Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. There's no mess to clean up and no revelation. The media has outed LG more times than I can count. It turns out that he's a moderate Republican with a fairly moderate constituency who doesn't care about his sexual preferences as much as you do.

While Trump has certainly not helped unite the country, you're being hyperbolic about the views of most Republicans and certainly about LG. Speaking of Pete Buttigieg, he was the best Democrat on the ticket. He wasn't electable in the primaries because too many Democrat voters rejected him for being gay. Google LG's comments about how ludicrous that is.

The inescapable fact is that this thread is set up to attack a man for being gay. And that all the conservatives responding on this thread find it vile for him to be attacked for his sexual preference. And the liberals are actually hoping that he will suffer for daring to be gay without bowing to them. So while the GOP has its share of Neanderthals, it sounds like Democrats only support gays and minorities in order to get votes. No votes, no support. We see you.

No moderates support Trump. I stopped reading your post after I saw this statement.

Right and no gay people are allowed to be Republican. Gotcha. Lots of rules you liberals have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

Why would being gay shame him?

I honestly have no idea - it seems to be the liberals here who delight in the idea of him being ashamed of his sexuality. As another PP said, he owes none of you an explanation of his private life. If he's gay, so what? For people who claim to "champion" the gay community, you certainly are making it your mission to shame him. The hypocrisy is really something, isn't it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

+1. Not a single, specific example of LG voting to harm gay people. Lots of innuendo that he could be blackmailed since he is gay. Which interestingly! Used to be a justification for not allowing gay people to have security clearances until it was shot down as discriminatory. My take away: the left is now promoting discrimination against gays.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

Why would being gay shame him?

Anonymous wrote:DP. There's no mess to clean up and no revelation. The media has outed LG more times than I can count. It turns out that he's a moderate Republican with a fairly moderate constituency who doesn't care about his sexual preferences as much as you do.

While Trump has certainly not helped unite the country, you're being hyperbolic about the views of most Republicans and certainly about LG. Speaking of Pete Buttigieg, he was the best Democrat on the ticket. He wasn't electable in the primaries because too many Democrat voters rejected him for being gay. Google LG's comments about how ludicrous that is.

The inescapable fact is that this thread is set up to attack a man for being gay. And that all the conservatives responding on this thread find it vile for him to be attacked for his sexual preference. And the liberals are actually hoping that he will suffer for daring to be gay without bowing to them. So while the GOP has its share of Neanderthals, it sounds like Democrats only support gays and minorities in order to get votes. No votes, no support. We see you.

No moderates support Trump. I stopped reading your post after I saw this statement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen, just because you're progressive and liberal doesn't mean that you get a pass on mocking a gay man for being gay. He's probably said some unfortunate things about being gay, as have most gay people, because the world teaches them to hate themselves. But you're the one saying unfortunate things now, acting like he should be ashamed of himself for who he loves. You don't get a pass. It's wrong, full stop.

+100

This poster is right. It is easy to mock Lindsey Graham because he is a craven hypocrite. But it’s not ok to highlight his gayness in the hope that “bigoted South Carolina folk” vote for the black guy instead.

Actually, I think “the black guy” would be a much better legislator than Graham, so I don’t really care why the voters would vote for him. Graham has been elected too long and props up the trash that is the president.

You mean Sen. Tim Scott?

Not PP but pretty sure he/she means Graham’s opponent Jaime Harrison.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

I read the entire thread. Not sure what you're talking about. It's a thread full of lazy, gossipy liberals trying to fan the flames of nasty rumors and innuendo in order to shame a gay man. No facts whatsoever. LAZY.

DP. There's no mess to clean up and no revelation. The media has outed LG more times than I can count. It turns out that he's a moderate Republican with a fairly moderate constituency who doesn't care about his sexual preferences as much as you do.

While Trump has certainly not helped unite the country, you're being hyperbolic about the views of most Republicans and certainly about LG. Speaking of Pete Buttigieg, he was the best Democrat on the ticket. He wasn't electable in the primaries because too many Democrat voters rejected him for being gay. Google LG's comments about how ludicrous that is.

The inescapable fact is that this thread is set up to attack a man for being gay. And that all the conservatives responding on this thread find it vile for him to be attacked for his sexual preference. And the liberals are actually hoping that he will suffer for daring to be gay without bowing to them. So while the GOP has its share of Neanderthals, it sounds like Democrats only support gays and minorities in order to get votes. No votes, no support. We see you.

Supposedly Jeffrey Epstein had 91 pages of names of "clients," and I bet Graham was one of them.

Supposedly Jeffrey Epstein had 91 pages of names of "clients," and I bet Graham was one of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, isn't the issue that sex work is illegal in DC (and I suspect in SC as well)?

i don't care about Graham's sexuality, and in the recent past there have been fewer chances for a Senator to make bigoted decisions re: sexuality. But it's a scandal if a senator does something illegal. Or, at least, it used to be.

No. Read the first few pages. The liberals were giddy that he was "caught" being gay. You are only allowed to be a gay liberal, apparently; if you are gay and disagree then you are a hypocrite who should be publicly mocked for being gay.

+1
I think they thought this was their "gotcha" moment? Yawn.

Nah. We've noticed that there is no "gotcha" for people like you. Can't get someone who has no principles!!! #winning

Anonymous wrote:This thread is amusing. So far, all these claims about Graham's "destructive LGBT" policies. And yet not one has been cited. I guess it's just easier for lazy people to make claims and hope no one calls them on it.

Wrong. You didn't read the whole thread and you're calling others lazy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, isn't the issue that sex work is illegal in DC (and I suspect in SC as well)?

i don't care about Graham's sexuality, and in the recent past there have been fewer chances for a Senator to make bigoted decisions re: sexuality. But it's a scandal if a senator does something illegal. Or, at least, it used to be.

No. Read the first few pages. The liberals were giddy that he was "caught" being gay. You are only allowed to be a gay liberal, apparently; if you are gay and disagree then you are a hypocrite who should be publicly mocked for being gay.

+1
I think they thought this was their "gotcha" moment? Yawn.

Anonymous wrote:Um, isn't the issue that sex work is illegal in DC (and I suspect in SC as well)?

i don't care about Graham's sexuality, and in the recent past there have been fewer chances for a Senator to make bigoted decisions re: sexuality. But it's a scandal if a senator does something illegal. Or, at least, it used to be.

No. Read the first few pages. The liberals were giddy that he was "caught" being gay. You are only allowed to be a gay liberal, apparently; if you are gay and disagree then you are a hypocrite who should be publicly mocked for being gay.

Um, isn't the issue that sex work is illegal in DC (and I suspect in SC as well)?

i don't care about Graham's sexuality, and in the recent past there have been fewer chances for a Senator to make bigoted decisions re: sexuality. But it's a scandal if a senator does something illegal. Or, at least, it used to be.