this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
41 points (97.7% liked)

politics

30319 readers
2379 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

This all seems pretty suspicious.

I hate to say this, but the accuser sure picked an interesting time to come forward.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

She didn't pick this time...

I forget which article it was because they seem to be posting them constantly, but in one of them they quote the accuser as saying the NYT approached her months ago for the primary hit piece and that she didn't want to say anything more then she did back then or have her name made public, that's what the recent emails to her therapist was about.

But NYT pushed her not just to do more interviews.publicly, but pushed her to follow the same "one week before deadline" timeline they did when they tried this in the primary.

Shes being manipulated just like Lewinsky was, that doesn't mean she's lying. But a lot of "journalists" who work for pro-genocide oligarchs have spent months setting this up for the sole goal of getting Platner to drop out of the race.

They don't give a shit about if he would be held accountable if guilty, or justice for any actual victim(s).

The sole motivation of the people at NYT and Politico pushing this is to stop a progressive that's against Israel from making it to the Senate. They'd rather slide a Fettermen in last minute.

If he drops out, they'll never be an investigation and people will assume he's guilty, they already are to disappointing extents.

The whole thing is fucked and it's concerning so many seem to be falling for it.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I hate to say this, but the accuser sure picked an interesting time to come forward.

She came out with enough time for another candidate to be chosen. It was now or never.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz -1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Now or never or... during the primary when people could have had time to choose a new candidate.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

She has explained why she hesitated to come forward.

“One of the reasons I didn’t come forward sooner was, the huge moral conflict that I had between supporting his politics, but not supporting him as a person,” she said. “I just want the truth out there. I just want people to have a whole scope of who he is as a person.”

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

She explained why she was reticent to come forward. That's not an answer about why not earlier. She had other options and ended up at a very specific political window.

It could be simple avoidance of an unpleasant task until the last possible moment or it could be in response to the Republican's accusation not taking off or it could be she was intentionally pressured to release when establishment politicians could insert their own choice. But this wasn't the only option and its timing may impact millions of lives.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 0 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

simple avoidance of an unpleasant task

You reducing reporting rape down to this is....inaccurate.

But this wasn’t the only option and its timing may impact millions of lives.

It was going to impact many lives regardless because Platner decided to run knowing he had all of this in his past.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Going to the public and recounting a traumatic event is an unpleasant task. Fuck off with these stylistic gotchas like there would be some magic words that you'd accept to describe a basic human response to something they don't want to do.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works -1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

It’s traumatic but ok. I was willing to level with you here and have a conversation but clearly you just want to be rude.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Fuck off. I don't think you've been looking to have a conversation since this story broke. You've decided there's only one acceptable response, which based on the "he's a secret Nazi" responses seems like it was already in place before the new allegations, and anyone else with other concerns in a breaking story impacting the entire nation must be a rape apologist.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

As if you’re open to conversation on this yourself? Youve decided the only answer to this is conspiracy theories.

No, I’m not patient with people who want to outright victim blame and pretend like it’s crazy for a man seeking power to force himself on a woman.