Marines can have an unlimited number of tattoos that are covered by the properly fitting standard physical training uniform: green t-shirt and green shorts.
Marines are prohibited from getting tattoos on the head, neck, inside the mouth, wrists, knees, elbows and hands with the exception of a single band tattoo of no more than three-eighths of an inch in width on one finger.
So indeed, his arm tattoo would be illegal under the “new” rules, not his Totenkopf. But there is this-
Any tattoo, regardless of where it is cannot express sexism, nudity, racism, vulgarity, or anything that is offensive and is of nature to bring discredit to the Marine Corps or damage the nation’s expectations of them.
But Any Marine who has already been grandfathered will not be affected by the bulletin.
Platner enlisted in the Marine Corps shortly after graduating from high school in 2003.[1] He attended the Marine Corps School of Infantry, then deployed to Iraq in 2005.[6] He served a total of eight years in the military, including three combat tours in Iraq, in areas including Ramadi and Fallujah.[10] Asked why he served in the Iraq War after protesting it, Platner said, “I thought I could do some good. And I wanted to play soldier. I might have read too much Hemingway.”[11]
Platner himself said his Marine reenlistment was shut down because of his sleeve tattoos, which were in fact prohibited after his last enlistment ended. That’s why he went into the army.
The cite argues he must be lying, and that his chest tattoo must be what kept him out, since active duty Marines were exempt from the sleeve tattoo prohibition. The same cite that a few sentences prior acknowledged that he was looking to return to active duty (and therefore wouldn’t have been exempt).
ETA: They were looking to dispute Platner’s contention that he was unaware of the chest tattoo’s significance until recently. “Bullshit,” they’re arguing. “He knew what it was when the Marines shut him down.”
“Don’t tell us what to do” and resentment against leaders and experts are hallmarks of American politics over the past 50+ years. Look at the writings of Lee Atwater. Look at the rants against eggheads during the 1950s. Platner’s campaign seems pretty familiar to me: upstart attacks the establishment, sitting Senator emphasizes benefits of incumbancy.
Ah, okay, but that is him trying to re-enlist after his term in the Army National Guard, so he wouldnt be covered under the USMC’s tattoo grandfathered rules. But still, the arm tat was banned, my cites show that, and a vidoe interview isnt exactly something I would hang my hat on- when you are doing “off the cuff” stuff, your memories arent always correct.
Only once it was extremely politically inconvenient to have one. In other words, he has no problem with having a Nazi tattoo in and of itself, or with the message that having one sends. He only has a problem with the political consequences of having it.
That’s someone you absolutely should have a “hate on” for. I’m deeply disturbed by the fact that so many people don’t.
No, it’s the March 6 video. He specifically says he tried to reenlist in the Marines after trying a bit of college, but was turned down because of his sleeve tattoos. After that he enlisted in the Army.
Here’s the problem, I can find only one image of Platners old tat. It is a pretty generic skull and crossbones, that yes, looks a lot like a Totenkopf.
But- it also has non-Nazi symbolism- Including Pirates, British, Polish, the US army, and more.
So, we have no solid evidence he intended as a nazi symbol.
It (a totenkopf) does not have any non-Nazi symbolism. Neither Pirates, the British, the Poles, or the Americans use the Totenkopf symbol.
He didn’t have a jolly roger on his chest. It was a Totenkopf. End of story.
This isn’t like a Swastika, where there are non Nazi uses (although to my knowledge only the Nazis turn their swastika 45° to form a diamond instead of a square). But I can imagine a non-Nazi accidentally rotating their swastika; I can’t imagine a non Nazi getting a Totenkopf.
But I’ll go on the he record and say that if Platner was a pirate from the golden age of Caribbean piracy, that would probably also be disqualifying. Not as bad as being a Nazi, though.
I think Babale has things reversed. I only became aware of the Totenkopf after this scandal emerged. The Swastika is common knowledge. Yes, I’m dubious about Platner’s explanations, but let’s calibrate correctly.
BTW, there’s another candidate in the race named David Costello who lacks funding but seems to be a decent guy. Re-link to candidate pages:
Best case scenario: Graham Platner is an effective salesman for progressive policies in a purple state. Even conservative Dems should be able to appreciate this, if they are big tent Dems. I rate this as highly plausible. (P>20%)
Worst case scenario: Gotcha! Platner flips parties, supports mass deportation, gerrymandering, the Jan 6 rioters, and the end of civic democracy, then get primaried in 2030 because neither party likes turncoats in a 2 party system. I rate this highly unlikely. (P<5%)
Aside from worst case scenarios, I’m having difficulty locating policy issues where Platner would be worse than Collins. This isn’t the 1930s-1970s where conservative Dems can be worse than liberal Republicans.
ETA: Babale: Ok, maybe in India. Someone walking around with a Swastika tattoo in the US is most likely a Nazi. The odds of a non-drunk non-Nazi getting and keeping a Swastika in the US are low, much lower than getting a Totenkopf, which again I had never heard of a year ago.
ETA2:
This is a serious consideration. I think Chronus overstates it, but it’s a good reason for Maine Democrats to support someone else in the primary. Not slam dunk, but concerning.
ETA3: I’ve noticed the rise of anti-expertise, but I don’t see how Platner embodies this to any great or even unusual extent. This is old campaign stuff.
I didn’t say anything about relative level of awareness of swastikas vs the Totenkopf. I talked about the relative likelihood of someone using the symbol without being a Nazi.
I’m sure that every non-Nazi with a mirrored non-tilted swastika is well aware of the Nazi usage at this point, I can’t imagine it comes as a surprise to them.
If you haven’t noticed the rising tide of anti-expert opinion in recent years, you haven’t been paying attention. It’s been led by Trumpites, but a disturbing number of those on the Left have joined in. RFK Jr. had considerable support from certain “progressives” when he was running for President, and quite a few far-left and left-leaning MAHAnians are still with him.
If you think blowing up the “system” is the answer, rejection of expertise goes right along with it.
These two things don’t go together. If Congress manages to end democracy, then none of them get voted out.
And don’t forget how many other states Platner will lose for the Democrats. We’ve already lost Maine; we can’t afford to lose more. Which we will, if we support the Nazi.