jerryskids Posted July 9 Posted July 9 4 hours ago, TimHauck said: Wrong. They did include some of her other claims. But let’s include the full context of the “could not corroborate” phrasing: could not corroborate the physical altercations or the most controversial comments she described. They didn’t say they couldn’t corroborate anything, and they even said Fifield, Racicot (who of course was named in the article even though for some reason @Strike incorrectly thinks she wasn’t), and the anonymous woman “described their relationship in similar terms.” This is still such an odd argument to me. Fifield herself admits to not telling the NYT initially about some of her most serious allegations, and also: was quick to note that he “never hit me, he never punched me.” Yet you’re accusing the NYT of protecting him. This feels like an argument you’d accuse me of making. You're on tilt; your algorithm doesn't handle being wrong very well. Everyone but you and knows that the NYT is a leftist hack rag that turned her story into a Platner puff piece. They will never comment on it because they know it; instead they'll just be quiet and in a week or two, moderate sycophants like you will forget it ever happened. 1 Quote
EternalShinyAndChrome Posted July 9 Posted July 9 12 hours ago, dogcows said: Good riddance to the (alleged) Nazi rapist. Wish we could get rid of the one in the White House too. But his party actually seems to like such qualities in a candidate. Yeah, well , the problem for you guys is you're trying to equate Platner to Trump and its not even close. Your side literally had to MAKE STUFF UP and retroactively invoke new laws to try and get him. None of the DJT was corroborated or proven. The platner stuff is next level, corrobarated and provable. And you supported this Nazi, rapist and racist POS THE ENTIRE TIME. You aren't going to weasel out of this one with smoke screens, distractions, straw men and gaslighting. Own it, b#tch. You guys are all for Nazis, Rapists, Pedos and Terrorists as long as they vote like you. GTFO. 1 Quote
Caine Mutiny Posted July 9 Posted July 9 Actually none of the stuff about Platner is proven either. He’s gone because at this point it seems credible. The stuff about Trump with regard to women seems credible too but he’s still around… 1 Quote
Hardcore troubadour Posted July 9 Posted July 9 So the people of Maine aren’t getting to decide who the candidate is. Just the party insiders. Anyone know who Clooney wants? Quote
SaintsInDome2006 Posted July 9 Posted July 9 33 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said: Actually none of the stuff about Platner is proven either. He’s gone because at this point it seems credible. The stuff about Trump with regard to women seems credible too but he’s still around… Lawsuit by his wife, sworn FBI testimony in at least two cases, two trials and one deposition with sworn testimony. At least one deposition the DOJ won’t release. One court judgement & one guilty verdict (for fraud in a cover up). Testimony by his bodyguard. Other filed petitions. A signed birthday note featuring a lewd cartoon to a notorious sex trafficker. It’s a lot. Quote
Strike Posted July 9 Posted July 9 4 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said: Actually none of the stuff about Platner is proven either. He’s gone because at this point it seems credible. The stuff about Trump with regard to women seems credible too but he’s still around… Of course it's proven. A person's testimony is proof and there is plenty of that. How WELL it's proven can be debated but to suggest that there isn't proof is ridiculous. Quote
Strike Posted July 9 Posted July 9 3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: So the people of Maine aren’t getting to decide who the candidate is. Just the party insiders. Anyone know who Clooney wants? I'm hoping they choose anoint Kamala Quote
Engorgeous George Posted July 9 Posted July 9 1 hour ago, jerryskids said: You're on tilt; your algorithm doesn't handle being wrong very well. Everyone but you and knows that the NYT is a leftist hack rag that turned her story into a Platner puff piece. They will never comment on it because they know it; instead they'll just be quiet and in a week or two, moderate sycophants like you will forget it ever happened. I thought the Times was modifying Catch and Kill and ,making it Catch and Minimize and Excuse. Quote
squistion Posted July 9 Posted July 9 10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: So the people of Maine aren’t getting to decide who the candidate is. Just the party insiders. Anyone know who Clooney wants? The Democratic Party of Maine is letting the people choose through an open convention. It is not feasible to hold a special election given the time constraints of having to choose Platner's replacement. Quote
Strike Posted July 9 Posted July 9 1 minute ago, squistion said: The Democratic Party of main is letting the people choose through an open convention. It is not feasible to hold a special election given the time constraints of having to choose Platner's replacement. Yes, we know. How convenient. Just like they couldn't allow their constituents to choose their Presidential candidate last time. I honestly don't understand how you libs stay with that party. You are good little Lemmings though. I'll give you that. Quote
HellToupee Posted July 9 Posted July 9 10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: So the people of Maine aren’t getting to decide who the candidate is. Just the party insiders. Anyone know who Clooney wants? Nothing to worry about . The process seems fair Quote
Engorgeous George Posted July 9 Posted July 9 Rain Man gives his endorsement to Charlie Babbit because he is Rain Man's Maine Man. Yeah. Quote
squistion Posted July 9 Posted July 9 1 minute ago, HellToupee said: Nothing to worry about . The process seems fair There isn't time to hold another election. They have to choose Platner's replacement by July 27. What better alternative do they have, realistically? Quote
Meglamaniac Posted July 9 Posted July 9 5 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said: Rain Man gives his endorsement to Charlie Babbit because he is Rain Man's Maine Man. Yeah. Leave Moderate Tim out of this Quote
Strike Posted July 9 Posted July 9 11 minutes ago, squistion said: There isn't time to hold another election. They have to choose Platner's replacement by July 27. What better alternative do they have, realistically? They should leave him in at this point. They knew all this stuff existed and purposely waited until it was too late to give the people a voice to release it. Something like 72% of Dems voted for him in the primary. He should be left in as their candidate. For the party opposed to "disenfranchising" voters you guys sure are quick to disenfranchise YOUR OWN voters when it suits you. Quote
TimHauck Posted July 9 Posted July 9 1 hour ago, jerryskids said: You're on tilt; your algorithm doesn't handle being wrong very well. Everyone but you and knows that the NYT is a leftist hack rag that turned her story into a Platner puff piece. They will never comment on it because they know it; instead they'll just be quiet and in a week or two, moderate sycophants like you will forget it ever happened. Wut? I don’t recall anyone calling it a “puff piece” when it came out, in fact IIRC most of the righties seemed to think that should have been the end of him. I did point out that I didn’t think the allegations sounded that bad but I don’t believe that was a common opinion at the time. Quote
Fnord Posted July 9 Posted July 9 30 minutes ago, Strike said: Of course it's proven. A person's testimony is proof and there is plenty of that. How WELL it's proven can be debated but to suggest that there isn't proof is ridiculous. Further EVIDENCE of how hard it is for MAGA to distinguish EVIDENCE from PROOF. I also can't help but notice how much rollicking is being done in here by people that have been ignoring every crooked, negative thing about Trump (and there is a LOT of EVIDENCE) for 10 FOCKING YEARS. Then getting pissy with those of us that didn't have much of an opinion one way or the other on Platner. You guys are something else. Quote
HellToupee Posted July 9 Posted July 9 18 minutes ago, Fnord said: Further EVIDENCE of how hard it is for MAGA to distinguish EVIDENCE from PROOF. I also can't help but notice how much rollicking is being done in here by people that have been ignoring every crooked, negative thing about Trump (and there is a LOT of EVIDENCE) for 10 FOCKING YEARS. Then getting pissy with those of us that didn't have much of an opinion one way or the other on Platner. You guys are something else. I disagree. I strongly disagree. Quote
supermike80 Posted July 9 Posted July 9 22 minutes ago, Fnord said: Further EVIDENCE of how hard it is for MAGA to distinguish EVIDENCE from PROOF. I also can't help but notice how much rollicking is being done in here by people that have been ignoring every crooked, negative thing about Trump (and there is a LOT of EVIDENCE) for 10 FOCKING YEARS. Then getting pissy with those of us that didn't have much of an opinion one way or the other on Platner. You guys are something else. Yeah well. It's fine that you wanna say that about republicans, because there is some truth to that. Trump is no angel. But you absolutely must acknowledge not only that the democrats totally ignored every warning sign about this guy but they also would have been losing their minds if this was a republican with the same sordid history. Each side wants to win. And they couldn't give a rats azz whether their candidate drowned babies. Quote
Fnord Posted July 9 Posted July 9 3 minutes ago, HellToupee said: I disagree. I strongly disagree. With what? The rollicking is undeniable. Quote
Fnord Posted July 9 Posted July 9 Just now, supermike80 said: Yeah well. It's fine that you wanna say that about republicans, because there is some truth to that. Trump is no angel. But you absolutely must acknowledge not only that the democrats totally ignored every warning sign about this guy but they also would have been losing their minds if this was a republican with the same sordid history. Each side wants to win. And they couldn't give a rats azz whether their candidate drowned babies. Yeah, that's fair. The Dem party establishment is a buncha ballbags. Fock em. But, what happened was that the Dems removed the problematic individual from the equation. We can discuss whether the reasons were purely out of self preservation (yup!) or altruism (HA!), but hey did the right thing. And they do lose their minds when Reps do the same thing. All too often, the Reps keep the problematic guys in the fold. 1 1 Quote
supermike80 Posted July 9 Posted July 9 1 minute ago, Fnord said: Yeah, that's fair. The Dem party establishment is a buncha ballbags. Fock em. But, what happened was that the Dems removed the problematic individual from the equation. We can discuss whether the reasons were purely out of self preservation (yup!) or altruism (HA!), but hey did the right thing. And they do lose their minds when Reps do the same thing. All too often, the Reps keep the problematic guys in the fold. That's an unfair generalization. I don't agree that republicans do that more so that dems. it's all about who is in a position to win and how important it is to the party. Maine is a critical state so the dems continually backed this nutjob because of it. Quote
Engorgeous George Posted July 9 Posted July 9 6 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: Why did they get rid of Al Franken again? Because it was no longer his decade. Quote
dogcows Posted July 9 Posted July 9 1 hour ago, Caine Mutiny said: Actually none of the stuff about Platner is proven either. He’s gone because at this point it seems credible. The stuff about Trump with regard to women seems credible too but he’s still around… His assault of E Jean Carroll was proven and he lost his appeal on that all the way to the Supreme Court. 1 Quote
dogcows Posted July 9 Posted July 9 22 minutes ago, supermike80 said: That's an unfair generalization. I don't agree that republicans do that more so that dems. it's all about who is in a position to win and how important it is to the party. Maine is a critical state so the dems continually backed this nutjob because of it. Bernie and friends backed this guy. As long as his “skeletons” were just the Nazi white power crap, they were good with that. Just when he got caught with the domestic violence stuff, they finally had to pull away. There’s a reason Bernie only ever wins primaries in the mostly-white northeast. I think it’s becoming clear to people now why that is. Quote
dogcows Posted July 9 Posted July 9 32 minutes ago, supermike80 said: But you absolutely must acknowledge not only that the democrats totally ignored every warning sign about this guy but they also would have been losing their minds if this was a republican with the same sordid history. Agree with this totally. I was upset that they didn’t kick this guy to the curb early on. But in the end, candidates choose to run (or not) and voters pick. The Dem primary voters in Maine wanted this guy. Quote
seafoam1 Posted July 9 Posted July 9 Democrats actually hired a private investigation firm to look into Platner and he was given the 'clean bill of health' to move forward to run. They have stolen 100s of million of dollars over their long careers and they can't even pony up for a decent PI firm. Quote
Strike Posted July 9 Posted July 9 As of a couple hours ago Platner had not filed his paperwork with the state withdrawing from this race. Wouldn't it be awesome if he changed his mind? Quote
The Girlfriend Posted July 9 Posted July 9 4 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said: Isn’t he just amazing? Abusers stick together. Probably why so many Republicans stick with Trump. Quote
TimHauck Posted July 9 Posted July 9 4 hours ago, Strike said: They knew all this stuff existed and purposely waited Link? You’re making unsubstantiated allegations again @Strike by claiming “they knew all this stuff.” @Strike is also calling Jenny Racicot, the person who made by far the most serious allegations against Platner, a liar, as she specifically says she didn’t go public with her allegations until after the NYT article. @seafoam1 Quote
seafoam1 Posted July 9 Posted July 9 1 minute ago, TimHauck said: Link? You’re making unsubstantiated allegations again @Strike. @Strike is also calling Jenny Racicot, the person who made by far the most serious allegations against Platner, a liar, as she specifically says she didn’t go public with her allegations until after seeing the reaction to NYT article. @seafoam1 Quote
Tree of Knowledge Posted July 9 Posted July 9 Don’t worry Dems. The SPLC has dozens of Nazi’s on the payroll that are waiting for the call. 1 Quote
Frozenbeernuts Posted July 10 Posted July 10 Yes, they know their followers's brains are broken. 1 Quote
jerryskids Posted July 10 Posted July 10 4 hours ago, TimHauck said: Link? You’re making unsubstantiated allegations again @Strike by claiming “they knew all this stuff.” @Strike is also calling Jenny Racicot, the person who made by far the most serious allegations against Platner, a liar, as she specifically says she didn’t go public with her allegations until after the NYT article. @seafoam1 Hey, the NYT gaslit you and you bought it, it happens. Buck up and live to be moderate another day. But since I promised to give you the NYT's response, here it is. Well, it's more of a non-response. Also on Yahoo so you should be able to find it. Quote A New York Times spokesperson provided Fox News Digital with the following statement: "The Times's article on June 4 brought to light a pattern of unsettling behavior by Graham Platner and included many of the details that women shared with us that were on the record and confirmable. The article also provided readers with context about what the women were and were not willing to share at the time. It was a revealing and sensitive piece of reporting that helped Maine voters and others learn more about Platner and his candidacy. Politico advanced this public understanding with even more information that they independently reported." https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/york-times-under-scrutiny-over-154226149.html The bolded is squissy-level pedantics. "Many"? Also, it avoids the accusation that they flat out didn't contact 3 of the women provided. It also doesn't address the fact that it was a treatise about Fifield's political affiliations with an obligatory "there was a disturbing arm grab but let's get back to the MAGA accuser" at the end. Quote
Hardcore troubadour Posted July 10 Posted July 10 55 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said: Yes, they know their followers's brains are broken. He’s allegedly one of the smart ones. 1 Quote
Voltaire Posted July 10 Posted July 10 9 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said: So the people of Maine aren’t getting to decide who the candidate is. Just the party insiders. Anyone know who Clooney wants? The Empire Strikes Back. Starring Janet Mills as emergency Maine Dem Senate nominee. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.