Do you have access to older versions of the Wikipedia map, that you can use to make your videos?

Thank you for the detailed write-up on this issue. It does seem like there is enough circumstantial evidence to give this theory some credence. I don't think it will convince most non-progressives though.

I agree nevertheless that the Democratic party is happy to appease the so-called "centrists".

You can observe that when Democrats take control of Congress, there is often one or two politicians who are publicly responsible for derailing their agenda. But the claim that this is planned by party leadership cannot be objectively proven this way.

Is there any actual evidence they use this tactic or is it just what people deduce from observation?

I disagree, I evaluated it and think it's credible.

She admits she flirted with him beforehand, which is not something someone with a fake story would do.

Again, Trump is on camera admitting to sexually assaulting women.

Also his counterarguments are hilariously bad, with things like the dress.

"Not a witness of the event, and hearsay that should not have been admitted."

Do you think this is necessary to prove rape? Because I believe the vast majority of sexual assaults won't have an eyewitness.

This, I've heard them call renewable energy "woke".

It's also a racist dogwhistle since the word was originally used by black activists.

There were witnesses, such as Birnbach, who remembered Carroll telling her after the assault had occurred.

The "statute of limitations" exists for criminal cases. The law allowed for civil cases to be held past the statute of limitations.

Trump is on video talking about assaulting women.

Why do you think this will happen?