I'm sorry but this is just factually incorrect. Whether Trump himself thought of it as sexual assault has no bearing on whether it was sexual assault. If you're trying to claim that all dozen+ women are part of some anti-Trump conspiracy that's some Alex Jones tinfoil hat stuff that there's no point in discussing. By the letter of the law what he is describing is explicitly sexual assault now that we know there were numerous unwilling victims of his attention. This is just a fact. If you can't accept this then I don't know what else to say because we're just not on the same planet.
There are two things we are talking about, and I think you are mixing them which is making it hard to follow.
1. Bush interview where he said grab her by the pussy.
The Bush interview is not an example of sexual assault unless they were unwilling. The context clearly was that they were. Maybe in reality they were not, but that is a totally different discussion. Again, gross actions, but not assault and not the promotion of assault.
2. Women that came forward that said trump sexually assaulted them.
Accusation are not proof of guilt. The ego he seems to have leads me to believe that he may have grabbed a woman who did not want to be grabbed, and that would 100% be assault. That said, we already know some came forward and were lying. Until such time there is something more than accusations, I will not say he assaulted anyone simply based on women coming forward.
Can you show me any credible public polling that reflects this?
Can I provide evidence that has been my experience? Just me telling you I guess. I was pretty clear that it was my experience when I said "most that I have seen"
You said that I'm out of touch because this is what most people under 30 think. You've provided no evidence for this outside of twitter accounts and youtube views, both of which not only don't give the ages of those subscribing or watching, which was of course your point, but are obviously easily manipulated by bot activity. If you want to provide me with some scientific polling on the matter I'd be glad to drop the people around me as evidence but when all you've got is the people you know it's pretty easy to refute in about ten seconds.
If you dont think that is good enough fine, but dont pretend its nothing either. Younger people get most of their media online, which I'm pretty sure you know. Places like youtube reaches far more younger people that I think you might realize. Social media like twitter allows you to track tags like SJW that people are using. So if you think channel subs and number views is not important, and you think twitter trends to mean anything, then I dont know what to tell you. This is the evolving media world we now live in.
Again, what you think about Trump is irrelevant. You don't seem to get the point of my disagreement which is that you aren't providing any facts and the facts that are available directly contradict you. If you had actual facts at your disposal that showed what you're saying I would be very interested to listen. More than any specific policy or stance I care about the process that they were arrived at. If you are using facts and evidence I'm all for it. If you're using feelings and anecdotes then that's just bad reasoning and it's not important to me.
Its not bad reasoning so long as I use them a guides and am open to changing my mind if I get information that goes against what I currently believe. I am telling you what I think happened. You keep asking for proof, and can only give you the logic that I feel fits the situation. Right now I am building my hypothesis and talking to people to see if it fits the situation. So far, it is. I'm not a scientist and I'm not trying to be. I will never do a full study and I think it would be stupid to expect that from me.
What I do think is that my view fits and explains a lot of what is going on. Dont know what else to tell you. Are you not in the same position I am for why he got so much support in terms of your opinion?
So to be clear, if you think that liberal messaging on Trump was all personal attacks and no policy critiques and this approach turned off moderates then please provide empirical evidence of some sort for this. If you can't, just say you don't have any evidence for your opinion and we can let it drop. Without facts what's there to even say?
Jesus man, I have told you its my opinion based on what I have been seeing. I have not once tried to make it seem like I am an expert on what is going on. Expecting empirical evidence is a stupid bar to set in this context. Not only that, but you seem pretty pissed at me as if somehow I have done something too you.
My explanation would be that Clinton did not motivate her base sufficiently in swing states to overcome losses in the white working class who were amenable to a white nationalist campaign message. This can be shown in the racial resentment measurements of Trump supporters as well as turnout numbers in crucial Democratic constituencies.
So, you believe that a bunch of her base did not vote because they were not excited enough, but were willing to let Trump win knowing he was a shitbag? Why, if they knew Trump was so bad, would they not be willing to vote? Your argument does nothing to that question, where as my reasoning seems to answer it. Had they believed Trump was as bad as he is, they would have gone out to vote. They stayed home because A, the media was saying she was going to win. I believe they missed the growing movement of younger people. B, they stayed home because they though Hillary was as bad as trump, because the facts about Trump were washed out by the exaggerations.
I cannot understand why so many did not vote if they knew Trump was so bad. If they did not know, then explain why they did not get the message.
Facebook
Twitter