this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
183 points (92.2% liked)

politics

31368 readers
2368 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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
 

Fifield, 41, is the second woman to allege this week that Platner engaged in nonconsensual sexual conduct. Jenny Racicot, 41, who said she previously dated Platner, told The Post and other outlets on Monday that he sexually assaulted her in late 2021, leading a growing number of allies to drop their endorsements and call on him to withdraw from the race for a Maine seat in the U.S. Senate. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), his most influential and prominent supporter, said he spoke with Platner on Tuesday and urged him to withdraw from his campaign to unseat Susan Collins, the incumbent Republican.

Platner, 41, a Marine Corps veteran and oyster farmer, also denied Racicot’s allegation but said on Monday that he was “mindful of the political reality” that the reporting will “inflict” on his campaign and was “taking the time to reflect on the best path forward.”

Fifield initially told The Post about the alleged condom removal during a June 20 interview that was off the record. She said she decided to speak publicly about it Tuesday in part because, she said, she wanted to show that Racicot was not alone in experiencing issues with Platner involving sexual consent.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FullPenguin@lemmy.world 92 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Fifield, who spent 7 years working for the Heritage Foundation and made all of these accusations a few months ago without any evidence, is the reason why people are so hesitant to take the more recent one seriously.

If the Heritage Foundation is doing anything to take you down, you're probably doing something right.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Heritage foundation.... Yeah they are pretty much all liars . plus aren't they against contraception?

[–] nomy@lemmy.zip 11 points 3 months ago

It’s a long listen but worth checking out How Conservatism Won by Robert Evans. He lays out in a clear concise way “how a consortium of rich failsons got together to fund a network of right wing think tanks and shift American culture in a fun new direction. (note: it was not actually fun at all).”

The Heritage Foundation is the at the root of a lot of the issues in the U.S. right now, it really can't be overstated just how malicious they are. They write the policies and vet the candidates, if they're not the actual shadowy cabal they definitely share some membership.

[–] Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So Maine's choices are an alleged sexual assualter or a known and confirmed adjudicated rapist and 99.9% likely a pedo protector known as Susan Collins? Two extremely shitty choices, I'll admit.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Platner could drop out and allow a better candidate to run.

[–] uberdroog@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

He should have never made it this far.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The Politco story is well sourced with therapist and boyfriend messages from before Platner was ever in politics.

Sometimes a broken clock is correct, this is one of those times.

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Did they publish the evidence? Or are we to take the word of complicit media?

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There are images of the texts in the Politico article. The therapist and ex-boyfriend's testimonies as well.

It's not about taking the word of complicit media - it's about taking this woman's word.

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I for one do believe her, however not without skepticism stemming from the massive and well funded effort to get him out of the race and put a friendly (to neo liberals) in position for critical votes. Both parties are making a massive effort here and therefore their actions, and those of media under their control are more suspect. I hadn't seen the publication of evidence yesterday, guess I missed it. Thank you for sharing.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

The evidence is compelling. I’d highly suggest reading the full Politico article.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 1 points 3 months ago

I mean that's the whole asymmetric corner we've painted ourselves into. Every time you give flimsy accusations the benefit of the doubt, you make real accusations less credibile. Every time you doubt real accusations, you enable rape culture. Normally the ethics seem clear - always believe women and rape culture eventually starves. But what if fascists weaponize the issue before that happens?

Yeah, common sense says a conservative activist doing this during a campaign is probably full of shit. But didn't Brett Kavanaugh's accusers have the same smell? Maybe jumping in front of the spotlight is the only way these women can be taken seriously.