In the last several months I have yet to see a single post with convincing evidence, or from the media or anywhere for that matter, that would allow me to label him a sexual predator. A creepy old man, yes, but not a sexual predator. If your evidence is a 10-year old tape where he says "they let me do it" how is that sexual assault? A few women days before an election coming forward is not convincing to me. If that is your standard then Bill should be locked up too. And yes, I bring up "other people doing it to" because it shows the lack of consistency in the accusations. So I have yet to see convincing evidence to confirm he is, and I use same justification on everyone whether I like them or not.
He has admitted to putting his hands and mouth on women without their consent. Approaching women and putting your hands on them and kissing them without consent is predatory in nature and can be considered assault. People like you who deny this are only perpetuating this behavior.
In the last several months I have yet to see a single post with convincing evidence, or from the media or anywhere for that matter, that would allow me to label him a sexual predator. A creepy old man, yes, but not a sexual predator. If your evidence is a 10-year old tape where he says "they let me do it" how is that sexual assault? A few women days before an election coming forward is not convincing to me. If that is your standard then Bill should be locked up too. And yes, I bring up "other people doing it to" because it shows the lack of consistency in the accusations. So I have yet to see convincing evidence to confirm he is, and I use same justification on everyone whether I like them or not.
Keep on saying it , He's not a sexual predator he's not a sexual predator , there are women here posting that his own words would lead them to believe he is one I presume you're a male ?
Yes. What des that have to do with anything? I know plenty of females who, although don't like him, aren't ready to label him a sexual predator. And again, another post with zero substance to back up your claim. I have stated why I believe so, and if you don't agree then that's fine, but at least I can tell you why I believe that. And yet haven't seen a response to justify your claim.
Any woman who is unwilling to label him a sexual predator is a straight up moron.
No, its a matter of the level of evidence and what makes the most sense. This country requires reasonable doubt in order to not convict someone. I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt. Sure, it's entirely possible he's another Bill Cosby, but no one knows that for sure. I have to ask myself what seems more plausible. That he's used his status to win over women, like thousands before him. And in his own words from that video from 10 years ago even stated "and they let me do it" so I don't see how that's proof of anything other than consent. Its pretty well known that anyone even remotely famous can get a woman who wouldn't otherwise give hi the time of day. That video proves nothing to me, other than he's a perv. Lots of pervs out there and most aren't predators. Women coming forward a week before the election about incidents that happened decades earlier. The same time the FBI was coming down on Hilary and they needed more dirt on Trump. It just isn't very convincing to me. Come forward in a time when you have nothing to gain. Or even worse, if they are true, were these stories sat on and released at a specific time like the videos? That would be almost equally as disgusting as the acts themselves. I don't see a lot of evidence, and neither does half the country (including a lot of intelligent women).
What's the evidence on Cosby that convinced you he's guilty?
In the last several months I have yet to see a single post with convincing evidence, or from the media or anywhere for that matter, that would allow me to label him a sexual predator. A creepy old man, yes, but not a sexual predator. If your evidence is a 10-year old tape where he says "they let me do it" how is that sexual assault? A few women days before an election coming forward is not convincing to me. If that is your standard then Bill should be locked up too. And yes, I bring up "other people doing it to" because it shows the lack of consistency in the accusations. So I have yet to see convincing evidence to confirm he is, and I use same justification on everyone whether I like them or not.
Keep on saying it , He's not a sexual predator he's not a sexual predator , there are women here posting that his own words would lead them to believe he is one I presume you're a male ?
Yes. What des that have to do with anything? I know plenty of females who, although don't like him, aren't ready to label him a sexual predator. And again, another post with zero substance to back up your claim. I have stated why I believe so, and if you don't agree then that's fine, but at least I can tell you why I believe that. And yet haven't seen a response to justify your claim.
Any woman who is unwilling to label him a sexual predator is a straight up moron.
No, its a matter of the level of evidence and what makes the most sense. This country requires reasonable doubt in order to not convict someone. I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt. Sure, it's entirely possible he's another Bill Cosby, but no one knows that for sure. I have to ask myself what seems more plausible. That he's used his status to win over women, like thousands before him. And in his own words from that video from 10 years ago even stated "and they let me do it" so I don't see how that's proof of anything other than consent. Its pretty well known that anyone even remotely famous can get a woman who wouldn't otherwise give hi the time of day. That video proves nothing to me, other than he's a perv. Lots of pervs out there and most aren't predators. Women coming forward a week before the election about incidents that happened decades earlier. The same time the FBI was coming down on Hilary and they needed more dirt on Trump. It just isn't very convincing to me. Come forward in a time when you have nothing to gain. Or even worse, if they are true, were these stories sat on and released at a specific time like the videos? That would be almost equally as disgusting as the acts themselves. I don't see a lot of evidence, and neither does half the country (including a lot of intelligent women).
So a confession on film along with 11 accusations (with substantiation of complaint at the time of attack) isn't enough for these idiots? As I said, straight up morons.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
In the last several months I have yet to see a single post with convincing evidence, or from the media or anywhere for that matter, that would allow me to label him a sexual predator. A creepy old man, yes, but not a sexual predator. If your evidence is a 10-year old tape where he says "they let me do it" how is that sexual assault? A few women days before an election coming forward is not convincing to me. If that is your standard then Bill should be locked up too. And yes, I bring up "other people doing it to" because it shows the lack of consistency in the accusations. So I have yet to see convincing evidence to confirm he is, and I use same justification on everyone whether I like them or not.
You're altering what trump has admitted to to try and minimize it to sexual harassment from his position of power, but he's really admitting to sexual assault because he is doing this without consent. Maybe you think confessions aren't proof? Trump has also admitted to intentionally walking in on pageant contestants when fhey are naked. I don't think he clarified if he did this with the teens also, but let's leave it up to the individual to decide if he has those boundaries. This is also a sex offense.
I know he has one boundary. As much as he'd really, really like to, he won't bang Ivanka. But I'm sure he thinks about it from time to time. Other than that, I have no idea where his boundaries are. Extra-marital affairs don't seem to be outside the bounds. Neither does non-consensual p-grabbing - in fact, that's bragged about.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I chose no, not because I know he is not, but because of the proven false reports that are slung the way of anyone with a little money or power. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Going the Hillbot route on this one.
In the last several months I have yet to see a single post with convincing evidence, or from the media or anywhere for that matter, that would allow me to label him a sexual predator. A creepy old man, yes, but not a sexual predator. If your evidence is a 10-year old tape where he says "they let me do it" how is that sexual assault? A few women days before an election coming forward is not convincing to me. If that is your standard then Bill should be locked up too. And yes, I bring up "other people doing it to" because it shows the lack of consistency in the accusations. So I have yet to see convincing evidence to confirm he is, and I use same justification on everyone whether I like them or not.
Keep on saying it , He's not a sexual predator he's not a sexual predator , there are women here posting that his own words would lead them to believe he is one I presume you're a male ?
Yes. What des that have to do with anything? I know plenty of females who, although don't like him, aren't ready to label him a sexual predator. And again, another post with zero substance to back up your claim. I have stated why I believe so, and if you don't agree then that's fine, but at least I can tell you why I believe that. And yet haven't seen a response to justify your claim.
Any woman who is unwilling to label him a sexual predator is a straight up moron.
No, its a matter of the level of evidence and what makes the most sense. This country requires reasonable doubt in order to not convict someone. I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt. Sure, it's entirely possible he's another Bill Cosby, but no one knows that for sure. I have to ask myself what seems more plausible. That he's used his status to win over women, like thousands before him. And in his own words from that video from 10 years ago even stated "and they let me do it" so I don't see how that's proof of anything other than consent. Its pretty well known that anyone even remotely famous can get a woman who wouldn't otherwise give hi the time of day. That video proves nothing to me, other than he's a perv. Lots of pervs out there and most aren't predators. Women coming forward a week before the election about incidents that happened decades earlier. The same time the FBI was coming down on Hilary and they needed more dirt on Trump. It just isn't very convincing to me. Come forward in a time when you have nothing to gain. Or even worse, if they are true, were these stories sat on and released at a specific time like the videos? That would be almost equally as disgusting as the acts themselves. I don't see a lot of evidence, and neither does half the country (including a lot of intelligent women).
"they let me do it" is an admission that they didn't fight back, not that it wasn't sexual assault. this is a common misconception: just because someone doesn't immediately fight back, that does NOT mean it wasn't assault.
I can get punched in the head and not fight back and it's still assault.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
If Trump is a sexual predator, then how would you classify Hugh Hefner. (What's funny is that my auto text spelled his last name right, and I've never typed his name before...). Just wondering.
If Trump is a sexual predator, then how would you classify Hugh Hefner. (What's funny is that my auto text spelled his last name right, and I've never typed his name before...). Just wondering.
what is the relevance of Hugh Hefner?
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
If Trump is a sexual predator, then how would you classify Hugh Hefner. (What's funny is that my auto text spelled his last name right, and I've never typed his name before...). Just wondering.
what is the relevance of Hugh Hefner?
He's trump's pick to head up the department of leisure and lifestyle.
If Trump is a sexual predator, then how would you classify Hugh Hefner. (What's funny is that my auto text spelled his last name right, and I've never typed his name before...). Just wondering.
what is the relevance of Hugh Hefner?
He's trump's pick to head up the department of leisure and lifestyle.
I thought he was the 2nd pick for SoS since he is familiar with women all over the world.
If Trump is a sexual predator, then how would you classify Hugh Hefner. (What's funny is that my auto text spelled his last name right, and I've never typed his name before...). Just wondering.
what is the relevance of Hugh Hefner?
He's trump's pick to head up the department of leisure and lifestyle.
If Trump is a sexual predator, then how would you classify Hugh Hefner. (What's funny is that my auto text spelled his last name right, and I've never typed his name before...). Just wondering.
If Trump is a sexual predator, then how would you classify Hugh Hefner. (What's funny is that my auto text spelled his last name right, and I've never typed his name before...). Just wondering.
what is the relevance of Hugh Hefner?
He's trump's pick to head up the department of leisure and lifestyle.
In the last several months I have yet to see a single post with convincing evidence, or from the media or anywhere for that matter, that would allow me to label him a sexual predator. A creepy old man, yes, but not a sexual predator. If your evidence is a 10-year old tape where he says "they let me do it" how is that sexual assault? A few women days before an election coming forward is not convincing to me. If that is your standard then Bill should be locked up too. And yes, I bring up "other people doing it to" because it shows the lack of consistency in the accusations. So I have yet to see convincing evidence to confirm he is, and I use same justification on everyone whether I like them or not.
Keep on saying it , He's not a sexual predator he's not a sexual predator , there are women here posting that his own words would lead them to believe he is one I presume you're a male ?
Yes. What des that have to do with anything? I know plenty of females who, although don't like him, aren't ready to label him a sexual predator. And again, another post with zero substance to back up your claim. I have stated why I believe so, and if you don't agree then that's fine, but at least I can tell you why I believe that. And yet haven't seen a response to justify your claim.
Any woman who is unwilling to label him a sexual predator is a straight up moron.
No, its a matter of the level of evidence and what makes the most sense. This country requires reasonable doubt in order to not convict someone. I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt. Sure, it's entirely possible he's another Bill Cosby, but no one knows that for sure. I have to ask myself what seems more plausible. That he's used his status to win over women, like thousands before him. And in his own words from that video from 10 years ago even stated "and they let me do it" so I don't see how that's proof of anything other than consent. Its pretty well known that anyone even remotely famous can get a woman who wouldn't otherwise give hi the time of day. That video proves nothing to me, other than he's a perv. Lots of pervs out there and most aren't predators. Women coming forward a week before the election about incidents that happened decades earlier. The same time the FBI was coming down on Hilary and they needed more dirt on Trump. It just isn't very convincing to me. Come forward in a time when you have nothing to gain. Or even worse, if they are true, were these stories sat on and released at a specific time like the videos? That would be almost equally as disgusting as the acts themselves. I don't see a lot of evidence, and neither does half the country (including a lot of intelligent women).
"they let me do it" is an admission that they didn't fight back, not that it wasn't sexual assault. this is a common misconception: just because someone doesn't immediately fight back, that does NOT mean it wasn't assault.
I can get punched in the head and not fight back and it's still assault.
I totally get how you, and many others, may consider him a sexual predator. And they all may be right. And you are completely right about the "they let me do it" comment. It doesn't prove it was consent. The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't prove it wasn't, and so many riots/protests started over that comment. What I don't get is how, like so often from the left, why it is ridiculous to disagree (and not necessarily you, but just in general). What is so unreasonable to take everything into context, understand he over-exaggerates everything to the point it is difficult to tell where the truth even ends, he has discredited himself many times. He probably truly believes he is God's gift to women and all mankind. Then consider his wealth and timing of the accusations, consider that many women have discredited some of the accusations and think there just isn't enough overwhelming evidence for me to make this claim? You can have your opinions, that's fine. I am entitled to mine. And for me, it just isn't there. I'm not convinced he hasn't taken advantage of women to the point where it could be considered assault, but I'm not 100% convinced he has either. And when that is the case I would avoid labeling someone a sexual predator.
In the last several months I have yet to see a single post with convincing evidence, or from the media or anywhere for that matter, that would allow me to label him a sexual predator. A creepy old man, yes, but not a sexual predator. If your evidence is a 10-year old tape where he says "they let me do it" how is that sexual assault? A few women days before an election coming forward is not convincing to me. If that is your standard then Bill should be locked up too. And yes, I bring up "other people doing it to" because it shows the lack of consistency in the accusations. So I have yet to see convincing evidence to confirm he is, and I use same justification on everyone whether I like them or not.
Keep on saying it , He's not a sexual predator he's not a sexual predator , there are women here posting that his own words would lead them to believe he is one I presume you're a male ?
Yes. What des that have to do with anything? I know plenty of females who, although don't like him, aren't ready to label him a sexual predator. And again, another post with zero substance to back up your claim. I have stated why I believe so, and if you don't agree then that's fine, but at least I can tell you why I believe that. And yet haven't seen a response to justify your claim.
Any woman who is unwilling to label him a sexual predator is a straight up moron.
No, its a matter of the level of evidence and what makes the most sense. This country requires reasonable doubt in order to not convict someone. I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt. Sure, it's entirely possible he's another Bill Cosby, but no one knows that for sure. I have to ask myself what seems more plausible. That he's used his status to win over women, like thousands before him. And in his own words from that video from 10 years ago even stated "and they let me do it" so I don't see how that's proof of anything other than consent. Its pretty well known that anyone even remotely famous can get a woman who wouldn't otherwise give hi the time of day. That video proves nothing to me, other than he's a perv. Lots of pervs out there and most aren't predators. Women coming forward a week before the election about incidents that happened decades earlier. The same time the FBI was coming down on Hilary and they needed more dirt on Trump. It just isn't very convincing to me. Come forward in a time when you have nothing to gain. Or even worse, if they are true, were these stories sat on and released at a specific time like the videos? That would be almost equally as disgusting as the acts themselves. I don't see a lot of evidence, and neither does half the country (including a lot of intelligent women).
"they let me do it" is an admission that they didn't fight back, not that it wasn't sexual assault. this is a common misconception: just because someone doesn't immediately fight back, that does NOT mean it wasn't assault.
I can get punched in the head and not fight back and it's still assault.
I totally get how you, and many others, may consider him a sexual predator. And they all may be right. And you are completely right about the "they let me do it" comment. It doesn't prove it was consent. The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't prove it wasn't, and so many riots/protests started over that comment. What I don't get is how, like so often from the left, why it is ridiculous to disagree (and not necessarily you, but just in general). What is so unreasonable to take everything into context, understand he over-exaggerates everything to the point it is difficult to tell where the truth even ends, he has discredited himself many times. He probably truly believes he is God's gift to women and all mankind. Then consider his wealth and timing of the accusations, consider that many women have discredited some of the accusations and think there just isn't enough overwhelming evidence for me to make this claim? You can have your opinions, that's fine. I am entitled to mine. And for me, it just isn't there. I'm not convinced he hasn't taken advantage of women to the point where it could be considered assault, but I'm not 100% convinced he has either. And when that is the case I would avoid labeling someone a sexual predator.
I missed those riots and protests when that comment came to light. Can you point me in a direction where I can find info on them?
I do agree that he is innocent until proven guilty, in the court of law sense. But in the court of public opinion, guilty as charged.
In the last several months I have yet to see a single post with convincing evidence, or from the media or anywhere for that matter, that would allow me to label him a sexual predator. A creepy old man, yes, but not a sexual predator. If your evidence is a 10-year old tape where he says "they let me do it" how is that sexual assault? A few women days before an election coming forward is not convincing to me. If that is your standard then Bill should be locked up too. And yes, I bring up "other people doing it to" because it shows the lack of consistency in the accusations. So I have yet to see convincing evidence to confirm he is, and I use same justification on everyone whether I like them or not.
Keep on saying it , He's not a sexual predator he's not a sexual predator , there are women here posting that his own words would lead them to believe he is one I presume you're a male ?
Yes. What des that have to do with anything? I know plenty of females who, although don't like him, aren't ready to label him a sexual predator. And again, another post with zero substance to back up your claim. I have stated why I believe so, and if you don't agree then that's fine, but at least I can tell you why I believe that. And yet haven't seen a response to justify your claim.
Any woman who is unwilling to label him a sexual predator is a straight up moron.
No, its a matter of the level of evidence and what makes the most sense. This country requires reasonable doubt in order to not convict someone. I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt. Sure, it's entirely possible he's another Bill Cosby, but no one knows that for sure. I have to ask myself what seems more plausible. That he's used his status to win over women, like thousands before him. And in his own words from that video from 10 years ago even stated "and they let me do it" so I don't see how that's proof of anything other than consent. Its pretty well known that anyone even remotely famous can get a woman who wouldn't otherwise give hi the time of day. That video proves nothing to me, other than he's a perv. Lots of pervs out there and most aren't predators. Women coming forward a week before the election about incidents that happened decades earlier. The same time the FBI was coming down on Hilary and they needed more dirt on Trump. It just isn't very convincing to me. Come forward in a time when you have nothing to gain. Or even worse, if they are true, were these stories sat on and released at a specific time like the videos? That would be almost equally as disgusting as the acts themselves. I don't see a lot of evidence, and neither does half the country (including a lot of intelligent women).
"they let me do it" is an admission that they didn't fight back, not that it wasn't sexual assault. this is a common misconception: just because someone doesn't immediately fight back, that does NOT mean it wasn't assault.
I can get punched in the head and not fight back and it's still assault.
I totally get how you, and many others, may consider him a sexual predator. And they all may be right. And you are completely right about the "they let me do it" comment. It doesn't prove it was consent. The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't prove it wasn't, and so many riots/protests started over that comment. What I don't get is how, like so often from the left, why it is ridiculous to disagree (and not necessarily you, but just in general). What is so unreasonable to take everything into context, understand he over-exaggerates everything to the point it is difficult to tell where the truth even ends, he has discredited himself many times. He probably truly believes he is God's gift to women and all mankind. Then consider his wealth and timing of the accusations, consider that many women have discredited some of the accusations and think there just isn't enough overwhelming evidence for me to make this claim? You can have your opinions, that's fine. I am entitled to mine. And for me, it just isn't there. I'm not convinced he hasn't taken advantage of women to the point where it could be considered assault, but I'm not 100% convinced he has either. And when that is the case I would avoid labeling someone a sexual predator.
I missed those riots and protests when that comment came to light. Can you point me in a direction where I can find info on them?
I do agree that he is innocent until proven guilty, in the court of law sense. But in the court of public opinion, guilty as charged.
I know. Riots and protests? I think people were thinking after that came out 'I'm glad that shit show circus is over". And then people continued to support the guy which then built up the shock that kicked in on election day.
In the last several months I have yet to see a single post with convincing evidence, or from the media or anywhere for that matter, that would allow me to label him a sexual predator. A creepy old man, yes, but not a sexual predator. If your evidence is a 10-year old tape where he says "they let me do it" how is that sexual assault? A few women days before an election coming forward is not convincing to me. If that is your standard then Bill should be locked up too. And yes, I bring up "other people doing it to" because it shows the lack of consistency in the accusations. So I have yet to see convincing evidence to confirm he is, and I use same justification on everyone whether I like them or not.
Keep on saying it , He's not a sexual predator he's not a sexual predator , there are women here posting that his own words would lead them to believe he is one I presume you're a male ?
Yes. What des that have to do with anything? I know plenty of females who, although don't like him, aren't ready to label him a sexual predator. And again, another post with zero substance to back up your claim. I have stated why I believe so, and if you don't agree then that's fine, but at least I can tell you why I believe that. And yet haven't seen a response to justify your claim.
Any woman who is unwilling to label him a sexual predator is a straight up moron.
No, its a matter of the level of evidence and what makes the most sense. This country requires reasonable doubt in order to not convict someone. I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt. Sure, it's entirely possible he's another Bill Cosby, but no one knows that for sure. I have to ask myself what seems more plausible. That he's used his status to win over women, like thousands before him. And in his own words from that video from 10 years ago even stated "and they let me do it" so I don't see how that's proof of anything other than consent. Its pretty well known that anyone even remotely famous can get a woman who wouldn't otherwise give hi the time of day. That video proves nothing to me, other than he's a perv. Lots of pervs out there and most aren't predators. Women coming forward a week before the election about incidents that happened decades earlier. The same time the FBI was coming down on Hilary and they needed more dirt on Trump. It just isn't very convincing to me. Come forward in a time when you have nothing to gain. Or even worse, if they are true, were these stories sat on and released at a specific time like the videos? That would be almost equally as disgusting as the acts themselves. I don't see a lot of evidence, and neither does half the country (including a lot of intelligent women).
"they let me do it" is an admission that they didn't fight back, not that it wasn't sexual assault. this is a common misconception: just because someone doesn't immediately fight back, that does NOT mean it wasn't assault.
I can get punched in the head and not fight back and it's still assault.
I totally get how you, and many others, may consider him a sexual predator. And they all may be right. And you are completely right about the "they let me do it" comment. It doesn't prove it was consent. The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't prove it wasn't, and so many riots/protests started over that comment. What I don't get is how, like so often from the left, why it is ridiculous to disagree (and not necessarily you, but just in general). What is so unreasonable to take everything into context, understand he over-exaggerates everything to the point it is difficult to tell where the truth even ends, he has discredited himself many times. He probably truly believes he is God's gift to women and all mankind. Then consider his wealth and timing of the accusations, consider that many women have discredited some of the accusations and think there just isn't enough overwhelming evidence for me to make this claim? You can have your opinions, that's fine. I am entitled to mine. And for me, it just isn't there. I'm not convinced he hasn't taken advantage of women to the point where it could be considered assault, but I'm not 100% convinced he has either. And when that is the case I would avoid labeling someone a sexual predator.
Where is it ridiculous to disagree? You're forming your opinion based on the info at hand filtered through your belief system. That's what I'm doing too. I know my take happens to be different because I've been a provider of sex offender treatment for several years.
In the last several months I have yet to see a single post with convincing evidence, or from the media or anywhere for that matter, that would allow me to label him a sexual predator. A creepy old man, yes, but not a sexual predator. If your evidence is a 10-year old tape where he says "they let me do it" how is that sexual assault? A few women days before an election coming forward is not convincing to me. If that is your standard then Bill should be locked up too. And yes, I bring up "other people doing it to" because it shows the lack of consistency in the accusations. So I have yet to see convincing evidence to confirm he is, and I use same justification on everyone whether I like them or not.
Keep on saying it , He's not a sexual predator he's not a sexual predator , there are women here posting that his own words would lead them to believe he is one I presume you're a male ?
Yes. What des that have to do with anything? I know plenty of females who, although don't like him, aren't ready to label him a sexual predator. And again, another post with zero substance to back up your claim. I have stated why I believe so, and if you don't agree then that's fine, but at least I can tell you why I believe that. And yet haven't seen a response to justify your claim.
Any woman who is unwilling to label him a sexual predator is a straight up moron.
No, its a matter of the level of evidence and what makes the most sense. This country requires reasonable doubt in order to not convict someone. I think there is plenty of reasonable doubt. Sure, it's entirely possible he's another Bill Cosby, but no one knows that for sure. I have to ask myself what seems more plausible. That he's used his status to win over women, like thousands before him. And in his own words from that video from 10 years ago even stated "and they let me do it" so I don't see how that's proof of anything other than consent. Its pretty well known that anyone even remotely famous can get a woman who wouldn't otherwise give hi the time of day. That video proves nothing to me, other than he's a perv. Lots of pervs out there and most aren't predators. Women coming forward a week before the election about incidents that happened decades earlier. The same time the FBI was coming down on Hilary and they needed more dirt on Trump. It just isn't very convincing to me. Come forward in a time when you have nothing to gain. Or even worse, if they are true, were these stories sat on and released at a specific time like the videos? That would be almost equally as disgusting as the acts themselves. I don't see a lot of evidence, and neither does half the country (including a lot of intelligent women).
"they let me do it" is an admission that they didn't fight back, not that it wasn't sexual assault. this is a common misconception: just because someone doesn't immediately fight back, that does NOT mean it wasn't assault.
I can get punched in the head and not fight back and it's still assault.
I totally get how you, and many others, may consider him a sexual predator. And they all may be right. And you are completely right about the "they let me do it" comment. It doesn't prove it was consent. The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't prove it wasn't, and so many riots/protests started over that comment. What I don't get is how, like so often from the left, why it is ridiculous to disagree (and not necessarily you, but just in general). What is so unreasonable to take everything into context, understand he over-exaggerates everything to the point it is difficult to tell where the truth even ends, he has discredited himself many times. He probably truly believes he is God's gift to women and all mankind. Then consider his wealth and timing of the accusations, consider that many women have discredited some of the accusations and think there just isn't enough overwhelming evidence for me to make this claim? You can have your opinions, that's fine. I am entitled to mine. And for me, it just isn't there. I'm not convinced he hasn't taken advantage of women to the point where it could be considered assault, but I'm not 100% convinced he has either. And when that is the case I would avoid labeling someone a sexual predator.
It is not at all ridiculous to disagree. I appreciate your point of view. But people who attack others for disagreeing aren't just from the left. It happens, id say equally, on both sides.
I made your same point when this all came to light, that he could very well be lying about all of it, that it truly could have been locker room talk, in the sense that he thought that was something to brag about, but wasn't really true, like a young teenage boy brags about his 'conquests'. But then came the accusations. I am always naturally skeptical as to timing of accusations and such; I was equally skeptical about Bill Cosby's guilt. But then I started reading about sexual assault and the victims; their motivations for finally coming out, the reasons why they stay silent for so long, etc.
There simply isnt a reasonable explanation as to why any woman would put themselves out there with such a public revelation of such a personal and traumatic event if it wasn't true. All psychologists and therapists agree with this. And there are so many if them, and the pattern is all the same.
There is no doubt in my mind that he did what those women say he did.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
There simply isnt a reasonable explanation as to why any woman would put themselves out there with such a public revelation of such a personal and traumatic event if it wasn't true. All psychologists and therapists agree with this. And there are so many if them, and the pattern is all the same.
Really? I'll give you a clue, it sounds a lot like "honey"
There simply isnt a reasonable explanation as to why any woman would put themselves out there with such a public revelation of such a personal and traumatic event if it wasn't true. All psychologists and therapists agree with this. And there are so many if them, and the pattern is all the same.
Really? I'll give you a clue, it sounds a lot like "honey"
I chose no, not because I know he is not, but because of the proven false reports that are slung the way of anyone with a little money or power. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Going the Hillbot route on this one.
Of course his admissions mean nothing to you.
I think he made that up in an attempt to get some liberal votes...seeing as how liberals love this sexual deviants such as this guy: "Such a tasty tasty cigar"
I chose no, not because I know he is not, but because of the proven false reports that are slung the way of anyone with a little money or power. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Going the Hillbot route on this one.
Of course his admissions mean nothing to you.
I think he made that up in an attempt to get some liberal votes...seeing as how liberals love this sexual deviants such as this guy: "Such a tasty tasty cigar"
You don't think that bothered people? I voted for Clinton in 96' and that bothered me. Again, we're talking about Trump.
I chose no, not because I know he is not, but because of the proven false reports that are slung the way of anyone with a little money or power. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Going the Hillbot route on this one.
Of course his admissions mean nothing to you.
I think he made that up in an attempt to get some liberal votes...seeing as how liberals love this sexual deviants such as this guy:
Sexual assault and sexual harassment are different. Looks like we can already declare 2017 the Year of the False Equivalency.
I chose no, not because I know he is not, but because of the proven false reports that are slung the way of anyone with a little money or power. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Going the Hillbot route on this one.
Of course his admissions mean nothing to you.
I think he made that up in an attempt to get some liberal votes...seeing as how liberals love this sexual deviants such as this guy:
Sexual assault and sexual harassment are different. Looks like we can already declare 2017 the Year of the False Equivalency.
Weren't there women who claimed that he forced himself upon them, assaulted them??? Regardless. Does anyone think that Trump has been rehabilitated being married??? Do we keep living in the past, or look to the out right stupid things he's doing at present...
I chose no, not because I know he is not, but because of the proven false reports that are slung the way of anyone with a little money or power. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Going the Hillbot route on this one.
Of course his admissions mean nothing to you.
I think he made that up in an attempt to get some liberal votes...seeing as how liberals love this sexual deviants such as this guy: "Such a tasty tasty cigar"
Hey look, it's a picture of your president from 16 years ago.
Proof that Trump is not a sexual predator. Nothing to see here folks, I'm convinced.
Comments
"they let me do it" is an admission that they didn't fight back, not that it wasn't sexual assault. this is a common misconception: just because someone doesn't immediately fight back, that does NOT mean it wasn't assault.
I can get punched in the head and not fight back and it's still assault.
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
StateForeign AffairsI totally get how you, and many others, may consider him a sexual predator. And they all may be right.
And you are completely right about the "they let me do it" comment. It doesn't prove it was consent. The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't prove it wasn't, and so many riots/protests started over that comment.
What I don't get is how, like so often from the left, why it is ridiculous to disagree (and not necessarily you, but just in general). What is so unreasonable to take everything into context, understand he over-exaggerates everything to the point it is difficult to tell where the truth even ends, he has discredited himself many times. He probably truly believes he is God's gift to women and all mankind. Then consider his wealth and timing of the accusations, consider that many women have discredited some of the accusations and think there just isn't enough overwhelming evidence for me to make this claim?
You can have your opinions, that's fine. I am entitled to mine. And for me, it just isn't there.
I'm not convinced he hasn't taken advantage of women to the point where it could be considered assault, but I'm not 100% convinced he has either. And when that is the case I would avoid labeling someone a sexual predator.
I do agree that he is innocent until proven guilty, in the court of law sense. But in the court of public opinion, guilty as charged.
Q: Innocent until proven guilty
A: Who are OJ, Bill Cosby and DJT (the ratings machine!).
I made your same point when this all came to light, that he could very well be lying about all of it, that it truly could have been locker room talk, in the sense that he thought that was something to brag about, but wasn't really true, like a young teenage boy brags about his 'conquests'. But then came the accusations. I am always naturally skeptical as to timing of accusations and such; I was equally skeptical about Bill Cosby's guilt. But then I started reading about sexual assault and the victims; their motivations for finally coming out, the reasons why they stay silent for so long, etc.
There simply isnt a reasonable explanation as to why any woman would put themselves out there with such a public revelation of such a personal and traumatic event if it wasn't true. All psychologists and therapists agree with this. And there are so many if them, and the pattern is all the same.
There is no doubt in my mind that he did what those women say he did.
-EV 8/14/93
There simply isnt a reasonable explanation as to why any woman would put themselves out there with such a public revelation of such a personal and traumatic event if it wasn't true. All psychologists and therapists agree with this. And there are so many if them, and the pattern is all the same.
Really? I'll give you a clue, it sounds a lot like "honey"
"Such a tasty tasty cigar"
Proof that Trump is not a sexual predator. Nothing to see here folks, I'm convinced.