you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -7 points 1 year ago (35 children)
  • [+] 21 points 1 year ago (18 children)
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (17 children)
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (16 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Except he didn't just do military service, he also worked for Blackwater.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    From his Wikipedia page:

    In 2018, Platner returned to Kabul, Afghanistan, for about six months as a State Department security contractor with Constellis, the private military company formerly known as Blackwater, where he provided diplomatic security to the US ambassador to Afghanistan.

    He worked as security to the US ambassador for 6 months. And quit because he disliked the military industrial complex that he was witnessing from the inside.

    As a former military person he could have lived the good life cashing giant checks from Blackwater until he reached retirement. Instead he quit to take on the not so cushy life of being an oyster farmer. And now he is diving head first into the wood chipper that is a political campaign in the United States against a well established GOP incumbent.

    To be dismissive of such a person is reductive and unnecessarily demeaning. And leads me to wonder if you are being disingenuous in hopes of helping one of the, quite frankly utterly despicable, other candidates.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Sweet Lord, I saw other comments about a stint and Blackwater but this is the first that actual described it. A 6-month job as an ambassador's security doesn't give a lot of free time for atrocities even if it were in Blackwater's contracts. His service record would likely be more damning than that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -4 points 1 year ago (12 children)
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I understand that 100. People kept quiet about Fetterman and his worrying behavior before he was elected, then after his stroke when it was brought up repeatedly, people kept blaming the stroke.

    Yes, people change and maybe Fetterman did and the stroke caused regression; and maybe he didn't and it didn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    He has already addressed this and got the tattoo covered up. Case closed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (11 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    All this "once an X always an X" rhetoric does is prevent anyone who wants to pull away from trump from doing so.

    It's already difficult enough for people to change, basically telling anyone who wants to change "yeah you can alienate yourself from my enemies but you'll always be on my shit list" is absolutely not going to win them over and just reinforces that X identity is all they have.

    Unless you like losing elections you really need to consider how winning people over is crucially important to any movement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    "I'm troubled by having someone who's already demonstrated that lack of judgement and awareness"

    It would be one thing if he did something criminal or malicious but having had shitty beliefs and then changing them just shows growth.

    Judging someone who's an ostensible ally and who is exactly the kind of change we want to see for having needed the change in the first place is circular logic and ultimately self-alienating.

    You say you're fine with people changing but your logic doesn't allow for anyone who's changed their views to be a representative.

    At this point it's not even about ideology anymore but just straight up identity politics.

    You're basically treating him like he's an ideological felon where he's allowed to continue existing but can't participate in politics.

    Sorry but I severely don't buy this original sin level of being forever unworthy just for having had different political beliefs in the past.

    We need to normalize growing up instead of relentlessly punishing people for having been misled naive at some point in their life.

    You say there's better people to run but I'd argue that a convert is absolutely the best person to run because it opens the door for more converts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Many people enter the military because of poor economic prospects, being crushed by capitalism is literally their best recruiting tool.

    Without knowing why he joined, holding his service history against him is effectively victim blaming.

    Not to mention that even if he was ideologically motivated he's now turned against something he literally fought for, showing massive positive growth.

    So either way his service history isn't a valid refute for the points I've previously brought up about change/growth.

    Sorry but this all seems like justification for indulging in identity politics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Now I know you're not an ideologically serious person. You refused to engage with anything I said and instead doubled down on missing every single point I brought up.

    Anything you say from here out is obviously informed solely by identity and not ideology.

    If actual ideology was the basis of your reasoning you would have brought up a single ideological point but you didn't and instead kept going back to identity.

    If you can name one critique that isn't just about his previous identity and your inability to let people grow and I'll recant about you not being serious but I severely doubt you can.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    His explanation that he was drunk with buddies on deployment in Croatia is perhaps the most believable circumstance in which someone would make that mistake. Yes, he had the tattoo for several years. I don't recall how long he said he was aware of it being the Nazi symbol, but yes, in my opinion he should have gotten it removed or covered sooner once he did know. I certainly never would have known that the skull was a Nazi symbol without being explicitly told.

    That said, no, I don't think it sounds like he's lying. He isn't posturing either, and there's plenty of evidence to back that up.

    If you're not capable of accepting that he made a mistake and addressed it appropriately, then I don't see how you could ever be satisfied. If we want real people to run for office and not just establishment approved candidates, you need to open to the idea that people make mistakes, they change, and they may not have the squeaky-clean past you idealize.

    I think you have unrealistic expectations, not just of people running for office, but for people in general. Your purity test is not only foolish, but will cause you to be deeply unsatisfied and let down by so much in the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] [S] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    Details? You're looking at a different picture than I am.

    I just see a black blob.

    Also, thanks for posting that. It's the first time I've actually seen a picture of the tattoo and as someone who hasn't engrossed themselves in white supremacist culture, wouldn't immediately place that as being a Nazi symbol.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)