Democrat "Resistance" Says Lindsey Graham is Really Lindsey Gayham (federal, claim)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The criticism/mocking/jokes about Graham aren't about his sexual orientation, it his unwillingness to admit or be open, therefore seemingly ashamed of, his sexual orientation.
He would never have been elected in South Carolina if he was openly gay.
So what? What right do you have to know his sexual orientation?
So what? What right do you have to know his sexual orientation?
Again you clearly misunderstood what I said and I don't know how -- because it is clear and concise and not really vague.
I made no comment about what I think about his sexual orientation. You are right -- it is none of my business.
I was merely pointing out that Graham is not criticized for his sexual orientation but because people see him as not being able to own up to who he is.
Doesn't matter if you and I don't care.
Those people do.
AND....AND.....that's all I was doing was pointing out once again how the OP and others misunderstood what the issue was.
As long as it only involves consenting adults, he doesn’t need to explain or define his love/sex life to anyone. If he is gay there nothing for him to “admit†unless he is dating or married to YOU.
Absolutely agree --I too think iGraham is under no obligation to explain himself....but all I did was clarify the issue for the OP and others that were not clear. They assumed there was criticism for his sexual orientation. There wasn't -- that's not the point -- it is -- what they see -- as an inability to be honest and forthcoming.
Absolutely agree --I too think iGraham is under no obligation to explain himself....but all I did was clarify the issue for the OP and others that were not clear. They assumed there was criticism for his sexual orientation. There wasn't -- that's not the point -- it is -- what they see -- as an inability to be honest and forthcoming.
Yes there was. It's nothing but a smear because otherwise the head of the Democrat Coalition should have never mentioned it.
What part of
"....probably involves some pretty serious sexual kink."
Not only was there no criticism of his sexual orientation, the whole point of what was being said was that the person believes Graham has been compromised, not by Russia or people threatening to out him, but instead because he is being blackmailed over kinky sex acts without reference to orientation.
Not only was there no criticism of his sexual orientation, the whole point of what was being said was that the person believes Graham has been compromised, not by Russia or people threatening to out him, but instead because he is being blackmailed over kinky sex acts without reference to orientation.
No gay criticism, fake news.
If it were serious it is something to be taken up with federal authorities in secret. Not in the media in a frigging tweet. This is why it is being condemned.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.