I was agreeing with you and just pointing out how not allowing wild cards like Platner and other less than desirable folks that decide that they’re running as Democrats was just as bad.
I don’t know if there is a fool proof way to select candidates but the Democratic voters wanted the current system after Humphrey’s loss to Nixon in a landslide.
Or Tulsi Gabbard. And we heard the same “Who cares about all the repulsive things about her; she’s a Democrat, and that’s all that’s needed!”. And see how that worked out.
So the left shouldve refused to vote for Sinema and given a SCOTUS seat to the right?
This has come up a lot, and while it’s certainly possible, have we seen real signs of this as being in the realm of probability? Out of all the criticisms I’ve heard of Platner, I haven’t heard anyone suggest that he’s sympathetic to Republican issues. Yes, he shows signs of being a creep and at best clueless, which are traits often associated with Republican politicians, but it’s not like Democrats can’t be creepy and dumb either. Are there issues that he sides with Republicans on?
He seems to be pretty fired up in his opposition to them, at least.
Maybe it’s empty rhetoric to appeal to voters (though he’s a politician so that would be pretty normal I guess), but he doesn’t come across to me as someone who’s planning to be a turncoat. I’m not sure where these fears are coming from. And it’s definitely not just you, I’ve seen others make the same suggestions, and I’m a bit confused about why.
Yeah, if one is not aware of the smear “Democrats are the real anti-Semites” that the Right has been pushing for years it’s time for one to wake the fuck up.
Clarification: My understanding of that is that the podcast host apparently does have Nazi-adjacent views, but he doesn’t discuss those on his podcast, which is mostly about military stuff and bodybuilding. It is only known because he has appeared as a guest on other people’s obscure Nazi podcasts, so it is plausible that Platner was unaware of the host’s political views when he went on the show.
People keep bringing up that he’s a World War II buff, but anyone can call themselves a World War II buff. A World War II buff can be a renowned scholar who’s spent years researching and writing about the war, and knows everything there is to know about Nazi iconography. It can also be someone who once watched Band of Brothers and was inspired to pick up a few books about the war. I’m guessing Platner has much more in common with the latter than the former.
The label is meaningless in determining how much he should or shouldn’t know about an obscure symbol.
I asked for cites to support this in the other thread and nobody came back with anything. Is there evidence to support?
If the party started catering to people like Platner we wouldn’t need to worry about the Platners?
Interesting thought process.
I’m pretty sure I mentioned it there with a cite, but that thread is a huge dumpster fire and I’m not going to look for it.
So…“progressive candidates” is equivalent to “people like Platner” in your mind?
I think you just said the quiet part out loud.
If Stew Peters then to call him an anti-Semite isn’t fair, Stew’s bigotry knows, almost, no bounds.
Stewie is, IHMO, a QAnon, MAGA, Republican without the mask. His bullshit can be heard coming from the mouths of elected Republicans.
I’m sure the 150,000+ Democrats who voted for him, more than any other Democratic candidate in Maine history, would probably tell you to fuck off.
Babale’s problem with Platner isn’t the things being discussed, it’s that Platner is too far to the left for him (See below). If it was a guy named Blatner, without Platner’s baggage, Babale would still have issues.
I think he’s fairly typical and emblematic of the sort of anti-establishment “progressives” that @steronz is talking about, problematic track record with Jews and all.
We also use the term “progressive” to describe the left wing of the establishment Dems, people like AOC, and I don’t think he’s representative of that cohort.
When have I ever been quiet about my distaste for illiberal slopulists like Platner?
Platner is definitely anti-establishment. So was Gabbard. So, for that matter, is Trump. The problem is that a lot of people mistake anti-establishment for progressive.
Stew Peters is certainly a piece of shit antisemite, but nobody went on his podcast. His only involvement here is that Platner once retweeted something of Peters’ and then deleted it and condemned Peters once it was pointed out. So it’s a nothing-burger (that I mentioned a few posts up, for what it’s worth).
The issue is Nate Cornacchia, whose podcast Platner went on and praised as a “long time fan.” Cornacchia has been painted as an anti-semite by pro-Israel commentators and organizations because he’s pro-Palestine, but other than that I can’t find any evidence that Cornacchia is an antisemite himself, Thing.Fish’s memory of the other thread notwithstanding.
ETA: @Chronos two above me. Folks keep slipping in while I bloviate.
Yeah. There’s a lot of “Tear it all down and of course it’ll self-reassemble in line with my own political and economic preferences.” With a side order of “Tear it all down and of course my side, the righteous side, will win in the clear, level, and fair playing field of the rubble.”
If there’s one area where both-sides-ism might be fully applicable it’s on this point. And of course both ideas are nonsense no matter who is espousing them.
That paint being liberally spread. See: Multiple accusations about every Democrat/Progressive/Leftist from, for example, Rashida Tlaib to Chuck Schumer.
Which is why it’s so frustrating to progressives that the Party isn’t embracing the populist position. I don’t want to tear it all down and let the Platners of the world move into the void, but it would be nice for the Party to keep out the Platner’s and boost the AOCs.