Maine

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am genuinely trying to understand how Democrats that wholeheartedly supported Ford can continue to support Platner and even worse, attack the woman who came forward so viciously. It seems completely hypocritical.

I just wrote a blog post about this. Lyndsey Fifield herself started an organization aimed at discrediting Christine Blasey Ford. This was just a couple of years after Fifield says that she had been in an abusive relationship. If her relationship with Platner was as abusive as she says, she doesn't appear to have gained much empathy from it. Regardless, as I wrote in my blog, it is reasonable to have the same doubts about Fifield as Fifield clearly had about Blasey Ford.

I read your blog post.

I do not have a problem with having the same doubts. I actually think a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted in a lot of stories like these. In other words, it’s reasonable to doubt both Fifield and Ford. Alternatively, it’s reasonable to believe both. For what it’s worth, I believe both, on balance. I think given the other information about Platner, particularly his disturbing misogynist posts on Reddit, it’s more likely than not that Fifield’s story is true. I thought the same about Kavanaugh: that while there was some questionable parts of Ford’s testimony and some of the other circumstantial evidence provided, on balance she was credible. I can also see people reasonably going the other direction.

But what I am saying is that people do not have the same doubts. They are picking who they believe solely based on their partisan preferences. And that is both disappointing and inconsistent. If someone’s decision to believe a story of assault, abuse, etc. is predicated on the political party of the accused, that’s really unfortunate. And I think it’s sad to watch Democrats who loudly supported Ford twist themselves into knots to justify support for Platner.

The objective body of evidence in both cases is approximately the same. If anything, there is more circumstantial evidence against Platner (the misogynist Reddit posting history, the contemporaneous texts, the Nazi tattoo that at very best shows an impulsive idealization of violence, his age at the time). But, on balance, it’s about the same body of evidence, with about the same level of corroborating evidence.

You seem to be saying that because Fifield raised doubts about Kavanaugh years ago and lobbied against Ford, she should be provided with less credence now. But that logic means that Ford should have been disbelieved because she raised her allegations through Eshoo and Feinstein. In other words, both allegations are tainted by overtly political overtones. You can pick how you interpret that political background, but it’s inconsistent to discredit one but not the other.

Finally, I’ll leave you with this. More is going to come out about Platner. He simply has too much of a history of low impulse control. The presence on Kik alone as an adult man should be a warning. Democrats in Maine may decide that they want to act like MAGA did when the Access Hollywood tape came out. But to be clear, that is exactly what they are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seeing "Dems say Platner must drop out"

Okay and...

REPLACE HIM WITH WHO???? WHO DO THE DEMS HAVE WHO IS POLLING HIGHER THAN BOTH PLATNER AND COLLINS???

If you can't answer with a name then that's a huge problem. Because Collins HAS TO GO.

Isn't it something to see democrats support a racist, sexist, antisemite in an effort to win a seat?
Win at any cost. Even if it proves you are morally bankrupt in the process.

If what's claimed about Platner turns out to be real, we get rid of him in the following cycle.

My bet, however, is that all of this just vanishes into the ether the day after election day, just as so many other "scandals" have in the past.

He is on record admitting that he had that Nazi tattoo on his chest for 17 years. It’s a scandal that some Dems either are so gullible to believe that he didn’t know what it was or are so power hungry that they don’t care that some guy with Nazi tattoos is running in their party because he’s charismatic and has a chance in Maine.

Lots of people have stupid tattoos from when they were young and dumb. But at least he knows it was a stupid tattoo. The MAGAs running around with confederate flags and white supremacist tats won't acknowledge that whatsoever.

No he doesn’t. He removed it for political expediency. If you believe a guy this steeped in WW2 history, who studied history in GWU and was in the Marines, Blackwater, and the State Department just accidentally got an SS officer’s logo tattooed on his chest you’re an idiot, or worse, just don’t care.

You know how many variations of skull and crossbones images you can find for tattoos? I’d guess you could find hundreds if not thousands. But this is the one this Reddit edgelord history buff got, in a place on his body that people aren’t going to regularly see, and I’m just supposed to believe it was a coincidence? And he went to Croatia to get it, a place where tattoo shops are presumably more loose about giving people Nazi tattoos than a tattoo parlor in Portland Maine or Washington DC?

Please stop insulting everyone’s intelligence.

Your narrative makes it sound like he got that tattoo AFTER he studied history and served in the State Department and so on, and AFTER he should have known better.

That's completely upside-down and backwards. He got that tattoo when he was barely out of his teens. He went straight from high school into the Marines, and straight into combat, surrounded by other dumb kids straight out of high school, drinking too much and so on. And Croatia, someplace like Zagreb where a bunch of young GIs might go will have its share of tattoo parlors where you point to a picture in a book or chart on the wall with all kinds of images, including crap like the Totenkopf.

Platner is 41. He got it 17 years ago by his own admission. That makes him 24 when he got it. In the NY Times Daily interview he said he was a history nerd in high school who was such a history nerd that he participated in Civil War reenactments.

Even if you give him grace and pretend he didn’t know what he was getting when he was 24 - not barely out of his teens - you are telling me to believe that this history buff who presumably watched a lot of documentaries and movies about WW2 didn’t notice the glaring resemblance that his tattoo had to the symbol worn by all SS soldiers and and officers in these movies and documentaries and in the history books he read? And all of his supposed Marine buddies that got the same tattoo, some of which are presumably not completely ignorant about WW2 either, never realized the connection either in these 17 years and didn’t call him to say, “Hey man, I think we made a big mistake in Croatia. You need to get that tattoo removed!”

There is like a .001% chance that is true. Again, stop insulting my intelligence.

He was 37 when he said he got it 17 years prior. That puts him at 20 when he got the tattoo. He said he was a "history nerd" but nothing in that somehow makes him a teenage expert on the SS and Nazi insignia. And, tons of 20 year old Marines back then were getting skull and bones tattoos. I still chalk hit up as being young and dumb. But for you to sit here and pound your fist and insist that he was some kind of expert with deep fascination with the SS and fascism doesn't actually hold up to the "evidence" you're putting out there, and does not hold up to reality. Your "intelligence" is doing a lot of stretching there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you compare base facts between Kavanaugh and Platner, Platner comes off worse. I personally do not see how anyone who believed Ford and opposed Kavanaugh can support Platner. Kavanaugh was a high schooler at the time of the alleged assault and there was no contemporaneous evidence of the alleged assault, whereas Platner was an adult and there is some contemporaneous evidence, albeit imperfect. Ford went first to Anna Eshoo and then Feinstein, Platner’s accuser is a conservative activist (but this happened in the days before DC was so polarized; that sort of dating wasn’t rare); that washes out. There are more women allegedly in the wings with more than there were with Kavanaugh. And, there weren’t any adult accusations of Kavanaugh, it was from when he was a teen.

I am genuinely trying to understand how Democrats that wholeheartedly supported Ford can continue to support Platner and even worse, attack the woman who came forward so viciously. It seems completely hypocritical.

Probably because the other five women had an entirely different experience, and they are also not attached to a political agenda as this one woman obviously is. Also, why is everyone calling it sexual assault? Where was the sexual assault allegation, or is it simply that her gender makes it sexual?

So again, all of the other women who had relationships with Platner and said he was a decent guy and was not at all abusive are all a bunch of lying scumbags to be ignored?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you compare base facts between Kavanaugh and Platner, Platner comes off worse. I personally do not see how anyone who believed Ford and opposed Kavanaugh can support Platner. Kavanaugh was a high schooler at the time of the alleged assault and there was no contemporaneous evidence of the alleged assault, whereas Platner was an adult and there is some contemporaneous evidence, albeit imperfect. Ford went first to Anna Eshoo and then Feinstein, Platner’s accuser is a conservative activist (but this happened in the days before DC was so polarized; that sort of dating wasn’t rare); that washes out. There are more women allegedly in the wings with more than there were with Kavanaugh. And, there weren’t any adult accusations of Kavanaugh, it was from when he was a teen.

I am genuinely trying to understand how Democrats that wholeheartedly supported Ford can continue to support Platner and even worse, attack the woman who came forward so viciously. It seems completely hypocritical.

Probably because the other five women had an entirely different experience, and they are also not attached to a political agenda as this one woman obviously is. Also, why is everyone calling it sexual assault? Where was the sexual assault allegation, or is it simply that her gender makes it sexual?

So again, all of the other women who had relationships with Platner and said he was a decent guy and was not at all abusive are all a bunch of lying scumbags to be ignored?

Did you ignore the 65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school at the time of the alleged assault and signed a letter of support for him?

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/04/654303304/longtime-friend-defends-kavanaugh-against-sexual-assault-allegations

[Anonymous]

Remember: NYT reached out to Fifield. Not vice versa.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am genuinely trying to understand how Democrats that wholeheartedly supported Ford can continue to support Platner and even worse, attack the woman who came forward so viciously. It seems completely hypocritical.

I just wrote a blog post about this. Lyndsey Fifield herself started an organization aimed at discrediting Christine Blasey Ford. This was just a couple of years after Fifield says that she had been in an abusive relationship. If her relationship with Platner was as abusive as she says, she doesn't appear to have gained much empathy from it. Regardless, as I wrote in my blog, it is reasonable to have the same doubts about Fifield as Fifield clearly had about Blasey Ford.

I read your blog post.

I do not have a problem with having the same doubts. I actually think a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted in a lot of stories like these. In other words, it’s reasonable to doubt both Fifield and Ford. Alternatively, it’s reasonable to believe both. For what it’s worth, I believe both, on balance. I think given the other information about Platner, particularly his disturbing misogynist posts on Reddit, it’s more likely than not that Fifield’s story is true. I thought the same about Kavanaugh: that while there was some questionable parts of Ford’s testimony and some of the other circumstantial evidence provided, on balance she was credible. I can also see people reasonably going the other direction.

But what I am saying is that people do not have the same doubts. They are picking who they believe solely based on their partisan preferences. And that is both disappointing and inconsistent. If someone’s decision to believe a story of assault, abuse, etc. is predicated on the political party of the accused, that’s really unfortunate. And I think it’s sad to watch Democrats who loudly supported Ford twist themselves into knots to justify support for Platner.

The objective body of evidence in both cases is approximately the same. If anything, there is more circumstantial evidence against Platner (the misogynist Reddit posting history, the contemporaneous texts, the Nazi tattoo that at very best shows an impulsive idealization of violence, his age at the time). But, on balance, it’s about the same body of evidence, with about the same level of corroborating evidence.

You seem to be saying that because Fifield raised doubts about Kavanaugh years ago and lobbied against Ford, she should be provided with less credence now. But that logic means that Ford should have been disbelieved because she raised her allegations through Eshoo and Feinstein. In other words, both allegations are tainted by overtly political overtones. You can pick how you interpret that political background, but it’s inconsistent to discredit one but not the other.

Finally, I’ll leave you with this. More is going to come out about Platner. He simply has too much of a history of low impulse control. The presence on Kik alone as an adult man should be a warning. Democrats in Maine may decide that they want to act like MAGA did when the Access Hollywood tape came out. But to be clear, that is exactly what they are doing.

There is a critical component that you seem to be ignoring. When it comes to Kavanaugh and Platner, there are moral considerations and there are political considerations. Kavanaugh was being considered for a lifetime appointment. If those making the decision (members of the Senate) got it wrong, they were stuck with their mistake. With Platner, voters will be able to revisit their decision in six years. Therefore, even if we agree that both Kavanaugh and Platner are equally morally compromised (and I don't necessarily agree with that), there are pragmatic reasons for supporting Platner but not Kavanaugh.

Consider that in the wider picture there are others involved who we also have to consider, namely Trump and Collins. Collins apparently did not find Blasey Ford convincing. But I suspect that she will find Fifield to be believable. If so, she is equally guilty of the same inconsistency about which you are complaining. Why would you support any action to enable her in such circumstances? About Trump, I don't think anything has to be said. Whatever moral failings Platner may have, they are dwarfed by Trump's. I think that it is easily argued that electing a morally-compromised Platner is, on balance, morally better than electing a Trump-enabler and further empowering Trump.

Plenty of morally-compromised Democrats have been elected and done great things for the world. John F. Kennedy had his faults and Ted Kennedy had considerably more. Lyndon B. Johnson would probably be cancelled these days, but he made important contributions to civil rights. Even Bill Clinton had considerably more baggage than Platner.

In a perfect world, Platner might not be the guy for whom to vote for. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live a world where the choices are Platner and Collins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember: NYT reached out to Fifield. Not vice versa.

Ford went to the Washington Post, not the other way around.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Remember: NYT reached out to Fifield. Not vice versa.

Fifield went to other publications earlier. She was working with Bethany Mandel to provide information about Platner to the media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you compare base facts between Kavanaugh and Platner, Platner comes off worse. I personally do not see how anyone who believed Ford and opposed Kavanaugh can support Platner. Kavanaugh was a high schooler at the time of the alleged assault and there was no contemporaneous evidence of the alleged assault, whereas Platner was an adult and there is some contemporaneous evidence, albeit imperfect. Ford went first to Anna Eshoo and then Feinstein, Platner’s accuser is a conservative activist (but this happened in the days before DC was so polarized; that sort of dating wasn’t rare); that washes out. There are more women allegedly in the wings with more than there were with Kavanaugh. And, there weren’t any adult accusations of Kavanaugh, it was from when he was a teen.

I am genuinely trying to understand how Democrats that wholeheartedly supported Ford can continue to support Platner and even worse, attack the woman who came forward so viciously. It seems completely hypocritical.

Probably because the other five women had an entirely different experience, and they are also not attached to a political agenda as this one woman obviously is. Also, why is everyone calling it sexual assault? Where was the sexual assault allegation, or is it simply that her gender makes it sexual?

So again, all of the other women who had relationships with Platner and said he was a decent guy and was not at all abusive are all a bunch of lying scumbags to be ignored?

Did you ignore the 65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school at the time of the alleged assault and signed a letter of support for him?

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/04/654303304/longtime-friend-defends-kavanaugh-against-sexual-assault-allegations

Yeah right, I doubt Kavanaugh even had 65 female friends in high school to begin with, let alone them remembering who the hell he was back then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This just blows my mind as all of these people were no doubt the same ones protesting in outrage about Kavanaugh. We need a Hypocrite of the Decade award for every last one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird how he has the tattoo, but she sounds like the Nazi:

He dated her. It shows poor judgment on his part.

People often learn from their mistakes and become better because of it. Who is your perfect candidate with perfect judgement demonstrated over an entire lifetime? I can’t think of a single person.

Obama. John Kasich. Rick Santorum. Jimmy Carter. John Kerry. John McCain. All not scumbags regardless of what you think of their politics.

John McCain is a good example of everything Platner isn’t. You think he didn’t have PTSD after being tortured?! Still a much more well adjusted person than this sicko Platner. Do better.

Well said.

You are so pathetic. And so transparent. Who is paying you to post this garbage?

Platner is going to win, no matter the lies told about him. The people of Maine believe him and not the GOP money that's flowing into the state to discredit him.

Did you believe Christine Blasey Ford was lying about Kavanaugh "groping" her? Why or why not?

Dp.

CBF wasn’t connected to any particular causes

She was/is a Democrat and her allegation was extremely useful to all the Democrats who wanted to block Kavanaugh. Don't play dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Scramble, scramble! Spin, spin, spin! How utterly pathetic. You know Platner is a disgusting cretin. You have nothing on Collins that would ever compare to all of the gross things Platner has said and done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I find it ironic the Democrats spent years accusing the Republicans of being Nazis and warning of far right MAGA fascists and yet there's Platner! With a genuine Nazi tattoo! And they're going to make him their senate candidate!The hypocrisy is staggering.

ARE YOU SERIOUS WITH THIS SH*T WHEN PETE HEGSETH IS THE SoD?!

You're such disgusting ppl knowing full-well that you can't find any actual "Nazi" thoughts from Platner while Hegseth's, his tattoos and his entire existence is based on being one!

You need to tell us about Pete Hegseth's Nazi tattoos.
Please elaborate.

+1
Pete Hegseth has no Nazi tattoos, as much as these idiots keep claiming otherwise. From a few pages back:

-Since U.S. President Donald Trump initially nominated Pete Hegseth as defense secretary, social media posts have claimed Hegseth wears white supremacist, Christian nationalist or Nazi tattoos.
-Hegseth has about 12 tattoos on his right arm and chest, all of which are references to his military service and patriotism, and to his Christian faith.
-None of the tattoos is a swastika, despite online claims to the contrary.
-While some have theorized that one of Hegseth's tattoos contains a covert reference to a neo-Nazi symbol, that theory is questionable at best. ----It's important to note that neo-Nazis often rely on plausible deniability to hide their symbolism. With that caveat, there is no clear evidence that any of Hegseth's tattoos represent a sympathy for or commitment to white supremacist or Nazi views.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/10/05/hegseth-nazi-tattoos/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird how he has the tattoo, but she sounds like the Nazi:

He dated her. It shows poor judgment on his part.

People often learn from their mistakes and become better because of it. Who is your perfect candidate with perfect judgement demonstrated over an entire lifetime? I can’t think of a single person.

Obama. John Kasich. Rick Santorum. Jimmy Carter. John Kerry. John McCain. All not scumbags regardless of what you think of their politics.

John McCain is a good example of everything Platner isn’t. You think he didn’t have PTSD after being tortured?! Still a much more well adjusted person than this sicko Platner. Do better.

Well said.

You are so pathetic. And so transparent. Who is paying you to post this garbage?

Platner is going to win, no matter the lies told about him. The people of Maine believe him and not the GOP money that's flowing into the state to discredit him.

The only one telling lies is Platner himself.
He is a total fraud. Democrats thought they had finally found someone who is "authentic" and could relate to the working class. He is the opposite.

Here are just a few lies and deceptions from Platner:

1. He doesn't earn a living as an "oyster man." He actually started his oyster business AFTER he filed for a Senate run. And, his mother is his primary customer. The money he makes comes from his disability claim.

2. He claimed to not know the meaning of his tattoo. That has been proven false. He knew damn well about what his tattoo represented.

3. He didn't use a VA loan to buy his home like he said. His father gave him the $200,000.

4. Platner has also said he's "never been close to money and power," though he attended an elite Connecticut boarding school that costs upwards of $75,000 a year and is the grandson of a world-famous architect known for designing $20,000 chairs.

5. He denied the allegations made about the sexually explicit texts reported saying they were politically motivated "gossip" and "journalistic malpractice," yet a few days later on Chris Hayes he said the texting ended early in his marriage.

The guy is a total fraud. You know more will be coming out.
He is not only a bad candidate. He is a bad person.

+100