Platner vs. Trump
A top state party official said that Graham Platner’s team had “repeatedly” tried to “put their thumb on the scale,” but he would not influence how the party chose a new Senate candidate.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has faced multiple scandals, including indictments for first-degree felony securities fraud in 2015 and a 2023 impeachment by the Texas House for bribery and abuse of office.
From AI:
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton: Paxton won the Republican Senate primary and has maintained strong party backing despite a history of scandals, including a 2023 impeachment trial by the Texas House on charges of abuse of office and bribery. He was ultimately acquitted by the state Senate, and his supporters view these allegations as politically motivated attacks by an entrenched establishment.
Maine Senate Candidate Graham Platner: Platner lost his backing from top Democrats following a report detailing serious allegations of sexual assault. In response to the bombshell story, Senate leadership and prominent national Democrats actively called for him to step down from the race.
Why the approaches differ:
Party Response to Allegations: Democrats moved swiftly to distance themselves from Platner to avoid damaging a critical and competitive seat in the U.S. Senate.
The Incumbency Factor: In Texas, Paxton successfully galvanized the hard-right and MAGA base, leading national Republicans to rally behind him—and focus their resources on beating his Democratic opponent, James Talarico—even if it caused internal handwringing.
38 comments:
Authoritarian Republicans show us how immorality, racism, and criminality are not only tolerated, but rewarded.
That's MAGA. And the future of America. Unless 2026 and 2028 cleans house and senate of MAGAts.
It's is truly eye-poppingly insane to read the comments by Trump supporters on this Platner rape accusation. The comments are all about how hypocritical those who endorsed Platner are! I doubt any of his high-profile endorsers knew about this rape allegation, but once they found out, they withdrew their suppot.
When Trump supporters KNEW Trump was a sexual assaulter via the Access Hollywood tape, they voted for him. When Trump supporters knew Trump was an adjudicated sexual assaulter/rapist (judge's word), they voted for him AGAIN!
Therefore, we can confidently, and with evidence, deduce that Trump supporters support and admire sexual assaulters/rapists.
I think I noted elsewhere at PE that while the Dems, as I've said about a million times, are not perfect. But, they seem to not accept, at least now, stuff like what we are hearing about Platner.
Before any of our MAGA fans should even be considered worthy of a response, if they arrive and try and tar the Dems with Platner's record, they should show how they said the same about Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2020.
Because the Dems are the party of expelling Al Franken over a crass photo and the ones calling on Platner, at great risk to the party, to drop out.
There is no equivalency. The MAGA trump party accepts whatever their malignant narcissist buffoon tells them. It's a national cult. Exactly as was the Nazi party in Germany.
The Dems have standards. The Trump GOP none.
While I'm glad that the Democratic leadership decided it couldn't stomach something as serious as a credible rape accusation, the real issue here is that there is evidently a large number of Democratic primary voters for whom a Nazi tattoo was not a deal breaker. This is evidence of something deeply, fundamentally sick and vile that has become entrenched in the party.
And no, I don't believe Platner didn't know what it was. The Totenkopf symbol is widely known and he's a self-described military history buff. This is something he was getting tattooed onto himself, not just casually looking at. It's inconceivable that he didn't know what it meant.
This is a deadly serious problem which needs to be addressed. "Yes but Trump" is not going to cut it.
You stated in your post that this is not about morals, women's rights, corruption or doing what's right. It is all about politics and gaining control. "Democrats moved swiftly to distance themselves to avoid damaging a critical seat". They did not indicate this was because he is disgusting or it is the right thing to do. Trump is pond scum and I admit that but the hypocrite party smells just as bad as the party of trump.
Platner is irrelevant. Democrats are rejecting him.
Trump is still sending non-violent people into privatized unaccountable concentrations camps where they endure inhumane treatment and medical neglect. Trump is still sending unaccountable secret police to shoot protestors and disappear peaceful human beings from family and society. Trump is still ordering the summary executions of people at sea and leaving them to drown if they survive the attack.
Trump, Patel, and Hegseth are the heirs of the Totenkopf. -FJ goose-steps in loyalty behind his Fuhrer.
skud: "They did not indicate this was because he is disgusting or it is the right thing to do."
You're wrong, again, skud. You don't do any research before you come here and post incorrect information. What you posted is NOT factual, it is your opinion, a misinformed one at that:
Top Democrats press Maine Senate candidate to drop out of race over sexual assault allegation
"Senator Bernie Sanders, one of Platner's biggest backers who stood by him after earlier controversies, said he had spoken with Platner about the "best path forward for Maine".
"In light of these very serious allegations, I have recommended that he step aside," Sanders said.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said in a statement: "The allegations reported today are incredibly disturbing – violence, abuse and sexual assault are absolutely unacceptable."
NPR:
The Democratic Party and its top leaders heavily condemned Graham Platner and forced him to suspend his Senate campaign following a bombshell Politico report in July 2026. While party leaders had previously overlooked controversies regarding his personal life and past rhetoric, the allegation of rape served as a definitive "red line" that triggered an immediate, unified withdrawal of support.
No. The Democrats are NOT the same as the Republican Party. The Republican Party nominated Trump to be the presidential candidate after the Access Hollywood audio tape revealed him bragging about committing sexual assault against women. The Republican Party then nominated Trump AGAIN after he was found liable by a jury and judge for sexually assaulting/raping E. Jean Carroll.
The Republicans chose a creep just like Platner to be the POTUS. The Democrats withdrew their support before Platner had a chance to be a US Senator.
To add to what the Republicans did, after learning that their candidate is a sexual predator and assaulter and a swine -- the Republican Party also supported a man who partied for decades with Epstein and Maxwell, two convicted pedophiles who trafficked children to rich and powerful people for rape.
Trump knew what Epstein and Maxwell were up to. Nevertheless, he continued, right up until he was elected POTUS the first time, he continue contact with Epstein, the pedophile, and he wished Maxwell "well" when she was convicted and sent to prison. Let me repeat: Upon Maxwell pedophile conviction, Trump offered her his good wishes, and then his DoJ moved Maxwell to a nice cushy Club Fed where she has special privileges. This is unheard of protection and privilege for a pedophile.
This is the stench that will never leave the Republican Party.
Skud is as full of false equivalence and bullshit as MAGA. He's not willing to look at the lies, corruption and CRIMES of Trump and his henchmen because he actually SIDES with them.
Shaw... let's not forget Eric Swawell, former candidate for governor in CA. Look, no party has a corner oon the market of virtue, or sin.
The difference comes mostly in how the two parties treat treat their "sinners". In what is really a new age for the rich and powerful, as opposed to much of the post WWII era, social media has changed the game.
And the Dems have objectively been harder on their ppl that has the GOP been with theirs, Tony Gonzalez notwithstanding.
No longer are people like Platner and Swalwell able to remain private with their dysfunctions and how they've treated women over the years. And I suspect, the average GOP Congressman can't either.
But their president?
What we've seen regarding Trump from the GOP far surpasses any acceptance we saw from the Dems relating to Clinton. Let's not forget, Al Gore eschewed Clinton because of his loose morals and it probably cost him the election.
Anyone expect that from the upcoming GOP candidate for president in 2028?
Of course not.
skud, like most both siderism folk enjoys painting with very big brush strokes. Big brush strokes always short on reality (truth).
trump, a sexual assualter and likely rapist sits in the Oval Office. So, the republican party is nothing but raging hypocrites.
Here's an example to buttress my opinion above, from the Republican National Committee Chair Joe Gruters...
“Democrats rolled in the mud with Platner, and now they are completely stained by their association with this sick monster.”
See what's happening here? This is not some uneducated country hick, this is the head of the Republican Party slamming and calling Platner a monster. And then ignoring his party's leader, convicted felon and a man found liable for sexual assault as well as a frequent Epstein file member Donald J Trump.
How is Platner a sick monster and Trump is not? How are the Dems "completely stained" by association and the GOP is not?
Can anyone give me an objective answer? Even if you dispute the court case for assault, Trump is on tape admitting he essentially does what Platner did.
This is why so many people find the GOP disgusting.
Agreed. However late the Dems were in jettisoning Platner, they finally did the correct thing. Why they didn't do this sooner is a mark against them.
Why did the Democrats choose Platner, the "Oysterman" to run, and not some self-righteous woke egghead? For the same reasons they chose Trump. The working class doesn't trust the PMC anymore.
So get used to it.
What's the Buckley saying, ""I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University."
...more true today than ever.
Populism is the cure for failed elitism. Why is socialism making such a splash in Democratic circles? Because it's not the "Establishment" Uni-Party GOPe or DNCe. And as the "GOPe" populist crashes and burns, the DNC anti-establishment candidate become more popular. It's Newtonian Physics. For every Action, there is an equal and opposite Re-Action.
Buckley was the product of an elite Ivy League education. Yale is just as elitist as Harvard, and Buckley was a member of Yales’s highly exclusive, elitist, and oldest secret society, “ Skull and Bones.” So his claim about those first 2000 people in the phone directory being preferable to the Harvard faculty is inane. Buckley was as elite as they come, and he wouldn’t be caught dead associating with the first 2000 names in the Boston phone directory, and everyone knows that.
"Why is (democratic) socialism making such a splash in Democratic circles?"
Because it's in our Constitution. Representative democracy, taxes on the rich and corporations, regulation of commerce, and provision for the general welfare. All despised by the Right.
It opposes theocracy, oligarchy, royalty, and dictatorships. All embraced by the radical Right.
Democratic socialism means no corporate money in elections, no deregulated crony capitalism, no unaccountable secret police, no concentrations camps for non-violent immigrants, no wars for Netanyahu, and no Criminal presidents.
It means public education, public healthcare, public infrastructure, and public safety nets. It means an enforceable code of ethics for all politicians, and judges up to the Supreme Court. Also all despised by the radical Right.
This terrifies the Right. They want privilege, not accountability. They want conservative white minority rule, not a multiracial democracy.
So they call democratic socialism "communism" or "fascism" to scare their poorly educated dupes.
The folks running the country right now are about as an elitist as it gets. They are billionaires, oligarchs, and tech Bros. They have nothing to do with working class, people! Name a working class person in Trump‘s cabinet!. There isn’t one. None of the individuals in Trump‘s cabinet are traditionally considered working class because his administration is predominantly, composed of billionaires, millionaires, and corporation heads.
No one believes for a minute that any of those oligarchs, multimillionaires, billionaires give a flying doughnut about working class people. It’s the biggest scam ever perpetrated on this country. millionaires, billionaires and oligarchs, giving any thought to the needs of regular working class people? What a croc.
Trump has in his administration an unprecedented 13 billionaires and his administration is widely noted for featuring those people as cabinet level secretaries, agency heads, and senior advisory roles. we can start with the richest man in the world, Elon Musk plus Howard Lutnick, Linda McMahon, Vivek, Ramaswamy, Jerry, Scott Besant, Charles Kushner, etc. his administration is loaded with the filthy rich.
It terrifies the capital class. Capitalism is about one thing and one thing only Profit. And the more obscene the profit the better. To hell with the general welfare.
The MIC loves the capitalism keeps funding the war machine and killing people precisely because...PROFIT.
Democratic Socialism is likely the only path that may save this country from the planned insanity of of present day capitalism and perhaps eventual complete destruction of this nation's social order.
Karl Marx's economic models were (are) quite correct. Too bad we'd rather watch this nation crumble as it likely stays the insane course of modern American predatory capitalism.
You ignore Peter Turchin's Theory of Elite Overproduction and its' elite: counter-elite dynamic. The elites are not a unified class. They have their own interests in pursuing and occupying the limited seats of power in a game with a finite set of governing musical chairs
The elite consists of the established ruling class holding institutional power, while the counter-elite comprises influential leaders who challenge that power by mobilizing dissatisfied populations.
Core Definitions
Elite: Individuals controlling top positions in politics, finance, and culture.
Counter-Elite: Leaders with high resource access who oppose the current establishment.
Key Distinctions
Source of Power
Elite: Derived from institutional legitimacy, wealth, and systemic control.
Counter-Elite: Derived from public charisma, populist appeal, and anti-establishment sentiment.
Systemic Goals
Elite: Maintaining the existing political, social, and economic status quo.
Counter-Elite: Disrupting existing structures to replace the ruling class.
Strategy
Elite: Utilizing policy, mainstream media, and legal frameworks to govern.
Counter-Elite: Utilizing alternative media, populism, and public grievance to mobilize.
Dynamic Interaction
Circulation of Elites: Sociologist Vilfredo Pareto noted history is a "graveyard of aristocracies.
"Systemic Failure: Counter-elites gain power when the ruling elite fails to address crises.
Absorption: Established elites often co-opt counter-elite ideas to maintain control.
Replacement: Successful counter-elites eventually become the new established elite.
Today's counter-elites are most definitely "elitist". The difference is that they do not support the post-WWII global open-society consensus. Trump is dismantling it... (UN/NATO/WEF/etc.)
The post WWII Neoliberal Open-Society Consensus has been "institutionally" established. Trump (and Mamdani & the DSA) are dismantling them. THAT is the source of their popularity. Not their "class" (as wealthy elites). Yes, it would be nice to see some working Joes in the ruling mix (explaining JD Vance and Platner's popular appeal) but it's not necessary (as Trump and Mamdani's elections have proven).
As an infamous Democratic political strategist once famously commented, "It's the economy, stupid." And the Post-WWII Neoliberal Open Society economy is no longer working for the world's gig-economy working classes.
Socialism won't make the working classes more affluent. It's parasitic, not productive.
No one is talking about bringing Socialism to the U.S.
Social democracy is not Socialism, it's not even the same as democratic socialism.
"Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden, and Denmark) are prime examples of social democracy. They operate on the "Nordic Model," which successfully blends free-market capitalism with highly competitive economies and an extensive, universal, tax-financed welfare state.
These countries are not socialist, but rather mixed economies. They actively protect private property and entrepreneurship while heavily investing in their citizens through comprehensive social safety nets, universal healthcare, free education, and strong labor unions."
The Scandinavian countries with social democracies are also among the happiest countries on the planet. Their citizens don't have to worry about being financially ruined by a catastrophic illness or accident, or spending the rest of one's life paying of educational loans.
"Socialism won't make the working classes more affluent. It's parasitic, not productive." -FJ
There he goes arguing with communism again.
No. Capitalism, especially in healthcare, is parasitic, lethal, and economically ruinous for people. Socialized healthcare is the sane, humane, and cheaper system, but capitalist GREED obstructs it.
Also look at the minimum wage v CEO pay today. The working class IS being crushed by deregulated capitalism. "Trickle up" wealth fails working people and creates neo-feudalist regimes that drive them into desperation, living from paycheck to paycheck.
Nobody is getting more affluent today but the rich, as they get more tax cuts while the working people and poor alike are deprived of job security, healthcare, and safety nets.
Funny how everyone is unwilling to consider views that question capitalism and what it has done to the planet. I guess everyone is duly conditioned. Both right and left. Things will NEVER change as a result of that.
Have fun dreaming your dreams of a benevolent capitalist society. It will NEVER happen.
No one, Shaw?
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani famously stated: "I know there are many who use socialist as a dirty word — something to be ashamed of. They can try all they want, but we will not be ashamed of using government to fight for the many, not simply the few."
"I am a socialist, of course I am a socialist. To hold a vision that society can be fundamentally different, to believe that all people can be equal - that is not a new idea". - Sen Bernie Sanders
"I got older and became a communist." - Graham Platner
...and finally: "What if the Soviet intervention was a blessing in disguise? It saved the myth that if the Soviets were not to intervene, there would have been some flowering authentic democratic socialism and so on. I'm a little bit more of a pessimist there. I think that the Soviets - it's a very sad lesson - by their intervention, saved the myth." - Slavoj Žižek
Well, that’s 3. And Platner is a private citizen, not an elected one. So what’s your point? We know that there are people in this country of approximately 350 million people who support socialism of one sort or another. So what’s your point? On the federal level you mentioned Bernie Sanders. OK. Mamdani has no effect on the federal level because he’s the mayor of a city. I don’t think you need to panic.
My point was made in the "opposing virtues" argument. Socialism doesn't have a platform. Like "communism" is merely a cry for more "Justice" and less "Wisdom". In other words, the creation of moral hazards w/o consequences.
"Justice" isn't moral hazards w/o consequences. It's the opposite. Moral hazards WITH consequences. It gives everyone their "due".
Socialism misunderstands what "Justice" really is. Especially those who believe in SoJus. SoJus is no Justice at all.
350 million seems to be a huge stretch. Of course it depends on what you consider socialism. Some say Medicare is socialism even though we pay for it. Medicare is something we pay for without receiving benefits until much later. Some say fire and police departments but taxes pay for them. It is socialism if you are part of the we don't pay but I doubt that is 350 million people.
Socialism is the politicians dream because they can make a fortune while giving away other peoples money.
Me: banging my head o my desk!
Skud, you may want to rethink what you posted
Me: I didn't mean for you to suffer banging your head on your desk. What part of that didn't you understand. Socialism in countries like Norway work because the labor participation rate is 78% not 60%. 100% of employed workers pay income tax unlike the US where only 50% don't pay. They are a healthy country in part because of national health care but because of their healthy lifestyle. Few gangs result in safe streets, few polluting factories mean cleaner air and an active society means a more healthy population.
Back to my question, what part of my post didn't you understand?
The government runs Medicare. It sets the prices for use, requires you to pay taxes to fund the program and tracks your earnings and eligibility accordingly while managing all of the program’s revenue. The government runs the official website for Medicare, approves or denies applications, decides which benefits you will receive and imposes and enforces regulations and restrictions around the program.
That all very much fits the scope of socialism, or at least of a program with inherent functions that one could describe as similar to socialist concepts.
While Medicare shares many features of socialism, there is one key element of Medicare that keeps it from being pure socialism.
A truly socialist system of government eliminates the concept of private property or resources. Doctors, hospitals and other health care providers who participate in and are reimbursed by Medicare are still privately owned and operated, and they are not required by law to participate in the Medicare program or accept Medicare insurance. Because of that caveat, Medicare cannot be considered pure socialism.
Medicare most closely aligns with the “social democracy” found in countries like Norway and Sweden, where residents are free to own property and goods while also benefiting from social needs services like a public health care system.
We can then say that Medicare is, therefore, a form of socialism.
Ignorance, stupidity, greed, and hate
: The pillars of capitalism and the republican (now trumpublican) party.
Sorry -FJ... the question was "How is Platner a sick monster and Trump is not? How are the Dems 'completely stained' by association and the GOP is not?"
Why are you afraid to just answer that Q in your own, plain language prose?
Politeness does not answer a question with another question. It first answers the original question, then poses a counter question.
If you want to be like Sharron Angle, failed NV Senate Candidate who wanted ppl to "ask the questions we want to answer", I'm probably not your guy.
Post a Comment