Yeah I’m sorry if “oligarch” and “billionaire” are going to be arbitrarily redefined as suspicious dogwhistles, exactly what words are we supposed to use to refer to the, well, billionaire oligarchs who are despoiling our economies?
What’s stopped him from wooing the woowoos alweady? Has he just not been able to find them? Is he trying really hard, but none of the RFK set will let him on their podcast? Has he been too busy at his secret Stormfront meetings?
I think it’s a terrible bet that he’ll woo MAHA. If he was gonna do so, he woulda done so already.
As for the sleeve tattoos, I was unaware of Marine policy at the time, and the cites are pretty persuasive that the anti-sleeve policy is what kept him out of the Marines; thanks for those cites, even if they had the opposite effect of what’s intended! Moreover, they show a pretty strange conspiracy mindset about Platner from a lot of randos on Twitter. All this “surely someone would’ve told him!” nonsense is pure speculation unsupported by evidence.
Looking at his tattoo, I would’ve thought it was a weird Darth Vader helmet. It’s terrible work, and of course he shouldn’t have gotten a freaking Nazi tattoo; but I’m far from convinced that many people looked at it and correctly identified its provenance.
Oligarchs are also a favorite target of Bernie Sanders and a lot of other folks on the left–including a lot of leftist Jews. The most powerful Oligarchs in our society love snuggling up to Jesus; consider Trump, consider the Koch brothers (who donated to lots of evangelical groups like Moms for Liberty); consider Elon Musk (a “cultural Christian”); consider Peter Thiel. I’ve heard plenty on the left rail against these oligarchs and billionaires by name, but I don’t recall a single case of any elected leftist leader, much less Platner, railing against a Jewish oligarch by name.
Yes, but, I greatly fear, it’s necessary to tar rising pols with the anti-Semite brush because they do not unconditionally support Israel the way the Conservative Christian Republicans do. That support existing because they need Israel so Jesus can come back and all that, those in the know, that entails.
Also, ignore that those accusations support the anti-Semitic tropes that the Jews run the banks, the Jews are the oligarchs, etc, etc, etc.
I’m sure we’d all be equally charitable to Platner if he had a Klan hood tattoo. “I thought it was just a cool wizard!”.
No, because some symbols are much more well-known than others.
Swastikas, KKK hoods, and even the Nazi stylized SS symbol fall in the “well-known” category. There is essentially no adult of normal intelligence here in the U.S. who does not recognize them as a symbol of hate.
A Totenkopf falls into the less-well-known category (here in the U.S. anyway) to the point that someone could plausibly claim ignorance of its provenance.
Of course, Platner was a self described WWII history buff, and here’s a reddit comment from him 6 years ago talking about a solider with a Totenkopf on /r/combatfootage:
The link is blank (i.e. post deleted). In any event, I’ve not seen any evidence that the guy is a Nazi, even if he realized what it was a decade or more after getting the tattoo.
…yes, the post is deleted (I wonder why… 
), that’s why I linked you to Unndit which shows deleted posts. If you wait approximately 3 seconds on the page it should load the comment.
Lol. Lmao, even.
Nope, still not working. Maybe you could quote it?
Well, obviously nothing is going to convince you otherwise.
Because—in my opinion—the tattoo he got two decades ago as a young enlisted Marine doesn’t necessarily lead to that conclusion in the absence of any corroborating evidence. And I don’t mean vague references to billionaire oligarchs.
Bottom line, you seem to be applying this lifelong purity test that poor judgement, ignorance, or even prejudice can never be overcome. “He’s a Nazi; case closed!”, you’re essentially saying.
But what if you’re wrong?
And there are costs if you’re wrong, like throwing away a chance for the Democrats to gain control of the Senate. And maybe showing a way for the Democrats to appeal to the working-class Americans they seem to have lost in recent years.
The thing is, when I’m looking for Nazis, I’m looking for people proposing policies that hurt Jews, Roma, disabled people, queer people, etc. I’m looking for folks who espouse an ideology of hatred. If I’m looking for hidden Nazis, I’m looking for people who have a secret criminal history that they’re trying to cover up: maybe they spray painted swastikas on a synagogue, or were part of a Serbian death squad, or they torched a gay bar.
I’m not breaking out the cork board and yarn and thumbtacks to connect all the dots.
Platner deserves increased scrutiny because of his odious tattoo, and because of his willingness to go on populist right-wing podcasts. But that increased scrutiny is not turning up any of the things that would be truly disqualifying. I’m not seeing any policies he promotes that are odious. I’m not seeing any actions–not symbols but actions–that were motivated by bigotry. I’m not seeing a willingness to commit hate crimes.
He used wisdom as a dump stat, and that’s very concerning. But his alignment isn’t lawful evil: it appears to be chaotic good with stupid tendencies. Given the choice, I’ll take CGWST above LE.
If the only way for Democrats to appeal to working class Americans is to nominate fringe left illiberal horseshoe gap dwellers like Platner, then this country is on an irrevocable slide towards a Weimar-like failed state status follwed by one of the two sides winning and forming an extremist authoritarian dictatorship. No thanks.
The Democratic Party is the last bastion of Liberalism in the United States; the Republicans fell a decade ago. If the Democrats fall to Blue MAGA illiberals, it’s over.
It sounds like you are predisposed against Platner for his positions rather than his supposed Nazi connection. That sounds like a worthwhile topic of discussion. Why don’t you talk about that more instead of endlessly going on about him supposedly being a Nazi?
Secondly, what the Democrats have been doing up to now obviously hasn’t been working. While it doesn’t mean they should ape what Republicans are doing, they do need to find some way to appeal to working-class voters.
Thirdly, I know that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", but you also seem overly predisposed to compare the present condition of the U.S. to 1930s Germany. That’s also a great topic for discussion, but I don’t know if Platner’s views and positions (the topic of this thread) have much to do with this much larger discussion.
Finally, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, dropping support for Platner makes the one party that has espoused authoritarianism in the country even more ascendant. You say you are against this, but I think by rejecting Platner you are shooting yourself in the foot.
I just don’t see how there is any difference at all between the two.
Plenty of people consider a nazi winning a loss no matter what letter is next to his name.
Those are not two disconnected things.
I don’t find it at all surprising that I’d disagree with a Nazi (or a Libertarian or a Socialist or any other form of horseshoe gap dwelling Populist) about the vast majority of political issues. That’s why they are at the bottom of the horseshoe hugging the gap with Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Breanna Joy Gray, Cadance Owens, and yes, Graham Platner.
Correct. The Democrats have spent over a decade pretending that illiberal fuckers like Platner are our allies and bending over backwards to appeal to them, driving away normal people who are disgusted by that sort of behavior. To their credit, unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have neither embraced these whackjobs nor put them into positions of leadership. But that’s not enough. We need to loudly and clearly disavow people like Platner.
If Platner wins, we’ll find out how different he might be.
You can keep calling him that as if it is self-evident, but it is not.
I’m sure that’s exactly the standard Democrats would apply to any other form of prejudice. No double standard for Anti-Semitism at all.
It is self evident and absolutely blatant. Any other year and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. I won’t even mention the reaction if he was a Republican.
I disagree. Let’s take racism, for example.
A tattoo of a KKK klan hood, as you mentioned upthread, is a clear, unequivocal symbol of hate animated by racial prejudice. It has been so all my life.
But what about the Confederate battle flag? When I was a child in the ‘70s and early ‘80s, it could still be displayed as a bumper sticker or a patch or even a tattoo (although tattoos were much less common then) without branding the displayer as necessarily a racist. Heck, there was a popular TV show (The Dukes of Hazzard) that very prominently featured the Confederate flag.
But today? Not on your life. Pretty much the only people still displaying the Confederate flag are the racists. But it wasn’t always this way.
If the situation here had taken place a few decades earlier and involved a Confederate flag instead of a Totenkopf, I think there would be a similar debate over racism versus Nazism.
In other words, some symbols have become more potent over time and less acceptable. Maybe some of this is due to the internet. We can easily look anything up now. Again, I don’t know that many people today who would know what a Totenkopf was, much less twenty years ago.