(10-03-2018 04:44 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 04:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 03:54 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 02:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Perhaps is there is any way to answer any of the following it would rise from an uncorroborated allegation.

How did you get home? 'I don't remember.'
How did you get there? 'I don't remember.'
Where is the place? 'I don't remember.'
How many years ago was it? 'I don't know'

Further when the numbers of people change continuously, and when the specific people all named either say : 'Nothing like that I can remember' or 'It didnt happen' it tends to shade it to one way for me.

You would be correct 'if Ford is reciting events that actually happened'. I cant name a single objective piece of evidence that tends to show that predicate. Do you?

Given that review of the 'evidence' (actually the utter lack thereof, mind you) the question posed still stands: Are you proud of the Dems?

I mean you get utterly pissy when this is characterized as the 'politics of personal destruction', and get jazzed when asked that question, stated there. But again, given the review of corroborative evidence: Are you proud of the Dems?

I distinctly remember who was in the car with me when I got in my first car accident. I don't remember exactly what building it was in front of, but the general part of town.

I remember what I was doing at the time of the accident, but I don't remember the make and model of the car I hit.

Since I don't remember other details about that event, should I not be believed when I say I rear ended another car because I was looking at a gas-powered scooter that was for sale?

That's not a very good analogy because the law (reflecting human nature in general) views admissions against one's own interests as having greater inherent reliability than other types of statements. I mean, simply change your analogy from one of confessing to having hit a car to specifically accusing John Doe (or Brett Kavanaugh, if you like) of having hit you and tell me if you still unquestionably should be believed despite the memory gaps.

It's actually not that bad of an bad analogy because we aren't discussing a court case, and therefore, how the law handles memories and admissions isn't completely relevant.

We're somewhere below a even a civil court, where not even the preponderance of evidence is necessary (and certainly not a criminal court where a defendant must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).

Come on, man. Whether in a court of law or the court of public opinion, there is no rational standard below preponderance of the evidence. You're not seriously arguing that people are justified in believing a given proposition in the face of a lack of preponderance of evidence? Are you that indulgent with, say, climate change "deniers," etc.?

People can choose to believe Ford. But just be honest that doing so is a choice, not a conclusion.

I'm more advocating for the position that Ford not remember the details of the before/after perfectly is not evidence that she is making up or mis-remembering the event itself. That is what my car crash analogy was getting at.

I'll fully admit that at this point it's people choosing to believe or not believe Ford - she has not offered any evidence outside of her testimony.

I've posted before about how difficult of a situation this is, and that many people are basically holding two contradictory ideas in their heads - that neither are lying about the situation. As it stands, there isn't enough evidence to disprove Ford's testimony nor prove her testimony.