Merged 2026 Mid-Term election outcomes: US Congress

[Segnosaur]

it's not hard to modify an existing tattoo to be less offensive.
It's a choice not to do so once you are aware that it is offensive.

Plantner has supposedly gotten the tatoo covered up.

Unfortunately, there will always be lingering questions... did he get it covered up because he now knows the meaning of it and does not like what it represents? Or did he just get it covered up for political reasons, knowing it would harm his election chances if he did not?

And given how much we like to talk about Trump and his racism, having a democrat with even an accidental association with racism will lead to all sorts of "whataboutism".

Trump called neo-nazis "fine people"? Well, democrats have a politician that had a nazi tatoo.
Trump had dinner with a holocaust denier? Well, democrats have a politician that had a nazi tatoo.

 

[kookbreaker]

Plantner has supposedly gotten the tatoo covered up.

Unfortunately, there will always be lingering questions... did he get it covered up because he now knows the meaning of it and does not like what it represents? Or did he just get it covered up for political reasons, knowing it would harm his election chances if he did not?

And given how much we like to talk about Trump and his racism, having a democrat with even an accidental association with racism will lead to all sorts of "whataboutism".

Trump called neo-nazis "fine people"? Well, democrats have a politician that had a nazi tatoo.
Trump had dinner with a holocaust denier? Well, democrats have a politician that had a nazi tatoo.

Its not like they wouldn't play that game anyway. How often have you heard "Democrats founded the KKK!" and similar vibes? They really don't care about any hypocrisy, its just points on a board for them.

 

[Donal]

Exactly, anyone simping for trump is not to be mistaken for a serious adult acting in good faith.

There is a serious and important discussion to be had about Plantner, but those dimwits aren't part of it.

 

[Segnosaur]

Unfortunately, there will always be lingering questions... did he get it covered up because he now knows the meaning of it and does not like what it represents? Or did he just get it covered up for political reasons, knowing it would harm his election chances if he did not?

And given how much we like to talk about Trump and his racism, having a democrat with even an accidental association with racism will lead to all sorts of "whataboutism".

Its not like they wouldn't play that game anyway. How often have you heard "Democrats founded the KKK!" and similar vibes? They really don't care about any hypocrisy, its just points on a board for them.

Oh, I agree... the republicans are massive hypocrites who are willing to lie and distort the truth.

The question is.... should we give them even more ammunition to use?

 

[Segnosaur]

I think one of the problems with the "nazi tatoo" are some of the conflicting stories that have come out about it.

Platner claims he got it not knowing the significance of it (which, as you said, might have been possible). But, there have been reports that he actually referred to the tatoo as "my totenkopf". (The source for that was anonymous, but CNN published it, so you would assume they would have done at least some verification.)

People can change, especially as they get out of youth and start building a life for themselves and their family.

I am sure people can change.

I think the issue here is that he might be lying about when he actually learned the meaning of the tatoo. It was an understandable lie, but a lie none-the-less.

I think he's genuine, and Bernie's endorsement is good enough for me.

Yes, I already acknowledged Bernie's support as evidence that Platner was probably not a "republican plant". But Sanders is not perfect. He is an accomplished politician but even a good politician can make mistakes.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Plantner has supposedly gotten the tatoo covered up.

Unfortunately, there will always be lingering questions... did he get it covered up because he now knows the meaning of it and does not like what it represents? Or did he just get it covered up for political reasons, knowing it would harm his election chances if he did not?

And given how much we like to talk about Trump and his racism, having a democrat with even an accidental association with racism will lead to all sorts of "whataboutism".

Trump called neo-nazis "fine people"? Well, democrats have a politician that had a nazi tatoo.
Trump had dinner with a holocaust denier? Well, democrats have a politician that had a nazi tatoo.

The thing is, the symbol known in German as the totenkopf is one adopted by many aries over the centuries and is still in use in many, including US cavalry scouting units.

It is one, that in certain circumstances (ie with other iconography like the reversed swastika), that is associated with nazi crimes against humanity; but it is not one that can, unlike the reverse swastika or the ss runes, only be associated with them.

 

[dirtywick]

totenkopf is a cool looking skull

a good tattoo artist would let you know you’re getting a nazi tattoo tho. let alone actually tattoo one

but then again there’s a lot of seedy tattoo places out there



anyway, it’s not going to be nazi tattoos that’ll tell the story, it’s how much oligarch money he takes

 

[Brainster]

I am sure people can change.

I think the issue here is that he might be lying about when he actually learned the meaning of the tatoo. It was an understandable lie, but a lie none-the-less.


Yes, I already acknowledged Bernie's support as evidence that Platner was probably not a "republican plant". But Sanders is not perfect. He is an accomplished politician but even a good politician can make mistakes.

See Fetterman for a good example.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Oh, I agree... the republicans are massive hypocrites who are willing to lie and distort the truth.

The question is.... should we give them even more ammunition to use?

You're answering your own question. If they lack ammunition they'll just make it up anyway, so don't worry about that.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Platner and his "nazi tatoo" being used by republicans to claim "dems are the racist ones"....

Oh, I agree... the republicans are massive hypocrites who are willing to lie and distort the truth.
The question is.... should we give them even more ammunition to use?

You're answering your own question. If they lack ammunition they'll just make it up anyway, so don't worry about that.

Yeah but if republicans have to "make stuff up", there is a chance that some small number of voters might actually fact check them when making a decision. Or they have to make stuff up that truly strains credibility.

Some "real" examples of nazi association by a democratic candidate will make other lies the republicans might tell easier to swallow.

Remember, its not just the MAGAchud (the type that will accept any lies) that you have to worry about in an election... you have to worry about both attracting swing voters, and keeping your own voters engaged.

 

[Segnosaur]

The thing is, the symbol known in German as the totenkopf is one adopted by many aries over the centuries and is still in use in many, including US cavalry scouting units.

It is one, that in certain circumstances (ie with other iconography like the reversed swastika), that is associated with nazi crimes against humanity; but it is not one that can, unlike the reverse swastika or the ss runes, only be associated with them.

But as I pointed out before, there was a report (again from an anonymous source, but reported on by CNN) that he explicitly referred to the tatoo as "my totenkopf". If true, its kind of hard to claim "its just a skull that just happens to look similar" if you are actually using the nazi name.

And then there is the issue of him defending soldiers who had 'SS' tatoos, chalking it up to some sort of "military culture", instead of saying something like "solders got these tatoos. I think it is a bad idea but its their decision".

 

[The Atheist]

Before you do so, you might to have an idea that it will be a successful strategy.

I repeat, you're just pleading for the status quo - establishment candidates picked by billionaires.

It seems to me America needs a genuine sea change and I've long stated a case for AOC.

 

[Segnosaur]

I repeat, you're just pleading for the status quo - establishment candidates picked by billionaires.

It seems to me America needs a genuine sea change and I've long stated a case for AOC.

I am pleading for a strategy that might actually see America NOT destroy itself.

With all your rhetoric about "establishment" and "Billionaires", what you fail to recognize is that even mainstream democrats run things verrrry differently than republicans. You may not think the average/establishment democrat is "left wing" enough, but the country does get better with them in charge. Deficits go down, judges who are not right wing evangelical nut jobs get appointed to the supreme court, some attempt is made to address environmental issues, more people have health care, etc.

If the democrats decide to put someone like AOC in charge, and the electorate does NOT go for her (because simply being anti-establishment is not some sort of magic spell that leads to instant power) then you will condemn the country to yet more years of republican rule.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

But as I pointed out before, there was a report (again from an anonymous source, but reported on by CNN) that he explicitly referred to the tatoo as "my totenkopf". If true, its kind of hard to claim "its just a skull that just happens to look similar" if you are actually using the nazi name.

And then there is the issue of him defending soldiers who had 'SS' tatoos, chalking it up to some sort of "military culture", instead of saying something like "solders got these tatoos. I think it is a bad idea but its their decision".

Even the word totenkopf on its own doesn't have nazi symbolism.

 

[Segnosaur]

But as I pointed out before, there was a report (again from an anonymous source, but reported on by CNN) that he explicitly referred to the tatoo as "my totenkopf". If true, its kind of hard to claim "its just a skull that just happens to look similar" if you are actually using the nazi name.

Even the word totenkopf on its own doesn't have nazi symbolism.

Its a german word. Yes, it might have had uses that pre-date nazi germany, but if you are using a german term for an image that resembles a nazi image, I don't think a person would be out of line assuming they understood the nazi affiliation of the image.

 

[The Atheist]

If the democrats decide to put someone like AOC in charge, and the electorate does NOT go for her (because simply being anti-establishment is not some sort of magic spell that leads to instant power) then you will condemn the country to yet more years of republican rule.

Given the abject failure of the DNC in 2 of the last 3 elections, where they were unable to beat the biggest ◊◊◊◊ on the planet, I think your reasoning is wrong.

Time will tell.

That's presuming further elections actually take place, which is no given.

 

[Susheel]

You're answering your own question. If they lack ammunition they'll just make it up anyway, so don't worry about that.

This...I think Dem's "What will Republicans think..." is a terrible strategy. I think his story of how he got it is perfectly feasible.

 

[The Atheist]

How did that democratic socialist bloke go in the NY election?

 

[Segnosaur]

This...I think Dem's "What will Republicans think..." is a terrible strategy. I think his story of how he got it is perfectly feasible.

The issue isn't "What will republicans think". They are stupid enough to believe anything stubby mcbonespurs tells them.

The issue is: What will independent voters who are smart enough to have doubts about what Trump says but who hears about the "nazi tatoo" from a reputable source.

And the issue is: What will Democratic voters think when they hear of "their" candidate and his nazi tatoo and are deciding if they want to actually go vote for a guy who "likes the nazis" or stay home.

And the issue is: Will the news media think this is an important enough story to harp on it rather than discuss issues of policy

Those last 3 are definite possibilities.

Yeah, you can't worry too much about "what republicans think". But you also cannot totally ignore potential scandals either. Just look at "Buttery males" that played a role in sinking Clinton's campaign. Ideally it should have been "just an issue that the MAGAchud cared about". But it caused havoc.

 

[Segnosaur]

Given the abject failure of the DNC in 2 of the last 3 elections, where they were unable to beat the biggest ◊◊◊◊ on the planet, I think your reasoning is wrong.

Ironically, the 2016 election shows that you were wrong.

Lets go back to the 2016 election? Trump was actually seen as the "moderate" candidate, and Clinton was seen as the more "extreme/leftist". That may sound weird, now that we have seen him fully embrace fascism, but back then? He was the republican who held up a rainbow flag at a rally (i.e. support for LGBTQ rights). He talked about "providing health care" and "fixing the tax system". He made promises that were often vague or contradictory, but it caused people to see him as "centrist". Now WE might have seen through his B.S., but most voters didn't.

So in 2 of the last 3 elections, the candidate seen as "more moderate" actually won.

See: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-think-trump-has-moved-to-the-right/