You really boiled it down to the bare essence of the arguments against Platner, or any candidate. Perception is everything! Those that consume an exclusive diet of right wing punditry may, to this day, not be aware of Trump's statement about women, his grift and that of his family, his Epstein connections, the list is endless. Their perception of Trump is far more positive then people that balance their news consumption. Perception wins in the court of public opinion. Platner, Swalwell, and whoever else stands accused deserve their day in court. They do not necessarily deserve to ask us for our trust. #Holdfast
Kristine...you closed with a sentence that deserves to be carved over the door:
"They deserve their day in court. They do not necessarily deserve to ask us for our trust."
That's the entire article in eighteen words. Court is a right. Trust is EARNED...applied for...reviewed...and revocable. Nobody's owed a Senate seat any more than they're owed my house keys.
Your point about the diet cuts deep: perception isn't just what happens to voters...it's what's FED to them.
Two Americas consuming two menus...each certain the other is starving. That's why the vetting matters SO MUCH on our side of the fence: we can't control their kitchen... but we can damn sure control what we serve!
This, in my opinion , is why you only have negative political ads on television. Whomever gets in the first insult wins because it puts the opposition on defense meaning that they now have to use facts and evidence to prove to the public that the public was lied to or were scammed. Politicians hate facts. They hate evidence. They love perception. Throwing the bullshit flag once the referee has made their proclamation seldom wins. Given that over 90%, my estimate, of politicians have zero professional integrity, we as an audience are subjected to a constant barrage of insults. If anyone with a tenth of a brain analyzed what was claimed in these ads, they wouldn't vote for any of them.
This is why the largest voting block in our elections are the people who don't vote. They think their choice is between the jerk and the asshole. So they say what's the use and don't vote, or if they do they do decide to cast their ballot they do for the candidate they hate the least. I's no wonder congress is populated with con-artists.
The first insult wins because defense costs facts...and offense only costs breath. A lie is airborne in six words...while truth is still lacing its boots. Sad, but true.
But...here's the pushback; you walked up to the con's final move...and almost bought it. "What's the use, don't vote" isn't the audience's conclusion.
It's the PRODUCT.
The barrage isn't trying to win your vote; it's trying to send you home. A disgusted non-voter....costs nothing and unilaterally disarms.
The non-voting block isn't escaping the con. It's the con's FINEST harvest. Staying in the booth...clear-eyed and unimpressed...is the one move the machine can't price.
Well put. My meeting with my Democratic candidate for the House seat currently held by a Republican is in two days. I am offering him an opportunity to minimize the con. Let's see if he takes actions or just throws his hands up in resignation.
Jack, I have been so dismayed by the number of comments from people who SUPPORT Platner and don't understand the nature of sexual abuse. They are clamoring, "Why didn't she report earlier? Why not go to the police?" all the usual blame-the-victim reports. Fact is, the Nazi tattoo would have disqualified him for me. I just don't understand people. YOU, I understand. Thanks.
Many people on social media I've seen commenting appear to be less principled when it comes to some of the issues they claim are so important to them... than they usually project.
That is what has disturbed me the most. They claim to be "progressive" but are exhibiting the exact opposite. Makes me very, well, angry and sad both. As you said in your earlier report, VETTING by his own party, his own team should have disqualified him months ago.
The Court of Public Opinion is called to order. If an employee is arrested for pilfering stock or taking withdrawals from the cash register, he or she doesn't get to keep his or her job until convicted. Citing common sense.
Back in the 90s an employee where I worked was indicted for sexually abusing kids he coached in a youth soccer league, for a long time. He eventually plead guilty on two counts of sodomy on a child and is still in prison. But during that period of time between arrest and conviction the agency was afraid to fire him until conviction. Dumb buggers. Then, after he received numerous death threats seemingly coming from inside the building, they put the fucker on paid leave. They chose not to believe the paralegal, me, and took the, chickenshit approach.
In this case, Bratner will likely not be charged and therefore will always be innocent in the eyes of the law. That does not and can not mean Maine should want him to represent them in the Senate if they have heard the evidence that has come to light and made their decision.
Sue P...you brought the perfect exhibit to the courtroom...and you were right there for it.
Your agency confused two questions and paid in cowardice: "Can we convict this man?"...a prosecutor's problem...and "Can we trust him around the mission?"...which was THEIRS...answerable the day the evidence surfaced.
Every credential to keep him was legal. Every reason to ACT was already in the building. And...notice who saw it clearly: NOT the lawyers upstairs. The paralegal. The person closest to the facts...and FURTHEST from the fear.
Your last paragraph nails the Platner math exactly.
He may never be charged...LEGALLY innocent forever...and that presumption deserves full protection. BUT...Maine voters are NOT a jury...and a Senate seat is NOT a verdict. It's a trust decision...and trust runs on the evidence you HAVE...not the conviction you're waiting on.
Common sense was never in contempt of court. It just sits in a different one.
Perception is everything. The democrats try to hold standards and expect that of those they run as candidates. They are not always successful but do at least try to act with integrity. Republicans are a patriarchy party and they value women a whole lot less. They go for the vibe and how they can attain their ideal grift. Forget the honesty and integrity, give me the grift. Even with proof and the Epstein investigation, they prefer deaf ears as long as it keeps the in their preferred lifestyle. Those that discount over half of the population as not valued deserve our contempt and not worthy of our trust.
I'm a fan of most of your writing, Jack. That said, I want to be sure to communicate to you that THIS PIECE in particular is a bullseye in terms of deciphering the political woo-woo, rhetoric (which most people simply do not comprehend), and straight across FACTS. I so appreciate your focus on critical thinking and the negative "suck" of people's focus its absence creates. I'm also aware of the kindness through which you write to all of us in this group; we might hold or might have held (gee, do you think I might be talking about myself here?) some unwise/really fkd up political views along the way but you're not shaming anyone for that. Your generosity of spirit invites people *in* rather than, well, you know--doing that Republican thing.
That's an insightful distinction. Every leader is judged twice - first by perception and later by results. The challenge is that perception moves much faster than evidence, which makes trust one of the hardest things to build and the easiest to lose.
Jack is correct: two courts, two thresholds, and Americans keep applying the wrong one to the wrong question.
But I’d sharpen one thing his framing leaves implicit. History is instructive not because Democrats “invented” this standard, but because it shows which standard survives contact with power. Franken resigned. Schneiderman resigned within hours. Cuomo resigned. Trump did not — not after Access Hollywood, not after E. Jean Carroll, not after impeachment, not after conviction on 34 felony counts. He was elected twice.
File that asymmetry carefully. It isn’t proof that one party has integrity and the other doesn’t. It’s evidence of something more structural: institutions that still depend on collective trust — a caucus, a state party, a newsroom — respond to loss of confidence quickly, because the institution’s own legitimacy is at stake. Institutions that have consolidated enough power to no longer need collective trust — a base that will not abandon him, a party apparatus that will not discipline him — don’t respond to it at all.
That is the deeper pattern under Jack’s “two courts.” The court of public opinion only renders a verdict where the accused still needs the public’s opinion. Where he doesn’t, perception stops being a constraint and becomes decoration.
Note what that means going forward: the same accusation will end one candidate’s career and do nothing to another’s, not because voters are inconsistent, but because power, once sufficiently concentrated, exits the courtroom Jack is describing altogether.
One more thread worth pulling, since it’s easy to miss inside the immediate Platner story. Note the sequencing each time this pattern repeats: allegation surfaces, base holds, institution eventually gives up trying to enforce a standard it cannot make stick, and the standard itself gets quietly retired rather than the man. That is how a norm dies — not by a single dramatic reversal, but by attrition, one exception at a time, until the exception is the rule.
File this one too: every time the “two courts” framework fails to produce a resignation, it doesn’t just fail once. It lowers the bar for the next accusation, against the next candidate, in either party. Precedent is not a metaphor here. It is mechanical. Maine Democrats moving quickly on Platner is not only about Platner — it is an attempt to keep the mechanism itself intact, before the exception becomes permanent.
That is the real stake Jack’s piece is naming, even if the word “precedent” doesn’t appear in it: whether accountability is still a functioning process, or just a phrase both parties invoke selectively while the actual deciding variable is how much power the accused already holds.
Angry Prole...I'll give you the same straight talk I give everyone in this room...regardless of direction:
Any sentence that sorts every human being who disagrees with you into "liar, opportunist, or dupe" isn't analysis. It's a door slamming.
That framework has a FATAL flaw, and it's not moral...it's mathematical. If everyone who disagrees is corrupt or brainwashed...you've built a theory that can never be wrong...and a theory that can never be wrong...can never teach you anything.
The fear-farmers I write about...run the exact same software with different labels loaded:
OUR side sees; THEIR side is bought or blind.
Left or right...that code compiles the same way...into contempt...and contempt organizes nothing.
Critique capitalism all you want here; corruption, capture, the bought Congress. I write about it weekly...and the wounds are real.
But...the moment the argument becomes "everyone who disagrees is defective," you've stopped trying to persuade the very working people you'd need to WIN anything.
The measure of a movement...isn't the purity of its enemies list. It's who it can still talk to.
You really boiled it down to the bare essence of the arguments against Platner, or any candidate. Perception is everything! Those that consume an exclusive diet of right wing punditry may, to this day, not be aware of Trump's statement about women, his grift and that of his family, his Epstein connections, the list is endless. Their perception of Trump is far more positive then people that balance their news consumption. Perception wins in the court of public opinion. Platner, Swalwell, and whoever else stands accused deserve their day in court. They do not necessarily deserve to ask us for our trust. #Holdfast
Kristine...you closed with a sentence that deserves to be carved over the door:
"They deserve their day in court. They do not necessarily deserve to ask us for our trust."
That's the entire article in eighteen words. Court is a right. Trust is EARNED...applied for...reviewed...and revocable. Nobody's owed a Senate seat any more than they're owed my house keys.
Your point about the diet cuts deep: perception isn't just what happens to voters...it's what's FED to them.
Two Americas consuming two menus...each certain the other is starving. That's why the vetting matters SO MUCH on our side of the fence: we can't control their kitchen... but we can damn sure control what we serve!
#Holdfast
-Jack
This, in my opinion , is why you only have negative political ads on television. Whomever gets in the first insult wins because it puts the opposition on defense meaning that they now have to use facts and evidence to prove to the public that the public was lied to or were scammed. Politicians hate facts. They hate evidence. They love perception. Throwing the bullshit flag once the referee has made their proclamation seldom wins. Given that over 90%, my estimate, of politicians have zero professional integrity, we as an audience are subjected to a constant barrage of insults. If anyone with a tenth of a brain analyzed what was claimed in these ads, they wouldn't vote for any of them.
This is why the largest voting block in our elections are the people who don't vote. They think their choice is between the jerk and the asshole. So they say what's the use and don't vote, or if they do they do decide to cast their ballot they do for the candidate they hate the least. I's no wonder congress is populated with con-artists.
Steven...you've reverse-engineered the machine:
The first insult wins because defense costs facts...and offense only costs breath. A lie is airborne in six words...while truth is still lacing its boots. Sad, but true.
But...here's the pushback; you walked up to the con's final move...and almost bought it. "What's the use, don't vote" isn't the audience's conclusion.
It's the PRODUCT.
The barrage isn't trying to win your vote; it's trying to send you home. A disgusted non-voter....costs nothing and unilaterally disarms.
The non-voting block isn't escaping the con. It's the con's FINEST harvest. Staying in the booth...clear-eyed and unimpressed...is the one move the machine can't price.
-Jack
Well put. My meeting with my Democratic candidate for the House seat currently held by a Republican is in two days. I am offering him an opportunity to minimize the con. Let's see if he takes actions or just throws his hands up in resignation.
GREAT WRITING!
Thank you, Roberta.
-Jack
Jack, I have been so dismayed by the number of comments from people who SUPPORT Platner and don't understand the nature of sexual abuse. They are clamoring, "Why didn't she report earlier? Why not go to the police?" all the usual blame-the-victim reports. Fact is, the Nazi tattoo would have disqualified him for me. I just don't understand people. YOU, I understand. Thanks.
Roberta...you're welcome.
I find it disturbing. I do.
Many people on social media I've seen commenting appear to be less principled when it comes to some of the issues they claim are so important to them... than they usually project.
-Jack
That is what has disturbed me the most. They claim to be "progressive" but are exhibiting the exact opposite. Makes me very, well, angry and sad both. As you said in your earlier report, VETTING by his own party, his own team should have disqualified him months ago.
The Court of Public Opinion is called to order. If an employee is arrested for pilfering stock or taking withdrawals from the cash register, he or she doesn't get to keep his or her job until convicted. Citing common sense.
Back in the 90s an employee where I worked was indicted for sexually abusing kids he coached in a youth soccer league, for a long time. He eventually plead guilty on two counts of sodomy on a child and is still in prison. But during that period of time between arrest and conviction the agency was afraid to fire him until conviction. Dumb buggers. Then, after he received numerous death threats seemingly coming from inside the building, they put the fucker on paid leave. They chose not to believe the paralegal, me, and took the, chickenshit approach.
In this case, Bratner will likely not be charged and therefore will always be innocent in the eyes of the law. That does not and can not mean Maine should want him to represent them in the Senate if they have heard the evidence that has come to light and made their decision.
Sue P...you brought the perfect exhibit to the courtroom...and you were right there for it.
Your agency confused two questions and paid in cowardice: "Can we convict this man?"...a prosecutor's problem...and "Can we trust him around the mission?"...which was THEIRS...answerable the day the evidence surfaced.
Every credential to keep him was legal. Every reason to ACT was already in the building. And...notice who saw it clearly: NOT the lawyers upstairs. The paralegal. The person closest to the facts...and FURTHEST from the fear.
Your last paragraph nails the Platner math exactly.
He may never be charged...LEGALLY innocent forever...and that presumption deserves full protection. BUT...Maine voters are NOT a jury...and a Senate seat is NOT a verdict. It's a trust decision...and trust runs on the evidence you HAVE...not the conviction you're waiting on.
Common sense was never in contempt of court. It just sits in a different one.
Thanks for sharing, Sue!
-Jack
So a consummate master of the confidence game sits on his throne giggling at the water boys with their leaky little buckets full of facts.
Buck...I think that pretty much sums it up.
-Jack
Nice one Jack!
Perception is everything.
Thank you, Mo. It really is.
-Jack
Concise and succinct, as usual! Great reminder of the emotional side to politics.
#HoldFast
Perception is everything. The democrats try to hold standards and expect that of those they run as candidates. They are not always successful but do at least try to act with integrity. Republicans are a patriarchy party and they value women a whole lot less. They go for the vibe and how they can attain their ideal grift. Forget the honesty and integrity, give me the grift. Even with proof and the Epstein investigation, they prefer deaf ears as long as it keeps the in their preferred lifestyle. Those that discount over half of the population as not valued deserve our contempt and not worthy of our trust.
#HoldFast
I'm a fan of most of your writing, Jack. That said, I want to be sure to communicate to you that THIS PIECE in particular is a bullseye in terms of deciphering the political woo-woo, rhetoric (which most people simply do not comprehend), and straight across FACTS. I so appreciate your focus on critical thinking and the negative "suck" of people's focus its absence creates. I'm also aware of the kindness through which you write to all of us in this group; we might hold or might have held (gee, do you think I might be talking about myself here?) some unwise/really fkd up political views along the way but you're not shaming anyone for that. Your generosity of spirit invites people *in* rather than, well, you know--doing that Republican thing.
That's an insightful distinction. Every leader is judged twice - first by perception and later by results. The challenge is that perception moves much faster than evidence, which makes trust one of the hardest things to build and the easiest to lose.
Jack is correct: two courts, two thresholds, and Americans keep applying the wrong one to the wrong question.
But I’d sharpen one thing his framing leaves implicit. History is instructive not because Democrats “invented” this standard, but because it shows which standard survives contact with power. Franken resigned. Schneiderman resigned within hours. Cuomo resigned. Trump did not — not after Access Hollywood, not after E. Jean Carroll, not after impeachment, not after conviction on 34 felony counts. He was elected twice.
File that asymmetry carefully. It isn’t proof that one party has integrity and the other doesn’t. It’s evidence of something more structural: institutions that still depend on collective trust — a caucus, a state party, a newsroom — respond to loss of confidence quickly, because the institution’s own legitimacy is at stake. Institutions that have consolidated enough power to no longer need collective trust — a base that will not abandon him, a party apparatus that will not discipline him — don’t respond to it at all.
That is the deeper pattern under Jack’s “two courts.” The court of public opinion only renders a verdict where the accused still needs the public’s opinion. Where he doesn’t, perception stops being a constraint and becomes decoration.
Note what that means going forward: the same accusation will end one candidate’s career and do nothing to another’s, not because voters are inconsistent, but because power, once sufficiently concentrated, exits the courtroom Jack is describing altogether.
One more thread worth pulling, since it’s easy to miss inside the immediate Platner story. Note the sequencing each time this pattern repeats: allegation surfaces, base holds, institution eventually gives up trying to enforce a standard it cannot make stick, and the standard itself gets quietly retired rather than the man. That is how a norm dies — not by a single dramatic reversal, but by attrition, one exception at a time, until the exception is the rule.
File this one too: every time the “two courts” framework fails to produce a resignation, it doesn’t just fail once. It lowers the bar for the next accusation, against the next candidate, in either party. Precedent is not a metaphor here. It is mechanical. Maine Democrats moving quickly on Platner is not only about Platner — it is an attempt to keep the mechanism itself intact, before the exception becomes permanent.
That is the real stake Jack’s piece is naming, even if the word “precedent” doesn’t appear in it: whether accountability is still a functioning process, or just a phrase both parties invoke selectively while the actual deciding variable is how much power the accused already holds.
Angry Prole...I'll give you the same straight talk I give everyone in this room...regardless of direction:
Any sentence that sorts every human being who disagrees with you into "liar, opportunist, or dupe" isn't analysis. It's a door slamming.
That framework has a FATAL flaw, and it's not moral...it's mathematical. If everyone who disagrees is corrupt or brainwashed...you've built a theory that can never be wrong...and a theory that can never be wrong...can never teach you anything.
The fear-farmers I write about...run the exact same software with different labels loaded:
OUR side sees; THEIR side is bought or blind.
Left or right...that code compiles the same way...into contempt...and contempt organizes nothing.
Critique capitalism all you want here; corruption, capture, the bought Congress. I write about it weekly...and the wounds are real.
But...the moment the argument becomes "everyone who disagrees is defective," you've stopped trying to persuade the very working people you'd need to WIN anything.
The measure of a movement...isn't the purity of its enemies list. It's who it can still talk to.
-Jack
Me thinks the gentleman doth protest too much!
Me thinks Angry Pole won't be participating any longer. He/She was not a good fit for this tribe.