I did answer. At the end of the day the only 2 people that know what happened is Carroll and Trump. I am just pointing that 20+ other women said Trump did some sexual assault on them as well. To be fair some were ass slaps and not penetration, but slapping a woman's ass when she does not want it, is not a good look either.
Trump had his chance to defend himself in court, but decided playing a round of golf was more important. Did Trump do it to Carroll, who knows, but there is a lot of sexual assault smoke around Trump, so it is plausible. I just find it funny people say no way Trump did it, when 20+ other women have a similar story. Trump's first wife accused him of rape.
Trump was found guilty in the court of law. There is a bunch of amateur lawyers on Sherdog who is totally convinced no way Trump did it, maybe some of you MAGADoggers should offer your services to defend Trump. At least you wont have a law license to lose like most of his other lawyers.
No, you havent answered it at all. Youve avoided it twice and I have no idea why. It isnt a particularly difficult question. Look, Im gonna answer for you. Yes. You do know the difference between not being convinced and arguing that everyone is a liar. So its incredibly disingenuous of you to imply thats my position when you know that it isnt.
Basically, there a couple of different metrics here for who you have to convince of what. The first one is : Can you convince me that Trump is very likely to behave inappropriately with women. This isnt a particularly difficult threshold to meet. I doubt theres many people that argue the opposite.
But theres another metric as well. That is, can you convince me that Trump did something specific to a specific person? This metric is a bit harder to meet. You're going to need some kind of evidence of some sort, because its not a question of whether its possible he did it, its did he do it?
Then theres the last, and most important metric. Can you convince me to a legal standard of evidence that Trump did something to someone in particular, at a specific time and a specific place? This is the most important, and by default hardest metric to prove and for good reason.
Lots of people seem to be replacing the last and most important metric with the first and least important. Theres a reason why in order to try to argue that Trump is guilty you're bringing up all of this information that was
not in the actual trial. It's because the evidence was flimsy and on some level everyone knows it, its why they avoid using the actual case presented in trial and look to all sorts of external evidence to use.
It doesnt matter what 20 other women said. The only thing that matters is what was presented in the courtroom. Thats the way the legal system is supposed to work and its supposed to work that way for
everybody. Even the douche bags we dont like. Like you said yourself, theres a very big difference between groping and forcibly raping someone. "Its not a good look" is also not a good argument that someone should be found liable for rape in a legal preceding.
You know his first wife, the one who accused him of rape, recanted and said she just did it to get more money in the divorce? And yet, here you are bringing it up. This is a problem. Because you're attempting to justify a case that you know is weak with anything that you can, including someone elses admitted lie.
I have yet to hear anyone say there is no way Trump did this. This is every bit as disingenuous as implying that Im saying everyone is a liar. At the end of the day, all Im asking for is the evidence that was presented in the actual case that was enough to meet a legal threshold for civil liability. Not circular reasoning that because he was found guilty, there was enough evidence. Im saying what is the evidence that was presented that was convincing? "He went golfing" is not an argument that he raped somebody.
