141
Navy admiral fired by Pete Hegseth advances in South Carolina Democratic House primary
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
141 points (99.3% liked)
politics
30018 readers
2780 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's a certain irony in people losing their shit [bad] over Graham Platner winning the Maine Senate nominations while losing their shit [good] over Nancy Lacore, given that they've both got gallons of blood on their hands.
Like, fuck it, maybe she's one of the good ones. But how many years did she spend, stationed just off the coast of Somalia, following the orders of the Trump 1 era fascist War Secretary in their quest to terrorize the residents of the Red Sea into submission? It just sucks that this is the kind of person we think best represent our communities in Congress.
For transparency, bystanders should note I tagged this user as promoting Jill Stein last cycle, so there's frankly a certain irony to this user in particular talking when their views contributed to Trump being reelected by wedge-driving and promotion of the Spoiler Effect.
voting for Trump is what got Trump elected. people voting for Jill Stein were voting against Trump.
As a soldier, Platner might have a few ounces of blood on his hands. As a former admiral, Lacore has pools worth. Just saying.
EDIT: I'd argue that Platner is one of the truest representations of the American man. PTSD. Reformed (hopefully) racist Reddit edgelord. Had a hard time adjusting after being chewed up and spit out by the military machine. Now he's older and angry. In his case, he seems to have chosen the progressive path while many (most?) others have chosen fascism to deal with their damage.
Platner still supports the military and wants to increase benefits and amp up recruitment. I don't think he really cares about what he did or saw over there. I'm not saying people shouldn't vote for him or that he's lying about PTSD or anything, but I often see people suggest progressive policies equate to anti militarism but it's just not the case in this situation at least.
I have no way to determine who did what when, but I think if he really was reformed his policy on the military would be much different.
I hear what you are saying, and I agree that he is definitely promilitary. What I was trying to get to though is that he is far more representative of the population than a great majority of the "personalities" constantly being sent to the hill.
On a personal note, I think we should force the military to use a significantly larger share of their budget on active and post-active care. It isn't right to break someone down and then expect them to fix themselves, and reintegrate back into society. We take advantage of the poor and patriotic, eat them up, and expect them to be fine. It's a doomed system.
It's odd that you think the amount of blood on his hands is why people complain about Platner. I've never met an American who had a problem with violence, just very strong opinions about who deserved it and who didn't.
Well, the primary reason people complain about Platner is because he's anti-Zionist. But that's sort of the reverse of "blood on your hands". Certain parts of the American polity are upset because he's not championing genocide loudly enough.
But the secondary reason is that he's got the Totenkompf, which is pitched as a proxy for fascist, bloody political beliefs (specifically aimed at European Jews).
I know more than a few rhetorical pacifists. But they also tend to fall into the "Vote Blue No Matter Who" contingent. And they never actually have an opportunity to commit or refrain from violence in their daily lives. So the pacifism doesn't amount to anything more than a veneer for their liberal ideology. It certainly doesn't inform their lifestyle.
I also know a couple of people in the military and the police. They are extremely "just following orders" types, especially with respect to their professions. I get the sense these institutions drill the "who deserves it" question out of you, absent a commanding officer saying "fuck them up, they deserve it".
Most people think violence can be justified. There are very few pacifists in the world, but I understand your point. I'm not inherently anti violence, but I have brought up not just his military history but his support of the military as part of his platform from the very beginning. I wish people cared as much about anti imperialism (and the other issues of our military industrial complex) as they do about domestic issues. Americans are quite militaristic though and I think it will take a lot to move us from that position.
I think that may be an exercise in futility friend. The US was born in blood, and spent its whole existence extracting it from others somewhere, even itself. I'm skeptical to say the very least that it will ever change.