You want me to refute your impression and what Tate appears like to you? He could manipulate as many "vulnerable" women as there exists in the world, the fact he has done more for charity than you invalidates you opinion entirely, considering that Zero women that he allegedly manipulated came out against him only makes it even more ridiculous.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Why do you think charity outweighs abuse? Isn't that the argument made by government apologists? "Sure, the police state is abusive and the military-industrial complex is corrupt, but welfare!"
And if zero women came out against him, what about the women who, y'know, came out against him?