And by the same justification (i.e., none at all), I could argue that you’re in favor of electing Hitler.
Seriously, what does Obama have to do with what I said?
By the logic you’re applying he was unqualified and the people of Illinois would have been better served by Alan Keyes. The House is the entry-level job for politics.
The House of Representatives has never been the “entry level” job. It’s just easier to get elected because there are more seats and each seat is up for replacement every 2 years. But saying you have to start there is ignorant.
And irrelevant to this discussion anyway.
Why should I listen to this logic from DSA infiltrators who spent the last decade effectively campaigning for Trump with the “Hillary stole the primary from Bernie” “Biden stole the primary from Bernie” “Genocide Kamala” nonsense? It’s OK to actually put Trump himself in office multiple times by not voting for either candidate but theoretically supporting part of Trump’s agenda by not voting against one of his 50 proxies in the Senate is a bridge too far? Does this make any sense?
Nothing you write ever makes sense.
OK, the House isn’t the only entry-level job for politics. Various state or local offices are also possible. The Senate still isn’t, though.
Obama was qualified, because at the time he ran for Senator, he had prior elected experience.
It’s completely relevant. If he had prior elected experience, we could look at his record, and judge him on that. But since he doesn’t have that, we have to judge based on what we know. And the only things we know about him are the Nazi tattoo and an assortment of other bad things.
And no, his stated platform is not something we know about him. It’s something that he says. Is he honest? Well, we have to judge that based on what we know about him, too.
Yeah, imagine someone running as a progressive slopulist who turns out to be more than willing to become a Republican operative because Trump lets them pursue the only issue they ever actually cared about. Like, say, Tulsi Gabbard and enabling the Assad regime because her cult leader told her to, or RFK Jr and vaccines, or the Red Scare hosts and racist trolling. These things never happen, and surely if Trump needs a Secretary of The Jewish Question, it would never, ever enter Graham Platner’s mind to forget all of his positions on other planks and take the job, right?
If those are the only things you know about him, you haven’t been paying attention. Why do you think Susan Collins is the better choice?
You can’t even 100% rely on a person’s record any more than you can their words. Prior results don’t guarantee future performance. It’s all data.
Dismissing what he has publicly run on and saying all that matters is his tattoo is willful ignorance. You’re saying you don’t care about anything else. That’s foolish.
He can lie and do the complete opposite of what he says he will do, but how often does someone do that? I’d wager it would be very unusual. Assuming he will, and basing that on a tattoo, that’s not using reason at all. That’s being pig-headed.
Sure, it would be better if he had a record, but he doesn’t, so you go by whatever data you have.
I don’t have to believe anything Graham Platner (a known liar a hundred times over) says about what his politics are, any more than I have to believe that Donald Trump is motivated by wanting to “make America great again.”
OK, what good things do we know about him? What gives us any reason to believe that he’s honest?
Because she’s old and there’s at least a chance she’ll die in office. Unlikely, I know, but more likely than Platner somehow becoming a liberal. Either way, though, we’ve already lost this race. Better to focus on races we haven’t lost yet.
Again: why run as a fake progressive when he could just run as a Republican?
Also, any insight into why nobody has been able to turn up any evidence of Platner actually advancing far right ideas or employing far right rhetoric, despite twenty years of being a dedicated Nazi?
The same reason why other politicians don’t pull a complete 360. They face massive backlash if they do. At best, he would be a one term senator. He could also find himself totally ostracized and made impotent, as neither party trusts him, nobody allows him on committees, etc.
A cynical person might state that you can never trust any politician, but those people are unlikely to participate in the voting process anyway.
Generally, you have to take a person at their word until they give you a reason not to. I am not aware of any reason to think he’s lying. It’s not like he was a lifelong Young Republican and wore a MAGA hat until he decided to run for office.
As I said, there is plenty of evidence he is something of an idiot and that makes him a bad candidate. But I’ll take a dumb Democrat over a savvy and/or experienced Republican.
I’ll make you a promise though… I won’t vote for him. 
I wouldn’t mind if a politician I supported pulled a complete 360; not nearly as much as if they only pulled a 180.
I meant 180, but either way he’d be dizzy. 
And he’s given us plenty of reasons not to. I default to not taking the word of people who wear Nazi tattoos.
@Smapti, you’re basically telling me that we should trust that he’s honest because he tells us he’s honest, and he wouldn’t lie.
So, if a person had once had a Totenkopf tattoo, everything they say from that point is a lie.
That’s your entire argument.
I wish you could step outside of yourself and see how ridiculous that argument is. You’ve clearly decided that rationality has no place in politics.
Is this a trick question? Primarily, because Susan Collins wasn’t vulnerable in a primary but the Democratic nomination was wide open; secondarily, because Democrats are currently the party obsessed with finding the candidate who “connects with the vulgar white working class” so that’s where he could parachute in to a pre-made slot for a DSA-endorsed populist campaign.
Why did Gabbard and RFK run as Democrats? Because that was the party where there was a nomination contest going on. And the idea that they were somehow a “defection” that Trump “won” from the opposition made them much more attractive as members of his Cabinet; they never would have gotten those positions otherwise.
No, it was genuine.
Do you have an answer to the second question I asked?