Libhater
Verified User
Yeah a person wearing a Nazi tattoo shouldn't be considered to be a Nazi.
Democrat nazi candidate just can't get out of his own way
- Thread starter Teflon Don
- Start date
Noking
Fight authoritarianism support Noking
If my memory serves me right, braindead moron originated with you.
Noking
Fight authoritarianism support Noking
Anyone with any commonsense certainly doesn't support a POS the likes of Crazy Trump.
One of your fellow whack-jobs spends a lots of time telling me I am a republican because I have a tattoo of an elephant.
Do you think I'm a republican?
countryboy
Verified User
Your memory has failed you. Probably because you're a braindead moron.
countryboy
Verified User
That's something only a braindead moron would say.
YOu know he has addressed thsi, right? His story is he got it after a night of drinking with a bunch of other guys. They picked it off a wall of flash just thinking it was a tough looking tattoo. It passed 2 decades of screening for hate symbols by the military, and when someone (the press) noted its resemblance to a nazi image he had it covered up immediately.
It's not like he's running around preaching nazi ideology like certain other politicians either so...
You idiots chastised Kasvanough for drinking a beer, yet it's alright to get a Nazi tattoo while drunk, and then run for congress? Talk about hypocrites...
Who told you that story?
These excuses are textbook damage control from a candidate whose campaign was cratering under opposition research, and every single one collapses under basic scrutiny from contemporaneous reporting and his own past statements.
New evidence undercuts Senate candidate Platner’s claims that he didn’t know tattoo was Nazi-linked
1. “Drunk night with the boys, picked a ‘tough-looking’ skull off the flash wall in Croatia in 2007”?
Platner did get the chest tattoo in 2007 while a Marine on leave in Split, Croatia—he and buddies were hammered and chose a skull-and-crossbones design because “skulls and crossbones are a pretty standard military thing.”
That part is not in dispute.
What is in dispute is the claim that he had no idea it was the Nazi Totenkopf (Death’s Head) until reporters told him in October 2025. The design he chose wasn’t a generic pirate skull; it was the exact three-quarter-profile Totenkopf variant used by the SS-Totenkopfverbände (concentration-camp guards) and the 3rd SS Panzer Division “Totenkopf,” which committed war crimes across Europe.
He kept this tattoo prominently displayed on his chest for 18 years—including in a shirtless wedding video from roughly a decade ago that his own campaign later circulated.
Worse, multiple independent pieces of evidence show he knew exactly what it was years earlier:
- In 2019 and 2020 Reddit posts (under his old handle), he explicitly discussed the “Totenkopf” and defended Marine Scout Sniper units’ use of SS lightning-bolt (“bolts”) tattoos as harmless “culture,” not Nazi ideology. He wrote things like “I was on Lejeune, and know lots with bolts” and mocked critics who called them Nazi symbols.
- An acquaintance who knew him over a decade ago told CNN and Jewish Insider that Platner had jokingly referred to the tattoo as “my Totenkopf” and openly acknowledged its Nazi resemblance. A text chain among friends discussing the “Nazi-like tattoo” existed months before the story broke.
- His own former political director, Genevieve McDonald, said she was aware of the tattoo by August 2025 and that Platner himself admitted it “could be problematic.”
That’s not ignorance—that’s convenient amnesia until the press forced his hand.2.
“It passed two decades of military screening for hate symbols”?
Platner repeatedly claims the tattoo sailed through Marine Corps service (2004–2012) and later Army enlistment physicals that supposedly screen for “hate symbols.”
This is meaningless.
The U.S. military has repeatedly had problems with extremist tattoos in the ranks—especially SS bolts and skulls among Scout Snipers at Camp Lejeune (exactly where Platner served and where he admitted knowing guys with the symbols). The Marine Corps itself had to issue apologies and crackdowns as late as 2012.
A physical exam is not a forensic symbol-analysis seminar. Recruiters and doctors are not ADL hate-symbol experts; they miss or overlook variants all the time, especially when the service member claims “it’s just a skull, bro.”
Platner’s own Reddit defenses prove he understood the military subculture that tolerated these symbols. Passing a cursory check does not magically de-Nazify the Totenkopf. The Anti-Defamation League still lists it as a hate symbol used by neo-Nazis today.
3. “When the press noted its resemblance he had it covered up immediately”?.
He had the original Totenkopf covered (not laser-removed) in October 2025—literally days after the scandal exploded on Pod Save America and in AP, CNN, and Politico stories.
That is not “immediately upon learning.”
That is “immediately upon getting caught.”
He had 18 years, multiple Reddit threads where he discussed the symbol, and private conversations where he called it his Totenkopf.
He only acted when voters and reporters were watching. Even then, he first promised laser removal, then switched to a quick cover-up because rural Maine removal clinics take time.
(Note on the two Nazi tattoos: the second inking that briefly appeared when he stripped down on TV was a “1919” design some online speculated was SS code—19th letter = S.
Platner claimed it was innocent—TFC/EST or similar. But the your excuse bundle is clearly aimed at the undisputed Totenkopf chest piece that actually triggered the firestorm.)
Bottom line: This wasn’t a one-off youthful mistake that slipped through unnoticed. It was a literal Nazi SS death’s-head tattoo that Platner:
- knew enough about to joke about and defend in writing years earlier,
- kept on full display for nearly two decades,
- only removed the moment it became a Senate campaign liability.
The military-screening and “covered it immediately” claims are just post-hoc spin.
Press reports (CNN KFile investigation, AP, Politico, Maine Monitor, etc.) make that crystal clear.
Video shows Graham Platner with ‘troubling’ tattoo
The tattoo seen on Graham Platner depicts a skull laid over crossbones, consistent with a specific Nazi symbol called a “Totenkopf.”
themainemonitor.org
Maine Senate candidate Platner says tattoo recognized as Nazi symbol has been covered
Graham Platner, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine, tells The Associated Press that he's covered a tattoo on his chest to no longer reflect an image widely recognized as a Nazi symbol that he got nearly 20 years ago.
apnews.com
Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner says he covered up a tattoo that resembled Nazi symbol
The announcement comes after the embattled Senate candidate responded to questions about the previous tattoo.
www.nbcnews.com
Last edited:
He had two of them. I don't know if he still has them.
Why don't you ask him?
At any rate, it's been said that the cover-up is worse than the deed.
Typical right-wing remark, I suppose you lack the same understanding for what a Nazi is in theory and practice that he does. He has demonstrated clearly and repeatedly that he is clueless. I guess you found someone at your level.
Note that @Jarod isn’t asking for “proof he still has the tattoos” in good faith—he’s pulling a classic bait-and-switch to pretend the entire scandal evaporated the moment the ink got painted over.
Platner doesn’t visibly have the Nazi Totenkopf on his chest anymore. He had it covered up in October 2025—literally days after the story exploded—replacing the SS death’s-head with a Celtic knot and some dog-like creatures. (Laser removal takes multiple painful sessions; a quick cover-up was faster for campaign optics in rural Maine.)
That is not a gotcha that absolves Platner.
It’s the exact opposite.
The issue was never “so, he doesn't have Nazi tattoos" right now in June 2026.
He wore a literal SS-Totenkopf variant on his chest for 18 years.
Multiple pieces of evidence show he knew its Nazi meaning long before any reporter told him: 2019 Reddit posts where he discussed the “Totenkopf” by name and defended similar extremist symbols in the military; an acquaintance who recalled him jokingly calling it “my Totenkopf”; his own political director said he knew it “could be problematic.”
Platner only “discovered” the problem and fixed it when it became a campaign liability.
Not in 2010, not in 2020, not when he decided to run for office—only when he was exposed.
I've already addressed the excuses offered by @Crepitus (“drunk Marines picked it off the flash wall,” “passed military screening,” “had no idea until the press said so”) by posting contemporaneous reporting and Platner's own archived words.
Pretending the cover-up retroactively validates Platner's lies is disingenuous spin.
This is exactly why asking if “he doesn’t have it anymore” line is such a pathetic dodge.
It treats a grave error in judgment; to with, choosing and proudly displaying an SS death’s-head for nearly two decades while privately acknowledging its Nazi roots—as a minor wardrobe malfunction that a new tattoo can erase.
It doesn’t.
Character isn’t a Snapchat story that disappears when you don’t like the screenshot.
@Jarod is attempting to shift the focus from why Platner kept it so long and lied about when he learned what it was to technicalities about current ink visibility.
Platner himself has admitted the cover-up was a pragmatic move because “going to a tattoo removal place is going to take a while.”
That’s not the language of someone who was horrified by his own past the moment he learned the truth.
That’s someone racing to get the problem "covered up" (literally) before the next press conference.
The hypocrisy here belongs to the defenders, not the critics.
You don’t get to wave away 18 years of bad judgment, documented prior knowledge, and campaign-era amnesia just because the tattoo is now hidden under a bastardized Celtic knot.
The cover-up proves the original excuses were flimsy; it doesn’t magically make them valid.
Covering it up was damage control, not accountability. It’s the political equivalent of “I’m sorry you were offended.”
Platner doesn’t visibly have the Nazi Totenkopf on his chest anymore. He had it covered up in October 2025—literally days after the story exploded—replacing the SS death’s-head with a Celtic knot and some dog-like creatures. (Laser removal takes multiple painful sessions; a quick cover-up was faster for campaign optics in rural Maine.)
That is not a gotcha that absolves Platner.
It’s the exact opposite.
The issue was never “so, he doesn't have Nazi tattoos" right now in June 2026.
He wore a literal SS-Totenkopf variant on his chest for 18 years.
Multiple pieces of evidence show he knew its Nazi meaning long before any reporter told him: 2019 Reddit posts where he discussed the “Totenkopf” by name and defended similar extremist symbols in the military; an acquaintance who recalled him jokingly calling it “my Totenkopf”; his own political director said he knew it “could be problematic.”
Platner only “discovered” the problem and fixed it when it became a campaign liability.
Not in 2010, not in 2020, not when he decided to run for office—only when he was exposed.
I've already addressed the excuses offered by @Crepitus (“drunk Marines picked it off the flash wall,” “passed military screening,” “had no idea until the press said so”) by posting contemporaneous reporting and Platner's own archived words.
Pretending the cover-up retroactively validates Platner's lies is disingenuous spin.
This is exactly why asking if “he doesn’t have it anymore” line is such a pathetic dodge.
It treats a grave error in judgment; to with, choosing and proudly displaying an SS death’s-head for nearly two decades while privately acknowledging its Nazi roots—as a minor wardrobe malfunction that a new tattoo can erase.
It doesn’t.
Character isn’t a Snapchat story that disappears when you don’t like the screenshot.
@Jarod is attempting to shift the focus from why Platner kept it so long and lied about when he learned what it was to technicalities about current ink visibility.
Platner himself has admitted the cover-up was a pragmatic move because “going to a tattoo removal place is going to take a while.”
That’s not the language of someone who was horrified by his own past the moment he learned the truth.
That’s someone racing to get the problem "covered up" (literally) before the next press conference.
The hypocrisy here belongs to the defenders, not the critics.
You don’t get to wave away 18 years of bad judgment, documented prior knowledge, and campaign-era amnesia just because the tattoo is now hidden under a bastardized Celtic knot.
The cover-up proves the original excuses were flimsy; it doesn’t magically make them valid.
Covering it up was damage control, not accountability. It’s the political equivalent of “I’m sorry you were offended.”