You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Everyone knows exactly what's being implied when journalists "speculate" Graham is being blackmailed (they're too cowardly to state it, so they imply it). It invokes & exploits all the worst stereotypes about gay men. At the very least, this "theory" should require evidence.
You know what Glenn, it never occurred to me once that people meant something about him being gay or something of the sort. I mean that. Never even crossed my mind. I was just fully and completely weirded out by his complete 180 on Trump. It's a sight to behold.
1) It's extremely common for politicians to say horrible things about each other & then work together (see Clinton & Obama); 2) Accusations of blackmail should require *evidence); 3) https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1084492137272655872 …
Thanks Glenn.
GG routinely accuses vast groups of people (Dems, liberals) of things done by individuals. In this article staff people did and he accused the whole party of doing that. Smears. Note: Neither Carville nor Podesta are mentioned, yet pictured. Deceitful.https://theintercept.com/2017/07/17/with-new-d-c-policy-group-dems-continue-to-rehabilitate-and-unify-with-bush-era-neocons/ …
Podesta is a member of Alliance for Securing Democracy’s advisory board. But that’s not Podesta pictured. It’s Leon Panetta, at whose Institute Kristol was speaking and who is entirely deserving of guilt by association and action. Great article, though. Thanks for sharing.
My bad. I knew that. Panetta was still not mentioned in the article and has nothing to do with it. Creates a false impression. And if you think talking with someone is indicting, then where is your outrage at GG going on Tucker Carlson's (known *-phobe) show?
I’m saying Panetta is a bird of the same feather and hosted a key character in the article. I don’t think just talking to someone is necessarily indicting. I have mixed feelings about GG going on Tucker’s show—I like that that audience hears him, but I’d prefer it ceased existing
Both things ARE possible: It’s possible there are those who are intentionally (w/o proof) suggesting something about his private life, and simultaneously those (eg @shaunking) who just think something weird has happened. I just think he looked at SC polling and acted accordingly.
Most politicians will say whatever they think is politicaly expedient at the time
The entire GOP establishment did a 180 on Trump. Speculating on individual motivations here and there just obscures that. And muddying the water in this way clearly serves particular interests.
He's from South Carolina. His base loves Trump. He wants to keep his job. This isn't that hard to understand, Shaun.
Ditto. Telling that someone goes straight to sexuality bias when most of us are talking about Graham's bewildering change in personality, public positions and level of Trump advocacy.
My exact same thoughts, Shaun. The 180 was pretty dramatic, and the dots just don’t connect.
It's also rooted in a long sordid history of the US govt firing or excluding LGBT folks bc they pose a "security risk" and can't be trusted. This rhetoric was rampant in the post-WWII red scare, and weaponized against everyone from Bayard Rustin to rank-and-file federal workers.
Wow. Really? Wow.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
