Re: Why the right is unfair to Cain



Carbon <nobrac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:16:08 -0600, Mickey wrote:
Carbon <nobrac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 04:02:27 -0800, CigarBaron wrote:
On Nov 10, 10:25 pm, Carbon <nob...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But I would draw a distinction between Clinton's affair(s), which
were arguably consensual, and what Cain is accused of doing.

How do you know Cain's affairs, if happened, wasn't consensual?

I don't. It's he-said she-said.

No, it isn't. it's she said vs. he said and they said.

The people who have known Herman Cain have said that what he is
accused of isn't in his personality. The people who have known his
accusers and worked with them have said that this stuff is par for the
course for them.

It's not true because his supporters are vouching for him. That didn't
work for Clinton.

That is because a bunch of weasels vouching for another weasel is not
believable.
.