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
While it sounds terrible, it is likely an astute assessment based on all things we have seen politically
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....
Any elected gay Republicans besides George Santos?
Who cares?
Hope Santos does not care because he is going to lose so so badly.
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.
DP. Still laughing at the bolded. Dems are the ones who keep bringing up the subject of Tim Scott and his girlfriend on this thread. I assure you, no one else cares. Just the usual liberal hypocrites.
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....
Any elected gay Republicans besides George Santos?
Who cares?
Republicans. Republicans care a lot.
Seems here that Democrats are the ones that keep bringing it up as some kind of gotcha. Weird how that works.
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....
Any elected gay Republicans besides George Santos?
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: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....
Any elected gay Republicans besides George Santos?
Who cares?
Republicans. Republicans care a lot.
Seems here that Democrats are the ones that keep bringing it up as some kind of gotcha. Weird how that works.
And yet all the articles posted are about how Republican donors are uneasy about this Republican candidate in the Republican primary who may not be able to garner Republican votes.
Who are the ones bedroom bean counting in this thread? Republicans?
This thread doesn’t matter. Nervous Republican donors do matter.
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....
Any elected gay Republicans besides George Santos?
Who cares?
Republicans. Republicans care a lot.
Seems here that Democrats are the ones that keep bringing it up as some kind of gotcha. Weird how that works.
And yet all the articles posted are about how Republican donors are uneasy about this Republican candidate in the Republican primary who may not be able to garner Republican votes.
Who are the ones bedroom bean counting in this thread? Republicans?
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....
Any elected gay Republicans besides George Santos?
Who cares?
Republicans. Republicans care a lot.
Seems here that Democrats are the ones that keep bringing it up as some kind of gotcha. Weird how that works.
And yet all the articles posted are about how Republican donors are uneasy about this Republican candidate in the Republican primary who may not be able to garner Republican votes.
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....
Any elected gay Republicans besides George Santos?
Who cares?
Republicans. Republicans care a lot.
Seems here that Democrats are the ones that keep bringing it up as some kind of gotcha. Weird how that works.
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....
Any elected gay Republicans besides George Santos?
Who cares?
Republicans. Republicans care a lot.
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....
Any elected gay Republicans besides George Santos?
Who cares?
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....
Any elected gay Republicans besides George Santos?
Who cares?
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....
Any elected gay Republicans besides George Santos?
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....