Murder and being "guilty by association" is not the same thing as the betrayal of a trust and the breaking of a promise of fidelity.

Im not speaking of guilt by association. I was speaking about the offense that if one person didnt do it another would have. Guilt by association means another person likely does it because someone they hang with did.

Its the person who DID do it that is guilty and should be held accountable.

If you judge a person by what one judges as amoral activities of promiscuity or sex, that is one thing.

But if you are looking for a person who can be trusted, and who will be loyal and keep his word, and one who keeps promises and is not going to betray those who trust him and those who are closest to him, then you will not find that person in a man or woman who has broken the trust and betrayed their spouse by cheating and lying.

that makes a huge assumption that the person we think should be closest to someone IS closest to them

which is not the case,,,,,


many people in our culture now put their KIDS before their spouse,, its just as possible for people to put other relationships before their marital one and be completely devoted to THOSE Relationships,,,

Only the cheating spouse should be held accountable for betraying a trust. The unmarried mistress has not betrayed a trust UNLESS she promised not to tell anyone of the affair.

The lack of respect I have for the mistress is that she told. But she is not a person of interest at all in the case of a man running for president.

truth is they are both guilty, no way around it

they are guilty of different things, the spouse of betraying a personal vow with someone

the adulteress of infringing upon what was 'sacred'


if someone sells me stolen goods that I know are stolen, we both have accountability, being once removed from the initial offense doesnt remove my responsibility

For some reason, Herman and Mitt just aren't that popular with
the mainstream conservative republicans. It is an enigma!

YES I certainly do ASSUME that spouses are close to each other.

That is why they are granted the legal right not to have to testify against each other about the things they said in private. If they are not close in reality, they are assumed to be by law.

and yet people put their KIDS before each other everyday,, they put their JOBS first, they put their HOBBIES first,,, etc,,,and they give complete devotion to those things in spite of not being devoted to their marriages with anywhere near the same passion

that they shouldnt be married, does not mean they cant be devoted and passionate in any other relationships or agreements

The mistress is not a person of interest. If she is not married, she has not broken a promise or betrayed anyone.

I'm not saying that she is "right." I'm saying that she is not "guilty" of betraying a trust.


Understand that I am specifically talking about BETRAYING A TRUST.

Not about screwing a man that happens to be married. He is betraying a trust, she is not.

she is not betraying a trust, but she is just as guilty of doing 'wrong', taking something she knows is not hers to take,,,

None of that matters. You are getting off topic and changing the subject. I am being very specific.

You can rationalize anyway you want. But a person who is known to break a promise, betray a trust, lie to his wife, is a person who can't be trusted.

What you think is right or wrong is not the point. I don't care if you think she is wrong. She is not running for president. I don't need to trust her. What anyone thinks of her is irrelevant to whether or not we as a public can trust Cain to not betray the trust we place in him as president.

That is the point. We can't trust a man who has broken a sacred trust to his wife.

too general, not specific at all

cant be trusted with what? Bill Gates make Microsoft extremely successful, should he have not been trusted with the company had he happened to suck as a husband?

my doctor performed an amazing laproscopic hysterectomy recently, should I have trusted her LESS to take her job seriously and do it well if I had been privy to her being unfaithful to her husband?




how do those skills and interests overlap with the difficult task of making a marriage work?

they are unrelated to how well a person will do their job and no clear indication of whether they are untrustworthy in ALL Situations and circumstances,,,

a history of lying in THOSE TYPEs of situations is more an indicator.. I wouldnt marry an adulterer, but that doesnt mean he couldnt be excellent as my accountant

likewise, I might marry someone who consistently fudged on their taxes, and find them to be a completely faithful and devoted husband,,,,

these are all different AREAS of life that are not connected,,,

you dont need to trust her, nor do I. I am only questioning the rationale of lacking respect for someone coming clean with their dirt and not for the dirt itself,,

and we can absolutely and have absolutely trusted those who broke their 'sacred' marital trusts many times over


we trusted lincoln, washington, and numerous others in the oval office who did just that

and they actually did some pretty incredible things for the country as a result,,,,

As the public, we need to think that we can place our trust in our president. Cain has proven that he is a man who can betray the sacred and legal trust of his spouse and break his promise to her and lie.

What would make us think then, that he would have any more respect for the public in general if he has no respect for his wife? What would make us think that we could trust him not to betray our trust in him and lied to us?

I am not so old that I voted for Lincoln or Washington.

But given a choice between two candidates, one who respects and is loyal to his wife, and one who cheats on her and lies, I certainly know which one I would vote for.

see examples above

I can trust a person to be a great parent and not betray his kids even if he betrayed his wife, I can likewise trust them to be great and trustworthy in several other situations, professional and political, even if he was imperfect enought o fail on some other 'personal' situations

and I know I would certainly never limit my vote to such a criteria, but would still need to know alot more about their POLITICAL track records to make that choice

So basically, you think that it is acceptable to betray your wife and cheat and lie and you understand and forgive that activity.

And you believe that it does not mean that the person who did that to their spouse will do that to you.

It is possible that they won't, but they have clearly shown where their values are weak, and that they are capable of the ultimate deceit in their intimate spousal relationship. They have shown that they do break promises and lie.

And yet you forgive that for some reason and you place your trust in them. You think that they respect you or the public more than their spouse and that they would not do the same to you.

Well, I don't.