America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Even though they hate her brother, that anti-progressive Jeffersonian Democrat President.

Thanks to an old government rule, Rose Cleveland became the first LGBTQ first lady when her unmarried brother was president

Story by [email protected] (Talia Lakritz)

The term is brave and courageous but by today’s standards she should have cut something off.

unwittingly/dim wittingly making my point?

you just might be right about that.
Is that a problem?

I thought the position of first lady was there just to give a title to the significant other of the president. Now that I'm thinking about it, isn't the title fist Lady, how do I say, not woke? What if one of a same sex couple became president? I guess it works if they're both women but otherwise not so much. Seems like an old custom of idealistic man and women couple. Anyway since there are actual duties tied to the position shouldn't the first lady be elected and not just the significant other of the person holding office? What if the first lady was really ignorant or incapacitated? I guess it's not likely for someone to become president without a strong partner but Grover did it.

Somewhere along the line, the executive branch transformed into an aristocracy headed by a King and his Queen surrounded by their courtiers. There is no place in the Constitution for the position of first lady. The spouse of the President should shut her trap and not speak anything political, maybe just greet visitors, do some cooking, and help the servants with the housework.

Grover was a badazz, he wouldn't put up with any of that aristocratic nonsense and WOKE chit.
He didn't try to fundamentally transform America, or save the soul of America like some horrible Presidents we have known.
His meteoric rise to President was based primarily on his fame as an enemy of political corruption, both Republican and Democrat, since his days as Mayor of Buffalo and Governor of New York, and as a champion of small government, honest money, and protecting the treasury from thieving scoundrels. He vetoed more unconstitutional legislation than any President in history (584 total; 346 regular, 238 pocket; 7 overridden).

The only President that vetoed more was FDR who was the total opposite of Cleveland, he would veto constitutional legislation and sign unconstitutional legislation as well as expand the powers of the executive branch and the general government as a whole, bringing political corruption and thievery to a new high.

Why is someones sexuality even an issue? What are people so afraid of?

Dude, your LEFTY friends made it an issue.

my words were "you just might be right about that"...simply agreeing that those two women MAY have been/are gay.

I then asked if that was a problem for you...

Maybe you hate them for it. I don't know.
Maybe you admire what they had to endure to overcome those that do hate them for it. I don't know that either.

But I am curious why you added this (possible) fact to the thread.
I mean, ER has been fairly well established though not proven to have been gay.
I never heard any kind of evidence about Hill though. I've heard it said in the form of an insult, but I tend to accept people they way they were created, so calling her gay doesn't make me dislike her...I dislike her for other human reasons...HA!

So I'm just wondering, what are your thoughts? Why'd it come up?

big surprise, you hate.
you also believe that an alien race of lizards spawned Democrats.
You make Tucker look like a lib.

You asked why he asked. He explained why he asked. While "hate" was included in a sentence as a possible driver, "admire" was the option of the following sentence. Where's the spin? Seems as or more rational than 98.2% of the posts in any political "discussion"

Woke question?

Well, the question could be taken at a variety of levels from straightforward to challenging and accusatory. The reader's own emotions and experiences may impart intent in a statement that was never intended. Or they may be dead on accurate. Hard to say, but often people take their assumptions and resulting conclusions as gospel ans dig in for a fight. Thus is the problem with political "disourse" IMO.

As to unnecessary statements and follow-ups being normal? Dude, welcome to Cbid. Hope you enjoy your stay

Holy chit! You've been here longer than me?!?!? Well color me unfit to apply for work at an Ohio pizza place.

I went for a touch less subtlety this time than my previous post, but in the event it's still flying right over your head

Kind of proves my statement on reading intent into what's posted though, don't it?