EPTHerman Cain rules!
Herman Cain - Page 24
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Dental Floss
United States1015 Posts
Herman Cain rules! | ||
|
Yergidy
United States2107 Posts
On November 09 2011 07:00 Bazy0 wrote: This. They're all morons, and Cain seriously seems like the worse, if you look at some of the answers he's given in interviews and GOP debates he seems more clueless than Palin. I actually think I might be smarter than him. But maybe this sort of naive ignorance is looked on as endearing and relatable. Also the recent sexual harassment allegations aren't going to help him at all, even if they could be entirely fabricated. There is a difference between remembering that something happened in general and remembering details of it. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On November 09 2011 09:00 Dental Floss wrote: 'And if someone asks me 'who the president of Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan is', I'll say 'I don't know; do you? And how is that going to create one job?!" Herman Cain rules! lmao this guy is starting to grow on me. And I honestly think this bullshit about sexual harassment is purely responsive to him starting to dominate the other Republicans in polls. Its a bit too coincidental that once he starts owning face, he's groping bitches. And pretty ballsy coming out and saying he'll take a lie detector to prove its bullshit. Either bluffing or really is falling victim to the same tactics we see used on other people. | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 09 2011 09:03 Mohdoo wrote: lmao this guy is starting to grow on me. And I honestly think this bullshit about sexual harassment is purely responsive to him starting to dominate the other Republicans in polls. Its a bit too coincidental that once he starts owning face, he's groping bitches. And pretty ballsy coming out and saying he'll take a lie detector to prove its bullshit. Either bluffing or really is falling victim to the same tactics we see used on other people. You realize that he "groped bitches" in the nineties, and that the National Restaurant Association paid off said "bitches," right? | ||
|
Dental Floss
United States1015 Posts
On November 09 2011 09:03 Mohdoo wrote: lmao this guy is starting to grow on me. And I honestly think this bullshit about sexual harassment is purely responsive to him starting to dominate the other Republicans in polls. Its a bit too coincidental that once he starts owning face, he's groping bitches. And pretty ballsy coming out and saying he'll take a lie detector to prove its bullshit. Either bluffing or really is falling victim to the same tactics we see used on other people. Lie detectors are literally science-fiction. They are used to trick people and for nothing else. | ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.thecomicstrips.com/properties/candorville/art_images/cg4eb1d289e3074.jpg) | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
On November 09 2011 09:06 Dental Floss wrote: Lie detectors are literally science-fiction. They are used to trick people and for nothing else. And that is nowhere near true, lie detectors show to a reasonable degree of verifiability if someone is lying. The problem is the very small margin of error, coupled with the ability for someone to intentionally fool it to skew the readings. (one method i know is tightening your ass holeyo, which manipulates the readings due to the physiological effect that hole tightening or "heightening" has) | ||
Falling
Canada11511 Posts
In any event, at the point that there are 4 women accusing basically the same thing, I do think it's time to look beyond conspiracy sabotage theories from the Left or the Right. I sometimes wonder how how many accusers and defenders were entirely the other way during the Bill Clinton scandal. That is how many are morally outraged or else defensive to possible sabotage simply based on political ideology. I've started seeing the 'well, Clinton did it' excuse on a couple news comments section, which seems to be the inevitable admission to a lost cause. Edit. As for why Herman is "suddenly groping women." Well, that's more what the gauntlet that all frontrunners seem to go through. The so-called vetting process where all your dirty laundry gets aired. Perry got the same treatment. Obama certainly got it and switched churches over it, in addition to Ayers. (After listening to the full sermon, I don't think J Wright was too off-base with that particular controversy.) In some cases the media vetting can be pretty over the top, but if the accusations are true, I think it is pertinent as sexual harassment is a serious problem. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7232 Posts
On November 09 2011 00:31 nathangonmad wrote: It was to my understanding Obama is the most popular president since Clinton, do you guys think he's not going to get a second term? Well there's only been one other President since Clinton to compare him to, but his approval numbers have been below Bush's at comparable time points in their presidency. Bush wasn't that unpopular in his first term. Obama's approval rating is in the high 30s last I checked, which is practically unelectability for an incumbent. He's quite unpopular at this time, mostly weighed down by the bad economy. Republicans see how vulnerable Obama is and that's why some of these crazies have a shot: they think they can still win even with a Cain. I disagree, but that's Obama's best shot. If Republicans nominate a standard candidate like Romney I don't see how Obama overcomes the bad economy to win. | ||
|
Dental Floss
United States1015 Posts
On November 09 2011 09:10 XeliN wrote: And that is nowhere near true, lie detectors show to a reasonable degree of verifiability if someone is lying. The problem is the very small margin of error, coupled with the ability for someone to intentionally fool it to skew the readings. (one method i know is tightening your ass holeyo, which manipulates the readings due to the physiological effect that hole tightening or "heightening" has) No; they are literally placebo boxes. http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx | ||
|
Yergidy
United States2107 Posts
On November 09 2011 09:13 Falling wrote: Cain willing to take lie detector test Do they still use those things? I thought they were rather inaccurate because it only measures physiological responses which can be thrown off by either being stressed by the environment or the question and therefore reads as though they are lying. Or alternatively a compulsive liar has no physiological response because lying is what they always do. In any event, at the point that there are 4 women accusing basically the same thing, I do think it's time to look beyond conspiracy sabotage theories from the Left or the Right. I sometimes wonder how how many accusers and defenders were entirely the other way during the Bill Clinton scandal. That is how many are morally outraged or else defensive to possible sabotage simply based on political ideology. I've started seeing the 'well, Clinton did it' excuse on a couple news comments section, which seems to be the inevitable admission to a lost cause. So far there is no evidence that these claims have any merit and each one is suspicious. The last case is extremely suspicious where the woman was seen months later hugging him, taking a picture with him, and whispering in his ear after a speech he gave, not something you would do to your sexual assaulter. Also how she is acting publicly not seeming to recall a horrific ordeal she went through, but enjoying her time in the lime light. Her having money troubles and the timing of her coming out is suspicious as well. | ||
|
Phant
United States737 Posts
Obama is slowly becoming one of our worst presidents and everybody is starting to hate him. Cain.....well I think everything has already been said. It's time to pick your poison America. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On November 09 2011 09:13 NovaTheFeared wrote: Well there's only been one other President since Clinton to compare him to, but his approval numbers have been below Bush's at comparable time points in their presidency. Bush wasn't that unpopular in his first term. Obama's approval rating is in the high 30s last I checked, which is practically unelectability for an incumbent. He's quite unpopular at this time, mostly weighed down by the bad economy. Republicans see how vulnerable Obama is and that's why some of these crazies have a shot: they think they can still win even with a Cain. I disagree, but that's Obama's best shot. If Republicans nominate a standard candidate like Romney I don't see how Obama overcomes the bad economy to win. Obama's approval rating is more deserved though, bush's approval rating were shot though the roof up till 2004 after all could use 9/11 as an excuse for everything pretty sure bush could have punched a woman and said she was a terrorist and saw his approval rating go up. You try keeping your approval rating up after you've been handed a battered economy people vote with their wallets. obama's rating only dipped in the 30's in august and rises as republicans make each other looks insane during political debates the avg is around 45 gallup puts it at 44 approval 48 disapproval http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
On November 09 2011 09:16 Dental Floss wrote: No; they are literally placebo boxes. http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx No the brief suggestion of placebo in that article was given as a explanatory theory that has not been proven, merely suggested, and the article itself only emphasises what we already know. That Lie Detectors are flawed. To take from that article and the evidence they present that Lie Detectors have zero validity and are nothing more than placebo boxes then you have to have read it, cut letters out of newspapers dotted around your house, and prit sticked them covering the screen until it says "Lie Detector = Placebo Box, Science Proves!" | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On November 09 2011 09:22 XeliN wrote: No the brief suggestion of placebo in that article was given as a explanatory theory that has not been proven, merely suggested, and the article itself only emphasises what we already know. That Lie Detectors are flawed. To take from that article and the evidence they present that Lie Detectors have zero validity and are nothing more than placebo boxes then you have to have read it, cut letters out of newspapers dotted around your house, and prit sticked them covering the screen until it says "Lie Detector = Placebo Box, Science Proves!" They are flawed and not admissible in court, in practice lie detectors are used to pressure people into a confession on the idea that they work and thus will be caught even though police know they don't work. | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
Now, just considering the 999 tax plan and the history of the flat tax agenda, it is not at all economically feasible or popular. It turns out that when CEOs want to pay the same proportion of taxes as someone on the poverty line, they tend not to get support from voters. Republicans simply at this point can not run a campaign on economic issues because they continue to support lower taxes for million and billion dollar industries. Until the practice what they preach, as in benefiting small businesses and pushing for greater restrictions on corproate lobbying, the party and candidates like Cain are more of the same. 999 is simply a rebranded flat tax from Dole and Reagonomics. Ask anyone in the 1980s earning less than $20,000 a year what they thought of Reagonomics. I'm sure you'll get some curse words in their answer ans ome BM. | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
You've misread my posts if you've somehow got to that conclusion, I was only arguing against that guys idea that Lie Detectors are completely void of any scientific validity. They are not. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
| ||
|
Dental Floss
United States1015 Posts
On November 09 2011 09:31 XeliN wrote: Semantics at what point have I said they are not flawed, are admissible in court (or should be), and that they are not used to pressure people into confessions? You've misread my posts if you've somehow got to that conclusion, I was only arguing against that guys idea that Lie Detectors are completely void of any scientific validity. They are not. Who said that placebos don't have scientific validity? Its a scientific reference point designed around people changing their behavior based on their preconceptions. A placebo does work better than random chance and does work better or worse depending on your belief in it. | ||
| ||
