this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
43 points (71.7% liked)
Political Memes
12110 readers
2661 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Who cares who supported who. My point is that people are innocent until proven guilty and that the facts don't show without a shadow of a doubt that he's guilty. And even when it does point to guilt our country never treats everyone the same and even ignores the lack of attributed justice.
Platner has said himself that he has committed multiple war crimes. This includes firing mortars at crowds of random Afghans, getting caught, having the the firing platforms taken away, then modifying other rocket firing systems to continue firing mortars onto crowds of people. This is just one of the horrific things he himself has said he has done. He never deserved to be a candidate.
I think I don't understand the meme then? I think it's saying the Democrats were harsher on him than the others, despite him not being convinced? But how?
They're asking him to stand down without an actual court proceeding and weak facts.
So wait you are comparing asking someone to step down until this can be sorted out or because there is concern it will hurt the party is equivalent to being arrested and imprisoned?
Or at least that it requires the same level of evidence?
I think the ideal situation is that he agrees to go to court and stands firm in his innocence if he is innocent. Get elected anyway. If he's guilty in a court of law THEN he should step down.
But i'm not FOR Americans and their culture of becoming vultures against someone due to weak evidence because the Media or political figures tell them so. So yes, I am someone who supports evidence and a jury to determine guilt in a court of law.
I don't understand this logic unless being a senator brings significant personal benefit instead of being a service in which case, that explains a lot about how people behave
And further if it considered good leadership to put your personal benefit above the good of your movement
Most senators do make quite a lot of money during their careers.
Edit: hopefully the picture works better. But yeah, it's pretty bad. Too many selfish people in charge.
Thank you! I did know it was a paid position, I was hoping it would point out how absurd it is to tie someones financial future to their ability to win elections. Why would they do anything but ensure they stay in office?
All the more motivation for Platner to deny there were any more potential scandals even while he knew that this woman believed he raped her. She texted him that he had sex with her without her consent. And he flatly denied that there were any more skeletons in his closet.
When you're talking about overriding the will of the voters, yes, a similar burdain of proof should exist as imprisoning someone.
I thought they couldn't force him to quit
You have a problem with literalism.
Yes, I have autism.
I would appreciate it if you could help me understand your comment if taking it literally is wrong.
Obviously, Democratic leaders can't literally force someone to quit at gunpoint. But the party can still force him to quit if enough support is withdrawn from him. They can't keep him from running as an independent, but the Maine Democratic party absolutely could vote to overrule the primary results. They're a private organization; they can do what they want.
So if he can still run how does this overrule the will of the voters (I assume you mean the primary voters)? If he is elected because he's a great candidate how would being elected as an independent be different than being elected as a Democrat? Couldn't he vote with them?
The voters of the Democratic Party of Maine asked that he be their Senate candidate, representing their party in the November election. By definition, asking him to step down is asking to overrule the will of the voters. That's it. That's all there is to it.
I still don't understand why it makes a difference to the people who nominated him if he runs as a dem or not? Can't they vote for him?
What does this mean for the states that Biden won in the primaries? People asked him to step down. And he eventually did. Were they overriding the will of the voters? If I understand correctly the party changed their rules to allow Harris to win even though Biden was the candidate when people voted?
If he decides to step down for his own reasons will others always be blamed for it?
Not really.
First off they are asking him to step down, which he should have done ages ago. For oh-so-many reasons.
Platner received more primary votes than any Senate candidate in Maine history. You're damn right forcing him to step down is overriding the will of the voters.
I support doing that if he's proven to be a rapist, but that is not the kind of thing you do lightly. It's at least as serious as say, giving someone jail sentence for a few years.
So.
Hypothetically.
If someone were to be unwilling to be a canidate, but the primary voters voted for them anyways... are they obligated to run? or maybe do they get to decide that?
The choice to run or not run is still Platner's, not the voters.
Also hypothetically. What if he doesn't step down and he is proven to be a rapist. would you be willing to override the will of the people and throw him in jail? or are you just going to admit you're part of the problem?
Platner is the idiot who had these skeletons in his closet and thought they wouldn't get dragged out. that alone should be disqualifying, nevermind the fact that there is good evidence (which you don't like so wahhahaha crybaby cry!)
That's exactly right - this woman told him directly that he raped her. Even if he didn't feel the same, he knew that this was hiding in his past.
Keep in mind, we don't actually know she told him that. She is claiming NOW that she told him that then. But he's claiming that the whole thing was invented recently. If that is the case, then this women never would have told him directly, that would just be part of the lie.
You're projecting. You want to see Platner lose by any means necessary, so you assume I must want him to serve as Senator by any means necessary. I don't want to see a rapist serve in the Senate. But I also don't want to establish or reinforce the precedent that Republicans can derail any Democrat just by getting someone to make an accusation in conservative-owned media a week before a critical deadline. Is that the case here? I have no evidence she's lying. But I also have no evidence that Platner is lying. One of these people is lying, and that's why we have courts and trials. We try these things in court, not in the court of public opinion.
So yes, I certainly would be willing to overrule the will of the people. That's why we have laws and trials, with rights and procedures. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Like, when did not punishing people without trial become a controversial opinion?
Senators aren't exempt from state-level felony convictions. You can absolutely try them, convict them, and throw their ass in prison.
Well it's clearly not very good, as you have little confidence it will succeed at trial.
I’m not the one projecting here. The question was simply to prompt consideration of the worst case scenario.
I certainly don’t want Platner to lose “by any means necessary”- I do want to avoid the current problem we have with Fetterman and have had with Sinema- while being angry that these concerns haven’t as yet been taken seriously.
I do?
You certainly read a lot into things I’m certainly not actually saying. Political elections are different from criminal trials, and abide by different rules, and operate on different time frames.
They also have different standards.
Yeah, because they don't want a candidate with credible rape accusations. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Rep. Ro Khanna rescinded his endorsement of Graham Platner and called the allegations "serious and credible".
Politico was the outlet. Text Messages screenshots can be fabricated. All the communication outside of those screenshots conveniently left out. And all other witnesses conveniently wanting to be remaining anonymous.
I don't care if Bernie Sanders asked him to step down. They aren't a jury or a judge.
Oh, you're confused. This is a political process, not a judicial one. There's no "beyond a reasonable doubt" here, and this isn't the first issue with Platner.
No im not confused. And i dont care about the previous allegation or this one until its presented before a judge and not the court of dumbass American media consumers.
Seems reasonable to me. Especially with all the corporate capture of our media and how the DNC gets to have just enough time to pick a candidate if he drops right now.
Yeah you are.
The bar you used to have for elected office was quite a bit higher than “technically not yet convicted of actual rape”.
But hey, you do you. All sorts of criminals walking around in Washington these days.
He's doing a lot more good for Americans on his platform and I think the elites are afraid of the rising amount of socialists running and winning. They'll do anything to find a hit piece. But this hit piece is weak AF.
Wow now I know what american individualism applied to "socialism" looks like.
😂