Why are you pushing misinformation that allegations about a person’s personal life are in any way directly relevant to their ability to legislate from across the country? It’s a job interview for a Senator, not boyfriend.
I agree with your assessment here overall. But THIS statement here? That doesn’t belong in this conversation. That there are people seriously pushing that being a rapist in general isn’t enough to disqualify someone from a position of power such as a Senate seat. Not just disqualify, but that it has no bearing on their ability to legislate.
We can’t see eye to eye when this is the kind of opinion being pushed.
I want to move forward, I want to talk about better candidates and how we get out of this mess and save the seat. I’m tired of seeing fellow leftists attacking women because Platner ended up being a bad candidate regardless of what anyone thinks of this new claim.
No, I’m replying to you and I’m talking about the conversation that amniotic/PP_BOY_ and myself were having. The conversation we were having that you interjected.
I’m understanding of the alternate position as you laid it out. But not if the alternate position is also claiming that having valid claims of sexual assault and rape have no bearing on a person’s ability to govern. If the left’s position is now that we don’t care about rape or rape victims or women in order to win, then fuck the left.
We already said we didn’t care about his past military jaunts (mistakenly imo). And now we don’t care about rape allegations?
No, this is an intentional misreading of my argument.
I’m not saying that being a rapist should ban a person from running for public office (I’m not not saying this, in general, though because I believe in rehabilitation, whether or not most people are willing to be rehabilitated is a whole different argument, etc. - that’s besides the point though.)
That’s because there is no proof, at all behind these allegations. Given how much attention has been given to this case, I find it hard to believe that the accuser could ever come up with that proof or she would’ve by now.
As it stands, the entire founding of the accusations are the testimony of one person who admitted to using “memory recovery” (hypnosis) to recall events and whose therapist, the only person contemporariously involved, has denied to go on record despite the victim urging her to.
The thing to be debated isn’t whether or not a rapist can run for Senate (because that’s not what’s happening here), it’s whether or not a person accused of rape can run for Senate, which I had hoped was an obvious “Yes” from anyone wise enough to believe in Democracy and and due cause.
Any “move forward,” is a move backward, back to candidates that were already offered that Mainers did not want.
That’s because there is no proof, at all behind these allegations. Given how much attention has been given to this case, I find it hard to believe that the accuser could ever come up with that proof or she would’ve by now.
There is evidence, you just don’t want to believe it. Don’t pretend like there is no evidence.
Mainers don’t want Platner with credible rape accusations either. Clearly.
I’m sorry to yell but SERIOUSLY? What is the MASSIVE OBVIOUS thing I’m missing that has you convinced this isn’t a political hit job to take out a candidate who was unpopular with the establishment on both sides? Is there seriously nothing suspect to you?
You were content to call Platner a rapist before, now it’s just “credible rape accusation.” These are wildly different claims.
You switch between “rapist” and “person with a credible rape accusation” when it suits your argument. Biden had a credible SA accusation, did you vote for him?
Never said that they were. One requires proof and you using it interchangeably shows your dishonesty. If he’s found guilty of the accusation then sure, but until then its your personal speculation, which means squat.
I’m sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine and it’s actively hampering communication. Evidence is not proof. This woman’s statement is evidence, as is her email chain later with her therapist. Platner’s denial is also evidence. Neither is proof.
I agree with your assessment here overall. But THIS statement here? That doesn’t belong in this conversation. That there are people seriously pushing that being a rapist in general isn’t enough to disqualify someone from a position of power such as a Senate seat. Not just disqualify, but that it has no bearing on their ability to legislate.
We can’t see eye to eye when this is the kind of opinion being pushed.
I want to move forward, I want to talk about better candidates and how we get out of this mess and save the seat. I’m tired of seeing fellow leftists attacking women because Platner ended up being a bad candidate regardless of what anyone thinks of this new claim.
I think you meant to reply to a different comment.
No, I’m replying to you and I’m talking about the conversation that amniotic/PP_BOY_ and myself were having. The conversation we were having that you interjected.
I’m understanding of the alternate position as you laid it out. But not if the alternate position is also claiming that having valid claims of sexual assault and rape have no bearing on a person’s ability to govern. If the left’s position is now that we don’t care about rape or rape victims or women in order to win, then fuck the left.
We already said we didn’t care about his past military jaunts (mistakenly imo). And now we don’t care about rape allegations?
No, this is an intentional misreading of my argument.
I’m not saying that being a rapist should ban a person from running for public office (I’m not not saying this, in general, though because I believe in rehabilitation, whether or not most people are willing to be rehabilitated is a whole different argument, etc. - that’s besides the point though.)
That’s because there is no proof, at all behind these allegations. Given how much attention has been given to this case, I find it hard to believe that the accuser could ever come up with that proof or she would’ve by now.
As it stands, the entire founding of the accusations are the testimony of one person who admitted to using “memory recovery” (hypnosis) to recall events and whose therapist, the only person contemporariously involved, has denied to go on record despite the victim urging her to.
The thing to be debated isn’t whether or not a rapist can run for Senate (because that’s not what’s happening here), it’s whether or not a person accused of rape can run for Senate, which I had hoped was an obvious “Yes” from anyone wise enough to believe in Democracy and and due cause.
Any “move forward,” is a move backward, back to candidates that were already offered that Mainers did not want.
There is evidence, you just don’t want to believe it. Don’t pretend like there is no evidence.
Mainers don’t want Platner with credible rape accusations either. Clearly.
So let’s move forward.
WHAT IS THE PROOF???
I’m sorry to yell but SERIOUSLY? What is the MASSIVE OBVIOUS thing I’m missing that has you convinced this isn’t a political hit job to take out a candidate who was unpopular with the establishment on both sides? Is there seriously nothing suspect to you?
You were content to call Platner a rapist before, now it’s just “credible rape accusation.” These are wildly different claims.
Oh you have me mistaken, I believe Platner is a rapist.
I’m not going to entertain this when you’re yelling at me. Absolutely not.
Does it feel good to shout down women who have concerns over rapists being elected?
You switch between “rapist” and “person with a credible rape accusation” when it suits your argument. Biden had a credible SA accusation, did you vote for him?
That’s because they aren’t mutually exclusive terms.
Never said that they were. One requires proof and you using it interchangeably shows your dishonesty. If he’s found guilty of the accusation then sure, but until then its your personal speculation, which means squat.
When only 2% of rapists ever see the inside of a courtroom, I don’t care what you think about my opinion here.
I’m sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine and it’s actively hampering communication. Evidence is not proof. This woman’s statement is evidence, as is her email chain later with her therapist. Platner’s denial is also evidence. Neither is proof.