They Don't Really Care About Anything

Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube

Graham Platner’s rapid rise as Maine’s Democratic Senate frontrunner has collided with a string of scandals that should, by the left’s own past rhetoric, end his candidacy. Instead, the response exposes a hypocrisy so mechanical it undermines every moral claim the progressive movement made during the Trump years.

Platner, a 41-year-old Marine combat veteran and oyster farmer, announced his bid in August 2025 with a viral video attacking the “oligarchy” and long-serving Republican Sen. Susan Collins. He quickly became the anti-establishment darling, endorsed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and major unions. Polls showed him crushing Gov. Janet Mills in the primary and competitive against Collins in November. Then the baggage surfaced.

The most recent revelation: Platner exchanged sexually explicit text messages with multiple women early in his 2023 marriage. His wife discovered them, reported the matter to campaign leadership last year, and the issue was handled privately—reportedly with counseling. When the New York Times and Wall Street Journal published the story days before the primary, Platner dismissed it as “gossip” and “journalistic malpractice.” His wife called the coverage “shameful” and urged focus on “the issues.” Some Democrats muttered about “questions to answer,” but the campaign and base largely treated it as a distraction.

Contrast this with the left’s treatment of Donald Trump. A private, crude conversation on the Access Hollywood tape was framed as dispositive proof of predation. Multiple accusations—some unverified, some litigated—triggered “believe all women” absolutism and demands for disqualification. A consensual adult affair with a nondisclosure agreement became 34 felony counts and years of “unfit” coverage. The principle was clear: personal sexual conduct while married, especially when it surfaces publicly, reveals character flaws too grave for high office. That principle vanished the moment the offender wore a populist left label and delivered the desired economic messaging.

The pattern repeats with Platner’s 2013 Reddit post on sexual assault. Discussing anti-rape underwear, he wrote that people worried about assault should “take some responsibility for themselves and not get so fucked up they wind up having sex with someone they don’t mean to,” adding that adults should avoid compromising situations rather than expect society to protect every lapse in judgment. He has apologized, attributing the comment to post-combat PTSD and disillusionment. The left’s response has been contextualization: “old posts,” “not reflective of who he is today,” “crude but human.”

During the Trump era, any suggestion that alcohol or personal choices played a role in assault cases was denounced as victim-blaming and rape-culture apologetics. The left built an entire movement on zero tolerance for such minimization. Platner’s words were more direct than anything Trump ever said publicly. Yet the same voices that weaponized #MeToo against Trump now treat Platner’s record as forgivable youthful edge. The logical inconsistency is not subtle: the rule was never “minimize assault at your peril.” It was “minimize assault if you are the wrong politician.”

Racial comments follow the same script. Platner asked why Black people “don’t tip” and agreed rural white Americans “actually are” racist and stupid. He has apologized. The reaction has been muted—another data point from an angry veteran who has since evolved. Trump, by contrast, was branded a racist for policy disagreements, a single sentence about Charlottesville that explicitly condemned Nazis, and blunt language about certain countries. Every instance was evidence of structural bigotry requiring national atonement. Platner’s explicit generalizations receive the benefit of the doubt the left never extended to Trump. If crude racial language disqualifies, it disqualifies universally. Selective application reveals the claim was never about principle; it was about power.

The Nazi tattoo is the starkest example. Platner inked a skull-and-crossbones design on his chest in 2007 while intoxicated with fellow Marines. The image closely matches the Totenkopf, the death’s-head insignia of the Nazi SS. He wore it for 18 years and covered it only after scrutiny as a candidate. He claims ignorance of its meaning. Reporting has raised doubts about that claim. For a decade, the left labeled Trump “Hitler,” his supporters “Nazis,” and any right-of-center skepticism “fascism.” January 6th became an “insurrection” by extremists. The rhetorical inflation was relentless. Now a Democratic candidate literally bore an SS symbol for nearly two decades? The response is “he didn’t know,” “he covered it up,” “not a secret Nazi.” Some Democrats have called it disqualifying; most have moved on. The Nazi label, deployed as the ultimate moral weapon against the right, suddenly loses its force when inconvenient. That is not moral clarity. It is tribal exemption.

Platner’s other posts—endorsing political violence with “fists and guns if need be,” calling for an “armed working class,” identifying as a communist, and saying “all cops are bastards”—receive similar treatment. Context and apology suffice. Trump’s January 6th rhetoric, which included explicit calls for peace, was treated as incitement. The 2020 riots, far more destructive, were contextualized as righteous anger. The left’s tolerance for political violence has always been directional.

The deeper issue is not Platner’s fitness—voters in Maine will judge that. It is the left’s demonstrated willingness to abandon every standard it spent years imposing on the opposition the moment one of its own becomes useful. This is not evolution or forgiveness. It is the substitution of partisan utility for consistent principle. When sexual conduct, victim-blaming language, racial generalizations, Nazi iconography, and calls to armed struggle are disqualifying only for Republicans, the claims lose all credibility. #MeToo becomes selective enforcement. Racism becomes a club rather than a category. “Character matters” becomes a slogan deployed against enemies and ignored for allies.

American politics has always contained hypocrisy. What is new is the scale and the institutional capture. Major media outlets that led the charge against Trump reported Platner’s scandals factually but watched the Democratic response remain largely procedural rather than existential. Progressive commentators have defended or minimized where they once amplified. The result is a politics in which rules exist to constrain one side and are waived for the other. That arrangement is unsustainable. It breeds cynicism, erodes trust in institutions, and teaches citizens that power, not principle, determines accountability.

Platner may well win his primary and challenge Collins effectively. His message resonates with voters tired of elite failure. But the episode surrounding him demonstrates that the left’s moral framework is not a fixed set of values but a flexible tool. True accountability requires the same yardstick for everyone—Trump, Platner, or any future candidate. Until that standard returns, every lecture about character, racism, sexual misconduct, or extremism will ring hollow, recognized as the partisan weapon it has become.

Voters deserve better than selective outrage dressed as moral clarity. Reason demands consistency. The Platner saga makes that demand impossible to ignore.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!'