So much dumb.

 

You or the woman in the video?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

You or the woman in the video?

Your entire argument. Take a break and collect yourself.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Women voters disagree.

Well you did say this.

And this.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Your entire argument. Take a break and collect yourself.

 

You probably mean your entire argument.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

But have these specific women who are speaking out now spoken out before or reported him for inappropriate behavior? Or is this the first time these women are saying anything?

Some have made these allegations known to others prior to his running. I get that there was an avalanche of accusations that came after he started his run and that can smell fishy. But does that make them all untrue? Maybe some of these women were triggered by the video which was released. Maybe some thought there case was the only incident. I think it's a red flag that so many are so willing to discount all of these allegations which clearly align with his behavior patterns.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

You probably mean your entire argument.

A woman who cannot afford to have 15 kids shouldn't have them. That's got nothing to do at all with controlling women's bodies.


Should women who have abortions be punished? Should women who want to have abortions be denied that option which has been available since Roe v. Wade? I say no. Trump and Pence disagree. Christians cannot play the role of morality police and make up more than half the abortions in our country at the same time.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

A woman who cannot afford to have 15 kids shouldn't have them. That's got nothing to do at all with controlling women's bodies.

Should women who have abortions be punished? Should women who want to have abortions be denied that option which has been available since Roe v. Wade? I say no. Trump and Pence disagree. Christians cannot play the role of morality police and make up more than half the abortions in our country at the same time.

Stay away from religion.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

In many cases, the accusation is enough to do that. Lose a job, potentially lose a family, be attacked by strangers. An accusation alone is not grounds to jump to that conclusion without considering the details. But nobody hears someone is accused of raping a 13 year old and just ignores it without it somewhat influencing their perception of that person. Even if you doubt it could have really happened, you question it. In Trump's case, however, he isn't even brought into question despite the dozen or so other women who claim he touched them inappropriately and his own unapologetic misogynist trail of soundbites, gropes and put downs. It's inconceivable how this guy gets a free pass while being a repulsive human being which you would not honestly give a neighbor you have lived next to for twenty years.

This really isn't that complex of an issue? I'll break it down for you


Trump fans: Clearly support Trump despite his flaws. They are going to support their guy until this race is finished. The accusations aimed at Trump have literally no concrete evidence behind them so they have no reason to believe them to be true or to judge Trump guilty of them. A factor for them is the timing of these allegations. Its entirely possible that these women were forced or coerced to make accusations.


Hilary fans: Clearly will follow Hilary until this is all over and automatically will disagree/hate almost everything Trump will do or say. They see the very accusations aimed at Trump as evidence that he is guilty, he is a known lier and dodgy human. To them Trump is already guilty of these crimes, its just a matter of time before one of them sticks to him.


Objective people: Objective people will look at all of this, be able to pick out the lines of truth and make an informed decision based on facts, evidence and a clear head. They realise that Trump is not necessarily what would be considered a "good" person or an angel of any kind. They realise that although these accusations are serious in nature, there is literally no concrete evidence to back up these claims and thus there is no way they can judge Trump guilty. As to do so would simply be wrong and nonobjective.



Any part of this incorrect or that you don't understand?

---

This really isn't that complex of an issue? I'll break it down for you


Trump fans: Clearly support Trump despite his flaws. They are going to support their guy until this race is finished. The accusations aimed at Trump have literally no concrete evidence behind them so they have no reason to believe them to be true or to judge Trump guilty of them. A factor for them is the timing of these allegations. Its entirely possible that these women were forced or coerced to make accusations.


Hilary fans: Clearly will follow Hilary until this is all over and automatically will disagree/hate almost everything Trump will do or say. They see the very accusations aimed at Trump as evidence that he is guilty, he is a known lier and dodgy human. To them Trump is already guilty of these crimes, its just a matter of time before one of them sticks to him.


Objective people: Objective people will look at all of this and be able to pick out the lines of truth in all of this and make a informed decision based on facts, evidence and a clear head. They realise that Trump is not necessarily what would be considered a "good" person or an angel of any kind. They realise that although these accusations are serious in nature, there is literally no concrete evidence to back up these claims and thus there is no way they can judge Trump innocent or guilty. As to do so would simply be wrong and nonobjective.



Any part of this incorrect or that you don't understand?

I hate them both and have come to the objective conclusion that there is enough circumstantial evidence to believe at the very least one of these women is telling the truth. I know which ones I believe and which I find skeptical. Because I come to the objective conclusion that there is some truth to some of these accusations I must worship at the altar of Hillary as anyone against Trump must be a liberal rube who believes everything she says and exonerates her for her many shortcomings and controversies. How can I possibly be objective and believe it is likely Trump touched at least one of these women inappropriately? According to you I cannot and therefore must want to have sexual relations with the pant suit queen of my fantasies.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

I hate them both and have come to the objective conclusion that there is enough circumstantial evidence to believe at the very least one of these women is telling the truth. I know which ones I believe and which I find skeptical. Because I come to the objective conclusion that there is some truth to some of these accusations I must worship at the altar of Hillary as anyone against Trump must be a liberal rube who believes everything she says and exonerates her for her many shortcomings and controversies. How can I possibly be objective and believe it is likely Trump touched at least one of these women inappropriately? According to you I cannot and therefore must want to have sexual relations with the pant suit queen of my fantasies.

I'm afraid accusations are not evidence of guilt so that is not an objective conclusion to come to.


They are all your words not mine. You might not have noticed but I don't tend to use FBTs playground attempts at insults nor do I play the "liberal" or "conservative" card to discredit an opposing view.

---

I'm afraid accusations are not evidence of guilt so that is not an objective conclusion to come to.


They are all your words not mine. You might not have noticed but I don't tend to use FBTs playground attempts at insults nor do I play the "liberal" or "conservative" card to discredit an opposing view.

Which is why I used the term circumstantial evidence. I cannot look past the mountain of it to make myself believe at the very least one of these incidents is not true. Is there a chance every single one of these women is making it up? Considering almost all of them have nothing to gain from it, I would say that is unlikely. If he remotely hid the fact he is an overt misogynist, it might be harder to believe. He is wholly unapologetic about every facet in his life. His own words and actions paint the picture of a man more than capable of such behavior. His ex accused him of marital rape. It is not a stretch to believe him capable of all of this and more. While none of this is smoking gun evidence, common sense would dictate it is more than probable at the very least one of the dozen women accusing him of inappropriate touching is telling the truth. I can objectively look at the details and the accused and draw a conclusion that requires no mental gymnastics.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

The irony here is that if anybody needs a lawyer to try to spring a child rapist, look no further than Hillary Clinton.

 

That's no laughing matter.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Which is why I used the term circumstantial evidence. I cannot look past the mountain of it to make myself believe at the very least one of these incidents is not true. Is there a chance every single one of these women is making it up? Considering almost all of them have nothing to gain from it, I would say that is unlikely. If he remotely hid the fact he is an overt misogynist, it might be harder to believe. He is wholly unapologetic about every facet in his life. His own words and actions paint the picture of a man more than capable of such behavior. His ex accused him of marital rape. It is not a stretch to believe him capable of all of this and more. While none of this is smoking gun evidence, common sense would dictate it is more than probable at the very least one of the dozen women accusing him of inappropriate touching is telling the truth. I can objectively look at the details and the accused and draw a conclusion that requires no mental gymnastics.

Did you read through what you just wrote Kotite? Do you not see the fatal flaw in using accusations as circumstantial evidence that those same accusations are true? Come on man.


All of this is just you proving your own bias to yourself. None of this is evidence of guilt , its all opinion and completely subjective.


"common sense would dictate it is more than probable at the very least one of the dozen women accusing him of inappropriate touching is telling the truth."


No. This is not how this works. Common sense does not dictate that you decide guilt or innocence with zero concrete evidence to back up claims.

---

Did you read through what you just wrote Kotite? Do you not see the fatal flaw in using accusations as circumstantial evidence that those same accusations are true? Come on man.


All of this is just you proving your own bias to yourself. None of this is evidence of guilt , its all opinion and completely subjective.


"common sense would dictate it is more than probable at the very least one of the dozen women accusing him of inappropriate touching is telling the truth."


No. This is not how this works. Common sense does not dictate that you decide guilt or innocence with zero concrete evidence to back up claims.

I am drawing a conclusion based on what I know of the man, his words and his previous actions. I am not choosing to believe something about the man "just because." I am drawing a logical conclusion based on the facts I know and the mountain of circumstantial evidence which points to the likelihood of him doing at least some of these things. If a gun was put to your head and you were asked to honestly say if you felt Trump touched at least one of these women inappropriately you would say you didn't believe he did? Just because there is no concrete evidence you have had presented yet? You'd ignore past allegations, his own words, his own actions, everything you know about him and say.. if I had to objectively draw a conclusion knowing a lot of these accusations are she said/he said.. if I had to choose what I actually believe is true.. I would choose to believe he is wholly innocent of all charges.. really? Knowing it is not carved in stone.. your educated guess.. your hunch says.. not guilty?

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

I am drawing a conclusion based on what I know of the man, his words and his previous actions. I am not choosing to believe something about the man "just because." I am drawing a logical conclusion based on the facts I know and the mountain of circumstantial evidence which points to the likelihood of him doing at least some of these things. If a gun was put to your head and you were asked to honestly say if you felt Trump touched at least one of these women inappropriately you would say you didn't believe he did? Just because there is no concrete evidence you have had presented yet? You'd ignore past allegations, his own words, his own actions, everything you know about him and say.. if I had to objectively draw a conclusion knowing a lot of these accusations are she said/he said.. if I had to choose what I actually believe is true.. I would choose to believe he is wholly innocent of all charges.. really? Knowing it is not carved in stone.. your educated guess.. your hunch says.. not guilty?

None of that is evidence of guilt, which is what we have been talking about. This kind of logic is why that Brian Banks guy was falsely accused and convicted and why Ched Evans was falsely accused, destroyed by the media,lost his career as a promising athlete and was in a dark place for some time.


No he is innocent until proven guilty. Just because he is Donald Trump does not mean he should be prematurely judged as guilty without ANY concrete evidence suggesting he did anything wrong. Its really not a hard concept to understand.


Your problem here is confusing objective with subjective. Your way of reasoning is subjective and is based on personal feeling and opinion, my way of reasoning is objective and based on facts.

---

Take off your devil's advocate hat for half a second. So.. you're saying, gun to your head.. not convicting him. Not sentencing him. Gun to your head.. you lie and you die.. what you honestly think.. you have to answer.. you have to come to a conclusion, knowing it may not be perfect.. what you actually believe.. you look at everything you know.. you say not guilty? Yes or no. Answer the question.


I'm factoring in everything I know about the guy, his actions, his words, his tendencies. The accusers. The timing. The facts I know. The things I don't. The statistics and probabilities. I'm putting all of the pieces together. I'm not a court of law and I have no smoking gun (yet). I am using common sense objectively and can conclude the likelihood of him to be innocent of all of these charges is almost non-existent. If you are honest enough to answer the question you will also come to this same conclusion. Not that he is black and white guilty of all charges. Not that we are convicting him today. But that all things truly considered, the probability of him being innocent of all charges is miniscule. Basic common sense tells you this.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Take off your devil's advocate hat for half a second. So.. you're saying, gun to your head.. not convicting him. Not sentencing him. Gun to your head.. you lie and you die.. what you honestly think.. you have to answer.. you have to come to a conclusion, knowing it may not be perfect.. what you actually believe.. you look at everything you know.. you say not guilty? Yes or no. Answer the question.


I'm factoring in everything I know about the guy, his actions, his words, his tendencies. The accusers. The timing. The facts I know. The things I don't. The statistics and probabilities. I'm putting all of the pieces together. I'm not a court of law and I have no smoking gun (yet). I am using common sense objectively and can conclude the likelihood of him to be innocent of all of these charges is almost non-existent. If you are honest enough to answer the question you will also come to this same conclusion. Not that he is black and white guilty of all charges. Not that we are convicting him today. But that all things truly considered, the probability of him being innocent of all charges is miniscule. Basic common sense tells you this.

 

If he committed a crime, this would be a criminal case.  The fact that this is a civil matter tells me that someone is looking to damage him right before an election by floating false allegations, and if that doesn't prevent him from winning the election, then it's about trying to fleece a billionaire.  Either way, you're factoring in "everything you know about the guy" which would barely fill a thimble.  What you know is what your masters in the media have spoon fed you, and nothing more.  If there was a king of the lemmings, you'd be in contention for the crown.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

If he committed a crime, this would be a criminal case. The fact that this is a civil matter tells me that someone is looking to damage him right before an election by floating false allegations, and if that doesn't prevent him from winning the election, then it's about trying to fleece a billionaire. Either way, you're factoring in "everything you know about the guy" which would barely fill a thimble. What you know is what your masters in the media have spoon fed you, and nothing more. If there was a king of the lemmings, you'd be in contention for the crown.

Do you know the statute of limitations to file a criminal case?


The victim and witnesses will be heard soon.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Take off your devil's advocate hat for half a second. So.. you're saying, gun to your head.. not convicting him. Not sentencing him. Gun to your head.. you lie and you die.. what you honestly think.. you have to answer.. you have to come to a conclusion, knowing it may not be perfect.. what you actually believe.. you look at everything you know.. you say not guilty? Yes or no. Answer the question.


I'm factoring in everything I know about the guy, his actions, his words, his tendencies. The accusers. The timing. The facts I know. The things I don't. The statistics and probabilities. I'm putting all of the pieces together. I'm not a court of law and I have no smoking gun (yet). I am using common sense objectively and can conclude the likelihood of him to be innocent of all of these charges is almost non-existent. If you are honest enough to answer the question you will also come to this same conclusion. Not that he is black and white guilty of all charges. Not that we are convicting him today. But that all things truly considered, the probability of him being innocent of all charges is miniscule. Basic common sense tells you this.

He is innocent until I see facts/evidence that prove otherwise. Is it possible he grabbed a women by the breasts without her permission? Sure its possible. Is it possible that all of these allegations are false and only used to derail him/get money from him? Yes that's possible too.


All of this is, again, subjective and not objective. Just because you say you are using common sense objectively does not make it so Kotite. You have already decided he is guilty , even without concrete evidence to suggest so.


That you are unable to grasp the flaws in your logic say a lot about you.

---

He is innocent until I see facts/evidence that prove otherwise. Is it possible he grabbed a women by the breasts without her permission? Sure its possible. Is it possible that all of these allegations are false and only used to derail him/get money from him? Yes that's possible too.


All of this is, again, subjective and not objective. Just because you say you are using common sense objectively does not make it so Kotite. You have already decided he is guilty , even without concrete evidence to suggest so.


That you are unable to grasp the flaws in your logic say a lot about you.

<BANG> You're dead.


Just answer the question. We have established all the possibilities in the world are on the table. What does logic tell you is more likely?


Are you incapable of even admitting what you believe is true? No diatribes about due process. Your life depends on it. "I don't know" is not an option. Gun to your head. Do you think he inappropriately touched at least one of the dozen women who have accused him? A simple yes or no.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!