Why? There's an actual thing he's done wrong - he made ridiculous comments about women, which are largely indefensible. He apologised for those.
There is also an unsubstantiated theory (beyond "wow if we interpret his words to mean something he didn't explicitly say but maybe perhaps implied then he arguably claimed to have done so and that's, uh, proof and stuff!!!") that he actually assaulted someone. Rightly, this went entirely unacknowledged by most of the world, including Trump.
Trump was heavily criticized for seemingly admitting to sexual assault, not simply for being lewd and disrespectful about women. The whole reason he held a press conference a couple of days later with the women who have made allegations of sexual assault against Bill Clinton was because he recognized that he was being accused of sexual assault and wanted to make a
tu quoque against the Clintons. And if you don't want to take my word for it, I have a clip of Trump being confronted with the allegation of him seemingly admitting to sexual assault:
Trump denied that he had admitted to sexual assault - but only because he insisted that the whole conversation was "locker room talk" and therefore not worth taking seriously, which is not your argument about why he didn't really admit to sexual assault.
See, this is what makes the conspiratorial Dems so funny - there's an actual issue here that nobody could argue against, and a shitty non-apology doesn't change anything. If you simply left it at that, you'd be making some progress. But instead you guys are pushing a more extreme narrative for... reasons. Actually, what are your reasons? Agree with me or not, you already know that this narrative is not helping you in any way. Wouldn't it make more sense to be pragmatic about it?
Even if you're well and truly convinced that we should accuse people of crimes based on the fact that they hypothesised about them (I spent enough time calling you stupid for it, so I'll gloss over it this time), surely you must see that this is largely viewed as ridiculous, and is only bolstering the support for the guy whose support you're hoping to erode.
That's a weird thing to say. My posts here are reflective of my own beliefs, not a part of some broader political strategy on behalf of the Democratic Party, and I'm not going to water them down them in pursuit of some fallacious appeal to balance. I mean, I could say much the same thing to you. Gee, Pete, you should really just concede that Trump claimed to grope women without their consent, but didn't really mean it because it was just empty bragging. For you to insist that he didn't actually claim to grope women, even as a boast, is just too extreme and unbelievable. It makes you look like you're just desperate to never concede an inch on Trump's infallibility, and you're only going to drive more people away from him.
See? That doesn't make sense, because like me, your aim in your posts is to express your views, not form a political strategy that you'll then present to the country. You're not going to dilute your own positions just because that might be more "pragmatic" on the national stage. We may not agree on much, but surely we can at least grant each other our sincerity.