Do you have a reputable cite for this? I just did a google search and nothing came up.
I forget if it was Chronos or Miller (they’re both mods with greenish avatars and I get them confused) but one of them posted pretty definitive proof a while back IIRC. But I’m not that interested in digging it up just to confirm a guy I already know is a Nazi is a Nazi.
Translation: A cite? I don’t have no stinking cites! My opinion is my cite!
I can’t find anything from Miller in this thread taking a position on this subject. Asking for more information yes, but no opinions so far that I’ve seen.
Look if Babale tells you someone is a Nazi then they’re a Nazi. I mean it’s not like Babale goes around calling almost everyone that disagrees with him a Nazi no siree Bob.
He just calls them anti-Semites.
I’m finding it interesting to consider if some accusations of anti-Semitism overlap a little too much with folks that just are not, say, thrilled with what they perceive as America waging “wars” that are more in Israel’s interest then their isolationist views are comfortable with.
(Not an an opinion I hold, I think it’s just a liiittttle bit more complicated than that.)
A cite or three would be great. I would certainly review the claims as I’m not seeing an overwhelmingly convincing smoking gun, but happy to have actual reputable cites change my mind.
From the previously linked The Maine Monitor news article, Graham is quoted as saying:
“People, when their lives begin to deteriorate, are going to look for folks to blame, and if we don’t have the actual answer, then hatred and xenophobia and racism and homophobia and transphobia, all of them will fill the vacuum,” he said. “This means we have to go out in our community, and we have to wear our hearts on our sleeves.”
The above quote is certainly not an overt Nazi dog whistle. Please do absolutely point out if there is in fact a dog whistle that I can’t hear*.
*Pun intended. Apologies.
Yep, I know. That’s exactly why they’ve become a total joke to me. Most of their posts are simply worth reading for the hardee-har-har-hars.
Don’t hold your breath, there are not any smoking gun cites. But I think you already know that.
okay I think we’re done here lol
No they wouldn’t, because they don’t need to. He isn’t (wasn’t) running against a republican. He resigned his seat in congress and dropped out of the California gubernatorial campaign. There are numerous other democratic candidates still in the gubernatorial race and the candidate who will succeed him in the house will come from his same same district and will almost assuredly be a democrat considering the demographics.
For those who don’t want to click a link.
I’m not reading Nazi rhetoric. But I remain open to reading other things he’s said.
Wasn’t me.
Here you go, from an account that collates information about January 6 insurrectionists and other traitors to America. Maybe I originally say this from Chronos, maybe I’m misremembering.
He was barred from reenlisting in 2009 for tattoos and moved to the National Guard instead. On Pod Save America he blamed his sleeve tattoos which do not in fact violate any policy.
Yawn. Here you go, I spent thirty seconds finding your proof that a Nazi is a Nazi. In b4 you defend him.
Am I misreading? That site said active duty Marines were exempt and grandfathered in from the tattoo sleeve prohibition. He was attempting to reenlist, per your cite, so was not active duty, correct?
If I’m reading this correctly, the “obvious lie” doesn’t seem obvious to me.
What? He was trying to reenlist at the end of his term, how does that make him “not active duty”?
It said he went to college then dropped out to reenlist, no?
ETA: The cite specifically says he was looking to return to active duty.
If you watch the video you cited, he says that he got out of the Marine Corp and had been accepted to GW University. But the war was still ongoing, and he had buddies still deploying, and he felt like he wasn’t carrying his own weight, so he tried to re-enlist. That’s when he was stopped by the sleeve tattoo rule. He ended up in the Army instead (because they didn’t care about his arm tattoos)
I live in Connecticut. Joe Lieberman was an incumbent Democratic senator who was defeated in the Democratic primary during his reelection campaign, and who subsequently won reelection under the “Connecticut for Lieberman” party—a party created solely for him. Lieberman himself never actually joined the party, and it was later taken over by anti-Lieberman proponents. Anyway, it’s a stretch to call him a third-party candidate.
More precisely, Vermonters are weird. But they seem to like it that way. 
I don’t actually have a dog in this fight. For one thing, I don’t live in Maine.
But I read all the stuff you just linked to, and it seems like pretty thin gruel, with a lot of “just asking questions” bullshit.
I don’t see anything to contradict his contention that he got a tattoo nearly twenty years ago that he didn’t fully realize the connotations of (beyond being edgy and “badass”). Sometimes a tattoo is just a tattoo. I really don’t think he’s a Nazi.
As an aside, I sometimes don’t understand why the Democratic Party demands that Democratic politicians (and candidates) be perfect. Like when Al Franken was driven from office for fairly mild (in my opinion) inappropriate stuff he did as a comedian years before his political career. But the Republicans can elect and support rapists, pedophiles, drunks, etc. with impunity.
Edgy and badass might explain getting the tattoo. But it doesn’t explain keeping it for decades. Why didn’t he get rid of it once he realized what it was?
I don’t know. But I can surmise that reasons might include the expense; or the fact that it was a largish dark tattoo that was difficult to remove; which couldn’t normally be seen in clothing; and frankly, it didn’t really matter because he wasn’t running for office.
Removing a tattoo entirely is difficult and expensive. Just covering it up with another tattoo, though, is no more difficult nor expensive than any other tattoo.