Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There were something like a dozen women who claimed Trump groped or kissed them without their consent, so your defense is rather weak. Just because Trump said, "They let you do it" does not mean they really did, he just might think they were letting him do it. The fact they later complained before the election would indicate he was, indeed, imagining things.
FWIW Franken and Conyers can go and it would be fine with me. The fewer sleazebags on Capitol Hill, the better.
No, that is still "he said, she said" as no one allegation corroborated another. They were all for individual alleged accounts. At the end of the day, you have nothing from Trump that shows a lack of consent (hell, his statement expressly shows consent), no matter how hard you may try to claim so. As I mentioned before, I am not willing to convict someone in the court of public opinion based on mere allegations. I bring up some of what I bring up to call out the hypocrisy I'm seeing, primarily among the left.
I can't believe that Kirsten Gilibrand and Nancy Pelosi had the gall to claim that "changing times" and understanding of sexual harassment and assault led them to condemn Moore and others accused of sexual misconduct today, all while they stood behind Bill "the Creep" Clinton years ago (think Paula Jones). What a crock of **** that is. These same liars had no problem believing Anita Hill and trying to sabotage Clarence Thomas' appointment to the Supreme Court. That was all "back then," too. And this is despite the fact that Hill's claims had so many holes in them that its not even funny. What a disgrace the left is. Of course, the left's MSM defenders won't call them out on this, too.
Oh, please. If you look, his fingertips are clearly touching Tweeden's chest, but nice try. There is no space between that creep's fingertips and Tweeden's chest. That he wasn't engaged in a full hand grasp/assault of Tweeden's breasts doesn't make what he did any less of an assault. Let's get real. Stop defending this creep's sexual assault of a sleeping, defenseless woman.
Exactly. And the zoom feature is a good thing, too. Then there's the pesky fact that crusty crone Joy Behar doesn't even care that he did the same thing to her.
But it's back to work for Franken and, as usual, NO DEMOCRATS are calling for him to step down. After all, he's good enough, he's smart enough, and, doggone it, people like him!
I can't believe that Kirsten Gilibrand and Nancy Pelosi had the gall to claim that "changing times" and understanding of sexual harassment and assault led them to condemn Moore and others accused of sexual misconduct today, all while they stood behind Bill "the Creep" Clinton years ago (think Paula Jones). What a crock of **** that is. These same liars had no problem believing Anita Hill and trying to sabotage Clarence Thomas' appointment to the Supreme Court. That was all "back then," too. And this is despite the fact that Hill's claims had so many holes in them that its not even funny. What a disgrace the left is. Of course, the left's MSM defenders won't call them out on this, too.
They are idiots not because of their deceptions, but because they think we are stupid enough to buy into it.
Neither the media via reporters, pundits, etc., nor the Democratic party is gonna convict Roy Moore. The courts will do that. Also, the accused shall face their accusers.
This is the photo below. The shadows under Franken’s hands meant he wasn’t really touching Tweeden’s chest, which kind of undercuts your assertion that he was sexually molesting, which requires actual physical contact.
Oh well by gosh if it's for humor sake! She clearly gave her consent to be faux grabbed on the breast for the sake of humor, didn't she? Well, no, no she didn't.
He also deep throated her during rehearsals. For practice he says. She warned him to never do it again. Yet shortly after he performed air aerobics on her boobs for a pic. Well, yeah, you know, its a chick, like a farm animal, right!
I figured that's what you were referring to. I still maintain my position. Speaking of consensual sexual contact (based on age alone) is NOT dismissing behavior as a sign of the times. Like it or not, the age of consent in most US states is either 16 or 17. A man who is 30 or 33 who engages in consensual sexual contact with a 16 or 17 year old in most of the US is NOT breaking the law. Even today. That is not a sign of the times. That is the law of consent.
exactly. And the zoom feature is a good thing, too. Then there's the pesky fact that crusty crone joy behar doesn't even care that he did the same thing to her.
But it's back to work for franken and, as usual, no democrats are calling for him to step down. After all, he's good enough, he's smart enough, and, doggone it, people like him!
I can't believe that Kirsten Gilibrand and Nancy Pelosi had the gall to claim that "changing times" and understanding of sexual harassment and assault led them to condemn Moore and others accused of sexual misconduct today, all while they stood behind Bill "the Creep" Clinton years ago (think Paula Jones). What a crock of **** that is. These same liars had no problem believing Anita Hill and trying to sabotage Clarence Thomas' appointment to the Supreme Court. That was all "back then," too. And this is despite the fact that Hill's claims had so many holes in them that its not even funny. What a disgrace the left is. Of course, the left's MSM defenders won't call them out on this, too.
Oh, you can believe it. That [w]itch Kirsten Gillibrand, in particular, has a habit of "evolving," especially on issues that got her elected.
We have good memories around here, and we're watching that opportunist.
I figured that's what you were referring to. I still maintain my position. Speaking of consensual sexual contact (based on age alone) is NOT dismissing behavior as a sign of the times. Like it or not, the age of consent in most US states is either 16 or 17. A man who is 30 or 33 who engages in consensual sexual contact with a 16 or 17 year old in most of the US is NOT breaking the law. Even today. That is not a sign of the times. That is the law of consent.
But a 14-year-old is not, and one of the accusers was 14 at the time of the incident.
And as I said in the Moore thread, you're defending a sleazebag on a technicality. I mean, if the guy was maybe 22 or 23 and he was making moves on 16 and 17 year olds, I could see that's not that big a deal. But Moore was in his early 30's. Heck, if he was making moves on 21 or 22 year olds it wouldn't be a big deal. But a 32-year-old guy making moves (mostly, if not entirely, uninvited) on 14-17 year olds is sleazy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.