This means he can be replaced with another Democrat
Graham Platner can be replaced as the Democratic nominee for Senate in Maine if he withdraws from the race by next Monday, and state law would then give the state Democratic Party until July 27 to name a replacement.
“Conspiracy theories”?
A democratic socialist that establishment dems and magats alike hate and fear, who’s vocally critical of israel and has been relentlessly smeared since his campaign was launched, yet managed to remain popular because he was offering people what they really want (common sense, pro-worker, socialist policy). His pro-war, AIPAC-sponsored opponent drops out weeks before the primary because the writing is on the wall, it looks hopeful that Dems might reclaim a senate majority, and get a DSA member on the Senate besides, and then suddenly someone remembers this thing that *totally happened* to her 5 years ago, and it gets published in Politico, which is a well-known right wing zionist rag.
Oh but all of the “evidence” amounts to “trust me bro,” “yeah there were totally texts, I just happened to delete them,” and “look I talked to my therapist about it a couple weeks ago, see these emails?”
You say “women” as if they’re a monolith who never lie. That’s kinda anti-feminist, don’t you think? This isn’t “women.” It’s “a woman,” and you’d think a feminist would understand the difference. I guess Susan Collins could never lie either, right? Would you rather have her in the Senate than a progressive man? Is it misogynist to say “No more Susan Collins please.”?
I have no problem believing women with credible accusations, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is an obvious political hit piece. And the mentality that we should “believe women” absolutely 100% of the time in every case just makes it easier for the right-wing and centrist dems to do character assassination any time a candidate who’s too progressive starts getting popular. If you can’t see the unintended consequences of that then you lack foresight.
By the way, Emmett Till’s murderers believed a woman unconditionally. We see how that went…
If the left is really gonna compare Graham Platner to Emmett Fucking Till, then maybe we actually deserve to lose
Who are you gonna defend next, Brock Allen Turner?
I’m not comparing them as people, or even as the severity of their situations.
They’ve both been accused of rape without sufficient evidence. Emmett Till ended up being found innocent, after he was murdered by an angry mob. If that’s not a plain as day reason why the whole “always believe women no matter what” thing is dangerous, and you can’t see how that applies to this situation, then I’m not going to bother trying to reason with you.
Who’s Brock Allen Turner?
Edit: By the way, if you really think the left deserves to lose, then go ahead and vote for Susan Collins. And when you get a government full of literal fascists who enthusiastically support genocide and ethnic cleansings, while defending billionaires and proven sexual predators, then remember to console yourself with the fact that at least you “believed women” when it counted and refused to question whether or not an accusation was even credible.
I’m genuinely not sure if you’re a leftist who’s just braindead, or a rightoid trying to make us look bad, but please stop either way
That’s literally what people mean when they say “believe women.” If you don’t think so, try asking them if there’s any room for exceptions. The thread here shows what kind of answers you’ll get to that. Mostly dismissiveness and personal attacks, because they can’t grapple with the fact that sometimes, some women make false accusations and the resulting conclusion that that means we can’t always believe every allegation just because it was made by a woman.
Just because I’m a leftist doesn’t mean I have to conform to the more braindead takes we see in leftist spaces like “any man who’s been accused of sexual violence must be guilty because I said so” or how about this gem “black people can’t be racist”
Tax the rich, yeah. Fund healthcare and education, improve worker’s rights and promote unionization, create social programs that build community at the local level and lift people out of poverty, homelessness, addiction, or whatever else they might be struggling with, fund welfare for people who can’t support themselves due to disability, protect public lands, restore ecosystems, develop public transportation infrastructure, reduce fossil fuel reliance and transition to renewables, take whatever climate action you can, fund research and development (primarily through public universities, and for the public domain rather than corporate IP). These and so many others like them are the kinds of leftist policies that I unequivocally support.
But make me walk on eggshells for the rest of my life because the more minority status a person has the bigger pedestal we need to put them on, leaving me as a cishetero white man at the bottom of this new social hierarchy where I’m not even allowed to defend myself if someone claims I said or did something that I never did and never would? Fuck that, if that’s a requirement for being a leftist then I’ll go start my own political orientation called “leave me the fuck alone.”
Yeah it’s really not, and you’re really making me lean towards “rightoid trying to make us look bad.” When allegations are totally uncorroborated, they aren’t taken that seriously. That’s why a random woman can’t just say “Joe Biden raped me” and end his political career. Now, if Tara Reade had messages talking about him being a rapist dating back to years before he was ever a public figure…
I’m not reading the rest of that. You’re deeply unserious. Go away
That’s not true at all. And that’s not what people mean when they say “believe women.” That is an absolute and unconditional statement. There is zero wiggle room for “but what if it isn’t true?”
Go fuck yourself, dude. Enjoy getting Susan Collins elected. And when the republicans narrowly hang on to their senate majority as a result, don’t come crying to me about how no one’s doing enough to stop the fascists. Do you not realize how important this election was?
You’re like the people who couldn’t focus on anything other than how bad Kamala Harris would supposedly be in the lead-up to the 2024 election. And then when trump got elected, it was “Ohh it’s all the liberals’ fault! Why didn’t they stop the fascism?”
Well I’ll tell you why. It’s because people like you can’t learn to hold your damn noses and vote for an imperfect candidate if that’s what it’ll take to stop fascism.
If he doesn’t drop out, he will lose to Collins. His reputation has been irreversibly damaged. Fervently defending him does nothing but harm the progressive platform, and as such I have to assume you’re a bad actor trying to sow division. My only regret is that blocking you won’t actually prevent you from replying to this comment with more rape apologia.
If your idea of “rape apologia” is “not believing every uncorroborated accusation” then how would you like it if I accused you of rape? Probably suddenly “tHaT’s DiFfErEnT!!1!1!1!”
You’re right about this though: his reputation is irreversibly damaged. Whether the accusation is true or not. But you can’t see how that’s potentially a bad thing?
I’m not going to read this slop.
Removed by mod
You insist I’m trans despite all evidence, you have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s very easy to dismiss your incorrect assertions.
“Believe women.” It’s what you said. It left very little wiggle-room. In fact, none. And now you try to wiggle your way out of it? Ad hominems won’t help you.
Do women ever lie or make false accusations? Is there even one single instance of that ever happening? It’s either a yes or a no. Did Emmett Till’s accuser falsely accuse him of rape?
Are you comparing a guy losing a very cushy, influencial job to getting murdered?
I’m providing a counterexample to the absolute, unconditional imperative “believe women” (i.e. in every case).
You want to claim women never lie or make false allegations, so we should always believe them no matter what? Here’s an example of why we shouldn’t. And you want to dismiss that because it’s too severe?!?
I don’t know who you’re making that argument against, but it’s not me.
There’s a big difference between “believe women,” a statement that evolved in a world where women are subject to embarassing exams, intense scrutiny and backlash all for a minimal chance their attackers might face justice, and “kill everyone a woman accuses.”
Believing women means supporting women who make credible accusations, especially ones backed by evidence, in a world where doing so carries a litany of repurcussions.
Your counter example doesn’t fit the context, it’s saying “if you believe this then you think this guy should have died.” No one is saying that. Stop making a terrible argument.
You apparently don’t understand what an absolute statement implies. “Believe women” as an unconditional statement is literally saying to never doubt them. And it’s enforced socially as well, as it’s basically taboo to say “Well hold on, slow down, let’s think about this and examine the evidence.”
In a court of law, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Not so in the court of public opinion.
Sure, Emmett Till is an extreme example. But it is an example. A counterexample, actually. And if you can’t look at that and think “Well maybe there’s a point here, maybe we shouldn’t just automatically believe every accusation is credible,” then I dont see the point in trying to reason with you any further.