There was no implication of guilt, except you of Trump, and that's more than an implication. No one on here has been saying anything about Trump or Clinton regarding these allegations except for when you bring them up, so no one is saying you should be outraged against one and not the other, again, except for you. And like I said, and I'm sure most feel the same a I do, it's easy to be skeptical when its just a civil suit that's filed.


I have a hard time believing that this 13 was supposedly so scared for her life and those of her family that she didn't go to the police about it, even as an adult, but she's suddenly now so emboldened when it comes with the potential a lot of zeros on a check. I'd have a hard time believing it no matter who was accused in these same circumstances, not just Trump.

The implication is I should be outraged at Clinton's accusation. Should there be no outrage at the Trump accusation as well? You are skeptical that there is only a civil suit. Could there be a statute of limitations preventing the accuser of pressing criminal charges? Your second paragraph follows the same sad narrative many accusers face. Blaming or discrediting the victim. You really can't conceive of a 13 year old girl being genuinely petrified by powerful men who have just attacked them? I find that easy to believe having known women who were attacked in their youth and threatened to keep their silence. There's no chance she or any of the other accusers who are not seeking money could possibly be telling the truth. Because none of Trump's actions, words or associates lend credibility to the allegations.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

The implication is I should be outraged at Clinton's accusation. Should there be no outrage at the Trump accusation as well? You are skeptical that there is only a civil suit. Could there be a statute of limitations preventing the accuser of pressing criminal charges? Your second paragraph follows the same sad narrative many accusers face. Blaming or discrediting the victim. You really can't conceive of a 13 year old girl being genuinely petrified by powerful men who have just attacked them? I find that easy to believe having known women who were attacked in their youth and threatened to keep their silence. There's no chance she or any of the other accusers who are not seeking money could possibly be telling the truth. Because none of Trump's actions, words or associates lend credibility to the allegations.

Omg...are you really as dense as you make it seem?? Asking you why you're not outraged about Clinton does in no way suggest that you shouldn't be outraged over Trump, it's asking you why you're outraged over one and not the other!! Shouldn't you be worried about those children too, because you only seem worried about the one accusing Trump. Selective outrage at its finest.

---

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

I didn't convict him of anything. That's just your hypocrisy shining through.

So you think Clinton is innocent then? His association to Epstein who has settled several lawsuits out of court seems pretty damning. Trump is associated with the same sketchy guy. Not noteworthy at all that an allegation against him references the exact m.o. which Epstein used or that a witness is admitting to have courted the alleged victim at his behest or that she provides an eye witness account of the alleged rape. There should not be the tiniest red flag thrown? Now who's the hypocrite.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Omg...are you really as dense as you make it seem?? Asking you why you're not outraged about Clinton does in no way suggest that you shouldn't be outraged over Trump, it's asking you why you're outraged over one and not the other!! Shouldn't you be worried about those children too, because you only seem worried about the one accusing Trump. Selective outrage at its finest.

As previously stated, one should be outraged at both accusations. You apparently are not.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

So you think Clinton is innocent then? His association to Epstein who has settled several lawsuits out of court seems pretty damning. Trump is associated with the same sketchy guy. Not noteworthy at all that an allegation against him references the exact m.o. which Epstein used or that a witness is admitting to have courted the alleged victim at his behest or that she provides an eye witness account of the alleged rape. There should not be the tiniest red flag thrown? Now who's the hypocrite.

He's not accusing Clinton OR Trump of being a child molester, so how is that being a hypocrite?

---

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

As previously stated, one should be outraged at both accusations. You apparently are not.

And neither are you.

---

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

And neither are you.

That Trump debate school is really paying off. How do you draw that conclusion?

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

That Trump debate school is really paying off. How do you draw that conclusion?

My ability to read allows me to draw that conclusion. The only outrage I've read from you about Clinton is at FBT for "all but convicting him".

---

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

My ability to read allows me to draw that conclusion. The only outrage I've read from you about Clinton is at FBT for "all but convicting him".

I can say I am not "with her" and that I didn't vote for Bill when he first ran. I can say people should be outraged at both accusations, but your superior reading skills lead you to believe I find one excusable and the other not.


Okay.. well, at least I'm not the one blaming victims and discrediting witnesses just because it doesn't jive with the narrative I prefer.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

I can say I am not "with her" and that I didn't vote for Bill when he first ran. I can say people should be outraged at both accusations, but your superior reading skills lead you to believe I find one excusable and the other not.

Okay.. well, at least I'm not the one blaming victims and discrediting witnesses just because it doesn't jive with the narrative I prefer.

No, you're the one that's convicting someone just because they've been accused. Brian Banks says hi.

---

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

Eat the poor!

---

No, you're the one that's convicting someone just because they've been accused. Brian Banks says hi.

The appropriate reaction when someone is accused of rape in your case is to document all the reasons it is unlikely to have happened instead of considering the possibility it could have.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Eat the poor!

Same as it ever was.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

The appropriate reaction when someone is accused of rape in your case is to document all the reasons it is unlikely to have happened instead of considering the possibility it could have.

And what you deem appropriate is to convict the person just because someone makes a claim without considering the possibility that it might not have happened.

---

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

And what you deem appropriate is to convict the person just because someone makes a claim without considering the possibility that it might not have happened.

No. They deserve a trial for the facts to be presented. Your reaction is phony however.


If your neighbor or co worker was accused of raping a 13 year old in addition to allegations of sexual assault on multiple other women, you are full of [BLEEP] if your reaction would simply to say, "Bummer." Or to even react by saying, "hmm.. let's try to tear down the accuser and point out every facet that could be false."


If this were someone you were in regular contact with, your first reaction would be shock/outrage and your following reaction would be repulsion or at a minimum, mild precaution. If you want to stick to this line of bull that you would immediately take a stance where you would maintain Spock-like even keel of extreme reason, you are lying. If this was ANYONE you actually knew, being simply accused of the action would be enough for you to question everything you know about that person. If it were someone you knew who was accused by multiple women, you would convince yourself the person had to be guilty for at least some of it. If you maintain this would not be the case, I will call you a sociopath or an outright liar.


But with Trump, it's different. Riiight..

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

No. They deserve a trial for the facts to be presented. Your reaction is phony however.

If your neighbor or co worker was accused of raping a 13 year old in addition to allegations of sexual assault on multiple other women, you are full of [BAD WORD REMOVED] if your reaction would simply to say, "Bummer." Or to even react by saying, "hmm.. let's try to tear down the accuser and point out every facet that could be false."

If this were someone you were in regular contact with, your first reaction would be shock/outrage and your following reaction would be repulsion or at a minimum, mild precaution. If you want to stick to this line of bull that you would immediately take a stance where you would maintain Spock-like even keel of extreme reason, you are lying. If this was ANYONE you actually knew, being simply accused of the action would be enough for you to question everything you know about that person. If it were someone you knew who was accused by multiple women, you would convince yourself the person had to be guilty for at least some of it. If you maintain this would not be the case, I will call you a sociopath or an outright liar.

But with Trump, it's different. Riiight..

If that person was arrested for it, or caught red handed at it, yes, I would question it and be shocked about it. But like I've already said, if the hint of being a child molester comes after 20 years and only with a civil suit, then I'd be skeptical of that too, even if that person was you who was being accused.


And I couldn't care less if you call me a liar, a sociopath, a racist, a fascist, or worse than Hitler, or anything else you've called me, alluded to, or even thought about me. It's your "go to" move, and has absolutely no effect on me.

---

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

If that person was arrested for it, or caught red handed at it, yes, I would question it and be shocked about it. But like I've already said, if the hint of being a child molester comes after 20 years and only with a civil suit, then I'd be skeptical of that too, even if that person was you who was being accused.


And I couldn't care less if you call me a liar, a sociopath, a racist, a fascist, or worse than Hitler, or anything else you've called me, alluded to, or even thought about me. It's your "go to" move, and has absolutely no effect on me.

"Hey neighbor.. why do you look so down?"


"I have been accused of raping a 13 year old 17 years ago and multiple other women have accused me of sexual assault at various points which span the past two decades."


"I'm skeptical. Hang in there neighbor. I don't view you any differently than I did yesterday."


Yeah.. I'm gonna call shenanigans.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

"Hey neighbor.. why do you look so down?"

"I have been accused of raping a 13 year old 17 years ago and multiple other women have accused me of sexual assault at various points which span the past two decades."

"I'm skeptical. Hang in there neighbor. I don't view you any differently than I did yesterday."

Yeah.. I'm gonna call shenanigans.

You'd be too busy rounding up the townsfolk for a public execution to call shenanigans on anything.

---

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

"Hey neighbour...why do you look so down?"


"I have been accused of raping a 13 year old girl 17 years ago and even though there is no evidence of this event ever happening and no evidence I have ever met this girl before. To make matters worse even though there is no evidence of this ever happening the local media have already branded me a pedophile and rapist. I've lost my job, my wife and kids have left town to get away from the mobs and I can't even set foot outside my without being pelted with fruit. My life is ruined, I just wish people would wait for evidence and facts before branding someone guilty"


"By golly well that is a serious crime to be accused of , it MUST be true and I'd be a fool to consider you anything other than GUILTY"


"....sigh....."

---

You'd be too busy rounding up the townsfolk for a public execution to call shenanigans on anything.

Nope. But I wouldn't be leaping to exonerate them without considering what the accusations are.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!