Democrats in Maine are throwing their weight behind a U.S. Senate candidate with a past so checkered it could double as a picnic blanket.
Breitbart News reported that the democrats are banking on Graham Platner, a 41-year-old military veteran and self-described oyster farmer, to unseat incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins in Maine, despite a laundry list of controversies that would make most politicians run for cover.
Platner, who markets himself as an everyman with a knack for farming oysters, carries a tattoo identified as a Totenkopf—a symbol tied to a notorious Nazi SS unit that guarded concentration camps during World War II.
Now, Platner claims he had no idea for two decades that his ink resembled such a vile symbol, a statement that’s raising eyebrows faster than a magician’s rabbit trick.
“It was not until I started hearing from reporters and DC insiders that I realized this tattoo resembled a Nazi symbol,” Platner told Politico. Really, though—20 years of ignorance about a marking on your own body tied to one of history’s darkest chapters?
A former acquaintance from over a decade ago in Washington, D.C., isn’t buying it, recalling Platner referring to the tattoo in a disturbingly casual manner, which only deepens the suspicion of willful blindness.
Then there’s Platner’s digital footprint—Reddit posts from years back where he advocated for violence, including the need for semi-automatic rifles to combat fascism, while simultaneously expressing disillusionment with patriotic ideals.
In another thread, he made derogatory remarks about white rural Americans, suggesting they match the worst stereotypes about racism and ignorance, a stance that hardly screams “unifier” for a Senate hopeful.
Platner also described himself online as a “vegetable growing, psychedelics taking socialist” who leaned into communism over time, alongside troubling comments questioning cultural tipping habits and women’s responsibility in unwanted encounters, as reported by The Washington Post.
The fallout was swift—Platner’s political director, Genevieve McDonald, resigned after these posts surfaced, clearly unwilling to stand by such baggage.
McDonald didn’t mince words on social media, implying Platner knew exactly what his tattoo represented and should have covered it up long ago, a damning critique from someone once in his inner circle.
Yet, despite this mess, prominent Democrats like Bernie Sanders are standing by Platner, seemingly unfazed by the racist remarks and symbolic misstep—a curious choice for a party often quick to lecture on moral high ground.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, sidestepped condemnation, instead pointing to Janet Mills as a preferable candidate to challenge Collins, a move that feels like dodging the elephant in the room.
Add to this the Democrats’ association with another controversial figure, Jay Jones, a Virginia attorney general candidate reportedly fantasizing about violence against Republicans, and one might wonder if the party’s vetting process took a long vacation.
Within just 48 hours, the narrative from Democrats appears to have shifted dramatically on figures like Platner, leaving observers to question whether political expediency trumps principle when the stakes are high against a Republican incumbent like Collins.
