Let's say, in my lo-knowledge of details*, I'm getting uncomfortable with him. A thought or two but first:
"Maine election law provides a clear—though tightly constrained—mechanism for replacing a general-election nominee after the primary. Under Title 21-A, §374-A, a political party may name a new candidate if its nominee withdraws by 5 p.m. on the second Monday in July, which falls on July 13 in 2026.
If that happens, the party then has until 5 p.m. on the fourth Monday in July—July 27—to select a replacement nominee. The process is handled internally by the party, which must move quickly to settle on a new candidate and transition into the general election."
Platner's about to hit that shit or get off the pot point. Options for Maine Dems noted above. But what do I know, maybe were she to get the nomination Mills could beat Collins exactly by being a DINO Collins in a cycle where the R brand is exactly that toxic.
What's disturbing here in addition to accusations (which FWIW seem to be from a limited period in Platner's life which coincided with his post-military career) is that it seems that there's a huge effort by opponents to smear him. Which of course SOP and therefore fair enough, but it seems that some of the efforts to smear are coming from the wrong party eg the national Democrats. Which is both credible and, if true, really, really disturbing. Also on brand for the Party f Clinton-Jeffries. I mean, when screwing their candidate is more important than defeating the Republican candidate.
(*The domestic assault thing that's sticking in my age-addled brain is the assault on F1's Laura Winter by her then boyfriend because there are a number of questions without answers... I mean, little's more frustrating than an unsolvable mystery.)
For a complete change of pace, you know who ISN'T concerned about the Platner debacle? Susan Collins. Must be a first for her.
My position on this guy, who always smelled bad to me, was "hey Maine, if you want him go buck wild." I don't see much point in intra-party finger pointing, as establishment Dems supported Cuomo, another guy who disrespected women, over Boy Scout Mamdani.
My depressing takeaway is it seems any candidate who foists his insecurities and gender issues onto the bodies of women is always, always given a pass until so much negative behavior comes to light it can no longer be brushed aside.
I noped out on Platner when I got to the " hired killer" part of his resume. When he got the nomination I was glad I wouldn't have to vote for him. ( One of the few times I can remember being glad I lived in Ohio rather than some place like Maine)
Maybe now Politico could exercise their mad investigative skilz on the most corrupt government in history, though I realize that's probably not in their own best interests...
I spent the last day puzzling over why someone with so much baggage would think they could run for high office without it all coming out, but like you said, Platner is a knucklehead so stupid is as stupid does.
Yeah, being aware of Arrogant White Boy Syndrome is an early right of passage for all who are outside the category of white boys. And of course sometimes even for them.
A lot of Dem pundits/establishment figures treat the white working class vote like it's the holy grail. But Collins is leading with that demographic despite their tattooed fisherman. And if they lost the votes of women and Black/brown people, the Dems would have about 8 Senators and only 20% of the House.
I started looking at the phone earlier this morning ( middle of the goddamn night actually) and I swear I thought about Roy and the embarrassment of riches in the news cornicopia. There was Splatner ( brilliant by the way! ) Zombie Mitch and extreme turn of the World Cup events for team USA the second Mr. Lucky got his stubby little hands involved. I pictured him sitting in the barren light of his phone as he flipped between the stories, tendrils of smoke drifting out of his ears accompanied by the faint smell of ozone.
Then I went back to sleep for a little while.
Fucking Trump. He just staggers from one insane corruption to the next, In just the last 4 or 5 days he went from the Nuremberg / Geriatric Fyre Festival to blatant corrupt cheating in the world's largest sporting event to ugly antagonism against the whole world (at least the parts that are nominally on our side) at a NATO meeting which he attended in the world's largest flying bribe.
What we knew about Platner before he got the nomination:
Ex-Marine
Had Nazi tattoo
Had apparent problems not being an oversexed idiot
Was cosplaying being a working stiff while actually being the offspring of wealthy parents who were still supporting him by buying his oysters
In sum, the guy was a steaming heap o' shit, but he won the primary. You might have thought what was known about his before the primary would be enough to disqualify him, but my understanding is that the choices were Mills (old! and a woman! icky!) and a couple of nobodies running underwater campaigns.
Plays into biases. Our inner knuckleheads knuckle under to the idea a knucklehead is better than the woman? I am not convinced of anything other than there seems to be a real problem with the political system and our culture. We need to move to a new country and do it using different methods for discussing and deciding who we are.
These are Maine voters we're talking about. The same people who keep sending Our Lady of the Furrowed Brow back to the Senate. The same people who put Greg LePage, Human Bowling Jacket, into the governor's mansion.
A Democratic candidate must be as clean as a hound's tooth! When we are defeated again, at least will have the satisfaction that we did the right thing, and can hold our heads high until an ICE baton staves them in.
Right, but there's got to be a line and this crossed it. Hopefully he withdraws. If not, Susan Collins is still worse. She shares responsibility for countless deaths, rapes, and all kinds of destruction and Platner would still be the moral choice.
Though I agree he should withdraw and that what he apparently did (there appears to be enough compelling evidence to assume) was wrong and in a sane world should be disqualifying, I'm bothered by all the vitriol against him. I've done some work with veterans with PTSD noticed that they typically seem to be scarred by what they did, not what was done to them. I don't ask them what they did, but we know the US was on a mass murder spree, particularly in Iraq, so I'm guessing they are devastated by their forced participation in it. We should have compassion for these people rather than routinely calling them dirtbags and the like. Some are, and relished their war crimes, but I think the great majority are victims, and Platner seems to be one of them.
With you there. I like to think Sanders and them saw a way to elevate people LIKE Platner and hoped in addition to electoral magic they'd find a path toward giving a veteran who voters seemed to like an opportunity to model a new kind of candidate. But, as they say, they didn't think it through.
Replying to you and Richard both. Not sure who "they" are and how "they" could have thought it through or vetted him. I guess you mean the national dems who supported him, but they are not responsible for his popularity and success. It was his connection with the voters that was responsible for their support, not the other way around, and there's not a lot of vetting an individual voter can do when it comes to things that have yet to be revealed. And there was certainly opposition research which ultimately led to the newest revelations, so he was, and continued to be vetted.
So for me, it's more of a question of who we want to be the gatekeepers. Voters or some kind of politburo? In an ideal world I'd go with a knowledgeable, impartial politburo, but in this one I'll go with voters.
I think it's not unusual for it to go like this. Victims of guys like Platner just want to keep it private and forget, but when the guy gets famous or is in danger of winning a political office, they sacrifice their privacy to stop him. That's why the original vetting, such as it is, fails. That scenario usually works with Democrats chucking tainted candidates (or does it, cough, Bill Clinton). With Republicans, not so much.
There's a media double standard for sure, but the real double standard is what the voters of the two parties will tolerate. So yeah, let's hear it for the ol' double standard, because I sure wouldn't want THEIR standards.
Seeing the people excited about this guy has been a real rude awakening about how willing people on the left are to accept an obvious shitbag who makes the right left-ish noises in the right order. :|
My conspiracy theory remains that a Decision was made that this guy, not more successful politicians like Mamdani or AOC, was going to be The New Face of the Left, and it was not made by people who wanted the left to succeed.
If voters are fed up with Establishment Democrats (and boy, are they EVER) who should they turn to? Democratic Socialists like AOC and Mamdani? Or dirt-under-the-fingernails populists like Marie Gluesenkamp-Perez, John Fetterman and Graham Platner? The latter group ain't so trustworthy when it comes to actual policy, but the former group includes people who went to college and wear suits and ties.
If you think voters care about actual policies that might benefit themselves and their children, it doesn't seem like much of a contest. But maybe voters aren't so thoughtful and go with quick impressions. "Whoever seems most like me must be on my side."
Anyway, if there is some group of high-placed Dems working to replace AOC with the likes of Graham Platner, I'd say they're not doing a very good job of it.
I think it's more of a smear/scapegoating campaign- associate the left with Platner on the assumption that he'd self-destruct or something really bad would come out about him. Fox News sure remembers his Nazi tattoo even if everyone else has forgotten.
Like idk, I think a lot of the 'conspiracies' in politics are more of the POSWID variety but establishment Dems haven't fought this guy one tenth as hard as they fought against Mamdani or the folks he endorsed and I suspect there's a Reason for that.
And I don't know how many times establishment Dems need to see "We came out against this candidate and they jumped 10 points in the polls!" before they finally learn that people will invariably do the opposite of what Chuck Schumer demands.
The right-wing power people apparently have layers to confound and divide the populous almost without fail. Call a candidate a commie. If the commie card don't work, find something in the history. For what young person has not done something that can, if cast in the right light, be held up as a sign of moral failing and potential for flawed leadership?
Point to some personal attribute and ridicule it. This can be as mundane as a tan suit or a quirky laugh. She talks funny, looks like a loser, waddles like a goose, and we all know if it quacks like a duck. See how the candidate and defenders respond. And the other guy, who lies and never backs down, that's solid confidence. Sexual harassment, sexual assault, well, that comes down to the quarterback question. The day of the big game, let's just say, Our rapist is better than your rapist, both on the field and playing the field.
The criticisms all rely on fundamentals of human psychology, striking at the identity, a question of is this who we are. It's an easy divide. Anyone who steps up to say she prefers the progressive rapist or the woman who was friendly with the enemy on camera must lack integrity. Hypocrite! It's a slippery slope from socialism to despotism and supporting the Gulag and canceling freedom. We all know anyone who claims to want to help others is masking a self-interest that can only lead to torture and genocide. Let's skip the line and back the folks that are all about canceling both opposition whispers and the opposition for real.
Cruelty and power are the fundamentals of great leadership. If that's who we are, so be it. Call a spade a spade, but if the deck is stacked every card they choose wins.
I used to feel this way, especially after the Howard Dean thing. Democrats can never catch a break, their candidates are always on a tightrope and the slightest slip means they fall to their death while the Republican can't walk the straight line the officer chalked for them on the pavement.
But I don't feel so much like this any more. Sure, Republicans have honed personal attacks and smears into a high art, but it doesn't always work, and the stats tell me Dems win as many elections as they do even though we have higher standards for our candidates' personal behavior.
My observations are less about GOP v. Dems and more focused on the frame of political discussion. We need to see Platner and all candidates for what they are and not get funneled into Us/Them, lesser of two, and other binary ways of thinking and voting.
I think you have it right. There is a way. And Roy was accurate about Mills as the actual plucky fighter. Now I sound like a moron. "Plucky" in love and unlucky in politics!
Something that still cheeses me is the constinued harping that Biden "just wasn't inspiring" to the average American.
I'm not papering over his fuckups. He shouldda gone after Trump with the full might and majesty of the federal government. He shouldda gracefully stepped aside before the '24 Debate Debacle.
In the meantime, he governed from the center, and even surprised some of us marginal lefties. This being the United States Of America and the central vortex of world capitalism after all, ya gotta take what incremental wins you can.
Most importantly, he showed that government doesn't have to be a 24/7 shitshow.
Nope.
We want someone authentic and exiting. Someone who tells it like it is, and doesn't let petty bourgeois concerns like decency and competence stand in path to our bright and glorious future.
It's enough to make me stand athwart history and scream, "Grow the fuck up!"
People might have been fine with uninspiring, might even have overlooked the impending senility, if it weren't for the goddamn inflation. Trump barely won it, it's not hard to imagine scenarios where he would have lost. If he had, we could all confidently say "America repudiated fascism" even though 48% of the voters picked fascism.
There's a maddening double standard at work here for sure, but it's a double standard we helped to create because we can't tolerate sexual assault while Republicans revel in it (I wouldn't be surprised if Trump gained a significant number of votes *because* he's a rapist.)
So when I think about it that way, I'm OK with it.
Let's say, in my lo-knowledge of details*, I'm getting uncomfortable with him. A thought or two but first:
"Maine election law provides a clear—though tightly constrained—mechanism for replacing a general-election nominee after the primary. Under Title 21-A, §374-A, a political party may name a new candidate if its nominee withdraws by 5 p.m. on the second Monday in July, which falls on July 13 in 2026.
If that happens, the party then has until 5 p.m. on the fourth Monday in July—July 27—to select a replacement nominee. The process is handled internally by the party, which must move quickly to settle on a new candidate and transition into the general election."
Via https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2026/07/pod-save-republican-control-of-the-senate
So.
Platner's about to hit that shit or get off the pot point. Options for Maine Dems noted above. But what do I know, maybe were she to get the nomination Mills could beat Collins exactly by being a DINO Collins in a cycle where the R brand is exactly that toxic.
What's disturbing here in addition to accusations (which FWIW seem to be from a limited period in Platner's life which coincided with his post-military career) is that it seems that there's a huge effort by opponents to smear him. Which of course SOP and therefore fair enough, but it seems that some of the efforts to smear are coming from the wrong party eg the national Democrats. Which is both credible and, if true, really, really disturbing. Also on brand for the Party f Clinton-Jeffries. I mean, when screwing their candidate is more important than defeating the Republican candidate.
(*The domestic assault thing that's sticking in my age-addled brain is the assault on F1's Laura Winter by her then boyfriend because there are a number of questions without answers... I mean, little's more frustrating than an unsolvable mystery.)
Nonetheless.
Whatever they do, the pundits will accuse them of, Kamala Harris style, denying the voters a real choice.
For a complete change of pace, you know who ISN'T concerned about the Platner debacle? Susan Collins. Must be a first for her.
My position on this guy, who always smelled bad to me, was "hey Maine, if you want him go buck wild." I don't see much point in intra-party finger pointing, as establishment Dems supported Cuomo, another guy who disrespected women, over Boy Scout Mamdani.
My depressing takeaway is it seems any candidate who foists his insecurities and gender issues onto the bodies of women is always, always given a pass until so much negative behavior comes to light it can no longer be brushed aside.
Always given a pass until so much comes to light. Yes, that says it all. What kind of behavior does our culture inculcate and encourage?
I'll just note that Maine is the Whitest state in the nation. So I ask again, why can't these White people govern themselves? I blame the parents.
I noped out on Platner when I got to the " hired killer" part of his resume. When he got the nomination I was glad I wouldn't have to vote for him. ( One of the few times I can remember being glad I lived in Ohio rather than some place like Maine)
Maybe now Politico could exercise their mad investigative skilz on the most corrupt government in history, though I realize that's probably not in their own best interests...
Fair.
same
I spent the last day puzzling over why someone with so much baggage would think they could run for high office without it all coming out, but like you said, Platner is a knucklehead so stupid is as stupid does.
Because he came from money, and money paved his path with privilege. Thus insulated, why wouldn't he think he could just skate on by his own past?
He did? I thought he was just a humble oyster farmer?
No, he came from privilege and is downwardly mobile.
Downwardly mobile? So THAT'S why the voters could identify with him!
There’s no such thing as a humble oyster.
I understand some oysters have built entire cults around themselves.
True, but the cult is about how sad they are. And who needs that?
Dude now has "conditions" before he will drop out: https://bsky.app/profile/peterbakernyt.bsky.social/post/3mpzcqicf6222 (I know, Peter Baker, but the premise still stands)
If you have never been exposed to Arrogant White Boy Syndrome I invite you to see this as the perfect example.
Yeah, being aware of Arrogant White Boy Syndrome is an early right of passage for all who are outside the category of white boys. And of course sometimes even for them.
Also, a case of AWBS that the brain geniuses considered a sure draw for the White Working Class vote.
A lot of Dem pundits/establishment figures treat the white working class vote like it's the holy grail. But Collins is leading with that demographic despite their tattooed fisherman. And if they lost the votes of women and Black/brown people, the Dems would have about 8 Senators and only 20% of the House.
I think the Holy Grail is "Could we lose this demo by 10 points instead of 20?"
Well, it's not a SURE draw, but...
Only when candidate name is followed by (R).
Yeah. That’s what’s sticking in my craw.
Go the fuck away, guy!
I started looking at the phone earlier this morning ( middle of the goddamn night actually) and I swear I thought about Roy and the embarrassment of riches in the news cornicopia. There was Splatner ( brilliant by the way! ) Zombie Mitch and extreme turn of the World Cup events for team USA the second Mr. Lucky got his stubby little hands involved. I pictured him sitting in the barren light of his phone as he flipped between the stories, tendrils of smoke drifting out of his ears accompanied by the faint smell of ozone.
Then I went back to sleep for a little while.
Fucking Trump. He just staggers from one insane corruption to the next, In just the last 4 or 5 days he went from the Nuremberg / Geriatric Fyre Festival to blatant corrupt cheating in the world's largest sporting event to ugly antagonism against the whole world (at least the parts that are nominally on our side) at a NATO meeting which he attended in the world's largest flying bribe.
Target-rich as they say. I'm rather sorry I felt bound to address this directly rather than through satire. But it can't all be fun and games.
What could possibly be the harm
If Platner got our votes?
See, he's got an oyster farm!
His tide will lift our boats!
But now we sit with mouths a-gape,
What can Democrats do?
Turns out our boy committed rape!
In addition to his tattoo.
Derelict always brings a dash
Of Ogden Nash
I would really like all my news delivered this way.
What we knew about Platner before he got the nomination:
Ex-Marine
Had Nazi tattoo
Had apparent problems not being an oversexed idiot
Was cosplaying being a working stiff while actually being the offspring of wealthy parents who were still supporting him by buying his oysters
In sum, the guy was a steaming heap o' shit, but he won the primary. You might have thought what was known about his before the primary would be enough to disqualify him, but my understanding is that the choices were Mills (old! and a woman! icky!) and a couple of nobodies running underwater campaigns.
Plays into biases. Our inner knuckleheads knuckle under to the idea a knucklehead is better than the woman? I am not convinced of anything other than there seems to be a real problem with the political system and our culture. We need to move to a new country and do it using different methods for discussing and deciding who we are.
These are Maine voters we're talking about. The same people who keep sending Our Lady of the Furrowed Brow back to the Senate. The same people who put Greg LePage, Human Bowling Jacket, into the governor's mansion.
Yeah. Those voters.
Mills was The Establishment, and we all know what people think about that.
My inner knucklehead salutes you. Thanks for the shout-out!
Apparently the questionnaire needs to be updated.
A Democratic candidate must be as clean as a hound's tooth! When we are defeated again, at least will have the satisfaction that we did the right thing, and can hold our heads high until an ICE baton staves them in.
Right, but there's got to be a line and this crossed it. Hopefully he withdraws. If not, Susan Collins is still worse. She shares responsibility for countless deaths, rapes, and all kinds of destruction and Platner would still be the moral choice.
Though I agree he should withdraw and that what he apparently did (there appears to be enough compelling evidence to assume) was wrong and in a sane world should be disqualifying, I'm bothered by all the vitriol against him. I've done some work with veterans with PTSD noticed that they typically seem to be scarred by what they did, not what was done to them. I don't ask them what they did, but we know the US was on a mass murder spree, particularly in Iraq, so I'm guessing they are devastated by their forced participation in it. We should have compassion for these people rather than routinely calling them dirtbags and the like. Some are, and relished their war crimes, but I think the great majority are victims, and Platner seems to be one of them.
With you there. I like to think Sanders and them saw a way to elevate people LIKE Platner and hoped in addition to electoral magic they'd find a path toward giving a veteran who voters seemed to like an opportunity to model a new kind of candidate. But, as they say, they didn't think it through.
Replying to you and Richard both. Not sure who "they" are and how "they" could have thought it through or vetted him. I guess you mean the national dems who supported him, but they are not responsible for his popularity and success. It was his connection with the voters that was responsible for their support, not the other way around, and there's not a lot of vetting an individual voter can do when it comes to things that have yet to be revealed. And there was certainly opposition research which ultimately led to the newest revelations, so he was, and continued to be vetted.
So for me, it's more of a question of who we want to be the gatekeepers. Voters or some kind of politburo? In an ideal world I'd go with a knowledgeable, impartial politburo, but in this one I'll go with voters.
I think it's not unusual for it to go like this. Victims of guys like Platner just want to keep it private and forget, but when the guy gets famous or is in danger of winning a political office, they sacrifice their privacy to stop him. That's why the original vetting, such as it is, fails. That scenario usually works with Democrats chucking tainted candidates (or does it, cough, Bill Clinton). With Republicans, not so much.
There's a media double standard for sure, but the real double standard is what the voters of the two parties will tolerate. So yeah, let's hear it for the ol' double standard, because I sure wouldn't want THEIR standards.
I agree that he should drop out. You think the guy would have been vetted.
Hopefully we can find a candidate who isn’t fucked up by the Forever War and doesn’t rape. This one is useless, and he needs years of therapy.
Seeing the people excited about this guy has been a real rude awakening about how willing people on the left are to accept an obvious shitbag who makes the right left-ish noises in the right order. :|
What can I say. Voters seemed to like him and that's what parties look for.
My conspiracy theory remains that a Decision was made that this guy, not more successful politicians like Mamdani or AOC, was going to be The New Face of the Left, and it was not made by people who wanted the left to succeed.
If voters are fed up with Establishment Democrats (and boy, are they EVER) who should they turn to? Democratic Socialists like AOC and Mamdani? Or dirt-under-the-fingernails populists like Marie Gluesenkamp-Perez, John Fetterman and Graham Platner? The latter group ain't so trustworthy when it comes to actual policy, but the former group includes people who went to college and wear suits and ties.
If you think voters care about actual policies that might benefit themselves and their children, it doesn't seem like much of a contest. But maybe voters aren't so thoughtful and go with quick impressions. "Whoever seems most like me must be on my side."
Anyway, if there is some group of high-placed Dems working to replace AOC with the likes of Graham Platner, I'd say they're not doing a very good job of it.
I think it's more of a smear/scapegoating campaign- associate the left with Platner on the assumption that he'd self-destruct or something really bad would come out about him. Fox News sure remembers his Nazi tattoo even if everyone else has forgotten.
Like idk, I think a lot of the 'conspiracies' in politics are more of the POSWID variety but establishment Dems haven't fought this guy one tenth as hard as they fought against Mamdani or the folks he endorsed and I suspect there's a Reason for that.
Thanks, I learned a new acronym today!
And I don't know how many times establishment Dems need to see "We came out against this candidate and they jumped 10 points in the polls!" before they finally learn that people will invariably do the opposite of what Chuck Schumer demands.
The right-wing power people apparently have layers to confound and divide the populous almost without fail. Call a candidate a commie. If the commie card don't work, find something in the history. For what young person has not done something that can, if cast in the right light, be held up as a sign of moral failing and potential for flawed leadership?
Point to some personal attribute and ridicule it. This can be as mundane as a tan suit or a quirky laugh. She talks funny, looks like a loser, waddles like a goose, and we all know if it quacks like a duck. See how the candidate and defenders respond. And the other guy, who lies and never backs down, that's solid confidence. Sexual harassment, sexual assault, well, that comes down to the quarterback question. The day of the big game, let's just say, Our rapist is better than your rapist, both on the field and playing the field.
The criticisms all rely on fundamentals of human psychology, striking at the identity, a question of is this who we are. It's an easy divide. Anyone who steps up to say she prefers the progressive rapist or the woman who was friendly with the enemy on camera must lack integrity. Hypocrite! It's a slippery slope from socialism to despotism and supporting the Gulag and canceling freedom. We all know anyone who claims to want to help others is masking a self-interest that can only lead to torture and genocide. Let's skip the line and back the folks that are all about canceling both opposition whispers and the opposition for real.
Cruelty and power are the fundamentals of great leadership. If that's who we are, so be it. Call a spade a spade, but if the deck is stacked every card they choose wins.
Nontheless, as Pascal said, we must play.
I used to feel this way, especially after the Howard Dean thing. Democrats can never catch a break, their candidates are always on a tightrope and the slightest slip means they fall to their death while the Republican can't walk the straight line the officer chalked for them on the pavement.
But I don't feel so much like this any more. Sure, Republicans have honed personal attacks and smears into a high art, but it doesn't always work, and the stats tell me Dems win as many elections as they do even though we have higher standards for our candidates' personal behavior.
My observations are less about GOP v. Dems and more focused on the frame of political discussion. We need to see Platner and all candidates for what they are and not get funneled into Us/Them, lesser of two, and other binary ways of thinking and voting.
I think you have it right. There is a way. And Roy was accurate about Mills as the actual plucky fighter. Now I sound like a moron. "Plucky" in love and unlucky in politics!
Something that still cheeses me is the constinued harping that Biden "just wasn't inspiring" to the average American.
I'm not papering over his fuckups. He shouldda gone after Trump with the full might and majesty of the federal government. He shouldda gracefully stepped aside before the '24 Debate Debacle.
In the meantime, he governed from the center, and even surprised some of us marginal lefties. This being the United States Of America and the central vortex of world capitalism after all, ya gotta take what incremental wins you can.
Most importantly, he showed that government doesn't have to be a 24/7 shitshow.
Nope.
We want someone authentic and exiting. Someone who tells it like it is, and doesn't let petty bourgeois concerns like decency and competence stand in path to our bright and glorious future.
It's enough to make me stand athwart history and scream, "Grow the fuck up!"
People might have been fine with uninspiring, might even have overlooked the impending senility, if it weren't for the goddamn inflation. Trump barely won it, it's not hard to imagine scenarios where he would have lost. If he had, we could all confidently say "America repudiated fascism" even though 48% of the voters picked fascism.
Raw Story:
.....former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) took to Fox News to take a victory lap about Republicans' own ability to choose upstanding candidates.
"One thing I know about Republicans is when we had a very bad candidate, we didn't vote for that person. We walked away," said McCarthy.
There's a maddening double standard at work here for sure, but it's a double standard we helped to create because we can't tolerate sexual assault while Republicans revel in it (I wouldn't be surprised if Trump gained a significant number of votes *because* he's a rapist.)
So when I think about it that way, I'm OK with it.
So I read this allegation, which he denies and everybody decides it has to be true? Why?