Steve Wynn Resigns RNC Chair for Allegations
Quote: RogerKintI'm not sure why this post is directed at me. I have no personal problem with you, or anyone else here. I can honestly say I respect and admire pretty much everyone here, except Nathan (kidding). I've defended your moderating of these forums multiple times. I certainly wouldn't want your job. Where's the upside? Having said that, if people feel they've been wronged by you, it's one thing. If they feel both wronged, and silenced, I could see them going off on some other venue. No, I don't think it's right.
Sorry, Roger, I should have split it into two posts. Only the first paragraph was directed at you, and I went on from there more generally to the forum.
I don't have any personal issue with you, either. I care, probably too much, about a lot of the people here. I don't want to see guys taken down, like RS and boymimbo are talking about, for a nothing burger. Too many have been already, among the famous. And you know if we're hearing these constant stories about famous men, it's got to be a multiple of that on guys we haven't heard of.
Quote: IbeatyouracesIf you're talking about GF, DanDruff (Todd Witteles, and this is public information, no doxing) doesn't own that. He took over Alan's forum. But that place isn't much better. I believe he's a member here as well, but hasn't posted very much.
No, it's some other thing with "Vegas" in a three-word title. GF was the one I visited once in July of 2016 after I was told they were posting my name, bad picture, and other personal information so people could harass me. They were very uncooperative when I approached them about stopping it.
I'm told that forum died recently and the turd crowd moved. I don't know what rhymes with ...box, whatever that was you guys said. It's likely I won't bother to find out.
Quote: WizardGood point. In my ten years with the federal government there were a lot of rules against romantic relationships in the same workplace, especially in the same chain of command. It got even worse in that I was forced to stop carpooling with someone who was the equivalent to an uncle in the chain of command. Quite ironic given the government emphasis on conserving energy.
I think that all corporations would do well to have a policy along these lines, and for the higher-ups to actually, I don't know, abide by it.
Even in a low-level field such as telemarketing, we had a similar policy. TSR's could date one another if they wanted to, and supervisors could date other supervisors if they liked, but you couldn't date anyone who occupied a lower rung on the ladder than yourself. Furthermore, if you were a supervisor and had to write up one of your reps opposite your gender, in addition to the room for that being video recorded, there also had to be a supervisor of the same gender as the person getting the write-up also in there.
I guess the point is that it's really easy not to sexually harass anyone in the workplace, as well as it is to ensure that you don't even give the appearance of sexual harassment.
Quote: boymimbo
And now, men are feeling uncomfortable about this latest social trend. Good. It's about time men got a bit of taste of being uncomfortable for once and to feel ashamed of their behavior and even be punished unfairly. Because women in the workplace haven't been treated fairly for decades, and women have now become so upset about it, past a tipping point, that if the damages (civil, losing a job, losing one's reputation, being shamed) are over the top, then too bad.
I was with you until the last sentence. I really don't think you want to see anyone who is innocent of any wrongdoing fired or to have his reputation tarnished. If that's going to become acceptable, then let's just fire every male who occupies a job right now and just bust the country in half with men getting everything east of the Mississippi and women getting everything to the west.
I think the goal should be fairness in workplace treatment and equal respect, not blanket and blind retribution against all males, many/most of whom have not actually done anything.
But, yeah, if men feel like they have to tread more lightly around women now, and I certainly do, I can get on board with the notion that we brought that much upon ourselves. For my part, unless it's a service employee, I tend not to speak to women at all unless I am spoken to first.
Quote: SOOPOOYes, these are adults who will be trying to cash in. You don't see any poor people being accused, because there is no money in that. Most allegations are probably true, but certainly not all.
I respectively disagree. There are many 'poor' or not famous people accused. There is no money in that? There is no money in ratings/eyeballs if that is what you meant.
This is a complicated and sad problem in our society to cast it off as a 'cashing in' problem. How much cash did those gymnasts receive?
Quote: Mission146I was with you until the last sentence. I really don't think you want to see anyone who is innocent of any wrongdoing fired or to have his reputation tarnished. If that's going to become acceptable, then let's just fire every male who occupies a job right now and just bust the country in half with men getting everything east of the Mississippi and women getting everything to the west.
I think the goal should be fairness in workplace treatment and equal respect, not blanket and blind retribution against all males, many/most of whom have not actually done anything.
But, yeah, if men feel like they have to tread more lightly around women now, and I certainly do, I can get on board with the notion that we brought that much upon ourselves. For my part, unless it's a service employee, I tend not to speak to women at all unless I am spoken to first.
We didn't really bring any of it on ourselves. If anything, we had parents, friends, and role models telling us how to treat women, and women bought into it too. So it's a societal correction. The fact is that we, as men, do not get to experience MUCH of the crap that women had to go through, and presently DO go through. It's not in the past. It's in the present. Women still get passed over for jobs. They still get harassed in the workplace. They still get paid less for equal work. They get presented with barriers that we don't.
Getting consent from a woman is far more sexier than raping them or assaulting them. Getting women to have sexual relationships with you out of pure love and respect is certainly better than coercing them into it via a power relationship.
The fact is that for all of the men that have been accused, the accusations have been *true*. The reason why these people step down is not because allegations are false, but because they are true. They can claim "false" but if it were false, wouldn't they do everything possible to defend themselves, especially a guy with resources like Steve Wynn, Hollywood film producers, Presidents (both present and past), corporate board members, members of the media, coaches, managers, and so on and so forth.
So yeah, if we feel like us men have to be careful in the workplace and in our relationships because society is adjusting in order for women to be treated equally and not feel like pieces of meat, that's fine. If we feel like we might get falsely accused of doing something we didn't and get caught up in the lottery, I'm okay with that too. It's just part of equalization, part of how every woman feels.
- you are only allowed to ask out a co-employee once.
- harassment violations are handled internally by Human Resources (local)
- supervisors can date employees but HR must be aware if the two employees are related in the chain of command.
- because we deal with clients, we have to respect the rules of that workplace as well.
Quote: boymimboOur rules for SH (which I am guessing are being rewritten are):
- you are only allowed to ask out a co-employee once.
- harassment violations are handled internally by Human Resources (local)
- supervisors can date employees but HR must be aware if the two employees are related in the chain of command.
- because we deal with clients, we have to respect the rules of that workplace as well.
I'd say those are pretty good, but should go just a little further.
1.) Agree. Nothing wrong with that. Ask once, and if the person being asked isn't interested (but becomes interested) he/she can let you know he/she has changed his/her mind.
2.) Depends on whether or not they escalate. I don't know how many people, "Human Resources (Local)," consists of, but if only one and they have a friendly relationship with the accused, then that is not sufficient.
3.) Disagree completely. Supervisors should not date lower-level employees. If for no other reason, there can still be an appearance of impropriety if the lower employee should be promoted or should get what is viewed as, "Special treatment," because his/her supervisor is friendly with the supervisor that he/she is dating...real or perceived. I strongly believe that you should only date people who occupy the same rung on the corporate ladder. Maybe somebody misses a promotion due to dating a co-worker, or has to break that off to accept a promotion, such is life.
4.) Good, although, I guess I would wonder how you're supposed to know what they are. Do you read the employee handbook for every client? Would dating an employee of the client be considered the same as dating a co-employee at your place would?
But the reality is simply this: "Familiarity breeds attempt."
People meet and get to know one another at work; sometimes a guy feels "a spark" and wants to act on it: human nature.
Provided he doesn't violate any employer-mandated rules and conducts himself "as a gentleman" there should be no problem.
This applies to co-workers and not to bosses and employees; for them it is strictly "Hands Off!" with no exceptions.
Wynn stepped way too far over the line and deserves all the excrement which is about to fly his way.
Karma's a bitch.
Quote: Mission146I'd say those are pretty good, but should go just a little further.
3.) Disagree completely. Supervisors should not date lower-level employees. If for no other reason, there can still be an appearance of impropriety if the lower employee should be promoted or should get what is viewed as, "Special treatment," because his/her supervisor is friendly with the supervisor that he/she is dating...real or perceived. I strongly believe that you should only date people who occupy the same rung on the corporate ladder. Maybe somebody misses a promotion due to dating a co-worker, or has to break that off to accept a promotion, such is life.
We're a very large company. Promotions are looked at very careful by HR and are very well documented. Our SH rules are pretty much as tight as any other organization. Our rules about dating clients would relate to our ethics guides which don't allow us to influence our decisions on inside information. If I were single, I would feel very comfortable about asking anyone at my client's office on a date save anyone in the chain that pays my bills or negotiates contracts.
Quote: boymimboWe didn't really bring any of it on ourselves. If anything, we had parents, friends, and role models telling us how to treat women, and women bought into it too. So it's a societal correction. The fact is that we, as men, do not get to experience MUCH of the crap that women had to go through, and presently DO go through. It's not in the past. It's in the present. Women still get passed over for jobs. They still get harassed in the workplace. They still get paid less for equal work. They get presented with barriers that we don't.
I don't buy it, we're not lab rats. The thing that sucks is that even the men (such as myself, I would like to think) who had a fundamental respect for women already have to be especially careful even speaking to a woman. I'm fine with that, of course, for all of the reasons that you mentioned. However, I don't buy this, "Telling us how to treat women," stuff. We're not sheep. A man either respects women or he doesn't, and now those who CHOOSE not to are, fortunately, being given no other choice but to do so.
I agree with everything else in the above paragraph.
Quote:Getting consent from a woman is far more sexier than raping them or assaulting them. Getting women to have sexual relationships with you out of pure love and respect is certainly better than coercing them into it via a power relationship.
Obviously, or just that you're both friggin' mutually horny for one another, am I wrong? I don't care what the framework of the consent is, just as long as there is consent, but I will say I am getting a notarized certificate of consent, prior to the sexual congress, if my fiancee and I ever break up and I'm going to have sex with a new person.
Quote:The fact is that for all of the men that have been accused, the accusations have been *true*. The reason why these people step down is not because allegations are false, but because they are true. They can claim "false" but if it were false, wouldn't they do everything possible to defend themselves, especially a guy with resources like Steve Wynn, Hollywood film producers, Presidents (both present and past), corporate board members, members of the media, coaches, managers, and so on and so forth.
ALL of them? Nonsense. A significant majority of them, absolutely.
With other people, some people may well settle out of court because settling out of court is often cheaper than a successful defense in court. Besides, even if an event didn't happen, you still run the risk of losing in court, especially depending on the jury pool.
Think about it: Sexual Harassment often occurs in a one-on-one setting with nobody else around, but civil courts use a, "Preponderance of the evidence," which is to say more likely than not, rather than a, "Reasonable doubt," basis. The result of that is, even when it comes to matters that nobody else witnessed, you're really left up to what the jury chooses to believe. The result is that there is an inherent risk in defending yourself against a civil, even if you're innocent.
And, as far as the public perception is concerned, if the jury (even in a civil) goes against you, then you are now considered to have definitely done the action in question. Most people aren't even aware that the standard of proof is different in a civil. There is no standard of proof. Maybe in a bench trial which really would be preponderance of the evidence, but in a jury trial, it's just whatever the jury decides to believe.
Again, I'm not saying that means that certain things didn't happen. It just means you have to essentially prove a negative to be more likely than not to a jury.
Quote:So yeah, if we feel like us men have to be careful in the workplace and in our relationships because society is adjusting in order for women to be treated equally and not feel like pieces of meat, that's fine. If we feel like we might get falsely accused of doing something we didn't and get caught up in the lottery, I'm okay with that too. It's just part of equalization, part of how every woman feels.
Yeah, I'm fine with having to be careful. Your previous post seemed to basically say, "If people innocent of any allegations end up getting their lives completely screwed, so what, we caused this."
And, it's not part of the equalization. While comparatively very rare, there can be false accusers. It may well be more likely that there will be additional false accusers if we make the societal standard to friggin' suspend/terminate every person accused immediately. That has nothing to do with equality. You could get your boss gone, easily, with no proof, just because you think he's a jerk. That doesn't work and is utterly preposterous.
I think women just want to be treated equally. A woman accused of sexual harassment in the workplace would be entitled to a proper investigation, I assume, without losing her job...if you don't extend that same courtesy to a man, then it's not equal.
Quote: Mission146I don't buy it, we're not lab rats. The thing that sucks is that even the men (such as myself, I would like to think) who had a fundamental respect for women already have to be especially careful even speaking to a woman. I'm fine with that, of course, for all of the reasons that you mentioned. However, I don't buy this, "Telling us how to treat women," stuff. We're not sheep. A man either respects women or he doesn't, and now those who CHOOSE not to are, fortunately, being given no other choice but to do so.
There are different degrees of respect. We've gone from "if she doesn't say anything or lightly resists, that's part of the game, and lack of an explicit 'no' means yes" to "you must get a yes, and if you get a no, stop and do not try to proceed." This is a different degree of respect. The first statement is probably what most of us were raised on. We got that messages from movies, parents, and friends.
Quote: Mission
With other people, some people may well settle out of court because settling out of court is often cheaper than a successful defense in court. Besides, even if an event didn't happen, you still run the risk of losing in court, especially depending on the jury pool.
In alot of cases, the action isn't criminal at all. They're moral. Wynn probably couldn't get convicted for anything that he did, but certainly, from a political perspective, turning off 50% (or less) of your funding bases required action.
Quote:And, it's not part of the equalization. While comparatively very rare, there can be false accusers. It may well be more likely that there will be additional false accusers if we make the societal standard to friggin' suspend/terminate every person accused immediately. That has nothing to do with equality. You could get your boss gone, easily, with no proof, just because you think he's a jerk. That doesn't work and is utterly preposterous.
Agreed. I think it's very much over the top but that it will all equalize out in a few years to a new normal. And certainly, a large proportion of women (who voted for Trump) seem to think that play/interaction/harassment/assault/rape between women and men is just part of normal gender roles. I understand it. For some, it certainly would be easier to hire a secretary, entice them to have sex with me, then fire them when I tired of that, and have no repercussion for that.
Quote: boymimbo
There are different degrees of respect. We've gone from "if she doesn't say anything or lightly resists, that's part of the game, and lack of an explicit 'no' means yes" to "you must get a yes, and if you get a no, stop and do not try to proceed." This is a different degree of respect. The first statement is probably what most of us were raised on. We got that messages from movies, parents, and friends.
I'll stipulate what you're saying, but I don't think the difference is necessarily respect v. disrespect, I think it's just that what it means to respect a woman has changed. If a man fundamentally respects women, he'll adapt and behave in accordance with the changed societal mores pretty quickly.
Adapt or die, as they say.
Quote:In alot of cases, the action isn't criminal at all. They're moral. Wynn probably couldn't get convicted for anything that he did, but certainly, from a political perspective, turning off 50% (or less) of your funding bases required action.
I'm really more interested in sexual harassment, in general, than the Wynn thing. I don't even think I'm going to write about it other than a one or two paragraph mention in an upcoming News and Notes.
I don't really look at moral-anything, because morality is subjective and I don't get to decide what other peoples' morals are or should be. There are some who would consider me an unfailingly moral person and others who would say I am completely immoral, so it means nothing. I just look at civil v. criminal v. job, and some actions are civil without being criminal, some could be both and others could just affect your job standing while not being criminal and also being such that no civil jury would ever reasonably find for the Plaintiff, were there to be a suit.
Quote:Agreed. I think it's very much over the top but that it will all equalize out in a few years to a new normal. And certainly, a large proportion of women (who voted for Trump) seem to think that play/interaction/harassment/assault/rape between women and men is just part of normal gender roles. I understand it. For some, it certainly would be easier to hire a secretary, entice them to have sex with me, then fire them when I tired of that, and have no repercussion for that.
I would rather we just find a way to equalize now.
People have kids to take care of and some people have spouses. For a man to be terminated (or forced to, 'Resign') over an allegation that is completely fabricated, whether part of some greater societal adjustment or not, is complete balderdash. I get that it's going to happen at least once, and probably more than once, but that doesn't make it in any way justifiable because of the, "For the greater good," argument. People don't live their day-to-day lives based on the, "Greater good," and they shouldn't be punished for the sake of the, "Greater good," they should be punished based on what they either did or did not do. Further, whether or not what they did or did not do violated any criminal, civil or specific workplace guidelines.
Further, I don't think the women believe that. I think the women (as well as most of the men) in question gave Trump a pass on it because, '(D,)' does not appear after his name on the ballot. I think if you frame it as a general question, "Is it okay to treat women differently than men in the workplace?" that most of them would say it is not. As much crap as I talk about Rightists, it's not because I think their morals are out of whack entirely, but rather because I think their stated political positions are often completely contradictory with their other stated political positions.
This is from Brian Schwartz at Fox Business:
Quote:#BREAKING Sources: Republican Governors Association returning $100,000 Wynn Resorts contribution that they received this election cycle. RGA canceling its contract w/ Wynn Resorts to hold its 2020 Annual Conference at the Wynn Las Vegas.
RGA will not accept future contributions from Wynn Resorts. This comes after the WSJ published accusations of sexual harassment against Wynn Resorts CEO Steve Wynn.
Quote: Mission146I just look at civil v. criminal v. job, and some actions are civil without being criminal, some could be both and others could just affect your job standing while not being criminal and also being such that no civil jury would ever reasonably find for the Plaintiff, were there to be a suit.
Laws are based on the moral code du jour. The civil and criminal definitions of wrongdoing change.
Quote:People have kids to take care of and some people have spouses. For a man to be terminated (or forced to, 'Resign') over an allegation that is completely fabricated, whether part of some greater societal adjustment or not, is complete balderdash.
True, and women are now at the point that going to work shouldn't be fraught with sexual abuse, be it assault, harassment, or misconduct. Think about the sheer number who have been hurt and damaged in that way. Think about the number of woman who wanted to say something but couldn't because they were afraid they were going to lose their job or damage their career.
I don't doubt there are bad apples out there who are just going to make crap up to get back at someone. It doesn't make them right, and certainly I don't subscribe to "believe everything", but certainly allegations should be collaborated and substantiated. I think men who are accused this way would mount a defense in court: it's the right thing to do.
Quote: MissionI think the women (as well as most of the men) in question gave Trump a pass on it because, '(D,)' does not appear after his name on the ballot. I think if you frame it as a general question, "Is it okay to treat women differently than men in the workplace?" that most of them would say it is not. As much crap as I talk about Rightists, it's not because I think their morals are out of whack entirely, but rather because I think their stated political positions are often completely contradictory with their other stated political positions.
Voting for Trump *IS* giving him a pass on it, as the lesser of two "evils" mind you. I don't think all of the right's morals are out of whack either on some fronts.
Quote: ams288How bad is this going to get for Wynn Resorts?
This is from Brian Schwartz at Fox Business:
He'll be fine.
Quote: boymimboHe'll be fine.
A year ago, I'd have agreed with you. Now, I'm not so sure.
In this post-Weinstein world, men like this are toxic.
I would not be surprised at all if a year from now the "Wynn" hotel has a different name.
Karma, baby: karma.
Quote: ams288I would not be surprised at all if a year from now the "Wynn" hotel has a different name.
I commented long ago that I wonder if he'd eventually sell to MGM like he's done with most of his other places.
Quote: IndyJeffreyI respectively disagree. There are many 'poor' or not famous people accused. There is no money in that? There is no money in ratings/eyeballs if that is what you meant.
This is a complicated and sad problem in our society to cast it off as a 'cashing in' problem. How much cash did those gymnasts receive?
I agree about the ratings/eyeballs thing. The gymnasts will be suing someone or some entity. That I can assure you. And they will get far less than the trauma they had to endure. My point is of course not about actual victims, which the gymnasts are, but about the falsely accused, of which we will never know. I believe Hannity was once falsely accused, but was just darned lucky that he had incontrovertible evidence proving his innocence. If he didn't and it was a he said/she said type case, WHICH MOST ARE, he would have been tarnished forever. You don't think there are at least 10,000 women that if given the chance to take down someone they despise, say Limbaugh, that would falsely accuse?
It's probably happened, but when was the last time a women went to jail for making a false accusation? Not likely.....
You can't pull off being "lord of the manor" anymore.
Facts? Ain't got time Don't have time for facts when its headlines that make money.
His wife's attorney reportedly has compelling new info to use at the upcoming April trial between Steve and his once beloved Elaine (when the loving stops, the screwing starts); the board at Wynn are being targeted / described as incompetent lackeys; the Boston casino project is in jeopardy, and the Nevada A.G. may also be looking into his fitness to hold a casino license.
Before you know it he might be calling bingo, just like in the old days.
Quote: billryanWynn used to have the best commercials for his AC places. He came across as such a nice fellow.
Yea bill cosby too
The only thing we Americans love more than elevating and worshiping our "celebrities" is tearing them down whenever they mis-step.
Quote: MrVLOL
The only thing we Americans love more than elevating and worshiping our "celebrities" is tearing them down whenever they mis-step.
LOL
You say "mis-step," others say "rape women."
Quote: ams288You say "mis-step," others say "rape women."
What others?
This "Me Too" nonsense is based on more than women parroting unsubstantiated accusations of rape; it's like the freakin' Salem witch hunt.
Think "tulip mania" but with testicles instead of tulip bulbs.
Hell, now even Shaun White is getting shamed, accused, and demeaned by yet another "Me Too" / "Time's Up" woman seeking her fifteen minutes of fame.
She took the dough, it presumably made her whole; she should just shut the hell up.
It's getting touger to be the Marlboro Man.
Quote: MrVWhat others?
This "Me Too" nonsense is based on more than women parroting unsubstantiated accusations of rape; it's like the freakin' Salem witch hunt.
Steve Wynn paid a woman a $7.5 million settlement.
Bill O'Reilly paid a woman a $32 million (!!) settlement.
Innocent men don't pay that kind of money to "make a lawsuit go away." They were guilty.
Odds are the settlement papers conspicuously did not have the payor admit to any wrongdoing, so you're back to square one.
Quote: MrVOdds are the settlement papers conspicuously did not have the payor admit to any wrongdoing, so you're back to square one.
LOL - that's why they choose the settlement option. Them not admitting to wrongdoing certainly does not mean they didn't do anything wrong (they did).
Quote: MrVProve it.
No need to. Both perverts are rightfully out of their jobs and relegated to the dustbin of history. Sometimes society can bring about justice that the legal system cannot.
One has to wonder how many callers are just curious and want info, and how many are making new claims of misconduct?
tip page
Lets say you were accused of these same accusations but you were innocent. Your lawyer says for only $17million it goes away. Then you can go about your real business of making billions?
Ok but if you were innocent then you were extorted by someone who just ssw they could make a quick buck. They got $17 million from you for practically nothing
So what stops them from saying hey this was easy. Lets send in my cousin to make the same false accusation. Then my sister and her cousin
Soon we can be worth over $100 million. Because everyone knows these suits arent settled because of guilt but so these rich guys can go about their business
Come on be serious. No one is gonna pay that kind of money risking more frivolous lawsuits. He practically admitted guilt by paying. He just hoped the general public wouldnt find out. A million dollar gamble that didnt pay off
Quote: darkoz
Lets say you were accused of these same accusations but you were innocent. Your lawyer says for only $17million it goes away. Then you can go about your real business of making billions?
Around 20 years ago my then group of around 20 doctors was accused of Medicare fraud. We believed we did nothing wrong, the federal prosecutor disagreed. I was the lucky one representing my group with our attorney at the only meeting I had in person with the prosecutor. He said that he did not believe we intentionally committed the fraud, but that we would have to pay a fine or face prosecution. The penalty for losing was $10,000, trebled, or $30,000, for EACH offense. Since over the time they said we were making the error there were maybe 10,000 such bills, if we lost we would be liable for $300,000,000. And be permanently prohibited from participating in Medicare, which essentially is a career ender. We were offered to settle for 400k, plus some other 400k in 'return of payments' to patients, which we were actually not going to return to patients, but write a check to the government! Our attorney said we had around a 75% chance to win the lawsuit if we fought it. He estimated his fees would be between 250k and 300K.
WE SETTLED despite not a one of us feeling we did anything wrong! After other shit on top of the 800k, it cost us around a million, so divided by 20 it cost me 50k, so really 35k in real dollars(I made 50k less that year so 15k less the government taxed me{about}).
I look at it like we were extorted. Since the risk of us fighting and losing was too high, we had no choice. I am guessing the 50k to me would be equivalent to $170million to Steve Wynn. JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY!
Common sense says your analysis is sensible: why pay big bucks unless there is a sound justification?
But the law says "prove it," and if there is a confidentiality clause in a settlement that prohibits discussion of the incident then another form of proof must be adduced, which if the complainant cannot discuss it would be damned hard to do.
Elaine simply telling her attorney she heard about it is not probative.
Regardless, the damage has been done.
Quote:LAS VEGAS (AP) — A woman has told police she had a child with casino mogul Steve Wynn after he raped her, while another has reported she was forced to resign from a Las Vegas job after she refused to have sex with him.
Is the GOP still refusing to return the rapist's money?
MORE THAN ONCE IN HER APARTMENT, really ???
ALLEGED!!Quote: ams288Is the GOP still refusing to return the rapist's money?
Why don't you just ask him if he's still raping women?
