Skeletons falling out of Cain's closet

[Zoub]

When Cain gets caught in lies, speaks gibberish, can't express his own opinion, and has little to no clue about issues he'll need to speak about during debates and interviews...the man degrades himself.

And that has no connection to any other candidate but Rambone does.

If we call a spade a spade, and we are not 5th graders here, Rambone has no credibility when he slams any opponent of Paul. I have been paid to spot patterns of behavior and if you see one in Cain, you see it 10x in Rambone.

It is not about loving Cain, it is about not acting like MSNBC or Dan Rather.

On a side note, I came across an interesting explanation for why some have a certain disdain for Rambone in Ann Coulters new book. We are not use to seeing people who are totally devoted to a particular candidate, that is usually a pattern of behavior seen on the far left, not the right or center.

There are no messiahs, none.

 

[chraland51]

I think that someone needs to check out the backgrounds of these Cain accusers, both before and after the alleged sexual harrassment incidents much better before making them so public and damaging. It would seem that at least a few of them would seem to have very seedy and suspicious backgrounds and motives. One or two might be the equivalent of someone who goes around grocery stores looking for wet spots to slip on or loose carpeting to trip over. Some others might have other motives. Some might acutally be true. I just wish that the MSM would do their jobs like they always seem to do on conservatives, but never do on people like the Clintons or the O'Bummers or any of the multitudes of liberal democreeps with criminal and very seedy backgrounds.

 

[spec4]

On WLS Chicago, Don Wade is saying that the woman who got the settlement subsequently was demanding a settlement from another employer 3 years later over crap issues. I've seen this stuff before in my work life, and for now my position is that they are trying to railroad Cain.

 

[sepe]

And that has no connection to any other candidate but Rambone does.

If we call a spade a spade, and we are not 5th graders here, Rambone has no credibility when he slams any opponent of Paul. I have been paid to spot patterns of behavior and if you see one in Cain, you see it 10x in Rambone.

It is not about loving Cain, it is about not acting like MSNBC or Dan Rather.

On a side note, I came across an interesting explanation for why some have a certain disdain for Rambone in Ann Coulters new book. We are not use to seeing people who are totally devoted to a particular candidate, that is usually a pattern of behavior seen on the far left, not the right or center.

There are no messiahs, none.

Actually, I'd say Rambone does have some credibility when he is posting video that is word for word of the candidate that he is attacking. If he posts something that someone says and that makes them look very ignorant, it isn't Rambone degrading anyone.

Nope, no Messiahs. I don't believe anyone has said that there was a Messiah. I've been pretty big on Ron Paul since the late 90s. There are things that I don't really like but I'd rather disagree with a small amount rather than 90% of the candidate's views (and I also expect a Presidential candidate to be able to express his own opinions without flip flopping and speaking gibberish, not speaking specifically about Cain but he is one of the best examples right now).

I think that someone needs to check out the backgrounds of these Cain accusers, both before and after the alleged sexual harrassment incidents much better before making them so public and damaging. It would seem that at least a few of them would seem to have very seedy and suspicious backgrounds and motives. One or two might be the equivalent of someone who goes around grocery stores looking for wet spots to slip on or loose carpeting to trip over. Some others might have other motives. Some might acutally be true. I just wish that the MSM would do their jobs like they always seem to do on conservatives, but never do on people like the Clintons or the O'Bummers or any of the multitudes of liberal democreeps with criminal and very seedy backgrounds.

It probably would have been better for Cain if he remembered his 2003 conversation about the payment agreements instead of suddenly remembering after going through the deny, deny, deny...accuse, accuse, accuse thing. He KNEW the "agreements" happened. It would have been a good idea to let some of his staff know so they could prepare for it when it popped up. Instead, he lies about it. Even if he was innocent, he denied knowing about the settlements. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

 

[steveh_131]

And frankly, Rambone, I'm a little surprised at you on this one. It seems a lot like the political crap you profess to hate.

Without any evidence of harassment, I'm in agreement with you that none of these allegations should really have much significance in his political potential. It's perfectly possible that it's all just a smokescreen.

However, as many have already said, his handling of the situation is quite relevant. He should have been ready for this to surface. He probably should have even preempted it.

Instead, when faced with the truth that these allegations happened, he lied. Watch the videos. He lied. He dodged. He made him self look increasingly suspicious every time he spoke on the matter.

Does this mean he shouldn't be president? I have plenty of other more important reasons why I don't think he's the best option. But his inability to handle a complex situation certainly doesn't help.

 

[dross]

Without any evidence of harassment, I'm in agreement with you that none of these allegations should really have much significance in his political potential. It's perfectly possible that it's all just a smokescreen.

However, as many have already said, his handling of the situation is quite relevant. He should have been ready for this to surface. He probably should have even preempted it.

Instead, when faced with the truth that these allegations happened, he lied. Watch the videos. He lied. He dodged. He made him self look increasingly suspicious every time he spoke on the matter.

Does this mean he shouldn't be president? I have plenty of other more important reasons why I don't think he's the best option. But his inability to handle a complex situation certainly doesn't help.

I think I must have missed something. I haven't heard him lie. I'm not saying he didn't, but I haven't yet heard it. If you're talking about the settlement vs. severence thing, I don't consider that a lie. I'm not even sure he was tap dancing. As I discussed up thread, I had a very similar thing happen to me as to a woman getting a severance. I have never thought of it as a settlement, and still don't. If someone had asked me that question, I'd have replied the same.

As to his handling of the situation, if you guys want skilled politicians, there's plenty of them out there for you. How he handled accusations in a primary campaign is the least of my worries.

And BTW, I'm not particularly for or against Cain. Not my first choice, certainly.

 

[UncleMike]

Negative selling is not selling.

Rambone, stick to selling the positives of the Candidate you have already sworn your allegiance. You are not trying to vete candidates, you are trying to elevate Paul by degrading his compettion. It just does not work with independent thinkers.

Whatever happens to Cain does not change my opinion of retread republican white male politico power addicted career politicians who won't step down.

The back story is always the most intresting to any reasonable person.

Too bad INGOs most prolific backstory poster and followers are now in a Caincoma.

It's apparent that this thread was started to attack Cain.
Like Zoub said, attacking a candidate, who is trouncing your candidate, smacks of simple fear that you are backing a loser.
The term Caincoma fits nicely.
I still haven't decided who I will back in the primary election.
However I'm positive it won't be Ron Paul.


(Waiting on the "You hate America" follow up posts)

 

[steveh_131]

I think I must have missed something. I haven't heard him lie.

Did you watch the Jon Stewart clip that Rambone posted? It plays the highlights.

If someone had asked me that question, I'd have replied the same.

What if someone asked you if you had ever been accused of sexual harassment? Would you reply "...uhh...well have YOU ever been accused of sexual harassment??"

As to his handling of the situation, if you guys want skilled politicians, there's plenty of them out there for you. How he handled accusations in a primary campaign is the least of my worries

I don't want a skilled politician. I don't want him to spin it. Any truthful answer would have been fine. Or even a "That is none of your business" answer. What he did just makes him look dishonest.

 

[steveh_131]

It's apparent that this thread was started to attack Cain.
Like Zoub said, attacking a candidate, who is trouncing your candidate, smacks of simple fear that you are backing a loser.
The term Caincoma fits nicely.
I still haven't decided who I will back in the primary election.
However I'm positive it won't be Ron Paul.


(Waiting on the "You hate America" follow up posts)

Are you serious?

Each of us has to pick a candidate to vote for in the primary. So we need to learn the pros and cons of each. Rambone posted a con for Cain. Plenty of people post them about Ron Paul and every other candidate. It's part of the debate and discussion.

It's idiotic to now point at a thread discussing the downsides of a certain candidate and claim it's just the ranting of a sore loser or some such nonsense.

 

[Pocketman]

... And BTW, I'm not particularly for or against Cain. Not my first choice, certainly.

... I don't want a skilled politician. I don't want him to spin it. Any truthful answer would have been fine. Or even a "That is none of your business" answer. What he did just makes him look dishonest.

Ditto!

 

[KG1]

It's apparent that this thread was started to attack Cain.
Like Zoub said, attacking a candidate, who is trouncing your candidate, smacks of simple fear that you are backing a loser.
The term Caincoma fits nicely.
I still haven't decided who I will back in the primary election.
However I'm positive it won't be Ron Paul.


(Waiting on the "You hate America" follow up posts)

I just find the whole OCD, over the top circus, tabloid type atmosphere un-becomming and a turn-off. I don't care for it when the MSM does it and I certainly don't find it appealing when it's regurgitated on an internet forum. It does nothing to sway me toward another candidate of someone else's choosing that is lagging behind in the race. Can't get the job done on the issue's so let's resort to garbage tactics to try and knock the front runners out then hopefully our candidate will win by default is not the way. Beat them on the issues.

 

[UncleMike]

I just find the whole OCD, over the top circus, tabloid type atmosphere un-becomming and a turn-off. I don't care for it when the MSM does it and I certainly don't find it appealing when it's regurgitated on an internet forum. It does nothing to sway me toward another candidate of someone else's choosing that is lagging behind in the race. Can't get the job done on the issue's so let's resort to garbage tactics to try and knock the front runners out then hopefully our candidate will win by default is not the way. Beat them on the issues.

Yup!!

 

[rambone]

On a side note, I came across an interesting explanation for why some have a certain disdain for Rambone in Ann Coulters new book. We are not use to seeing people who are totally devoted to a particular candidate, that is usually a pattern of behavior seen on the far left, not the right or center.

LOL... Ann Coulter would know about endorsing a wide variety of candidates... from gun-grabbing Chris Christie... and now Mitt Romney. She knows the left well -- she gives them endorsements.

Ann Coulter: Romney for Pres, Cain VP

 

[KG1]

LOL... Ann Coulter would know about endorsing a wide variety of candidates... from gun-grabbing Chris Christie... and now Mitt Romney. She knows the left well -- she gives them endorsements.

Ann Coulter: Romney for Pres, Cain VP

If you actually listen to the whole clip it seems to me that she is basing her assessment on who she thinks has the most realistic chances of winning the nomination. And this all relates to the whole Ron Paul issue. Alot of people may agree with some of his message but they don't feel for whatever reason Paul can secure the nomination so if they still want to participate in the process they have to figure out and decide on which one of the other candidates that they have to choose from. She did'nt get the candidate that she wanted so that is exactly what she is doing now.

 

[88GT]

If you actually listen to the whole clip it seems to me that she is basing her assessment on who she thinks has the most realistic chances of winning the nomination. And this all relates to the whole Ron Paul issue. Alot of people may agree with some of his message but they don't feel for whatever reason Paul can secure the nomination so they have to figure out and decide on which one of the other candidates that they have to choose from. She did'nt get the candidate that she wanted so that is exactly what she is doing now.

That's the functional equivalent of hating liberty and siding with the fascist-socialists.

Practical reality has no place in politics. We all must ignore human behavior and historical results as well.

 

[rambone]

If you actually listen to the whole clip it seems to me that she is basing her assessment on who she thinks has the most realistic chances of winning the nomination. And this all relates to the whole Ron Paul issue. Alot of people may agree with some of his message but they don't feel for whatever reason Paul can secure the nomination so they have to figure out and decide on which one of the other candidates that they have to choose from. She did'nt get the candidate that she wanted so that is exactly what she is doing now.

She has at least 9 candidates to endorse for and she picks the absolute worst one because he's "realistic" according to the TV. There's an Establishment cheerleader if I ever saw one.

 

[KG1]

She has at least 9 candidates to endorse for and she picks the absolute worst one because he's "realistic" according to the TV. There's an Establishment cheerleader if I ever saw one.

She picked the worst one according to your opinion. She did'nt just get on there and blindly endorse Romney.To me she was more giving out her analisys and observations on how she felt the field played out. She actually gave some reasons why and pointed out why she felt other candidates could'nt get the nomination. In her opinion she felt Perry could'nt get it because of the whole immigration issue and she even pointed out why she felt Cain was'nt a viable candidate because of a lack of any government experience. All legit reasons. I'm sure if Ron Paul were in a strong position to win the nomination while being able to appeal to enough democrats and independents then she ultimately would not have a problem backing his candidacy. As it stands now RP can't even get enough republicans behind him. It all boils down to electability in the end.

 

[88GT]

She has at least 9 candidates to endorse for and she picks the absolute worst one because he's "realistic" according to the TV. There's an Establishment cheerleader if I ever saw one.

Question for you. If you put aside the lens of perfectly principled through which the you seen the world and recognize that not everybody makes his choices according to the same standard, do you not see how someone would see it as foolish to back a guaranteed loser and would instead prefer to spend his time, resources, and ultimately his vote on someone that can actually win?

Some people pick the one they want to see win it all. Some people pick the one they want to see beat the competition.

You fall into the first category. Are you honestly telling me that you hold those in the second in contempt for the free exercise of their franchise? Your idea of freedom is beginning to look a lot like the left's: however you define it.

 

[rambone]

Back to your regularly scheduled thread

Question for you.

I'm branching this off into a new thread.

Ann Coulter endorses Mitt Romney for President


/ Thread Jack

 

[Zoub]

LOL... Ann Coulter would know about endorsing a wide variety of candidates... from gun-grabbing Chris Christie... and now Mitt Romney. She knows the left well -- she gives them endorsements.

Ann Coulter: Romney for Pres, Cain VP

You missed it Bone just like you choose to miss a lot of things in this very thread..

A severance package is not a settlement and a settlement is not a determination of guilt yet you jumped from an allegation by one woman to Cain is a POS. It is easy to see your intent in most of your posts is not to vet. You always approach from the negative.

I tried to point a few simple facts out to you on this topic. I have trained people from 6 different countries using 2 interpreters, at the same time in the same room on this subject. Yet you can't get it in English. Because you refuse.

As for Coulter, again your capacity to learn and absorb is nonexistent. It does not matter what you think. It does not matter what she thinks. What she did do is make an excellent point about why most conservatives are turned off by blind devotion to a candidate, a trait typical of the left. You are too young know, but even Reagan didn't get it from his base.

Conservatives don't like slogans. I applied her observations to you.

Now, if you refuse to understand how others perceive you THEN YOU WILL NEVER find a way to deliver your message. You heard "Coulter" and your ears and brain went snap.

You have to communicate your message in a way that the audience wants to hear it, not how you want to say it. You have to communicate your message the way that person wants it delievered.

Some of us here would argue Paul has the same problem. So much so Obama will destroy him but it is a non-issue because he can't even beat Romney.

Now why is that? You should ask yourself that question too.