So you can provide a litany of documented lies, about all manner of things, by Platner?
Do go on.
Chronos already has, extensively.
Not “he can’t be”. More, “you are grasping at straws”.
As long as we’re trying to divine his thinking - since you are ignoring what he’s consistently said - I think it’s worth adding his dog’s name to the mix.
Surely it holds as much weight as whether an anonymous source, who knew him at a bar, once heard him say that he was a supremecist.
I guess you’re unfamiliar with how US elections work. Either Collins or Platner will be the senator and only one of those has a chance of making sure there’s oversight of this administration.
Writing in Daffy Duck or whatever is just dumb.
Rather be dumb than a nazi.
Are you a telepath? Can you read Platner’s mind and tell us what’s in his heart?
Because you seem awfully certain of claims that you’re unable to provide any actual evidence for.
This entire thread is packed full of evidence of him being a life long nazi, with not a single shred of evidence that he isn’t one besides “because he said so”. Or even worse somehow “because Bernie and AOC said so”.
We have:
Tattoo with Nazi connotations
Possible knowledge that the tattoo had Nazi connotations
Possible delay in covering up the Nazi tattoo once he possibly discovered it had Nazi connotations
Said he was a fan of a podcaster that has been described as anti-Semitic
What else did I miss?
Then surely you can provide a quote of one of the many times he has spoken in favor of Nazism.
Who on Earthafe that claim?
Platner isn’t a secret Nazi, and he hasn’t faked being a leftist.
He’s far leftist with strong sympathy for his neighbors across the gap in the horseshoe who are far right fascists, like his new bud Tucker or the guy whose show he is a long time fan of.
In fact, isn’t the main reason to oppose Collins, the most milquetoast of all Republicans, the actions of other Republicans in other states?
Ok, I’m going to requote what I think are the most salient points. The JewishInsider piece quoted upthread was a solid article. 1st quote:
Platner’s former political director, Genevieve McDonald, who resigned from his campaign last week over her objection to his recently unearthed incendiary Reddit comments, said in a Facebook post on Tuesday that “Graham has an antisemitic tattoo on his chest.”
“He’s not an idiot, he’s a military history buff,” McDonald wrote in the post, which was reviewed by JI. “Maybe he didn’t know it when he got it, but he got it years ago and he should have had it covered up because he knows damn well what it means.”
For myself, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that he knew about the provenance of his tattoo before 2025, though not necessarily when he obtained the tat in 2007.
So what should we do with this hypothesis, assuming its true? The article continues:
A spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League said in a statement to JI that Platner’s tattoo “appears to be a Nazi Totenkopf tattoo, and if true, it is troubling that a candidate for high office would have one.”
“We do understand that sometimes people get tattoos without understanding their hateful association,” the ADL spokesperson added. “In those cases, the bearer should be asked whether they repudiate its hateful meaning.”
So the Anti-Defamation League takes a softer line on this issue than some of the posters here. Platner no longer has the tattoo. Platner has repudiated its hateful meaning. Done and done. The same cannot be said for Hegseth or Joseph Kent.
Here’s the third factor:
I think the evidence is pretty strong that Platner is not a Nazi or a white supremicist. (Not 100%: there’s that Jan 2026 siting with the right wing anti-MAGA conspiracy theorist.)
So what’s the problem? Mutatis mutandis of Chronos’ point, Platner screws up some of the Dem’s messaging on opposing bigotry and opens the door to media both-sidsing. I think these problems are manageable, (eg “I am not Platner and I am not running for election in Maine. I oppose all forms of bigotry and am glad Platner changed his tattoo. But c’mon. My opponent has said nothing about Hegseth. Also, why the hell does Joseph Kent have a Nazi tank on his arm?”) But if you’re explaining, you’re losing. Luckily this constitutes an attack by a Republican from the left, which is problematic for a number of reasons: they are easier to respond to and lack the punch.
The person I was responding to.
Moderating
Watch the blind links. Not good.
Also dial it down a bit. Getting really heated.
Yes! You know, if you have a “witch mark” (a mole, etc) on you, then that is proof- or if you do not have a witch mark on you, that is better proof!!
So, either more MAGA for absolute sure, or maybe a guy who was drunk and stupid long ago, and could be a secret Nazi, due to an old tattoo.
And we have to remember- Maine politics is weird.
A blind link? Nope.
People won’t vote for any Republicans is due to the leadership of the party and being a Republican means to some extent you support that leadership. It is not because the Republicans have some suspect senators in random states. No one is referencing say Jim Banks as the reason they will never vote for a Republican. No Pennsylvania voter is going to care about the tattoo’s of a Maine senator. It is pretty clear that Maine voters don’t really care even.
People are complex and contradictory. I think it is fine to withhold a vote for the tattoo, but if you are ignore 98% of the actions and words of a man and only look at the small percentage that supports your view, you are going to get a wildly distorted view of a person.
Platner clearly appeals to a group of the population the Democrats have struggled reaching out to. I think the better question is how do we find more candidates like him who perhaps don’t have a history of a questionable tattoo.
Collins isn’t MAGA either. She is a Republican who often but not always votes with her party. And she has been a meaningful vote for the Democrats at times. It would be nice if crossed party more, but very few Senators do and she does more than most. I’m not saying Democrats should support her, but it hard to grow your party when you just throw all of your non-voters into one giant bucket.
ISTM it’s that for all her overt milquetoastiness, when it could actually make a difference she consistently enables those other Republicans. Oh she’s concerned. Oh she’s making her disappointed face. But she’s not the Republican Manchin.
Sorry, what’s a blind link?
A hyperlink that is not described or showing a preview.
That seems very obvious in retrospect.