politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This woman also has text messages and emails to back up her claims.
No she doesn't. She said she deleted them. From the Politico article:
The other messages are ambiguous (they do not mention rape), or are a few weeks old, between her and her therapist.
She deleted only the messages with Platner.
Those other messages are not as ambiguous as those of you who want to support this rapist want to believe or push here.
Yeah, this one is a credible accusation
Hopefully someone progressive can replace platner if this causes his campaign to pull out
It won't be someone progressive. The people who would be choosing a last minute replacement are the people who didn't want him to win the primary.
There's no real viable replacement. Even if they choose someone who represented the policies the voters supported in him, which they won't do, Platner is the only one with the justification of being chosen by voters to justify people who didn't vote for him supporting him in the general. Anyone else is opening the door for finding some difference to now mean the candidate isn't the choice of the party.
And that's in the dreamland where the insiders choose a spare charismatic progressive outsider they had hanging around rather than someone who's in their club.
Whether she has supporting evidence isn't relevant to anything in the comment you replied to.
The parent comment claimed this woman is coming forward as a Republican hit piece. I’m just adding to the conversation by noting she has evidence.
She has evidence that she had some contact with Platner. But according to the narrative she describes, there couldn't have been any text messages providing direct evidence of the assault. She's saying that at the time, she sent messages to other people. But it's not like Platner texted her a confession.
But come on, it's 2026. You need to be a little more cynical, less naive, and have a properly calibrated bullshit detector. Did Platner assault her? Certainly possible. But it's also sus as hell.
And yes, it clearly is meant to be politically motivated. She may be a Democrat, but as we've seen, plenty of Democrats hate progressive candidates. And the timing is damning. She may be a legitimate victim, but if so, she's also cynically manipulating her rape for political points. She's literally using her sexual assault as a political poker chip. You don't perfectly time the allegation to have maximum political impact otherwise.
How conspiracy minded do you have to be to think she texted her friend warning her about Platner years before his senate run in order to sabotage him now?
Why else would she say Platner assaulted her in this way other than he assaulted her?
Those messages don't actually exist anymore. We have only her word.
I wouldn't call this damning. People react to grief in complex ways. But it also means that you shouldn't spread misinformation about there being text messages. Yes, she claims there were text messages, but ultimately it's still just her word. These texts provide zero evidence, as they no longer exist.
She claims that a lot of evidence existed in the past, but that all of that evidence has been lost. Is that possible? Sure, that does happen in some cases of rape and assault. Some folks just want to move on. But it's part of a larger picture that together is pretty damning:
She deleted all correspondence with Platner that could corroborate her claim.
She showed emails to Politico from her therapist, where she mentioned Platner and the alleged assault - but those emails and therapy sessions are recent.
There is a man, a later romantic partner, that the victim supposedly told her story to - yet he's chosen to remain anonymous and Politico
There is a woman, a friend of the victim, who Politico says received messages from the victim saying to avoid Platner. Again, the person is anonymous.
So, all the supporting evidence is either deleted, not contemporary to the events, or from anonymous people that cannot be verified.
Because money and power are on the line.
This is a lie.
Taking quotes of context is slimey. You're lying by doing so. I mentioned how there were apparently text messages, but they had all been deleted.
There is one and only one contemporary record, and that's some vague facebook messages to an anonymous person that never explicitly say Platner assaulted her. She claims a lot of other evidence exists, but she conveniently deleted it all.
So, do you care to actually back up your point, instead of just casually throwing around slurs?
No, all of the text messages were not deleted.
She deleted the texts between her and Platner. Not the texts to her friends or the emails to her therapist.
I didn't throw a slur, get your eyes checked.
Issue is that none of that would be proof. They would be maybe at best supporting details to something more solid (like txts between the victim and accused).
Warning people about someone does not actually work as proof of the action you are accusing them of.
Now with that being said I would give it better then average odds that this did happen as she claims but that has more to do with my expectations of american politicians.
HBO Velma this is one Scoob could solve. If the timing alone doesn't set off your bullshit detector I have a bridge to sell you.
I think youre going to find yourself on the wrong side of this one.