One very real possibility is that Graham replaces Milo as the Republican Party’s Token Gay Friend.
Come on Trolly, you can attack him for being a self-loathing hypocrite without attacking gay people. You know this.
4 Likes
I assumed that post was Sarcasim
Every single one of us can rattle off 100+ non-homophobic or adjacent reasons that Lindsey Graham is an awful public servant.
Seems easy to stick to those, rather than do otherwise.
And none of those myriad good reasons will cause him to lose the election.
5 Likes
The tweet is so implausible (lol, NDA) that I actually believe more than before that no one has dirt on Lindsay for hiring gay prostitutes, at least no one who knows the guy who tweeted.
You should really train yourself to use sex worker instead of prostitute.
1 Like
Thanks for the opinion, Heart Attack, but I’ll do what I want.
1 Like
Trump might lose some votes if we do some ads about how he has a Jew son-in-Law and a Jew-lover for a daughter.
Nah, more fun to ask if Lindsey Graham has a man-whore problem.
The attack is “Lindsey is a hypocrite!”.
3 Likes
It might still be enough to shave off a couple of percentage points from his support which in a wave election could be enough to flip his seat.
We’ll just ask them to vote for the lesser evil.
1 Like
I’m in the process of converting, for whatever it’s worth (>99% of my uses are abstract theoretical arguments on unstuck and the like) . The problem with “sex worker” is that it too general. I assume there are many different types of sex workers. For example a cam girl is correctly described as a sex worker, but it’s probably misleading to call a cam girl a prostitute. So if you need specificity, sometimes “sex worker” just doesn’t cut it.
1 Like
Whats the meaningful difference between a sex worker who displays their body for money and a sex worker who has sex with people for money?
Wat?
3 Likes
Almost nothing. But you’re missing the point.
I get that in both cases they are prostituting themselves, but there are certainly times, depending on the context of the conversation, you want to draw a distinction for clarity. Sex worker doesn’t allow for that.
So, just as one example, it has been demonstrably proven that The National Enquirer would pay women for stories about having sexual relations with the President of the United States and made them sign NDAs so they couldn’t take the story to other outlets, but the entire idea that a Senator might try to use an (probably unenforceable) NDA to keep a sex worker silent about their relationship is lol worthy to you? Cool, cool, cool.
They didn’t sign NDAs, they signed some kind of exclusivity agreement where they would forfeit the funds if the story was leaked to another source.
Also, Trump wasn’t a party and wasn’t president and did the arrangement remain secret and were they ever sued?
And yes, it’s lol. What’s Lindsay going to do, sue them and allege he had sex with male sex workers? Law is sometimes like poker, and you need to be able to recognize a desperate bluff.
That sounds like a high number for Rudy and Newt.