How about we make some of the subtext full text here, so we can stop circling around the same things and see instead if there's anything on the other side?
(i) You're in awe of Trump's twisted, weaponized semiotics, whereby he's leveraged the theoretical fact of the arbitrariness of the sign in order to accrue physical and political power. (To some extent, I too am perversely in awe of this.)
(ii) You see Trump as a sort of useful monstrosity for your ideological ends, and you want to see that play out; as such, you are invested in protecting and prolonging his ascendancy against any assaults that might meaningfully destabilize, delegitimize, or depose his administration. (To some extent, I understand this; but, while someone like Sanders is useful to my ideological ends, I do not think I would be defending him with such vehemence if the pussy-grabbing shoe were on his foot.)
(iii) You have engaged in sufficient lewd "locker-room banter" in your life that you are wary of admitting or assigning it much evidentiary weight when gauging the likelihood or veracity of claims of legitimate misconduct or assault, claims that may sound on the same wavelength as said speech, but which also may—if you squint hard enough—simply be coincidentally similar. (To some extent, I sympathize—I have said plenty of crass things that I would not want deployed against me in the case of some spurious accusation. But for me, off-handed bragging about assault and subsequent impunity is both beyond the typical for "locker-room banter"—not to mention meriting more weight given the volume of complaints—and also not something that I would either say or allow to go unremonstrated in casual conversation.)
