Another, "I didn't do it!"

[Reba]

Bill Clinton had a bit more to offer this country as a politician than Herman Cain has. Political experience for one thing. It was a cost benefit analysis. Womanizer who has what it takes to run the country. Which is more important...his running the country or his sex life?

So, you admit that women voters can and do overlook sex allegations when they cast their ballots?

Herman Cain cannot match Clinton in any way shape or form regarding qualifications for the office of President. So it comes down to, "Sexist pig that really doesn't have any redeeming qualities as a politician."

We can debate the political qualities but where do you come off calling a candidate a "sexist pig?" Is that your mature, reasoned analysis at work?

 

[saywhatkid]

I believe I specifically referred to his lack of executive experience, including any business experience.

 

[jillio]

So then Cain would know what to expect running the US then..........

You're trying to be humorous, right?

 

[saywhatkid]

So, you admit that women voters can and do overlook sex allegations when they cast their ballots?
I admit that to be true. I also think some women vote against a candidate based on this type of thing, and that some men vote for a candidate for this reason. "Way to go Bill! You deserve a woman, not a cold fish...blah blah blah..."

We can debate the political qualities but where do you come off calling a candidate a "sexist pig?"

Agreed. He has been convicted of nothing yet. My only issue is his lack of experience in government.

 

[jillio]

So, you admit that women voters can and do overlook sex allegations when they cast their ballots?


We can debate the political qualities but where do you come off calling a candidate a "sexist pig?" Is that your mature, reasoned analysis at work?

If the choice is compelling enough, yes. Unfortunately for Cain, he offers nothing to counterwhat has been shown to be a downfall in his treatment in the women.

Likewise, Clinton's accusations all included a willing participant. Cain inflicted his mistreatment on unwilling victims.

 

[jillio]

So, you admit that women voters can and do overlook sex allegations when they cast their ballots?


We can debate the political qualities but where do you come off calling a candidate a "sexist pig?" Is that your mature, reasoned analysis at work?

That is the term I apply to anyone who has shown the propensity to inflict sexist behavior on unwilling female victims. I don't plan on stopping use of it anytime soon.

I am combining that with his lack of experience in running this country. As I am sure many others will. It just adds more weight to the con list.

 

[Reba]

Agreed. He has been convicted of nothing yet. My only issue is his lack of experience in government.

Fair enough.

 

[jillio]

Agreed. He has been convicted of nothing yet. My only issue is his lack of experience in government.

He wasn't convicted because a settlement was reached to keep the case out of court. It isn't like the accusations are recent and are still to be tried.

 

[Reba]

That is the term I apply to anyone who has shown the propensity to inflict sexist behavior on unwilling female victims. I don't plan on stopping use of it anytime soon.

You have proof that Cain has "shown the propensity to inflict sexist behavior on unwilling female victims?"

 

[saywhatkid]

He wasn't convicted because a settlement was reached to keep the case out of court. It isn't like the accusations are recent and are still to be tried.

Well, the name calling was a bit over the top. Innocent before proven guilty. I know there is probably something there, but to simply brand him a sexist pig seems a bit premature. If convicted, you would need something stronger. Why open with your biggest guns?

 

[jillio]

You have proof that Cain has "shown the propensity to inflict sexist behavior on unwilling female victims?"

Charges were filed, settlement was paid, others have collaborated, and his reaction certainly does not say, "innocent".

 

[Reba]

He wasn't convicted because a settlement was reached to keep the case out of court. It isn't like the accusations are recent and are still to be tried.

He wasn't convicted. Period.

You know nothing of the cases. Or do you? Do you have some secret inside source?

 

[jillio]

He wasn't convicted. Period.

You know nothing of the cases. Or do you? Do you have some secret inside source?

How could he be convicted when the case never went to trial, thanks to the settlements being offered?

As you have often said, lack of conviction does not imply innocence.

 

[jillio]

He wasn't convicted. Period.

You know nothing of the cases. Or do you? Do you have some secret inside source?

I know what I have read and what legal professionals have explained regarding the use of a settlement to avoid trial.

Do you have some inside information that would unequivocally support the fact that he did not engage in sexual harrassment (and as extension) abuse of power?

 

[jillio]

Well, the name calling was a bit over the top. Innocent before proven guilty. I know there is probably something there, but to simply brand him a sexist pig seems a bit premature. If convicted, you would need something stronger. Why open with your biggest guns?

That was not my biggest gun.

 

[Reba]

Charges were filed, settlement was paid, others have collaborated, and his reaction certainly does not say, "innocent".

Filing charges is not the same as a conviction. Do you even know the details of the charges?

Settlement was paid. Do you know the details of the agreement?

How does his reaction not say "innocent?" Did he confess to something?

 

[Reba]

How could he be convicted when the case never went to trial, thanks to the settlements being offered?

As you have often said, lack of conviction does not imply innocence.

Please, get it straight.

I have often said, in the case of a trial, a "not guilty" verdict is not the same as declaring innocence.

In a settlement, there is no "verdict" because there is no trial.

A charge is not the same as a verdict.

 

[jillio]

Filing charges is not the same as a conviction. Do you even know the details of the charges?

Settlement was paid. Do you know the details of the agreement?

How does his reaction not say "innocent?" Did he confess to something?

I guess either my interpretation, and other's interpretation of his behavior, following the news becoming public, is different than yours. I certainly don't see innocence. I dishonest and avoidance. As do many others.

 

[jillio]

Please, get it straight.

I have often said, in the case of a trial, a "not guilty" verdict is not the same as declaring innocence.

In a settlement, there is no "verdict" because there is no trial.

A charge is not the same as a verdict.

No, there was a settlement, which implies that there was evidence of wrong doing and the attorney doesn't want to go to trial.

Can't change the rules midstream, Reba.

 

[Reba]

No, there was a settlement, which implies that there was evidence of wrong doing and the attorney doesn't want to go to trial.

Can't change the rules midstream, Reba.

What rules?