Graham Platner

Why does anyone have to believe the accuser here?

He'd do much better as a Republican

The overt and blatant hypocrisy around him has always been remarkable, even for the same party who held a supreme court seat open for a year cause you know, election year, only to fill a seat of their own in the final weeks of the next cycle literally after some votes had already been cast.

Democrats do have higher standards, that's not disputable, and Planter's scandals wouldn't have mattered one bit if he were a republican, that's not disputable either, but I still find the ease with which democrats and the mainstream media were willing to treat his scandals as disqualifying to be infuriating.

This last rape allegation is in my view the first one I would actually call serious, and even then I think it pales in comparison to most SA allegations. The Nazi tattoo thing was certainly bothersome, but when the candidate unmistakably denounces anything they stood for and are actively fighting back against those very forces, it's pretty ridiculous to dwell on that, especially if you are even a little sympathetic to the president who had galvanized white supremacists nationwide to march into the streets with their Nazi flags.

The rest of the prior allegations are all about him treating his girlfriends poorly. From sexting other women while married to "being rough" by pulling one out of a car forcefully - the victim of which went on to say he never hit her. These are sadly not things that are unusual in relationships, not even close. Are they ideal for a Senate candidate? Of course not. Were they serious political scandals, especially at a time where we re-elected a man with 26 accusers, bragged about grabbing women by the pussy, bragged about barging into the dressing rooms of naked women because he's the owner and can get away with that, was held civilly liable for sexual assault, and oh yeah, has a 34 count felony conviction... No.

But the world treated them like they were, because that's how it always works. Democrats always have to be the adults in the room. Democrats always have to show you they deserve your vote. Trump and the republicans, they get your vote by default. That's how it works.

SatanLucy wrote:

If you hate abortions and child murder, you cannot vote for democrats. Not voting for democrats helps prevent murder of unborn.

So yah, anyway...back to Graham Platner?

linate wrote:

Why does anyone have to believe the accuser here?

There are multiple accusers. Platner is the common denominator. It seems likely he crossed a line.

Democrats do have higher standards, that's not disputable

I believe Platner dropped out, and I give Dems significant credit for that (yes, the bar is that low). With SA accusations, Dems are more likely to say you should believe accusers by default, so it makes sense to hold them to higher standards. Like Biden said if a woman alleges assault you should presume she is telling the truth, so he's just being held to his own standard.

Democrats always have to show you they deserve your vote. Trump and the republicans, they get your vote by default.

If this is true, how do Dems ever win elections? Clearly there are some standards for Republicans if Dems tend to win the popular vote. Trump lost the popular vote twice, so clearly he was being held to some standard. Herman Cain dropped out after SA allegations. Biden won the election after SA allegations. With Kavanaugh I don't think the allegations were super credible, but that seemed more ambiguous than strong evidence clearly pointing either way (and I think a lack of evidence favors the accused).

I also think that some of this is due to the DNC having tighter control over the party so they can push someone more polished and electable through, which makes something like Trump's hostile takeover of the Republican party more difficult. I think that approach may lead to more electable candidates in the short term, but I think power to the people is probably a better long term approach even if it's tough love. People need to be allowed to elect populists to learn why they can't always be trusted.

SatanLucy wrote:

If you hate abortions and child murder, you cannot vote for democrats. Not voting for democrats helps prevent murder of unborn.

Depends on if a SC seat is up for grabs like in 2016. I think banning abortion does decrease it, but I can't say with certainty that one party decreases it more overall. Dems are more likely to support contraception and sex education which also decreases abortion. That said, I'm not sure a widespread contraception bill is any more politically feasible than an abortion ban. And Dems like to say their policies decrease abortion, but they're not really optimizing them to do so as much as they could, they just might decrease abortion on accident.

Who eats oysters anyway.

I once watched a TV programme where some bloke ate 180 of the horrible slimy things.

Tell people that snot is cool and trendy and they'd suck it out of your nose.

SergeantLynch wrote:

Who eats oysters anyway.

I once watched a TV programme where some bloke ate 180 of the horrible slimy things.

Tell people that snot is cool and trendy and they'd suck it out of your nose.

WTF? Damn man, I know Platner owns an oyster company but still, remind me to never bring up oysters around you again.

I agree with the scale of the issue but I don't think bans have decreased it enough either, they reduce it but only so much. Some Dem policies also reduce it. I think both approaches are needed but I care about practice more than principle, and I can't say one party reduces abortion significantly more in practice. Unless we get a huge SC decision that like bans it completely.

Cuz it's not banned. It's on state level, meaning that even if person is in state where abortion is illegal, person can just travel to state where it's legal.

That's what I mean. The state bans aren't effective. And I don't think Republicans will ban it nationwide unfortunately.

So republican ideas are better surplus of population.

I care about reducing murder though, not about increasing the population.

With SA accusations, Dems are more likely to say you should believe accusers by default, so it makes sense to hold them to higher standards.

There is no point at which it makes sense to hold one side to a higher standard when they are both competing fort the same job. You can accuse one side of hypocrisy when they fail to live up to their espoused standards, but that's a different thing.

Beyond that, I don't think this is at all about which side is more likely to believe accusers, I think that's just the face each side puts on it. Fact is democrats care about not having sexual assaulters in office, republicans largely don't. That's the difference.

I say this confidently because when a republican is accused the party bends over backwards to deny it no matter how likely it is to be true. Trump is the perfect example of this. He has openly bragged about committing sexual assault, openly bragged about invading the dressing rooms of naked women, is a well known womanizer his whole life, said he'd be dating his daughter if she weren't his, mused about the potential size of his infant daughter's breasts... And that's all before we get to any of the evidence and testimony of his 26 accusers. Yet the party pretends this guy would never...

And don't even get me started on Roy Moore.

But when a democrat gets accused, suddenly no evidence is even needed. This has nothing to do with standards of evidence, it's partisan hackery full stop.

If I had eaten 180 I would definitely have brought them up.

Anyway, Graham Planter for President I say.

Never mind the glory hunters suddenly coming out of the woodwork.

Double_R wrote:

He'd do much better as a Republican

The overt and blatant hypocrisy around him has always been remarkable, even for the same party who held a supreme court seat open for a year cause you know, election year, only to fill a seat of their own in the final weeks of the next cycle literally after some votes had already been cast.

…and then they put a rapist on the Supreme Court. Trump can politicize anything into something unrecognizable from what was before the Trump era.

I agree with most everything you are saying, but unfortunately, in this post Trump era, it just doesn't apply to the way most voters think anymore, if you can even call it "thinking"

Democrats do have higher standards, that's not disputable, and Planter's scandals wouldn't have mattered one bit if he were a republican, that's not disputable either, but I still find the ease with which democrats and the mainstream media were willing to treat his scandals as disqualifying to be infuriating.

I don’t think they had a choice, Maine is one of nine Senator races that matter, so they will be run on national money and will be scrutinized on a national basis, this race has much more profound implications than just what happens in Maine. The Democratic party couldn’t make him stand down, all they could really do is refuse to support him (which disappears the requisite money). Supporting him or not in Maine will be seen as morally defining the Democratic party nationally.

Democrats couldn’t express disapproval of the corruption, sexual infidelities, and Fascist tendencies of the Republicans while supporting Platner, keeping Platner would be hypocritical and probably have made them lose a lot of votes they currently have because of voter disapproval. I'm afraid Platner would have a terrible effect on Democrats nationally by weakening the appearance of Democratic moral identity. Perception is reality in politics.

I love your term “whataboutism”, it’s one thing to look at Trump’s sexual deviances and say "whatabout Biden, he smelled a woman’s hair", it’s completely different to give them whatabout Platner to work with, that would give their ridiculous whataboutism some real substance. You correctly said Democrat’s higher standards are not disputable, supporting Platner certainly makes it more disputable.

This last rape allegation is in my view the first one I would actually call serious, and even then I think it pales in comparison to most SA allegations.

I think it is the most serious too, but they all weaken the Democrat’s ability to condemn the indiscretions of the opposition. Dems lost Al Frankin because of a funny photograph from before he even got into politics, back when he was a comedian, our standards are clearly much higher, and I’d think supporting Platner would damage the party’s image and harm their chances nationally.

The Nazi tattoo thing was certainly bothersome, but when the candidate unmistakably denounces anything they stood for and are actively fighting back against those very forces, it's pretty ridiculous to dwell on that, especially if you are even a little sympathetic to the president who had galvanized white supremacists nationwide to march into the streets with their Nazi flags.

I think it’s good that he denounced what they stood for too, but is it sincere or is it politically expedient, I’m not sure and I don’t think the undecideds and independents can be sure either. Even if his story is true, I think getting a permanent tattoo without knowing what it represents shows a lack of responsibility that should probably be disqualifying, I don’t think “I’m not a fascist, I’m just an idiot” is a very good response actually. Again, Democrats lose the ability to run against the Republican’s authoritarian tendencies by supporting a candidate with such affiliation, questionable or not.

The rest of the prior allegations are all about him treating his girlfriends poorly. From sexting other women while married to "being rough" by pulling one out of a car forcefully - the victim of which went on to say he never hit her. These are sadly not things that are unusual in relationships, not even close. Are they ideal for a Senate candidate? Of course not. Were they serious political scandals, especially at a time where we re-elected a man with 26 accusers, bragged about grabbing women by the pussy, bragged about barging into the dressing rooms of naked women because he's the owner and can get away with that, was held civilly liable for sexual assault, and oh yeah, has a 34 count felony conviction... No.

You are being rational, which is fine of course, I do it from time to time myself, but unfortunately, it’s not how most people vote anymore, now it’s about emotions, about negatively characterizing the opposition, and about Tribalism rather than reason. I’m working my ass off to pull off another miracle to get Jon Ossoff reelected, Ossoff is squeaky clean and his Republican opponent has lots of scandal baggage, among others, there's ethics issues regarding tax dollars, a rape victim smear, and ties to white nationalists, some very Platnery things. It’s going to be close, and I think the party supporting Platner could just give them enough whataboutism to tip the scale to Mike Collins in Georgia, same with Paxton in Texas. (Here’s a bit of trivia that is very telling: In the last election, in their campaign ads the Republicans used AI to make Jon Ossoff’s nose bigger; to make him look "more Jewish", that’s the kind of thing we are dealing with now.)

But the world treated them like they were, because that's how it always works. Democrats always have to be the adults in the room. Democrats always have to show you they deserve your vote. Trump and the republicans, they get your vote by default. That's how it works.

I’ll never understand that, but I think it has to do with it being about a culture war instead of issues, and about “owning the libs” instead of governing. They will be glad to elect a felon with sexual assault issues and authoritarian tendencies if it triggers Democratic outrage. They aren’t voting for these candidates as much as they are voting against the Democrats, lower standards are a response to Democrats higher standards, racism and LGBTQ hatred is a response to Democratic tolerance. I think even crapping all over the Constitution and denial of our foundational democratic process are accepted because of how much it causes outrage in the opposition. I doubt this is all of it, but I think it’s a lot of it.

My other explanatory theory is that we are trapped in a Fellini movie and shouldn’t even try to understand it rationally. let's just hope we wake up tomorrow morning and we are back in the real world saying, “OMG, that was a very disturbing nightmare”.

Trump showed support of the Knicks and they lost, he showed support of US soccer team and they lost, let's just hope this portends what is going to happen in the Midterms.

There is no point at which it makes sense to hold one side to a higher standard when they are both competing fort the same job. You can accuse one side of hypocrisy when they fail to live up to their espoused standards, but that's a different thing.

Then its a matter of judgment. If one side says default to believing accusers and then they get accused it shows that their mantras aren't necessarily feasible. Or that they're not willing to have consistent standards. And in the age of Trump bad judgment isn't a disqualifier by any means, I'm just saying why in theory this makes sense as a basis for doubting their qualifications more on the margin.

I say this confidently because when a republican is accused the party bends over backwards to deny it no matter how likely it is to be true. Trump is the perfect example of this.

I won't deny Trump's supporters hold him to very low standards, but as I said low standards have not been universally true of Republicans nor high standards of Democrats. Dems stuck with Biden, Republicans ditched Herman Cain. Trump is able to attack Republicans within his own party for much less than he did. Obviously Trump is an issue and the biggest one in the room since he's the President right now, but I don't think Republicans being held to zero standards is really universally true.

And that's all before we get to any of the evidence and testimony of his 26 accusers

Cause Trump built his brand on saying Dems and the mainstream media were out to get him, and Dems made it very clear they wanted to impeach him. Which makes the charges seem politically motivated. I think they could be both politically motivated and true, but it makes things a bit fuzzier. If someone thinks the charges are just a political tool, then 100 charges don't look worse for Trump than 2 charges, in fact they support that narrative.

I think it is the most serious too, but they all weaken the Democrat’s ability to condemn the indiscretions of the opposition.

Yeah, the same way that the democrats refusal to get on board with the investigations of Hunter Biden during the Biden years weakens their ability to criticize Trump's corruption today. Which is to say it doesn't... So long as facts and logic still matter.

I don't think we're really in disagreement, the difference appears to be our perspectives. You're looking at this through a political lense, where public perception is everything. I'm looking at this through the lense of reality. If people don't care about that then I don't care about their opinions. Anyone who finds Platner's allegations disqualifying or even meaningful, is either deeply against Trump, Paxton, and their entire ilk already, or they're completely FOS and just jumping on whatever narrative they can find to rationalize their opposition against the left. In either case, I see no reason to concern myself with them.

I believe you said earlier that you're fighting to get Osoff reelected, so I take that to mean you're working in some capacity with the campaign. I totally understand that, but it's part of why I don't get involved in politics. I am only interested in what's true and reasonable, politics is a game of managing other people's perceptions. I just don't have any interest in the latter, I do enough of that at home.

If one side says default to believing accusers and then they get accused it shows that their mantras aren't necessarily feasible. Or that they're not willing to have consistent standards.

You're describing hypocrisy, which is a potentially legitimate critique. It's when people say things like "I'm just judging democrats by their own standards" or something to that effect it does not work rationally. And that's what you seemed to be implying before. If it's not what you meant then fine.

Cause Trump built his brand on saying Dems and the mainstream media were out to get him, and Dems made it very clear they wanted to impeach him. Which makes the charges seem politically motivated.

It only seems that way based on that if you're easily manipulable. I believe it was Leslie Stall in 2015 who asked Trump why he calls the media "fake news" and he admitted the obvious - "I do that because when you people write negative stories about me people won't believe you".

Trump's impeachments were beyond justifiable, any public official with an ounce of integrity would have voted to impeach and convict. They only appear political to people who are ignorant or just don't care.

Trump's impeachments were beyond justifiable, any public official with an ounce of integrity would have voted to impeach and convict. They only appear political to people who are ignorant or just don't care.

Fair or not, each party only gets so many words to make their case to the average voter. Trump has managed to succeed at that in a way that Dems and even other Republicans have failed. Again, a populist won't get as far with Dems due to DNC control. If a voter only has surface level attacks to go on, then the media attacking Trump a lot makes charges not seem as credible. In an ideal world every voter would investigate all the charges themselves, but that's a pipe dream. Point is, I think scandals stick to Trump less but it's unique to Trump and sometimes the inner circle he protects. I think other Republicans are often held to higher standards than Dems, media was pretty harsh on Romney and Kavanaugh for example. And Clinton got a pass for his sleazy behavior. I think the media spent a lot of it's credibility attacking earlier Republicans and so with Trump more people tuned them out.

Hmmm, why are stupid people allowed to vote?

I mean a few states tried literacy tests but I think universal suffrage is the better way to go.

If a voter only has surface level attacks to go on, then the media attacking Trump a lot makes charges not seem as credible.

Yeah, that's Trump's superpower; act like a complete ass, break every rule and political norm in the book, disregard the law, disregard the constitution, disregard any semblance of human decency. Then when people decide not to ignore it, point to them as the problem.

I don't really disagree with what you're saying, I just take issue when people talk about this as something to merely observe rather than a fundamental flaw in American politics that should be called out anywhere it resides.

Savant wrote:

I mean a few states tried literacy tests but I think universal suffrage is the better way to go.

That could never work, it means black people and LGBTQ can vote, get real.

Letting them vote means you hate America.

I don't really disagree with what you're saying, I just take issue when people talk about this as something to merely observe rather than a fundamental flaw in American politics that should be called out anywhere it resides.

I agree it's a pretty big flaw, I just don't think it's as simple as Republicans always being held to lower standards and Dems to higher ones. Trump is a bit of an anomaly. Other Republicans have tried and failed to replicate him.