Graham Platner drops out of Maine Senate race after rape claim
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
SULLIVAN, Maine — Accused rapist Graham Platner finally bowed out of the Maine Senate race Wednesday with a long-winded video statement, blaming everyone but himself for his campaign's implosion.
He called out "large forces," "corporate media" and the "political establishment" for trying to force him out of the race.
"We believe that for the movement to continue, it can't be me. And for that reason we are suspending campaign operations," Platner said in a video announcement posted on X.
The announcement comes after a woman he previously dated, Jenny Racicot, publicly alleged that he drunkenly raped her at her Maine home in 2021 despite her repeated pleas to stop. Platner called the allegations false and remained defiant in his 11-minute monologue.
Leading Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, yanked their support of him in light of the allegations, but Platner framed it as a well-timed political hit job.
"I just want to make it clear this is all false. The things that have been claimed did not happen. It's not real," he said in the X video.
Platner argued the Democratic establishment used the rape allegation "as an excuse to take away all of the things that we need to run a campaign."
Inside the Platners' mother's tavern moments before he dropped the announcement, his mom, Leslie Harlow, kept serving customers. She was greeted by friends who gave her a big hug.
It's unclear if the news that he was dropping out had already circulated among his family and close friends.
Platner had until July 13 to exit the closely watched race for Democrats to be able to easily replace him as the party battles for control of the upper chamber.
"This was the last week to try to get me off of the ballot. And that's why this is occurring," Platner charged.
Platner went on to urge the public not to view his decision to withdraw from the race as "an admission of guilt."
"It most certainly is not. We're not doing it because of the allegations. We're doing it because of the structures that are being taken away from us by those in power," he said.
Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. John Fetterman blasted Platner after his announcement.
"The trash took itself out tonight," he bluntly told Fox News.
"Now finally people in Maine have a chance to vote on someone that's not a total piece of trash."
While Platner vehemently denied the rape accusations against him, he canceled his scheduled appearances this week.
Just hours after the latest rape claims, Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) issued a joint statement denouncing Platner.
"The allegations reported today are incredibly disturbing - violence, abuse and sexual assault are absolutely unacceptable," it said.
"Graham Platner needs to immediately withdraw as the Democratic nominee for Senate and allow Maine Democrats the opportunity to choose a new candidate who can defeat Susan Collins. The DSCC [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] will not invest in the Maine Senate race if Platner remains on the ballot."
Platner lashed out at those who abandoned him and pulled his financial support.
"We are going to lose our ability to fundraise. We are going to lose our ability to access voter data. We are going to lose all of the things that any campaign needs on the basic level simply to function," he bemoaned.
"Larger organizations, the national level party, the bigger donor networks - they have all committed to spending no money in this race if I'm in it," Platner continued.
"They would rather see Susan Collins win than have me be the next senator from Maine," he said.
Throughout his campaign, Platner had survived a steady string of scandals and repeatedly insisted to the public that he didn't have any more skeletons in his closet before more bombshells dropped.
He's been accused of sexting other women while married, lying about a since-removed Nazi tattoo and being unfaithful to girlfriends and contemptuous of women.
Maine is widely seen as a must-win race for Democrats in order to retake control of the Senate.
Most Democrats had stood by Platner throughout nearly all the scandals that emerged against Platner, and he won his primary last month nonetheless.
But the rape accusations, first reported by Politico, proved to be a death knell for his candidacy.
Racicot described in disturbing detail how an "almost blackout drunk" Platner entered her home without permission one night in 2021 after she texted him that she didn't want to see him.
In graphic detail, she recounted how she repeatedly rebuffed him, but he followed her into the bedroom and ejaculated in her.
"One of the reasons I didn't come forward sooner was, the huge moral conflict that I had between supporting his politics, but not supporting him as a person," Racicot told the outlet. "I just want the truth out there. I just want people to have a whole scope of who he is as a person."
Asked by CNN whether she was alleging that he raped her, Racicot responded: "By definition, yes, absolutely yes."
Ahead of the July 13 deadline, Democratic operatives scrambled to get as much dirt on Platner to the public as part of an apparent pressure campaign to force him out of the race.
The nonprofit group Reckoning Action, which was founded by progressive lawyer Cheyenne Hunt, got in contact with Racicot, according to Politico.
Hunt endorsed Platner late last year, but backed off after accusations of him being rough with women were reported by the New York Times last month. Hunt also backed women who made accusations against disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.)
Platner had defied the Democratic establishment by taking down Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) in a primary and clinching the nomination last month, despite fears that there was more to come out about him. Mills suspended her campaign in April, weeks before the primary contest took place.
Ahead of the primary, Platner was hit with accusations from multiple past girlfriends who accused him of troubling behavior.
One of the women, Lyndsey Fifield, claimed that he once twisted her arm behind her back before trapping her in a room and, at another point, yanked her out of a cab by the wrists.
Platner denied those accusations, claiming they were "politically motivated."
After Racicot went public with her rape claim, Fifield came forward with yet another shocking allegation against Platner — that he repeatedly removed his condom during sex without asking permission.
"He would pull condoms off," Lyndsey Fifield said in an interview with the Washington Post. "He would do it in a sneaky way. He wouldn't tell me."
"I confronted him both during and after [sex] because he knew that I was not on birth control and how dangerous that was," Fifield added. "He would act like cute about it, like 'Oh sneaky me.'"
Fifield's account was corroborated by a friend of hers, who described how Fifield was left "extremely angry about the situation and about what he had done."
Platner's campaign again told the outlet Fifield's allegation was "categorically false and politically motivated."
Fifield and another former flame of his also had private messages with confidants describing Platner's skull-and-crossbones tattoo as a Nazi symbol long before it was publicly known.
Revelations that Platner had a tattoo on his chest resembling a Totenkopf, which was used by the Nazi Schutzstaffel or SS. He claims he got that ink while inebriated in Croatia in 2007 and has since covered it up.
In late May, it emerged that Platner allegedly cheated on his wife, with whom he had tied the knot in 2023, and had an account on Kik, an anonymous platform used for hookups. Platner's profile showed him shirtless with a towel over his waist and his phone blocking the Nazi tattoo.
Ahead of the primary race, his former campaign political director, Genevieve McDonald, penned a blistering Washington Post op-ed telling Maine voters that Platner was unfit to become a senator.
On Reddit, Platner previously trashed a Purple Heart veteran, defended urinating on dead Taliban fighters, suggested that sexual assault victims should "take some responsibility," argued that rural voters are racist, and more.
Whoever Democrats tap to replace him will have to face off against incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has a history of outperforming polls.
Maine Democrats have promised an "open" and "transparent" process to choose another candidate for the ballot.
Platner's team, however, has "repeatedly reached out" to the state party "in an attempt to put their thumb on the scale of what this process looks like," Maine Democratic Party Executive Director Devon Murphy-Anderson revealed Tuesday.
"We have repeatedly reiterated to Graham Platner's team that they have no role in determining our next Democratic nominee for the US Senate, nor in determining what this process looks like," Murphy-Anderson said in a video posted on X.
Prior to Murphy-Anderson's complaint, The Post reported that Platner was refusing to bow out of the race unless he was given the chance to approve his successor.
While Platner claimed he wasn't "trying to dictate" how Maine Democrats should go about choosing his successor, he seemingly demanded that a candidate with his lefty views be tapped.
"I want to make clear, though I intend to file my paperwork to withdraw, the process needs to assure that what comes next is reflective of the Mainers who on June 9th, turned out and showed that they are desperate for a different kind of politics," he said. "It needs to be driven not from backrooms, but by the will of the people."
Platner did not name who he'd back as his successor.
Tags
Who is online
123 visitors
We call it "Kamala 2.0"
It is when democrats force somebody out of a political race to be replaced. Platner wasn't just the choice of Maine democrats, he was the overwhelming choice getting over 70% of the vote. Once again, the party spoke, not democrat voters. They preferred the barroom bully type, who they thought was manly with his little "oyster business" which couldn't even supply enough oysters for his mother's business.
Many questions remain, but the US media isn't really interested.
I can't believe your complaining ( yes, I expected it. )
So the choices were to let the guy run and probably concede to Collins. IF he won, charge him in ME, censor him in the Senate.
I preferred that.
Or jump through hoops and do it the old fashioned primary way they used to gather in a hall and pick nominations for POTUS and VPOTUS.
Now the people that were running in that primary get to change the job they were running for and there are a few guys with a ton of experience who are just as down to earth as Platypuss
Now he actually still hasn't officially withdrawn, so who knows.
I love how we only get riled over Democrats who may have ( or not ) committed crimes
while ignoring the fact that there is no high ground for the GOP.
ttps://thebastionusa.com/criminal-scandals?s=date
Either way you will get to use the Kamala 2.0 for a while thinking it clever etc, when its Maines problem.
The democrat voters in the primary already made that choice. They knew his bad side. Why take their democratic choice away from them?
IF he won, charge him in ME, censor him in the Senate.
Actually, I suspect that behind the scenes the democrat party threatened to bring rape charges if he didn't drop out. Just my hunch since he seems so angry with the democrat party leaders. Did you know that he isn't going to file his withdrawal papers until July 13th at the very last minute?
I love how we only get riled over Democrats who may have ( or not ) committed crimes
But I didn't. As a matter of fact, after watching the latest accuser, I'm a bit skeptical of her account and why she waited until now.
Either way you will get to use the Kamala 2.0 for a while
Correct.
Well, you don't have Graham Platner to kick around anymore. He did the right thing and dropped out for the good of America. Democrats can now nominate someone else. So, what is up with Ken Paxton?
But there is still the idiot democrats and leftists who supported him.
i get it. you have absolutely nothing of any value to add but still have to be heard and deflect away from the stupidity you support.
Now, that's funny.
Your fan club?
That is an amazing self portrait.
There is the difference.
The Democrats acted very undemocratically to force out the choice of their voters. Republicans in Texas respect their voters.
Republicans in Texas respect their voters.
If you feel different how about explaining instead of useless emojis
Here's an idea - you explain why nominating someone who was impeached by his own party (Ken Paxton) was a good idea?
The Texas senate failed to remove him after Donald Trump spoke up in support of him.
That only means that the GOP will have to spend money in Texas.
The choice will be someone who was impeached vs an insane radical who is against traditional American values.
It will be interesting.
So now Talarico is an insane radical ? [Deleted.][✘]
That's just more neo-fascist propaganda.
Who interprets almost everything through the eye's of a bona fide Minister. He is not shy of bashing any stupid idea in the Texas House with teachings from the Bible.
He is not a serial adulterer like Paxton.
Talarico does not want to hold the citizens of Texas to his personal religious beliefs like Paxton ( apparently Paxton doesn't apply these beliefs in his personal life )
The insane radical believes in the separation of church and state per the Constitution.
Not so for Paxton, Abbot and Dan Patrick. Patrick calls the idea "the biggest lie in America" and with Paxton keeps trying to put the 10 commandments and a Bible in every class.
... when he's not humping fake xtian thumper sluts.
If I have to explain it to you, you won’t get it. You need to be willing to see reality without the level of hate that infuses your every comment.
[deleted][✘]
This is at least the second time she caught him. The first being 2017.
As a sitting TX Senator she is now certain that the Senate, Abbott et al, kept his secrets from her.
Yeah, because they got to pick who the voters were.
Of course extreme downplaying of the bad for an R and extreme exaggeration of bad for a D.
Partisan thinking is irrational and damaging.
Neither is true. I already admitted that the R was impeached. You and others seem eager to mischaracterize the D.
His own words are what characterizes him:
“God is nonbinary,” Talarico, a seminarian and aspiring Presbyterian minister, said on the Texas House floor in 2021. Talarico was opposing legislation requiring students to play on K-12 sports teams matching their biological sex, drawing from Scripture in his speech to condemn his Republican colleagues for what he cast as twisting Bible passages to “justify hurting children” — ”a special kind of sin.”
“Modern science obviously recognizes that there are many more than two biological sexes — in fact, there are six.” Talarico made the comment in April 2021 during a committee debate of a bill that would have required public school students to play on athletic teams corresponding to their sex according to their birth certificates.
“Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country,” Talarico posted on social media in 2021 . Talarico was commenting on three recent mass shootings that had targeted Black, Latino and Asian Americans.
“White skin gives me and every white American immunity from the virus,” Talarico wrote. “But we spread it wherever we go.” In a series of posts from May 2020, Talarico backed the Black Lives Matter movement and decried the killings of Black Americans by “the virus of racism.”
“Our border should be like a front porch — it should have a welcome mat out front and a lock on the door,” Talarico has said throughout his Senate campaign.
“After the murders of George Floyd and Javier Ambler, our campaign proudly donated to a well-respected civil rights organization in our community that champions educational equity, economic opportunity, and police reform,” Talarico posted on social media in October 2020. “Because we believe #BlackLivesMatter.”
The antithesis of Trump is not Biden, it’s not Warren, it’s not Harris, it’s not Castro, it’s not even President Obama. The clearest anti-Trump we have is Jesus of Nazareth,” Talarico said in a sermon at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in September 2019.
GOP combs Talarico’s archives to cast him as radical leftist
PROJECTION!
Actually, it is fact. Check post 2.2.14
See post 2.2.14
It is pointless for you to deny that you exaggerate the bad for Ds and downplay that of Rs.
Talarico clearly is not a traditionalist and that makes him your enemy, but not being a traditionalist is not in itself bad.
On God , Talarico said:
You have a theological difference of opinion. Big deal. My reading of the Bible is that the biblical god as described is a contradiction. But if that god did exist, it is certainly sensible that it would not have a sex since it does not reproduce through sexual intercourse. There is nothing radical about that.
On sex , Talarico is obviously not a biologist since he is confused on the science. Per biology, biological sex has more than two chromosomal variants (e.g., XXY, XYY, XO,...), but that does translate into six biological sexes. Science holds that there are two reproductive sexes (male, female) but many variations of sexual development (e.g. XY chromosomes with female anatomical development: AIS). The view that there are biological variations from strictly male and strictly female is not radical, it is reality.
On white men , this is his opinion. He was referring to 'crazy' white guys shooting up black churches, etc. I am not so sure that is the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our nation, but it certainly is a serious threat. I would say that any violently radicalized individual is bad. So my conclusion is that he exaggerated. I do not see him calling for something like ICE to round up suspected "radicalized white men".
On racism , are you NOT against racism??? Talarico recognizing white bigotry against black people is recognizing a reality that continues to exist (albeit diminishing).
On border , he was simply stating that the USA should be welcoming ALL immigrants but by our rules (the lock on the door). That is a traditional view.
On Trump , it is not at all strange to describe Trump as the antithesis of Jesus. This should be obvious.
In short, I of course understand why you would never vote for Talarico and would, if you were a Texan, vote for the despicable slime Paxton (despicable because of his character, integrity, morality, lawlessness, lying, etc. not his political views). After all, you continue to defend Trump who is beyond despicable in about every dimension.
Talarico has liberal views but nothing that takes him out of the norm.
That is a very mild way of putting it.
On God , Talarico said:
You have a theological difference of opinion. Big deal. My reading of the Bible is that the biblical god as described is a contradiction. There is nothing radical about that.
Oh, let's be honest. Nonbinary is the language of the trans supporters. Applying it to God is very radical.
On sex , Talarico is obviously not a biologist since he is confused on the science. Per biology, biological sex has more than two chromosomal variants (e.g., XXY, XYY, XO,...), but that does translate into six biological sexes. Science holds that there are two reproductive sexes (male, female) but many variations of sexual development (e.g. XY chromosomes with female anatomical development: AIS). The view that there are biological variations from strictly male and strictly female is not radical, it is reality.
He isn't confused. He is obviously in line with the trans movement. We have a sitting Supreme Court Justice who had the same issue. She also is a radical.
On white men , this is his opinion. He was referring to 'crazy' white guys shooting up black churches, etc. I am not so sure that is the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our nation, but it certainly is a serious threat. I would say that any violently radicalized individual is bad. So my conclusion is that he exaggerated. I do not see him calling for something like ICE to round up suspected "radicalized white men".
Crazy white guys shooting up black churches? No TiG, our problem seems to be with young black men. Again, it a radical view.
On racism , are you NOT against racism??? Talarico recognizing white bigotry against black people is recognizing a reality that continues to exist (albeit diminishing).
Of course I'm against it. Calling white skin, a virus is radical and racist.
On border , he was simply stating that the USA should be welcoming ALL immigrants but by our rules (the lock on the door). That is a traditional view.
Of course, that is not what he is saying, he is advocating for open borders. A radical left position.
On Trump , it is not at all strange to describe Trump as the antithesis of Jesus. This should be obvious.
Only to radicals!
I expected better.
And you illustrate yet again that you exaggerate Ds (to the extreme) all the while defending the abysmal human being in the White House.
Your response is what I expected from you. Extreme interpretations while stubbornly holding to unrealistic traditional desires.
Any rational human being reading our comments would conclude that you are trying to normalize Talarico.
You have failed.
This is mind boggling. God does not have a gender. It is God . Does the God of the beings on some planet a million light years from earth have a gender? What if those beings have six genders? Does God then have six genders? There is by definition only one God, one "supreme being" that presides over all existence. The idea that God is male or female is nonsense.
What you are describing and/or complaining about are human cultural interpretations of God.
yawn.
That is not the context of what he said. He used the dog whistle: Nonbinary.
So now we had the old college try and the claim that he wanted to elaborate on the idea of a "Supreme Being."
As I say this is very much like the rebranding of Kamala Harris just before an election. How many times have we gone through this?
Let me simplify this. The GOP will be forced to spend money on this race, but in the end the people of Texas will remember what Talarico said.
Yawn all you want, nobody is buying the BS.
Then stop trying to sell it and do something more useful.
He's more accurate than people who get upset at the idea God could be a woman.
A rational person would recognize that you are, yet again, exaggerating the bad of a D while downplaying that of an R. You make no mention of how bad Paxton is but rail on his D opponent. Similarly, you are happy to point out the many flaws with Platner as a candidate yet Paxton is also unfit to be a Senator.
In short, your comments express blind partisanship.
That's a two way street.
Prove there's God first then worry about if he/she/it is cisgender or not.
He was talking about DNA, which I believe has 8 possible combos although I thought he said 6 at the time.
xy cromosone possibilities - Search
and? Who shot up that black church? Identify the three people killed or arrested for attempting to assassinate Trump.
Ignorance of Covis at the beginning of the crisis, also not out of character for a Bible boy.
Absolutely normal thought.
And? I can't help notice that these are mostly 6 years old.
Again a 7 year old comment by a Bible seller.
Got anything substantive? Do you know his record as a Texas House Rep?
Paxton has been unfit to be a State AG and a husband and they will still vote tribal. "he's a cur, but at least he's our cur."
Ken is still trying to help Dan Patrick do an end run around the Constitution and "separation of church and state" by declaring the Bible the greatest story ever told and making different passages mandatory reading for every grade K - 12 in Texas public schools.
lucky for ken that adultery and pedophilia are both non-issues for maga thumpers ...
Kens problem this time around is that this isn't the first time he had to admit to adultery and since his wife is a sitting Texas Senator, many suspect that Abbott, Dan Patrick and many other Senators covered for Paxton and
the good old boys club may get some female GOP backlash from it.
You can only stand by the pigsty so long before they splash your shoes and pants.
I like how the media exposed to the ex's divorce attorney that ken is living in a house paid for by a trust. you don't suppose he's hiding assets from the ex, do you? what with all ken's grifting, hiding assets, and buttering bible thumper muffins, how does he find the time to do his texas AG job?
I thought that was Winnie the Pooh. It should be mandatory reading in school.
In conclusion:
Let me just say, that it was a memorable campaign and it may overshadow anything that follows.
I still can't see the totenkopf.../s
This will be forgotten quicker than the George Santos days in Congress.
A couple years from now the only people who will remember Graham Platner will be those who like to instigate trouble on social media.
Sean will be bringing up Platner whataboutisms for the next decade.
Weird this wasn't ticketed...
The Democrats were fine electing a psycho with an SS tattoo to the Senate.. You should be reminded of it.
I don't like Nazis. If there is an afterlife, I can't imagine meeting my uncle and trying to justify why I sat silently and supported a guy with an SS tattoo to take one of the highest leadership positions in the country. Just another thing Democrats will have to justify, I guess.
[deleted][✘]
No they were not 'fine'. The Ds in Maine picked him and apparently have since realized their mistake.
This guy is history. The Ds fixed this problem. Meanwhile Paxton is still a candidate for the GOP. And, of course, we have the 800lb gorilla of corruption, incompetence, lawlessness, irresponsibility, vindictiveness, abuse of power, immorality, etc in Trump.
The Ds had a minor problem. The Rs have a problem of historic proportions!
The Nazi tattoo didn't hurt him, at all, with Democrats. He won the primary months after it came out.
The Ds fixed this problem.
Lol. The polls fixed the problem. Being a woman abusing bigot with a Nazi tattoo worked wonders for him among democrats. It was only when independents learned who he was and his polling numbers dropped that another story of him abusing woman was enough of an excuse to push him out.
If he looked like a winner, he'd still be the nominee.
He had been underperforming for months, probably because all that baggage made him unacceptable outside the Democratic primary electorate.
Winning the primary did not mean Democrats loved the Nazi tattoo or the allegations. It meant he beat the other Democrats. His weak general-election polling showed that the baggage was already costing him where it mattered.
As per usual, you wish to portray the voters with attitudes to the left of Andy Biggs or Mike Lee as flaming progressives while glossing over most of the Far Right.
IMO it should not have made that big of a difference. The tattoo alone is almost irrelevant; what matters is his behavior. He has no history whatsoever of anything tied to Nazis.
Typical partisan crap. Is it possible to NOT frame everything in terms of party politics?
Of course. That is a political truism regardless of party.
Weird this wasn't ticketed...
Oh, you thought it’s ok to whatabout everything to death 24/7/365 without anyone being allowed to call you out on it?
[deleted][✘]
Well, that's my point. A tattoo celebrating the SS, of all things, should in fact have made a difference. Especially to the party that the spent the last decade flipping out about "Nazi stages" and awkward hand waves.
That's literally my point. Nazi tattoos, death wishing American troops, talking about raping men, being antisemitic, calling the Virgin Mary a tramp etc etc.. aren't nearly as popular among non-Democrats as they are among Democrats.
inning the primary did not mean Democrats loved the Nazi tattoo or the allegations. It meant he beat the other Democrats
[deleted] [✘] Platner had no qualifications, no experience. Just a lifetime of hating those progressives hate, symbolized by his willingness to brand himself with an SS tattoo, the epitome of hate. So he won the nomination in a route.
ortray the voters with attitudes to the left of Andy Biggs or Mike Lee as flaming progressives
Are you unfamiliar with the DSA? You want to publicly argue the DSA isn't far left?
[deleted][✘]
You characterize his skull and crossbones tattoo as celebrating the SS — that this was his intent. That is your false characterization. False because there is nothing in this guy's past (that we know of) that suggests any affinity to Nazis (in fact, it shows opposition).
It is bizarre (to me) that you are so obsessed with this guy's tattoo. Especially when the real facts about him show why he is unfit.
what's batshit crazy is that this just happened and you are already denying it. Usually, it takes more than a few weeks for this to start.
Democrats had a choice between normal progressive lady with actual governing experience vs a fail son scion of rich parents with nothing going for him other than his Nazi tattoo and a documented history of extremism, including death wishing American troops, talking about raping men, being antisemitic, calling the Virgin Mary a tramp etc etc.
Guess who Democrats chose in a route?
.
Nazi paraphernalia is always popular among antisemites and Platner is well versed in that.
So now we are at "there's nothing odd about branding yourself with the symbols of thing you oppose" stage of justification. Got it.
Lol, I don’t live in Maine so he never was “my candidate.”
No, it did not. I get it, you don't want to listen to anyone here who has 'esplained' everything to you several times and you are desperate to go back to the "Democrats support a Nazi!" bullshit. But it's getting sad to watch rightwing conservatives embarrass themselves like this basically shouting to the world through their moronic comments that they have poor reading comprehension or don't understand the meaning of basic English words.
From the perspective of those who have their heads shoved up Trumps ass, all their opponents are identical and live in the same place and all support the furthest left possible Democrat and are card carrying members of ANTIFA and run pizza parlor child sex rings and hate Jesus. Those with their heads up Trumps ass are fucked in the head but there's simply nothing those outside of Trumps asshole can do about it, those folk are going to have to wither away as just another crusty polyp in Trump colon.
But they are trying soooo hard to make this stick it almost seems like they're about to start crying because it's clearly not working and they're so furious about it the snot is already running down their nose.
This absolutely happened. You can't dispute it:
Democrats had a choice between normal progressive lady with actual governing experience vs a fail son scion of rich parents with nothing going for him other than his Nazi tattoo and a documented history of extremism, including death wishing American troops, talking about raping men, being antisemitic, calling the Virgin Mary a tramp etc etc
As he posts a strawmen filled rant filled with weird Trump/sex obsessions..
There is a notable whiff of hysteria showing up in the right here lately.
[deleted][✘]
Yeah, I can dispute it because it's total moronic bullshit opinion, not anywhere close to a fact. How you don't see that is the real mystery. I guess it makes sense for the Trump trolls to think that their opinions actually matter and carry any weight, but for anyone with more than half a brain the opinions from residents of Trumps ass are nothing but a smelly warm wind. Clearly the residents living up Colon Lane love sniffing their own opinion farts almost as much as they love sniffing their dear Leaders which is frankly nauseating to watch.
Some Democrats in Maine had that choice and they didn't end up choosing Platner. But that's not convenient for rightwing conservatives whole "Democrats love Nazi's!" deflection from the fact that rightwing conservatives have been welcoming the neo-Nazis into their white supremacist white nationalist fold for quite a while now. So, I get it, conservatives are desperate to try and shift the blame and attention from that fact that rightwing conservatives share almost every position and ideology that the Nazi's did, but these flailing attempts and childish "I'm rubber you're glue!" retorts just exposes rightwing conservatives as the weak inept impotent incels they obviously are.
False argument.
Perpetually perpetrated by you is the logical fallacy that some refer to as "hasty-generalization" but I prefer to call "argument from the one to the many." In this good example of bad reasoning, " That [all that baggage made him unacceptable outside the Democratic primary electorate] is my point," would have been fine, but you then had to qualify that statement
In your qualification, you try to cram several bad things in a box and then label the box "Things Popular with Democrats" assuming that the reader will just accept that as fact and not interrogate the structure or validity of the argument. While all of the examples you gave are considered bad behavior, you have not established a connection between the people who voted for Platner and those examples, and further, you have not established that those examples are "popular" amongst them. Your argument is a bare assertion. Some people are probably inattentive enough to believe it.
You continue:
Once again, you have nothing but bare assertion to back up this claim. There are a multitude of reasons why a person may or may-not vote for a candidate, but you pick one and lump all Democrats under the definition. This is known as prejudice.
More of the same verbal diarrhea. You have no argument, merely accusations that get more feverish by the sentence, more bare assertions, more cramming images and words together in the hope that no-one will notice that you are not presenting an argument, you are bolstering a stereotype.
Deflection. Platner was not a DSA-endorsed candidate.
Probably because most people understand that the tattoo is no longer visible (as you have shared too many times} so the Nazi thing holds little water.
Now if he had the requisite skull and crossed bones with the two SS bolts and refused to remove them things might have been different.
Still not true.
True.
Mainers are different, be glad you don't live there.
True but they have Socialist in their name, lol, so it's a slur by association
which is surprising because context is one of his weaknesses.
refused to remove them things might have been different.
Right... He went around for decades telling people with his Nazi tattoo, but that's okay because he removed when it became politically necessary to do so.
Still not true.
Of course it is. His popularity increased among Democrats after the Nazi tattoo story broke. He finished with over 70% support in the primary.
Read what I wrote. Platner was extremely popular among Democrats despite all those things listed. Of course those things are less popular among those who withheld their support from him.
There are a multitude of reasons why a person may or may-not vote for a candidate, but you pick one and lump all Democrats under the definition. This is known as prejudice.
Lol. You managed to pack a lot of nonsense into one statement. Democrats did vote for him. That means that the conduct was acceptable to them. If his behavior was unacceptable, they would not have voted for him. So yes, his Democratic supporter were fine with his conduct. Also, look up what prejudice means. You are using it wrong.
You have no argument, merely accusations that get more feverish by the sentence, more bare assertions, more cramming images and words together in the hope that no-one will notice that you are not presenting an argument, you are bolstering a stereotype
The irony. That's all you are doing. There's no substance behind any of your claims. Just "nun ugh" on repeat.
Platner was not a DSA-endorsed candidate.
So what? Read what I was responding to. Are DSA candidates "flaming progressives" or not? If not, who is?
Keep trying, you'll come up with a coherent insult one of these days.
It isn't an insult. It's an observation of the condescending, contemptuous and personal comments you make hourly.
I did. If you meant something else then you should have written something else.
The irony is that you are so entrained and enmeshed in your prejudice that you cannot recognize it even (or especially?) when it is pointed out to you. In this instance, as others, I have documentary evidence provided by you that proves my assertions. Your argumentation is flawed and I pointed out some of the ways in which it does not hold together logically.
But, you double-down on your obviously false line of logic:
The first sentence does not necessarily lead to the second. Unless one can read minds, one cannot be assured of the reasons why any one voter decides who is going to receive their vote. Yet you, by making the statement, claim intimate knowledge of all Democrats, their reasons for voting, and wonderfully enough, according to you their reasons are not multitude but limited to Platner's conduct being acceptable.
This is prejudice.
You are attempting to form " an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge "... and all of the rest of the non legal definitions, really.
From Merriam-Webster :