Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Wow, it almost sounds like when it comes to who you would “take” (or I guess vote for), if between Cain and Obama, you would base it off of the person’s political ideology, and not just based off of how black they are…. What a novel idea, voting for someone not based off of the color of their skin.

I read the Morehouse atile and didn’t see anything disgraceful in it, can you calirfiy? Also what do you mean when you say there are white people blacker than Cain? Do you not consider black conservitives, black?

Did you read the article, especially the end? You really don't get what's disgraceful? Well, it's claiming Obama is not authentically black and fawning over Dr. Martin Luther King admirably in speech after speech but when it came time to participate in the marches, protests, and civil disobedience with MLK and 99% of your peers for your civil rights you chose to stay home and obey Jim Crow laws.

Yeah, if we are going to talk who is blacker there's something to be said for Jewish and White civil rights advocates who marched and helped get us to where we are today being blacker.

Herman Cain, a successful conservative "black" business man, civil rights free rider, and apparently a sexual harasser.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by saden1

Did you read the article, especially the end? You really don't get what's disgraceful? Well, it's claiming Obama is not authentically black and fawning over Dr. Martin Luther King admirably in speech after speech but when it came time to participate in the marches, protests, and civil disobedience with MLK and 99% of your peers for your civil rights you chose to stay home and obey Jim Crow laws.

Yeah, if we are going to talk who is blacker there's something to be said for Jewish and White civil rights advocates who marched and helped get us to where we are today being blacker.

Herman Cain, a successful conservative "black" business man, civil rights free rider, and apparently a sexual harasser.

So a short part of the article says that he wasn’t involved in the civil rights movement makes him disgraceful in your eyes? Both people that talk about him say he was respected, and although not part of student affairs that he was well liked. Cain has himself alluded to dealing with a family illness during that time. And the 99% is a quote from a former student that seems more like a generalized statement that most Morehouse students participated, not that 99% literally did based off of anything besides his generalization.

We are both too young to have been able to make decision to know if we would have participated in the Civil Rights movement had it happened during our day and time. I would like to think that I would have been involved, as im sure you do too. But it’s a lot easier to say that in retrospect then to have actually been there see some of the horrible things happening in real time and still get up to act. So as much as you or I can call someone out for not participating I don’t think either of have a right to.

I look at it for what it is. Cain was involved with a family illness, which we can do nothing but speculate the circumstances of. Maybe it was his mom’s dying wish that he not be involved, maybe his 3rd cousin had a cold and Herman needed to bring him soup. Either way neither of us know enough to call his actions during that time disgraceful, by any means.

[mlmpetert]

A couple thoughts now that this Herman Cain alleged sexual harassment is full blown news.….

1) This is a 3rd party account with no named sources
2) The details of what Cain is accused of doing wont even be released
3) It seems very coincidental that this story comes out the day before hes supposed to address the National Press Club
4) Yesterday a Iowa poll showed Cain in 1st. This particular poll was viewed as a true barometer for the legitimacy of Cain nomination chances

So Politico comes out with a story that is unsourced and without details but is sure to smear Cain ‘s name at a important time for him. Lets just say Cain was accused of “sexually suggestive behavior”, not name our sources or reveal any of the alleged details no matter how horrible or how innocent they may be, and lead it up to the public to imagine whatever they want…… That’s just great journalism right there.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

A couple thoughts now that this Herman Cain alleged sexual harassment is full blown news.….

1) This is a 3rd party account with no named sources
2) The details of what Cain is accused of doing wont even be released
3) It seems very coincidental that this story comes out the day before hes supposed to address the National Press Club
4) Yesterday a Iowa poll showed Cain in 1st. This particular poll was viewed as a true barometer for the legitimacy of Cain nomination chances

So Politico comes out with a story that is unsourced and without details but is sure to smear Cain ‘s name at a important time for him. Lets just say Cain was accused of “sexually suggestive behavior”, not name our sources or reveal any of the details no matter how horrible or how innocent they may be, and lead it up to the public to imagine whatever they want…… That’s just great journalism right there.

Looks like Cain is getting swift-boated there.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Looks like Cain is getting swift-boated there.

That what it seems like. I guess Cain should be proud since its kind of a political milestone. I guess hes now a legitimate contender.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

A couple thoughts now that this Herman Cain alleged sexual harassment is full blown news.….

1) This is a 3rd party account with no named sources
2) The details of what Cain is accused of doing wont even be released
3) It seems very coincidental that this story comes out the day before hes supposed to address the National Press Club
4) Yesterday a Iowa poll showed Cain in 1st. This particular poll was viewed as a true barometer for the legitimacy of Cain nomination chances

So Politico comes out with a story that is unsourced and without details but is sure to smear Cain ‘s name at a important time for him. Lets just say Cain was accused of “sexually suggestive behavior”, not name our sources or reveal any of the alleged details no matter how horrible or how innocent they may be, and lead it up to the public to imagine whatever they want…… That’s just great journalism right there.

LOOL...are you serious, the man is running for president. Would it be preferable to release it days before the primary election? General election? A campaign trail speech? A republican debate? During his book tour? Right after a Sunday interview? When would you find it appropriate this information about a man constantly in the limeliete to be released?

More info will trickle out, that I am sure of. He is innocent until proven guilty but he is acting very suspect. His story is shaky. I mean, how can you be in charge of an org and not know that the women that accused you of misconduct were paid off and left the org?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

So a short part of the article says that he wasn’t involved in the civil rights movement makes him disgraceful in your eyes? Both people that talk about him say he was respected, and although not part of student affairs that he was well liked. Cain has himself alluded to dealing with a family illness during that time. And the 99% is a quote from a former student that seems more like a generalized statement that most Morehouse students participated, not that 99% literally did based off of anything besides his generalization.

We are both too young to have been able to make decision to know if we would have participated in the Civil Rights movement had it happened during our day and time. I would like to think that I would have been involved, as im sure you do too. But it’s a lot easier to say that in retrospect then to have actually been there see some of the horrible things happening in real time and still get up to act. So as much as you or I can call someone out for not participating I don’t think either of have a right to.

I look at it for what it is. Cain was involved with a family illness, which we can do nothing but speculate the circumstances of. Maybe it was his mom’s dying wish that he not be involved, maybe his 3rd cousin had a cold and Herman needed to bring him soup. Either way neither of us know enough to call his actions during that time disgraceful, by any means.

From his interview with Lawrence the family illness was a hypothetical answer. Given that he is basically calling out the president for not being black enough whilst saying I obeyed jim crow laws and didn't march says a lot about the man. I mean, even if he had a family illness he managed to attended school and not once did he march during the civil rights movment. Family illness is a very poor excuse given the gravity of the times and the almost daily marches/protest and you know it.

There is no valid rational that could explain away a black man in eye of the storm would willingly obey laws that infringe on his personal freed while others are marching. Let's be honest here, the truth behind why Cain didn't march was to avoided "trouble" and his desire to not risk a future with any sort of stains. I understand that, I don't blame him for that and I can respect his decision to keep a squeaky clean record.

I think my use of the word disgraceful is appropriate given how often he has managed to open his mouth about blackness and the triumph of the civil right movements.