If it’s Platner vs. Collins, then it doesn’t matter, because the Republicans have already won either way.
If anyone wants to defend him, let’s start with: What possible innocuous explanation is there for getting a Nazi tattoo and then keeping it for nearly two decades? Nobody but either a Nazi or a bigger idiot than Trump would do that.
Cite? I see that he denounced the 10/7 attacks as a violation of international law.
But I don’t really care what his opinions are, as long as he expresses them nonviolently, which he does. He’s important because he was a victim of the Trump DOJ’s unconstitutional attempts to arrest and deport him for exercising his right to free speech. I assume that Mamdani was hosting him in order to express solidarity with his fight against the fascist Trump administration’s attempt to erase the Constitution, not because of his personal views.
Well, you could try reading the thread. But once more: his explanation is that he got the tattoo while drinking with a bunch of his Marine buddies while stationed in Croatia, he thought it was just a generic skull and crossbones and didn’t realize what it signified until recently, and then he covered it up.
I find this entirely plausible, since like I said it doesn’t look like anything but a black smudge to me. The claim that he did know what it was before last year is supported only by a single anonymous source.
His going on that podcast is a real problem for me; the tattoo, not so much.
So, he wasn’t clued in when he had to leave the Marines due to it?
Asking as someone not from Maine, but is the Democratic Party in the state in such dire shape that the only people they have running for the Senate are these two? Isn’t there anyone else who’s qualified, competent, sane, and not too old?
Moderating:
We’re not only getting very heated, but we’re losing focus on Platner and into one of our frequent Zionist vs. Antisemitism arguments. I will note that this is a very common occurrence for several of the posters in this thread. I am instructing the thread to drop this hijack and focus back on the OP. You may of course speculate on the degree of Planter’s anti-Israel or antisemitic habits or language. You may even question similar issues on the behalf of the parties endorsing or condemning him. But let’s keep the general discussion of such tendencies in the greater Democratic party out of the thread for the moment. Please feel free to spin off such discussion into it’s own thread.
Click Reply, in the upper left corner of the reply window is the reply type button, looks like a curving arrow point to the right.
Choose Reply as linked topic and it starts a new thread. As an example, you can choose GD, IMHO or The Pit for it.
That is actually the best method.
This thread will reopen shortly.
Cite? I remember hearing something about that, but I can’t easily find anything about it on Google. I would think if he was dishonorably discharged it would be pretty easy to find stories about that.
I just noticed that Wikipedia says that much of his extended family are Jewish, which is interesting, but the cite is to a paywalled NYT article.
OK, here’s a quote from a recent interview which explains why I can’t find anything about him having to leave the Marines due to his tattoo:
Platner said he had never been questioned about the tattoo’s connections to Nazi symbols in the 20 years he has had it. He said that after serving three tours as a Marine, he later went to enlist in the Army, which requires an examination for tattoos of hate symbols.
“I also passed a full background check to receive a security clearance to join the Ambassador to Afghanistan’s security detail,” Platner said.
This might be what he’s referring to:
If the timeline is accurate, then he was rejected from his second enlistment attempt after new hate symbol policies were in effect, and according to his own words (as reported) his second enlistment was rejected of a new tattoo policy… so he would have been told that the tattoo in question was a hate symbol and thus a barrier to reenlistment.
My guess is it’s a similar situation to the presidential primaries in 2016 where a lot of the party insiders favored Mills, the possible candidates who have been rising in the ranks got out of the way for her and then the only real competition that remained was an outsider.
OK, so we have the testimony of an anonymous BlueSky account, which is clearly rabidly anti-Platner, claiming without evidence that he didn’t try to re-enlist in the Marines because of his tattoo; but then the Army was fine with taking him? It wouldn’t shock me to learn the US military is actually that messed up, but it seems dubious on its face.
Further review: This is just nonsense. He’s trying to put a sinister spin on completely routine political tactics; why, did you know that Platner advised his volunteers on what they should say if asked about the tattoo? Clearly evidence of a guilty conscience, and not at all something literally every politician does. He’s assuming as fact that Platner was denied re-enlistment because of the tattoo, and then extrapolating a conspiracy theory to explain why no evidence of that exists. Then he goes on to both question the validity of Platner’s PTSD diagnosis and argue that the PTSD makes him unqualified for office. Stay classy, anonymous BlueSky account.
I find elements of the case against Platner concerning, but it also concerns me that many of his detractors seem to not be arguing in good faith and just flinging whatever mud they can find to see what sticks.
Platner says that the Marines left him go because of his tattoos. He has one tattoo that would have violated Marine policy. What part of this isn’t clear?
Platner has lied about the following:
Not knowing what the tattoo was when he got it, which is totally implausible given his history of World War II trivia enthusiasm documented on Reddit
Not being told what the tattoo was when he was denied re-enlistment in the Marines over it
Being a “working class small businessman” (he sells some meaningless amount of oysters to his own family, it’s not a real business)
Being “totally disabled” (funny how he can still work the oyster boat)
Being “sent to Iraq by Susan Collins” (he signed up voluntarily after the war had begun, knowing he would be deployed, and because, in his own words, he likes killing people)
This is all stuff that was easily discovered by reading news articles and his own commenting history on social media. What kind of things are going to be uncovered when the full resources of the GOP are mobilized by Susan Collins to actually research Graham Platner’s life? You should be very afraid of this.
Long before I was born, my dad got his first wife’s name tattooed down his arm. He wound up having to spend a lot of money to cover it up after they split up and he wound up with my mom. He taught me from when I was very young that when I got old enough to get a tattoo, I should be 100% sure it’s something I’m comfortable having on my body forever.
I’m willing to concede that maybe he just thought the tattoo looked badass and it wasn’t important enough to worry about covering it up, and that he screwed up by not vetting the people he was retweeting and going on podcasts with, but IMO, it all shows a severe lack of good judgment that is disqualifying in someone who wants to take part in running the country.
It’s too many verifiable things, IMO. The tattoo, re-tweet, and podcast are all verifiable. The rest may be speculative (or maybe worse, but I’m not sure). But this is way fucked - too much to be just a coincidence, IMO. He’s either hellaciously stupid and undisciplined (along with his campaign team!), or he’s Nazi-adjacent.
It is such a shame of that, while easily discovered, it was apparently impossible to cite these claims with links. I’ll take you at your word that all of these things are true!
This is what must be studied after Collins is elected to another term. What kind of piss-poor opposition fields Platner and Mills in a race for a vanishingly rare, vulnerable senate seat? This will be an unforgivable failure by the DNC.
I’m not sure this is on the DNC. They can’t force someone to run who doesn’t want to run, and Jared Golden apparently doesn’t want to, so their other options were 1) recruiting Mills, which they did; 2) recruiting Sara Gideon, who has already lost to Collins; and 3) recruiting some other unknown, who might, for all we know, turn out to have as many or more liabilities as Plattner.
Mills is a perfectly fine candidate. Lest we forget, a year ago everybody thought she was awesome for telling Trump she’d see him in court, and the main reason many of those people no longer think she’s awesome is that she’s running against their preferred candidate in the primary, rather than because of anything specific that she’s said or done. IMO, this is a problem that is intrinsic to competitive primaries, and it’s not something that can be solved by recruiting more and better candidates. (Compare North Carolina: Roy Cooper is also old-ish – admittedly, younger than Mills, but still past what would be a normal retirement age – and not especially charismatic, but everyone, except Republicans, thinks he’s just fine.)
Roy Cooper is 10 years younger than Mills.
A lot of people are genuine in their beliefs that the country has way too many old politicians. Given how the democrats have already been burned buy this it’d be embarrassing if we actually nominate a 78-year old for one of the most important senate races and it’s embarrassing that her only competition from inside the party probably hates jews.
I think I’ve said before, if this is really a problem for people (and I can probably be persuaded to agree) then just pass an amendment restricting the age of legislators and the POTUS. Heck, include SCOTUS in there too while you’re at it.
Otherwise, ignore the age, and focus on the candidate’s actual qualifications. It seems ridiculous that people are considering age to be a disqualifier in favor of someone that shows clear signs of antisemitism.