Trump puts Nazi soldiers on campaign graphic

[Read the post]

1 Like

Read the subtle images in the flag in the left to right top to bottom style of a newspaper.

Trump, Money, White House, War.



The stack of Benjamins makes sense in the context of his campaign as his obsession with money is well documented. Public service (as an elected official, appointed official or member of the military) not so much.


That’s the thing right? His entire claim to being qualified to be POTUS is that he knows how to make money, he is the right leader for our nation, and will establish the U.S. as the dominant power in the world again (his perspective here). The image makes total sense based on his warped viewpoint of himself.

Warped…because in reality: He inherited his money from his father and has essentially at every turn nearly lost it all, he has zero experience or expertise in being a true leader politically speaking or really in any capacity, and never served in the military or understands the slightest bit what it would mean to be the CIF of the world’s most powerful military machine.

Its so comical, but it’s reality. Which makes it sad.


Check out The Donald lookin’ all squinty and visionary…

ok, it’s becoming a bit much. I’m starting to get paranoid this guy is just a smokescreen of sorts. Maybe the republicans are doing something truly awful and we keep getting distracted laughing at this idiot.


It looks like there’s no story here. Some intern messed up, someone noticed, and it’s been fixed. But because Trump’s campaign was involved, this is supposed to matter? Trump generates enough genuine idiocy and controversy that there’s no need to jump all over irrelevant non-events like this.

Intern needed to pay more attention in school when the design teacher was saying that you research the material and context of your graphic design work. Or maybe intern did it intentionally thinking it was funny (and needed to pay more attention in school to the bit about professionalism :smile: )

(Or maybe the Trump campaign doesn’t pay their interns and is consequently getting their full money’s worth. :slight_smile: )


Does the re-enactor photo come up when one does a stock photo search for World War 2 Soldiers or Soldiers marching?
If so, I wouldn’t be surprised that an intern wouldn’t be able to differentiate military uniforms.

Or, do interns play jokes like these all the time - like animators/artists sneaking things in?

I’m thinking of the recent use on TV of the Chilean flag as the Texas Flag.

1 Like

GOP lost the 2016 election, and it’s only 2015!


That’s some high quality campaigning. Thumbs up.


Go to iphoto - type in “WWII Soldier” and it comes up on the first page under the title “Marching soldiers”.

Considering your average person’s woefully lacking knowledge of history in general, especially the younger folk, I can’t exactly be too hard on some guy or gal who grabbed the image to use. Pretty sure I am one of the few people with a Graphic Design degree who wouldn’t go “flecktarn-what?”

Hot tip, kids, scroll down and read all the tagged keywords.


In many respects a campaign is a preview of what kind of President a candidate would be. A candidate who can’t build a coalition or make a simple speech without pissing off 90 percent of voters or convince the public that his ideas have merit isn’t going to be very effective in office either.

That includes the kind of staffers he surrounds himself with. After all, the President doesn’t actually do most of the Executive Branch’s work himself—he delegates to people he has selected for that purpose. No one expects a President to be an expert on science and military strategy and foreign diplomacy and economics and public relations and a thousand other topics—but he should have advisors who are. So when you see a candidate constantly blaming “staffers” for things like sending offensive tweets about Hillary Clinton’s inability to sexually satisfy her husband or misspelled, juvenile insults hurled at his critics or putting Nazi soldiers in a campaign graphic… well, just imagine him playing the same blame game in the West Wing.


This makes sense. All real Americans have a reflexive respect for soldiers. The side they fought for doesn’t matter so much.

1 Like

Not really.

The intern messed up by using an image of Nazi soldiers, which is - maybe - forgiveable as an oversight and not something that many people would ever notice anyway. But a whole bunch of people signed off on an image in which one of the five elements was clearly soldiers. WTF are they doing there at all? WTF do they have to do with ‘real leadership’ or ‘results’ or ‘back to business’?

Bonus hilarity: anyone want to take bets on whether the rights to the picture elements were paid for, or lifted with no regard for copyright?


I’m so glad somebody said this. I’m really disappointed in Mark’s silly hyperbole – are we supposed to think that Donald Trump hand-picked this image, going “Bwaa-haa! Hidden Nazis, that’ll show 'em!” the whole time?!

Mark would’ve screamed bloody murder, rightly, if a right-wing pundit were similarly clutching pearls over a similarly trivial accident committed by a progressive politician. Shame on him for lowering our side to this kind of “gotcha!”-based pseudopolitics.

The president is the Commander in Chief and nothing says patriotic flag waiving like army guys. It is pandering to their base. Hardly new.


It’s actually a bit worse than all that. What money he’s made himself was made this way: his company would take government funds earmarked for urban renewal and affordable housing. Typically from the city of New York, but occasionally the state or fed. Instead of building the agreed upon affordable housing or renewal project he’d build luxary apartments and hotels. But he wouldn’t pay any of the companies he contracted to do the building or buy materials from. When the lawsuits from subcontractors and demands for return of government funds got large enough to make it plausible, his company would go bankrupt. Then he’d repeat.

The bankruptcies were/are a feature not a bug. As far as I’m aware he’s never personally been at risk of going broke, just tactically bankrupt because it let him personally pocket more cash meant for some one else.

He’s a greasy con born with a silver spoon in his mouth.


I find the slogan more offensive. Put the U.S. Back in business? Lame.

Double lame since the idiot has bankrupted 4 of his ventures. Can we put to bed this idea that Trump knows thing 1 about business? He’s rich because he inherited lots of money from daddy.


Are you saying it’s the duty of a presidential candidate to personally, manually vet every piece of advertising done on their behalf, personally screening it for inappropriate images, including those so well-dimmed they escape casual glance?

Okay, I’m being a bit extreme to prove a point. But personally, I’d much rather hassle a presidential candidate over whether they can handle a foreign or domestic crisis, not over how well they can police their publications department. I think we can demonstrate Trump’s incompetence perfectly well with the actual job duties of a U.S. president – is it really that important that we fail him as a marketing intern, just to get a satisfying zinger in at him?

Or the most important question (and keep in mind that I vote slightly to the left of Nestor Makhno and hate Trump as much anyone): would you be nearly this harsh on a progressive candidate who made the same mistakes?

No, that’s exactly what @Brainspore is not saying. He did say that the duty of a presidential candidate is to personally vet staffers, in such a way that he can be sure that the staffers can and will make good decisions without constant supervision. Because one of the candidates is going to become president, and at that point the whole country is hostage to their ability to pick good staff.

Picking staff is one of the duties, and so this is symptomatic of his failure in that particular regard. But, otherwise, what you say is definitely a given :smile: