Wouldn’t a history of alcoholism be a disqualifying factor in of itself?
Not if it is passed history. People have been known to have a problem with alcohol and overcome it later on. Remember you are talking about a history of extremely drinking when he was a teenager. I have heard no one say that he still has a drinking problem. Does extreme drinking necessarily = alcoholism?
I drank heavily during the 4 years I was in college and then pretty much stopped outside occasional social gatherings. Never blacked out, but did get thoroughly wasted on many occasions and it definitely altered my behavior.
It’s entirely possible Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did if he was a heavy drinker. However, labeling him an alcoholic because of heavy college drinking only shows that the person applying the label has no idea what alcoholism is—or is simply using it as a smear to disqualify him or sully his character.
How possible do you think it is that someone could sexually assault someone and totally completely forget it due to extreme drunkenness?
Very possible. I had friends who were heavier drinkers than I was and I’d tell them stories the next day about shit they did or said and they wouldn’t remember.
But we are not just talking ordinary shit people do while drunk. We are talking about sexual assault. Any of them commit a sexual assault and not remember it the next day?
No, but my lived experiences aren’t the sum total of all possibilities. It’s also important to remember that if Kavanaugh did get wasted and assaulted Ford, it’s possible that in his mind his actions weren’t out of bounds since alcohol messes with your reasoning, so he could’ve seen it as a sloppy attempt at getting laid rather than a forceful assault and not worthy of much study/contemplation.
This I agree with