Democrats, Media: Lindsey Graham Is Gay!

 

Published in Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 51 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Sweezle Member
    Sweezle
    @Sweezle

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Sweezle (View Comment):

    Why was this posted on Ricochet?

    What’s wrong with the post?

    Perhaps I should have asked why Omar is in Congress but I’m afraid I already know the answer. I don’t care for main posts that are this sleazy. JMHO.

    • #31
  2. Justin Hertog Inactive
    Justin Hertog
    @RooseveltGuck

    It’s interesting how homophobic people can be. Like children. He must be gay! Handler and Omar are like ten year olds giggling in a middle school lunchroom in the 1990s. Today, they would be tossed out of most schools.

    • #32
  3. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    Justin Hertog (View Comment):

    It’s interesting how homophobic people can be. Like children. He must be gay! Handler and Omar are like ten year olds giggling in a middle school lunchroom in the 1990s. Today, they would be tossed out of most schools.

    I still say it’s interesting how homophobic Omar seems to be assuming others are. And it’s interesting she’s willing to play to that—chilling, but interesting.

    • #33
  4. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    A few of you missed the point of this post. It’s not about whether Lindsey Graham is gay.

    Right.  But in talking about how they’re speculating about it, you’re essentially outing the guy in the process.

    • #34
  5. Tex929rr Coolidge
    Tex929rr
    @Tex929rr

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    A few of you missed the point of this post. It’s not about whether Lindsey Graham is gay.

    Right. But in talking about how they’re speculating about it, you’re essentially outing the guy in the process.

    Outed?  He’s already outed.  It doesn’t really matter since, frankly, who cares?  Do you really care, Fred?  Because I sure don’t.  It’s none of my business.  

    The entire point is that here are progressives using nasty outdated ideas to try to discredit someone with whom they disagree politically.  It means that when they proclaim how “woke” they are, they are really just full of crap.  The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

    File this under the “some animals are more equal than others” tab.  

    • #35
  6. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Tex929rr (View Comment):
    Outed? He’s already outed. It doesn’t really matter since, frankly, who cares? Do you really care, Fred? Because I sure don’t. It’s none of my business.

    Look, it’s treated as an open secret, but it’s not really talked about.  If Graham is gay, which I agree is nobody’s business but his own, he hasn’t outed himself.

    And you may not care, and I may not care, but Republican primary voters in South Carolina might care. 

    • #36
  7. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Tex929rr (View Comment):
    The entire point is that here are progressives using nasty outdated ideas to try to discredit someone with whom they disagree politically. It means that when they proclaim how “woke” they are, they are really just full of crap. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

    I totally get the point.  And I agree that it’s wrong and hypocritical for them to do.

    Part of my problem with this post is that it’s outing someone who isn’t out.  And it’s aiding and abetting in Democrats in achieving what they are trying to achieve.

    • #37
  8. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Tex929rr (View Comment):
    The entire point is that here are progressives using nasty outdated ideas to try to discredit someone with whom they disagree politically. It means that when they proclaim how “woke” they are, they are really just full of crap. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

    I totally get the point. And I agree that it’s wrong and hypocritical for them to do.

    Part of my problem with this post is that it’s outing someone who isn’t out. And it’s aiding and abetting in Democrats in achieving what they are trying to achieve.

    Don’t the people who read Ricochet pretty much think of sexual conduct that’s acceptable in people who belong to their church family or religious school as something somewhat different from sexual conduct that’s acceptable in people who are holding public office ? I thought it was the left (well, and Muslims) who don’t believe that there should be some difference between standards of conduct to maintain and perpetuate our political order and standards of conduct to maintain and perpetuate cultures within religious and religious/educational communities that reflect the beliefs of people freely choosing to be part of those communities.

    • #38
  9. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    “Part of my problem with this post is that it’s outing someone who isn’t out. And it’s aiding and abetting in Democrats in achieving what they are trying to achieve.”

    I think rumors of Senator Graham’s sexuality are old news. He is not being outed in this post. I don’t think most here either believe these accusations or really care.

    That said these attacks on the networks  are yet another disturbing political hit job on several levels. That makes this post newsworthy. The tactics and the duplicity of the networks and the Democrats is the news here, not Senator Graham. 

    A. These reports do  allege through Ms. Omar and others that Graham is homosexual which may have some  affect on his standing with the electorate in South Carolina, and this accusation is repeated over and over again.  These attacks are essentially a veiled threat telling Graham he had better go back to his pliable RINO roots damn quick or these attacks will be ratcheted up more and more.

    B. These reports also allege Trump is blackmailing Graham, again without any evidence. 

    C. These reports also imply that there is something wrong with being homosexual which is pretty hypocritical given the Democrats and the Networks harsh criticism of anything that criticizes the LGBT agenda. 

    There were also rumors that Obama was gay. Would these same  networks have allowed anyone ever to allege that in the same manner? Hell no! Would they have allowed anyone dare to say Obama was blackmailing anyone ? Again Hell No! The double standard here is strikingly apparent and obvious for the umpteenth time and while that is not new news it is important to point out that duplicity and irresponsible reporting when it is this apparent.  

    • #39
  10. Max Ledoux Coolidge
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Is this really appropriate for the main feed?

    I agree. Only 4 likes and now the main feed?

    It started here, for better or worse. I think it’s a contributor thing, which is why I was initially surprised at Fred’s comment.

    It’s not about upvoting. It’s about the quality and propriety of the post.

    You understand the contributor rules better than I do. Is “quality and propriety” in the mix to start here?

     

    I don’t know the details of the Ricochet Twitter Bot. I don’t know if it goes through the normal process.

    FYI there is no Twitter Bot. I published this post.

    • #40
  11. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Is this really appropriate for the main feed?

    I agree. Only 4 likes and now the main feed?

    It started here, for better or worse. I think it’s a contributor thing, which is why I was initially surprised at Fred’s comment.

    It’s not about upvoting. It’s about the quality and propriety of the post.

    You understand the contributor rules better than I do. Is “quality and propriety” in the mix to start here?

     

    I don’t know the details of the Ricochet Twitter Bot. I don’t know if it goes through the normal process.

    FYI there is no Twitter Bot. I published this post.

    Yeah. Obviously. 

    • #41
  12. Arizona Patriot Member
    Arizona Patriot
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Graham denied being gay, in October 2018.  Here.

    • #42
  13. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):

    Graham denied being gay, in October 2018. Here.

    It now looks to me like the goal of this venomous piece of work is just to get under Lindsey Graham’s skin and incite the rest of the pack into taunting him. (Let’s face it, men from his generation can’t stand to be called gay; especially when they aren’t but seem , in affect, to possibly be.) Omar is also out to provoke people into reacting to her vile behavior by saying something she can describe as “hate” directed at Muslims, women or minorities. She’s a very accomplished little crybully. It’s a bad idea to take her bait.

    Comment # 32 actually nailed what’s going on here. In conduct, Omar is a middle school mean girl.

    • #43
  14. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Look, there’s been this rumor about Graham for years.  No one here in SC pays attention to it.  Heck, you could say the same thing about unmarried women at his age, although they are more likely to be called spinsters . . .

    • #44
  15. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    The state should recognize homosexual unions, they just shouldn’t call it “marriage”. 

    Homosexuals should be able to adopt. This isn’t going to be a big deal in the big picture.

    No one should make a big deal about any of this anymore, but that is not what is going to happen. Stop throwing it in my face.

    • #45
  16. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    Homosexuals should be able to adopt. But religious affiliated adoption agencies that don’t want to give children to homosexuals should be permitted to refuse to do that.

    People who don’t consider official homosexual unions marriage need to come up with another word or term, either for homosexual unions or for complementary sex unions, and determinedly start using it.

    • #46
  17. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Ansonia (View Comment):
    People who don’t consider official homosexual unions marriage need to come up with another word or term, either for homosexual unions or for complementary sex unions, and determinedly start using it.

    It’s too late. I should’ve said that. They obviously aren’t the same thing. It makes me crazy.

    • #47
  18. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Ansonia (View Comment):
    People who don’t consider official homosexual unions marriage need to come up with another word or term, either for homosexual unions or for complementary sex unions, and determinedly start using it.

    It’s too late. I should’ve said that. They obviously aren’t the same thing. It makes me crazy.

    It isn’t too late yet. It will be too late soon, though.

    Conservatives need to stop just objecting to the changes being imposed upon them and start asserting their choices, and their right to make those choices, regarding the way to speak about certain things.

    • #48
  19. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I just remembered something. I think there is an important part of this that never gets discussed. I’m pretty sure the state only got involved in marriage because they had to solve some legal problems. Easier recourse on dead beat dads. Stuff like that. And obviously more household formation is better sociologically; otherwise the government has to make up for it.

    My point is, it’s not some collective weapon to say these kinds of people are okay and others aren’t, but I think the political rhetoric makes it out to be that.

    • #49
  20. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Homosexuals should be able to adopt. But religious affiliated adoption agencies that don’t want to give children to homosexuals should be permitted to refuse to do that.

    People who don’t consider official homosexual unions marriage need to come up with another word or term, either for homosexual unions or for complementary sex unions, and determinedly start using it.

    I agree with everything except the adoption.  I think homosexuals should be denied adoption privileges.

    • #50
  21. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Stad (View Comment):

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Homosexuals should be able to adopt. But religious affiliated adoption agencies that don’t want to give children to homosexuals should be permitted to refuse to do that.

    People who don’t consider official homosexual unions marriage need to come up with another word or term, either for homosexual unions or for complementary sex unions, and determinedly start using it.

    I agree with everything except the adoption. I think homosexuals should be denied adoption privileges.

    In aggregate, it obviously screws people up, but the problem is think about how many meth addicts procreate. Etc. Adam Corolla is absolutely adamant that he would’ve preferred prosperous, well adjusted gay parents instead of his own.

    • #51
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.