soundforbjt
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2002
- 17,788
- 6,041
- 136
For Trump, Loyalty Above All Else is the motto. I wouldn't be surprised if he makes all his administration sign non-disclosure agreements.
He is saying that when you are famous, women are willing to let you do it. If you want to read it as he does not care about consent, then you have to add in something that was not said. Do I think its possible that he does not care... sure. If he does grab women and they are not willing and he was not sure they were willing but did it anyway, then gross. If he grabs a woman and he was not sure she was willing and she turned out to not be willing, its gross and assault. I'm also not saying that its an okay thing to do in his situation as most women I know would not be willing.
But focusing on his comments with Bush and saying its assault inherently is not true, and most I have talked too agree. Its that a good representation of everyone ever, no, but its also not unreasonable to think it might be a trend with others too.
For the Bill Cosby thing, its very different. He has literally admitted to giving women things to knock them out. He has admitted this even in sworn statements. There is also a difference in that what Trump is talking about is doing something because people are willing when you are rich, vs doing something to a passed out person. Cosby - assault. Trump - possible assault.
We got onto this because I said his comments with Bush were not promoting assault. That is still the case in terms of that one incident. That incident does not diminish any other issues he is going through in terms of assault. Also, to say there is evidence that strongly suggests is wrong so far as I know, because the only "evidence" are accusations. Accusations are signals, not evidence. That is not pedantic parsing either. If there is more, then I stand corrected, but as far as I know its only been accusations.
Also, our legal system is innocent until proven guilty for a good god damn reason. Those reasons apply to the legal system and here as well. If accusations were enough to prove anything, then you would literally be a hat made of ass if I were to listen to werepossum. I don't believe you to be a hat made of ass because claims are not proof. I also am reasonable and don't think the claim warrants any investigation either. If his claim were something more reasonable, then I might investigate. I think there should be investigation into the claims of assault, but too many times have people cried wolf about assault.
Except it is. You can go to keyhole and look at the use of #SJW. You will see that 1.4 million unique accounts received something or viewed something about SJW in the past 3 days alone. Trying to tell me that young people do not know the term is stupid because its around. It currently is replacing politically correct with the addition of virtue signaling through action to create a new term. It may not be known by everyone, but its well known. You then couple that with the fact that social media such as twitter and youtube have much younger demographics. This is 100% evidence that signals to what is going on. Its not proof that gives a concrete conclusion, but its something.
The whole point as to why I brought that up was to explain who needs to be reached by either side. The alt-Right and anti-SJW crowd are splitting currently. There are many channels throughout social media who are connected to those groups and reach a lot of people. Those groups are popular enough to be an influence on many more outside of their groups. Sadly, Hillary was not able to sway either of these groups, so they simply did not vote. Its why young people were willing to vote on weed, but not for Clinton.
That is not an answer. If the information about Trump had gotten out, then why would they stay home? The options as I see them are as follows: The information did not get out. People did not believe the information. The information got out, but people were too stupid.
The people who usually vote democrats were the ones who did not show up. The Right is going to vote, as they have always been pretty active. Its the left that you have to energize and that is what hurt them. In my opinion, the reason is because those that did not vote were turned off by specific things. People toward the middle are turned off by rhetoric and vitriol. Why else would so many on the Left not vote for Hillary when Trump was so bad? It was almost impossible not to hear about this election, so I really doubt ignorance. I also don't believe people were too stupid, which is why I have my current view.
I was never talking about the hard core base. The party itself has moderates. That is what I said. You shifted this to the base of the party which was never brought up. Those in the D party who were moderates were turned off by how the Left went after Trump. What the Left needed to do was build up Clinton, but they did not. Young voters did not like either, and they felt they were equally bad. If you think that young people thought they were unequal, then why would they not vote the lesser evil?
Being an adult and having some logic. Are you now honestly saying that the party does not have any moderates? Jesus this is stupid. Now I know you are too angry to talk about this. You are now actually trying to argue that there are not moderates in the party.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/12/5-facts-about-democrats/
At the time of that poll, 35%. If you believe there are not moderates in your party, then you are massively uninformed. You are not like this normally. You are angry that Trump won because you, like me, think he was worse than Clinton. The difference is that you cannot understand how, and I, while very possibly being completely wrong, am trying to understand it.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,841
- 31,331
- 146
I saw yesterday on one of those deplorable news shows that Drumpf is requesting full security clearance for his kids Uday and Kusay, and probably those other kids. Apparently, there are no restrictions against such a thing, because it is at the POTUS' discretion whom he appoints as advisers, how many he wants, and while there will be some vetting and likely advice against this, it is his decision ultimately.
That's just peachy. ...and of course there is no blind trust and these kids will just be running the empire.
This is hilarious--the swamp gets murkier and more fetid by the day, and the dude isn't even at the desk yet.
conflicting sources. not entirely official, it seems:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/donald-trump-children-security-clearance/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...d-trump-security-clearance-children/93856438/
----
by the way, wtf is Mongrel?
That's just peachy. ...and of course there is no blind trust and these kids will just be running the empire.
This is hilarious--the swamp gets murkier and more fetid by the day, and the dude isn't even at the desk yet.
conflicting sources. not entirely official, it seems:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/donald-trump-children-security-clearance/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...d-trump-security-clearance-children/93856438/
----
by the way, wtf is Mongrel?
As compelling as the 'people I talked to' standard is, it's irrelevant. We know he said he could grab people and we know he grabbed people without consent. Case closed.
It's actually not, as I already stated. If you have a problem with the legal definition of sexual assault then your argument is with someone else, not me.
Innocent until proven guilty most certainly does not apply here, and I'm not sure where you got such a ridiculous idea. People here (and in life generally) tend to go on a preponderance of the evidence. That evidence strongly indicates multiple sexual assaults. Saying that an internet forum should judge individuals by the same standards that the criminal justice system does is not reasonable, in fact it's stupid. The reason the criminal justice system sets such a high bar is that the consequences from incarceration are severe. That's not the case here. I mean did you really think 'internet forums and the criminal justice system should use the same standards' was a good argument?
This is not logical. You're attempting to say the following:
1. A lot of young people use YouTube.
2. A lot of people watched YouTube videos with the term social justice warrior. (although 1.3 million is actually not a lot at all considering how many people use YouTube, by the way)
3. Therefore young people are familiar with this term.
In fact, I just looked up YouTube's demographics and it looks like about 40% of its users are under 35, which tracks almost exactly to the percentage of the population between 5 and 35. So not only is this a dubious claim due to faulty logic, the factual premise looks wrong too.
http://digiday.com/platforms/demographics-youtube-5-charts/
http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/demographic.html
This is why evidence is so important and why you shouldn't base your ideas on your feelings. You weren't willing to consider evidence before but this should be a strong indication that you need to start.
Based on what evidence?
You're assuming that every person has the same reaction to that information as you, which is a false premise.
Based on what evidence?
Based on what evidence?
The party is not the base, which is what I said. As for being 'too angry to talk about this', that's ridiculous and you're acting like a child. You're resorting to that dodge because you can't actually back up what you're saying and you're too proud to admit it. Grow up.
As for trying to understand it that's clearly not the case as you already said you couldn't be swayed by evidence. I don't know why I didn't stop there as what you're doing right now is the same thing that buckshot does and we both know what a waste of time that is. I hope you take a step back and calm down enough to realize this.
Elections were rigged... obvy. -alt-right.
Her, Hillary, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, one big fix, one big fix, rigged, corrupt media are all brainwashing activating words. He knew what he was doing, he is part of the ultra-establishment. With Putin and his alt-right spys sharing his psychological warfare KGB experience to him. How do you think he got the 2016 election, and failed to get all the other elections? By brainwashing the RNC into nominating him. Look at Ted Cruz, he eventually started campaigning for Trump. Trump is the establishment, and he won by using established brainwashing techniques.
Of course he is not going to drain the swamp. He needs his now mentally/physically/spiritually dedicated followers to hold the keys to power for him. Otherwise, they will rebel and whisper to the electors ears to vote for the Democrats.
Next thing, Apprentice the Presidential Edition, coming soon in 2019/2020 or 2023/2024. Where cronyism goes beyond being a secret. Chris Christie, your next Republican president!
Of course he is not going to drain the swamp. He needs his now mentally/physically/spiritually dedicated followers to hold the keys to power for him. Otherwise, they will rebel and whisper to the electors ears to vote for the Democrats.
Next thing, Apprentice the Presidential Edition, coming soon in 2019/2020 or 2023/2024. Where cronyism goes beyond being a secret. Chris Christie, your next Republican president!
Last edited:
How do we know? Other than accusations, what evidence is there. As I said before, if there is, I do not know about it. If you know of some, give it to me and I would easily be able to change my stance.
And now we are back to legal definitions. Okay, so the definition is as follows -
"Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient."
If you want to believe that explicit consent in this context literally means you have to give verbal or written consent, then my girlfriend sexually assaults me every day when she touches me and I have not said its okay. Literally nobody with a brain would define explicit consent as that, which means there is a different use in the Legal world. What they mean is that the victim would not need to say No explicitly for it to be assault. That means if he grabbed a woman, and she said nothing, that is not good enough for it not to be assault. A woman that says nothing is not consenting.
Now, a woman that comes forward and says she was touched and did not consent would be her accusing him of sexual assault. That does not mean its evidence, because it at that point is only an accusation. If there were evidence, it would be different. So, if there is something more than an accusation, I would like to hear it, as it would validate the sexual assault claims. As of yet, I have only heard accusations.
Could it be because you are bouncing between legal and non legal arguments as the aforementioned definition use used?
I highlighted a very important part there. Accusations are not evidence. Women coming forward does not equate to evidence. If you have evidence, please provide it. I would rather not continue to be wrong if there is something more than accusations.
Innocent until proven guilty is important. If you did not believe this, then Obama being called a Muslim terrorist by people on the left here should be good enough. Why are their dumb accusations not equal to other accusations? We both know the answer to that, and its because accusations are not evidence. We know that he goes to church regularly and a picture from the past is not proof.
Millions of views weekly does mean something. Its also not a relative value to total views that is meaningful. If people heard the term once a day, and heard cat 20 times a day, it does not mean that the previous term is unknown.
Your points do logically follow. If a lot of young people watch media that regularly talks about a term, its likely that they would be exposed to that term. How is that not logical?
Read your links man.
"In aggregate, YouTube has a huge audience, reaching 81.2 percent of Internet users in the U.S., according to comScore data. Unsurprisingly, younger visitors tend to spend more time on the site. In March, YouTube drew 31.8 million users aged 18 to 24 (98.3 percent of U.S. Internet users in that age bracket) who spent an average of 10 hours, 15 minutes on the site. Meanwhile, the platform attracted 19.4 million visitors 65 and older (74.4 percent of Internet users in that demo) who spent an average of 3 hours, 54 minutes using the video-streaming service."
That means the vast majority of people 18-24 are on youtube, and they are watching an average of 10 hours per month. Considering how talked about SJW is on youtube, and other social media its not unreasonable to conclude that young people know the term. Coupled with my own experience and I feel confident that its a well known term.
No. I am based on what I have seen, there seem to be three options as to what lead to people's actions. Its not an assumption that people are like me, its a view on what happened backed by what I have observed.
Multiple things were said here. Do you mind clarifying what it is you want evidence of?
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/194045/clinton-continuing-youth-problem.aspx
Here is some stuff, but I dont know if its what you wanted.
18-29 identify 39% of the time as Moderate. That is the largest group.
Definition of base.
"In politics, the term base refers to a group of voters who almost always support a single party's candidates for elected office. Base voters are very unlikely to vote for the candidate of an opposing party, regardless of the specific views each candidate holds."
Young people vote Left far more often than they vote Right. My claim that she did not get the base of young people out does not conflict with this. What you said, was that by definition base means people are not moderates, which is completely wrong. Moderate and base are not mutually exclusive which is what you were arguing. Young voters are a Left base and not a Right base.
When did I say I could not be swayed. Dont put words in my mouth. I have asked for something more than accusations, because accusations are not evidence.
Also, I see you are trying to turn this around and make it seem like Im the one angry here. We are not friends by any stretch, but I thought I had at least gained some respect in your eyes. Apparently, im only respectable when I agree with you, but once I disagree...
MrSquished
Lifer
- Jan 14, 2013
- 26,067
- 24,395
- 136
Ben Carson is reportedly not interested in a cabinet position because ""Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience, he's never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency."" which begs the question, since the president-elect has just as much experience in government, Carson may feel we are now properly fucked.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...offer-to-serve-in-trump-administration-report
Carson was one of the few outsiders I saw whose name was being bandied about for a very high level position. Seems the appointments are going to be more and more Washington insiders.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...offer-to-serve-in-trump-administration-report
Carson was one of the few outsiders I saw whose name was being bandied about for a very high level position. Seems the appointments are going to be more and more Washington insiders.
soundforbjt
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2002
- 17,788
- 6,041
- 136
Wait, so he says it's because he has no gov't experience but wasn't he running for President?
buckshot24
Diamond Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 9,916
- 85
- 91
I have no idea why you don't consider people saying they witnessed Trump do something as evidence, but it's badly wrong.
I'm not sure what legal definition you are using but it seems badly wrong. Here's the legal definition of sexual assault in New York, where presumably the most assaults took place:
http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-130-52.html
In case you were wondering, 'forcibly' means without consent. You will notice there is absolutely no mention of 'explicit consent' there. Your description of the law was a straw man.
You are saying that statements by a dozen individuals as to Donald Trump's actions are not evidence? You better inform the court system of this as they include witness and victim statements all the time. Who knew they were doing it wrong all this time!
No, I don't see why that would be the case?
As I already mentioned, these accusations are absolutely evidence. That's beyond contention. That you're trying to bring up those accusations against Obama shows you know how poor your position is. First, none of the people (or functionally none) accusing Obama of being a Muslim terrorist ever claimed to see him practicing Islam or engaging in terrorism. This is not the case with Trump, where we have numerous people who have witnessed him commit these crimes. Furthermore, there is a great deal of evidence that Obama is neither a Muslim nor a terrorist, which would be weighed against any evidence that his accusers brought. This is why Obama being a terrorist Muslim is stupid, not because accusations are magically not evidence.
With Trump we not only have his own candid statements on the matter, we have more than a dozen people who say they have directly witnessed these acts. There is almost no mitigating evidence saying the contrary, so again we're back to Trump being a sex offender, yes.
Because you have no evidence that young people watch those videos and the actual numbers of views are quite small considering YouTube's size. Since YouTube and similar sites are the almost exclusive source for that term, it stands to reason that lots of young people aren't watching those videos or exposed to them and that your point was based on a faulty, evidence free premise.
Now that we know how small a percentage of YouTube's viewers watched that content and that young people aren't actually disproportionately represented, it makes perfect sense why my coworkers hadn't heard of it, wouldn't you say?
No moving the goalposts. You talked about unique viewers and now you're trying to change the argument to time of engagement once evidence was presented that you were wrong about your assumptions of YouTube demographics. Now you're resorting to what you feel again.
Again, this is why evidence is so important. What you feel doesn't matter, it's what you can prove that matters. I just showed you that your feels were wrong. You should take that and reevaluate your position.
People who say they are moderates yet always vote for one party are unlikely to actually be moderates.
I asked you before what evidence you would accept to change your mind and you said there wasn't any. Your words, not mine!
We have disagreed many times and I've retained respect for you. What makes me lose respect for you is when you try childish things like saying someone is only disagreeing with you because they're mad. It's stupid and you should know better. It's pretty ironic that you're doing this in the same thread that you're arguing that personal attacks are unpersuasive, by the way.
Recycled from the GWB Admin. You know, the folks who brought us the housing bubble, the invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act & the prison at Gitmo.
What could go wrong?
https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault
Department of Justice apparently has a "badly wrong" definition. Shame on me for using that apparently.
Now, to break down your definition. Forcible does not mean without consent.
Under our law, a person is guilty of Forcible Touching when he or she intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose, forcibly touches the sexual or other intimate parts of another person for the purpose of degrading or abusing such person or for the purpose of gratifying the actor’s sexual desire. Under our law, it is also an element of this offense that the sexual act was committed without consent. 2 Forcible touching takes place without a person’s consent when it results from any circumstances in which a person does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce to the actor’s conduct. 3
https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/130/130.52.pdf
That last part is the important part there. In NY law, the consent can be express, or implied based on the context. If the person could have reasonably protested and did not, NY law by that definition would imply it was implicit consent. If there was forcible compulsion(https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/130/130.65(1).pdf) that would change things and not require them to speak up.
So, if he did touch women and they did not want it, that is sexual assault clear and simple. Clearly his statements to Bush were that he did not compel them, but they were willing because he was a star. Why we are getting stuck on this is beyond me as it seems clear.
Again, what I said from the start, was that saying the "grab her by the pussy" was not him promoting sexual assault. I also said that outside of that might be more, but the Bush thing was not promoting sexual assault. You can look back and see what I said.
I have not been following the claims too closely, but I can say that witness statements mean more than accusations. That is still not proof, but its worth enough to investigate and see if they hold up. If I were on a Jury and I was presented with witness statements from someone that appeared credible I would probably say guilty. That has nothing to do with my stance before about the Bush tape, which is how this all started.
This is getting stupid. I brought up the audio of Bush and you brought up the rape claims. It ultimately has nothing to do with my point, and going off on this is not needed in terms of what I was talking about. What I had said was that the Left saying grab her by the pussy did not help, but hurt. I would rather stick to that because this is going on and on and getting away from my original point.
Let me remind you that SJW came up in the context that I said people know about them. Your original claim was that most people do not know about them. If you want to argue that the millions of views where SJWs are talked about are not just young, then you should have said that. I dont see how you can sit here and argue that millions of views monthly does not correlate to people knowing what the term is. Now, once you agree that youtube has channels that heavily focus on SJWs, and those channels get millions of views a month, then it seems reasonable that the term is not uncommon. Throw in how younger people are doing the vast majority of youtube viewing, and its reasonable to think that younger people know the terms being used in greater numbers than older people. Then take social media trends and track terms like SJW, and you see that its used quite a bit. So no, it not unreasonable to think that 2/3 did not know what SJW was, but its also not unreasonable to think that its common either.
How was I wrong and how am I shifting the goal post. I think you got lost when I talked about unique and you thought that was still only youtube. I was actually referring to #SJW which was about twitter, not youtube. I was using both youtube and twitter to establish that the term was widely used.
My original goal, was that SJW was widely known, and that views and twitter trends backed that up. I am sticking to my point as I have done this whole time. Its totally reasonable to think that terms that are frequently used on youtube would be known to people under 30 who make up the vast majority of view, not viewership on youtube. Just because there are people above 40 on youtube does not mean they make up anywhere near 40% of views on youtube. Even if a term is used infrequently, but there is a group that watches a massive amount, they are likely to come across the term. Considering that younger people watch massively high amounts of vids compared to others, its reasonable to assume they are the ones likely coming across the term.
Evidence?
Logically, a person who votes for a single party often could very well be moderate as those are not mutually exclusive. Considering the idea that we both agree on which is that the Right has more extreme ideas, it would be logical to think that moderates would mainly vote for the Left.
Check these out.
As you see, those in each party are represented. Inherently, those on the left consider themselves more moderate. I much rather the 2nd graph, because it looks like people change their minds and have a wide spread. It would explain why voters are much easier to reach the Right, because ideologically they are more stable and mainly agree. The Left is far more spread out, which means they are harder to reach. Considering how many see themselves as moderate on the left means the hard core rhetoric would be less liked. That is at least my opinion based on what I see. That is why I think the Left lost. The left did not reach the moderates in either party, but because there are far more moderates on the left, it hurt them more. The right lost votes, but not like the left did.
You are remembering this incorrectly. I said that people I talked to were not attacking his ideas, just him personally. That is why I said this.
"Also, what evidence did you provide to show that the left did not turn off people. All you posted was a Washington Post article that had a vid of John Oliver addressing actual points. How would that mean anything to my point?"
"They are not, and you keep saying this. I understand that I have put forward something is is almost impossible if not impossible to disprove. In no way will news articles or videos prove that people were or were not talking to other people."
That seems reasonable to me. My point is that people were not debating people on positions or policy, but just attacking him personally.
How could evidence change my mind on what I experienced? That does not make sense. You could provide evidence on public polling that they were not turned off, but you did not because it has not been done.
We have disagreed many times and I've retained respect for you. What makes me lose respect for you is when you try childish things like saying someone is only disagreeing with you because they're mad. It's stupid and you should know better. It's pretty ironic that you're doing this in the same thread that you're arguing that personal attacks are unpersuasive, by the way.
I said that you were mad and its making you miss what is going on, not that you are tuning me out because you are mad.
Look, the data I gave you shows there are way more self identifying moderates on the Left than the Right. We also know that people who typically vote Left stayed out of the election when compared to the Right. It seems perfectly reasonable to think that its because those people felt there was nothing good enough to vote for. The question to me then becomes, why would any person believe that. That is why I say there are three options. I personally believe its because the moderates were turned off, and I think its because they would not let themselves be informed. In my experience, I have seen many arguments get stopped by extreme people annoying others.
Astounding incompetence-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/u...ick&contentCollection=Trending&pgtype=article
Trump is truly clueless.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/u...ick&contentCollection=Trending&pgtype=article
Trump is truly clueless.
Torn Mind
Lifer
- Nov 25, 2012
- 12,076
- 2,772
- 136
The back-tracking begins, more like. The integration of him into the political machinery.
His epiphany was a sham to begin with. But he convincingly played the role. He knew which path, in fact the only path, to the White House was for him. After all, there was no way he'd win if he remained a Democrat and Clinton buddy. I'll say this, he's got the talent for politics; this is backhanded compliment. He's becoming one of the boys (and girls) such that master Clinton would be proud.
Not only that, but seems a little nepotism is also ready infest the White House.
His epiphany was a sham to begin with. But he convincingly played the role. He knew which path, in fact the only path, to the White House was for him. After all, there was no way he'd win if he remained a Democrat and Clinton buddy. I'll say this, he's got the talent for politics; this is backhanded compliment. He's becoming one of the boys (and girls) such that master Clinton would be proud.
Not only that, but seems a little nepotism is also ready infest the White House.
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 17,625
- 15,805
- 146
Here's the thing. You are right that his statement by itself doesn't mean he admitted to sexual assault. He didn't say, "I do it whether they want me to or not." Which I think we could all agree is admitting to assault.
Instead he basically said , I do it and they let me. Whether he essentially admitted to sexual assault depends not on whether he did it, (he said he did and he hasn't walked that back), but on his assumption of their consent.
Without any other information I would still agree it wouldn't constitute sexual assault, but we do have more information at least 12 women have come forward.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/all-the-women-accusing-trump-of-rape-sexual-assault.html
They have specifically refuted his assumption that they "let" him.
With that information in mind is his innocence a reasonable assumption to make?
If you take them at their word then no but
let's take a look at that anyway.
For him to be innocent all women who have accused him must be lying. If even one is telling the truth he's guilty.
It's a binary combinations problem.
Innocent = 1 in 2^12 = 0.024% chance
Guilty = 2^12 - 1 =99.975% chance
Now obviously in a court of law, (which fski pointed out this isn't), you could look for some kind of collusion or conspiracy that would make that 1 in 4096 chance more likely, but this brings us to the main point.
You are bending over backward to take his word on his assumption of their consent over their statement of their own consent to. Even with the extremely low likelihood he's innocent.
Why is that? Why are you treating them differently?
If you say it's because of innocent until proven guilty, would you still say that in a different but similar situation?
Say if Winnona Ryder said she takes stuff from stores without paying but it's fine because she's famous and they let her? Then 12 stores say no they didn't let her, she stole from them. Would you say she was innocent or likely guilty?
In this thread and others you demand an exceptionally high bar before you'll admit that a sexual assault was even likely. You've staked a very disturbing hill to die on.
He's saying that wealth & fame allowed him to escape the bounds of common decency- not just with women, but in all aspects of life.
I doubt that being President will dampen his enthusiasm.
buckshot24
Diamond Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 9,916
- 85
- 91
Since he hasn't been prosecuted then they have nothing on him. Isn't that the Hillary email scandal standard?
The 12 didn't "refute" Trump's statement they contested the claim with their own testimony.
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 17,625
- 15,805
- 146
Th law has nothing on him. I've said that above.
As this is not a court in general I'll accept an individuals statement about themselves over someone else's assumption about them.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter