Maine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Honest question. Are Jews the only people important to you people. So, no anti-Jewish aka Nazi, but anti-everything else is okay. Yall give a pass to Hegsbreath because he is not a Nazi towards Jewish people. However, he is a Nazi or shows Naziesque actions towards other groups, but that's okay for many of you people. Hegsbreath is anti-Black, anti-women, anti-Islam, anti-gay, anti-non-evangelical Christian, anti-anti, anti. MFrackers caping for this POS and thinking he is any different or better than Platner are FOS, and probably think Hegsbreath is okay in his hatred.

[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.

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

-1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And yet she didn't. She stayed in the relationship and even posted online how good-looking and nice he was. Hmm. Well, I can't trust her judgment or her ability to tell the truth, for her truth was that Platner was good-looking. What else is she wrong about.

[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.

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

She consistently voted for Justices who she knew would dismantle abortion rights. She is not pro-choice. Actions, baby, actions are louder than words. Didn't your momma teach you that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. - I expect more from women when it comes to treating women respectfully. The bar is not particularly high for men, and the good ones rise to the occasion and make great human beings towards women and children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah, stop lying. Susan reeks of AIPAC and foreign money. Nearly $2 million dollars to Collins versus the zero dollars to Platner from AIPAC, makes it an issue and should be highlighted for the voters. He has a right to rail against the MIGA crowd in an American election.
https://zeteo.com/p/susan-collins-maine-senate-aipac-platner

[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?

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"?

Answer your own question. I answered, you just don't like the response. Try your BS on somebody that cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If you were not so entrenched in your own BS and biases and imbued with the ability to comprehend, you already know the answer to your silly question. Now go back and read with understanding instead of reading to counterpunch and respond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. You're completely proving the PPs point. You don't want to believe any support of Kavanaugh because you don't like him. And yet, he has/had tons of female friends, both in high school, and as an adult. RBG praised him for being the justice who hired the most female clerks. But I'm sure you've totally dismissed those facts.

Not at all. It's not credible in the first place. That "letter" was released within FOUR HOURS of Ford's allegations becoming public. You couldn't possibly reach out to 65 different women who you hadn't been in contact with for decades and get them to sign on to a letter that quickly. Clearly there is something very fishy about that "letter" - if anything the letter would have had to have been organized months in advance of allegations, if it was even real at all. That's not my opinion, either - numerous reporters and commentators believed the letter was fishy. First of all, they weren't high school classmates, as Georgetown Prep where Kavanaugh attended was an all-boys school. The women whose names appeared attended totally different schools or were friends of friends who didn't even know Kavanaugh well. Additionally, numerous women who allegedly signed the letter were either unable to be reached for followup by reporters, or when contacted said thy felt misled, they signed before knowing any of the details, or that they never would have signed, knowing what they later found out about the allegations.

I could go on the class year insta page for my high school and get probably 150 signatures for something important within an hour. Have you ever used social media.

When did you graduate from HS? Who in the heck is keeping up with HS forty-years out? LOSERS!

[Anonymous]

As we sit here arguing about Platner online, it is only one year ONE YEAR since his wife caught him cheating on their marriage with a half dozen sexting partners and just a couple of months after that he announces a Senate campaign.

Anyone who can’t grasp the impulsive madness that dictates Platner’s existence is very naive and in for a rude awakening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Honest question. Are Jews the only people important to you people. So, no anti-Jewish aka Nazi, but anti-everything else is okay. Yall give a pass to Hegsbreath because he is not a Nazi towards Jewish people. However, he is a Nazi or shows Naziesque actions towards other groups, but that's okay for many of you people. Hegsbreath is anti-Black, anti-women, anti-Islam, anti-gay, anti-non-evangelical Christian, anti-anti, anti. MFrackers caping for this POS and thinking he is any different or better than Platner are FOS, and probably think Hegsbreath is okay in his hatred.

Are you speaking English? And it’s Kegsbreath. At least get the joke right.

[Anonymous]

MAGA helped Dems grow a spine. We have 10 years of examples of the GOP squirming, then falling in line — “I’m not voting for the man, but the policies”.

MAGA, Dems have come to play. You lit a fire under our a** and we’re done with the double standards. We’re here to win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As we sit here arguing about Platner online, it is only one year ONE YEAR since his wife caught him cheating on their marriage with a half dozen sexting partners and just a couple of months after that he announces a Senate campaign.

Anyone who can’t grasp the impulsive madness that dictates Platner’s existence is very naive and in for a rude awakening.

It’s unbelievable people are advocating for Platner to become one of our leaders.

Think seriously of what this says about the Platner supporters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As we sit here arguing about Platner online, it is only one year ONE YEAR since his wife caught him cheating on their marriage with a half dozen sexting partners and just a couple of months after that he announces a Senate campaign.

Anyone who can’t grasp the impulsive madness that dictates Platner’s existence is very naive and in for a rude awakening.

It’s unbelievable people are advocating for Platner to become one of our leaders.

Think seriously of what this says about the Platner supporters.

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As we sit here arguing about Platner online, it is only one year ONE YEAR since his wife caught him cheating on their marriage with a half dozen sexting partners and just a couple of months after that he announces a Senate campaign.

Anyone who can’t grasp the impulsive madness that dictates Platner’s existence is very naive and in for a rude awakening.

I can’t worry about Platner cheating on his wife when the leader of the free world cheated on each and every wife and girlfriend in his life, and the current senior senator from Maine sexually snuck around in hotel rooms with a married man with a cancer-ridden wife at home. Republicans and Independents, and maybe even some registered Democrats gave not a flying hoot about those two questionable faithfulness and infidelities, why the histrionics about Platner’s?