• NeuromancerOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    Sexual abuse, not sexual assault. Yet, this story has nothing to do with your claim. I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. It is a civil case and most likely will be overturned when appealed.

    When did Trump admit to sexually assaulting anyone?

    You’re the one who brought up Trump’s integrity,

    This is how I know you are trolling. Where did I ever mention Trump’s integrity? Stop babbling and cite where I every said anything about his integrity.

    • BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Sexual assault is a form of sexual abuse yo. Try to keep up.

      Furthermore, the terms are different but the acts typically fall under one or more definitions. A more accurate, broader term used nowadays would be “sexual violence”. I’ll let you look up the specifics if you’re interested in learning more about it.

      It’s all sexual harassment too, so however you want to split hairs about it we should be able to agree that it’s at least that.

      With this in mind, justifications for what he said in the access Hollywood tape kind of lose all credibility.

      • NeuromancerOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        I am trying to keep up but you are all over the place and not being very clear.

        Sexual assault is a crime and Trump has never admitted to such a crime.

        A more accurate term is sexual assault as that is how it is defined under NY law. It isn’t defined as sexual violence. It isn’t defined as sexual assault. There is a reason they used the term they did in court because they know the evidence was zero.

        • BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Sexual Violence isn’t an official definition you are correct, but it’s a broader term with which you can describe both acts. I’m simply trying to find something we can both agree on, but it doesn’t seem you’re very interested in agreeing on anything here.

          I think they used the term because they could prove it. And they did.