No. The women that settled are bound to silence by their settlements. They are not currently damaging anyone and aren't going to draw the wrath that this woman is. Assuming they stay silent, nobody is open to liability for defamation, nobody is open to perjury due to sworn affidavits. Not the same situations. Not the same risk. Not the same sordid specifics.

Please stick your hand in the crotches of as many women as possible tomorrow. Report back here on how your day goes.

But at the moment they made the accusations they were liable. Just because someone said something on TV doesn't make it more likely to be true.

the behavior was certainly inappropriate, if true, but i dont know if assault fits in. If she felt assaulted she would not have gotten into a car with him after. She also wouldn't have brought up her boyfriend. A hand doesn't get right up a skirt without a few steps in between. If she hasn't indicated that she instructed him to stop at some point, and he refused, I have a hard time seeing this as assault.

so far the biggest issue for me with cain is his denying everything at first when clearly there was more to the story of past allegations. thats about it.

You may have a rocky future if you think putting your hand on a woman and reaching for her genitals and pulling a woman's head towards your crotch is "just a pass."

And implying that you have to have sex with someone to get a job is not legal everywhere.

Though of course she's going forward because of politics. I assume she doesn't want what may be a serial harrasser as president.

They didn't make accusations toward a man running for President at the time. That's a really significant difference.

In essence, someone saying something on TV does make it much more likely to be true for the reasons I stated. She inserted herself into a national story. She had to be aware of what's going to come now. Contrary to those women who settled, there is no apparent pot of gold at the end of this for this woman.

Next time a coworker asks you for a favor, tell her you'll do it if she has sex with you, see how it goes.

It's good to know you know how every person responds to everything always.

Sure there is. Exclusive interviews, books, etc.

No, it does not.

LOOL

So here we have Cato actively championing the subrpime-mortgages-for-all PR-machine that created the mess in the first place, then completely flip-flopping a few years later onto attacking Fannie for doing exactly what Cato was attacking them for *not* doing, and then of course not being held accountable 1 iota by their starry-eyed followers. Shocking.

But of course this doesn't sound at all like their current rhetoric of "govt-backed student loans are the sole cause of tuition hikes", or "corporate health insurance tax breaks are the sole cause of spiraling health care costs" or "mortgage interest deduction is the sole cause of housing bubbles", or "cheap fed money is leading to massive (yet hidden) inflation and we're all doomed unless we switch to gold" or any other number of current deregulation canards. So clearly there is no lesson to be learned from Cato being spectacularly wrong about housing. We should just move on and assume every untested thought experiment is true as always. Until it gets proven wrong in the real world, then we instantly forget we ever believed it.

I've certainly tried to touch women before when on a date, and been both accepted and rejected. None of them felt assaulted. As pointed out by another poster above, I seriously doubt he walked up to her and grabbed her crotch. Other stuff happened leading up to that. Assault is pretty far-fetched, and it certainly doesn't qualify as sexual harrassment because there was no employment relationship. This is pure politics, which doesn't matter a whole lot to me as Cain isn't my choice anyway.

Her life is about to be made hell even if its true. Arguably especially if its true.

Fly wasnt wrong when he said Breitbart (and the rest) are going to be raking through her life story.

No I totally agree. I think I already said as much. If not then I meant to.

You should not use quotes when you misrepresent what someone said. I didn't put any adjectives on my statement to imply good/bad or "just" at all. You added that.

So you're basically saying progressive taxation, which we've had in this country since we've had income tax, is class warfare?

I have to admit I kept reading his post over and over and trying to determine if I was misunderstanding him. Then I decided the obvious answer was "she did nothing until now because the man is running for president and others have come forward so... the time was right." After reading his posts since I'm decided he doesn't mean what I thought he meant.

Now I'm back to being entirely uncertain what he meant by the last sentence.

Not that alone, but that's a key component.

What ever became of the girl who carved a B into her cheek and was caught on camera not being assaulted or somesuch?

I'm pretty sure the poor that led those revolutions made out ok. And the rich they overthrew were effed.

The rest of the poor who didn't participate just stayed the same. Which is the point. The rich have by far the most to lose and thus the biggest reason to support a strong govt and infrastructure.

apologies. I didn't accentuate it correctly. Doesn't really change the content of my post. You're still qualifying what he did as just a pass as opposed to something worse. (Note- I'm not quoting you here other then that you think this behaviour constitutes a pass)

Were you on dates or were you meeting with presumeably to help them get a job? Were you the president of the place you were presumeably trying to help them get a job at?

What is the proper chain of events for someone to grope someone? You've honestly never heard of someone just inappropriately touching a woman sexually? You're making the mistake of assuming this was a duel romantic encounter.

I admit I'm not a lawyer but when you're the president of a trade organization and you agree to meet with someone to talk about helping them get a job, then make physical sexual overtures and then, when rebuffed, throw it in their face that they're not serious about getting a job... I'm thinking there is a good chance he's broken a law.

And... perhaps more important, regardless of whether its legal, its certainly worth asking if its the proper conduct of our presidental candidates.

The conduct as described by the accuser sounds despicable to me, and it gives credence to the other accusers whose claims are sealed. I was just saying it doesn't sound to me like he broke any laws (in this case) and it's purely politics. But you could be right. Certainly there can be a civil sexual harrassment claim no matter whether it qualifies as employement related under the law.

Guess Cain came up with his tax plan on a business trip to Germany.

I'm pretty sure what's considered acceptable behaviour on dates is different from what's considered acceptable behaviour in the workplace.

What's also forgotten is that Herman Cain is married and this would have constituted an extra marital affair if she hadn't turned him down.

I think the obvious reason she didn't report this at the time was because she didn't feel that harmed as a result of the incident even though he may have touched her inappropriately. They DID have dinner and meet at the hotel bar, etc, etc. Kinda looks like they had a date. So it's understandable that Herman Cain did something guys do on dates.

Not trying to defend Cain here, but sexual assault seems to be a unfair way to characterize this incident IMO. Definitely abused his power and he seems to be a dubious character now that this is the 4th woman to come out against him even though he is married!