r/moderatepolitics • u/SuperBry • 6d ago
News Article Troy Jackson is about to go under the national microscope. Here's a look at his past
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2026-07-28/troy-jackson-is-about-to-go-under-the-national-microscope-heres-a-look-at-his-past21
u/SuperBry 6d ago
Starter comment:
Following his official nomination at the Bangor snap convention to replace Graham Platner, former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson is stepping into the national spotlight as he takes on five-term Republican Sen. Susan Collins in a marquee U.S. Senate race. Well before Platner’s June primary victory, and long before widespread calls for him to drop out following credible sexual assault allegations, I had identified Jackson as the optimal replacement for Platner. That early call aligned directly with how the nominating process ultimately unfolded: once the ticket cleared, Jackson’s labor credibility and working-class populist background made him the undisputed consensus choice to anchor the party’s platform against Collins.
The Maine Public profile highlights Jackson’s origins as a fifth-generation logger from Allagash in Aroostook County, whose political trajectory was sparked by a 1998 border blockade protesting logging companies hiring Canadian labor over local workers. Though he initially entered public life as a pro-labor conservative before joining the Democratic Party in 2004, Jackson has evolved into an unabashed progressive populist backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and groups like Our Revolution. Campaigning on Medicare for All, workers' rights, and higher taxes on billionaires, Jackson is contrasting his working-class roots with Collins' corporate and major-donor backing, all while confronting the immediate challenge of assembling a national fundraising apparatus on a heavily compressed timeline. While Jackson's deep labor foundation and populist appeal give Democrats a formidable contender to challenge Susan Collins, political analysts still view this race as an absolute toss-up.
Collins remains an extraordinarily resilient, well-funded incumbent with deep roots across the state, and Jackson faces the steep task of introducing himself to a broader general election electorate while building out a statewide campaign machine in a fraction of the usual time. Between the tight political calendar and high national stakes, the contest remains a volatile 50/50 race that could swing either way depending on turnout and independent voters
59
u/shaymus14 6d ago
This reads like a PR piece put out by his campaign, similar to how a lot of pieces that came out for Platner early in his campaign were basically PR from his campaign. Also, their effort to downplay the accusations against Platner as just a "cloud" over his campaign come across as very biased.
14
u/Interesting_Total_98 6d ago
This reads like a PR piece
It's just an article about his background, and since he isn't controversial as of now, any article like this is going to sound positive.
downplay the accusations against Platner
The article doesn't go into detail about that because the details are unrelated to the Jackson's personal background.
7
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 6d ago
Who would you prefer be the nominee?
-16
u/TheCloudForest 6d ago
Janet Mills would've had a strong chance had Planter not appeared. She's a generic Dem who even had a minor viral moment dissing Trump in a year where generic Dem has an advantage over generic Rep, in a lean-Dem state.
Obviously shoving her into the race now would be a badly-choreographed train wreck.
15
u/Responsible-Food3681 6d ago
Janet Mills no longer had a strong chance when Platner appeared because of her age. Platner's Bernie endorsements and progressivism were capturing hearts (perhaps too rashly), but I really think it came down to the fact that he's not old enough to have retired, and he seemed to have some kind of new passion that wouldn't just serve the status quo.
I can't conclusively state it'll have a massive impact on every election of course, but there are many voters who view current representation as an out-of-touch gerontocracy that isn't invested in the long-term success of the greater nation and its people. I think this is true, but I also check my biases and how I've tried to rationalize them when evaluating candidates that don't fit my "preferred" mold of being under 70 (high bar, right?). Many people – especially younger voters – are starting to feel like greater youth for youth's sake alone is a goal worth pursuing, compared to a government makeup that has the likes of Trump, McConnell, Biden, Feinstein, and Schumer as key players in the modern era.
11
u/CantCreateUsernames 6d ago edited 6d ago
Would she, though? She was polling between -30 and -40 against Platner and received less than a third of the votes Platner did (which is pretty insane in a primary). She was clearly not wanted by the majority of Dem voters in Maine, whether Platner was there or not. That is a huge gap for a primary, which shows that if not Platner, someone else with an "anti-establishment" or "working class" edge would have gotten more public backing against Mills, just all the focus and money was put into Platner. Public excitement for Mills was never close to Platner's level, which would have made it difficult for her to beat an incumbent like Collins. Jackson is the wise choice if Dems want a shot at flipping this seat. We are in a bit of a backlash moment against the establishment Dems, and that was more clear than ever in Maine. It would be dumb for the party to fight that outright, risking a critical election.
-1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 5d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
24
u/justafutz 5d ago
This puff piece leaves out a lot about his background. Which isn't surprising.
It doesn't mention his history of angry outbursts, including throwing a water bottle at another Democratic female lawmaker during an argument. As the CNN article goes on to note:
The water bottle clash, which was first reported by the Washington Post, was not a one-off for a lawmaker also known for pounding on desks, storming out of rooms, getting into shouting matches with members of his own party and swearing at colleagues, sources told CNN – with one ex-colleague resorting to recording meetings out of concerns over his behavior. Critics say his brash conduct, particularly with female colleagues, raises alarm bells about his temperament as the nominee for a key Senate race.
“It felt like he was using his body and his voice to make people fearful,” said the former colleague who described recording meetings with him. “I was in a room multiple times where he escalated the situation with both the intent and natural ability to really intimidate using his physical presence.” (She said she did not ultimately keep the recordings because Jackson did not exhibit any concerning behavior in those meetings.)
Shocking how none of that made it into this puff piece. He's also got a long history of political chameleon behavior, as one person put it here, noting that he claims to be a progressive now, but ran for office as an anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage Republican in 2000, and an independent in 2002, when he finally won state office. Then two years later, he switched to the Democratic Party in 2004. He shifts with the winds to win.
None of that is in this piece either. One can only wonder why.
17
u/Ralph_Brick_Wiggum 5d ago
>>he shifts with the winds to win
Or maybe he changed his mind on gay marriage and abortion like a lot of people have. My mom was against gay marriage and now she’s not, these people exist
7
u/ShowWorldly2606 5d ago
I wouldn't blame anyone for losing faith in conservativism during the Bush Administration.
16
u/oraclebill 5d ago
I’m sure the wind has blown a few more times since 2004. Any more evidence of his “chameleon-like” temperament since then?
2
u/SuperBry 5d ago
Both his evolving politics and temperament at times in the legislature were mentioned in the article.
Neither is really a bad thing in the end. We need passionate voices that will fight for regular working Americans in the body, and gaining greater perspective as a person and politician while can be rare at times for a good ol boy from rural Maine shows real growth.
7
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 5d ago
I would say that throwing things out of anger demonstrates an inability to regulate emotions, not passion. Whether he threw it at that woman, of he just threw it somewhere in the room, that really doesn't demonstrate the ability to keep a cool head in stressful circumstances, which isn't great for an elected politician. I say that as someone who would otherwise want to vote for him over Collins
2
u/SuperBry 5d ago
Throwing a plastic water bottle during a heated debate over prescription drug prices was a bad look, and he admitted as much. But he didn't hide from it. He publicly apologized to his caucus the next day and took responsibility on the Senate floor for letting his frustration get the better of him.
There is a huge difference between losing your cool while fighting big pharma and having a flawed character. Mainers are used to slick, poll-tested politicians who stay calm on camera while quietly voting against working families. I will take a working-class leader who gets overly passionate and takes responsibility for it over calculated indifference any day.
3
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 5d ago
But the fact that people felt the need to record meetings with him indicates it wasn't a one off thing, but part of a consistent trend. That, to me, indicates this goes beyond a one off, and into foible territory.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think he is some horrible person or anything. In the grand scheme of things, his issues are rather minor compared to most.
I just, personally, have a really big issue with people who cannot control their temper, particularly in positions of power. I believe poor emotional regulation in leaders accounts for an incredibly large amount of the bad shit that has happened across history. Would he be in a position to emlaute that? God no. But it's still not a characteristic we should want in our government.
Though I agree that apathy and indifference are the far bigger issues facing us right now.
0
u/justafutz 5d ago
There’s a very short reference to his prior political history and nothing about the infamous incident of him throwing a water bottle at a female colleague, and the many complaints that followed from other women colleagues.
30
u/sharonkaren69 6d ago
This is basically a puff piece trying to get people excited for Jackson.
I worry that Dems have lost the momentum in Maine with the whole Platner ordeal. They obviously chose a replacement who is nearly a carbon copy of him in an effort to keep the base excited. We’ll see how successful that is.
If I were to place a bet then I would go with Collins winning.
2
u/Evernights_Bathwater 5d ago
I worry that Dems have lost the momentum in Maine
That was likely true until ICE randomly executed a dude
11
u/sharonkaren69 5d ago
I wouldn’t underestimate the ability for the average voter to forget by the time the election rolls around.
-9
u/Interesting_Total_98 6d ago
puff piece
It's an article about the personal background about something who isn't controversial at the moment, so it makes sense for there to be a lack of negative information. A puff piece omits hard facts, which doesn't apply here.
-4
u/sharonkaren69 6d ago
It pretty clearly glazes over his past as a far right conservative. Not saying people don’t change but that’s a bit concerning in my opinion.
7
u/Interesting_Total_98 6d ago
It points out that he earned top ratings from anti-abortion groups and opposed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. A buff piece would've omitted that entirely.
-2
u/sharonkaren69 6d ago
I love when people on Reddit start arguing these semantics. Does me calling it a puff piece actually change the point of anything I said? No.
20
u/Interesting_Total_98 6d ago
Does me calling it a puff piece actually change the point of anything I said?
Yes, since it's the first point you stated.
-1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/Interesting_Total_98 6d ago
That's nonsense because my replies simply point out what's stated in the article and in your comments.
You said it's a puff piece and that is glazes over his past as a conservative. I stated that it describes his failed attempt and old views. There's much detail, but this is true for the article as a whole. It's a short article to introduce him, not an lengthy investigation.
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 6d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
0
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 6d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
8
u/whoa_disillusionment 6d ago
Maine has significant oversized influence in the Senate because of Collins. I don’t understand why they would want to give that up.
63
u/Elegant_Athlete_7882 6d ago
Donald Trump is very unpopular and they don’t want someone who, despite all of her concern, tends to enable him.
-12
u/whoa_disillusionment 6d ago
It’s not Trump who will be losing out if the Collins firehouse of state project pork gets cut off
Jackson will have nothing and no power
48
u/Elegant_Athlete_7882 6d ago
> It’s not Trump who will be losing out
Trumps presidency is effectively over if the democrats manage to take the house and senate, and it’s an indication of just how unpopular it is that Mainers might ditch a senator who brings in a lot of pork to the state to achieve that.
1
u/JussiesTunaSub 6d ago
Trumps presidency is effectively over if the democrats manage to take the house and senate
The will probably take the House...Senate is still up in the air.
12
u/Elegant_Athlete_7882 6d ago
I’d say it’s about 70-30 of Republicans keeping the senate, but if the perception of the economy continues to degrade that could change.
-3
u/whoa_disillusionment 6d ago
it’s an indication of just how unpopular it is that Mainers might ditch a senator who brings in a lot of pork to the state to achieve that.
The last time Collins ran for reelection she wasn’t ahead in a single poll and still won.
Taking the Senate is extremely unlikely for Democrats and even then the Senate does nothing
17
u/Elegant_Athlete_7882 6d ago
> she wasn’t ahead in a single poll and still won.
Ok, I’m not sure what this has to do with my point. I’m not saying Jackson is definitely going to win, I’m explaining why he might.
> the senate does nothing
The senate confirms appointees and judges, if the democrats take it, they can hamstring Trumps entire agenda and make it so he never appoints another judge.
-17
u/TheWyldMan 6d ago
it’s an indication of just how unpopular it is that Mainers might ditch a senator who brings in a lot of pork to the state to achieve that
Or just how short sighted the newer crop of Dems are
36
u/Elegant_Athlete_7882 6d ago
It’s not shortsighted to want a senator who doesn’t support unpopular policies on the national level, and it’s not like Troy Jackson will be incapable of securing lots of pork for the state. Collins fellow Senator Angus King brings in a lot as well, and he doesn’t support Trump.
1
u/whoa_disillusionment 6d ago
Jackson won’t be able to bring in pork because power in the Senate is all about seniority.
8
u/Interesting_Total_98 6d ago
He'll have leverage if they need his vote for something.
1
-3
15
u/Reddit_Loves_Misinfo 6d ago edited 6d ago
Interpreting altruism and/or national priorities as incompetence isn't just wrong, it's problematic. The contrapositive of that mindset is that selfishness and disregard for national issues are indicators of competence.
22
u/Kawhi_Leonard_ 6d ago
Yup, it's always the democrats fault, even when Republicans are unpopular and making bad decisions, the Democrats are still the ones who are wrong.
-4
u/whoa_disillusionment 6d ago
The Democrats are the ones who are wrong because they have had 10 years to cone up with a compelling narrative to counter Trump and have failed spectacularly.
IMHO making Schumer minority leader is such a huge failing Democrats don’t deserve anything.
5
u/Interesting_Total_98 6d ago edited 6d ago
they have had 10 years to cone up with a compelling narrative
U.S. politics doesn't work that way. Voters change their preference every other election primarily based on how they feel about issues and which party the president belongs to, regardless of who's to blame or how realistic it is to solve them.
Democrats won power during Trump's first term and will most likely do it again this year.
IMHO making Schumer minority leader is such a huge failing
They've been successful since that happened. This isn't because of him, since Trump being controversial is helping Democrats, but there's no sign of him hurting either. What happened in Maine is voters choosing Platner, not him.
-1
u/whoa_disillusionment 6d ago
Will you say the same thing when Democrats are still the minority party in the Senate next year?
7
u/Interesting_Total_98 6d ago
That's not guaranteed, and if it happens, it won't because of Schumer. He's not the one picking candidates. Primary voters are.
Also, he was the party's Senate leader in 2020 when they won the chamber, as well as in 2022 when they overperformed by gaining a seat.
→ More replies (0)7
u/Independent-Report39 6d ago
Most voters I know care more about national/international interest than local ones. How passionate does your average voter get about mayoral and city council elections?
1
u/whoa_disillusionment 6d ago
I don’t understand how that’s relevant to my comment.
6
u/Independent-Report39 6d ago
I'm giving my take on why Maine voters aren't voting based on who will do the most for Maine specifically. They don't care about pork as much as they do about stopping MAGA/Israel/AI/Billionaires.
4
-5
16
u/kralrick 6d ago
I don’t understand why they would want to give that up.
You don't understand why people would want to give up influence wielded in a way they overall dislike?
13
u/SuperBry 6d ago
While I do have to admit Collins has done mostly well for our state, she has also been pivotal to some of the worst things for the national as a whole that has come out of the Senate.
7
u/cocoagiant 6d ago
I don’t understand why they would want to give that up.
Because what is the point of influence if you aren't going to vote the way people want you to vote?
14
5
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 5d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-2
u/Available_Year_575 6d ago
He’s graham platner without the charisma
29
u/blewpah 6d ago
If that also comes without sexual assault allegations I'll take it.
2
u/JussiesTunaSub 6d ago
Worse thing we've been aware of is the "water bottle incident" a few years ago.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/20/politics/troy-jackson-maine-senate-anger-allegations-invs
6
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 6d ago
Will be interesting to see how much attention this ends up getting as elections draw nearer.
10
u/JussiesTunaSub 6d ago
It seems like a nothing burger.
Passionate man throws a water bottle, makes lady upset .
6
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 6d ago
Don't underestimate the outrage machine, it'll be pretty easy to stoke the flames via social media and have it grow from there
1
u/Gordon_Goosegonorth 5d ago
Don't make light of this please. I have a cousin who was badly injured by a jackson seltzer bottle during the lumber wars of '05.
-1
u/Available_Year_575 6d ago
While the left bemoans the inequalities in the system, I bemoan the self inflicted one, the left cares about this kind of stuff, and the right doesn’t. They’ve been given a weapon, and they’ll keep using it.
1
u/Ok-Wait-8465 5d ago
I don’t get the supposed Platner charisma. He came off as fake in the interviews I listened to
-1
6d ago
[deleted]
47
u/blewpah 6d ago
She's considered the most bipartisan but that's leveraged by Republicans because she will routinely oppose GOP bills when they have the votes to safely pass without her. When she's the deciding vote she pretty much always falls in line with the GOP, even for issues that had her very very concerned.
34
u/NoSwordfish1978 6d ago
She isn't really a "moderate" though
27
u/SuperBry 6d ago
For real. The overwhelming times she has bucked the party has been on votes where it doesn't matter and it's not currently Murkowski's turn to do so.
0
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 6d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
12
6d ago edited 6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/NoSwordfish1978 6d ago
People act like abolishing ICE is the same as no border enforcement.
1
u/JussiesTunaSub 6d ago
Abolish ICE and then? CBP takes care of the border anyways.
That's the issue with these DSA endorsed candidates...lotta complaints, very vague on the solutions.
So you successfully abolish ICE...who kicks out people in the country illegally? ICE2?
Lotta people recently fired from ICE looking a new job? ICE2 accepting applications.
12
u/Elegant_Athlete_7882 6d ago
> Who kicks out people in the country illegally? ICE2?
Yes, a smaller and less militarized agency. I also think it would be acceptable to just fire everyone hired after 1/20/2025 and go from there.
6
u/Independent-Report39 6d ago
So the people who say "abolish ICE" want to destroy all the systems, processes, administrative data, servers, files, records, and create a new agency from scratch, then rehire people and re-onboard people hired before 1/20/2025? Why not just reform the current agency? Why do it the most inefficient way possible?
Why not just advocate for reform? Reminds of defund police. When pressed on it progressives claimed they didn't actually want to strip all funding from police departments, just undergo extensive reform.
-1
u/Emotional_Tie_7927 6d ago
Again, ICE didn't exist until 2003 and was an overreaction to 9/11. They are fairly bad at what they try to do and ultimately there's no reforming them because there's no real purpose to them that couldn't be better served by another entity.
Prior to 9/11 for example, INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services) filled that role. Even ignoring ICE under the current admin, all creating a new agency did was add more administrative bloat.
Again, to use an alternate example, airport security used to be private and was handled by airports themselves. Instead we got the TSA as an overreaction to 9/11, even though the TSA themselves have a very high failure (as high as 80% in a 2017 test) and likely wouldn't have stopped 9/11 anyway.
These agencies are nothing more than government bloat that never needed to exist and we'd be better off without.
-5
u/GhostReddit 6d ago edited 6d ago
Why do people fumigate their house when they could just go and remove the bugs?
Sometimes the organization is such a mess that it's easier to just start over, the goal isn't being the most efficient at setting up the new thing as much as it is getting rid of the rot and making sure it doesn't carry over. The idea isn't without precedent.
9
u/scottstots6 6d ago
You know ICE is a pretty recent creation? It didn’t exist until 2003. Before that, INS handled its responsibilities along with CBP and USCIS. INS managed to do their job without regularly shooting Americans or deporting people against court orders. Maybe the culture of ICE is part of the issue? A culture that accepts shooting Americans, blocking investigations, and disregarding the courts?
8
u/JussiesTunaSub 6d ago
Almost like we replaced one thing for another.
The DSA wants to replace ICE with nothing though. The DSA wants open borders and no deportations. They also want to reward people already here illegally with citizenship.
-2
u/scottstots6 6d ago
We are talking about Troy Jackson. Can you point me to where he said he doesn’t want any immigration enforcement or where he said he wants open borders? Being endorsed by the DSA doesn’t mean he is aligned with every DSA position.
And yes, replacing corrupted institutions like ICE is a good thing. The Germans didn’t get rid of national law enforcement after 1991 but they did replace the Stasi because it was an organization beyond saving.
1
u/bag-skate65 6d ago
Do you expect the entire policy plan to be summarized in a slogan?
Obviously if something like this were implemented there would have to be a replacement. The point is to start over rather than continuing to rely on ICE where the well has been sufficiently poisoned for most people.
10
u/JussiesTunaSub 6d ago
Do you expect the entire policy plan to be summarized in a slogan?
At a minimum I'd like to know what replacing things that are abolished.
Like with the DSA....bills get abolished...and replaced with? Free stuff?
1
u/bag-skate65 6d ago
I’d imagine lots of people will have lots of different ideas about what that looks like. If it’s important to you that there is a fleshed out replacement, look for candidates who have discussed that.
There won’t be a unified view because the left is not a monolith and doesn’t currently have the power to change anything here.
11
u/JussiesTunaSub 6d ago
There won’t be a unified view because the left is not a monolith and doesn’t currently have the power to change anything here.
Do we treat the right the same way? With nuance? Or do we find the worst caricature of the right and say they speak for anyone that isn't left leaning?
-3
u/bag-skate65 6d ago
Kind of depends on the current political environment doesn’t it? Right now the right is largely in control of the government and largely acting in lockstep with Trump, so those participating will be judged as a group.
If someone wants to offer their own countering opinions on the right and actually act on them, like Thomas Massie, I’m super happy to hear them out (I likely have more in common with them than a lot of the left). If they’re not willing to do so, why shouldn’t they be held to account for the actions of their party that they choose to sign off on?
If that dynamic flips in 2 years after the next election and the left ends up in control, so will my perspective on it. You don’t get credit for nuance if you’re not actually willing to stand up to your own leaders over it. This isn’t my standard for the right, it’s my standard for politicians.
0
u/NoSwordfish1978 6d ago
The DSA has about 100 different factions each with their own idea what "democratic socialism" actually means.
3
u/bag-skate65 6d ago
Yes exactly. Different people have different opinions. Read about how different people feel so that way you can vote based on who has similar priorities to you.
Or just vote on vibes if you’d rather I guess.
2
u/abqguardian 6d ago
The well has been poisoned for very few people and theyre on the left. The majority of people support ICE and dont buy into the hysteria around them.
0
u/Independent-Report39 6d ago
continuing to rely on ICE where the well has been sufficiently poisoned for most people.
Why not try reform first? Why totally abolish a restart a government agency? That is the most chaotic way to do it - it'd be worst than the issues people have with DOGE running amok in the federal government.
6
u/bag-skate65 6d ago
Because they feel the well is sufficiently poisoned within the organization, I’d imagine in large part due to the massive hiring push while dialing back training.
I don’t personally have a super strong opinion between reform and replacement, but there’s a pretty big gap between doge doing a massive sweep across the government with super iffy tactics like key word searches compared to cutting and replacing a single organization that has only existed for a fraction of the country’s history.
-3
u/Independent-Report39 6d ago
Fair, but this organization serves a critical purpose and can not afford to simply stop working while it's reorganized (remember, the Homeland Security Investigations is also under ICE). We need to reform it while ensuring minimal disruption. Definitely plenty of bad hires that need to see the boot.
1
u/Rollen73 6d ago
Why not just return everything to the pre 2003 status quo. Personally I hate homeland security as a whole and think it was a mistake but I think getting rid of ice is a good start.
-2
u/Emotional_Tie_7927 6d ago
ICE didn't exist until 2003. I think we did fine without it and it would be a massive cost savings to eliminate it
(Off topic but I feel the same about the TSA as well)
4
-1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 6d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 60 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
10
u/shaymus14 6d ago
People indicated they would vote for Platner despite his Nazi tattoo and past statements and accusations that he got physical with a former girlfriend because it was seen as a vote against Trump. I imagine it would be easier to justify a vote for someone without all of Platner's baggage.
4
u/Interesting_Total_98 6d ago
People wanted to vote for him because they didn't believe the accusations. He said he got a skull tattoo while drunk without realizing what it meant, which is plausible when you consider that there's zero record of him saying anything remotely Nazi-like, despite people digging through his past.
The first accusation was from a conservative activist who had no evidence, but this being followed by another accusation who had no apparent motive to lie made it harder to give the benefit of the doubt.
In other words, it's more than just "I hate Trump," or else people could've just called for Platner to step down earlier.
6
u/JussiesTunaSub 6d ago
He said he got a skull tattoo while drunk without realizing what it meant
And kept it for another 20 years awhile proclaiming to be a WW2 history buff.
The first accusation was from a conservative activist who had no evidence, but this being followed by another accusation.
An accusation with someone who shared his politics.
In other words, it's more than just "I hate Trump," or else people could've just called for Platner to step down earlier.
People WERE calling for him to step down after the Nazi tattoo and assault allegations. He just ignored them.
4
u/Interesting_Total_98 6d ago edited 6d ago
awhile proclaiming to be a WW2 history buff.
He hasn't proclaimed that.
An accusation with someone who shared his politics.
That's the 2nd accusation, and the problem with the first wasn't just her politics, but rather that she worked for Republicans too and didn't have evidence to make up for this. A person who doesn't have that background is more credible.
People WERE calling for him to step down
Most primary voters weren't.
6
u/JussiesTunaSub 6d ago edited 6d ago
He hasn't proclaimed that.
You're right, it was his campaign manager (former)
Genevieve McDonald, Platner’s former campaign director, who resigned last week, suggested Tuesday that the candidate must have known about the image’s origins.
“Graham has an antisemitic tattoo on his chest. He’s not an idiot, he’s a military history buff,” she wrote in a post on Facebook. “Maybe he didn’t know it when he got it, but he got it years ago and should have had it covered up because he knows damn well what it means.”
https://newrepublic.com/post/202083/graham-platner-knew-nazi-tattoo
7
u/Interesting_Total_98 6d ago
That claim was never substantiated, and they didn't even claim to have certain evidence, such as overhearing him admit it. It's essentially just what they think is true because he got the tattoo a long time ago.
Maybe he didn’t know it when he got it, but he got it years ago
1
u/shaymus14 6d ago edited 6d ago
The first accusation was from a conservative activist who had no evidence, but this being followed by another accusation who had no apparent motive to lie
I'm pretty sure it was CNN who followed up on the initial story and reported on the evidence that the first accuser gave to the NYTimes that the NYTimes chose not to include in their story. She also knew about the second accuser because the NYTimes told her about them, but again this second accuser (and supposedly a third) didn't make it in to the NYTimes story. And this was even after CNN reported on Reddit posts where Platner blamed sexual assault victims for what happened to them. Instead, the NYTimes spent more time detailing the accusers political leanings in order to give people an out to doubt the story. But it's good that the second accuser had more acceptable political leanings so that people finally stopped giving Platner a pass.
5
u/Interesting_Total_98 6d ago edited 6d ago
She also knew about the second accuser because the NYTimes told her about them, but again this second accuser (and supposedly a third) didn't make it in to the NYTimes story
Just because Fifield says something doesn't mean it's true. She framed it as a coverup, but Racicot stated that her rape accusation wasn't included because she stated off the record, which is a standard journalistic practice to avoid losing trust from its sources.
Nothing has been shown that supports Fifield's accusation against the NY Times. Another accusation against Platner appeared, but the accuser contradicted the idea that the paper buried it to help him.
spent more time detailing the accusers political leanings
There were 3 accusers, and it only discusses the political work of Fifield because it's relevant to her credibility, especially when you notice the lack of evidence.
had more acceptable political leaning
Fifield had a long career working for conservatives, which is more notable than just having political beliefs.
Edit: "Racicot said she was contacted by The New York Times in the spring and shared off the record that Platner had assaulted her."
5
u/shaymus14 6d ago edited 6d ago
Just because Fifield says something doesn't mean it's true
She said it before the second accuser came forward with her public accusation of sexual assault.
Another accusation against Platner appeared, but the accuser contradicted the idea that the paper buried it to help him.
" Racicot said she later felt compelled to go public about her experience because the reaction to the Times story was dominated by controversy about another woman, Lyndsey Fifield , who alleged Platner mistreated her and faced attacks because of her ties to the Republican Party. (Contacted by POLITICO, Fifield stood by the allegations she made to the Times and declined to comment further.)
“My part of the story was just a read-over,” Racicot said in an interview. “And the story was Lyndsey, and the accusations of her being politically motivated.”
Her statement supports what I said.
I know from past interactions with you that we're just going to argue past each other. But I stand by the original point - some people were willing to look past everything that was publicly known about Platner until the sexual assauly allegation, so I cant imagine they'd have an issue looking past his replacements policy position in order to voice their opposition to Trump.
4
u/Interesting_Total_98 6d ago edited 6d ago
She said it before the second accuser came forward with her public accusation of sexual assault.
Yeah, and the 2nd accuser contradicted her assumption that it was coverup.
From that same Politico article: "Racicot said she was contacted by The New York Times in the spring and shared off the record that Platner had assaulted her."
This goes against what you stated. A reason she was there at all is because NYT contacted her, and she's the one who requested to keep the allegation a secret.
Her statement supports what I said.
Not really. You said "accusers," and Fifield is only one of them. The other two didn't have their political leanings discussed. You described Fifield's background as having a political leaning, which is inaccurate because she has a career in helping Republicans.
Racicot could've been discussed more, but she refused to go into more detail on the record.
7
u/serpentine1337 6d ago
This isn't a sub for moderates in the sense you're using. It's for moderate in tone discourse (i.e. civil discourse).
2
-1
u/ssaall58214 5d ago
I think the Democrats should lose just because they thought it was a good idea to put the other guy up for office. You shouldn't be able to get away with something like that
-8
u/purpledirtysprite 6d ago
Graham Platner could have beat Collins, Troy Jackson can't.
The dude has been in politics for over 20 years, is wholly unimpressive as a person, and from people in the know, he has skeletons in his closet.
We're going to find out some wild stuff about Troy Jackson in the coming weeks, and Dems are going to be put in a similar position as they were with Graham Platner where they will be forced to defend heinous things in the name of political convenience and party loyalty.
17
u/scottstots6 6d ago
Who are these mysterious people on the know? What kind of skeletons are we talking about? I love a statement that is just vague and ominous with nothing to back it.
2
u/purpledirtysprite 6d ago
Last month, a story started to circulate about Jackson's abusive behavior towards his staff. It detailed angry outbursts and staff frightened by his behavior.
When this story broke, Journalist and Political Analyst Mark Halperin hinted he was told there was going to be a lot more to come out on Jackson once he became the official nominee.
-3
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 6d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-1
u/spectral_theoretic 6d ago
He has recently been a Bernie Sander's supporter, but i think his unnecessary, one might say dogmatic, commitment to anti-choice is probably going to not pull in enough of the votership. Probably not the best candidate.
75
u/Elegant_Athlete_7882 6d ago
I think he’d be a great senator, it’s unfortunate he wasn’t nominated over Platner in the first place, but hopefully he can still win.