this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2026
788 points (99.7% liked)

politics

30141 readers
1891 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“While Susan Collins’ campaign is backed by billionaire donors, our campaign is built on a movement funded by the people, with an average donation of $26,” said Graham Platner’s campaign manager.

A new analysis of campaign finance data shows that nearly 100 billionaires and their spouses have contributed to Republican Sen. Susan Collins’ reelection bid so far, funneling nearly $10 million to the incumbent’s campaign committee and PACs supporting her effort to fend off progressive challenger Graham Platner.

The Maine Monitor on Thursday published a list of billionaires who have donated to Collins and Platner, who has called his Republican opponent a “corrupt” protector and beneficiary of an oligarchic political system.

The outlet noted that Collins’ billionaire donation total “stands in stark contrast with the fundraising of her opponent... whose campaign has mostly attracted smaller amounts of funds but from many more people.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Waiting for a perfect candidate with a squeaky clean record is an exercise in futility.

The only way someone gets old enough to run for political office while having enough knowledge and experience to actually be capable of doing the job, without having ever made any mistakes that one's opponents can dig up for their mudslinging campaigns, is to take no risks, be non-controversial, a chameleon, totally performative and insincere. That's how you end up with these robotic-sounding DNC stars.

What's important is whether someone learned from their mistakes and has shown themselves capable of improving. There's this weird essentialist idea floating around in people's heads that once someone has made a mistake, that mistake is fundamentally who they are as a person and they should be judged for it for the rest of their lives. And honestly, if that mentality takes root and grows, it could lead to a very dystopian world. It's just one more part to add to the total surveillance state we're already sliding towards.

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean the dude got a nazi tattoo. Not an ambiguous thing, an exclusively and extremely recognizable nazi tattoo. The amount of stupid required to do that without knowing it was a nazi tattoo, or anyone in your circle who's seen it over the years, is incredibly concerning. So given the choice between he knowingly got a nazi tattoo and lied or he and everyone around him is too dumb to recognize like the third or fourth most recognizable nazi symbol, well he's probably still better than Susan Collins. But nobody accidentally gets a nazi tattoo.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A nazi tattoo that hardly anyone knew was a nazi symbol until the story about him spread around? I for one didn't know what it was until I read about him.

Does that make me "too dumb to recognize like the third or fourth most recognizable nazi symbol"? I guarantee you I'm not the only one.

"extremely recognizable" is a huge stretch.

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I mean if you've ever covered nazi Germany in a history class you've seen the totenkopf. If you've seen popular media featuring Nazis you've seen the totenkopf. It's distinctive from any other skull or crossbone pirate imagery which is the excuse I keep hearing. If you've played the wolfenstein remake the fucking bag guy is literally called deaths head. Yeah, if you're totally unaware that the totenkopf is well known and exclusively Nazi symbol, and you tattoo it on yourself at a tattoo parlor willing to give Nazi tattoos, and everyone in your life that sees it for the decade plus you are displaying it, then absolutely you and all those people that saw and also didn't know are stupid. You cannot get a Nazi tattoo by accident unless you're really really really fucking dumb.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean if you've ever covered nazi Germany in a history class you've seen the totenkop

That's a stretch. I don't recall ever seeing a totenkopf in a history textbook. Maybe if you majored in history with a focus in WWII, but that's not the majority of people.

If you've seen popular media featuring Nazis you've seen the totenkopf.

I don't think I've ever noticed one portrayed in any media depicting nazis either. Inglorious Bastards? Sound of Music? The Pianist? It's a Beautiful Life? Schindler's List? Boy in the Striped Pajamas? Show me a screenshot from any of those movies that has a totenkopf.

If you've played the wolfenstein remake [...]

How many people is that? Oh, not the majority. Great.

Yeah, if you're totally unaware that the totenkopf is well known and exclusively Nazi symbol

I wasn't aware of that until I read about it in the context of Platner.

and you tattoo it on yourself

I wouldn't have anyway because I think it looks stupid.

at a tattoo parlor willing to give Nazi tattoos

I don't think those kinds of parlors exactly advertise themselves as such.

and everyone in your life that sees it for the decade plus you are displaying it

You still haven't convinced me that the majority of people even know what it is.

then absolutely you and all those people that saw and also didn't know are stupid.

I guess I'm stupid then.

You cannot get a Nazi tattoo by accident unless you're really really really fucking dumb.

I don't have any tattoos, but I can still see how someone might have walked into a tattoo shop, picked something out of their catalog and gotten it without researching the history or symbolism behind it. It's not that crazy to believe.

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I learned about the fuckin thing in grade school history in the goddamn rural Midwest. You're just saying that most people are really stupid. You've got a big fuckin blind spot for fascist imagery and it's got you doing nazi apologism. Ignorance isn't a goddamn excuse in a lot of situations and this is one of them. Nobody accidentally gets a nazi tattoo because it's not fuckin easy to find a tattoo shop that tolerates nazi imagery in the first place and the ones that do are fuckin nazi shops. Ignorance does not get to be an excuse for tattooing a goddamn death's head on you. No. If you knew anything about tattoo culture you'd know him getting in the first place very nearly guarantees he knew what it was. I'd still prefer him over Susan Collins but he's either lying or really fucking dumb and these are the only two options. Or he was forced to join a prison gang, so I guess three options but I'm pretty sure it's not the third. It is impossible to accidentally get a nazi tattoo.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Woopdie friggin doo, you learned something so that must mean everyone knows it, right? I learned lots of shit in grade school that I found out later not everyone knows. People thought I was arrogant for assuming they all know the same shit as me. That's what you're doing now.

You've got a big fuckin blind spot for fascist imagery and it's got you doing nazi apologism

Nothing I've said was nazi apologism, get the fuck outta here with that strawman. He says he didn't know what it was when he got it, and I believe that's a reasonable explanation. Maybe you don't, that's fine, whatever, but that doesn't make me a nazi apologist.

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You're making excuses for an explicitly exclusively nazi tattoo. That's apologism buddy.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I'm saying he didn't know it was a nazi tattoo. That's not apologism.

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

And I'm saying that's bullshit because he would have to be one step above totally fucking braindead to unknowingly get a nazi tattoo at a nazi tattoo shop. So is he lying or pants-shittingly fucking dumb? Both are serious concerns that should be absolutely disqualifying under any normal circumstances but he can't be worse than Collins so here we are.

[–] logi@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Since I went browsing around, here are some images for comparison:

Yes, it's a specific design and you should be careful with skulls but I'm not sure we should demand that everyone recognize the difference. I wouldn't have until now if I'd seen them as line drawings. In embossed silver, sure...

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think we should. Because you don't accidentally get a nazi tattoo because any shop willing to do nazi tats very quickly and rightfully gets a reputation as a nazi shop, and if you're seeing a death's head in their flash you're seeing more nazi imagery. So he would have had to miss all of that. And everyone who ever saw it would have also had to have been unaware, and again despite your lack of awareness it's incredibly recognizable as an exclusively nazi symbol, it's up there with the iron cross right behind ss runes and the swastika. It's right there on the ss caps. The fuckin Mitchell and Webb "are we the baddies" sketch that everyone memes shows it front and center. It is not an ambiguous symbol and he's either lying about knowing what it was or really stupid. He's still better than Collins, but you don't accidentally get a nazi tattoo and I'm kinda tired of everyone minimizing this like it's no big fuckin deal. He gets the benefit of the doubt but everyone should be keeping him under a fucking microscope for any fuckery whatsoever.

[–] logi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Is it this iron cross that's an exclusively Nazi symbol? Right up there with this one?

And you're simply wrong that everyone knows the difference between this skull and crossbones and that one. Obviously the one on the SS cap is a bad one but no, people don't generally keep track of the design details of skull insignia. What I'll agree is that any skull tattoo should really make you wonder if perhaps we're the baddies, but whatever. I find that St Pauli logo to be weird too.

And sure. Keep an eye on this guy. No disagreement. You're just making some really strong claims about symbols and other people's awareness.

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The totenkopf is an exclusively nazi symbol. Reading comprehension is important because I was referring to recognizability as nazi imagery when referring to the swastika, ss runes and the iron cross. The ss runes and Nazi swastika on the point are also pretty solely related to nazism The iron cross is probably more recognizable than the totenkopf as nazi imagery but less exclusively related to nazism, whereas the totenkopf is associated solely with nazism. We clear now? Good. Because even with all that nobody accidentally gets a Nazi tattoo because nobody accidentally goes to a Nazi tattoo shop and any shop displaying a totenkopf for patrons to pick out is also displaying other nazi imagery because they will be known in the community for doing nazi tattoos and respectable tattoo shops and artists do not fuck with fascists. It's just not something that can happen man.

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean if you’re an ex drug addict you shouldn’t be Secretary of health. I think at some point we’ve gone too far.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 week ago

I think RFK jr. shouldn't be Secretary of Health because he's anti-science, anti-vaccine, anti-handwashing, anti-public health, believes raw milk and red meat are good for you, eats roadkill, swims in raw sewage, and brags about doing coke off of public bathroom toilet seats. I'm sure I missed a few points, too.

Being a former drug addict doesn't factor into it. Some of the kindest, most caring, self-aware, and health-focused people I know are former drug addicts. People can turn their lives around, and climbing out of a mountain-deep hole is as big of an accomplishment as climbing a mountain.

The fact that you're trying to conflate RFK jr.'s being-a-drug-addict with his being-a-disgusting-unqualified-piece-of-shit is very problematic and reveals a lot about you as a person.