Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice leaves Democratic Party over antisemitism concerns

[u/awaythrowawaying]

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/11/pennsylvania-supreme-court-antisemitism-democratic-party-00914943

[u/drunkandslurred]

I mean he's not wrong. The Democrats seem to let fringe groups constantly high jack their messaging and feel like they have to try and be everything to everyone and inevitably wind up alienating large voting blocks because of it.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/drunkandslurred]

seem to let fringe groups constantly high jack their messaging

What exactly does that mean in this context? There are tons of examples of notable Democrats like Jeffries condemning antisemitism. They support Jewish candidates and leaders, such as the Senate minority leaders and Shapiro. The party as a whole supported sending several billions worth of aid to Israel that's in addition to what they normally get.

[u/J-Jarl-Jim → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Adding onto this, of the 35 Jewish politicians in Congress, 32 are Democrats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_members_of_the_United_States_Congress

[u/CraftZ49 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

When you think of a random person who suggests that October 7th was a "freedom fighter resistance operation", occupies university buildings and bangs on the doors to locked rooms with Jewish students inside, who do you think they vote for? Which party is more likely to have people in it that express support/make excuses for that behavior?

That's the problem. The Democratic party doesn't do nearly enough to separate themselves from the association. You can think that it's not fair, but politics is all PR and what the public thinks matters.

Edit: Allow me to be clear, Republicans also deal with the same situation as well.

[u/archiezhie → u/CraftZ49]

who do you think they vote for?

Jill Stein or Claudia De la Cruz. You think they voted for Genocide Joe or Genocide Kamala?

[u/NutmegKilla → u/archiezhie]

I don't really get where this idea comes from that far left people or tankies are voting for Chuck Schumer lol. In fact its explicitly part of their politics to NOT vote for people like Schumer and to actively trash every Democrat politician that doesn't 100% agree with them. They don't care about helping Democrats win elections. A lot of them will directly tell you they don't even vote or believe in electoral politics.

[u/sks010 → u/NutmegKilla]

^ this person gets it.

I feel seen.

[u/Another-attempt42 → u/CraftZ49]

If that's the standard...

Who pops into mind when you hear "Jews are importing the Third World to weaken the master race?" Some random far-righter.

Who pops into mind when you hear "black people have a lower IQ due to the warrior gene?". Some random GOP voter.

Who pops into mind when you hear "well, sure they may be smart but they also eat dogs." Some random GOP voter.

We can play this game of taking some online fringe view, and use it to state that there's a problem with the core political party, if you want.

I don't think the GOP comes out looking anything other than terrible. Trump had people like Nick Fuentes advocating for him last election.

Is this the standard we should apply?

[u/IHerebyDemandtoPost → u/Another-attempt42]

 Trump had people like Nick Fuentes advocating for him last election.

Trump invited him to MAL for a private dinner.

Is this the standard we should apply?

The sad truth is, Democrats and Republicans are held to different standards.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/CraftZ49]

When you think of a random person

Random and extreme leftists don't care about what the Democratic establishment says because they view it as being too moderate.

Which party is more likely to have people in it that express support/make excuses for that behavior?

Neither. Both condemn it.

doesn't do nearly enough to separate

That doesn't answer my question. It's just another extremely vague claim.

[u/CraftZ49 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Neither. Both condemn it.

That's not what I asked, I said which party has people in it that are more likely to express support/make excuses for that behavior. I did not ask about what the party leadership does. I asked about the people that make up that party.

That doesn't answer my question. It's just another extremely vague claim.

Okay so lets look at the latest leftist superstar Mamdani. He has appointed numerous people in his mayoral administration that have extensive online histories that include antisemitic remarks or support for Hamas. Is it wrong to draw some conclusions?

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/CraftZ49]

I did not ask about what the party leadership does.

I was referring to politicians in general.

I asked about the people that make up that party.

You mean some random people? The extremists don't even like the establishment, nor do they receive support from it.

He has appointed numerous people in his mayoral administration

I see only one clear example. It was before he entered office. The posts were discovered the day after being appointed, and she was fired hours later.

[u/WlmWilberforce → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Mamdani has a rap where he says "My love to the Holy Land Five." Does that count as supporting Hamas?

[u/MichaelSonOfMike → u/WlmWilberforce]

Are you referring to a line in his rap song that he wrote ten years ago, in his twenties? 😂 Man, the reaching is getting Mr. Fantastical.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/WlmWilberforce]

Mamdani's appointment of Jewish people and his outreach toward the community is more relevant than a song line from a decade ago.

[u/Winterheart84 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

He also campaigned alongside Hasan Piker, you know the "I support Hamas, ten toes down" and "America deserved 9/11" guy.

[u/Airedale260 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

How about a week ago, when a Jewish preschool had to close early because protestors showed up at the attached synagogue, and Mamdani’s response was to reluctantly send the NYPD to protect the school while implying that the synagogue had it coming for holding an event on the ‘Aliyah’ (the Jewish commandment about living in Israel? Is that recent enough, especially since it fits a pattern?

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/Airedale260]

reluctantly send

Unsubstantiated.

while implying that the synagogue had it coming

He explicitly said they deserved protection.

holding an event on the ‘Aliyah’

His criticism was actually toward the promotion of West Bank settlements.

since it fits a pattern

A song line from a decade ago isn't a pattern, especially since a plausible explanation is that he didn't believe that they did what they're accused of. Stating your interpretation with certainty would be reasonable if there was an actual pattern.

[u/Stat-Pirate → u/CraftZ49]

What has the Republican Party done to separate itself from the people who stormed the capitol building on Jan 6? Last I recall, they got pardons, and Ashli Babbit’s family got $5 million.

What has it done to separate itself from “very fine people” carrying tiki torches and chanting about Great Replacement at Charlottesville?

What has it done to distance itself from conspiracy theories about immigrants eating cats and dogs? About 2020 election denialism? The list goes on and on. It’s virtually a fire hydrant coming from the very top of the party.

Sure, the Democratic Party isn’t perfect. But there’s a massive plank vs speck issue with people wringing their hands about opinions from fringe Democrats.

[u/CraftZ49 → u/Stat-Pirate]

What has it done to separate itself from “very fine people” carrying tiki torches and chanting about Great Replacement at Charlottesville?

The very next sentence after the one you quoted, Trump specifically excluded the white supremacists who did that. So there's that.

Regardless, all you're doing is making my point. People will draw conclusions about both parties based on what people who vote for them do. Me saying that people will do that for Democrats doesn't mean I think Republicans are immune from the same treatment.

[u/IHerebyDemandtoPost → u/CraftZ49]

 The very next sentence after the one you quoted, Trump specifically excluded the white supremacists who did that. So there's that.

It wasn’t the very nect sentence. This keeps being repeated and isn’t true, which makes me think you’ve never read the transcript or watched the actual exchange.

BTW, here was the very next sentence:

 You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

Notice the referrence to photographs. He seems to be basing who is and isn’t very fine based on whether the look the part of a neo-nazi or white supremacist.

Later in the same transcript:

No, no. There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day, it looked like they had some rough, bad people, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call ‘em. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest, because you know, I don’t know if you know, but they had a permit.

Another reference to how they looked. But also, a clairification on who Trump believed was “very fine people,” and distinctly separate from the “ neo-Nazis and the white nationalists,” which Trump said “ should be condemned totally.”

 I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee.

So, the very fine people were the ones Trump saw the night before. Those were the tiki-torch guys! Trump excluded the tiki-torch guys from whom he considered neo-Nazis and the white nationalists in the same transcript.

In your mind: (1) Trump said he wasn’t referring to white supremacists as very fine people , (2) those people were white supremascists, (3) therefore, Trump wasn’t referring to them.

But in Trump’s mind: (1) white supremacists look like “rough, bad people,” (2) thebtiki-torch guys looked presentable, therefore (3) they’re very fine people.

u/stat-pirate is correct to include the tiki-torch people among whom Trump called “very fine people.”

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/CraftZ49]

You didn't address the other examples, which are valid. They're talking about Trump saying horrendous things and defending people who attacked the capital, not just "what people who vote for them do."

[u/PreviousCurrentThing → u/Interesting_Total_98]

You didn't address the other examples, which are valid.

That's the general problem with using disproven or misleading talking points to try to bolster one's position: it lets opponents attack that part with facts on their side.

It behooves those who want Trump and his movement to lose political power not use rhetoric which is so easily parried, especially when there is no shortage of more defensible arguments which actually challenge his supporters reasons for supporting him. The only person "very fine people" helps in 2026 is Trump.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/PreviousCurrentThing]

Although being entirely correct is ideal, having a mostly correct argument is better responding to one by just cherry-picking the weakest part. The conclusion doesn't rely on the false claim and was supported by legitimate evidence, so it's irrational to dismiss it.

only person "very fine people" helps in 2026 is Trump.

His lies are very frequent and extreme, even by politician standards, so there's no reason to think that incorrect claims against him are useful to his goals. Even if every bad thing said about was true, all he'd have to do is say that Democrats are lying. He managed to convince most of his party that the 2020 election was stolen based on practically nothing.

It's implausible that people are going to think "Trump constantly lies, but the criticism against him is sometimes false, so I'm going to vote for him." What actually happens is that his critics either believe the misinformation or realize that it existing isn't an excuse to support his ideas. The people outraged by the false information were supporting him anyway.

[u/PreviousCurrentThing → u/Interesting_Total_98]

I'd agree that's better if the goal is the truth. I try not to cherry-pick when I'm trying to get at the truth of a matter. I'm saying in politics, giving your opposition a weak point to deflect away from your better points is a losing move.

His lies are very frequent and extreme, even by politician standards, so there's no reason to think that incorrect claims against him are useful to his goals.

I couldn't disagree more. The thing which first made me give a second look to Trump was looking at how much the media would distort what he said to make it look worse, and I ended up voting for him twice.

The insidious thing is that it insulates many of his supporters from trusting any attacks against him. Once they saw two or three examples of media blatantly misrepresenting what he said, all he has to do is say "Fake News!" and they roll with it.

"Trump constantly lies, but the criticism against him is sometimes false, so I'm going to vote for him."

I don't think that's the psychology of it. (I'm an outlier so I don't extrapolate from myself here.) It's more that they've been trained, upon true if incomplete information, that criticism against him is often false, can't be trusted, and can be dismissed out of hand. So they begin supporting him for whatever reason they do, but then there's less of a path out because most of the non-Trump media has burned their credibility with these people.

[u/decrpt → u/PreviousCurrentThing]

Richard Spencer does not self-identify as racist or white supremacist when prompted.

Would you say that it is "blatantly misrepresenting" him to suggest otherwise? If the actual factual context of any given statement is immaterial, you're setting the bar at willfully self-identifying with negative labels when confronted.

It is not disproven or misleading to take issue with what Trump said given the context in which he said it. It was an inappropriate statement given the actual circumstances and absolutely warrants criticism.

[u/MichaelSonOfMike → u/PreviousCurrentThing]

It’s not a losing move. It’s what every single political party that has ever existed has because it’s the nature of a lot of people being in one group. You can’t control the outliers. What an absurd suggestion. That a party needs to control it’s outliers and most extreme voices. How exactly should they do that? These false equivalencies are getting so old.

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/PreviousCurrentThing]

giving your opposition a weak point

Everyone makes mistakes. Having a partially incorrect argument isn't as bad as someone rejecting stated directly to them simply because one of the claims is wrong.

I couldn't disagree more. The thing which first made me give a second look

Relying on just your experience is an incredibly extremely weak argument to make about what the effect is on voters, especially since you made the true but also contradictory statement about how you shouldn't extrapolate from yourself.

Edit: It makes even less sense when you realize how extreme his level of dishonesty is, even when compared to the average politician. He constantly and blatantly misrepresents basic reality, such as claiming that any election loss must be due to cheating or saying that Haitians in the U.S. are eating pets, yet he won twice.

[u/Fragrant-Menu215 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

Although being entirely correct is ideal

No, this is beyond that. The "very fine people" claim has been disproven for over 10 years. Using or defending it is an instant disqualifier from being taken seriously. At best it shows such an extreme level of ignorance as to render the user's arguments not worthy of consideration. It is an immediate total deletion of credibility.

[u/Pinball509 → u/Fragrant-Menu215]

The following statement is 100% accurate: in the immediate aftermath of Nazis and white supremacists marching and rallying and fatally running over a woman, Trump thought it was appropriate to say that both sides were to blame because not everyone at the Nazi rally was a Nazi.

[u/Fragrant-Menu215 → u/PreviousCurrentThing]

That's the general problem with using disproven or misleading talking points to try to bolster one's position: it lets opponents attack that part with facts on their side.

It also discredits the rest of the argument. Because at best it indicates a level of ignorance to make their arguments not worth consideration.

[u/MichaelSonOfMike → u/PreviousCurrentThing]

But you didn’t provide any examples.

[u/IHerebyDemandtoPost → u/PreviousCurrentThing]

I agree with you that this topic isn’t helpful for the point u/Stat-Pirate was trying to make, but not for thebreasons you state.

I contend that what u/Stat-Pirate said was not misleading or disproven. All he said was Trump said the tiki-torch guys were very fine people. When you consider the totality of Trump’s comments during that press briefing, it seems to me he was referring to exactly that group as he specifically said he saw them the “night before.”

The problem with this topic is it has already been litigated to death and everyone has already made up their mind.

[u/MichaelSonOfMike → u/CraftZ49]

You’re conflating two things that aren’t remotely the same, and anytime anyone confronts you with facts, you make vague claims, with no factual basis or supporting quotes. It’s a typical both sides cope, that has no credibility at all.

[u/Stat-Pirate → u/CraftZ49]

The very next sentence after the one you quoted, Trump specifically excluded the white supremacists who did that. So there's that.

I've asked this multiple times before, and never gotten a good response: Who was Trump talking about? It's easy for him to say that he's not talking about the white nationalists, but the Unite the Right rally was put on by people and groups widely accused as being white nationalist, to the point that even the leader of the Proud Boys called them Nazis.

As SPLC put it:

 While he claims he’s neither a white supremacist nor a white nationalist, Kessler’s message isn’t far removed from those camps. His sidekicks for the rally will include the Confederate White Knights of the KKK and their associates in the East Coast Knights of the KKK. Hooded members of the  Exalted Knights and the Global Crusader Knights also may show up.  

   One of the first-invited headliners was Richard Spencer, a white nationalist generally regarded as the founder of the Alt-Right movement.     

   Other headliners quickly signed up included Matthew Heimbach, co-founder of the Traditionalist Worker Party; Mike “Enoch” Peinovich, who preaches white nationalism on the “Right Stuff,” and Michael Hill, head of the neo-Confederate League of the South who is telling his followers to gear-up for confrontations with counterprotesters.

Why would people who are not white nationalists go to a rally put on by such groups?

[u/Fragrant-Menu215 → u/Stat-Pirate]

Who was Trump talking about?

The people who showed up because of the headline of the event, which was "unite the right" and made no mention of the ideology of the organizers, and not the organizers.

Oh and SPLC is not a credible source of information. They're openly and nakedly partisan. Same with ADL and pretty much all those other groups.

[u/dinwitt → u/Fragrant-Menu215]

I don't know, the SPLC apparently helped pay for and organize that event, they probably know a fair amount about it.

[u/rwk81 → u/Stat-Pirate]

Who was Trump talking about?

He explained this himself I'm pretty sure.

He was referring to people who were normal supporters and protestors of the statues, some for and some against.

Do you think he was referring to the tiki torch folks and antifa being the fine people on both sides?

[u/Stat-Pirate → u/rwk81]

He explained this himself I'm pretty sure.

I do not think that he did. I think he offered a platitude to sound good, but which make no sense.

Do you think he was referring to the tiki torch folks and antifa being the fine people on both sides?

As u/IHerebyDemandtoPost showed, yes, he was at least referring explicitly to the tiki torch guys.

And note that leading up to this rally, there were previous events. The first was, as CNN describes it:

On Saturday night, a group carrying torches and led by prominent white nationalist Richard Spencer held a demonstration around the statue to protest its removal. The gathering was swiftly condemned by city leaders, who said it evoked images of the Ku Klux Klan.

The second event was a literal Klan rally.

The main organizer of the August protest, Kessler, was explicitly following up on those two events, calling them “fantastic.” The Klan was also among the organizers/headliners of Kessler’s event.

So again: Who is going to these rallies who isn’t a white nationalist? Unless you think that Trump just has to say some magical words and that absolves him of criticism, we need to think about the implications.

So Trump is not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists? That’s great! But that seems to exclude everyone from one side. So again: Who is he talking about? Who is going to an event featuring multiple Klan groups, that is explicitly following up on a Klan rally, and also explicitly following up on a rally chanting about great replacement, who isn’t racist?

[u/ModPolBot → u/[deleted]]

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

[u/rwk81 → u/Stat-Pirate]

“very fine people”

Hard to believe this is still making the rounds.

[u/IHerebyDemandtoPost → u/rwk81]

Trump specifically said in the same transcript that he looked the night before and saw people protesting quietly, which he drew a distinction from: 

The following day, it looked like they had some rough, bad people, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call ‘em.”

The people there the night before were the tiki-torch guys. Trump didn’t consider them among the  neo-Nazis and the white nationalists. So, Trump was including the tiki-torch guys among the “very fine people,” and u/stat-pirate was accurate in saying so. You might understand that the tiki-torch guys are neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, but Trump apparently did not.

[u/rwk81 → u/IHerebyDemandtoPost]

Which is all fine and good, he explicitly said he condemned the white supremacists/etc.

[u/IHerebyDemandtoPost → u/rwk81]

u/Stat-Pirate did not say anything about white supremacists. He only mentioned the tiki-torch guys.

When you read the full comments you see Trump first calls a vague group of people, “very fine people.” 

Then makes a distinction between these people and the neo-nazis and white nationalists, and goes on to say the very fine people have been treated unfairly by the press. 

Then a reporter asks if Trump meant the if the press were treating white nationalists unfairly. 

Trump then explains that the people he is referring to were the guys from the night before.

But those were the tiki-torch guys! 

Trump was referring specifically to the tiki-torch guys when he said there were very fine people on both sides. You chastized u/Stat-Pirate for making a factual statement.

You might say, “but the tiki-torch guys were white nationalists!” And you’d be correct. Trump apparently thought otherwise.

It’s all right there in the transcript:

 REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville. 

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

 REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down – excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what? It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.

 REPORTER: I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? 

TRUMP: No, no. There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day, it looked like they had some rough, bad people, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call ‘em. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest, because you know, I don’t know if you know, but they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: there are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country, a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country. Does anybody have a final – does anybody have a final question? You have an infrastructure question.

[u/rwk81 → u/IHerebyDemandtoPost]

So he misspoke and then corrected himself by explicitly saying, not just on this one occasion but many times, that he condemns these groups.

[u/IHerebyDemandtoPost → u/rwk81]

That doesn’t change what u/Stat-Pirate said here was 100% accurate.

[u/Every1HatesChris → u/rwk81]

What was the unite the right rally about?

[u/IceyExits → u/Stat-Pirate]

The recent Southern Poverty Law Center Indictment was extremely illuminating about who funded those “very fine people.”

a. F-37 was a member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 “Unite the Right” event in Charlottesville, Virginia and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC. F-37 made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees. Between 2015 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-37 more than $270,000.00.

[u/ph0on → u/IceyExits]

An informant? You do know informants are to blend in and insert themselves in a believable way? Do you also despise federal informants of drug or human trafficking stings for playing a part?

[u/IceyExits → u/ph0on]

The SPLC is not a law enforcement agency and at the point where they are planning, funding, arranging transportation for and participating in a White Supremacy rally that’s not an information gathering activity.

Would it be too far if the SPLC dude brought the tiki torches, lined everyone up and started the chant?

Given that we know that this group was infiltrated by multiple law enforcement agencies as well I can’t help but wonder if there were any real White Supremacists in the “Unite the Right” leadership at all.

Or did the SPLC and law enforcement just catfish some low IQ incels online and drive them to the rally.

[u/Beneneb → u/CraftZ49]

Who do you think Nazis vote for?

[u/rwk81 → u/Beneneb]

Well, Richard Spencer endorsed Harris, and Nick Fuentes just came out expressing support for Democrats. So 🤷‍♂️

[u/dadmandoe → u/rwk81]

Leaving out the context of why they did those things is certainly a choice. Also, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Kamala who was dining at MaL with Fuentes.

[u/rwk81 → u/dadmandoe]

You asked who they vote for, they're telling you who they vote for. Add context if you want, I'm not sure it changes much.

[u/dadmandoe → u/rwk81]

They voted for DJT wholeheartedly in his previous runs curiously. Almost like you're trying to deliver a punchline without any setup.

[u/rwk81 → u/dadmandoe]

Well, they have to vote for someone, right? They then found out that he's not the guy they had hoped apparently, and shifted to endorsing Democrats because they apparently appear to be more inline with their values.

Apparently, when they heard America first, they must have thought that excluded everyone that doesn't look like them, and now it seems like they align much more closely with Democrats on one of their primary sore spots, which is support for Israel.

This is what THEY are saying, explicitly. These guys spread Jewish conspiracy theories and feel more comfortable aligning with Democrats.

[u/BygoneNeutrino → u/CraftZ49]

You have a point.  Based on the posts and comments and Reddit and Lemmy, Democrats have replaced Republicans as the antisemitic party of choice.  It's weird.  

[u/Opening-Calendar3421 → u/CraftZ49]

You need to spend more time with those groups if you believe they are Dem voters. They believe the Dems and Reps are two sides of the same coin. They might hate the Dems more than the Reps because they believe the Reps are more honest about their intentions 

[u/the_last_0ne → u/Interesting_Total_98]

They mean they see people from these "fringe groups" saying things to the press and they equate it with the entire democratic party.

[u/Best_Change4155 → u/Interesting_Total_98]

What exactly does that mean in this context?

Where the political winds are heading.

There are tons of examples of notable Democrats like Jeffries condemning antisemitism.

There are far fewer than condemn antisemitism alone (antisemitismandislamophobia is a meme). And fewer still that will do anything about it.

[u/MikeyMike01 → u/drunkandslurred]

Democrats expect to get votes from the far left, then completely disavow the beliefs of the far left. One of the two has to give.

[u/MichaelSonOfMike → u/drunkandslurred]

😂 As opposed to who? Democrats are run by a centrist supermajority who is owned by donors. The idea that that are radical because they no longer want to support a foreign war campaign by Israel is comical cope.

[u/VenerableMirah → u/MichaelSonOfMike]

Have moderate Dems actually broken away from Israel, even? I wish they would, it's getting hard to support Dems who let Zionists call all of us racists if we don't support ethnic cleansing and apartheid.

[u/MichaelSonOfMike → u/VenerableMirah]

Well, they are mostly Zionists. They mostly support Israel. In fact, the biggest donor recipients from AIPAC are all Democrats. The base is totally removed from the leadership though. 80% of the base ko longer supports giving any military support to Israel.

But I’m in full agreement with you that the Democratic leadership is a major problem. I don’t have an answer for that .

[u/airforceCOT → u/drunkandslurred]

The problem is that these fringe groups now have members who are top fundraising Congresswomen, mayors of large cities, and leading Senate candidates. At what point do we drop the "fringe" prefix?

[u/Interesting_Total_98 → u/airforceCOT]

Nearly every Jewish congressmen is a Democrat. This includes Senate minority leader Schumer and Bernie Sanders. A majority of Jewish voters vote Democrats.

The party has voted in favor of sending $26.38 billion in aid to Israel, which is on the top of the $3.8 billion it was already receiving.

[u/Fit-Bicycle6206 → u/airforceCOT]

Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.

[u/StrikingYam7724 → u/Fit-Bicycle6206]

It is, however, a form of bigotry directed against nation of origin, which makes it a really weird shield for the so-called "anti-bigotry" party to hide behind.

[u/PetsArentChildren → u/StrikingYam7724]

Nation of origin? How does antizionism hurt Jews outside Israel? 

[u/StrikingYam7724 → u/PetsArentChildren]

What? There might be a comprehension issue here because "Israel" is a nation of origin and "Jew" is not.

[u/PetsArentChildren → u/StrikingYam7724]

Sure. Are you primarily concerned with bigotry against non-Jew current/former Israelis? Isn’t that demographic rather small? 

[u/Best_Change4155 → u/Fit-Bicycle6206]

Cool, we are talking about antisemitism. The discussion about anti-Zionism is in another thread.

[u/Fit-Bicycle6206 → u/Best_Change4155]

The commenter I'm replying to is referencing politicians that have made clear anti-zionist remarks but in no way have been anti-semitic (besides Graham Platner who does not even hold public office).

top fundraising Congresswomen

I'm assuming this is referencing Ilhan Omar and some of the other "squad" members like AOC who have been critical of Israel but the closest thing any of them have said to anti-semitism is Omar's "all about the Benjamins" remark. If you can't say that lobbying groups are all about the Benjamins without being criticized because there's a stereotype about Jewish people and money then I'm not sure what there is to say.

mayors of large cities

I'm guessing this is Mamdani? The biggest criticism I can find on him is that he repealed Adams's broadening of the definition of anti-semitism to include criticism of Israel (which by definition is anti-zionism, not anti-semitism).

leading Senate candidates

I'm guessing this is Graham Platner and this is the main one where there's at least an argument that he's anti-semitic. It is crazy that he's gotten the support of the party through the tattoo and reddit comments as well as some of his actions since he started his campaign.

[u/StrikingYam7724 → u/Fit-Bicycle6206]

Respectfully, if you think that's the only questionable statement she's made you should do a little more research. I'd recommend starting with the history of Louis Farrakhan, who she openly praised well after his remarks about and attitude towards Jews became common knowledge.

[u/Best_Change4155 → u/Fit-Bicycle6206]

I'm assuming this is referencing Ilhan Omar and some of the other "squad" members like AOC who have been critical of Israel but the closest thing any of them have said to anti-semitism is Omar's "all about the Benjamins" remark.

She has said numerous things since then

If you can't say that lobbying groups are all about the Benjamins without being criticized because there's a stereotype about Jewish people and money then I'm not sure what there is to say.

She said it to a Jewish colleague. Believe it or not, some people support Israel regardless of lobbying groups. E.g. Fetterman, who received zero money from AIPAC and yet lobbying groups like TrackAIPAC try to say he took money from (((pro-Israel donors))) even if he didn't take any money from AIPAC.

I'm guessing this is Mamdani? The biggest criticism I can find on him is that he repealed Adams's broadening of the definition of anti-semitism to include criticism of Israel (which by definition is anti-zionism, not anti-semitism).

He joins the October 7th celebrations every year.

[u/marchjl → u/drunkandslurred]

How is the dem party antisemitic? Because they sometimes criticize Israel? Being against Israel isn’t antisemitism

[u/Tacklinggnome87 → u/marchjl]

They literally nominated a guy with a nazi tattoo to run for Senate on their platform.

[u/ph0on → u/Tacklinggnome87]

You mean the tatto he got as a marine, and has had covered up? I thought tattoos don't matter? And do we always consign people to their past? And also, how does that represent the entire Democrat party in any way other than a current trendy right wing talking point? I'd still be far more concerned about the Heil salutes.

[u/Tacklinggnome87 → u/ph0on]

You mean the one who wore that tattoo for decades and only recently covered it up after it became public? The one who is obviously lying that he didn't know what it meant despite him being a history buff and the symbol being a popular meme? Yeah that guy. The closeted Nazi.

Why dont the Democratic leaders do what Republicans did when David Duke was running and endorse the other party's candidate?

[u/Segull → u/drunkandslurred]

Agreed, they let the DSA and other groups hang onto their electoral systems. Why are these candidates allowed in the party? They should remain with the greens.

[u/timmg → u/drunkandslurred]

The Democrats seem to let fringe groups

If they consistently do that, then what does it say? I mean, this seems like a roundabout way to excuse it.

[u/OneThousand-Masks → u/timmg]

Says the same thing when Republicans let fringe groups like the proudboys hijack their messaging. It’s weakness.

[u/ModPolBot → u/[deleted]]

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

[u/Icy_Blackberry_3759]

That’s pretty disingenuous. Nobody is acquiescing to “Jew hatred” just because we can’t stomach what Israel is doing with the money we gave them. Israel isn’t above criticism.

It’s time to divest from the entire Middle East. There is no mission for us there anymore. If the sides are oil sultanates, Islamic dictatorships, and ethnostates….we shouldn’t play

[u/cathbadh → u/Icy_Blackberry_3759]

There is no mission for us there anymore.

As long as people need oil, global economic stability will hinge in part on stability in the Middle East. Like it or not, there is still a mission there, even if we aren't conducting it very well at the moment

[u/Connect-Rhubarb2501 → u/cathbadh]

It certainly seems to me like doing nothing in the Middle East would be advancing that mission a hell of a lot better than anything we’ve done there in the past 30 years or so

[u/Fragrant-Menu215 → u/cathbadh]

We are literally the cause of the instability that is currently causing an oil crisis. It would be objectively better for us to just leave. They had a fragile peace in place that kept the oil flowing, and then we shattered it. Us, us and the country that apparently has the power to issue our government direct orders.

[u/Geekerino → u/Fragrant-Menu215]

You kidding? The Middle East has seen some kind of war or conflict pretty consistently since the early 20th century, to the point that I can't even remember if there ever was a peaceful period in that region.

[u/fitandhealthyguy → u/Icy_Blackberry_3759]

Waving the hamas flag and chanting from the river to the sea.

[u/cskelly2 → u/fitandhealthyguy]

Which democratic representative did that?

[u/fitandhealthyguy → u/cskelly2]

Because it only matters when a representative does it? They don’t denounce it either. Those people are the fringe that the poster was referring to.

[u/cskelly2 → u/fitandhealthyguy]

Correct. That is when it matters. They are holding power. The river to the sea people do not, and the poster is addressing what the platforms currently are. Hell, a major issue for voter apathy among the far left wing was a lack of denunciation of Israel from those in power.

[u/Theron3206 → u/cskelly2]

The attitudes of politicians supporters rub off on them in the eyes of the public.

[u/MichaelSonOfMike → u/fitandhealthyguy]

Who did that? Send me a photo.

[u/fitandhealthyguy → u/MichaelSonOfMike]

https://seattlered.com/education/uw-protesters-hamas-hezbollah-flags-campus/4118082

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/didnt-act-enough-pro-palestine-protesters-in-nyc-wave-hamas-flags-call-for-action-stronger-than-october-7/amp_articleshow/124424971.cms

https://www.jns.org/israel-news/hamas-hezbollah-flags-flown-at-nyc-anti-israel-march

https://nypost.com/2025/10/07/us-news/anti-israel-protesters-chant-antisemitic-slogan-in-nyc-on-two-year-anniversary-of-hamas-oct-7-attack/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/us/politics/river-to-the-sea-israel-gaza-palestinians.html

[u/Haunting-Detail2025 → u/Icy_Blackberry_3759]

The DNC is actively pushing a candidate who had a nazi tattoo until a few months ago, that has nothing to do with Israel or policy in the Middle East

[u/J-Jarl-Jim → u/Haunting-Detail2025]

The DNC backed Mills, not Platner. It was her campaign that leaked the tattoo and Reddit posts.

[u/Best_Change4155 → u/J-Jarl-Jim]

The DNC backed Mills,

DNC didn't back anyone. They stayed out of it. Schumer backed Mills.

[u/Segull → u/J-Jarl-Jim]

Why are they letting Platner run as a democrat then?

[u/smart-username → u/Segull]

They don’t have control over who runs. Anyone who gets enough signatures can get their name on the ballot.

[u/OneThousand-Masks → u/Haunting-Detail2025]

Pete Hegseth has suspect tattoos and I haven’t seen a single republican try to get him removed from Trump’s cabinet. Has Hegseth apologized and distanced himself from those things?

[u/Tacklinggnome87 → u/OneThousand-Masks]

Let's compare. One is a skull that was well know to be used by the SS that it became a meme about having skulls on one's head.

The other is a common christian symbol that it is used it is worn on the clerical vestments during mass and worn by teenagers who just finished a Jesuit retreat.

Yeah I wonder which is more obviously suspect.

[u/OneThousand-Masks → u/Tacklinggnome87]

I’ll go with the crusade slogan being pretty suspect, especially with how weird Hegseth has been about our Middle East wars being some holy calling.

[u/TiberiusDrexelus → u/OneThousand-Masks]

it's honestly just absurd to compare the jerusalem cross to literally the SS death head

[u/v12vanquish → u/OneThousand-Masks]

Lol, his tattoos are not suspect compared to platners Nazi tattoo…

Just whataboutism and the example you provide isn’t even remotely close

[u/OneThousand-Masks → u/v12vanquish]

Who is comparing? I want all who had suspect tattoos to answer for them. Platner appears to be. What is Hegseth doing?

[u/wizdummer → u/OneThousand-Masks]

The Jerusalem Cross isn’t suspect. It was featured prominently at Jimmy Carter’s funeral, is the Carter family a bunch of Nazis?

[u/OneThousand-Masks → u/wizdummer]

I’m referring to “Deus Vult,” but feel free to assume.

[u/IceyExits → u/OneThousand-Masks]

The NAZIS used the phrase “Gott mit uns” (God is with us) not “Deus Vult” (God’s will)

[u/OneThousand-Masks → u/IceyExits]

I didn’t call Hegseth’s tattoo a Nazi tattoo. I called it suspect.

[u/Haunting-Detail2025 → u/OneThousand-Masks]

And that’s a failure from republicans to act, and a disgusting one too. But I’m not sure what this has to do with this post - the judge is not a republican, nor is he in the trump administration.

[u/OneThousand-Masks → u/Haunting-Detail2025]

I’m glad you agree! I think the Democratic Party is also doing a very poor job at their messaging. My problem is the hypocrisy of right wingers calling out the man from Maine without considering that plank in their own eye.

[u/Haunting-Detail2025 → u/OneThousand-Masks]

I’m a Democrat so I can’t speak to why they differ on Hegseth vs Platner. All I can say is that Platner has some history that makes me viscerally uncomfortable, and I can understand why Jewish people would see it as further evidence democrats are not interested in protecting them

[u/Icy_Blackberry_3759 → u/Haunting-Detail2025]

Platner isn’t attacking Jews or espousing any kind of platform like that, and he makes me extremely uneasy. He got the tattoo removed. He probably thought it was badass when he got it with a bunch of other soldiers, that’s the Occam’s razor explanation. That doesn’t add up to “Democrats aren’t protecting Jews” as if Nazi terrorists are walking free under some Democrat conspiracy

[u/Best_Change4155 → u/Icy_Blackberry_3759]

Platner isn’t attacking Jews or espousing any kind of platform like that,

"Anti-Zionism isn't antisemitism" hits a bit different when it comes from a man with a Nazi tattoo.

[u/rwk81 → u/Icy_Blackberry_3759]

Well, Hasan Piker said he likes Platner because Platner expresses support for Hamas. Maybe there's more to the Nazi tattoo, his amplifying white supremacists and Jewish conspiracy peddlers.

The occams razor explanation is probably just like it seems, he is into all this sort of stuff.

[u/PreviousCurrentThing → u/rwk81]

Hasan Piker said he likes Platner because Platner expresses support for Hamas.

Are you talking about this?

According to a text description of the video and the raid shared online, the video includes footage of the shootings of several Israeli soldiers, at least one of whom is screaming as the terrorists attempt to kidnap him.

“Looks like an all around well executed and successful small unit raid to me,” Platner wrote in 2014 on the Reddit forum r/CombatFootage, a discussion board for footage and photographs of past and current armed conflicts.

Where he then follows up by saying he's not talking geopolitics, just the combat tactics?

Responding to another user who criticized the “execution” of the Israeli soldiers and emphasized that the attack would lead to heavy reprisals in Gaza, Platner said he was not interested in discussing the geopolitical or strategic implications, but suggested Hamas’ tactics and actions were reasonable.

“As for your aversion to ‘execution’, a small unit raid tends to be used to inflict casualties and take prisoners in a short period of time,” Platner wrote. “Pragmatically I have little problem with killing an enemy combatant who you attempt to capture but for whatever reason cannot. From a strictly professional standpoint, this was a damn fine looking and successful raid against a superior opponent, I dig it.”

[u/rwk81 → u/PreviousCurrentThing]

Are you talking about this?

You would have to ask Hasan Piker.

[u/curdledtwinkie → u/OneThousand-Masks]

Why is there assumption from progressives that anyone critical of their party is on the right (and also paints conservatives like one big blob), and/or deflects to the ills of the party?

Please excuse me for assuming, but drom the tone of your replies, it seems you may be able to tell me why. Because as a 3 decade plus member, I've left the party. And I'm a never Republican, this stuff has directly affected my life and it hurts. It's nothing about messaging.

[u/Little-Witness-1201 → u/curdledtwinkie]

"Why is there assumption from progressives that anyone critical of their party is on the right"

A lot of people see politics as a black/white team sport, and it's an easy way to dismiss opinions you don't want to deal with. Social media and the internet have exacerbated it because you don't have to engage with opposing views and can forever stay in a bubble.

Reddit is kind of the perfect example. Most users on the site lean left and are able to stay in subs like r/politics where they are never questioned.

[u/Stat-Pirate → u/curdledtwinkie]

Because as a 3 decade plus member, I've left the party. And I'm a never Republican, this stuff has directly affected my life and it hurts.

So who do you vote for?

Under the current system, it’s either a Democrat or a Republican who is going to win. Your choices are either one of those, or to functionally not participate. If you’re a “never Republican”, then not participating gives them half a vote.

I used to be a Republican. I wouldn’t say that I left the party, but rather than party sprinted far to the right and left me behind.

[u/OneThousand-Masks → u/curdledtwinkie]

Probably because I haven’t been right wing or even centrist for ten years when I saw the party going right wing in a way that sickens me. It’s bias on my part. When I considered myself more conservative I was able to see the factions (libertarians, evangelicals, fiscal cons, etc) but when they all support an authoritarian like Trump it gets blurry now that I am out.

[u/LittleDansonMan → u/[deleted]]

Honest question- do you believe it’s possible to critique Israel without being anti-Semitic?

[u/ByzantineBasileus → u/LittleDansonMan]

I can give you an example:

'The Israeli government needs to end the occupation of the West Bank, dismantle the settlements, and withdraw back behind the 1967 border.'

By using explicitly using the term 'government', I am showing where my criticism is aimed. I am focusing on the administration and its policies.

On the other hand, a claim like 'Israelis are pulling the strings of Washington' can easily be argued to be anti-Semitic for two reasons. The first is that whoever says it is clearly not referring to Israeli Christians, Druze, or Muslims, but Jewish Israelis. They are arguing Jewish people control Washington. And that is just a variation of the classic conspiracy theory where the 'Jews' are behind everything.

[u/notapersonaltrainer → u/LittleDansonMan]

Honest question- do you believe it’s possible to critique Israel without being anti-Semitic?

Sure, just like people can critique an arab country without being anti-Arab.

But if those "just anti-ziabic" people also condone or proudly chant...

"There is only One Solution, Crusade revolution!"

"Globalize the Crusade."

"From the Caucasus to the Red Sea, Mesopotamia will be free!"

unironically argue "Crusade just means 'taking the cross'"...

defend Ivy League presidents condoning "context dependent arab genocide"...

feature "jew exclusion zones" at events...

display arab flags with trash cans and allusions to "cleaning", or straight up genocidal flags, and no one there seems bothered...

and if, after centuries of genocide arabs were whittled down to 15 million people who live under constant rocket barrages, these folks seemed single-mindedly fixated on erasing arab and only arab lands, cannot name one other country that shall be erased (while they themselves live on colonized land), make this a top-line identity hashtag in their bio, and go strangely quiet when a non-arabic country slaughters more people in 20 hours than they did in 20 months...

...I would start to have questions if this is really "just anti-ziabism".

[u/IceyExits → u/notapersonaltrainer]

“Unironically argue Crusade just means ‘taking the cross’…”

Really resonated being able to see this preposterously bad faith argument people were making against me for years framed from the perspective of my faith, Christianity.

[u/NoSwordfish1978 → u/notapersonaltrainer]

"Some people who don't like Iran are islamophobic, therefore everyone who criticises Iran is an islamophobe"

[u/LittleDansonMan → u/notapersonaltrainer]

Thank you for your response. These are all examples I was unaware of. The ones that have been elevated in my echo-chambers have mostly revolved around organizations like the ADL trying to rebrand all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism. Which really muddies the waters for actual examples like the ones you highlighted. 

[u/ceddya → u/notapersonaltrainer]

But if those "just anti-ziabic" people also condone or proudly chant...

Are you really pretending that a few examples means most criticism of Israel has anti-semitic roots?

If you think those symbols are bad, you should see the noose symbols Israeli politicians are wearing. Would criticizing that make us anti-semitic?

and go strangely quiet when a non-arabic country slaughters more people in 20 hours than they did in 20 months...

Is Sudan being given financial aid to the tune of billions and political cover to protect them from sanctions and embargoes?

[u/Slicelker → u/LittleDansonMan]

Honest question- do you believe it’s possible to critique Israel without being anti-Semitic?

Of course, I do it all the time. My general opinion of Israel is pretty negative, though its still grounded in reality.

[u/ModPolBot → u/[deleted]]

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 4:

Law 4: Meta Comments

~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

[u/awaythrowawaying]

Starter comment: The Pennsylvania Democratic Party is reeling in a massive political shock today after a surprise announcement by state Supreme Court Justice David Wecht that he is formally relinquishing membership in the party. Wecht is a longstanding member of the court, having been elected as a Democrat in 2015. However, today in a statement he said that he can no longer call himself a Democrat due to what he perceives as the party's increasing tolerance of antisemitism. Wecht elaborated by saying:

“An acquiescence to Jew-hatred [is] disturbingly common among activists, leaders and even many elected officials in the Democratic Party... I can no longer abide this. So, I won’t. I am no longer registered within any political party. In the quarter century that has passed since then, the Democratic Party has changed. Nazi tattoos, jihadist chants, intimidation and attacks at synagogues, and other hateful anti-Jewish invective and actions are minimized, ignored, and even coddled.”

Wecht did not specify what he meant by Nazi tattoos but it is widely being interpreted as an attack on Graham Platner, a Democratic Senate candidate in Maine who has been beset by fierce controversy after the discovery that he had a chest tattoo of a specific skull-and-crossbones configuration closely resembling that donned by members of the S.S. during World War II. The S.S. was an organization that was implicated in the murder of over 6 million Jews and 6 million other groups considered "undesirable" by the Nazi Party, and it was banned as a criminal organization after the war.

Wecht's decision comes at a critical juncture in the party as it sustains infighting from its progressive and moderate wings. Progressives have grown louder in their criticisms of Israel's role in American politics, whereas moderates and conservatives have defended the close relationship between the U.S. and Israel as a necessary moral counterweight to antisemitism around the world and specifically directed against Jews in Israel via genocidal statements by neighboring countries and political factions.

Does Wecht's departure from the Democratic Party signal a worsening divide over antisemitism within party ranks? How will Democrats react to this, and how should they approach antisemitism concerns going forward?

[u/oath2order → u/awaythrowawaying]

He's clearly referring to Platner. I'm having issues with my party accepting this man. He has a Nazi tattoo. He claims he did not know it is a Nazi tattoo. He also claims to be a WW2 history buff. He then got the tattoo removed.

There are some conclusions to draw here:

1. He knew it was a Nazi tattoo and only got it removed because of political pressure.

2. He did not know it was a Nazi tattoo and got it removed because of political pressure.

3. In his studies of WW2, he missed that this was a Nazi symbol and got a tattoo of what I imagine he thought was "a badass skull".

Option 1 indicates he willingly got a Nazi tattoo, the implications of this are obvious. Option 2 indicates he bends to political pressure and does not stand by his views. Option 3 is the best of these.

I'm all for forgiving Klansmembers and Nazis who have clearly changed their views and are doing better. But I don't think the turnaround for forgiveness is a handful of months. 2 of my 3 options above mean he knew about what the tattoo meant and he willingly kept it.

[u/bakochba → u/oath2order]

Also Chris Rabb who posted on Instagram that the Bondi Beach massacre was a false flag by Jews

[u/Frank_JWilson → u/oath2order]

Why is #2 framed as a negative? Would you rather he kept the Nazi tattoo even after he discovered it was a Nazi tattoo?

[u/rebamericana → u/Frank_JWilson]

Because he was fine with having a totenkopf permanently on his body until it became politically problematic. Not because it was problematic for him personally. 

[u/tarekd19 → u/rebamericana]

the premise of option two though is that he did not know it was a nazi tattoo. If the premise is true, he had no reason to think it was problematic for him personally. It's just a really weird framing. Better to suggest he is dense or ignorant.

[u/ForgetfulElephante → u/rebamericana]

That's not at all what he's said, I get it if you don't believe him, but there's no real evidence for what you're saying other than an anonymous anecdote and mudslinging, Nothing he's said or done supports this.

[u/airforceCOT → u/oath2order]

The defense of Platner's tattoo is just unserious at this point. The latest argument I heard was that a skull and crossbones is pretty nonspecific and maybe he just likes pirates.

This was his tattoo. That's not a fucking Jolly Roger. Come on now, lads.

---

https://historynet.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/GettyImages-515356288-202x300.jpg

https://ak-interactive.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/YM-YM1811.jpg

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fyfb0qu24nuwf1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D320%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Da214c45db96712e9bf95595312534198166a3cb0

[u/Pinball509 → u/airforceCOT]

He posted about it on reddit years ago

“I was on Lejeune, and know lots with bolts,” he wrote. “The amount of people in this thread who have no idea what they’re talking about it pretty epic. Dude was a ‘51, took the STA indoc, became a HOG and got his bolts. Then got out and became a cop. This is not some complicated timeline. Although I do understand that our world is very foreign and insulated, most normal people really have no idea how it works.”

The Marine Corps has long faced scrutiny over Scout Snipers’ use of SS-style insignia — a practice denounced by military officials and Jewish civil rights groups after photos emerged in 2012 showing Marines in Afghanistan posing with an SS flag. The Schutzstaffel or “SS” was a paramilitary organization under Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party responsible for many of the regime’s war crimes and atrocities during World War II.

As an outside observer it seems like a cultural practice within our military that should definitely be squashed.

[u/carneylansford → u/oath2order]

Sitting for an interview with known antisemite and holocaust denier Nate Cornacchia probably didn't help his case (who thinks Jewish folk killed both JFK and Charlie Kirk). Sometimes, it's a duck. He's also way ahead in the polls. Do better Maine.

[u/Iceraptor17 → u/carneylansford]

The problem is after the past 10 years i don't think any of it matters anymore.

In fact i could see even the increased media press over his horrible qualities actually helping him. Doesn't help that the Democrats counter to him was a lady who had half a foot into retirement

[u/Vicullum → u/oath2order]

He got the tattoo of a Totenkopf when he was young, didn't know it had any Nazi connections until it was pointed out to him, at which point he had it covered up.

Do you have any evidence that Platner has espoused or supported Nazi beliefs in the past?

[u/shaymus14 → u/Vicullum]

Platner made Reddit posts discussing the Totenkopf in 2019 and defending US service members getting the SS lightning bolt tattoo in 2020. There's also some former acquaintances who claim he knew it was a Nazi style tattoo.

https://archive.ph/Vux4y

Platner has previously made multiple comments supporting political violence. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Platner

He retweeted one of the most well known anti-semitic Twitter poster.

https://www.pressherald.com/2026/02/26/graham-platner-under-fire-for-a-now-deleted-social-media-post/

He appeared in a photo with a far-right neo-Nazi who was wearing a shirt with 88 on it, a neo-Nazi code for Heil Hitler. He also reportedly called his tattoo "my Totenkopf"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/graham-platner-says-am-not-180202304.html

Platner also went on a the YouTube show of an antisemitic conspiracy theorist and said he was ‘longtime fan’ of his show

https://jewishinsider.com/2026/02/graham-platner-maine-senate-nate-cornacchia/?utm_source=perplexity

I have no idea if Platner is actually a Nazi, but the framing from Democrats that he just accidently got a Nazi tattoo and covered it up as soon as he found out is very misleading. 

[u/ForgetfulElephante → u/shaymus14]

Platner made Reddit posts discussing the Totenkopf in 2019 and defending US service members getting the SS lightning bolt tattoo in 2020.

There's no post of Platner "discussing the Totenkopf" in that link. He's only quoted saying

Using his longtime Reddit handle P-Hustle, the former Marine infantryman and future Democratic Senate hopeful also argued in a 2020 online discussion that “SS” lightning-bolt tattoos were a “culture” marker within Marine Scout Sniper units, not an expression of White supremacist ideology.

When commenters in the 2020 thread described the lightning bolts as a Nazi or racist symbol, Platner dismissed the criticism, writing that outsiders “have no idea what they’re talking about” and added, “I will be sure to inform the Black guys I know with bolts that they’re Nazis now.”

But if making things up isn't bad enough

He appeared in a photo with a far-right neo-Nazi who was wearing a shirt with 88 on it

Oh the horror! You lay all these half truths and insinuations out there like its something undeniable but your links don't even support everything you're saying and actively contradict it in some cases.

From the Yahoo link (https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/graham-platner-says-am-not-180202304.html):

“I am not a secret Nazi. Actually, if you read through my Reddit comments, I think you can pretty much figure out where I stand on Nazism and antisemitism and racism in general,” said Platner, a Marine veteran and oyster farmer in Maine who has faced scrutiny over past online posts. “I would say a lifelong opponent.”

You don't like his politics, fine, but I don't think the Nazi thing is sticking outside of certain circles that were never going to vote for him anyway.

[u/PreviousCurrentThing → u/[deleted]]

I find paraphrases of one's political opponents often twist the meaning or omit relevant context. Let's see that context:

If people “expect to fight fascism without a good semi-automatic rifle, they ought to do some reading of history,” he wrote in one since-deleted post. In another, he said that “an armed working class is a requirement for economic justice.”

CNN first reported Thursday on Platner’s participation on the subreddit r/SocialistRA, alongside other Reddit forums where he called himself a “communist” and said that “all” police are bastards. All of the posts have been deleted.

I don't know about you, but I don't think that's at all consistent with historic Nazis. Nazis either were fascists or were allied with them, depending on your definitions, but they had little interest in "fighting fascism".

The funny thing is he's actually called himself a socialist and a communist (groups who also had a bit of a history with killing political opponents). Republicans finally have a major Dem candidate who can accurately be described as a commie, but they really want to call him a Nazi.

[u/Attackcamel8432 → u/[deleted]]

Lots of people calling for executions of political rivals these days unfortunately.

[u/raouldukehst → u/oath2order]

When he revealed that he covered it up it was not a fresh tattoo - he knew it would be a problem and covered it well before it broke.

[u/Pinball509 → u/oath2order]

1. He did not know it was a Nazi tattoo and got it removed because of political pressure.

Option 2 indicates he bends to political pressure and does not stand by his views.

This does not follow. How is it "his view" if he did not have the view in the first place?

[u/raisinghellions]

Buddy, wait’ll you see what the Republicans have for ya

[u/timmg → u/raisinghellions]

He is unregistered with a party. Not happy with either.

I don't blame him.

[u/bucknut4 → u/raisinghellions]

Why do Democrats always assume that if you’re not a Democrat then you’re automatically a Republican?

[u/Check_Me_Out-Boss → u/bucknut4]

That's how they treat centrists, as well.

[u/bucknut4 → u/Check_Me_Out-Boss]

Reddit progressives especially. They wonder why they don’t win over the average independent voter who doesn’t give a shit about much else other than jobs.

[u/Sailing_Mishap → u/bucknut4]

Probably the same reason Republicans assume and accuse anyone who isn't a Republican to be a "radical leftist"? I.e.: it's lazy and easier to just speak in absolutes with no nuance.

[u/TheOriginalBroCone → u/bucknut4]

They are direction-brained. It's either left or right

[u/solid_reign → u/raisinghellions]

You don't have to be a republican just because you're not a democrat. 

[u/ph0on → u/solid_reign]

Good luck having any kind of political career being an independent.

[u/VenerableMirah → u/raisinghellions]

lmao, haven't liberals been saying this to progressives since Kamala Harris? Absolutely peak irony to see you downvoted for saying it in this context.

[u/crunchtime100]

Would love to hear the lefty spin on this one

[u/PreviousCurrentThing]

Wecht won a 10-year retention election last November.

As a PA voter, I find this rather scummy. Platner's tattoo was widely reported before Wecht's election, and as far as I can tell most of the trends he speaks to as indicating a rise in antisemitism were also apparent by Nov. 2025.

PA is a purple state that went for Trump in 2024, but by the time of his election I do not think he would have been retained if he had made this announcement beforehand: Dems would have voted against him for being a turncoat, and Republicans likely would have voted against retaining him as well.

Given that the reasons he's given for leaving the party were apparent before the election, why should I see this as anything else but cowardly and deceptive toward the voting public about his actual beliefs and positions? It looks like he was happy to let people think he still saw himself as a Dem, until after the election when his seat was safe.

His father, Cyril Wecht, was a well-respected Pittsburgh coroner who died a few years back. I have to wonder what he'd think of his son's actions here.