Another Anti-Gay Republican gets caught out

[_subgenius]

Welp. Now we see the Trump effect in, uh, full effect. It's cool to be liar and hypocrite as long as you are voting for legislation that your constituents support.

- Doc

A totally new and never before seen condition of politics amiright?...gone are the days of politicians who....geez, you can't be this naïve, right?

Its not that its cool or not cool, its that, in-and-of-itself, nobody cares if this guy is gay and voted not-gay. Your expectations for who politicians are versus what their job duties are is odd and potentially dangerous.

[_canpakes]

Welp. Now we see the Trump effect in, uh, full effect. It's cool to be liar and hypocrite as long as you are voting for legislation that your constituents support.

- Doc

A totally new and never before seen condition of politics amiright?...gone are the days of politicians who....geez, you can't be this naïve, right?

Its not that its cool or not cool, its that, in-and-of-itself, nobody cares if this guy is gay and voted not-gay. Your expectations for who politicians are versus what their job duties are is odd and potentially dangerous.

Shorter subs: “Integrity is dangerous”.

[_Chap]

nobody cares if this guy is gay and voted not-gay.

Really?

The people who cheered when he advocated and voted for anti-gay legislation are not likely to be in the slightest bit disappointed when they find that he was actually doing the things they wanted him to help put a stop to?

They will not feel let down when they realise that they voted for a man who presented himself to them as a heterosexual family man, but who had decided hide his true sexuality from them in order to get their vote?

I doubt whether people are really as weird as you pretend they are.

[_subgenius]

being hypocritical is [not] a violation of one's oath of office

Hmm. Let's look at the oath:

“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

So doing X but concealing that fact from your electors [url]who you know would never have voted for you if they had known you did X[/url], and even telling them how dreadful doing X is and how it should be made illegal - that is "well and faithfully discharg[ing] the duties of the office".

O ... K ... But I wonder how many electors would be happy with the idea that their congressman acts that way?

huh?...a guy not in office is supposed to be faithful to an oath of that office, but also faithful to a part of that oath which does not exist?....and somehow your electorate, presumably, is supposed to be privy to your sexuality because you should be legislating according to your own self-interest and not theirs?
.
.
.
.
.
again
.
.
.
.
huh?

[_subgenius]

Shorter subs: “Integrity is dangerous”.

almost...."imposed integrity" is dangerous.

but pardon me....you were telling me how a legislator's sexuality was relevant to their oath of office....and presumably relevant to whether you would vote for them.

[_canpakes]

Shorter subs: “Integrity is dangerous”.

almost...."imposed integrity" is dangerous.

but pardon me....you were telling me how a legislator's sexuality was relevant to their oath of office....and presumably relevant to whether you would vote for them.

Substitute integrity for sexuality, and you’ll be on the right path.

In contrast, you’re the fellow who has asserted on numerous occasions within the fora that gay or lesbian individuals are mentally defective ... which might “presumably (be) relevant to whether you would vote for them”.

[_subgenius]

but pardon me....you were telling me how a legislator's sexuality was relevant to their oath of office....and presumably relevant to whether you would vote for them.

Substitute integrity for sexuality, and you’ll be on the right path. [/quote]
hmm.. a person's integrity relevant to their oath of office?...how is that? In this context, you are saying that Bill Sanderson is incapable of voting on or crafting legislation because he is gay and voted against some allegedly pro-gay legislation or for some allegedly anti-gay legislation....all presumably because that is what his constituency elected him to do?.....sooo, integrity being where an official votes for or crafts legislation that does not serve the interests of their constituency but rather serves the official's self-interest is (to you) a sign of integrity.
oh, ok.

In contrast, you’re the fellow who has asserted on numerous occasions within the fora that gay or lesbian individuals are mentally defective ... which might “presumably (be) relevant to whether you would vote for them”.

keyword = presumably.
But not relevant on this matter, because mental competence would be a direct influence on the execution of duties. However, continuing on your bigoted rant, if someone mentally defective like KG was going to vote how I wanted him to vote and otherwise fulfill the oath of office, then I do not see why it would be of concern.
I understand that people with your political compass want a showman, a "personality", an "influencer" in office because its totes kewl to have a President with a funny YouTube channel, amiable football throwing sidekick, and a great rapport with a studio audience...looks good and smells good are such great signs of "integrity" when voting;
but I do not think that is how government is supposed to work....maybe you disagree.

[_canpakes]

Substitute integrity for sexuality, and you’ll be on the right path.

hmm.. a person's integrity relevant to their oath of office?...how is that? In this context, you are saying that Bill Sanderson is incapable of voting on or crafting legislation because he is gay and voted against some allegedly pro-gay legislation or for some allegedly anti-gay legislation....all presumably because that is what his constituency elected him to do?.....sooo, integrity being where an official votes for or crafts legislation that does not serve the interests of their constituency but rather serves the official's self-interest is (to you) a sign of integrity.
oh, ok.

In contrast, you’re the fellow who has asserted on numerous occasions within the fora that gay or lesbian individuals are mentally defective ... which might “presumably (be) relevant to whether you would vote for them”.

keyword = presumably.
But not relevant on this matter, because mental competence would be a direct influence on the execution of duties. However, continuing on your bigoted rant, if someone mentally defective like KG was going to vote how I wanted him to vote and otherwise fulfill the oath of office, then I do not see why it would be of concern.
I understand that people with your political compass want a showman, a "personality", an "influencer" in office because its totes kewl to have a President with a funny YouTube channel, amiable football throwing sidekick, and a great rapport with a studio audience...looks good and smells good are such great signs of "integrity" when voting;
but I do not think that is how government is supposed to work....maybe you disagree.

I see that we’ve reached the point in the conversation wherein your difficulty in understanding the concept of integrity forces you to throw up rambling and lengthy word salads in an effort to distract from that fact.

No wonder you’re incapable of basic honesty in your interactions here.

[_aussieguy55]

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/anti-l ... qbGBTR3Srw

Maybe he was bisexual.

[_Chap]

"imposed integrity" is dangerous.

Yup.

It's wrong to have laws that punish people for stealing other peoples' money: that is imposing integrity on them.

And people should be free to speak the truth or lie in court without penalty. Otherwise ...

you were telling me how a legislator's sexuality was relevant to their oath of office....and presumably relevant to whether you would vote for them.

A legislator's sexuality is not relevant in itself to my (Chap's) decision whether I vote for him or her.

What is relevant is whether he tells me lies in order to get my vote, either by making false statements or suppressing facts that he knows I consider relevant to my decision. And Sanderson knew damn well that the voters he was courting would hate to vote for a person who was not only gay, but promiscuously so. So he lied to them.