That headline is one of the stupidest things i have ever read. The dude is a politician, its perfectly fine to attack him with a political motive. Any attack on him would be politically motivated… If someone does things that are morally reprehensible, then they should be attacked for it.
You’re missing the point entirely, probably because you don’t have the context. The NY Times worked with a Heritage Foundation political operative that founded the Ladies for Kavanaugh political group to accuse him of “abuse,” which they were not able to substantiate. It’s politically motivated because the NY Times, although liberal, is a Zionist paper that would rather have a pro-Israel Republican in the Senate than a Democrat who calls the events in Gaza a genocide.
I mean it explains why this headline is attempting to defend him, but the headline is still stupid. It should just read “The Attacks on Graham Platner Are Unsubstantiated”
But that is burying the lead again. Are the attacks unsubstantiated because legitimate victims simply cannot prove definitively that they were assaulted or put in a position of discomfort, or are the attacks unsubstantiated because they were made by a clearly partisan political actor? If you really don’t want to use the words “politically motivated”, you’d have to add to your headline that they were made by a pro-Israel, Ladies-for-Kavanaugh founder in order to accurately portray these attacks.
If someone does things that are morally reprehensible
Well, that’s the rub, isn’t it?
Graham Platner cheating on his wife is the worst thing in history. Susan Collins green-lighting multiple genocides overseas, while callously turning her back on constituents snatched up by ICE goons, is above reproach.
Meanwhile, Ken Paxton cheating on his wife is a private matter and fake news and only a woke transgender illegal communist would mention it. James Talarico met his wife at Good Luck Charles (Austin gay bar) and eats a turkey leg like a vegan and spent half his life as a minister where he claimed God didn’t have a gender. All of that is also supposed to be super bad.
“Morally reprehensible” is just “whatever the Democrat did” updated daily.
And yeah, the headline is baby-brained. But that’s American politics in a nutshell these days.
Graham Platner’s critics are operating with a politically motivated double standard.
Should have been the headline as it gets to the nut of our Zionist media priorities.
Also, a reminder that Susan Collins is a home wrecker. Her husband started an affair with her while his first wife was dying of cancer. He ultimately left his dying wife for Susan Collins.
The Zionists and oligarchs are not afraid of a was criminal who went on 5 terror tours and loved his time killing brown people so much he got a Nazi tattoo to commemorate it, by his own gleeful unapologetic admission. His portrayal as progressive should insult you, not make you jump to defend him and accuse those accuse him of sexual assault of being liars so conveniently.
It says that we’re willing to accept a flawed candidate that can admit mistakes, rather than some purist. If you’re not willing to forgive and accept flawed candidates, the downward spiral toward fascism will continue.
The other side doesn’t give two shits about running rapists and murderers, but we can’t run a candidate that admits a dark past and tries to make amends? These purity tests have got to end!
He’s unapologetic about his crimes and still talks about them proudly… At what point does it go from “flawed” to “rotten” to you? It might be impossible to change your perspective if you brush aside every accusation as a minor flaw.
we can’t run a candidate that admits a dark past and tries to make amends
He doesn’t. He never said he regrets his war crimes, he talks about them reminiscingly, he only calls the wars “pointless”, he has no moral objection to the crimes, he just doesn’t think Americans benefitted enough from them.
He doesn’t identify the war machine as bad, on the contrary he wants to thank and honor and support veterans. Y’all need to stop pretending that’s a progressive idea.
You only think in “their side” and “my side” to the point where your side winning is the goal itself, regardless of whether your side effectively does anything to advance what you think of as principals.
Take his stance on Gaza, where he seems eager to cash in on people’s outrage by positioning himself as opposition to genocide, but you won’t see him ever address the real problem. He’s there to change the conversation and allow the status quo to continue. On Ukraine he’s happy to say that Ukrainian fighting the Russian invasion is “resisting with all the means that they can, and I personally think that we should provide them with support.” He’s unwilling to make a statement about Palestinians resisting genocide as needing support, he’s only ever willing to denounce past acts in a vacuum. Like a typical liberal zionist.
He’s being branded as progressive by literally the same people that brought you Fetterman, it’s all aesthetics and zero substance, and you still have your arms wide open.
He doesn’t. He never said he regrets his war crimes, he talks about them reminiscingly, he only calls the wars “pointless”, he has no moral objection to the crimes, he just doesn’t think Americans benefitted enough from them.
Beyond this I think the real smoking gun is that it is an explicit part of his platform that he wants to expand our navy. “Closing the shipbuilding gap” he calls it.
That headline is one of the stupidest things i have ever read. The dude is a politician, its perfectly fine to attack him with a political motive. Any attack on him would be politically motivated… If someone does things that are morally reprehensible, then they should be attacked for it.
You’re missing the point entirely, probably because you don’t have the context. The NY Times worked with a Heritage Foundation political operative that founded the Ladies for Kavanaugh political group to accuse him of “abuse,” which they were not able to substantiate. It’s politically motivated because the NY Times, although liberal, is a Zionist paper that would rather have a pro-Israel Republican in the Senate than a Democrat who calls the events in Gaza a genocide.
I mean it explains why this headline is attempting to defend him, but the headline is still stupid. It should just read “The Attacks on Graham Platner Are Unsubstantiated”
But that is burying the lead again. Are the attacks unsubstantiated because legitimate victims simply cannot prove definitively that they were assaulted or put in a position of discomfort, or are the attacks unsubstantiated because they were made by a clearly partisan political actor? If you really don’t want to use the words “politically motivated”, you’d have to add to your headline that they were made by a pro-Israel, Ladies-for-Kavanaugh founder in order to accurately portray these attacks.
Well, that’s the rub, isn’t it?
Graham Platner cheating on his wife is the worst thing in history. Susan Collins green-lighting multiple genocides overseas, while callously turning her back on constituents snatched up by ICE goons, is above reproach.
Meanwhile, Ken Paxton cheating on his wife is a private matter and fake news and only a woke transgender illegal communist would mention it. James Talarico met his wife at Good Luck Charles (Austin gay bar) and eats a turkey leg like a vegan and spent half his life as a minister where he claimed God didn’t have a gender. All of that is also supposed to be super bad.
“Morally reprehensible” is just “whatever the Democrat did” updated daily.
And yeah, the headline is baby-brained. But that’s American politics in a nutshell these days.
Should have been the headline as it gets to the nut of our Zionist media priorities.
Ha! I am only most of those things, and I still like to tell people that Ken Paxton is a cheating hypocrite.
Also, a reminder that Susan Collins is a home wrecker. Her husband started an affair with her while his first wife was dying of cancer. He ultimately left his dying wife for Susan Collins.
Newt Gingrich?
TIL. Never even heard that one.
The point the headline is trying to make are that they are baseless, they are making a mountain out of a molehill, it’s a smear campaign.
The zionists, the oligarchs, the pedophiles, are all scared he will be elected and be a loud voice against them for like 6 years.
The Zionists and oligarchs are not afraid of a was criminal who went on 5 terror tours and loved his time killing brown people so much he got a Nazi tattoo to commemorate it, by his own gleeful unapologetic admission. His portrayal as progressive should insult you, not make you jump to defend him and accuse those accuse him of sexual assault of being liars so conveniently.
It says that we’re willing to accept a flawed candidate that can admit mistakes, rather than some purist. If you’re not willing to forgive and accept flawed candidates, the downward spiral toward fascism will continue.
The other side doesn’t give two shits about running rapists and murderers, but we can’t run a candidate that admits a dark past and tries to make amends? These purity tests have got to end!
He’s unapologetic about his crimes and still talks about them proudly… At what point does it go from “flawed” to “rotten” to you? It might be impossible to change your perspective if you brush aside every accusation as a minor flaw.
He doesn’t. He never said he regrets his war crimes, he talks about them reminiscingly, he only calls the wars “pointless”, he has no moral objection to the crimes, he just doesn’t think Americans benefitted enough from them.
He doesn’t identify the war machine as bad, on the contrary he wants to thank and honor and support veterans. Y’all need to stop pretending that’s a progressive idea.
You only think in “their side” and “my side” to the point where your side winning is the goal itself, regardless of whether your side effectively does anything to advance what you think of as principals.
Take his stance on Gaza, where he seems eager to cash in on people’s outrage by positioning himself as opposition to genocide, but you won’t see him ever address the real problem. He’s there to change the conversation and allow the status quo to continue. On Ukraine he’s happy to say that Ukrainian fighting the Russian invasion is “resisting with all the means that they can, and I personally think that we should provide them with support.” He’s unwilling to make a statement about Palestinians resisting genocide as needing support, he’s only ever willing to denounce past acts in a vacuum. Like a typical liberal zionist.
He’s being branded as progressive by literally the same people that brought you Fetterman, it’s all aesthetics and zero substance, and you still have your arms wide open.
Beyond this I think the real smoking gun is that it is an explicit part of his platform that he wants to expand our navy. “Closing the shipbuilding gap” he calls it.