Are we making the base assumption that she is to believed? I'm talking about the first individual. If we are saying "Yes" to that on her word alone, then we are then letting something that someone did (and was not prosecuted for) 36 years in the past, when they were in High School, keep them from a promotion in their job? How much have you changed in the last 36 years? How much have you accomplished since you became an adult? Now you are judging him and saying that all of that is invalid? That's a tough place to stand, considering that no one would qualify for anything. One person sees this alleged activity as the worse, while I see something else (say getting drunk, crashing you car, and leaving a woman to die) as worse. Along the same lines, I see cheating on your spouse and lying about it under oath as that much worse. Yet the levels of "outrage" are no where near the same.

On the other hand, if we are not going to take her allegations as fact, and instead are going to wait for testimony, then this sets a very bad precedent in the fact that we are now giving 36 year old, unsubstantiated allegations a stage and forum for discussion....

As for the other accusers (which the more I read about it are even more unsubstantiated than the original), it seems more like a political smear. The timing of the entire thing. All of it seems designed by the Democrats as "Win in any way possible. Damn the truth if need be. Win."

Which kinda just validates every conspiracy rumor that Trump believes in already....

~Jeordam