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.
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.
I know what an absolute statement is. I also understand that “believe women” does not mean “punish men.”
Believing an accusation is credible is exactly why we examine the evidence and eventually go to a court of law.
Unfortunately, the court of law is not the arbiter of truth. If you weren’t paying attention to the entire #metoo movement, or maybe don’t believe women, I expect we are done here.