Donald Trump General Discussion thread

@just_sayin: I agree its sad they couldn't just give a firm "yes" to the question of whether he should step down if convicted. It is a super easy question. If he is convicted of a crime of course he should lose his position in public office. I honestly don't know the purpose of them not commenting on it.

@just_sayin:

"The fact that Democratic leadership have been caught on tape orchestrating voter fraud really undercuts your argument, dude"

I like how you make these allegations with not one shred of evidence, while ignoring all the evidence presented showng the Republicans actually conspiring and carrying out voter suppression, racist voter ID laws, and lying to create fear and paranoia among voters. You're really earning your Rubles here.

President Donald Trump offered condolences to the wrong mass shooting after four were killed in northern California on Tuesday.

How can the President of the Unites states be such an actual idiot? Anybody who defends this moron is either stupid or paid by Russians.

Because peple want the same shitty president that has a shady background, And feminists hate donald trump because he does not support feminists like hilary shiton

@cable_extreme: And what about Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women on tape? Is that substantiated enough for you?

It isn't sexual assault if they consent, which he said they always do because of his fame.

@cable_extreme: No, he's assuming that they consent because he's famous. He doesn't say he gets consent first. He says he approaches women, some of whom are married, and does what he wants to them, assuming he can do so because he's a celebrity.

Your rationalization of sexual assault is disgusting.

You are the one labeling it as sexual assault, he specifically says they let him do it. If those were instances of sexual assault you would see him at the mercy of a district attorney (or like minded prosecutor) the moment he said it. However this wasn't proof of sexual assault for the soul reason he implied they let him do it.

I am assuming they let him do it since this was not used as evidence against him in any court case. That would mean it is not sexual assault objectively.

You seem to go 0-100 on the shame train real quick most times I talk with you. Obviously I don't support sexual assault, the point is, I don't think this is.

@cable_extreme:

You should realize there are a lot of reasons victims don't come forward in cases of sexual assault. This has been shown time and time again, many times with the perpetrators being proven guilty years later.

You should also realize that convicting wealthy individuals in our court system is often a very challenging task, whether they are guilty or not. Being rich enough to afford a team of high level lawyers puts you at a significant advantage over the average person.

Lastly you should realize that at least 16 women have made allegations that Donald Trump sexually assaulted them. Then you have Trump candidly admitting that he kisses and gropes women without first gaining their consent because he ASSUMES his fame gives him a free pass. Are you saying that it was a guarantee that these women all wanted to kiss him, and that it's impossible for a woman not to want him to kiss and grope them simply because he's famous?

What do you not understand about the fact that him engaging in kissing and groping without gaining consent first is him freely taking the chance of committing sexual assault? Can you just walk up to any woman and kiss them because you're famous? No. He was in a position of authority over many of these women, so many of them may feel compelled to not voice their discomfort or lack of consent.

Maybe if you didn't make disgusting arguments apologizing for sexual assault I wouldn't have to shame you for sharing those opinions. Saying you can walk up and grope a woman because you're famous is advocating sexual assault.

I feel like I've just watched a whole season of that old TV show "The Dukes of Hazzard" in one sitting. I swear it seems like you are channeling Roscoe P. Coltrane. "I'm gonna git you, Duke Boys , er Trump, this time dagnabbit." I swear if you had ended with a two part season finale of the "emoulments clause caper", I would have wet my pants. Much like the way the show ended every single episode with Roscoe's plan not being as solid as he thought, so is your list.

For the record, I do not condone everything Trump does. Of all the candidates for the Republican nominee he was my least favorite. That said, I don't feel the need to defend him, but I don't think it is fair when he is unjustly attacked. Many of your claims of Trump being racist should be more directed to his father. He was the one running the day to day operations at the hotel at the time of the incidents you mention. Trump did have ownership, but there is little evidence that he was hands on there. Many of your accusations are taken out of context from the Muslim ban, to the Mexican immigrant citation. Your guilt by association is a weak argument. I love what Reagan once said in response to the charge that he was racist because a racist group had endorsed him. He said that they may have endorsed him, but he did not endorse them.

Now it is true that Rev. Jesse Jackson said that Donald Trump had done more for helping black employment in New York than just about anyone else in the 80's, I think, but I don't think that means Trump is a racist because of that endorsement from Jackson. When the Black Panthers expressed their endorsement of Obama and stood outside of polling places on the day of his election and yelled that no whites were permitted to vote, was Obama racist for their support? I know that isn't a good analogy, because the Obama Administration, against the wishes of the attorneys at the Department of Justice, refused to prosecute the Black Panthers. But, you get the point.

"I'll get you Duke Boys Trump this time with my sure fire emoluments clause!"

@lunacyde:

You should realize there are a lot of reasons victims don't come forward in cases of sexual assault. This has been shown time and time again, many times with the perpetrators being proven guilty years later.

Okay, but this is your assumption that a scenario like this has taken place. Within the context of his statement, there is no evidence any woman he referenced disapproved of his actions.

You should also realize that convicting wealthy individuals in our court system is often a very challenging task, whether they are guilty or not. Being rich enough to afford a team of high level lawyers puts you at a significant advantage over the average person.

I am aware of this but a statement admitting to sexual assault (as you and someone else are stating) would be relatively easy for any prosecutor to prove in court. This is evidence towards it not be an admittance of guilt towards any sexual-related crime.

Lastly you should realize that at least 16 women have made allegations that Donald Trump sexually assaulted them. Then you have Trump candidly admitting that he kisses and gropes women without first gaining their consent because he ASSUMES his fame gives him a free pass. Are you saying that it was a guarantee that these women all wanted to kiss him, and that it's impossible for a woman not to want him to kiss and grope them simply because he's famous?

You don't know if these were the women he was referring to, nor has Trump been convicted of sexual assault. So your assumptions are brought forth by your bias of Trump. The women he referenced in his statement he said were okay with it, any additional information you assume would be your addition and not actual evidence.

What do you not understand about the fact that him engaging in kissing and groping without gaining consent first is him freely taking the chance of committing sexual assault? Can you just walk up to any woman and kiss them because you're famous? No. He was in a position of authority over many of these women, so many of them may feel compelled to not voice their discomfort or lack of consent.

This "must gain consent" is a relatively new idea, most of the time if you overstepped your bounds years ago you would get slapped. Until Trump gets convicted of sexually assaulting someone, these statements are not him admitting to sexual assault unless it is later interpreted by the court to be referencing women he was convicted of assaulting. Again the reason why this is the case is because he said in the statement that they were okay with it. If that modifier wasn't in there the statement could mean something very different.

Maybe if you didn't make disgusting arguments apologizing for sexual assault I wouldn't have to shame you for sharing those opinions. Saying you can walk up and grope a woman because you're famous is advocating sexual assault.

Well, for me to make arguments in support of sexual assault, id have to first admit it is sexual assault. Otherwise I am arguing with you over your interpretations of a statement. If they were okay with him walking up and groping them, that is not against the law. That is what he said, they were okay with it. For you to propose perhaps they weren't okay with it, you would need evidence which you lack. You would also need more than the media's statements on the subject as they often lack the details that prosecutors and defense attorneys have in a case.

Trump is about to speak.

Atleast 16 of them werent.

He was never convicted, he is innocent of those charges until proven otherwise. Not only that but these charges arose during the start of his presidency giving political motive, fame, etc... possibilities.

@cable_extreme: what are you serious???? It was on camera the woman on the bus made it clear she didn't want touched he's a sick dude why would you defend something like that??? He on camera has admitted to stuff like this for Christ sakes. Also NO woman should be touched without permission period, that's common sense dude. Does it take Trump himself in person admitting it to you for you to see it??

The hilarity of this thread. Majority of people commenting are basing their reasons for hating him on feelings, rather than fact. I especially enjoy those who claim he's racist, but then make up quotes to defile him. For example, "Mexicans are rapists," when he, in reality said, "Illegal Mexicans are rapists," which is absolutely correct. SJW Libtards just love to deliberately misconstrue what he says to fit their mentally retarded agenda and narrative, because they can't handle not having their safe spaces, or being able to break the law. They always bring up his, "touching women's p***ies" rhetoric as if it holds any value, considering it happened more than 10 years ago, before he even began the process of becoming President. Hell, I wonder if they remember the scandal with Monica Lowinksi (sp?) and the multiple sex crimes Bill Clinton committed, during his Presidency. Sad folk, they are. Oh, let's not forget that Killary Klinton is massively mentally unstable, and wanted to go to war with Russian, and lied about top secret document emails. Thank the Universe Trey Gowdy wrecked that pathetic excuse for a human being.

What? You are wrong.

Just because they aren't convicted doesn't mean they haven't done anything.

Usually, when not convicted, it means the person didn't commit the crime.

Innocent until proven guilty, you don't get to side step that because you don't like the guy.

This because suggestions that he did do it are not supported. This means that people who say he committed sexual assault are controlled by their own bias, not by facts.

Just like your continued support for sexual assault is controlled by your bias?

@outside_85:

Just like your continued support for sexual assault is controlled by your bias?

According to our justice system, it wasn't sexual assault. You are the one labeling as such. It doesn't make it so just because you say so.

Yes it does.

@cable_extreme

Okay, but this is your assumption that a scenario like this has taken place. Within the context of his statement, there is no evidence any woman he referenced disapproved of his actions.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm offering a counter-argument. You stated that because no one used it as evidence against him in a court case was proof that every time he came on to women it was consensual. I was explaining the faultiness of your logic.

There IS evidence that he pushed himself onto women who did not approve of his actions , twenty women have described and corroborated situations where Donald Trump DID come onto them in the exact manner that he himself described with his comments and they described his advances as unwanted and non-consensual. These are women testifying that Donald Trump had kissed and groped them without their consent, the exact thing that he admitted to doing on video.

I am aware of this, but a statement admitting to sexual assault (as you and someone else are stating) would be relatively easy for any prosecutor to prove in court. This is evidence towards it not be an admittance of guilt towards any sexual-related crime.

In most jurisdictions explicit or affirmative consent is part of the definition of sexual assault, for example the Justice Department defines sexual assault as :“any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.” By flat out stating that you don't even wait, you just do it because you're famous, there is no way he is meeting the explicit consent requirement before committing the sexual act. He could luck out that the woman just happens to be open to his advances, but it is equally possible that they were not open to his advances, as several of them have claimed.

The reason the video hasn't been used in court is that it does not speak to any specific instance or case, but instead conveys his general attitude and feelings about women.

You don't know if these were the women he was referring to, nor has Trump been convicted of sexual assault. So your assumptions are brought forth by your bias of Trump. The women he referenced in his statement he said were okay with it, any additional information you assume would be your addition and not actual evidence.

Trump wasn't referring to any specific women with his comments, but attractive women in general. Here are his comments:

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

Not being convicted of sexual assault doesn't mean you didn't commit sexual assault. There are people who get away with committing crimes all the time. Not being convicted, especially when you are wealthy and powerful does not mean that no crime occurred.

He didn't reference any specific women being okay with it. He made a blanket statement that he can try to kiss and grope any woman he wants because he's a star and "they let you". He is going into each encounter assuming that he can grope and kiss these women simply because of his fame. He literally says "I don't even wait". He doesn't wait for consent, he just does it because he feels entitled to these women's bodies.

This "must gain consent" is a relatively new idea, most of the time if you overstepped your bounds years ago you would get slapped. Until Trump gets convicted of sexually assaulting someone, these statements are not him admitting to sexual assault unless it is later interpreted by the court to be referencing women he was convicted of assaulting. Again the reason why this is the case is because he said in the statement that they were okay with it. If that modifier wasn't in there the statement could mean something very different.

So you're saying that if a woman doesn't slap you that automatically means your advances are welcome? Even if you're in a position of power or authority over them by being their boss, employer, etc? Again, the justice department's definition of sexual assault uses a threshold of explicit consent.

Again, you do not need to be convicted of a crime to have committed that crime. By definition what he admitted to has the potential to be sexual assault if she does not consent, and several women have come forward saying that they did not consent. He is flat out stating that he kisses and gropes them whether or not he has received consent because he just ASSUMES that he always has consent. Can you not possibly grasp why this is problematic behavior? Advocating for kissing and groping women without gaining their consent is encouraging sexual assault.

So because he said they were okay with it, that means they were okay with it? Ever stop to think the word of the man committing the crime may not be 100% truthful and accurate? Do we really believe that every woman Trump comes onto in this manner wants him to kiss them? Is he that irresistible that its impossible to fathom that they were uncomfortable with it or that it was unwanted or unwelcome?

Well, for me to make arguments in support of sexual assault, id have to first admit it is sexual assault. Otherwise I am arguing with you over your interpretations of a statement. If they were okay with him walking up and groping them, that is not against the law. That is what he said, they were okay with it. For you to propose perhaps they weren't okay with it, you would need evidence which you lack. You would also need more than the media's statements on the subject as they often lack the details that prosecutors and defense attorneys have in a case.

By arguing for a more lenient definition of sexual assault you are logically arguing in the interests of those who commit sexual assault. By trying to twist the definition of sexual assault to be more lenient you are by default making an argument that protects sexual predators who use the indifference of society and the hesitance of victims to come forward as a shield to avoid the consequences of their predatory acts.

Yes, but a number of women have come forward stating that they were in fact NOT okay with him groping them.

He didn't say they were okay with it because he actually KNEW they were okay with it, he couldn't have because he specifically says he doesn't wait for consent he just does it. He merely ASSUMES that they will be okay with it based on his fame and his own personal perception that no one could possibly turn him down. We know this because he makes comments that he might start kissing the woman they are there to see, a woman he hasn't met yet, whose consent he could not possibly know.

I'm not proposing they weren't okay with it. I'm telling you that they came out publicly and said themselves that they were not okay with it. The evidence that they were not okay with it is that the women themselves say that they were not okay with it. It really isn't that hard to follow.

a.) Donald Trump admits to kissing and groping women without first gaining their consent. He suggests you can do anything you want if you are a star.

b.) Several women allege that he indeed kissed and groped them when it was unwelcome and unwanted. Not really surprising considering he admitted to not waiting for consent.

Forgive me if I don't buy the idea that Donald Trump regularly makes moves on women without worrying about consent (by his own admission) and every single one of those women was completely open and welcoming to his advances.

And your point is?

That you're an SJW Libtard, so of course you'd say something that trashy. It's the same as saying, "Even though he's innocent, he's guilty until proven innocent," or, "Even though he's innocent, I feel that he's guilty when there's no justifiable reason," even when evidence states otherwise. You're allowing your emotions get in the way of critical thinking. Your feelings determine your judgment, rather than facts. You believe he's guilty because your uneducated mind has created a false reality.

@cable_extreme: Nope I'm 100% accurate, the audio is available online listen to it yourself. Hell Trump apologized for it not like it matters not like he cares

Evidence kinda proves he's guilty, so I dont know what you are on about. But then again conservatives these days aren't exactly known for their empathy or intelligence.

@king_majestros: Understand what you are trying to say, and maybe some folks who have him are 100% biased. But I'm t doesn't matter if it was 10 years or yesterday the fact is h did it and had law suits with others it's wrong no matter what and sick. Also ALL Illegals aren't rapists either that's actually a very small percentage so it's false to say so. He makes racist comments all the time on camera has zero to do with is he or not. If he isn't then he is showing hismelf to be a moron and ass clown all I'm one

@lunacyde:

I'm not assuming anything. I'm offering a counter-argument. You stated that because no one used it as evidence against him in a court case was proof that every time he came on to women it was consensual. I was explaining the faultiness of your logic.

There IS evidence that he pushed himself onto women who did not approve of his actions , twenty women have described and corroborated situations where Donald Trump DID come onto them in the exact manner that he himself described with his comments and they described his advances as unwanted and non-consensual. These are women testifying that Donald Trump had kissed and groped them without their consent, the exact thing that he admitted to doing on video.

Did they convict him? Did he admit to touching them? He admitted to touching women who were okay with it. He hasn't been convicted for sexual assault so nothing but his innocence has been corroborated.

In most jurisdictions explicit or affirmative consent is part of the definition of sexual assault, for example the Justice Department defines sexual assault as :“any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.” By flat out stating that you don't even wait, you just do it because you're famous, there is no way he is meeting the explicit consent requirement before committing the sexual act. He could luck out that the woman just happens to be open to his advances, but it is equally possible that they were not open to his advances, as several of them have claimed.

Lets look at the laws in 2005 Link

I don't see the modern definition of obtaining consent, the way it is legally worded in 2005 was forcing sex acts that cause fear of bodily harm or to that of a minor. (generally speaking). As I pointed out in a previous post, the use of the words obtain explicit consent is a newer definition. One that he wouldn't be obliged to defend against due to the grandfather clause.

The reason the video hasn't been used in court is that it does not speak to any specific instance or case, but instead conveys his general attitude and feelings about women.

Perhaps at the time.

Trump wasn't referring to any specific women with his comments, but attractive women in general. Here are his comments:

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

Any woman that sued him for sexual assault.

Not being convicted of sexual assault doesn't mean you didn't commit sexual assault. There are people who get away with committing crimes all the time. Not being convicted, especially when you are wealthy and powerful does not mean that no crime occurred.

He didn't reference any specific women being okay with it. He made a blanket statement that he can try to kiss and grope any woman he wants because he's a star and "they let you". He is going into each encounter assuming that he can grope and kiss these women simply because of his fame. He literally says "I don't even wait". He doesn't wait for consent, he just does it because he feels entitled to these women's bodies.

To positively say he committed sexual assault requires evidence, enough evidence to convict him. To say he did commit sexual assault, but at the same time he was not convicted is a conflict with factual and objective evidence.

He said they let you, as opposed to not letting you by saying "no" or something signifying they do not wish to partake in such an act. Remember, the idea of obtaining explicit consent was not introduced at the time. It general fell on the person to say no which is why the 90's and early 00's there was an effective legal defense of saying they didn't say no. This was changed rather recently.

So you're saying that if a woman doesn't slap you that automatically means your advances are welcome? Even if you're in a position of power or authority over them by being their boss, employer, etc? Again, the justice department's definition of sexual assault uses a threshold of explicit consent.

You should re-read the part where I said back-then.

Again, you do not need to be convicted of a crime to have committed that crime. By definition what he admitted to has the potential to be sexual assault if she does not consent, and several women have come forward saying that they did not consent. He is flat out stating that he kisses and gropes them whether or not he has received consent because he just ASSUMES that he always has consent. Can you not possibly grasp why this is problematic behavior? Advocating for kissing and groping women without gaining their consent is encouraging sexual assault.

Technically true, but unsupported until/if he gets convicted.

So because he said they were okay with it, that means they were okay with it? Ever stop to think the word of the man committing the crime may not be 100% truthful and accurate? Do we really believe that every woman Trump comes onto in this manner wants him to kiss them? Is he that irresistible that its impossible to fathom that they were uncomfortable with it or that it was unwanted or unwelcome?

No, it does not claim a positive, it simply means there is no evidence within the statement that suggest they were not okay with it. You have to introduce your own bias to say maybe they weren't.

By arguing for a more lenient definition of sexual assault you are logically arguing in the interests of those who commit sexual assault. By trying to twist the definition of sexual assault to be more lenient you are by default making an argument that protects sexual predators who use the indifference of society and the hesitance of victims to come forward as a shield to avoid the consequences of their predatory acts.

I am not arguing for a more lenient definition, I agree with out modern definition. However when referring to his alleged acts as well as his statements, we have to refer to previous laws.

Yes, but a number of women have come forward stating that they were in fact NOT okay with him groping them.

Lets look at the legal battle and see if Trump admits to touching them. If he does then they could be one of the women he was referring to, if he says he never has touched them, then unless proven otherwise, it is irrelevant.

He didn't say they were okay with it because he actually KNEW they were okay with it, he couldn't have because he specifically says he doesn't wait for consent he just does it. He merely ASSUMES that they will be okay with it based on his fame and his own personal perception that no one could possibly turn him down. We know this because he makes comments that he might start kissing the woman they are there to see, a woman he hasn't met yet, whose consent he could not possibly know.

I'm not proposing they weren't okay with it. I'm telling you that they came out publicly and said themselves that they were not okay with it. The evidence that they were not okay with it is that the women themselves say that they were not okay with it. It really isn't that hard to follow.

Perhaps he obtained explicit consent to know they were okay with it. The only evidence in that statement suggest they were because of his fame. They is no contradictory evidence as he never said they fought him or said no to him and he continued.

a.) Donald Trump admits to kissing and groping women without first gaining their consent. He suggests you can do anything you want if you are a star.

b.) Several women allege that he indeed kissed and groped them when it was unwelcome and unwanted. Not really surprising considering he admitted to not waiting for consent.

The problem is in court, I don't think he has admitted to touching these women which means his first quote wasn't referencing women he hasn't touched until or unless it is proven with facts otherwise. That is how justice works.

Forgive me if I don't buy the idea that Donald Trump regularly makes moves on women without worrying about consent (by his own admission) and every single one of those women was completely open and welcoming to his advances.

He never said he didn't worry about consent unless you can directly quote it.

You are saying he flat out admitted to sexually assaulting a women who made it clear she didn't want to be touched on camera?

There is zero evidence to prove he's guilty, or else he would have been convicted. I can't tell if you're making things up or just so mentally gassed that you're misinterpreting the case. The rest of your comment is pure stupidity on your part.

Yes, it does matter. The Left are pulling things from the past that have literally nothing to do with him being President. They are trying to sully his name, defame him, etc., on account of them not wanting him President. Sure, many sides have done this before with many Presidents, but that's besides the point. Again, that was 10 years ago, with women who've consented. Those that have "come out" were only doing so to attack him, attempting to halt his Presidency. And look, he wasn't convicted, due to having no proof of his sexual assault. Saying he makes racist comments all the time on camera doesn't prove that he does. Cite the times that he does, and if it's true, I'll say he was wrong. If they're not true, expect me to laugh at you. If he's not a racist, then he's showing himself to be a moron and ass clown? That doesn't make sense. Wouldn't that mean he's the opposite?

@king_majestros: The Right, the left in the end there all the same both equally guilty of doing stuff like that. We can agree to disagree on that part least you recognize it as wrong. I belong to a third party and believe we need a their part t balance things out personally

@cable_extreme: yes he did, seriously not making that up. It came out during the election. The audio is what counts though. He apologized and said that was years ago.

There's no agreeing to disagree. Don't claim that Trump is racist if you can't back them up with evidence. Now you're looking foolish.

Trump just negotiated the release of African American students from UCLA who had been caught shoplifting in China. They even thanked him for his help. How long before some on this thread use this as evidence that Trump is racist.

And speaking of @willpayton; Hey Will, did you see where the Democrats have filed impeachment articles against Trump based on the emoluments clause? Oh my!!!!!!! How will he ever get out of this?

Quote the specific portion because he never admitted towards sexually assaulting anyone. If he did, it would be a quick trial and he would have been easily found as guilty.

Please quote specifically where he admits to touching a woman who doesn't let him?

<shrugs>

Impeachment is a political action, not a legal one. Just because Trump is violating the Constitution every day doesnt mean he'll be impeached, since Republicans control Congress. If they admit that Trump is a horrible President that has been damaging our country, they will see it as hurting their own changes of re-election, and will not want to impeach. But, if the upcoming elections show that being aligned with Trump is a net negative, they might start to reconsider this.

Sexual actions require consent. A woman does not have to make it clear that they do not want to be touched for it to be sexual assault. They have to make it clear that they want to be touched sexually.

Do you think you have the right to grab women's genitals because they haven't told you not to? Or because they haven't made it perfectly clear to you that they do not want you too?

@cable_extreme: Dude watch his apologies he did it and I literally can't believe your saying that in the first place unbelievable,

@king_majestros: No I'm not majority agrees as well, His own actions or even in-actions, and words speak volumes

Does not matter if the majority agrees with you. If you make a claim, you back it up. Just like in the Battles Forum. It makes you look foolish to lie so bluntly.

Numerous accounts and statements does, it does not need a judge to tell that. I could ask you the very same thing oddly enough, is your bias really so massive Trump could get away with murder in your world as long as there was no court conviction?

Show me an intelligent republican then.

What numerous accounts? Statements mean nothing; they're usually... what's the word? ... unsubstantiated, I guess. Regardless, that stuff is most likely thrown out. You're right, it doesn't need a judge. However, he's not convicted; therefore, he's innocent. I have no bias, I have a mind that's able to see through SJW Libtard bullshit and not only have a logical opinion, but a common sense one, too. Hence, I'm willing to use any evidence to show whether he's at wrong or completely blameless. It's sad that our world has come down to reaching for any possible thing we can transform into repulsive defamation and botheration of someone's character. There are plenty of intelligent Republicans, arguably ones so far beyond your scope of comprehension (you're making a generalization, by the way, another example of your irrationality).

@lunacyde This has to be against the rules imo

@king_majestros: Any innappropriate use of the term "retard" or any derivations of that word are against the rules. Consider it a warning.

What I think is irrelevant. It matters what the law states, the law in 2005 did not require 'explicit consent'.

Did he put any women in fear of bodily harm? That is the wordage of 2005 law for sexual assault.