party labels, you really should make certain of which Party it is, that's doing what your complaining about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 "the difference between me and what I'm seeing from the average GOP voter right now is that I use that same standard with all candidates...as such I see Cain as a sleaze too...whereas the GOP thinks this is "a distraction" as I believe one poster stated it. " You're comparing yourself to what you think is the average GOP voter. Im not defending Cain. You didnt (and arent) defending Clinton. Yet both sides have some support for their own guy. You might not be a hypocrite, but dont deny that the folks who voted for Clinton and are now crying foul over Cain certainly are. ---------- Post added November-9th-2011 at 10:33 AM ---------- 1). There's some differences between the two. One is the matter of CONSENT. 2). There's another difference, too. The voters found out about Clinton after he was President. So, the voters based their decision on Clinton's entire record. On the allegations AND on the state of the country. Cain doesn't have that advantage, either. With Clinton, it was a case of "he fools around, and he's doing a great job as President". With Cain, it's a case of "he fools around, and he promises, if elected, that he'll make things vastly worse". 3). And there's another difference. Clinton's fooling around was an act oh High Treason to the Republicans, and "doesn't really affect his job much" to Democrats. Cain's fooling around is a Constitutional Right to the Republicans, and "doesn't really affect his job much" to Democrats. :secret: if you're going to be chewing people out for having morals that reverse polarity based on Party labels, you really should make certain of which Party it is, that's doing what your complaining about. Ive already shown that some of Clintons excapades were not consensual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 LOL.Clinton was elected twice. How much did the "average democrat voter" care about his personel misdeeds? If the "average GOP voter" is being taken to task for defending Cain (noting that I am not), then please make sure to apply that standard equally. Dont just claim to do so. Cain is no Clinton. If I were a card carrying GOPer I'm in love with these allegations to get this man out of the front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Cain is no Clinton. If I were a card carrying GOPer I'm in love with these allegations to get this man out of the front. Ive never entertained for a minute that Cain had a chance, even before these allegations came up. I think this helps Romney wrap it up early. This story takes all of the oxygen and allows him to put his feet up for a week plus now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 You're comparing yourself to what you think is the average GOP voter. You're right, I'm probably giving them too much credit. BTW, that was a joke Im not defending Cain. You didnt (and arent) defending Clinton. Yet both sides have some support for their own guy. You might not be a hypocrite, but dont deny that the folks who voted for Clinton and are now crying foul over Cain certainly are. Oh I'm not denying that those who defended Clinton and are now attacking Cain don't share in the hypocrisy...not in the least. My point is that those who are defending Cain need to own up their hypocrisy in attacking Clinton just the same. Actually, come to think of it, it probably isn't hypocrisy at all, I think it is better described as hackery and deceit and pretending that the reason they're attacking a candidate is different than the real reason they are attacking them. For many I'm sure..and I know it was true, that Clinton was attacked because he was a popular Democrat, and the same I believe can be said for Cain. Now, does that mean that because these attacks are made political that then they are no longer relevant to one's candidacy? Hardly. Ive already shown that some of Clintons excapades were not consensual. You're right, some were and I had forgotten about the harassment by Clinton, after all he had so many affairs that the harassment accusations got hidden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Back up pardner, I was a Conservative when the Clinton fiasco was going on and I defended Newt the whole time...that's how I know what was being said and done.Sorry, that your narrative for my life doesn't fit the reality of my life...seems to be a lot of that going on lately. Then I find it interesting that you have defended the possibility/significance of his indiscretions and are blaming GOP voters for potentially doing something that Democratic voters absolutely did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 To me it doesn't matter, because I never felt he was going to be president anyway. Not even VP. So to me, this ain't that much of a big deal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I think this helps Romney wrap it up early. Given the current discussion this just seemed funny to me. ---------- Post added November-9th-2011 at 10:57 AM ---------- Then I find it interesting that you have defended the possibility/significance of his indiscretions and are blaming GOP voters for potentially doing something that Democratic voters absolutely did. See where you go wrong is you think I'm taking a side here. The truth is that Clinton was a jerk and a liar, and Cain is apparently being revealed as one too. My whole point is that the IF sexual harassment and lying were the real reason behind the impeachment and hatred of Clinton by the GOP, then they should be looking at Cain in the same scrutiny and stop pretending that this is a Left wing distraction just because now the shoe is on the other foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 You mean he had the same number of willing sexual partners as Herman Cain has sexually harassed?Oh and BTW, remind me what the GOP said about Clinton...and why he was impeached. Oh that's right it was because he lied.. Correct answer: Obstruction of justice. And he would have gotten away with too if it wasn't for that darn Blue Dress with the DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 wow, the GOP old guard is scared ****less of Cain actually winning the nomination must not like what they see in the mirror ---------------- BTW Clinton's sin was based on deceit (lying to his wife, his country) Cain's sin is of a more aggressive and violent nature (harassment, sexual assault) yeah they're both sex related, but that's a shallow and obtuse way of thinking about it, the underlying flaw in the conduct is much different between the two characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Clinton had the Bimbo eruption campaign prior to the 1992 elections and went on 60 minutes prior to the elections about Gennifer Flowers allegations which turned out to be true. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/flowers012792.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 This thread seems to be going a bit astray.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 wow, the GOP old guard is scared ****less of Cain actually winning the nominationmust not like what they see in the mirror The left leaning Establishment GOP? Yes they are so they are pushing for Romney and hoping conservatives will hold their nose and do the vote for anybody but Barrack Hussein Obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 wow, the GOP old guard is scared ****less of Cain actually winning the nominationmust not like what they see in the mirror ---------------- BTW Clinton's sin was based on deceit (lying to his wife, his country) Cain's sin is of a more aggressive and violent nature (harassment, sexual assault) yeah they're both sex related, but that's a shallow and obtuse way of thinking about it, the underlying flaw in the conduct is much different between the two characters. Tell that to Paula Jones and Kathleen Wiley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I would have given him the benefit of the doubt, but his continually contradictory statements seem to indicate either a limited intelligence and/or a pathological liar. The charges may be exaggerated or even fabricated, but as others have mentioned his inconsistency alone is a telling indicator of his lack of capabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Tell that to Paula Jones and Kathleen Wiley. That's fair, though I don't think Clinton crossed the sexual assault line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 You might not be a hypocrite, but dont deny that the folks who voted for Clinton and are now crying foul over Cain certainly are. Unless they've learned over the past 20 years that sexual harassment is to be taken far more seriously than it was taken a generation ago. People are capable of learning, and public awareness of the seriousness of sexual harassment -- both Clinton-style propositions and Cain-style quid pro quo -- absolutely has risen dramatically over the past 20 years. For that very real reason, it's easier to give the benefit of the doubt to those who are more concerned about sexual harassment now than they were two decades ago, regardless of which candidate they have supported then or now. And MUCH HARDER to do anything of the sort for those who were more concerned about it then and paradoxically seem willing to dismiss the same thing now, when awareness is higher. You can say the same for a wide variety of social issues at various points in our political history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Anytime anyone wants to try someone in the court of public opinion, I'm suspicious. Those Duke lacrosse players would have been HOSED. As the father of two young girls, I'm as intensely opposed to anything resembling sexual assault/harassment as anyone can possibly be. But trust me, if (God forbid) anything like that ever happens to one of my girls, we won't be discussing it on TV or in the newspaper. We'll be sending the POS that did to JAIL for a long, long time. Keep in mind too, that a criminal court requires an oath to testify truthfully. The court of public opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 That's fair, though I don't think Clinton crossed the sexual assault line At least one woman accused Clinton of sexual assault (can't remember her name). So, if you thought Clinton was fit for office notwithstanding the allegations of sexual harassment, you should pretty much ignore the allegations against Cain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 At least one woman accused Clinton of sexual assault (can't remember her name). So, if you thought Clinton was fit for office notwithstanding the allegations of sexual harassment, you should pretty much ignore the allegations against Cain. Unless of course society (and the specific individual) has evolved since then see Mjah's post... though I largely agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 The truth is that Clinton was a jerk and a liar, and Cain is apparently being revealed as one too. My whole point is that the IF sexual harassment and lying were the real reason behind the impeachment and hatred of Clinton by the GOP, then they should be looking at Cain in the same scrutiny and stop pretending that this is a Left wing distraction just because now the shoe is on the other foot.I never mentioned anything about impeachment (although I believe that having sex with a subordinate in the workplace qualifies). I was pointing out (in response to your comment about high office...) that the allegations (never proven) against Clinton are similar in nature to the ones (not proven) about Cain. Your response to that was feigning (I hope) ignorance about any allegation toward Clinton. You did this before you feigned "devil's advocate". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Unless of course society (and the specific individual) has evolved since thensee Mjah's post... though I largely agree Most of the Cain allegations go back to the late 90s, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Most of the Cain allegations go back to the late 90s, correct? we're talking about reactions to the allegations, the reactions are in the present day the reactions to Clinton are not in the present day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 we're talking about reactions to the allegations, the reactions are in the present daythe reactions to Clinton are not in the present day Then shouldn't Clinton's legacy be tarnished accordingly? In my view it has not been, and I suspect it has more to do with Clinton's and Cain's respective party affiliations than with changing views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Seems to me he was accused, and the restaurant assoc. settled. But now Cain is trying to deny that even a settlement occurred. Regardless of this issue, I believe he has exhibited other "tells" which show he shouldn't even be a candidate. The comment about an accuser's lawyer that he made, "I have a job she can do" or something to that effect, which was shown on either DS or Colbert last night, is incredibly crass and shows a complete lack of understanding of the seriousness of the issue. Add in to that his "jabib-a-stan or whateve" comment in regards to foreign policy, his lack of knowledge in foreign policy despite claiming he's studying up (like not knowing China already has nukes and wanting to prevent them from building them), and his outlashes when cornered in an interview, and it shows to me he doesn't have the right mentality for the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.