Maine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love that Platner is now saying his past is being “weaponized” against him.

There’s a really easy way to avoid that.

Don’t do stupid sh*t.

Right? What a victim. Not.

[Anonymous]

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.

DP. You know you're grasping when you're whining about people who aren't running for office of any kind. Stick to the subject, which is this ahole with a Nazi tattoo running for a Senate seat. JFC, your whataboutisms are beyond lame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have a gift link to the NYT?

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/04/us/politics/platner-maine-senate-girlfriends-relationships.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nlA.kNmw.ZkiPTf_cSQPm&smid=url-share

"Some of the women also raised questions about his trustworthiness. Mr. Platner’s insistence that he did not know that his tattoo was a Nazi symbol until it became a campaign issue last fall was simply not true, Ms. Fifield said. After all, she said, he had taught her the word for it years earlier, referring to it as “my Totenkopf.”

BAM.

This woman worked for heritage foundation and Susan Collins campaign. I’m taking her words as biased and revisionist history in favor of her candidate.

Well, yes - of course you are. Just as you took Christine Blasey Ford's words as absolute gospel, amirite?

You are not, and I did not. Not enough evidence for me, and far too long ago. But I will not take counsel from any of you hypocritical arseholes who without due deliberation, dismissed CBF and Anita Hill's testimony because y'all did not care about an actual sexual assault and harassment on a woman.. You are the same people who voted for a man who bragged on camera about grabbing women by their puzzy without their consent. A man who has been found liable in a court of law by a jury of his peers for sexually assaulting multiple women over a course of decades, you don't have a problem with, but now you have a problem with Platner.

Platner is not the worst kind of man, not the best kind of man, but definitely better than the oldest member sitting on the SCOTUS and the felonious person occupying the white house. Also, even if Lyndsey, Platner's accuser, is telling the truth at face value, I still think it is a nothingburger. Six women and only one said he assaulted her; the alleged assault was nothing more than a grabbing of an arm or hand during an argument. I noticed she never mentioned what she did to him during this heated argument, wherein she admits that he told her that she needed to calm down and that he needed to put some distance between the two of them at the time. It is instances like this that you choose to puff up that make it extremely difficult to believe and prosecute actual cases of sexual violence and assault. Grown-ass women slap, throw objects, and/or pummel their fists into the backs of departing men during arguments, and somehow those incidents are dismissed as nothingburgers, and your hypocrisy wants to make this a federal case. Unfreakingbelievable.

Wow. WOW. He twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her into a bedroom and locked her in. How many more times will you coyly imply that she must have done something to deserve that?

He also told her - repeatedly - that he planned to RAPE anyone who might break into their house. You know, to show them who's boss. That just blows my mind and it should blow yours too. And he also told her - repeatedly - about his Nazi Totenkopf tattoo.

Meanwhile, you and your fellow hysterics no doubt took to your fainting couch at the mere allegation that Kavanaugh had *groped* a fellow teenager in high school. The horror!! You're a hypocritical clown and every time you post this garbage, it's just more evident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, look...more dirt on the scumbag Republican woman quoted in the article. You have to be a moron not to see the agenda of those trying to destroy Platner:

She started the group "Ladies for (Brett)Kavanaugh"

But but but you told us we had to believe Kavanaugh’s accuser without question even if there was far less contemporaneous evidence than there is here. Hm, it’s almost as if you have no morals.

TBH I'm not following this closely, but why would a woman who was abused by Platner, stand against Kavanaugh's accuser? If she wants people to believe her, why wouldn't she believe CBF?

Either it's insane cognitive dissonance or pure political ploy -- both times!

Because she was being paid to attack CBF.

Plattner's mistake is that he didn't put these women on his campaign payroll.

It’s only one woman.

There were three women who described their relationships with Platner, in addition to interviews with over two dozen people.
DP

There were six women who described their relationship with Platner. Three gave him a good boyfriend review. Two gave him a not-so-good boyfriend review. And one, the person who worked for Susan Collins, Nikki Haley, and The Heritage Foundation, said he was abusive because he grabbed her arm, locked her in the bedroom and told her to calm down.

And told her he wanted to rape any home intruder. If someone said something like that to me, I'd be out of there so fast. But YDY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This guy is absolutely repugnant. And has no place getting anywhere near the US Senate.

Have some standards people.

And anyone coming out against the victim here because she happens to be a GOP employee?? Gross.

Like what was the supposed "long game" here?? Date him for TWO YEARS, and then, in case he runs for senate 13 years later youve "got em"?? I mean listen to yourselves.

Collins voted to end a right to abortion, which has cause mothers to die in labor in TX, FL, and other red states.

It is what it is.

I’m sorry, I’m no fan of Collins but your post is entirely disingenuous.

She voted for SCOTUS nominees who promised under oath and upon penalty of perjury that they were going to follow settled law.

It was as much a shock to the remaining moderate Republicans when SCOTUS issued the Dobbs ruling. We have all lived in the same universe for decades in which both parties were always assured that SCOTUS would never really repeal Roe.

It’s a bald faced lie to accuse Collins of intentionally setting out to make that happen. Maine is a very strongly pro choice state and has been for decades it is no benefit to her to have had that happen and because it did she’s weaker than she ever has been.

Exactly. And Susan Collins IS pro-choice. I rolled my eyes so hard at the PP's idiotic claim.

Impossible. You cannot be pro-choice and then use your political power and votes to knowingly install three anti-choice SCOTUS Justices. All she had to do was read their prior decisions and in ACB's case, she wrote a paper on the matter. So nah, Collins is definitely not pro-choice. Her votes speaks otherwise.

Wrong. You can insist and insist that she somehow voted to confirm those justices for nefarious reasons, but she did not. She is absolutely pro-choice and you just sound idiotic claiming otherwise.
https://ontheissues.org/Social/Susan_Collins_Abortion.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re the one spinning. Collins is failing to report obvious insider trading, plus her husband left his wife who was dying of cancer for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This guy is absolutely repugnant. And has no place getting anywhere near the US Senate.

Have some standards people.

And anyone coming out against the victim here because she happens to be a GOP employee?? Gross.

Like what was the supposed "long game" here?? Date him for TWO YEARS, and then, in case he runs for senate 13 years later youve "got em"?? I mean listen to yourselves.

Collins voted to end a right to abortion, which has cause mothers to die in labor in TX, FL, and other red states.

It is what it is.

I’m sorry, I’m no fan of Collins but your post is entirely disingenuous.

She voted for SCOTUS nominees who promised under oath and upon penalty of perjury that they were going to follow settled law.

It was as much a shock to the remaining moderate Republicans when SCOTUS issued the Dobbs ruling. We have all lived in the same universe for decades in which both parties were always assured that SCOTUS would never really repeal Roe.

It’s a bald faced lie to accuse Collins of intentionally setting out to make that happen. Maine is a very strongly pro choice state and has been for decades it is no benefit to her to have had that happen and because it did she’s weaker than she ever has been.

Exactly. And Susan Collins IS pro-choice. I rolled my eyes so hard at the PP's idiotic claim.

Impossible. You cannot be pro-choice and then use your political power and votes to knowingly install three anti-choice SCOTUS Justices. All she had to do was read their prior decisions and in ACB's case, she wrote a paper on the matter. So nah, Collins is definitely not pro-choice. Her votes speaks otherwise.

EXACTLY. Watch what she DOES not what she SAYS. She is no friend of women.

But Platner is? Yes, it sounds like he's extremely respectful of women. NOT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have a gift link to the NYT?

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/04/us/politics/platner-maine-senate-girlfriends-relationships.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nlA.kNmw.ZkiPTf_cSQPm&smid=url-share

"Some of the women also raised questions about his trustworthiness. Mr. Platner’s insistence that he did not know that his tattoo was a Nazi symbol until it became a campaign issue last fall was simply not true, Ms. Fifield said. After all, she said, he had taught her the word for it years earlier, referring to it as “my Totenkopf.”

BAM.

This woman worked for heritage foundation and Susan Collins campaign. I’m taking her words as biased and revisionist history in favor of her candidate.

She had contemporaneous proof of her claims which, interestingly, the NYT chose not to include in their story.
What we are seeing is total evidence that Democrats don't really believe all women. They only believe the women who do and say things that are political expedient to them.

I don't believe all women. I am a former state prosecutor who almost got burned prosecuting a young man for rape. It was not until late in the case that more evidence came to light showing she was not truthful in her account. So no, I don't automatically believe all women without some verification. And I am not happy about that feeling, but it is what it is.

I also don't believe all women unless there is good reason to do so. Did you believe Christine Blasey Ford's allegation? Because if you recall, she had zero verification.

Read what I wrote and stop with the whataboutism. And then ask yourself, did you? And do you believe Lyndsey?

I asked you first, don't try and turn the tables. You said you don't automatically believe all women. So did you or did you not believe CBF when she alleged she was "groped"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have a gift link to the NYT?

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/04/us/politics/platner-maine-senate-girlfriends-relationships.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nlA.kNmw.ZkiPTf_cSQPm&smid=url-share

"Some of the women also raised questions about his trustworthiness. Mr. Platner’s insistence that he did not know that his tattoo was a Nazi symbol until it became a campaign issue last fall was simply not true, Ms. Fifield said. After all, she said, he had taught her the word for it years earlier, referring to it as “my Totenkopf.”

BAM.

This woman worked for heritage foundation and Susan Collins campaign. I’m taking her words as biased and revisionist history in favor of her candidate.

She had contemporaneous proof of her claims which, interestingly, the NYT chose not to include in their story.
What we are seeing is total evidence that Democrats don't really believe all women. They only believe the women who do and say things that are political expedient to them.

I don't believe all women. I am a former state prosecutor who almost got burned prosecuting a young man for rape. It was not until late in the case that more evidence came to light showing she was not truthful in her account. So no, I don't automatically believe all women without some verification. And I am not happy about that feeling, but it is what it is.

I also don't believe all women unless there is good reason to do so. Did you believe Christine Blasey Ford's allegation? Because if you recall, she had zero verification.

Read what I wrote and stop with the whataboutism. And then ask yourself, did you? And do you believe Lyndsey?

DP.
I absolutely believe Lyndsey. She has contemporaneous proof of her claims - which the NYT chose not to include in their story.
CBF had ZERO proof of any of her claims. She was a tool of the left.

Precisely. It's pretty chilling that Lyndsey gave all the requested verification to the NYT and they refused to include it. CBF had zero. And those are facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking as an immigrant who has seen this playbook before, Graham Platner v. Zionists who want to take him down is a microcosm of the greater struggle taking place in America right now. White Nationalists are trying to infiltrate and take over the institutions and organizations that Zionists first infiltrated and took over. Graham Platner is a white nationalist, make no mistake. Because Democrats have stupidly decided it is moral to "deplatform" a.k.a. ignore what people they don't like are doing, a lot of you don't realize that over the past decade, there has been a massive push by white nationalists to hide their leanings in order to infiltrate institutions. There's literally a term for it in white nationalist circles, called "hiding your power." This is when you pretend to subscribe to the beliefs of the groups you oppose until you attain enough power within their institutions to subvert them and ultimately openly come out as what you are.

The one group in this country who keep tabs on white nationalists at all times are Zionists. Zionists are aware that they are currently locked in a battle with white nationalists for the future of this country. You can see it playing out in Elon Musk versus the institutions he has taken down, including the former Twitter. Zionists are aware that white nationalists are running various candidates who are encouraged to hide their leanings. Zionists have done the exact same thing for decades in this country and they know how the game is played. The thing is, if Zionists come out as saying there's a white nationalist conspiracy to take back the country, they will sound crazy and as if they are trying to distract from their own extremely evil misdeeds, such as the genocide Israel is perpetrating right now.

So, Zionists have to go candidate by candidate and use means other than open accusations of white nationalist leanings to take down people like Graham Platner. In short, those who believe that the wave of attacks on him are part of a Zionist plot to take him down are absolutely correct. But those believe he is a white nationalist who should be kept far from power are also very much correct.

The thing is, I don't see how America wins. Zionists seek to operate this country purely to the benefit of Israel and Jews' narrow interests. White nationalists seek to reclaim the country so they can regain the dominance they had at the expense of everyone who was not a white male. These are scary times and, having already barely survived the fall of my birth country under the pressure of a similar conflict, I am currently in the process of selling my house and looking into somewhere else to go before things really get bad over here.

Tell us more about your hatred of Jewish people - oops, I mean "Zionists." I think it's abundantly clear what you're actually saying.

DP.

STOP CONFLATING ZIONISTS WITH JEWS YOU DISINGENUOUS SLEAZE!

Not when you continually obsess about "Zionists" on EVERY SINGLE THREAD. It's very, very clear what you mean. Maybe take your anti-Israel musings to a different thread instead of trying to somehow pretend you're on topic here.

DP It is on topic when AIPAC, a foreign operation, is spending so much money on campaign ads against Platner, and the accuser is a big supporter of Israel and AIPAC. All things are on the table where potential conflicts of interest are involved. Lyndsey has a great COI in this matter.

I think you have that backwards. Platner is absolutely fixated on AIPAC and continues to rant about it - much like some of you on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main subject thinks she was set up by the NYT to help Platner:

In the end, I don’t think she’s any different than any other woman who has tried to stand up to tell the truth about a man. It’s just a question of which side savages the whistleblower.

Wow, that was powerful. I don't blame her for feeling used. She provided them with everything they asked for, and more - which they didn't even use. Now they've painted her as some kind of political operative when she was simply recounting her experiences with Platner. Pretty gross behavior for the NYT to have so blatantly portrayed her in this way instead of, you know, "believing all women".

They totally softened the description of her political activism.

So? He also dated a Democrat who said he was "reckless and unsettling." Face it, you don't actually "believe all women."

Reckless and unsettling in what way? Did she describe what she meant by that? What was the context of this recklessness, spending, actions, driving, promiscuity, what exactly? When did they date? Was it fifteen years ago in his twenties, or three years ago? Are you the same person at 21, at 31, at 41 years of age? Timing is everything.

Great point! Did you believe the allegation of groping against a TEENAGED Kavanaugh? If you did believe it, did you also believe he had grown into a respectable man who is a pillar of his community? I mean, timing is everything, right? Or does that expansively forgiving attitude only apply to *checks notes* Democrats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He is a pathological liar.

Several lies here.

Collins's husband retired in '16, so he's not a lobbyist. He last lobbied for American Defense Int'l in '08, years before he married Collins.

And, Platner joined the Marines in '04, two years after Senate voted to authorize Iraq.

Snort. And didn't he blame Collins for "sending him to war"? What a tool.

[Anonymous]

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.

Exactly. Well said. This is precisely what I don't understand either. Though I don't know why I'm surprised... this crew proves itself to be hypocritical in every way.

[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.

Except that anyone who "had doubts" about CBF was called all sorts of names for not "believing all women." Remember that?
DP

[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.

Except that anyone who "had doubts" about CBF was called all sorts of names for not "believing all women." Remember that?
DP

That’s what is happening to those who have doubts about Fifield, including by you.