Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.

[Anonymous]

17:12, two is not "multiple women"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:17:12, two is not "multiple women"

Au contraire, Mr Johnson: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/multiple

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's always funny to me that "conservatives" can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of "consent".

Clinton was accused of a lot more than consensual sex.

Wait, let's be clear. Clinton was accused by Paula Jones of sexual harassment, not rape. Clinton won that case on summary judgment, and she eventually accepted a settlement that did not include an apology.

Catherine Willey accused him of assault for kissing her. Ken Starr chose not to prosecute this because he found that she gave conflicting testimony.

Sure, but both were allegations of sexual offenses, i.e. thing other than consensual sex. I'm not taking any position on those, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to draw parallels.

I think that there is a difference between an accusation that is yet unproved, and an accusation that has been investigated and then dropped. If you fail to mention the "dropped" part, it is dishonest.

[TheManWithAUsername]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's always funny to me that "conservatives" can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of "consent".

Clinton was accused of a lot more than consensual sex.

Anonymous wrote:Which accusation were you referring to? One of the rape accusations, or that he killed Vince Foster? Or that he headed a murderous drug-dealing ring?

The sexual harassment, primarily, but also the assault and rape accusations. The others weren't on topic.

Anonymous wrote:Heck, by this measure, we could say 'W' was accused of even worse than these two: he actually plotted and gave the order to blow up the World Trade Center, and ok'ed the demolition of the Pentagon to cover up the conspiracy. And he went AWOL from the TANG. Also, Laura Bush killed someone.

By what measure? You're the one who has moved it into the ridiculous. The issue was very clearly Clinton's sexual conduct.

Anonymous wrote:There's a difference between accusations and a cash pay-out to settle a sexual harassment case.

There sure is, and Clinton paid Paula Jones almost $1 million. I think you reviewed every allegation against Clinton except the two most substantial: harassment of Jones and perjury during those proceedings. (The perjury is unrelated to what we're talking about here.)

Anonymous wrote:We know Clinton got a blowjob from a young woman who wanted to give him a blowjob. We know that Cain was accused by several women of sexually harrassing them, and that the accusations were severe enough that NRA legal counsel paid them to settle.

This is the kind of goal post shifting I'm used to seeing from conservatives. This was the exchange here:
- PP relates Clinton & sex to Cain & sex
- opposing PP (you?) mocks the first PP b/c Clinton's sex acts were consensual
- I remind the second PP that Clinton had been accused of more than just consensual acts.

Were there differences between Clinton's situation and Cain's? Countless, I'm sure. But the distinction drawn by PP (you?) was consensual vs. not, and that distinction isn't there. All the other things you now raise are different issues.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's always funny to me that "conservatives" can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of "consent".

Clinton was accused of a lot more than consensual sex.

Wait, let's be clear. Clinton was accused by Paula Jones of sexual harassment, not rape. Clinton won that case on summary judgment, and she eventually accepted a settlement that did not include an apology.

Catherine Willey accused him of assault for kissing her. Ken Starr chose not to prosecute this because he found that she gave conflicting testimony.

Sure, but both were allegations of sexual offenses, i.e. thing other than consensual sex. I'm not taking any position on those, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to draw parallels.

I think that there is a difference between an accusation that is yet unproved, and an accusation that has been investigated and then dropped. If you fail to mention the "dropped" part, it is dishonest.

Here's the shifting goal posts again. There are lots of differences. PP said the difference was consensual vs. non-consensual, and that difference isn't here.

And the Jones matter wasn't dropped; it was settled for a boatload of money.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's always funny to me that "conservatives" can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of "consent".

Clinton was accused of a lot more than consensual sex.

Anonymous wrote:Which accusation were you referring to? One of the rape accusations, or that he killed Vince Foster? Or that he headed a murderous drug-dealing ring?

The sexual harassment, primarily, but also the assault and rape accusations. The others weren't on topic.

Anonymous wrote:Heck, by this measure, we could say 'W' was accused of even worse than these two: he actually plotted and gave the order to blow up the World Trade Center, and ok'ed the demolition of the Pentagon to cover up the conspiracy. And he went AWOL from the TANG. Also, Laura Bush killed someone.

By what measure? You're the one who has moved it into the ridiculous. The issue was very clearly Clinton's sexual conduct.

Anonymous wrote:There's a difference between accusations and a cash pay-out to settle a sexual harassment case.

There sure is, and Clinton paid Paula Jones almost $1 million. I think you reviewed every allegation against Clinton except the two most substantial: harassment of Jones and perjury during those proceedings. (The perjury is unrelated to what we're talking about here.)

Anonymous wrote:We know Clinton got a blowjob from a young woman who wanted to give him a blowjob. We know that Cain was accused by several women of sexually harrassing them, and that the accusations were severe enough that NRA legal counsel paid them to settle.

This is the kind of goal post shifting I'm used to seeing from conservatives. This was the exchange here:
- PP relates Clinton & sex to Cain & sex
- opposing PP (you?) mocks the first PP b/c Clinton's sex acts were consensual
- I remind the second PP that Clinton had been accused of more than just consensual acts.

Were there differences between Clinton's situation and Cain's? Countless, I'm sure. But the distinction drawn by PP (you?) was consensual vs. not, and that distinction isn't there. All the other things you now raise are different issues.

Hey, look. Don't blame me for the intentional ambiguity of your initial post. There were countless, countless accusations that were flying around during that time. And conservatives essentially took every single one of them as the gospel truth the second they were launched. So you claim that the Paula Jones case had merit. Fine. But frankly there's a bit of the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf going on here. If there are twenty women who come forward--along with claims of drug-dealing, and Hillary murdering Vince Foster--and every single one of these stories is sponsored by the same right-wing organizations, you'll have to excuse me if, after the 18th case, I begin to get a bit skeptical.

The Cain charges were obviously brought by one of his opponents in the GOP primary. The fact that Cain's gone up in the polls pretty much speaks volumes about your average GOP primary voter.

[Anonymous]

and my the way, I'm no Clinton fan. I just think it's hilarious that--after the 90's--folks on the right would try to make the case that Clinton got a pass, Cain's being crucified, and it's all the fault of the "liberal media".

[Anonymous]

One last thing: Paula Jones' case was dismissed because her accusations didn't fit the criteria for sexual harassment as there were no threats or promises related to her employment or any other aspect of her life. She testified that the relationship was consensual. Clinton settled with Jones out of court for the problems and expenses he caused during the investigation.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Hey, look. Don't blame me for the intentional ambiguity of your initial post.

Hey, look. There's nothing ambiguous there to anyone who reads.

I quoted the prior post about "Clinton spermin'." You thought that could have been a reference to Vince Foster? This whole thread is about the allegations against Cain. You weren't confused by ambiguity; you wanted to bring up only the least substantial of the allegations, to suggest that they were all ridiculous as compared to the ones against Cain.

Anonymous wrote:So you claim that the Paula Jones case had merit. Fine.

I don't just claim it; I really didn't follow it that closely. I know that it was brought to court, that it was not found frivolous, and that he settled it for a lot of money.

Anonymous wrote:But frankly there's a bit of the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf going on here. If there are twenty women who come forward--along with claims of drug-dealing, and Hillary murdering Vince Foster--and every single one of these stories is sponsored by the same right-wing organizations, you'll have to excuse me if, after the 18th case, I begin to get a bit skeptical.

So do I. I didn't question skepticism of that. I simply said that the allegations against Cain and Clinton are not incomparably different, in particular as it relates to consent.

Anonymous wrote:The Cain charges were obviously brought by one of his opponents in the GOP primary. The fact that Cain's gone up in the polls pretty much speaks volumes about your average GOP primary voter.

A point I made very early in the related thread.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:and my the way, I'm no Clinton fan. I just think it's hilarious that--after the 90's--folks on the right would try to make the case that Clinton got a pass, Cain's being crucified, and it's all the fault of the "liberal media".

I also think that stuff is ridiculous and typical. That wasn’t what the PP I defended was doing.

Anonymous wrote:One last thing: Paula Jones' case was dismissed because her accusations didn't fit the criteria for sexual harassment as there were no threats or promises related to her employment or any other aspect of her life. She testified that the relationship was consensual. Clinton settled with Jones out of court for the problems and expenses he caused during the investigation.

Of course he says that. I assume that Cain will say (or has said) the same about the reasons for settlement. It may be true for one, for both, or for neither.

Both men were accused of sexual harassment; both men settled those claims. I don’t see what’s ridiculous about someone drawing parallels. (I don’t know why bringing up Clinton would excuse Cain, but that’s a different question.)

The reason I jumped in in the first place, besides just to correct an incorrect implication, was that I was disappointed by the hypocrisy of much of the left regarding the allegations against Clinton. In particular, the spirited support of Anita Hill contrasted with the casual dismissal of Paula Jones by NOW disgusted me.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's always funny to me that "conservatives" can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of "consent".

Clinton was accused of a lot more than consensual sex.

Wait, let's be clear. Clinton was accused by Paula Jones of sexual harassment, not rape. Clinton won that case on summary judgment, and she eventually accepted a settlement that did not include an apology.

Catherine Willey accused him of assault for kissing her. Ken Starr chose not to prosecute this because he found that she gave conflicting testimony.

Sure, but both were allegations of sexual offenses, i.e. thing other than consensual sex. I'm not taking any position on those, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to draw parallels.

I think that there is a difference between an accusation that is yet unproved, and an accusation that has been investigated and then dropped. If you fail to mention the "dropped" part, it is dishonest.

Here's the shifting goal posts again. There are lots of differences. PP said the difference was consensual vs. non-consensual, and that difference isn't here.

And the Jones matter wasn't dropped; it was settled for a boatload of money.

I'm not shifting goal posts. I am my own person, entitled to my own opinion. I am not accountable for every post you disagree with.

And importantly, the case was settled with no admission of guilt or apology. In that case, there is nothing to infer other than that Clinton decided it was better to pay money to end the problem. Innocent people can go that way, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:It looks to me like the most likely explanations are
(a) He made insensitive remarks,
(b) He came on to some women, or
(c) He used his position to try to get sex.

Instead of evasion, he ought to have admitted to (a) and let the issue die away, rather than letting us all assume (c), which is now looking more likely.

If it is a or b, I think this is a non-issue. (Others here will certainly disagree.) If it's c, he's someone who can't be trusted with power and I'd never vote for him. My guess is that it's a murky situation where he thought he was doing a or b, and she thought he was doing c. Different people have different views on those types of situations, but I would not personally hold that against him, unless he did something objectively unreasonable. Until an actual named source comes forward with her side of the story, however, I think it is not fair to hold this against Cain.

I totally agree with second PP.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not shifting goal posts. I am my own person, entitled to my own opinion. I am not accountable for every post you disagree with.

Well, you're your own person "named" the same as everyone else. I addressed one PP whom you now suggest wasn't you, and you responded to me. Why did you if you were just trying to make an unrelated point? If you just wanted to give an aside, it would have helped if you had said so.

Anonymous wrote:And importantly, the case was settled with no admission of guilt or apology. In that case, there is nothing to infer other than that Clinton decided it was better to pay money to end the problem. Innocent people can go that way, too.

That's right. And that applies equally to Cain - as I've said multiple times now, I believe. What is your point?

I didn't attack Clinton generally. I didn't say he sexually harassed anyone, raped anyone, or murdered anyone. In fact, I explicitly noted that he may have just paid to make it go away.

You didn't change your argument because that wasn't you making the first one - dandy. All you've done is wasted time with pointless statements.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not shifting goal posts. I am my own person, entitled to my own opinion. I am not accountable for every post you disagree with.

Well, you're your own person "named" the same as everyone else. I addressed one PP whom you now suggest wasn't you, and you responded to me. Why did you if you were just trying to make an unrelated point? If you just wanted to give an aside, it would have helped if you had said so.

Anonymous wrote:And importantly, the case was settled with no admission of guilt or apology. In that case, there is nothing to infer other than that Clinton decided it was better to pay money to end the problem. Innocent people can go that way, too.

That's right. And that applies equally to Cain - as I've said multiple times now, I believe. What is your point?

I didn't attack Clinton generally. I didn't say he sexually harassed anyone, raped anyone, or murdered anyone. In fact, I explicitly noted that he may have just paid to make it go away.

You didn't change your argument because that wasn't you making the first one - dandy. All you've done is wasted time with pointless statements.

No you misread my earlier post. I wanted to clarify statements made about Clinton. I did not make a comparison to Cain. You drew that conclusion on your own.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:No you misread my earlier post. I wanted to clarify statements made about Clinton. I did not make a comparison to Cain. You drew that conclusion on your own.

What? I know you didn't! I didn't say you did. The PP who started this whole thing did. My whole complaint with you is that you jumped in the middle of an exchange with some useless (and wrong) side point.

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here. And as far as your clarification goes, it was wrong (about charges being dropped), so your calling me dishonest was off-base. It has become very clear that you don't read very carefully.