The scuttlebut is that Senator Graham is gay (I will NOT use the nickname that many people use to demean that). Whether he is or isn't does not matter. Why it matters is that for so long, it was a (contrived, to my mind) situation that was based on the degree of "compromise" that could be extracted from someone to keep that "secret". Alan Turing, anyone?
The scuttlebut is that Senator Graham is gay (I will NOT use the nickname that many people use to demean that). Whether he is or isn't does not matter. Why it matters is that for so long, it was a (contrived, to my mind) situation that was based on the degree of "compromise" that could be extracted from someone to keep that "secret". Alan Turing, anyone?
What a sad commentary that Graham would possibly worry that his career would be threatened by his sexual orientation. But I guess where he lives, too many don't support such diversity. Ooops, I said a "bad" word. /s
I speculate that you are right. But the actual gayness might be less of a problem than what his actions might have been. Who knows. I don't care. He just creeps me out with his Trump ring kissing.
But interestingly, there appear to be more Republicans who might be compromised by personal exposure than Democrats. So-called "religious right" GOP leaders (as was true with religious leaders themselves like Jim Bakker and Jerry Falwell) seem to be quite fond of hypocrisy. Look at the recently departed leader of the GOP in Florida Christian Ziegler and his spouse. Personally, I could care less that either of them were fond of threesomes. If it floats your boat, why not? What gripes me is the hypocrisy of advocating so-called "conservative" sexual norms while actually acting on much more liberal notions themselves, and still holding everyone ELSE to the original standards.
So if Graham is gay or not, that is fine with me. But if he permits himself to be held at "gunpoint" because he can't be public about his personal sexuality (whatever it is) well THAT is a real crime.
The scuttlebut is that Senator Graham is gay (I will NOT use the nickname that many people use to demean that). Whether he is or isn't does not matter. Why it matters is that for so long, it was a (contrived, to my mind) situation that was based on the degree of "compromise" that could be extracted from someone to keep that "secret". Alan Turing, anyone?
What a sad commentary that Graham would possibly worry that his career would be threatened by his sexual orientation. But I guess where he lives, too many don't support such diversity. Ooops, I said a "bad" word. /s
I speculate that you are right. But the actual gayness might be less of a problem than what his actions might have been. Who knows. I don't care. He just creeps me out with his Trump ring kissing.
But interestingly, there appear to be more Republicans who might be compromised by personal exposure than Democrats. So-called "religious right" GOP leaders (as was true with religious leaders themselves like Jim Bakker and Jerry Falwell) seem to be quite fond of hypocrisy. Look at the recently departed leader of the GOP in Florida Christian Ziegler and his spouse. Personally, I could care less that either of them were fond of threesomes. If it floats your boat, why not? What gripes me is the hypocrisy of advocating so-called "conservative" sexual norms while actually acting on much more liberal notions themselves, and still holding everyone ELSE to the original standards.
So if Graham is gay or not, that is fine with me. But if he permits himself to be held at "gunpoint" because he can't be public about his personal sexuality (whatever it is) well THAT is a real crime.
Agree completely. Well said!
Agreed
4 pm Troll Scroll ... clear to here.