I didn't assume he got consent. I'm assuming if he doesn't tell everyone about how he got consent, that he's not a rapist. The burden of proof isn't on me, it's on you. And save the outrage, I'm not impressed with outrage with zero arguments.

Semantics are important. If you think I've said 'she was asking for it' in any form, provide a quote.

And as I've said, they came out after people like you became outraged and insisted his comments could only mean sexual assault. So no, not an excuse.

Hey idiot, he's not going to lay out a full consent plan in a casual conversation. He said 'they let him'. that's more than enough to reasonably intepret his coments in the way Chappelle did. utterly idiotic.

It's called interpeting ambiguous statements and conversations. According to you two idiots, if he doesn't lay out a full consent plan in a conversation with Billy Bush, he's implying assault. Completley dishonest.

So any allegations against a bad person are acceptable? Should we accuse him of being a mass murderer and an organ trafficker as well? It's called not being unjust. Yes, Trump is an evil man. No, that tape did not imply sexual assault. Some of us are capable of such complexity.

I already addressed that. Read the other responses.

In other words, nothing. What a surprise.

Prove it. Provide a quote and proof. I'm not impressed with displays of outrage.

Another dishonest tactic. Nobody is questioning what consent means. People are debating what the things he said means. Try again.

How do you know it's in that context? You have no idea. Chappelle certainly didn't interpret it in that context.

Wrong. You merely left out the part where he said 'they let you.' You simply choose to interpret it in that manner, which certainly could be. There are other just as reasonable interpretations, and as Chappelle said, others intepreted it to mean 'Rich men can get lots of women' (whether that's true or not). You…

Hey idiot, he said 'THEY LET YOU.' Try again. Disgusting.

That doesn't change anything about the context I'm talking about.
And when did this outrage start? Was it before the women came forward or afterwards? It started long before, when this tape came out before the assults came forward. So at the time, it was dishonest to take an ambiguous statement that plenty of others…

Except it wasn't about sexual assault. There are more reasonable interpretations of his comments. Try again.

No, I just provided a context for my interpretation. You simply assert yours is true.

Yes it does. You made up the part about 'fear factor'. I'm providing evidence that's not the most reasonable interpretation. Your statement is also an interpretation. You have to provide some basis for that. I provided one, you didn't.

I'm looking at both and saying there is ambiguity in the story and that my interpretation is just as good as any other. Yours isn't. Dave Chappelle apparently, as a rich man, understood Trump's comments in the same exact manner.

I said the statement he made is ambiguous and there is no reason to interpret his statement as implying some let him out of a 'fear factor.' You simply made that part up. I'm offering a context in which my statement makes far more sense than yours.

How is it irrelevant? Prove it.