I never made any statement regarding Cain’s innocence. You are manufacturing that. My logic compares the treatment of a white man vs the treatment of two black men by Liberals. If all were supposed “equal” then the further inference would be all were guilty or all were innocent. Taking that assumptive leap, which is unwarranted, one is left with the logical conclusion that all are guilty because Clinton was guilty. There is no logical way that you can claim I stated that Cain was innocent.
You said, “the dual standard is evidence of a manipulative racism.” From this in can be inferred that an accusation is to be dismissed out of hand.
I realize the following repeats the point I made in my original post, but I think, at this point, it is useful to do that:
Liberals will exonerate any Democrats for any or almost any form of sexual misconduct. Why, a Governor can rape a woman who is economically dependent on contracts with the state, and liberals will say “it’s not impeachable.”
Conservatives cannot do that. Conservatives need to have objective standards. Obviously, to a Conservative, what Clinton did was impeachable. But, does this mean that a misdemeanor offense when a person was in college is disqualified? Where should we draw the line?
In my original post I laid out the following: what if a person did something that was not objectively wrong, to which somebody else took offense, and that somebody else said this either to this person directly or to this person indirectly via a third party? If the appropriate response was to apologize and not persist in that behavior, and that’s what the person did, I’d say that would actually be a plus for the person.
We know that in the Clarence Thomas case, there was no contemporaneous complaint. It was a recollection of one person of something that had occurred years prior. The FBI, in their very thorough background checks, routinely uncovers odd recollections. Their raw files are supposed to be handled with discretion and judgement exercised as the use of unsubstantiated information.
The whole thing was therefore a tragedy. Just a willingness of liberals to destroy the lives of two people, Anita Hill as well as Clarence Thomas, on the possibility that somebody else might step forward to corroborate her allegation that Clarence Thomas had a character flaw. When nobody did, she looked like some kind of overly affected woman who, over the years, transferred a line in a movie to her relationship to the man.
As I do not know what will be developed in the present case, I will not comment on it.