Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
It's disappointing that in this day and age anyone still cares about whether a candidate is gay/straight/asexual or whatever and that they have to trot out a partner or family to enhance their image. It is what it is....
Well that is a Republican concern. The Dems are not nearly as focused on such issues.
Where are the gay republicans? The first openly gay republicans elected to Congress is George Santos. And is a known liar and con-artist. Is he actually gay anyway? Everything he says is a lie so that could well be a lie as well.
Obama literally said in his own words that Pete was “too short and too gay” to win
Again. Where are these national gay republican elected officials? Is the pathetic joke of a representative, George Santos all you got?
Maybe Republicans aren't as consumed with identity politics and tabulating?
Maybe they won't elect gay people is more like it.
It's not 1990.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
It's disappointing that in this day and age anyone still cares about whether a candidate is gay/straight/asexual or whatever and that they have to trot out a partner or family to enhance their image. It is what it is....
Well that is a Republican concern. The Dems are not nearly as focused on such issues.
Where are the gay republicans? The first openly gay republicans elected to Congress is George Santos. And is a known liar and con-artist. Is he actually gay anyway? Everything he says is a lie so that could well be a lie as well.
Obama literally said in his own words that Pete was “too short and too gay” to win
Again. Where are these national gay republican elected officials? Is the pathetic joke of a representative, George Santos all you got?
Maybe Republicans aren't as consumed with identity politics and tabulating?
Maybe they won't elect gay people is more like it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
It's disappointing that in this day and age anyone still cares about whether a candidate is gay/straight/asexual or whatever and that they have to trot out a partner or family to enhance their image. It is what it is....
Well that is a Republican concern. The Dems are not nearly as focused on such issues.
Where are the gay republicans? The first openly gay republicans elected to Congress is George Santos. And is a known liar and con-artist. Is he actually gay anyway? Everything he says is a lie so that could well be a lie as well.
Obama literally said in his own words that Pete was “too short and too gay” to win
Again. Where are these national gay republican elected officials? Is the pathetic joke of a representative, George Santos all you got?
Maybe Republicans aren't as consumed with identity politics and tabulating?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
It's disappointing that in this day and age anyone still cares about whether a candidate is gay/straight/asexual or whatever and that they have to trot out a partner or family to enhance their image. It is what it is....
Well that is a Republican concern. The Dems are not nearly as focused on such issues.
Where are the gay republicans? The first openly gay republicans elected to Congress is George Santos. And is a known liar and con-artist. Is he actually gay anyway? Everything he says is a lie so that could well be a lie as well.
Obama literally said in his own words that Pete was “too short and too gay” to win
Again. Where are these national gay republican elected officials? Is the pathetic joke of a representative, George Santos all you got?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
It's disappointing that in this day and age anyone still cares about whether a candidate is gay/straight/asexual or whatever and that they have to trot out a partner or family to enhance their image. It is what it is....
Well that is a Republican concern. The Dems are not nearly as focused on such issues.
Where are the gay republicans? The first openly gay republicans elected to Congress is George Santos. And is a known liar and con-artist. Is he actually gay anyway? Everything he says is a lie so that could well be a lie as well.
Obama literally said in his own words that Pete was “too short and too gay” to win
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
It's disappointing that in this day and age anyone still cares about whether a candidate is gay/straight/asexual or whatever and that they have to trot out a partner or family to enhance their image. It is what it is....
Well that is a Republican concern. The Dems are not nearly as focused on such issues.
Where are the gay republicans? The first openly gay republicans elected to Congress is George Santos. And is a known liar and con-artist. Is he actually gay anyway? Everything he says is a lie so that could well be a lie as well.
It was a Democrat concern for Corey Booker as well, and he did the same thing that Tim Scott is doing now.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
It's disappointing that in this day and age anyone still cares about whether a candidate is gay/straight/asexual or whatever and that they have to trot out a partner or family to enhance their image. It is what it is....
Well that is a Republican concern. The Dems are not nearly as focused on such issues.
Where are the gay republicans? The first openly gay republicans elected to Congress is George Santos. And is a known liar and con-artist. Is he actually gay anyway? Everything he says is a lie so that could well be a lie as well.
Anonymous wrote:
It's disappointing that in this day and age anyone still cares about whether a candidate is gay/straight/asexual or whatever and that they have to trot out a partner or family to enhance their image. It is what it is....
Anonymous wrote:Why do they care he's single? It's never bothered them about Lyndsay
Anonymous wrote:The crazy thing about Scott is that he actually has one of the best staff’s on the GOP side in the Senate and has a very smart campaign staff. Really smart people who know how government works, lots of former lobbyists & think tank folks who have subject matter expertise on banking, energy, defense, etc.
Like, he’s actually really well respected as a principled-conservative-who-won’t-stage-a-coup by professional Conservative Inc foot soldiers who went to good schools and couldn’t stand Trump. Which, of course, just complicates everything and almost assures he won’t win the nomination.
Anonymous wrote:Wonder if Scott's lack of spouse and family will have a negative impact in the minds of older conservative voters
Not as worried about younger voters.