No further discussion on this particular topic will be entertained. If you aren't convinced about what sort of man sits behind the Resolute desk by now then you will never be convinced. Nothing anyone would say is likely to change your mind.
I didn't vote for him, it's not me you need to convince.
Yeah. The woman he raped. That one.
Out of curiosity, has she gone after any of the other 20 men listed in her book...
Like the CEO of CBS, the Mafia Boss in Chicago, the head of the fur trapping company in Montana...or any of the others?
After all, she has
rock solid evidence (in the form of two character witnesses who were her long time friends)
If you don't want to talk about it anymore that's fine...
But I'll just close with saying that "evidence" supporting the supposed Biden family influence peddling is stronger than the E Jean Carroll's "evidence" of supposedly being raped by various powerful men all over the world...but people obviously recognized that speculative he-said/she-said purely testimonial evidence isn't a particular strong evidentiary standard in that case.
If people want to have a selective standard on that, that's their prerogative.
But if you're wondering why it may be so hard to reach that 47% of the GOP base, the approach you've employed here explains it.
When the same group of people who meticulously demand "sources please", demand the high bar of peer reviewed studies, and demand multiple citations from a list of pre-approved sources when it comes to criticisms against their side/policies...
But then take a "the word of her and her two friends plus an unrelated excerpt from an Access Hollywood tape is good enough for me, he's a rapist, case closed, we'll discuss it no further... why do you support a rapist?"
To be blunt, from most of of the Trump supporters I've talked to about that case... Their perception is that a woman who's a radical feminist, is a bit "quirky" (hence her famously naming her pets things like "Fireball Vagina") , with a history of making these types of allegations (some of which are unbelievable), picked a convenient time to try to "release the hounds", and provided only her word and the word of her two longtime friends, and presented it in front of a stacked Manhattan court.
Let's be honest, if someone like Charlie Kirk said "
Democrat XYZ is a sexual predator, if you don't believe me, well here's my two friends, Steven Crowder and Sean Hannity...they'll tell you that I told them about it right after I saw it... and in a civil case that was held in a South Texas district that's 7:1 republican, they were found liable -- you can read about it in my book that comes out in 3 weeks titled Pedo-libs" -- you wouldn't accept that for half a second. (nor should you)
People accepted and embraced a weak evidentiary standard because the target happened to be someone they didn't like, plain and simple.
