Stifler's Mom is Lying

Does the story sound a little contrived? Maybe. But maybe she doesn't want to get really detailed until she writes the story for Literotica or some other erotic tale site. Maybe the two actions (hand under skirt, pulling head to groin) weren't simultaneous. Maybe she's embellishing a little. Maybe her memory is slightly coloured by time and the revulsion to this man for what he did.

But from my point of view, this woman is so calm and coherent and consistent in her telling of the tale that she is either:

a) telling to the truth, or;
b) so far off the deep end she's suffered a psychotic break with reality and maybe should have a syndrome named after her.

 

So, is this enough to derail a Presidential campaign? Just the allegation of sexual misconduct? That could happen to anyone under false pretenses, not implying these are. It is perplexing. Should the accusations be taken at face value? Without further substantiation or corroboration, without more evidence it probably won't change many people's feelings on Cain. If you liked him before, you probably still do. Possibly harden those who did not support him.

All I know is I've seen enough of this and past Presidential campaigns to know that I will never ever consider running for President. NFW!!!

 

To answer Craven's question: yeah, I believe so.

Just the allegation by "Stifler's Mom" shouldn't be enough to derail it, but compounded with the past history of Cain having been named in sexual harassment complaints well before he started his presidential campaign, it goes to a whole other level of making him look very dubious to those who were sitting on the fence or are "loose" supporters of Cain. It cannot affect his campaign in a positive manner.

Public opinion is a fickle bitch.

 

I agree with the part about being coupled with past complaints. There's smoke, so there's a high likelhood of fire. Without that, I don't know. Is that enough?

 

Not a good case study in that Cain wasn't going to get the nomination with or without the allegations

 

I've been entertaining myself lately watching a good number of you-tube videos featuring the delightful Mr Cain.

I pride myself on my arrogant prick radar. My radar reveals that Herman Cain is an arrogant prick. Some arrogant pricks are also narcissistic pricks. Living with a narcissistic prick for over 20 years, I've developed radar for that too. It reveals that Herman Cain is probably a narcissistic prick, as well.

Narcissistic pricks do things with little thought to consequence. As everything is all about them and everyone is spinning in infinity around them in a universe that is also there for them and them alone, the idea that anything they do is "wrong" or might be considered "wrong" is out of the realm of consideration.

Displays of arrogance alert others of their god-like status and they are happiest when someone requires something of them - as they actually get to play the other, magnanimous side of being a god. But there's always a cost involved and a price to pay for the magnanimous gesture and the cost never equates with the gesture. The cost is always whatever the narcissist desires at that moment. For him, the transaction is always equitable and even if he is aware that his price is a bit over the top, it's still fair because what he wants is more important than how anyone might feel about it.

I have no problem seeing Cain boldly making an ass out himself with women.

 

Herman Cain is not NOW. What about Herman Cain 12 years ago? What if he's taller than you SO and has the seat farther back? And the passenger farther back as well?

Disbelieving because of logistics is fine. But disbelieving because of logistics when you don't have any of the facts pretty much means you just want to disbelieve.

I honestly don't have an opinion about Cain other than his 9/9/9 plan is aimed solely at making the rich richer on everyone else's back. Other than that, I haven't bothered to learn much. This lady may even be full of shit. But saying that she is based on a - for instance - 2005 Honda Accord when he drove a 1996 Cadillac is silly.

 

Lindy, you've missed my point. You've tried to claim that because you can't reproduce similar results in your car, it's doubtful that it happened. I cannot find your claims plausible in any way. It's bad science.

As for the rest, when you insert "BUT..." you're clearly drawing attention to the explanation you concocted. That's fine. If you believe him, that's fine. If you don't, that's fine. But you're saying you doubt her story based on an apple-based comparision when she's discussing oranges. Like I said, bad science.

 

I would normally dismiss this, considering the author, however I assume she is correct where all the compliants have come from. Would be too easy to research and prove her wrong. Coincidental? Black helicopters? Goof ball commentary? Chicago politics?

Beats me.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47438

BTW the author is Ann Coulter. FWIW

 

Mrs. Cain's interveiw with Greta Van Sustren to air Monday/Today