Herman Cain: Doesn’t Even Recall Meeting Sharon Bialek

Here are my notes from Herman Cain’s press conference, during which the Republican presidential hopeful and former Godfather’s Pizza brand manager responded to questions about sexual harassment claims several women have made in recent weeks. 

Not included is the following important note to self: Sharon Bialek is not TV’s Punky Brewster. Mayim Bialik was TV’s Blossom. Soleil Moon Frye was TV’s Punky Brewster. 

Notes: 

First reaction was: Never even met this woman. 

Of course I would be willing to do a lie detector test. 

I believe the character of a candidate should come under scrutiny. 

Take sexual harassment seriously. 

When I saw it I dealt with it. 

Can't tell you what the motivation is, other than to stop Herman Cain. 

Re. Mitt Romney finding accusations disturbing. I find the accusations disturbing, but false. They're disturbing because they distract me and my team. I know Mitt Romney and his integrity. 

Democratic machine: I cannot say it’s a conspiracy. Can only look at some coincidences. No fingers, no blame on anybody at this point. Step back: No facts, no evidence, can only infer that someone is trying to hurt my character. 

Accuser’s financial troubles: She claims number of lawsuits she’s been involved in does not play a role in her coming forward. Can’t comment, but common sense: we should ask. 

Re. settlement of previous claim: Not sure about tens of thousands of dollars figure you’re talking about. Not going to get caught in that trap. She and her attorney talked to attorney for National Restaurant Association. They decided it should end with some kind of personnel separation agreement. She worked at Restaurant Association for some time. I recall that when I left she was preparing to leave. Sometimes saw her around workplace. When we would attend planning meeting she’d attend planning meeting, because at planning meetings I included direct reports and next level down. I was in the field more than I was in the office. 

“My wife comes up to my chin” story repeated largely as previously described. 

Going to be more claims in the future. 

This nation faces tremendous crises. I would hope we can get back, not allow ourselves to be continuously distracted. I will respond to them but we cannot slow this campaign down. 

Mild applause at end. 

I confess that I have not given the Cain sexual harassment charges the attention others in the professional media believe those charges merit. Like my colleague Peter Suderman, I believe Herman Cain is an incompetent candidate even by the all-too-forgiving standards of the two-party system, and I don’t need to take character into consideration before deciding not to vote for or ever say anything in support of a former Federal Reserve official who wants to give the federal government the power to collect both income and sales taxes. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Rob||

    Who cares about Herman Cain, not having to deal with White Indian is a godsend. Woohoo!

  • Herman Cain||

    Why, did the banhammer get exercised? Which thread?

  • You're a statist, too||

    By restricting the free movement of peoples by means of artificial lines of demarcation, the agricultural city-STATE was a great evil foisted upon humankind.
    Officer, am I free to gambol?

  • Elizabeth Warren swears||

    That no one has ever gamboled on his own without the godly government and you gotta pay a hunk of your stash to gambol -- no way out.

  • Bingo||

    +A(4,4)

  • Jasper||

    You sunk my battleship

  • Bingo||

    Har har, I wish it was battleship, it's a honeypot for mathematicians and engineers.

    tl;dr big numbers.

  • ||

    2^(2^(10^19729))

  • Bingo||

    lmao, heller, please no more set notation arguments for "me" in "team"

  • ||

    Well this Math minor has to pay off sometime...

  • ||

    "Doesn’t Even Recall Meeting Sharon Bialek"

    This is actually completely believable, given Cain's ignorance about virtually any and every other topic.

  • Gojira||

    To be fair, as a candidate, there is information he is not privy to, so we need to wait until he's elected and consults some experts from the Restaurant Association before he can say whether or not he met her.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Seriously, how many people remember every chick they ever hit on. I sure as hell don't.

  • ||

    I remember every chick I hit on in the past week but that's about it.

    But I don't have the over-excited libido of a negroe either. According to progressives, they can hardly be expected to control themselves. That's why they gave a free pass to the first black president, wasn't it?

  • Mr. Potatoehead||

    Dan? Dan Quayle?

  • ||

    "I have a 9-9-9 in my pants I'm dying to show you"

  • rather||

    Baby, 9,9,9 Planck Length is nothing to brag about

  • Passionate Observer||

    GO AWAY

  • rather||

    No. And you do what you want to do to

  • rather||

    No thank you, I already have a pussy

  • rather||

    Ralph, I always wondered if that was a gay thingy? -NTTIAWWT

  • F Hart||

    If it smells like fish eat as you wish, if it smells like cologne leave it alone.

  • ||

    If you hit on so many subordinates as CEO that you don't even remember individual ones, you're in even deeper shit.

  • ||

    Her!! The lusty wench, with the fire in her eye! Bring her to me.

  • ||

    "I don’t need to take character into consideration before deciding not to vote for or ever say anything in support of a former Federal Reserve official who wants to give the federal government the power to collect both income and sales taxes."

    That's what I like about this guy!

    Anybody that wants to cut income taxes (wealth redistribution) and replace it--even only partially--with a sales tax? Is light years ahead of the competition.

    I don't know more than anybody else about the sexual harassment charges--if they're true? Shame on him.

    We're comparing apples and oranges here, but when I consider Cain and what he's alleged to have done--it's not like he squandered $350 billion on Wall Street out of our future paychecks!

    It's not like he effectively nationalized our healthcare system and forced through a law that sics the IRS on people who are too poor to pay for health insurance!

    He's alleged to have sexually harassed someone--okay, if the charges are true, that's a terrible thing.

    The guy he's running against has also done some terrible things--to my future paychecks. ...and there's nothing alleged about that!

    Show me another candidate that wants to slash income and corporate taxes--and introduce a sales tax, which is waaaaaay better than an income tax? And I'll secretly root for him or her from my principled non-voting stance instead of Cain.

    But is there another candidate like that with a real chance at winning?

    P.S. No, the rEVOLution doesn't have a chance.

  • Amakudari||

    What do you figure the odds are, tens year down the road, that the introduction of a sales tax to replace a portion of the income tax is not met with ultimately higher income taxes plus a national 10% sales tax?

    It's not about a "better" system of taxation. California voters learned that long ago, and that's why they still support Prop 13. It may be inefficient, but when the political class promises to limit their takes from the cookie jar if you'll just leave the cake out, too, don't listen even if the first request sounds sincere.

  • ||

    So, what, you're basically saying that it's impossible to move from an income tax to a sales tax--without making things worse?

    You're saying we have to keep eating the same crap sandwich we're being force fed now--because if we move to something else, it might even be worse?

    I'm not willing to blow a chance to move in the right direction--just for fear of a slippery slope fallacy.

    The reason income taxes aren't much higher right now is because people wouldn't stand for it. Theoretically, a critical mass of people might be against higher sales taxes in the future too!

    Right?

  • Gojira||

    While I can't speak for anyone but myself, I would be fine if it replaced the income tax, instead of adding to it.

    The problem is not that taxes might always go up...that's as true of income taxes as it is sales taxes.

    The concern is putting the infrastructure in place to allow the feds to collect both simultaneously and expecting them not to immediatley act like a kid in a candy store with it.

    Shit, Cain has already started backtracking on his earlier statements, and has begun giving soundbite exceptions and carve-outs for favored groups in his tax plan. I posted the link last week when I first noticed it.

  • ||

    If we're ever gonna have a sales tax instead of an income tax, the chance of us going full bore to a sales tax and leaving the income tax behind in one swoop is pretty near zero.

    If having a sales tax is better than having an income tax, then more sales tax and less income tax is better than what we have now.

    Bothofthesethingsaretrue.

  • Apatheist||

    The chance of us going partially to a sales tax and keeping the income tax and ever only having a sales tax is pretty near zero.

    If having only an income tax is better than having both, then sticking with the income tax is better than going to both.

    Bothofthesethingsaretrue.

  • ||

    "The chance of us going partially to a sales tax and keeping the income tax and ever only having a sales tax is pretty near zero."

    9-9-9-9, Baby--it's a step in the right direction.

    The last 9 is for inches!

  • rather||

    I heard Planck Length

  • ||

    Actually, the FairTax is a lot more likely to get enacted than 9-9-9 because it's actually progressive.

    Cain rightly argues that the payroll tax is a 14% flat tax for everyone (assuming the money 6.2% the employer pays would go in your pocket). This would offset the 9% income tax the poor don't pay, and part of the new 9% sales tax they will start paying. Then corporate income taxes drop to 9% from 25%, a 14% drop.

    The two assumptions would be that 1.) this tax cut on corporate profits would result in cutting prices enough to offset the sales tax price increase for the poor, and 2.) that workers actually receive the 6.2% Social Security matching contribution instead of the employers pocketing it. Frankly, I don't see either of these happening. Although his tax plan might be a good very thing for the economy in general, the poor will end up worse off having to devote more of their income to taxes instead of to buying the things their family needs to survive.

  • Amakudari||

    What happened after income taxes were enabled federally? Social Security taxes? Medicare taxes? We had no income tax until the 1910s, and after that the government's rake increased almost every year. The introduction of payroll taxes did nothing to slow or offset total collections. Sure, all taxes can go up, but that problem is worsened by giving government more avenues for taxation. They'll push all of those as high as acceptable for the electorate.

    Cain wants to grant the government the additional power to levy a sales tax. Maybe tax rates will be "lower" (that is, less than forecast) in the short term, but after a few years it just becomes another way to collect revenue.

    This isn't a slippery slope, it's a very obvious trend backed by history.

  • ||

    My point is that income taxes are especially destructive. In my opinion? Income taxes are more destructive than any other form of taxation for a number of reasons.

    Among them, income taxes increase the cost of hiring unemployed people and paying them their take home pay! Income taxes actively discourage companies from hiring unemployed people by artificially pumping up the cost of hiring them and paying them what they'll work for to take home.

    That situation gets better the more we slash income taxes.

    There are lots of other reasons the income tax is so much worse than a sales tax too. I hate to even think about the privacy implications--I have to account for every penny I make and report it to the federal government? Or I'm guilty of a crime?!

    Not to mention all the people who are jailed or harassed by IRS for years--people who are destroyed by their inability to pay back taxes.

    The opportunity for various industries to play at politics! How are you gonna give homeowners an interest deduction for their mortgage on a sales tax?

    Give people a break on the sales tax for buying a home--sure, they could do that! ...but that's not actively encouraging people to go into debt on a home.

    The income tax is the absolute worst form of taxation for those reasons and others too. And if we can't get rid of it in one fell swoop, then we're gonna have to move away from it incrementally.

    But we need to get it as small as we can and move as far away from it as we can--and as soon as possible.

    Sales taxes are the best form of taxation--for a number of reasons.

  • ||

    "Sales taxes are the best form of taxation--for a number of reasons."

    Actually, land value taxes are significantly better on a wide variety of levels (no deadweight loss, taxing unproductive activities, etc.).

    But I'd even argue property taxes are preferable to sales taxes, because at least the valid function of government is to defend your property from invasion by others.

    Sales taxes without some kind of FairTaxesque refund put far, far too much cost on the poor. The poor should spend their limited money on their families, not government excess. Increasing taxes on the poor will only increase poverty, and thus their demands for welfare.

  • ||

    "Sales taxes without some kind of FairTaxesque refund put far, far too much cost on the poor."

    Our horrible tax system is one of the things that help keep poor people poor.

    Even when I was poor, I'd have much rather paid more in sales taxes than take money out of my paycheck.

    It isn't the rich who are worried about not being able to pay their income taxes--or what's gonna happen about all the income taxes they failed to pay years ago.

    The IRS is a poor man's nightmare. You want to start by slashing income taxes for people in the lower percentiles, I'm all for that. I'd expect that.

    I've been among the working poor, and just speaking for myself, there was never a time when I didn't want to get rid of the income tax and replace it with a sales tax.

  • ||

    "Our horrible tax system is one of the things that help keep poor people poor. Even when I was poor, I'd have much rather paid more in sales taxes than take money out of my paycheck."

    That doesn't even make sense. They know they get their income withholding back at the end of the year and then some.

    Don't get me wrong, I hate the IRS and the income tax. But an unrefunded sales taxes is just about the most regressive tax you can get. Nondiscretionary spending makes up a much bigger percentage of the paychecks of the poor than it does of the rich. I'd rather the working poor spend their money feeding their kids and going to a cash clinic than expecting the government to provide even more of these services because the taxes pushed them further into poverty.

  • ||

    I would replace all taxes with one land value tax. However, as long as state-provided limited liability exists, I'd support a corporate liability tax as a replacement for the corporate income tax. This a more accurate compensation for the socialization of risk than corporate income taxes.

  • ||

    "They know they get their income withholding back at the end of the year and then some."

    No they don't.

    They claim 9 dependents to maximize their paychecks for the year, and then they don't have enough to cover what they owe.

    "But an unrefunded sales taxes is just about the most regressive tax you can get."

    Regressive and progressive are just marketing terms.

    There's nothing progressive about using the tax system to artificially inflate the price of hiring unemployed people. There's nothing progressives about actively discouraging companies from hiring unemployed people and paying them take home pay.

    There's nothing progressive about sicking the IRS on poor people because they owe back taxes.

    We're not talking about putting a sales tax on rent. We're not talking about putting a sales tax on food.

  • ||

    "They claim 9 dependents to maximize their paychecks for the year, and then they don't have enough to cover what they owe."

    Huh? 47% pay no income taxes. Claiming more dependents means you get credits.

    "Regressive and progressive are just marketing terms."

    Huh? When referring to economics, these have very clear economic definitions. There's a huge negative impact on quality of life to force people with little to no discretionary income to pay more taxes.

    "There's nothing progressive about sicking the IRS on poor people because they owe back taxes."

    Huh? Poor people don't pay income taxes. And I'm not supporting the IRS or income taxes.

    "We're not talking about putting a sales tax on rent. We're not talking about putting a sales tax on food."

    Herman Cain's tax is on everything except used goods. No distinction. Same with the FairTax. That's what makes it non-distortionary and able to offset the decreases elsewhere. It's very highly like these taxes will eat into the limited money the poor live off of. At least FairTax has a rebate, and isn't built on the assumptions that businesses will cut costs to offset the tax increases or will give all of the payroll tax cuts back to the workers.

  • ||

    "Huh? When referring to economics, these have very clear economic definitions. There's a huge negative impact on quality of life to force people with little to no discretionary income to pay more taxes."

    Anyone who imagines that the inefficiency we suffer as a result of income taxes somehow benefits poor people because it's a "progressive" tax?

    Has fallen victim to advertising.

    The price of tepid economic growth is paid most heavily by people on the margins.

    The people who would have had jobs without the massive inefficiency that is the income tax--are disproportionately the poor.

    "Progressive" and "Regressive" are very narrow definitions of one little slice of a system that's much more complicated than that.

    If keeping income taxes high benefits the poor so well, then cranking income taxes up even higher must benefit the poor all the more, right?

    Cranking income taxes up high doesn't benefit the poor--or very many people elsewhere in the rest of the economy either.

  • Gojira||

    No one is saying we should raise income taxes, and you know it. What Proprietist was saying is NOT that high income taxes help the poor (which is what you just stated), but rather that LOW income taxes (as evidenced by the fact that a large number of them effectively don't pay any) help the poor.

    So no, raising income taxes would do nothing to help the poor. Keeping income taxes low-to-nonexistent for them DOES help.

  • ||

    "No one is saying we should raise income taxes, and you know it."

    I wasn't saying that we should raise taxes either. Actually, I advocated slashing the income tax on the lower marginal rates first.

    Are you suggesting that poor people would necessarily pay higher taxes under a sales tax?

    I have little doubt but that wealthier people would still pay the overwhelming majority of taxes compared to poor people--even if we eliminated the income tax entirely and went with a sales tax.

    Under such a sales tax system, whether poor people, on average, would spend a higher percentage of their income on taxes--than they do now--would be a function of how high the taxes were, wouldn't it?

  • Gojira||

    Are you suggesting that poor people would necessarily pay higher taxes under a sales tax?

    Pretty much yes, that's exactly what several of us here are saying.

    I'll reprint the operative paragraph from above:

    The two assumptions would be that 1.) this tax cut on corporate profits would result in cutting prices enough to offset the sales tax price increase for the poor, and 2.) that workers actually receive the 6.2% Social Security matching contribution instead of the employers pocketing it. Frankly, I don't see either of these happening. Although his tax plan might be a good very thing for the economy in general, the poor will end up worse off having to devote more of their income to taxes instead of to buying the things their family needs to survive.
  • ||

    "The two assumptions would be that..."

    Theoretically, we could assume that the government could stand to be a little smaller.

    And some people might think that's not such a bad idea!

  • ||

    I mean, seriously, one of the assumptions could have something to do with getting the budget under control.

    There are two sides to the ledger.

  • ||

    "Theoretically, we could assume that the government could stand to be a little smaller."

    Smaller government, how would we cope?!

  • ||

    That's one of the other awesome things about sales taxes...

    They're incredibly efficient when compared to the income tax.

    The only people who pay sales taxes are people who've decided that the benefit of whatever they're buying is worth more than the price they're paying--including the sales tax.

    In other words, taxation becomes subject to the same forces of efficiency that govern the markets for everything else.

    The income tax isn't like that. People can't choose not to pay the tax because what they're buying isn't worth more to them than the price of the item including the tax.

    They have to pay every year they make money--and economic efficiency doesn't even enter into that discussion.

  • ||

    "That's one of the other awesome things about sales taxes...They're incredibly efficient when compared to the income tax."

    Huh? In comparison, they aren't efficient at all for poor people who don't pay income taxes, and can't afford the cost of all goods going up 9%. They already spend most if not all of their money on day-to-day needs. That's why they're poor. In fact most live on credit - so we're going to add 9% to their indebtedness? Great idea. How will increasing their cost of living help them?

    Anyway, Cain's plan DOESN'T replace the income tax. It adds one for 47% of people. Of course, I fairly noted that replacing the payroll tax will likely cover at least the income tax increase, but NOT the sales tax. But now poor people WILL be more likely to have the IRS hounding them for unpaid taxes they couldn't afford with their twelve children the government previously incentivized.

    And any tax with deadweight loss can not be considered an efficient tax even not considering impact on specific sections of the economy or considering the cost of levying it, especially if it's not a VAT as Cain claims and it's not on "used" goods.

    Sorry, but on just about every level Cain's plan is horrible.

    Oh wait! I almost forgot one more! The fact that it won't match current receipts by most independent analyses means that government gets to go even more into debt, and then print more money - ANOTHER tax disproportionately on the poor. Note Cain doesn't seem to want to fundamentally reform Social Security, Medicare, the military, etc. so drastic spending cuts can't really be expected to offset the already decreased revenues.

  • ||

    "Huh? In comparison, they aren't efficient at all for poor people who don't pay income taxes, and can't afford the cost of all goods going up 9%."

    You think if the government stopped taking money simply because people made it--and started only taking money people semi-willing paid because they thought the good or the service was worth more than the price including the tax--that wouldn't make the economy more efficient?

    Wouldn't result in more consumer discretionary income? Wouldn't result in more savings and investment?

    How much does the economy squander every year on pointless inefficiency like tax preparation and tax accounting? How many economic decisions are driven by the desire to avoid paying income taxes?

    Again, the people who suffer the most from tepid economic growth--or economic inefficiency--are the people on the margins. The people who would be recruited but aren't.

    And as far as the cost of goods going up 9%, even when I was poor, I was payin' a hell of a lot more than 9% in income taxes. If you'd told me you were gonna keep the IRS off my back for the rest of my life, so I wouldn't have to file anymore, and all I had to do was pay a 9% sales tax? I'd have taken that in a heartbeat!

  • rather||

    You are completely wrong, and I could write a full blog on why. Your ignorance of business can be addressed with the payroll tax issue alone:

    Employees pay payroll taxes, and guess who does too? The cost of goods and services would immediately lessen for that debt alone, not to mention accounting hours, blah,blah...

  • rather||

    On second thought, 2 more pussies in my bed could be fun

  • ||

    "Huh? 47% pay no income taxes. Claiming more dependents means you get credits."

    I'm not talking about on the 1040--I'm talking about the W-4.

    It used to be a person could claim up to 9 dependents on the W-4 without having to show any evidence...

    So if a poor person claimed 9 on the W-4, they withheld practically nothing. Then, when the poor person filed his 1040 at the end of the year, he figured he was gonna somehow pay what he owed with the real number of dependents he had.

    ...which could be zero.

    Now, that doesn't make a lot of sense if you make enough money to support yourself, but if you don't? If you're poor and in a situation where you have to sometimes choose between paying the gas bill or food?

    Those people often choose to claim more dependents on their W-4 than they really have. And end up not being able to pay their income tax at the end of the year.

    P.S. 47% paying no income taxes?

    I'd love to see some reference for that showing that 47% pay no income taxes--in the meantime, I'll only argue that means 53% of the poor pay more income taxes than they should.

    Poor people shouldn't be paying any income taxes at all. It's absurd, cruel and unusual to subject poor people to the IRS.

    Disgraceful. Subjecting poor people further to the IRS for not buying health insurance should have reason enough for anybody to oppose ObamaCare. He'd have treated poor people better if he'd just spit in their faces instead.

  • ||

    "If you're poor and in a situation where you have to sometimes choose between paying the gas bill or food?"

    The good new is, you can always put your sales taxes on your credit card. Who needs a credit rating anyway?

    "I'd love to see some reference for that showing that 47% pay no income taxes"

    Um...I'm not going to bother posting links when a very simple Google search will give you an answer to that statement. Or maybe it's just an unfounded meme that's been repeated a few million times?

    "Poor people shouldn't be paying any income taxes at all."

    Ok, so does how Herman Cain's plan to remove deductions and levy a straight 9% income tax, including on the 47% who don't currently pay income taxes, help that situation?

  • ||

    "The good new is, you can always put your sales taxes on your credit card. Who needs a credit rating anyway?"

    Working poor with credit cards? Being poor in your hometown must be a breeze!

    "Um...I'm not going to bother posting links when a very simple Google search will give you an answer to that statement. Or maybe it's just an unfounded meme that's been repeated a few million times?"

    Wouldn't be the first time. I've read statistics lately about an obscene percentage of corporations that supposedly don't pay corporate taxes--only to find out later they were including companies that didn't have any profits, and then there were failed painters, framers and other construction workers who had gone out of business but hadn't legally wound their corporations down yet...

    So that's 47% of Americans, or 47% of the working poor? Does that 47% of Americans include the unemployed? Does that 47% include people who owe the taxes, but just don't pay them when they're due? Does the 47% include people on Social Security?

    I have lots of questions about that 47% number.

  • ||

    "Working poor with credit cards? Being poor in your hometown must be a breeze!"

    Debt is what makes a lot of people poor in the first place - unemployed people living off credit cards, for example. And assuming a person is already living as efficiently as possible and barely scraping by, in what imaginable form will increasing their cost of living 9% over what it is today do for them any good?

    FairTax or land value taxes with a citizen's dividend (preferably the latter) are the two most logical systems to prevent the tax structure from overburdening the poor without a progressive income tax.

    "Wouldn't be the first time."

    I'm serious, dude. I'm not going to Google something for you because you're too lazy to do it yourself. You can find the sources you believe, because there are tens of thousands out there.

  • BigT||

    ". The poor should spend their limited money on their families, not government excess. "

    Maybe this will give them incentive to reduce govt largesse. Now they have no incentive not to vote for every tax increase proposed.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    So, what, you're basically saying that it's impossible to move from an income tax to a sales tax--without making things worse?

    It's not impossible. But because it requires repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment as a starting point (not, as Fair Tax and Nein-Nein-Nein proponents have it, as the hoped-for end result), it has nothing to do with Herman Cain's presidential campaign, or Gary Johnson's, or any other prez candidate's.

    A president can't repeal an Amendment to the Constitution. If Cain were at least campaigning on a promise to make repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment a first-order goal of his presidency (as FDR campaigned on repeal of the Nineteenth in his 1932 campaign) we could at least debate whether that's worth gambling a vote on. But he's not even promising to try and get it repealed, and nothing in his business, lobbying or now political career suggests he's ever even thought about it.

  • Len||

    The problem isn't taxes, but programs, and particularly those that are unconstitutional. Cain and the others refuse to address the many usurpations and violations by the federal government that cause it to be so dangerous to our liberty and our wealth. Were the federal government actually confined to it's constitutional limits it would be at most 10% of it's current size, and the tax impact would be nothing to negligible.

  • Larissa B||

    You sound greedy.

  • ||

    I see this like I see doing any project. You have to take what the market will give you--and work from there.

    Repeal of an amendment just isn't about to happen, but we could slash income taxes and make up for any lost revenue with a sales tax.*

    Especially if the sales tax is on something the left wants. And there is something out there the left wants to put a sales tax on very badly. They want to tax carbon intensive products so badly, we might be able to split the environmentalists on the left off of the redistributive left for support.

    That's what the market will give us. We need some support from the left to slash income taxes significantly and add sales taxes instead anyway--they're not about to eliminate an amendment any time soon. But we could take some big steps in the right direction if we just slashed income taxes and introduced the sales tax they want.

    *Of course, slashing marginal rates can still increase revenue. But the market isn't about to give us what we want on the basis of that argument right now either.

  • pukeman||

    *puke*

  • Coeus||

    The odd thing is that this used to be commonly accepted knowledge among libertarians (at least on this board). But since Cain got popular, it seems like a lot of people are forgetting just how greedy and unaccountable our congress is.

  • ||

    But he's not even promising to try and get it repealed, and nothing in his business, lobbying or now political career suggests he's ever even thought about it.

    He's got advisers to do the details, right?

  • ||

    Tim, I'm pretty sure you meant 18th A, not 19th. 19th was women's suffrage. 18th was prohibition.

  • Suki||

    Cain has been silent on the Third Amendment. Want to pick on him about that too?

  • Suki||

    So Cain is still better than FDR. I'll take it!

  • Johnny Clamboat||

    That's like winning a hogging contest.

  • wareagle||

    What do you figure the odds are, tens year down the road, that the introduction of a sales tax to replace a portion of the income tax is not met with ultimately higher income taxes plus a national 10% sales tax?
    ------------------------
    about the same as the odds of a tax increase at any other time in history. The left has whined about the Bush tax cuts since their implementation and trots out the class card in talking about raising taxes on the rich. Cain's system at least has the honesty of saying "everyone has skin in the game, and we all pay the same % of income."

    I am not saying it is a perfect system, or even a very good one, but the current one sucks and reeks of social engineering. Subsidies and tax breaks for individual behavior and/or businesses is NOT the role of govt.

  • ||

    Except it's not going to be the same percent for everyone, at least not without some social engineering mixed in.

    Sales tax disproportionately affects the poor, for instance.

  • cynical||

    "Anybody that wants to cut income taxes (wealth redistribution) and replace it--even only partially--with a sales tax? Is light years ahead of the competition."

    History lesson time. The sixteenth amendment was ratified in 1913.

    Top marginal income tax rate in 1913: 7%.

    Top marginal income tax rate in 1917: 67%.

    It's a trap!

  • Gojira||

    ^^ BINGO

    And I really hate cynical, like hate to the bottom of my soul/scrotum, so you know I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't agree with him 100%.

  • Richard Head||

    1917 was a simpler time, you know, when the gov't paid for major items (such as a world war) and didn't let it ride so their kids could pay it.

  • Herman Cain||

    Herman Cain was plenty creepy and stupid sounding before Herman Cain started talking about Herman Cain in the third person. Herman Cain.

  • rts||

    So he's an illeist now to boot?

  • Herman Cain||

    Apparently someone already updated that wikipedia entry to include Herman Cain, after this appearance. Herman Cain.

  • rts||

    Didn't work out too well for Bob Dole. BOB DOLE.

  • ||

    George likes spicy chicken!

  • Jimmy||

    Jimmy holds grudges!

  • ||

    The Dude is starting to get somewhat annoyed...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The encounter: “It looked sort of flirtatious,” said Jacobson. “I mean they were hugging. But she could have been giving him the kiss of death for all I know. I had no idea what they were talking about, but she was inches from his ear.”

    "I know it was you, Hermo. You broke my heart."

  • GroundTruth||

    Listening to the conference, I was struck by the fact that Cain talks too much: a full paragraph when a sentence or just a phrase would do, going back to the same thing over and over.

    Like talking to the cops, he needs to remember that the news media are not his friends; they will hang him with his own words.

  • SIV||

    So Tim, is Cain "too Black" for you?

  • Apatheist||

    Whether that was an honest question or a sarcastic one it is pretty annoying to see Republicans start playing the race card because nanny nanny boo boo they did it too.

  • SIV||

    You like Republicans because they are less race conscious than Democrats?

    WHITE PRIVILEGE much?

  • Apatheist||

    Heh. A nice catch 22 they have set up there: too race conscious RACIST, not race conscious enough RACIST, talk about something nothing to with race RACIST.

  • Veemee Sashimi||

    Actually I thought it was fairly clever considering Tim said he was voting for the current president specifically because he was black.

    "All my life I've been waiting for a black president"

    Albatross 2008

  • Apatheist||

    nice and touche to SIV

  • Herman Cain||

    Herman Cain will submit to a lie detector test if Romney will submit to a Voight-Kampff test.

  • Chew||

    I just do hair, just hair... just genetic design, just hair. You Nexus, huh? I design your hair.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Coiffeurs rejoice!

  • squishua||

    Herman Cain is an incompetent candidate even by the all-too-forgiving standards of the two-party system


    Hence his meteoric rise as the mainstream republicans' flavor of the month, following their brief moth-to-bugzapper attraction to Rick Perry.

    George Carlin said all you have to do is think about how stupid the "average" person is, then realize that half the people are even stupider than that!

  • WWNGD||

    He is going to take sexual harassment seriously? That is more than Gloria Allred is going to do, she makes jokes about it, "His own stimulus plan!" Now that right there is a funny damn joke about sexual harassment. This is a serious charge!

  • ||

    I'm not taking them seriously. According to this bimbo's own story, Cain never "harassed" her. He wasn't at work and she didn't work for him.

    So we are talking about two civilians back in the 90's. According to her, Cain made a pass and was polite after she declined. Why does this matter?

  • WTF||

    Because of teh MALE GAZE, teh Patriarchy, and other stuff. I think, maybe.... who the fuck knows?

  • yogi||

    I don’t need to take character into consideration before deciding not to vote for or ever say anything in support of a former Federal Reserve official who wants to give the federal government the power to collect both income and sales taxes.

    The last 9 in Cain's tax plan is evil, but I'm not sure you know why. I'm talking about the 9% VAT or national sales tax. The government is not the tax collector for this. Businesses are obligated to collect this tax as an unpaid proxy for the government. It's not 9%, or 3%, or 6%. It's whatever the law says plus the overhead of calculating it correctly and making the payments.

    A VAT is worse than Obamacare. A VAT puts every commercial transaction under the tent of federal taxes, not just healthcare.

  • ||

    A new principle arises: if the federal government taxes it, it counts as "interstate commerce." Thus the government is infinite.

  • Mr. Mark||

    "Sharon Bialek is not TV’s Punky Brewster. Mayim Bialik was TV’s Blossom. Soleil Moon Frye was TV’s Punky Brewster."

    WTFAYTA?

    ....

    "I believe Herman Cain is an incompetent candidate even by the all-too-forgiving standards of the two-party system, and I don’t need to take character into consideration before deciding not to vote for or ever say anything in support of a former Federal Reserve official who wants to give the federal government the power to collect both income and sales taxes."

    In understand completely.

    But look at how they attack! Oh, the establishment is beside itself...

    Look, the country is going over the cliff no matter what. It's over. There is NO hope. The establishment hates this guy. Let's vote for him!

  • SIV||

    I don't know why "the establishment" wouldn't like Cain. He's one of them.

  • SIV||

    I don't know why "the establishment" wouldn't like Cain. He's one of them.

  • MlR (Again, not a Cain fan)||

    Pretty much accurate, SIV. I think the reason they don't like him is because they think he either can't win (and were slow to realize he even was a serious primary candidate), or isn't as known and vetted of a substance (from the Establishment's standpoint) as many of the rest of them. So even if on the surface he isn't really offering much new (except new revenue streams!), he's still a tiny bit of a gamble. Better the devil you know...

    I'd also make an exception to his 'establishmentness' on foreign policy though, since I don't think he's been nearly enough involved in its formulation or even thinking about it to be sufficiently molded there. In that sense I don't think he's experienced enough to know the 'correct' answers. In office, I suspect he'd defer to the common wisdom on the right and his advisors, though. But there's at least a slim possibility that, absent conditioning, non-ideological common sense could win out occasionally.

  • SIV||

    But there's at least a slim possibility that, absent conditioning, non-ideological common sense could win out occasionally.

    I expect that is part of his appeal (not just on foreign policy). Cain might defer to the "experts", but when things are not working he'd likely throw them out of his office and go with his gut or try something novel.That is not how establishment politicians usually operate. That is what a lot of voters wish their elected officials would do.

  • MlR||

    "I believe Herman Cain is an incompetent candidate even by the all-too-forgiving standards of the two-party system"

    Not a Cain fan, and not following the soap opera.

    Nevertheless, I'd just like to say that taking into account Cain's actual private accomplishments this is an amazingly dumb statement, considering both the current President, and the lifelong politicians that often run for President.

    Oh wait, you voted for the current ex-"community organizer", didn't you?

  • ||

    There are some serious differences between running a pizza company and running the executive branch of the federal govt. Competence at one does not imply competence at the other.

    And Romney had every bit as much success in the private sector that Cain did.

  • MlR (Again, not a Cain fan)||

    Not one, but two non-sequitors. Many supposedly serious presidential candidates haven't shown competence in even anything as supposedly unrelated as private sector CEO experience - including the person Tim enthusiastically voted for.

    And Romney's experience doesn't nullify that, since I never said anything about Romney.

    In comparison with the other guys, what Cain is missing is the all-so-important polished blandness of a professional politician, not an obvious lack of competence.

  • ||

    So another Cain supporter waving the "lesser of evils" card.

    BTW, Romney is one of the "other guys" you claim Cain's experience is superior to.

  • sanderson13||

    Why do you insist on calling someone a Cain supporter when they either haven't said so one way or the other, or have gone out of their way to let you know they are NOT a Cain supporter?

    It's pretty silly and limp-dicked of you to try and smear somebody just because you don't like the point they're making. If you have a counter, play it instead of calling names.

  • MlR (Again, not a Cain fan)||

    *bzzzt*

    Reading comprehension fail. I'm not a Cain fan, as I clearly said. In fact, I want him to lose simply on the basis of his desire to increase the government's revenue streams.

    Next time I'll spell it out in bright colors.

    Cain's distinguishing feature in comparison with the others is indeed his lack of political polish. (Besides perhaps Paul, who's not too polished himself.)

  • ||

    Your denying of Cain support wasn't in the main body of the comment. I don't look at names so as not to tempt myself to ad hom.

  • Gojira||

    No offense, but regardless of saying that you don't support him, your first two posts in this particular conversation sound a lot like support.

  • RoboCain||

    "And Romney had every bit as much success in the private sector that Cain did."

    No, he didn't.

  • sanderson13||

    I made a similar point, MIR. Some people here are hesitant to accept the reality that the GOP nominee may not be Ron Paul.

  • Coeus||

    Completely off topic, but I'm no longer in a time zone to do morning links. Has anyone got a fitocracy invite they could send me?

  • Colin||

    He doesn't know her yet he hugged her a few weeks ago at Teacon.

    Sure thing, Herm.

  • ||

    I can only speak for myself but I have a 'no refusal' policy on hugging blonds with big ta ta's. And I generally remember the experience through the evening and then I can't pee straight.

  • Grandma cox||

    ewwwwwwwwwwwe

  • db||

    Did anyone else bother voting today?

  • ||

    On what?

    (No. I don't vote.)

  • ||

    It's election day today.

  • SIV||

    Sunday sales was on municipal ballots throughout GA. Soon only those backward bible-beaters from the Nutmeg State will restrict Sunday sales of alcohol.

  • ||

    Yes. I voted for the loser in every election (ie, straight Republican in Pittsburgh) and was on the losing side of the library property tax increase referendum.

    Democracy is a wonderful thing.

  • ||

    So you are proud of doing something completely pointless and meaningless. That's sound thinking.

  • Apatheist||

    A vote for a Republican is a vote for the Democrat! It's not like they were going to win anyways! Stupid libertarians Republicans, voting for a candidate who can't win!

  • ||

    No, the point is that statistically, your vote is meaningless no matter what, whether you are voting for TEAM RED, TEAM BLUE, or who will win American Idol.

    Why would you therefore vote? It makes no logical sense.

  • ||

    Because if every good person had that attitude then the bad people would decide every election.

    Emergent processes are difficult for black-and-white thinkers to understand.

  • ||

    WTF is a "good person"?

    Nothing is more rich than a person who votes "because if no one voted, the bad guys would win!" calling someone else a "black-and-white thinker".

    Since you know that other dopes will vote, you can stop at any time and nothing--nothing--will change.

  • ||

    WTF is a "good person"?

    A law-and-order libertarian like myself.

  • Gojira||

    So law-and-order libertarian = straight republican vote? How exactly are you not a republican, in this scenerio?

  • Apatheist||

    Ok insert nonvoting at the end or in addition. It's fucking priceless when Republicans complain about people who don't vote for their candidates as if they are entitled to them while at the same time vote for for Republican candidates that don't have any chance of winning either. As we get closer and closer to the general election and it turns out that the race is going to be a lot closer than than they currently realize Team Red morons will start bitching about how if we don't vote for Romney we'll really be voting for Obama (whether it's because we vote for a 3rd party/independent candidate or don't vote at all).

  • ||

    Go back over this discussion and note who was attacking who. Then I suggest you amend your above remarks.

  • Apatheist||

    I didn't reply to you either time. You may or may not be the type to pull that shit. Either way I didn't reply to you and I have nothing to amend. I'm just adding to his grumblings my own grumblings about our democracy and the people who participate in it.

  • ||

    I was responding on behalf of reluctant Romney supporters everywhere.

  • Apatheist||

    What would it take for you to not vote Republican? I can't imagine anybody worse than Romney. If you'll vote for them regardless then it really doesn't matter if you are libertarian leaning. They have no reason to move in your direction.

  • Gojira||

    Seriously. Tulpa is like one of those Obama "protesters" who sang that stupid song, then said they'd vote for him anyway.

  • Apatheist||

    Now that I have gone over discussions below and see that you ARE already pulling that shit I'll say you sure got some balls asking me to amend my remarks.

  • SIV||

    Beats the fuck out of jury duty.

  • db||

    Why would I vote? Merely to give Barack Obama a nonzero chance of winning election to the local township board of supervisors. I figure he needs some experience to bolster his resume.

  • Homer||

    Don't blame me, I voted for Kronos

  • AlmightyJB||

    ugh. Unfortunately, not that it mattered. Ohio Issue two going down in flames. Same Democratic Mayor and City Council that's been screwing up Columbus for years going to stay in power easily. Basically all of the results are the complete opposite of how I voted. I should have spent that time at a bar. Glad my kids are out of school and grown so I can leave these idiots to their own demise.

  • BigT||

    Issue 3 passed 66-33, giving Buckeyes the right to opt out of Obamacare. Probably more significant than 2, which will be revised and passed again.

  • ||

    I voted, only for the propositions and initiatives. We have a chance to get the state of WA out of the liquor business and to stick it to the SEIU. For all the candidates for office I wrote in Turd Sandwich.

  • Turd Sandwich||

    I appreciate your support.
    Tax those rich bastards 100% I say.

  • AlmightyJB||

    We actually had two guys running as Libertarians for ciy council. It was nice to be able to push those buttons but I'm sure you can guess how they're doing.

  • Meh||

    Yes, I voted against a bond proposal for the local community college (which I happen to attend) where among other things, the money would be spent on 'going green' even though I'm sure the reality of that will be false on two or more counts.

  • sanderson13||

    "Like my colleague Peter Suderman, I believe Herman Cain is an incompetent candidate even by the all-too-forgiving standards of the two-party system, and I don’t need to take character into consideration before deciding not to vote for or ever say anything in support of a former Federal Reserve official who wants to give the federal government the power to collect both income and sales taxes."

    Let's say Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination.

    Would Cavanagh prefer Romney or Obama over Cain?

  • AlmightyJB||

    You know who else was competant.

  • Roddy ||

    You mean "continent".

  • AlmightyJB||

    No, I meant blow me Roddy.

  • Apatheist||

    Why can't there be more than 2 shitty presidential candidates? Is two the limit?

  • ||

    Cain supporters pulling out the "lesser of evils" card is precious beyond belief.

  • Roddy ||

    You mean "lessor".

  • sanderson13||

    I'm going to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary. Nobody here answered my question. I'm looking at the field and wondering who a Libertarian would vote for if Paul doesn't win the GOP nomination. Simple as that. And not very theoretical considering Paul unfortunately doesn't have a strong chance at winning.

    So it's very easy to say you'd never vote for Guy A. Unless you're going to stick to your guns and just write in Ron Paul for the general election, you may very well have a lesser of two evils choice on your hands.

  • ||

    You only asked Cavanaugh.

    I would take Romney in a heartbeat over Cain.

  • sanderson13||

    Actually I asked the metaphorical room who Cavanaugh would vote for.

    Why do you prefer Romney over Cain? And I'm guessing you would then choose Romney over Obama.

  • ||

    The 999 plan is insanity and Romney has experience in both govt and the private sector. He's also electable. Cain isn't going to be able to stand up to the $2B smear campaign awaiting the GOP nominee next summer. He can barely stand up to Fox News hosts' questions.

  • ||

    Not sure how many capital-L Libertarians there are around here either.

  • sanderson13||

    Interesting, I figured the community here would be heavily Libertarian.

  • ||

    It's heavily populated by the lowercase-l variety, but there's not much love for the LP around here as far as I can tell.

  • sanderson13||

    Oh, you mean the difference btw someone identifying themselves as Libertarian but not a member of the Libertarian Party? I don't give a crap about party.

  • ||

    It's like the difference between a Democrat and a democrat or a Republican and a republican.

  • sanderson13||

    Yeah, I never got that either!

  • Apatheist||

    The community is heavy libertarian (it frankly doesn't matter what case you use but the general understanding is upper case L is for the party) Tulpa is just one of the conservatives "law-and-order libertarians."

  • ||

    When we increase the resolution it gets more complicated, what with the anarcho-capitalists, utilitarian minarchists, libertarian-leaning Republicans, and of course my LOL faction.

  • Apatheist||

    You can call yourself whatever you want certainly, I'm all for the big tent, but voting for Romney is pretty barftastic.

  • ||

    Maybe if enough of us write in George Bush, Obama will blush.

  • Coeus||

    The lesser of two evils is still evil. If it's that important to you to participate on a winning "team", find a local softball league.

  • Vote Cthulu||

    The greater of all evils!

  • sanderson13||

    Thanks for the tip. Who are you voting for, Coeus?

  • Coeus||

    I have a hard time thinking that any GOP nominee would be worse than Obama, but maybe I'm wrong.

    As long as a "mainstream" establishment-loving candidate is elected, it will continue along the same accelerating course it has for the last 100 years, regardless of the letter placed after his name.

    Hell, the Bush-Obama fingercuffing of our deficit and civil rights should have shown you that.

  • sanderson13||

    Obama = Bush + Libya + Obamacare

    There is always a choice. Did you think you were helping a non-establishment candidate win election by not voting?

    Or maybe you think Carter = Reagan too?

  • Coeus||

    There is always a choice. Did you think you were helping a non-establishment candidate win election by not voting?

    No, I thought I wasn't lending legitimacy to the dickholes. And I was correct. Shit, obamacare is basically the same plan McCain ran on, and we'd be in Iran instead of Libya. How the fuck would that be an improvement? And if you can find a marginal difference between them, is that all it takes for you to feel good about voting for one? If you were a warden at a juvenile detention center, would you feel good about yourself if, out of two applicants, you hired the child molestor with the smaller dick?

  • sanderson13||

    Iran is next on the list!

    I've voted *against* candidates for years and never felt great about it, just helpless. I hear your legitimacy point, but I think you and I both know that has no practical effect, it just helps you feel better about yourself.

  • Coeus||

    I hear your legitimacy point, but I think you and I both know that has no practical effect, it just helps you feel better about yourself.

    And voting for any establishment candidate over any other does? The difference is that I know my vote doesn't count, and not giving legitimacy to a republicrat candidate, while not having a pratical effect, is at least ideoligically consistent. Someone who votes for the lesser of two evils when the difference is a matter microns doesn't have a practical effect or a symbolic one. I fail to see how it's preferable.

  • Coeus||

    I didn't vote for pres last time around since Ron got knocked off the ticket by the time the primaries came to TX and Barr was a fake. I'll vote for Paul, Johnson or anyone else not actively evil (like a decent libertarian party cadidate, if they pick one this year).

  • sanderson13||

    Ah, I see. I think along your lines in terms of Primary voting, but to write in a candidate or pick one not on the Republican ticket would help Obama win re-election. I have a hard time thinking that any GOP nominee would be worse than Obama, but maybe I'm wrong.

  • Apatheist||

    but to write in a candidate or pick one not on the Republican ticket would help Obama win re-election.

    Bullshit, it would be just as much a vote for that candidate as the one for the Republican candidate would be. It would be just as retarded to say that a vote for the Republican is helping Obama win because they should have voted for the 3rd party/independent/write-in candidate.

  • sanderson13||

    I'm talking practicality. You have every right to vote for the candidate you truly wish to elect. But if Ron Paul ran as a third-party candidate, isn't it obvious that Obama would win re-election? Maybe there's a subtlety to your plan that I'm missing, but Ross Perot comes to mind.

  • Apatheist||

    There's no subtlety. Saying that voting 3rd party is a vote for Obama is absolute bullshit. If the Republicans want my vote they can nominate someone who isn't a shithead. If they lose an election because they nominate someone bad enough that enough people vote elsewhere or stay at home they are the ones responsible not me.

  • Apatheist||

    I distinctly remember voting for Ron Paul in the Texas primary. He was on the ballot all the way through if I remember correctly.

  • sanderson13||

    Apatheist, that's only four years ago, you should know for sure, man!

  • Coeus||

    I'm fairly certain he had officially bowed out a week or two before.

  • Apatheist||

    Wikipedia says he suspended the campaign in June which sounds about right and was well after Texas.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2....._primaries

  • ||

    And he kept my $500, the fucker.

  • Coeus||

    I'll be damned. I've killed way to many braincells since then, I guess. I was offshore when voting came around, and I guess I conjured up a false memory to make myself feel better for not voting with an absentee ballot (still haven't looked up how that works in Texas).

    My mistake.

  • Apatheist||

    Don't feel bad, it wouldn't have mattered. I would have been pissed if he had. Spent too much time (and some money) on him. Even convinced some liberals to vote for him (the ones who could tell the kind of bullshit artist Obama was). Won't make that mistake again. I'll vote for him again this time round but I doubt there will be a day where I actively participate in an election again.

  • Coeus||

    I'll vote for him again this time round but I doubt there will be a day where I actively participate in an election again.

    I actually plan on actively campaigning for him this time around. Kind of my last gasp of civil service. After he loses, I'll just content myself with smiling sarcastically when everyone else freaks out about how bad everything's getting, and pretending that their inflated sense of entitlement isn't the reason they let things get this bad.

  • ||

    I hope your "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian" bumper sticker keeps you safe and warm when the country descends into tyranny because the greater evils were allowed to win.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I will be voting against Obama. I rarely ever vote "for" someone. I just vote against whoever I detest the most, than I go home and shower. I'm pretty sure that no matter who gets elected nothings really going to change but Obama is the only one I can say that about with certainty. If anything a second term could embolden him to go further left.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I will be voting against Obama. I rarely ever vote "for" someone. I just vote against whoever I detest the most, than I go home and shower. I'm pretty sure that no matter who gets elected nothings really going to change but Obama is the only one I can say that about with certainty. If anything a second term could embolden him to go further left.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I will be voting against Obama. I rarely ever vote "for" someone. I just vote against whoever I detest the most, than I go home and shower. I'm pretty sure that no matter who gets elected nothings really going to change but Obama is the only one I can say that about with certainty. If anything a second term could embolden him to go further left.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I will be voting against Obama. I rarely ever vote "for" someone. I just vote against whoever I detest the most, than I go home and shower. I'm pretty sure that no matter who gets elected nothings really going to change but Obama is the only one I can say that about with certainty. If anything a second term could embolden him to go further left.

  • Coeus||

    I hope your "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian" bumper sticker keeps you safe and warm when the country descends into tyranny because the greater evils were allowed to win.

    It'll keep me just as safe and warm as your "If you don't vote you're part of the problem" bumper sticker does when the country descends into tyranny.

    Shit, if you guess right, you might help postpone the tyranny by 3 or even 4 months. If you want to vote for gridlock, that might have merit. But this "If you had only voted for the guy who was only 97% evil, we wouldn't be in prison for a blog post" bullshit has got to go.

  • ||

    Mitt is nowhere near 97% evil. Low 70s, tops.

  • Coeus||

    Mitt is nowhere near 97% evil. Low 70s, tops.

    I know you're joking, but is there one single thing you think he'd actually accomplish that isn't evil?

  • ||

    He would stop the carbon reg nonsense the EPA is pushing, and the net neutrality shit too.

  • Coeus||

    Maybe carbon regs, but if you think he's gonna give up government control of the internet, you probably also believe that Obama is gonna increase government transparency and quit fucking with medical marijuana. And any minute now, Reagan is gonna shut down the department of education.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I will be voting against Obama. I rarely ever vote "for" someone. I just vote against whoever I detest the most, than I go home and shower. I'm pretty sure that no matter who gets elected nothings really going to change but Obama is the only one I can say that about with certainty. If anything a second term could embolden him to go further left.

  • The Class||

    No, tell us how you really feel.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I really feel that when I hit submit the first time that the damn comment should post instead of just sitting there doing nothing:)

  • AlmightyJB||

    5 times. Huh. Yeah, I wasn't going for a record or anything.

  • Ben P.||

    For my part, that depends on whether there is also a Libertarian nominee, and what the list of third party and independent candidates looks like on my state's ballot.

  • Tony||

    Obama--Democrats do less deficit spending and torture fewer people.

    Until libertarians shed themselves of the a.m. talk radio mentality they will not be free.

  • BigT||

    Less deficit spending?

    Is there any wonder why you are considered completely clueless? And ridiculed endlessly?

  • SIV||

    "Lesser evil than Romney" is fine for me.
    I'm a $ contributing and voting Ron Paul supporter but for those who won't vote for him I prefer they go with anyone other than the "establishment-approved" candidate.

  • ||

    I'm all for the GOP to go for Romney. Maybe the party will split in half, and good fucking riddance, I'd say. I'm tired of libertarians playing footsie with the Republican quarterback and being surprised when he rapes us behind the bleachers.

  • Tulpy Poo||

    But he said he was sorry!

  • rather||

    Honey, the QB Republicans are raping ya because you're cheerleading without underwear

  • rather||

    That actually is a perfect analogy:
    Libertarians are the Republicans' sluts
    -They fuck Libertarians cheerleaders, and take a suitable girl to the prom

  • ||

    The sexual metaphors abound once again.

    I'm beginning to wonder if I'm the only regular commenter who wasn't molested.

  • rather||

    LOL

    It's never too late

  • Coeus||

    Mr. Garrison Sr.: What? I never sexually abused you!

    Mr. Garrison: I know! I want to know why not!

    Mr. Garrison Sr.: WHAT!?

    Mr. Garrison: Was it because I was ugly?

    Mr. Garrison Sr.: Oh my God!

    Mr. Garrison: It was because I wasn't good enough wasn't it?

    Mr. Garrison Sr.: I...no!

  • STEVE SMITH||

    STEVE FIX THAT SOON!!

  • Herman Cain||

    Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether I broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with my female party guests - I did. 999. Peace out.

  • Marc Jacobs||

    Marc Jacobs designed for Marc Jacobs Handbag coveted clear structure, but also the essence of one of the many brand-name bags. But be concerned about is that he’s subsidiary brand Marc by Marc Jacobs. The younger you must not miss Marc by Marc Jacobs Bags. Especially the Marc by Marc Jacobs Handbag, fashion sun for you. Believe me, it really really good.

  • Geoff Peterson||

    Balls

  • Geoff Peterson||

    In your pants

  • Alice Bowie||


    Herman Cain: Doesn’t Even Recall Meeting Sharon Bialek

    He doesn't recall the fact that China obtained NUCLEAR WEAPONS in the 1960's

  • F Hart||

    If you can remember the 60s, you probably weren't there.

  • ¢||

    I don't know why "the establishment" wouldn't like Cain. He's one of them.

    Right. But here's my...understanding and/or guess:

    The 'baggers have taken a sudden and strong shine to Cain, because although he's clearly not ideologically one with them, he doesn't openly or reflexively despise them. All the other plausible GOP nom' winners do.

    So through no fault of his own, Cain's become today's must-destroy candidate. If he's not humiliatingly hooked off the stage before he accidentally beats Romney, the 'baggers win by proxy—even though it would be a false victory, because Cain would disappoint them entirely and only do establishment-friendly things.

    But he gotta die. Because for the GOP, '12 is all about fuckin' crushing the uppity 'baggers' collective will and spirit.

    ...is my theory.

  • ||

    I'll file this one next to the Lee Harvey Oswald faking the moon landing theory.

  • Mr. Mark||

    Have you ever met any of the folks who do politics for a career?

    It is not so much about ideology as it is about narcissism and silver spoons. These are people who believe in divine right. They genuinely think that they are entitled to high office, influence, and most especially - privilege, because they are more or less among the "annointed."

    In their minds, they are special and wondrous beings, and you and me are just schmuck loser imbeciles who need to be told what to do, how to do it, and kept at a distance.

    The very idea of someone winning a presidential election without having been inducted into their special little club drives them absolutely nuts.

  • CE||

    Why, did he grope so many women he can't remember 'em all?

  • Leno, Letterman, Conan||

    Clinton did

  • PantsFan||

    Media Decision Tree on how to handle a Political Sex Scandal
    http://www.smalldeadanimals.co.....wchart.png

  • Bingo||

    Big fat fucking yawn at this TEAM bullshit. Who the fuck cares what pols do?

  • Amakudari||

    Really?

    I don't recall Viniar get too much press for bonking hookers, yet they were all over the similarly-but-more-amusingly-named Weiner. It's just whether it makes a good story. Presidential candidates (like John Edwards) tend to make a good story.

  • ||

    When we say someone is "incompetent", etc., could we please put that in terms of Obama?

    Example:
    Cain is 10% as incompetent as Obama
    or
    5-year old at a lemonade stand has a competence level twice that of Obama.

    I mean...get real when we throw around these whole charges of incompetence. Define your terms. You want someone to competently expand the federal government? Congrats. You got your guy presently. You want someone to competently manage the decline of the U.S.? I call him Mittens.

  • ||

    5-year old at a lemonade stand has a competence level twice that of Obama.

    Difference is Obama has a permit.

  • rather||

    I don't think Tony Rezko paid for the permit but let me check that tip

  • Rand Al Thor||

    Shut the fuck up, 'doggy-style'.

  • ||

    Is there any evidence that proves Cain committed these sexual misconduct? Two of the accusers reached settlement with the NRA. Cain has that and the passage of 14 years on his side.

    We certainly don't have to take the candidate's character into consideration if his policies are bad, but if a diginity of a man is about to be harmed by potentially false allegations not accompanied by solid proof (did I mention the 14 years?), we should stand by his character, or give him the benefit of the doubt.

  • rather||

    Holy shit you sound fair; does that benefit apply to posters who are spoofed and called let's say...White Indian?

  • A fan||

    Yeah, I can't see how Epi thinks you are clever enough to pull off an alter ego.

  • rock crusher||

    Re. settlement of previous claim: Not sure about tens of thousands of dollars figure you’re talking about. Not going to get caught in that trap. She and her attorney talked to attorney for National Restaurant Association. They decided it should end with some kind of personnel separation agreement. She worked at Restaurant Association for some time. I recall that when I left she was preparing to leave. Sometimes saw her around workplace. When we would attend planning meeting she’d attend planning meeting, because at planning meetings I included direct reports and next level down. I was in the field more than I was in the office.
    get real when we throw around these whole charges of incompetence. Define your terms. You want someone to competently expand the federal government? Congrats. You got your guy presently. You want someone to competently manage the decline of the U.S.? I call him Mittens.

  • Bingo||

    So apparently there is a self-described libertarian who produces electronic music. Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=XEGyTTaRpj0

    Not bad for being

  • Bingo||

    Fucking less than signs... Not bad for being LESS THAN 20 years old.

  • ||

    meh.

    This is better

  • rather||

    Turns out one of the accusers had the same issue on her next job

  • ||

    Maybe Cain was just delivering her pie with extra sausage. These misunderstandings happen in the pizza business.

  • Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy||

    Now that woman #5 has come out, I guess we can say that Cain likes blondes.

    I guess it's only a matter of time until someone makes a really inappropriate "King Cain" cartoon with Cain running amok with a tiny little blonde woman in his hand.

    If Cain gets the nomination it will be funny to see the Democrat Underground crowd bring out all sorts of racially-charged material like that.

    But I do have to say - Bialek looks like she's auditioning for a role as a grifter bimbo, but that Treasury Department lady really doesn't. Looks don't really determine credibility, of course, but it makes it harder to play the "scheming gold digger" card if the actress doesn't look the part.

  • Bill Kurtis in Shucugo||

    Sharon Bialek has had a track record for lo these many years.

  • ||

    Anyone who cares about so-called sexual harassment (other than to feel sorry for victims of this absurd law) is too stupid to deserve the vote.

    Then again, there are good reasons to take the vote away from women already. The reason the 20th century was all about the triumph of the nanny state was that they got it and used it.

  • Nike Dunk Low||

    thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement