Cain in Big Trouble: Gloria Allred has Jumped on the Bandwagon!

What do you find physically impossible? If you are referring to the part where Cain put his hand on her thigh, they were sitting in a car, so what's impossible about what she described?

 

I missed that detail.

I am still left wondering why she did not file charges at the time.

As I understand it actions such as she claims would be 3rd or 4th degree assault.

 

When I see Gloria Allred get involved in something, it drops the story's believability by about 30%. Is Cain guilty? I don't know. What I will say is that if Cain were a Democrat, many (not all) of the connies on here would be condemning him.

 

I keep on wondering why the females are dictating the argument against Cain. Are they ALWAYS innocent just because they are female?

I'm not the sort of guy that attracts great numbers of women, but as a man in a position of power at times, I've found that some woman can practice the most inappropriate behavior. But if the man (and I haven't, my integrity is intact!) even makes a suggestive move at the overt or not quite so overt invitation, it is game on against him. I see this as the background of all the hoopla surrounding Cain.

I'm not saying that he is innocent, and also not saying that he is guilty, but he is a man of power and wealth and I can only imagine the moves that some women might have placed on him until they could catch him in some act that would pay them for their effort. We used to call them "gold diggers." That term has gone out of fashion these days, however, because women (say!) that they want to be treated just like men... Until they don't want to be treated just like men... :tonofbricks:

 

It will be nice to get to the bottom of these many allegations. But, either way, this will no doubt hurt Cain badly. I don't want to see anyone falsely accused, but I will certainly not miss his 999 plan if this keeps him out of the presidency.

 

So far, it has not hurt Cain at all, and that largely because his base rightly knows that this is just another smear campaign.

So, let's say that the press is right on this one and we ride Cain out on the rail. Who do we pick as the next candidate? Romney, the press' choice, but a man that the people do not support (nor have they ever)? Perry, who the press will annihilate as soon as he hits front-runner status (already proved that they will when he was hot), or perhaps Gingrich, who has his own closet full of skeletons. I highly doubt that the press will stop just because Cain is damaged. They will continue in their efforts until they get the candidate THEY wish to run, in opposition to the will of the electorate.

Meanwhile, the spin on the stories is incredible. Just sit back and watch with openness and think every time you hear a news story about a Republican candidate. Who is saying what, and to whom are they comparing that individual? What is the tenor of the story -- concern, seriousness at the nature of the allegations, etc. -- and do they light up as they mention their favorite? Even the pictures that accompany the story are psychologically manipulated to lead people in the desired direction. NOTHING happens by accident in the major media. They ALL have an agenda (yes, even Fox) and they are pressing for their agenda to be THE agenda of America. Don't be fooled.

 

Cain is hitting home runs right now. Gloria is toast.

 

Wishful thinking on your part. But, if Cain were my candidate, I would probably see it like you do.

 

I guess I don't understand why Mittens would be the press' choice? Do you know any reporters? I've met a few and they all crave controversy and conflict in their stories. They need an interesting story to sell. Romney does not give them that. He's boring and he's a retread from 2008.

If I buy into your notion that the press picks favorites and forces them on people you're going to have to explain Richard Nixon's comeback, Goldwater's nomination and Ronald Reagan's nomination. I submit that all three of those candidates would not be the first choice of the press.

If I bought into your theory I would think that Cain would be the one the press would want to anoint. He's an interesting personality. He came out of nowhere to take the lead in the early campaign. He provides the biggest policy contrasts to Obama and as a black man would provide the element of racism that (I would guess) you would accuse the press of constantly harping on. Furthermore, he's a southerner, a mathematician who worked for the Navy and has had various private sector jobs; Obama went to Harvard Law School, has worked in the public sector and loathes the military. He's an elite northerner. Talk about contrasts! The press would have umpteen different angles on stories to compare and contrast Obama and Cain.

No, I think the press would welcome Cain as the Republican candidate, as would the Democrats.

 

Thus far Cain has blamed Rick Perry, then the media and now the democrats.

He said he didn't even know this woman who gave the press conference. He better be right. If someone comes up with a photo of them together or there is other credible evidence that he in fact did know this woman, his campaing will be not just toast, but burnt toast.

 

When did he blame the press or the democrats? I was just listening to his presser on the radio and a Fox News reporter asked him if it was conspiracy and he said no, there was no direct evidence, just some suspicious circumstantial evidence. He didn't even indicate if this flimsy evidence was in relation to the press or democrats, in fact, I got the impression it was about Perry.

 

Wow, you've already indicted, arraigned, convicted and imprisoned Cain. With no trial.

Do you think that's wise RD2?

 

Well it's certainly not hurting his fundraising- he raised about $25,000 this evening after the press conference. So there's plenty of folks, me included, who just don't buy the stories put forth by these people.

 

No, you're thinking that they actually want a story. They don't want a story, they want to select their choice of candidate.

What they are doing now is removed from what they have done in the past, which is why earlier election cycles really don't count. Before the advent of free talk radio and the web, the press had a monopoly and could dictate policy--and did. Now, instead of having a monopoly and being able to be the only voice, they are but one voice in a larger pool, and so they no longer merely distort the news, they MAKE the news to suit their own worldview.

We saw this start with the Bush/Gore cycle and continue on since. The more the people, particularly "red state" people raise up and try to select a candidate and administration that nullifies the great gains made with Obama and his first 2 year administration and congress, the more they will fight to make sure that they can hold their ideals in office. Romney is their man on the Republican side because he is the most liberal candidate by far.

 

Really? Where were you in the 80's? The press dictated Ronald Reagan's SDI program, the tax cuts, supply side economics, the huge defense buildup? That is what you say the press wanted? In the 90's they sanctioned the demise of Hillary Care, propped up Gingrich's Contract with America, Welfare Reform, etc. LOL.

What color is the sky in ConspiracyLand?

You are not making any sense. The typical line of reasoning is that the MSM (main stream media) wants Obama to get reelected. Therefore they would want the candidate with the least chance of unseating Obama. That would be anybody except Romney or Perry. It makes no sense to try to knock Cain out of the race. The media is in this to get ratings and to sell advertising. It would be far more interesting to the American people if Cain was running against Obama. It would generate more viewers for TV news talk shows and other political junkie types of shows. A boring candidate, a retread like Romney is not going to do that for them.

BTW, Jon Huntsman is the most liberal Republican candidate in the race.

 

This may not be a he said/she said issue any longer.

One woman said that Cain upgraded her hotel room. We can go back through credit card records/hotel records and verify or deny this issue. I think this would be a key piece of evidence for or against Cain on this specific allegation (not the other ones leveled against him).

Cain said there was an internal investigation that said these charges were baseless. One of the Attorney's for the women said he was never presented such an investigation (and if it was done, it was not done by a 3rd party, but someone reporting to Cain). However, if an investigation was done, it could be released. This still may not say much considering it was not done by a third party (independent), but it could help validate Cain's story slightly.

One attorney said his client received a settlement. Whether this is a settlement or not is a moot point, but Cain's camp insists this was a settlement. The details of this "settlement" could be released to discover if it is a settlement or not.

 

The liberal press swept Clinton's indiscretions under the rug and we all know the result.

You are correct. We don't need that in the White House again.

 

Question for those who planned to vote for Cain: If nothing were to change (no new developments, 'new evidence', accusers, etc.) would you still vote for him, or have these allegations dissuaded you?