Does anyone believe both Dr. Ford and Juanita Broaddrick?

The double standard is breathtaking. Probably contributes to things like the Trump election. Half the country IS FED UP with the unfairness.

I do. Unless proof is brought forth to show that either woman lied, I take them at their word.

Why believe Broaddrick and Ford; but, not Clinton or Kavanaugh? Both the men have been known to lie publicly.

The good old boy network crosses party lines, always has.

Sure, I believe both of them.

I appreciate the responses here.

Not many people on the left are willing to say that Bill Clinton is probably a rapist.

Do you believe them?

I don't know. You may think that is a cop-out... but it is true. I am ambivalent in both cases.

I remember the moment that I found about about Monica Lewinsky. At that time I was a pretty fervent ideological liberal and a big fan of Bill Clinton. And, I bought into the "vast, right wing conspiracy" thing that the Clinton's were throwing around.

Learning that the Monica Lewinsky was real, and then extrapolating to all of the other rumors about sexual misconduct that I had been ignoring, was a formative part of my present cynical self.

There is no way of knowing what really happened in either case. Maybe that isn't satisfying, but I am consistent.

Yeah, I believe that is a cop-out. I get saying "I don't have all the information and news stories have conflicting reports and I want to be fair to both sides, etc." but I can't believe that anyone who has been following this story and applying their own set of biases and beliefs has their belief needle sitting right in the middle, especially on Ford where we've been inundated with stories for two weeks straight. Broaddrick, I never heard of until 2016 (Robert posted a thread if you want to see how opinions have moved) and I could understand someone saying they really don't have any details, haven't thought about it, but you've been posting on the Ford story pretty extensively. It strains credulity to think you have absolutely no opinion on her veracity.

Fer sure.

This is the first time I have ever heard of Juanita Broaddrick... make of it what you will.

I find it fascinating that you assume that everyone criticizing the current system in favor of Dr. Ford knew and knows EVERYTHING scandal wise that has happened in the past... and thusly are aut0matic hypocrites.

Since I know nothing about it? Context included, I won't say if I believe Broaddrick or not. Your implied and overt attack is really disingenuous at best.

You make the obnoxious assumption that if one is a liberal or Democrat that they have never criticized members of their own party, family, or population.

Stick this entire two-faced 'gotcha' thread up you wahzoo.

Thank you Engineer, you clarified my thoughts nicely. I completely disagree with this. The inability of people to say "I don't know" is part of the problem and the reason that everyone is becoming more extreme.

There are all sorts of things that could be true in either case. It is scientifically true that memories are very unreliable (in a non-political thread, we could perhaps talk about this)

- It may have happened much as the survivor says.
- It may have happened, but with another person as the attacker.
- The memory may have changed over the years, maybe merging with other memories (scientifically this is quite common).
- The survivor may have misjudged the intentions or have had a different interpretation of the events.
- The sincere memories of the survivor may be influenced by the expectations of people around her (scientifically this is also common).
- The survivor may be influenced by her own political hopes and feeling.

There is no way to know if this is completely true, or partially true, or untrue. There is no evidence, no corroborating witnesses and no way for me or you to know anything.

You may think that arriving at a absolutely certain conclusion based on your biases and feelings and filling in the details that you don't know based on your beliefs... I strongly disagree.

There is nothing wrong with saying... in the absence of any real evidence, I don't have a clue what happened.

The alternative is to have a liberal truth (that everyone with a liberal ideology is certain of) and a conservative truth (that everyone with a conservative ideology is certain of).

Having truth depend on partisan ideology doesn't seem right. I prefer to admit that, in truth, I have no way of knowing what really happened.

You didn't ask for truth, you asked for belief. Do you believe these women? That is not some empirical fact, it is a personal judgement. That's the question you asked. So do you believe them? All of those things you listed might have happened, so what do you believe?

In science and engineering things come up that we don't know. We will look at the evidence and admit "there isn't enough evidence here to answer the question, the is that we don't know".

Sometime we reach a point where reaching a definitive conclusion is impossible. When this happens, a professional scientist or engineer will be honest about this... we are unable to answer the question because we could not collected enough data. You don't make up a conclusion in this circumstance.

Somehow political ideology changes this. It shouldn't. Sometimes "we don't know" is the only correct answer.

I do not have enough evidence to feel comfortable making a personal judgement. I have a single testimony in a highly charged political environment. Other than shoving me into an ideological bubble, how does it benefit me to choose sides based on feelings rather than reason?

In my opinion, choosing not to make a judgement is a good thing. Certainty in the absence of real evidence is not a habit of mind that I find helpful.

Again, that is a cop out. On the Ford statement, you have multiple accounts, statements from lots of people on both sides. You can analyze both Ford's and Kavanaugh's risk and reward positions, what they stand to gain and lose. There is plenty of information to feed your brain's logic engine. This isn't a court of law where your opinion must be beyond a shadow of a doubt, nor does your brain ever choose not to make a judgement. You are constantly judging, you are just choosing not to say what your judgement is after asking us for ours. You might justify your judgement after the fact by pointing out all the possible sources of error, but there is a judgment there. So what is it? (I think you've basically already indirectly told us, but don't want to presume.)

Nonsense.

What is clearly happening is that people are starting with the conclusion that matches their political ideology and the hunting for any facts that fit.

Have you seen any political liberal who doesn't believe, or any political conservative who does? Again people are simply lining up into predictable teams.

I don't have to choose sides. I prefer not.

Max has always resented the youtoo movement because he can't be the star.