I watched one with my wife out of curiosity.  We turned it off after the (too many to count) young woman got groped on her boobs or vagina by strange onlooking men solely due to flashing.  Then she would try to cover her parts so as to not be groped.  It was very disgusting.  That was back in like 2002 or 2003.

Yeah, your statements is a bunch of shit.  What’s this “new” evidence that other people haven’t seen.

This is the guy who said that the all-time Nigerian basketball team would beat any other country but did so by expanding the definition of what makes a person Nigerian or adding countries that are close by or whose descendants have Nigerian blood. The guy’s reasoning skills are atrocious.

Exactly. People make judgments every day about other people that don’t rely upon standards in criminal court. If you hear rumors regarding someone touching kids and there is some reasonable basis (not even more likely than not), you don’t let them continue to babysit your kids. The risk is too great. If you think…

Except you are not waiting and seeing, but passing judgment on her over something as innocuous as filing the lawsuit before she gets married. Such a stupid fucking point and a complete lack of understanding about how civil procedure works.

Hey dumb ass, why don’t you actually read the allegations?  Also, you haven’t talked to any women who were sexually assaulted.  We know it by your bullshit response here.

Fuck off and deal with your own issues rather than attacking people who offer their stories in good faith. You make a lot of assumptions that are not supportable.

The obvious answer is Superman Prime.

No, that person does not.  They don’t realize much of anything is my best guess.

I think the proper response is “Derp?”

Your point does not follow. Domestic abusers don’t have weapons when convicted of certain crimes and/or they have protective orders in place. This does not mean that victims aren’t reporting the abuse.

Your misunderstanding of “due process” is why you conflate it only with process within the legal system. Due process is a cornerstone of systems that are separate from the legal system. Usually those systems eventually spill into the legal system if one party still maintains a grievance.

The Senate has its own separate proceedings that constitute “due process”. There are many other bodies outside the “legal system” that have due process. If you lose your job in a field where you have a union, there is likely a private avenue for “due process” available to you and one in the actual legal system that is…

You apparently don’t understand duress or coercion. Schumer and some others prevented him from carrying through with the ethics investigation by threatening to remove him preemptively from committee assignments and lessening his ability to be an effective Senator for his state. That matters. Sure, he chose to resign…

That due process is a tedious argument is your misunderstanding of the purpose of due process. There need be no due process for you individually to believe or disbelieve that he did those things. That is your right based upon the evidence that you believe or disbelieve. Due process is for things like losing a public jo…

It’s amazing how many people are willing to attack the guy who sues a company for blatantly violating the law because he could have done something different in response to the company violating the law.  Either way, the company is violating the law for the purpose of ripping off consumers.  That’s why that law is in…

Even with this being the enforcement mechanism for consumer laws, most people take the approach that is prevalent in the comments here.  That’s why it still isn’t all that effective and companies continue to blatantly violate the law.

By its very nature, it is not a frivolous lawsuit. Frivolous would mean that there is no reasonable basis under the existing law or a reasonable extension of the law for it, or that he is filing it just to harass TGI Fridays. Now, is it a petty lawsuit, perhaps.

I think the bias is yours here.  She “keeps changing the subject”.  It’s Hill that keeps asking if he hit her when “hitting” wasn’t the violent act in question.  Further, why must she answer the person who pleaded guilty to committing violence against her?  He admitted it in open court under oath. 

They will offer a settlement to her if she gets past summary judgment. They may offer it before that. They don’t want discovery from her while a criminal case is pending. They can’t let him testify if it goes to trial.