HUGGY
I Post Because I Care
Excuse me..It appears we
Excuse me...it appears we do not share the same definition of "zero". Five women making claims so far is not zero in my book. THAT would be zero if NO women made any claims.
Vetting a potential presidential candidate does not require a court room vindication or conviction with each and every allegation that arises.
So let's see.... candidate Cain, anonymous allegations of sexual harassment that were either dismissed or settled and one not so anonymous allegation, morally indecent. The PRESIDENT, copping blow jobs and shoving cigars in the twat of a staffer and then blasting a load all over her dress, in the oval office, then lying about it under oath in a civil trial over alleged sexual harassment, along with rape allegations... morally decent. Ok, I get it.
So you draw no distinction between "consenting adults" and sexual assault when it comes to morality? Interesting. The woman Clinton(whom I detest for many OTHER reasons) was alleged to have forced himself upon was a woman who was supposedly invited to his hotel room by a State patrolman to be with him privately. What occurred there was at least in concept probably consentual at least at the outset. Clinton has priors for philandering and bad morality but rape has never been proven. All of Cains "women" claim he forced himself on them in one form or another. I am unaware that Clinton is a sexual sociopath which it seems clear that Cain is.
With 0 evidence....
Excuse me...it appears we do not share the same definition of "zero". Five women making claims so far is not zero in my book. THAT would be zero if NO women made any claims.
Vetting a potential presidential candidate does not require a court room vindication or conviction with each and every allegation that arises.