Is this Trump’s start at protecting woman whether they like it or not?

Birds of a feather ...

In Gaetz’s case it might be ducks of a feather.
On Monday new evidence was leaked about Gaetz involed in golden showers with underaged girls.

Cheers!

Hmmm ... didn't I hear something about golden showers about another politician?

You probably did hear something about another politician and golden showers because it was all over the media. 
But now we might have a comparison of the level of the perversion/sickness between the 2 politicians. 
One allegedly watched 2 under aged hookers preform a golden shower act.The other one allegedly watched 2 under aged hookers preform a golden shower while they were dressed like president Obama and his wife. 
Cheers!

Honestly, it seems as though there's a competition among the GOP to determine who is the most depraved.

Winner gets a Golden Urinal Cake. Cheers!

Spoken like someone who has NEVER been raped. All sorts of factors come into it - mental health, whether or not she'll be believed, lack of self worth but above all others is FEAR.

Wait for years and until he has a political appointment and I do not believe you.  Don't have evidence, know the year, day, etc and I don't believe you. That is just how it is. 

Too many times, when the man is up for a political appointment then they come out. 

I also did not believe the man who claimed Walz has sex with him as a minor in high school. Nor the guy who claimed he and Obama used to do cocaine and have sex.   I do not believe the accusers of Kanvangh, Thomas, Trump, Gaez, Hethseth, H Clinton, etc.  Again timing....
I do believe the accusers of  Bill Clinton, J Biden. This post was edited by my2cents at November 21, 2024 12:15 PM MST

Your last sentence gives the lie to the rest of the post. It's not timing, it's politics.

Clinton accusers did not wait to accuse. He has been accused of this crap since his college days. 
Tara Reade also did not wait. There was a report made and her mother is on a live recording talking to Larry King about it. 

TIMING....  if it was just politics, I would have been on the Walz story hard. 

Clinton was undoubtedly a power mad sexual predator / abuser. So, I take it from the above, you believe Jill Harth then?

She did not file charges. She filed a lawsuit after a business deal failed.  (Years after the supposed abuse) And then comes back 20+ yrs later to work for him in the White House...after supposed abuse.  Nope.  Nonsense. 

So, if you wait too long to make the abuse public, it didn't happen?

If you wait to accuse your abuser until they are a political candidate/appointee, it hurts your credibility.

Along with not knowing the date, year, place the alleged abuse happened.  
This post was edited by my2cents at November 22, 2024 5:26 PM MST

So, then, according to you, if you wait too long to make the abuse public, it didn't happen.  Got it.

If there was a crime, Garland would have charged him. They chose not to file charges.  He was single and being a sleaze. Nothing was illegal. There was a 17 yr old involved that he met at a bar where she was being served. (So she had a fake ID) It is reasonable to assume someone being served in a bar is over 21.  But regardless they has sex in NY, the age of consent in NY is 17.  So legal.  Going to parties with younger women is legal.  Sleazy but legal.  

Same with Hegseth. They invested and said there was no crime. 

The police report on Hegseth did NOT say there was no crime.  They said they  declined to file charges because they could not be "supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt."  Once again, you miss the nuance, so let me make it simple:    there's a difference between not having sufficient evidence to PROVE a crime and a crime not being committed.  

You fail to understand our system is not guilty until proven innocent.  Police do not prove there was no crime. They prove there was a crime.   That is a nuance the left likes to ignore.

LOL! Surely, even you realise the irony of what you've just written. 

I understand our system completely.  The mere fact that insufficient evidence presents itself during an investigation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean the crime did not occur.  THAT is the nuance the right chooses to ignore.

Again. Innocent until proven guilty.