Politics 2015

[Hixter]

There's never any proof of a coverup until it's unveiled. That was my entire point: any proof that may be out there is sitting in the hands of an opponent, a political party, a foreign intelligence service or a blackmailer and it will be unveiled at their discretion.

 

Maybe he's straight, maybe he's gay, maybe he's celibate or maybe he's asexual. Who knows. But what I do know is that any evidence that he isn't straight will be used against him by someone at sometime. Politics is an ugly thing.

 

Just as a reminder, there was no evidence that Denny Hastert was being blackmailed until he was charged. Politicians are very good at burying their skeletons.

[KevinG]

There's never any proof of a coverup until it's unveiled. That was my entire point: any proof that may be out there is sitting in the hands of an opponent, a political party, a foreign intelligence service or a blackmailer and it will be unveiled at their discretion.

 

Maybe he's straight, maybe he's gay, maybe he's celibate or maybe he's asexual. Who knows. But what I do know is that any evidence that he isn't straight will be used against him by someone at sometime. Politics is an ugly thing.

Just as a reminder, there was no evidence that Denny Hastert was being blackmailed until he was charged. Politicians are very good at burying their skeletons.

The only reason you brought it up is because of his marital status and more than likely his accent. You didn't mention any "dirt" about any other candidates. We have as much proof of Lindsey Graham 's sexuality as we do Rand Paul and others.

 

I know politics is a ugly game, but it doesn't make it right or any less shameful if rumors about a candidate's sexuality are used by the opposition.

 

But more to the point, you are wrong. There is very little chance that stories or dirt will be used against Graham. He is not a credible candidate and has a slim chance of winning. Plus he has been in office for 3 decades and there has been nothing remotely credible about his sexuality. Now all of a sudden someone is going bring out the smoking gun? This is not House of Cards. Real life is way less interesting.

[Sir Stewart]

Did Frank get outed in season 3? I gave up on it after the first episode (which was a good decision from what I've heard of the rest of it).

[KevinG]

Did Frank get outed in season 3? I gave up on it after the first episode (which was a good decision from what I've heard of the rest of it).

 

I gave up half way through season 3 as well.  

[Hixter]

The only reason you brought it up is because of his marital status and more than likely his accent.

I've never heard the man speak, but your comment leads me to believe that he doesn't speak in a booming baritone.

 

You didn't mention any "dirt" about any other candidates. We have as much proof of Lindsey Graham 's sexuality as we do Rand Paul and others.

He's never been married and he has no children. It's certainly not proof of his sexual status, but it may be a clue. I assume Rand Paul and the rest of the candidates from both parties have been married, but if any of them haven't then I'd expect the same questions to be raised if they haven't already come out publicly.

 

I know politics is a ugly game, but it doesn't make it right or any less shameful if rumors about a candidate's sexuality are used by the opposition.

Rumors can't be stopped, but my original post was about opponents unveiling hard evidence: photos, videos, firsthand accounts, etc.

 

But more to the point, you are wrong. There is very little chance that stories or dirt will be used against Graham. He is not a credible candidate and has a slim chance of winning. Plus he has been in office for 3 decades and there has been nothing remotely credible about his sexuality. Now all of a sudden someone is going bring out the smoking gun?

He's been in office for 2 decades. As I've said all along, if there is dirt on him, someone will use it at the time they deem appropriate. Hopefully it won't be a foreign intelligence service, because that could get ugly.

[ih8music]

You've never heard Lindsey Graham speak?

[Hixter]

You've never heard Lindsey Graham speak?

Nope. He's not from my state and I gave up on TV news years ago. I don't watch television except for a handful of downloaded shows (many of them from the UK) so that gives me the added bonus of being able to shake my head when friends ask if I've seen the latest commercial that's making headlines.

 

EDIT: To be honest, when I read the headline that said "Graham Announces White House Bid" I thought they were talking about former Florida senator Bob Graham. Then when I realized it was Lindsey Graham I got him confused with a Florida politician with a similarly ambiguous first name, Connie Mack. So I headed to Wikipedia to learn more about Lindsey Graham and learned about the "confirmed bachelor" thing.

[KevinG]

He's never been married and he has no children. It's certainly not proof of his sexual status, but it may be a clue. I assume Rand Paul and the rest of the candidates from both parties have been married, but if any of them haven't then I'd expect the same questions to be raised if they haven't already come out publicly.

 

So any unmarried man should prepare to have his sexuality questioned?  Good job on this. I want you to take a step back look at that statement and maybe consider how ignorant your statement appears.  You constantly get upset when people infer things form your statements.  You are  inferring something about Graham, which you have no knowledge of.  What is your marital status?  A lot of gay men are married with kids and/or divorced as well.      

 

By your logic we could say, there are several murders a year that are committed with guns.  Rand Paul is a gun owner.  Therefore Rand Paul's opponents are preparing dirt on him saying that he is a murderer.  I mean there is no proof that he is a murder, but it certainly is a clue that he shares a trait with with many murders.  So you never know.  

 

 

Rumors can't be stopped, but my original post was about opponents unveiling hard evidence: photos, videos, firsthand accounts, etc.

 

It wasn't.  Your original post was this: 

 

Graham is a "confirmed bachelor." Every campaign team and tabloid probably has some dirt on him that they're holding onto until the appropriate time.

 

Confirmed bachelor has been a euphemism for gay since the Victorian times.  There is no mention of evidence or proof.  Also "Dirt" in your context means "scandalous or malicious gossip."  Which is pretty far from hard evidence.  

 

I am pretty much done with this.  It is really stupid.  I have come to defend a man who I really dislike.  Who has no chance of becoming president.  Politics is an ugly business, we all know that.  But it doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it. 

[Hixter]

So any unmarried man should prepare to have his sexuality questioned?

No, but any 60-year-old, never-been-married man who has a record of voting against gay rights legislation and is entering the dog-eat-dog world of American presidential politics should be prepared for it. And I'll guarantee that his campaign strategists have spent a lot of time on the matter. Welcome to national politics.

 

By your logic we could say, there are several murders a year that are committed with guns.  Rand Paul is a gun owner.  Therefore Rand Paul's opponents are preparing dirt on him saying that he is a murderer.  I mean there is no proof that he is a murder, but it certainly is a clue that he shares a trait with with many murders. 

No, the appropriate logic would be: Rand Paul sports a gang tattoo that commonly symbolizes the commission of a murder, so even though there's no proof that he killed someone, his opponents are likely digging up dirt on his past.

 

It wasn't.

Yes, it was. When I said "Every campaign team and tabloid probably has some dirt on him that they're holding onto until the appropriate time" I meant that someone would pass an incriminating photo or firsthand account to a tabloid or campaign.

 

Politics is an ugly business, we all know that.  But it doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it. 

I don't like it, but I accept that it's how politics have been since the day they were invented.

[uncool2pillow]

No, but any 60-year-old, never-been-married man who has a record of voting against gay rights legislation and is entering the dog-eat-dog world of American presidential politics should be prepared for it.

 

This

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Well it appears two more people have jumped into the GOP Presidential nomination clown car.  

That clown car is getting a bit crowded: 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/rick-perry-announces-presidential-bid-yahoo-news-120696142921.html

 

“Since leaving the governor’s mansion in January, he has boned up on foreign and domestic policy with a rotating team of advisers,” Yahoo News’ Liz Goodwin writes. “He no longer wears his signature cowboy boots, which exacerbate the back problems that dogged him in 2012, and he has started sporting black-framed ‘hipster’ glasses that lend him some gravitas."

Jon Stewart is going to have a field day with this.

[LouieB]

I am going to miss John Stewart.  His replacement will never be able to do what he can do.  My prediction is that he will re-surface in a year or so on a bigger network (possibly cable) doing basically the same show for a whole bunch more money.

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

 

Quote

“Since leaving the governor’s mansion in January, he has boned up on foreign and domestic policy with a rotating team of advisers,” Yahoo News’ Liz Goodwin writes. “He no longer wears his signature cowboy boots, which exacerbate the back problems that dogged him in 2012, and he has started sporting black-framed ‘hipster’ glasses that lend him some gravitas."

 

I don't know but I think those glasses might give him a Lindsey Graham problem.  

 

It will be interesting how the debates go.  More then likely they will be 15 or 16 legitimate names in the GOP race.  And FoxNews has said it will limit that to the top 10.  More than likely that would leave the only woman, Carly Fiorina, on the outside looking in, that sure doesn't look good.

 

I wish they would take up Bernie Sanders offer and debate him right now.  God that would be good television.    

[KevinG]

Interesting things coming out of Clinton's camp.  She seems to be veering pretty hard to the left.  This is probably because of the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren effect.  

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/04/hillary-clinton-voting-rights_n_7513858.html

 

While I don't necessarily agree with all of the proposals on voters rights, it is an interesting thing to talk about and discuss.  

 

Voter rights should be heavily discussed in this and every campaign.  Anybody who is for limited voter access, voter ID laws, etc. should have to explain their position and provide evidence that supports the laws they impose.  

[KevinG]

I don't know what is worse, insinuating that Lindsey Graham is gay because he is a confirmed bachelor, or referring to him as a "bro with no ho."

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I don't know what is worse, insinuating that Lindsey Graham is gay because he is a confirmed bachelor, or referring to him as a "bro with no ho."

Interesting comments section in that article. Interesting, because it's all on Facebook, so people are (more or less) using their real identities to comment, and there are several people who state confidently that Graham is, in fact, gay...and that it is well-known in S.C. and among "insiders," etc. Funny how this stuff would be utterly uninteresting if he were out, but it's fascinating because there is such a lack of empirical evidence. I guess there must be a lot of anecdotal stuff, but I am not sure I care to search for that. I figure he's about as likely to be elected President as Ben Carson, so IDGAF.

[LouieB]

So who is the new Senator from Illinois going to be?

 

LouieB

[tinnitus photography]

for the first time in my life, i donated to a presidential campaign.

[uncool2pillow]

A list of announced or potential candidates I would consider voting for.

 

Democrats

Lincoln Chafee

Elizabeth Warren

Martin O'Malley

Bernie Sanders

Jim Webb

 

Republicans

Jeb Bush

Chris Christie

John Kasich

George Pataki

Rand Paul

Marco Rubio 

 

Now listed in current order of preference:

John Kasich

Lincoln Chafee

Elizabeth Warren

Marco Rubio 

Rand Paul

Chris Christie

Martin O'Malley

George Pataki

Jeb Bush

Bernie Sanders

Jim Webb

 

Would not, Could not vote for in no particular order

Scott Walker

Hillary Clinton

Donald Trump

Rick Santorum

Mike Huckabee

Rick Perry

Ted Cruz

Probably not Bobby Jindal, but would strongly depend upon Democratic nominee

 

My main point. I want a political moderate. They must not suck up to the tea party of Christian Conservative movement. Hopefully, they believe in a well-regulated but free market. Most of my people on the right think free market means anarchic market. They don't want anarchy in the streets with the exception of Wall Street.

[LouieB]

No offense but that makes no sense. Some of those you have listed are not moderate on either the right or left.  Sanders is certainly not moderate and Warren is not running; both are to the left of Hillary who you won't vote for.  Meanwhile Rubio and Paul may look sort of moderate, but they aren't really. 
 

LouieB

[uncool2pillow]

Consider is certainly an important word here. If you look at the order they're listed in preference, I think it makes a lot more sense. Trustworthiness is also a big, big factor here. Let's take Chris Christie, for example. I had admired his brash approach, but his character has been dinged by the bridgegate scandal and -- as silly as it sounds -- sucking up to Jerry Jones. I think it's pretty clear that Jerry Jones is a sleazy old man, but Christie wanted to befriend him to sit in his suite to watch Cowboys games.

[LouieB]

Well good luck with all this.  I continue to feel that this will be a Bush/Clinton race a year from now.  Those who have the least interest in a Supreme Court that isn't totally right wing may want to take that issue into consideration. I don't believe any of the even moderate Republicans will nominate even handed justices.  Even the sort of middle of the road Bush or the seemingly moderate Rubio will certainly appoint fairly socially conservative justices. 

 

LouieB

[lost highway]

Has anybody noticed that Rubio's voice and manner of speaking sounds just like Matt Damon?

[Winston Legthigh]

Team America Matt Damon?

[KevinG]

No one is talking about old Jeb!?  Apparently he is getting off the fund raising machine and now actually really running for pres.  Even though he has faultered early on, I don't know if he can be stopped.  But his logo is really stupid.  

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/elections-2016/jeb-bush/jklrm4/picture24259309/ALTERNATES/FREE_960/logo

 

Amazing that the two front runners are really pushing the first rather than last name.  Both carry way too much baggage.  

 

If it wouldn't freak out middle conservative America, I bet Hillary would completely drop the Clinton from her name.  

 

Bush even though he is trying to distance himself from his bother and father seems ok with their record.