Does anyone believe both Dr. Ford and Juanita Broaddrick?

Of course it can but, thankfully our society generally doesn't operate in that manner

I guess the medical community disagrees with Finns definition too.

https://americanaddictioncenters.org/alcoholism-treatment/blackout/

No, it hasn't (a lie?)

However, it happened quite frequently with my alcoholic parents

Our society acts that way all of the time.

Our justice system isn’t supposed to, but society does absolutely.

Have you ever drank excessively? How much would you consider excessive?

I don't know what you are trying to get at here but I'm not playing along.

Right. The medical community thinks nothing of blackouts.

Another dip into absurdity

A realm in which you seem quite comfortable.

Not at all. But that's just looking at both of these incidents out of context. Certainly, taken on their own, these are not readily comparable, although it can be argued of course that if Kavanaugh were to lie about other things, he might lie about rape trains as well.

However, these incidents are not unconnected: they are critical parts of an investigation around a person nominated for one of the most important jobs in the USA, a job that requires outstanding moral conduct, and a job that is kept for life. As such, everything discerning his past becomes vitally important, and his past actions need to be kept to the same, unwavering, critical standards.

Have we found anyone who believes just one of these women? It seems like people on this thread either believe both or neither.

Yes, and those unwavering standards include a presumption of innocence and not a demand that anyone prove a negative, to prove they are not lying.

I don't know enough about Broaddrick's claim to pass judgment, but from what I've seen of her on TV, she seems "credible" for what that is worth.

On the other hand, I watched every minute of Dr. Ford's testimony and she never seemed "credible" to me. She wasn't "incredible" in the sense that she came across as demented, but, to me at least, she came across as acting.

I freely admit that as a conservative I didn't want to find her credible, but all I can say about that was that I was prepared to find her believable. Take that with a grain of salt as you will.

I watched her testimony with my 26 year old daughter-in-law who was a victim of a sexual assault (she actually reported it to the police) and she didn't find her credible either. Being a victim doesn't make one a truth-detector, but she viewed the testimony from a perspective that I don't have.

I am sticking with my position that it is impossible to know.

Both Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh were there with a goal in mind. They are both highly educated and successful. They both understood the rules and the stakes of the game. They were both undoubtedly coached. That was a pretty unnatural situation played out by people we have never met on live TV.

I can't imagine anyone who was truly unbiased coming out with any clue about who was telling the truth. There is simply not enough information to know what really happened. This is all just speculation based on very little information (and a lot of flawed logic).

I never said I know Ford was lying. How could I?

The question is about what we believe.

I believe she is lying, but if she was on trial for perjury and I was a juror, I would need more to vote for conviction. (Some of that might be available if she had been willing to turn over certain documents)



I think you are wrong, but am not about to engage in an endless debate with you on it.

I used the phrase "telling the truth" which I meant to refer to the specific incident. The question is whether Kavanaugh climbed on top of her at a party.

I am not looking for an endless debate; although if you ask me why I am responding I won't be able to give you a good answer. I am simply stating my opinion that there is not enough evidence to tell whether this incident happened or not. It is just speculation.

That is what I believe.