Fame-to-Blame Ratio: Why we took so long to hold R. Kelly accountable, & will do the same for Trump HD

Ever since this guy Trump extolled the virtues of’ ‘grabbing em by the pussy’, we’ve all been wondering: How bloody hell is it that a guy can admit to sexually assaulting someone – and then be elected president? And it’s not just ‘ol baby fingers who gets to blend the creepy uncle stuff with public office. There’s also: Arnold Schwarzenegger – confessed groper of ladies – elected Governor! Brett Kavanaugh – accused of attempted raped – ok’ed to serve on the supreme court Roy Moore - accused of child m*lesting – and supported by GOP leaders Now look, I understand – sometimes things are in the gray area – but even when Trump and Schwarzenegger admitted their sexual misconduct – people still seem to love and support them! Society says rape, groping, domestic violence, sex with minors is not ok, but then – is totally ok with it. Does that not do your head in? I mean: ‘How come famous people get away with behaving badly?” Turns out, scientists have been pondering this social phenomena for ages. And Here’s Aussie comedian Jim Jefferies explaining it with what he coined the ‘Fame to Blame’ Ratio: “Science tells us the more talented you are, the more likely you are to get away with a crime. It’s called the ‘Fame to Blame Ratio’. As you can see here…[cut]... Cosby of course, falls at the upper end, along with your Woody Allens, your Michael Jackson’s, your R Kelly’s - the creepiest of the creeps, but also the most talented. But down here, your favorite sandwich enthusiast Jarrod. Just as creepy, not very talented” And just last month – new research came out to show just how much we let the fame of our heroes go to our heads and make us completely mental. The study, published in Frontiers in Psychology, looked at the famous case of László Kiss - the popular head coach of the Hungarian national swimming team - who resigned amid a whole rapey rape hullaballo. The scientists wanted to understand if people’s opinion of Lazzie influenced the way they interpreted the facts. For example: Would they be more likely to think Lazzie was innocent, if they thought he was a top bloke who’d lead the national team to victory? Well, it’s probably not surprising that the people who thought Lazzie was a top bloke – also thought he couldn’t possibly be a rapist. So when he denied the rape allegations – his fans believed him. No fibs there! Well, turns out – those in Team Lazzie, those who thought he was a top bloke – they still supported him! They just changed their definition of ‘rape’, deciding that “yeah he did the thing, but it wasn’t really rape, and even if it was, it wasn’t really that bad”. Because why? Because he was so successful, that’s why. That type of justification is sounding super familiar! ...say… Donald Trump - it doesn’t matter that he confessed to sexual assaulting women on tape! He’s self-made billionaire! That promising young Stanford Swimmer isn’t a bad guy! Just because he raped a girl! He was only 19! And a three-tim