Rating Lindsey Graham

[vcczar 0]

Here's Graham (see other Senators or US Reps in the forum). Feel free to propose other Congress people to rate:

Graham, Lindsey		H	R	SC	1997	1997	1	Leads failed coup against Gingrich speakership
Graham, Lindsey		H	R	SC	1998	1998	2	Only GOP on judicial comm to vote against every article of impeachment (Clinton)
Graham, Lindsey		S	R	SC	2002	2002	3	A leading proponent of the Iraq War Resolution
Graham, Lindsey		S	R	SC	2010	2010	4	Calls for pre-emptive strike on Iran to weaken their regime
Graham, Lindsey		S	R	SC	2010	2010	5	Opposes arms reduction treaty w/ Russia
Graham, Lindsey		S	R	SC	2012	2012	6	A leader in bipartisan effort for immigration reform
Graham, Lindsey		S	R	SC	2013	2013	7	Accuses Sec of State H. Clinton of "getting away w/ murder" re: Benghazi
Graham, Lindsey		S	R	SC	2016	2016	8	Opposes Trump's nominations; votes McMullin during Election
Graham, Lindsey		S	R	SC	2016	2016	9	GOP cand for pres
Graham, Lindsey		S	R	SC	2017	2017	10	His Graham-Cassidy bill to repeal Obamacare fails
Graham, Lindsey		S	R	SC	2018	2018	11	Reverses course on Trump support, to become one of his closest allies and defenders.
Graham, Lindsey		S	R	SC	2018	2018	12	Plays key role in pushing Kavanaugh confirmation through
Graham, Lindsey		S	R	SC	2019	2019	13	Calls for military invasion of Venezuela to overthrow Maduro
Graham, Lindsey		S	R	SC	2019	2019	14	Single-handedly blocked Mueller Report going public despite unanimous House vote
Graham, Lindsey		S	R	SC	2019	2019	15	One of 7 GOP to block Trump's Saudi Arms deal

[Conservative Elector 2 0]

Thanks!

[MysteryKnight 0]

Before Trump win the presidency and he became a pro-Trump lunatic, I would have said he would have been a better president than Trump and maybe even rated him below-average instead of bad. But now he seems to been captured by the Trump GOP base and became the thing he once opposed. 

He's always been a pro-military neocon which is why I never liked him, but he did try to do some good work on immigration reform and climate change like 10 years ago, but he changed those views since then. 

[Patine 35]

Of course, ironically, Graham backed all these wars with flimsy reasons and rationales (the Iraq War based on an utter pack of lies), but fortunately the Iran and Venezuela interventions he supported never ended up happening, and such wars did - or would have, for the ones that never happened - ended up with a lot of gratuitous and unnecessary death, especially of civilians, and he chides Clinton for "getting away with murder." But, I guess, by the Goebbels-school of propaganda that still dominates in so much of the world today - the one that utterly dehumanizes whole demographics of people because "they're citizens of a nation one is at war with," or "they are, as a whole, enemies of or threats to one's nation and values," to twist the minds of ordinary, normally decent people atrocities by their government and military, it's SUPPOSED to be considered anywhere close to MURDER, or any other criminal action, is it? :S

[Reagan04 0]

@vcczar Jeff Flake?

[Patine 35]

2 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

@vcczar Jeff Flake?

I know this may betray my preference for historical over modern American politics, because the latter seems so misguided, divisive, cynical, and self-destructive - but about someone less current - like maybe whose been dead a few decades, at least.

[Reagan04 0]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

I know this may betray my preference for historical over modern American politics, because the latter seems so misguided, divisive, cynical, and self-destructive - but about someone less current - like maybe whose been dead a few decades, at least.

I don't think there was an active verb in your dependent clause. What exactly are you trying to say?

Here's a fun rule, don't use adjectives or dashes in the answer I honestly am not sure if you're approving of my suggestion or not, the first clause says yes but the rest says no.

[Patine 35]

Just now, Reagan04 said:

I don't think there was an active verb in your dependent clause. What exactly are you trying to say?

Here's a fun rule, don't use adjectives or dashes in the answer I honestly am not sure if you're approving of my suggestion or not, the first clause says yes but the rest says no.

I'm saying, I'd prefer the next one done up by @vcczar, was a historical choice and not a current one.

BTW, if I'm hard to read, I don't recommend such literary classics as "Finnegan's Wake," or "A Day in the Life," for bedtime reading for you or @Actinguy.

[vcczar 0]

9 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'm saying, I'd prefer the next one done up by @vcczar, was a historical choice and not a current one.

BTW, if I'm hard to read, I don't recommend such literary classics as "Finnegan's Wake," or "A Day in the Life," for bedtime reading for you or @Actinguy.

Finnegans Wake is one of my favorite books. I can do a historical one next. Any suggestions?

[Patine 35]

10 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Finnegans Wake is one of my favorite books. I can do a historical one next. Any suggestions?

Henry Clay or Daniel Webster would be great. I noticed the very high numbers they had on the original list.

[Reagan04 0]

30 minutes ago, Patine said:

BTW, if I'm hard to read, I don't recommend such literary classics as "Finnegan's Wake," or "A Day in the Life," for bedtime reading for you or @Actinguy.

The difference is that their writing is complex but well-written and more importantly well-edited. Your writing is simply a case of pomp with no circumstance.

[Patine 35]

Just now, Reagan04 said:

The difference is that their writing is complex but well-written and more importantly well-edited. Your writing is simply a case of pomp with no circumstance.

You highly over-estimate 19th Century editors and publishers compared to today.

[vcczar 0]

3 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

The difference is that their writing is complex but well-written and more importantly well-edited. Your writing is simply a case of pomp with no circumstance.

 

1 minute ago, Patine said:

You highly over-estimate 19th Century editors and publishers compared to today.

Can we keep this on topic so another thread doesn’t get shut down. 

[Patine 35]

Just now, vcczar said:

 

Can we keep this on topic so another thread doesn’t get shut down. 

My apologies.

[Reagan04 0]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

You highly over-estimate 19th Century editors and publishers compared to today.

Be that as it may, you should re-read the original statement in question because you start seemingly in support of a modern character, then delve into a string of adjectives on a micro tangent about modern politics and I'm guessing that while you were thinking of excessive adjectives you lost track of Your grammatical flow leading you to construct the back half in a manner which didn't quite stick the landing that the first clause set up.

[Actinguy 2]

52 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'm saying, I'd prefer the next one done up by @vcczar, was a historical choice and not a current one.

BTW, if I'm hard to read, I don't recommend such literary classics as "Finnegan's Wake," or "A Day in the Life," for bedtime reading for you or @Actinguy.

I wasn't even in this thread.

[Patine 35]

19 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I wasn't even in this thread.

You were tagged for being just as guilty of constantly criticizing my grammar rather than respond to the subject of my post as @Reagan04. No other regular posters here I can think of constantly do that.

[Reagan04 0]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

You were tagged for being just as guilty of constantly criticizing my grammar rather than respond to the subject of my post as @Reagan04. No other regular posters here I can think of constantly do that.

Honestly man, I really just wanted to know what you were saying.

[Actinguy 2]

8 minutes ago, Patine said:

You were tagged for being just as guilty of constantly criticizing my grammar rather than respond to the subject of my post as @Reagan04. No other regular posters here I can think of constantly do that.

I only criticize because you get mad at me for not reading it.  I'm not criticizing it to be rude -- I'm being sincere:  most of the time, I have honest difficulty trying to grasp what it is that you're communicating.  This isn't a problem I encounter with other posters.

But I don't want to derail another thread, so I'll bow out of this one.

[Patine 35]

3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

This isn't a problem I encounter with other posters.

You're very fortunate you first logged in after @Rarename91 stopped posting. You dodged someone with grammar consistently worse than mine - and who was also very opinionated and incendiary. And FAR less educated and knowledgeable of affairs.

Anyways, I'll bow out, too.

[jvikings1 0]

One of the worst kinds of Republicans.  He is no more than a big government Republican who wants the US to meddle in the business of every other country on the planet.  Hopefully, his voice in the Senate will be removed in the near future.

[vcczar 0]

14 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

One of the worst kinds of Republicans.  He is no more than a big government Republican who wants the US to meddle in the business of every other country on the planet.  Hopefully, his voice in the Senate will be removed in the near future.

Would you support a Democratic challenger over Graham?

[Reagan04 0]

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Would you support a Democratic challenger over Graham?

I would to an extent but not over the reasons jvk lays out. Someone like Jim Hood would be better because of how Graham has fallen hook line and sinker for the fellating of Trump with every waking moment of his remaining career.

[jvikings1 0]

6 hours ago, vcczar said:

Would you support a Democratic challenger over Graham?

Depends what they would run on.  I wouldn't vote for Graham, but I can't say I'd vote for someone just based off a hypothetical.