I don't disagree that those comments were wretched (again, I didn't vote for Trump), and neither do the majority of the people I know that voted for him, but it seems entirely possible to me that someone would vote for him in spite of those comments, not because of them.

Indeed, if you were to assume that every vote for a candidate is de facto support of everything they do/are, I don't think I ever could have voted for anyone.

Yep. I have relatives who voted for him because, in their words, "look at the markets!! We're doing great!"

They really don't give a shit about anyone or anything but their investment holdings. Nothing but some numbers on an account.

>Arguably "good people" don't support nor vote for an individual who openly brags about assaulting women...

If you take that stance, then your options are:

1. 45% of the voting people in USA support sexually assaulting women.

Are you OK with that understanding? Do you not find something unsettling about saying 45% people in USA are OK for sexually assaulting women? The same conservative family oriented people, the same law and order people, the same god and sins people are supportive of sexually assaulting women? Can we have survived as a nation so far if so many people supported sexually assaulting women?

2. Hillary still lost to such person. What does that say about Hillary?

If Trump's audio conservation had not leaked, he would have won by even larger margin. What does THAT say about Hillary? Why do you think that was the case?

> If Trump's audio conservation had not leaked, he would have won by even larger margin.

Unless you can show some evidence for this, it's just an unprovable counterfactual and completely useless.

You looking for sauce? Sauce is in Hillary's bag. You are welcome.

In other words, if you don't agree, you can safely ignore the comment, or take upon yourself to prove it wrong.