You are redefining words to suit your agenda.
“Let” actually means “permission”. They give their permission, so therefore it is consensual, and not a crime.
Your guess that he has unlimited money is probably legitimately part of it… but it’s more likely that those women were hoping for a share of it and that’s why they so readily give permission and even show a desire for Trump to touch them.
Gold diggers.
I’m far more concerned with Hillary inciting violence at Trump rallies that resulted in people being injured, including police – information and video proof via Project Veritas. And Hillary’s continual prodding of Vladimir Putin and Russia, a nuclear superpower, that if escalated will lead to nuclear war. He’s already moving his nuke warheads around his country to meet the threat and he’s positioned defensive weapons in Syria against US led NATO military taunt strikes close to Aleppo (Turkish and Belgian military planes bombing civilians and Kurdish forces well inside Syrian territory, then moving Turkish tanks within 15k of Aleppo)
Concerning.

They * let* you only means let you get away with it , not respond. There are all kinds of reasons why a woman would let Donald Trump get a way with it. The least being he is a star. My guess is he has unlimited money to sue etc. I doubt she had her pussy out there just waiting for some tangerine cat haired asshole to grab it

You’d really like me in person, you know. 🙂
I’m not the perception of me that’s being pushed around here.
Yes, okay… I’m both amused by some people’s responses to my being cheeky and love to discuss it at the moment. I know it riles them, of course I do, but honestly, I’ll give you a little hint… at most I might have one, two or maybe three cheeky comments at a time to make and I would leave it alone (it’s sort of my rule for myself because it is bedtime here and if I don’t stick with it I stay up too late), but the responses come back with misinformation, lies or questions to me fairly promptly. I feel compelled to correct or answer too sometimes, because that’s just the way I am, I don’t like falsities to persist, but many around here must secretly love the conversation too… even if they despise themselves for it… why else would they continue to bite at my teasing? Most of the time I doubt anyone will respond because I usually keep things vague or subtle, but give it 30-60 minutes tops and the mock outrage explodes… I go to bed and dozens of comments to me are in my inbox and dozens more swell the thread of others talking back and forth to one another. Seriously – go check the thread and see how many comments are mine each time in comparison to all the others.
I wonder if secretly some can’t wait for my next baiting… they jump in pretty quick sometimes… I’d wager it’s just as amusing to slosh their acid over me and be cheered for it by the crowd as it is for me to lay my amusing bait.
I know you know I’d have ceased by now if I was routinely ignored – but here we are. 🙂
Just give me an upvote of recognition and collapse, or amuse yourself reading the responses… don’t work yourself up over it, it’s not worth it.
As for Hillary/Trump – only time will tell what sort of world and consequences we’re all going to end up with. Just be sure to vote with your head (if you’re in the US) and not with your heart – my only advice.
Cheers, pluvo! 🙂

We were having a conversation a while ago which was quite civil. My point is that you are bating again and again (sometimes quite subtle and sneaky) til you get a reaction to then push your agenda and to amuse yourself when the ‘discussion’ is getting of the rails. I think the latter somehow gives you more satisfaction and as you do it continuously you must be really in need of that and it is less about the ‘discussion’ itself (I don’t like Robert’s replies either).
I do not share your right wing opinion although I can understand some of your concerns. I can’t stand racists though. BTW, I think Trump is a disgusting loud-mouth and braggart and the Republicans will pay the prize for not nominating a decent candidate, although I’m not a fan of Hillary either.

“People who are actually on the ground should, in general, be trusted more than people who are talking from half a planet away.”
Local Syrians don’t count? Where are your local Syrian interviews that you rely on so heavily for your opinion and perspective? I showed you one of mine, but you discredit because RT is the source. Show me where your mainstream media interview Syrians in Syria, or your alternative sources, are.
More discrediting of my sources… but conveniently left out the answer to my request – who are your sources? I’d like to visit and take a look. Including the ‘reputable’ right leaning sources that you DO trust over mine.

“I was talking about local reporting” And I wouldn’t tell you that I know more about what happens in Australia than you do. People who are actually on the ground should, in general, be trusted more than people who are talking from half a planet away.
” I can’t convince you… you have to look for yourself if you are interested.” You could– if you actually bothered to show any examples where RT was corroborated. The only case you actually pointed to was the UN repudiating its own personnel about what they personally underwent, which was not, to say the least, a good example.
” “The White Helmets”, who gave those ‘first-hand accounts’ are members of terrorist groups who have subverted the real Syrian rescue groups who’s head office is in the Government held city of Damascus.” Jesus fucking Christ, you actually think the agents of the Assad regime are the only “real” rescue groups, rather than people who actually bring in food and supplies? And you think it is possible to deliver supplies to a war zone without being armed? And you do not understand that the UN themselves used these people to deliver supplies? There are so many puzzles about what it is you even think is going on here.
“Alex Jones and any other right leaning publication or site or channel are discredited by you” Alex Jones is seriously mentally ill. There do exist right-leaning publications who speak from a place connected to the reality in which we live: you just never cite to any sane conservative sources. You exclusively cite to neo-Nazis, believers in lizard aliens, and mouth frothers when you are not citing explicit agents of the Russian government.

“”they tell a different story to what the mainstream media portray” They tell a different story than what journalists who risk their lives on the front lines find, and one which makes zero sense in terms of the long back story which you don’t seem to know anything about. It is obviously prepared for useless idiots like you.”
I was talking about local reporting – specifically liberal media covering “Reclaim Australia” and “UPF” rallies – they attribute the violence to these Patriot movements and edit the footage to fit their narrative, but the full raw footage put up by the movements themselves show clearly that the violence is started by socialist/communist/liberal groups. This is what I am talking about – I have seen it myself.

I have more faith in RT than you because I’ve been willing to look and have seen multiple instances where they are corroborated and mainstream media discredited over the same issue. I can’t convince you… you have to look for yourself if you are interested.

“The White Helmets”, who gave those ‘first-hand accounts’ are members of terrorist groups who have subverted the real Syrian rescue groups who’s head office is in the Government held city of Damascus. They still operate and have stated they have no affiliation to the ‘White Helmets’. Aid groups such as these are supposed to remain neutral and are not to bear arms, however there have been numerous photographs of the White Helmet members exposing them carrying military weapons. They are involved in black propaganda, done specifically to damage the credibility of Assad’s forces and Russia’s. The UN changed their report because they found no evidence of a rocket or air-bombing attack – i.e NO craters or damage to the roads, etc… the frames of the vehicles did not show damage consistent to a rocket or air strike. They were burnt out, and the scene was suspiciously set up for camera footage and the ‘white Helmets’ were coincidentally on scene at the right time to get said footage, which in itself is suspicious.

So, UN discredited, RT and any source I present are discredited, Alex Jones and any other right leaning publication or site or channel are discredited by you… I’m at a loss where to go that you wouldn’t immediately reject.

Who exactly are your ‘trusted sources’? In general, I mean… who are your go-to media for first information when something happens? You never tell me – I’d like to check them out myself too.

“Forget the source and independently assess what you see in the clip” What I see is two shots, one with a lead-in taken through a peephole into rebel territory showing that al-Nusrah has a presence there, the other with no lead-in and only the Putinites’ word that it was taken anywhere near the first clip.
“they tell a different story to what the mainstream media portray” They tell a different story than what journalists who risk their lives on the front lines find, and one which makes zero sense in terms of the long back story which you don’t seem to know anything about. It is obviously prepared for useless idiots like you.
“I have more faith in RT than you” Why? Just because it fits with what you prefer to believe?
“do not discount them altogether” Why not? I know of no reason to believe anything that comes from such a source.
“I’ve seen the UN confirm their reporting very frequently” The UN is a political football and is often manipulated.
” the UN changed their report to confirm no air bombs were used” Selling out their own people in a disgraceful way. Their initial report was based on the firsthand experience, but that was before they understood that the bombs were from the Russians and that it would cause offense to speak honestly. Their changed report was based on the need to placate the Assad regime if they are to continue functioning in the region.

Forget the source and independently assess what you see in the clip. Yes, it is but one piece of evidence, but added to many others I found I believe it is authentic, and together they tell a different story to what the mainstream media portray.
Mainstream media falsify video and documents – I’ve seen it myself how they’ve represented something I have seen raw footage from – so you must collect evidence from both sides to piece together the truth. I have more faith in RT than you… but of course, be cautious if you must, but do not discount them altogether…. I’ve seen the UN confirm their reporting very frequently. The Aid truck bombing in Aleppo was one time – RT were the first to say there were no aircraft bombing, then the UN changed their report to confirm no air bombs were used – discrediting mainstream media and US govt propaganda.

ISIS has never been anywhere near Aleppo. Al-Nusra is no better than ISIS, also deriving from remnants of the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda, but their leaders have a deep personal hatred for each other (not an ideological difference, just that nasty people tend to have fallings out, as we see between Trump and the Republicans). Your clip is, of course, echoing RT, which is nakedly a mouthpiece for Putin’s propaganda and frequently falsifies both documents and videos.