Clinton vs. Herman Cain

[Joe Marconi]

Premium Member Content 

This content is hidden to guests, one of the benefits of a paid membership. Please login or register to view this content.

[Mario]

Bill Clintons was consensual between himself and another woman. The allegations against Herman Cain are not consensual and he used his position in the company(ies) in an attempt to force women to partake in inappropriate activity with him. Sounds like a scum bag to me if everything ends up being true, but he will never admit it during his campaign. More then likely the statue of limitations would have ran over for the cases so we will not get any legal investigation.

 

If it doesn't end up being true, good luck campaigning Mr. Cain.

[Joe Marconi]

Premium Member Content 

This content is hidden to guests, one of the benefits of a paid membership. Please login or register to view this content.

[xrac]

Premium Member Content 

This content is hidden to guests, one of the benefits of a paid membership. Please login or register to view this content.

[Gary A]

I am with Joe. I do not think the media gives equal treatment.

 

+1

[Gonzo]

Politics and Religion... the two things that start wars and end friendships. But I'll have to agree with everyone... if you are going to be in the spot light... you BEST keep a clean slate. Crazy world out there ain't it.

 

+1

[Joe Marconi]

Premium Member Content 

This content is hidden to guests, one of the benefits of a paid membership. Please login or register to view this content.

[Mario]

I disagree Joe. Everybody who reads the thread I assume is a mature adult. Everybody has their opinions on subjects. I don't see a reason why we cannot discuss.

 

To respond to previous posts. Yes, Monica Lewinsky had consensual sexual encounters with the president on multiple occasions. She was not sexually molested, raped, or advanced towards without her consent. What Clinton did was not illegal, but it was unethical. If I recall, Clinton got hammered pretty heavy from the media during this entire fiasco and it still tarnishes his reputation. Along with the Paula Jones ordeal.

 

The allegations against Mr. Cain are based on non-consensual encounters, and they are backed by "settlements" (or agreements as he has stated) for the women to leave the company to keep them quiet (by 2 women). Of course this is all just alleged, and like I said, it happened so long ago their will not be a criminal investigation because it did not deal with murder.

 

The last I heard 5 women have came out against Mr. Cain with allegations. Are they all true? Probably not. Like with what happened with Clinton, you have people jumping on the fame wagon for their 15 minutes and possibly some money if they can get it.

 

With that being said, from what I have seen of Cain in the debates and interviews, I believe he will not win a nomination, and certainly not the presidency. His rolling point to his campaign is a 999 plan which we are not even sure if it will raise enough revenue to even fund the government at current levels or even near the current levels. His campaign has not even released a full plan for economists to study. I really get involved in government revenue and economic growth plans because I am a licensed 7-12 Social Studies teacher and am permitted by the state of Ohio to teach courses in economics. Heck, I just enjoy politics in general.

 

And what "media biased" are you referring to? I watch commentators on Fox News all day long stretch truths, tell lies, and blow issues out of proportion when they concern democrats, and I see the same with MSNBC when it concerns Republicans. From just basic observation, it seems that the Republican party does setup our candidates to become targets by the left media. For some reason the GOP is hell bent on campaigning on family values, christian faith (as if their are no christian dems?), common sense, and morals. So when they slip up, the left media has a field day with it.

 

How is the media in your area? In North east ohio, all we really get on the radio is strong right wing conservative stations, and our newspaper (Akron Beacon, Plain Dealer) are pretty liberal, but I wouldn't label them far left, but they push it sometimes.

 

I guess to sum up my lengthy rant (which it wasn't intended to be, it just ended up that way), I am little disappointed in the GOP candidates in general. I don't see a real strong political candidate that the public is going to feel they can trust and support. It is going to end up being Newt or Mitt. Newt is too far right, and the media will eat up Romney because he is mormon and has changed his stance on many topics recently (the whole flip-flop ordeal we seen with John Kerry).

 

And to play devils advocate, why are some willing to give Herman Cain a pass on his allegations and take them lightly, but the same isn't happening for the Penn State coach? Is it because the right wing media is willing to brush off what Cain MAY have done simply because he is a republican candidate and the Penn State Coach is a public employee so he gets no get of jail card? If you ask me, they are both sick in the head if these allegations are true for either party, and the lord has a special place for them when their time comes.

[Joe Marconi]

Premium Member Content 

This content is hidden to guests, one of the benefits of a paid membership. Please login or register to view this content.

[TheTrustedMechanic]

I am sick of the double standard in this country. Clinton admitted he lied to the American public and did have affairs while he was president. BUT, the media and liberals stood behind him saying, “You have to separate what he did from his presidency”. The liberals made excuses for him, forgave him gave him the customary “liberal double-standard pass”

 

Now we have Herman Caine, who has been accused, not found guilty, but accused, and the media is having a field day with this. Why? Because he is a conservative republican. That’s why. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Why is Herman Caine being judged by the media based solely by accusations!

 

And, even if Herman Caine is guilty, Why was it OK for Clinton and NOT ok for a Republican???

 

There clearly is an agenda in this country where the left can do no wrong and the right needs to walk a fine line and tip toe through a political mine field.

 

Joe, I am with you about being sick of the double standards. But I see things differently. I see the republicans giving Cain a pass, and then dredging up Clinton. As I remember your buddy Newt was a vehement proponent in the get Clinton campaign that was the circus in congress about impeaching him. Was Clinton wrong? Absolutely, and his legacy is still tarnished by it. But Newt was a huge push behind impeaching Clinton over his indiscretions, sure the umbrella the republicans used was the lying under oath, but what was the the impetus that solicited that lie? It was Newt and his buddies pushing and pushing to try and disgrace the President. And then afterwards what do we find out, Newt was a multiple philanderer. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. And talk about double standards.

 

Now from your political posts I know you to be a right-winger. And I lean slightly left of center but have an eye towards fairness and equality. Why is it that the republicans were and are again all up in arms about Clinton but want to give a pass to Cain? Double standards. I see it almost everyday in political stories in the media. The republicans did, but that was OK. The democrats do but that is a mortal sin. Double standards every day. And yes it works with both parties, but as of late the neo-cons have amnesia about their past behavior and are screaming about anything the democrats want to do.

 

Mr. Cain visited Traverse City, and one of the tea-bagger city commissioners was quoted as saying he hoped no one brought up the sexual harassment issue because that would be "inappropriate." But where was that understanding when Congressman Weiner was being forced out of office? And this city commissioner was also quoted as claiming the harassment issue was "essentially a he said, she said..." issue. Excuse me, with Clinton it was an it said that she said he was enjoying her favors. Maybe coerced at first, but still consensual. With Cain it is a she said & she said & she said AND SHE SAID coercive situation. Similar, maybe, different, VERY, pertinent, somewhat but not as important as other issues.

 

Personally I really don't care what happened in the '90's in these guys lives. What I care most about is what they are going to do TODAY. But the republicans only care about hammering the democrats about their past and crying because it's not front page above the fold in every newspaper everyday until they come up with another faux crisis. And they also cry foul and double standards when the media and the democrats do exactly the same thing, to the same degree to republicans. There is a clear double standard, and it lies prominently with the republicans. Hammer them and treat us with kid gloves.

[Joe Marconi]

Premium Member Content 

This content is hidden to guests, one of the benefits of a paid membership. Please login or register to view this content.

[Mario]

It sounds like Mr. Cain may be dropping out of the race soon (after he discusses it with his wife, according to the local radio).

 

Partisan politics in general are just dirty. Candidates such as Buddy Roemer will never get attention because they want to limit the influence ($) that businesses, unions, and social/economic groups have on elections.