Disappointing that the linked article doesn’t include a photo of the tattoo. When a report lacks important relevant information, the reader has a choice to take it for its word or seek out supporting facts. So, when I searched for Planter Nazi Tattoo, there are plenty of articles taking the opposing tone - in that he knew what the tattoo was.

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2025/10/21/2349761/-Not-one-diary-or-mention-about-Graham-Platner-s-Nazi-tattoo-Really This sounds more like he has been aware of what the tattoo represented and he hasn’t really cared about it until now. Which I personally find much more believable. Good on him for getting it covered up but, ehhh. Maybe don’t believe every word a politician exhales.

I don’t know this person or anything about Maine. I don’t really care either. But journalism needs to be held accountable. I expect more from PBS / AP.

I think the reason why this may be something you’re wondering about is because we have given podcasters a larger influence in recent years. Not to say that’s bad, but it’s new.

Personally, I don’t consider podcasters or YouTubers, etc., trustworthy sources of information or honest dialog. I’m not sure that’s something that even exists anyway now.

There’s a much larger conversation to be had about where we spend our time and give our attention and why. The real news is boring so we turn to salacious clickbait that we often know has a bias to it. The more time we hand our emotions over to this content, then more it becomes part of our psyche. Sometimes we don’t have a choice but I still know a ton of people who are entirely clueless about politics. So, some people are making choices, for better or worse.

I see Kirk’s legacy the same as Rogan’s and Trump’s. These people are a reflection of our times. Something is very wrong in our world today and we’ve spent the last twenty five years shifting, metaphorically, from CBS Evening News to The National Enquirer.

This is the result of great freedom: a wild storm of ideas with equal opportunity to be expressed and heard. Not something that existed before the internet or having instant world wide communications in your hand or selling your information in order to maintain your attention with biased (mis/dis)information.

How was it awful?

Could you tell me what the heck this yellow blob shape is supposed to be?

From a purely graphic design perspective, the classic logo is too busy and doesn’t scale well. The only thing it has going for it is the weirdness of the shape and the distinct color combination. It’s technically a really bad logo. You may not prefer the new logo but, technically, it’s a whole lot better. It’s far more adaptable to newer platforms while stilling being recognizable. Now, as far as being an effective representation of the brand and if that’s a corporate concern, I don’t know that I can comment on that.

Yes. It was.

the left is resorting to the same half-facts that has made the right so powerful.

This is nothing new. But it’s always said that, effectively, the left’s half facts are for the sake of the good. Which may be true but it still gives the right a reason to distrust the media and they’re right to do so. Meanwhile, you have people begging the Democrats to fight like MAGA does - which we’re seeing Newsom dabble with - but it’s not going to help restore any of what little trust and decorum that may have existed. Everything is spiraling towards shit.

Have to admit, with RFK Jr, I don’t get it.

He might actually get more things right than he gets wrong but in the case of vaccines, he is so wrong - so willfully ignorant of the facts - that it effectively nullifies all he gets right.

I didn’t know this was an elected position. I could see how that complicates the matter.

Still, even if The People elect a person to a publicly held office as a representative of their interests, the elected official is obligated to uphold the law. If they’re unable to do so, either the county should have prevented her from taking the position or she should be held accountable for lying. Either way, the county should be facilitating the law to allow same-sex couples to be married.

No. I’m explicitly saying the exact opposite.

It’s not at all directly applicable.

There is no constitutional obligation for that employee to sell you pork. They’re representing laws that exist to benefit the tax paying public.

A worker at a barbecue is under no legal obligation to sell you pork. They may one under an obligation of their employment but that’s a private contract. The shop itself is under no obligation to sell you anything at all.

This makes total sense. What’s frustrating is that everyone focuses on the religious choice aspect while not asking the real question like why was this one person in charge of the entire county when it was known she had an issue. I’m sure this would lead to a larger investigation to find she wasn’t the only one with the issue of marrying a same-sex couple.

Really, the county should be held accountable, not this woman. The county has the obligation to marry same-sex couples. The county staffed one person whom they probably knew would have this issue.

The county should reprimand the woman for not fulfilling her duties as a representative, she should have sued the county for putting her in that position by not hiring someone else, and the couple should have sued the county. I’m not really familiar enough with the case to know how this actually went down.

That’s not a comparable situation though. There’s no reasonable expectation that those places would sell you pork*. The employee who works there isn’t (not) doing anything that conflicts with the business’ offerings.

Even if a muslim employee at a barbecue restaurant were to deny a customer a rack of ribs, the restaurant is under no obligation to serve you.

This issue is about a representative of the county rejecting the county’s obligations.

*Edit: After re-reading the comment I was replying to, I see it’s about a person who is Muslim or Jewish working at a deli, not a person working at a Muslim or Jewish deli. The comparison is closer than I had argued against but still not the same because one is public and one is private.

I genuinely do not understand how this was ever a case. You are an employee at an office that provides a service. You are a representative of that organization. And, as a civil service employee, I would expect you are obligated by the laws of that county or state to facilitate the services offered.

Davis, as the Rowan County Clerk in 2015, was the sole authority tasked with issuing marriage licenses on behalf of the government under state law.

ON BEHALF OF

Regardless if you’re in this position or you’re the president, you are obligated by the state or federal constitution to operate as a representative of that jurisdiction’s laws.

If she took on this job while knowing it would conflict with her religious views, or the laws changed in a matter that conflicted with her views, she should have notified the county and she should have been denied or removed from that position. Although, I’m sure that raises a different case in denying someone employment based on their religion.

The laziness of the average person continues to amaze me. You’ve chosen to ask and wait for the answer to a question which could have been answered by reading the article you’ve commented on. “Why” is the reason journalists pen these articles.

Rich people don’t care about their privacy as much as they have their own IT department to do the work for them (source: I’ve been their IT department).

Their devices are just as secure as you would imagine any high profile CEO. Their home networks can cost up to $100k and are super secure with constant monitoring. They all have “normal” devices but they’ll usually have a VPN tunnel.

But, stuff like their Facebook logins, etc they’re still pretty bad with passwords, from my experience. I’d say less than percent of the people I’ve worked with have asked serious questions about their cyber security.

For what would they hold the administration in contempt and what does this do to block, stop, or reverse illegal actions?

It seems like you’re lacking a basic understanding of how law and government work and it doesn’t seem like you know what contempt means. And, to make up for that, you throw out witless insults in an attempt to derail the conversation.

You, “the internet”, are far too emotional to consider the reality of these situations. Just because something makes you angry or someone does something you think should be illegal does not mean someone is not permitted to do that action.

There are absolutely actions that Trump has done that are illegal and many of those actions have been decided on while other cases are in court now. “The Democrats”, I presume we’re addressing Congress, are not explicitly the group responsible for holding the administration accountable for everything he does. Congress only has authority over a handful of things (mostly, but not limited to, money) with few options to do anything about them.

The point I am trying to make is; (1) what actions does OP suggest are illegal, (2) a court has to determined that action to be illegal, (3) Congress is not responsible for suing the president nor responsible for determining what is legal nor responsibly for jailing an executive officer, (4) this Republican Congress is not going to pass legislation (the main power they have) to block, stop, or reverse actions taken by this administration. And, finally, what the Trump administration is doing, legal or not, is largely what the United States voters voted for. So, the best way to stop these quote unquote illegal actions is to vote for Democrats in two years.

Gotcha. So you either you don’t know or you do know this is not true.

Congress has no power to jail officials. They can hold an official in contempt and potentially have the US Attorney’s office put them in jail. That’s not happening with Trump. That’s not happening with anyone in Trump’s administration.

They can… sue in court (like Dems did to block Trump’s border wall funding)

Yes. That’s exactly my entire point. And this only works if the courts determine the act to not be legal. This is why, as I said, there are over 250 cases against the administration right now.

There’s a lot going on right now which the public dislikes but that doesn’t necessarily make an act illegal. If nothing else, Trump knows how to work the courts. He also disregards the courts and we’re still waiting to see if there’s any repercussions to that.

Trump is not Obama. Obama fucked up by caving to McConnell. Trump would not do the same. There is no comparison of this administration and any other. History is irrelevant at this point.

Yes. Tell me how congress jails officials.

Dems could’ve jailed officials for contempt

How does that work?

Really? Tell me how a political party can police another party. The only actions congress, in particular, have is impeachment. Impeachment is effectively suing the defendant with no inherit repercussions.

Give me one example of an illegal action taken by this administration and what the Democrats could legally do to “block, stop, or reverse” it.