Mass Shooting in Louisville, KY- 5 Dead; 8 Injured - Politics Discussion

[–] Filmtenk2 (4066) 2 years ago

The governor knew two of the victims, will it make a difference? Probably not. It's almost not worth reporting unless each congresspepe and senator representing the entire state experience tragic gun vio loss simultaneously.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17486) 2 years ago

I won't be surprised if the shooter has some alternate pronouns...

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

So you think because of one single recent transperson shooting up a school, that all shooting sprees are now going to have that as a motive?

This seems to be a workplace spat, a relatively common motive.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17486) 2 years ago

One? It's been like 6 dude.

Since January.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>One? It's been like 6 dude. Since January.

Evidence please.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17486) 2 years ago

Alec McKinney - STEM School Highlands Ranch Shooter. Identifies as Trans Male.

Anderson Aldrich - Club Q Shooter. Identified as Non-Binary.

Randy Stair - Eaton Township Shooter. Identified as Trans Female.

Snochia Moseley - Maryland Rite Aid Shooter. Identified as Trans.

Audrey Hale - Nashville Shooter. Identified as Trans Male.

Nathan Stolsig - Ballard Shooter. Identified as Trans Female.

So technically we're now up to seven. How quickly we forget these things when the shooter doesn't fit the media narrative!

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Alec McKinney - STEM School Highlands Ranch Shooter. Identifies as Trans Male.

2019. Not since January. Also, this was bullying related.

>Anderson Aldrich - Club Q Shooter. Identified as Non-Binary.

November 2022. Also they targeted a LGBT club - an odd target for a supposed transperson. This was almost certainly a troll.

>Randy Stair - Eaton Township Shooter. Identified as Trans Female.

No evidence this guy was trans. Also this happened in 2017.

>Snochia Moseley - Maryland Rite Aid Shooter. Identified as Trans.

2018. Also no evidence that the person being trans had anything to do with the shooting. It was another workplace shooting.

>Audrey Hale - Nashville Shooter. Identified as Trans Male.

This is the only one valid so far.

>Nathan Stolsig - Ballard Shooter. Identified as Trans Female.

Maybe, although this wasn't a mass shooting.

>So technically we're now up to seven. How quickly we forget these things when the shooter doesn't fit the media narrative!

Why are you lying about most of these? There are 2 since January 2023 - and most of your examples are unsubstantiated.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17486) 2 years ago

"OMG space of time, and number of victims makes it okay!"

🤨🤨🤨

"Unsubstantiated" Omg, you're right no one got shot, no one died, it's all a figment of people's imagination. Shooters that identify as trans automatically go back to their dead names after they murder people. You're right lol. And the best part, you'll be the first one to run back to 1995 to find a "Christian" terrorist lmao.

Fucking hypocrite.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>"OMG space of time, and number of victims makes it okay!"

You literally claimed there had been 6 trans-motivated shootings since January 2023.

This is simply just not true.

>"Unsubstantiated" Omg, you're right no one got shot, no one died, it's all a figment of people's imagination. Shooters that identify as trans automatically go back to their dead names after they murder people. You're right lol. And the best part, you'll be the first one to run back to 1995 to find a "Christian" terrorist lmao.

Unsubstantiated in the sense that you can't back up your claims that they did their shootings *because* they were trans. There's also no evidence that the assailant in one of your examples was trans.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 2 years ago

I would say it is a black gang against black gang thing.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

You say a lot of nonsense.

reply

[–] CraigC (8285) 2 years ago

Your 20,000 existing laws don't work, yet you want more. That is the definition of insanity. Or in your case, terminal stupidity.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

They work globally including blue states.

Gun nuts give guns to criminals, crazies and kiddies!

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17486) 2 years ago

Explain what laws prevent this.

Blue states have idiots shooting them up all the time. Only it's done by non-white people so they are counted differently.

But you know what we won't talk about? The real problem...

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Mental health, I assume? Sure. US has a mental health problem. How do you suppose it be solved?

reply

[–] InquiringMind (2272) 2 years ago

Medicare for All with mental health support along with social/case workers available to anyone that needs it.
In addition, it would help if we had an economic system where everyone benefits. And lastly, a large social project that gives people something to work towards that is bigger than themselves.
People who have meaning in life are not likely to go shoot up a school.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

Medicare is for old people. Majority of mass shooters are young.

Defeating GOP gun nut politicians and extremists who are endangering women's health fit your last suggestion. That's beginning to happen now.

reply

[–] InquiringMind (2272) 2 years ago

Are you retarded or something? Your reading comprehension skills seem to leave something to be desired.
Medicare for All (Med4All) as the name implies, is for all people not just old people. It is a policy proposed by Bernie Sanders that expands Medicare to everyone. There is also a bill — the Medicare for All Act of 2021 which was introduced by Pramila Jayapal that would do just that, and would also include dental and vision. She is part of the Justice Democrats which include people like AOC and Ilhan Omar. They were all elected to implement socialist policies. They have all sold out of course and are now completely useless tools of the democratic party who are mostly concerned with identity politics, but initially they were some of the best candidates that were elected to congress.

And yes, we should defeat GOP gun nut politicians, not because they are gun nuts (there are many left wing gun nuts, me included), but because they are anti-human. Their policies destroy the lives of poor and working class people.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

"Medicare for all with mental health support"

Your spelling is bad. It reads Medicare with mental health for all people. You're the bozo who didn't spell it correctly "Medicare for All".

Anyway, you're living in fantasy since the program doesn't exist nor is it likely there would be enough doctors or those needing help would agree to get it.

It's simpler and makes more sense to stop passing easy access laws to guns. Florida just passed a law allowing anyone to carry without any permit or training. Any hothead, drunk, druggie can walk around with a gun making Florida less safe. Imagine accidentally bumping into the hothead on a street.

reply

[–] InquiringMind (2272) 2 years ago

Are you sassing me?

First of all, it's not a spelling error, nothing was misspelled. While I think that it could have been worded better (they can't all be winners), you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The mistake (not a spelling mistake) was simply the result of not sufficiently pressing the shift key hard enough while typing. I didn't catch it when I was proofreading it, and so here we are.
Fixed it. Better?

It maybe simpler and safer to stop passing easy access laws, or enacting other forms of gun control, but those are not the only concerns. I am not willing to give up my rights for safety, convenience, and/or security. Every state should follow Florida's example and make guns available to everyone without a FOID card. This is the price you have to pay to live in a free and open society. If you are not willing to pay it, then perhaps this country is not for you. Go somewhere they have strict gun laws like the U.K. I have no interest in living in such a place so I will fight any gun laws being proposed that restrict gun access.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

"it could have been worded better"

Exactly.

"you are making a mountain out of a molehill."

You did with your insult. Your own error changed the meaning of your sentence.

"Better?"

You actually owe me an apology for insulting my reading skills when the issue was due to your poor proof-reading skills. But, I don't expect you to be civil enough to apologize.

Free-for-all gun giveaways make society unsafe for everyone. You love your gun rather than your own children.

reply

[–] InquiringMind (2272) 2 years ago

You know what? You are right. I can see how it could have been read as Medicare and not Medicare for All.
I apologize for insulting your reading comprehension skills.

Free-for-all gun giveaways make society unsafe for everyone. You love your gun rather than your own children.

The funny thing is I don't even own a gun. It's the principle of the thing.
And yes, freedom is more important than my life and the lives of my children. I don't want me or my children living in an authoritarian society.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17486) 2 years ago

Fixing the family unit.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Anything specific in mind in terms of policy?

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17486) 2 years ago

End No-Fault Divorce. End incentivized single-motherhood by reforming welfare policy, fuck end welfare.

Incentivized programs for baby care to new, married mothers. Promote families in media. Stop glorifying broken homes. There's so many fucking things that can fix this. Black families were doing better before the introduction of mass-welfare programs.

Bring back the celebration of masculinity. Give kids hopes and dreams instead of turning them into slacktivists that want to cut off body parts. Promote family nights, outings. Anything than what we currently have that does nothing but attack the family unit.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Incentivized programs for baby care to new, married mothers. Promote families in media. Stop glorifying broken homes. There's so many fucking things that can fix this. Black families were doing better before the introduction of mass-welfare programs.

How does one "promote families in media" exactly, or "stop glorifying families in broken homes"?

Because this particular lines sounds like a flirtation with government regulation on free expression.

>Bring back the celebration of masculinity. Give kids hopes and dreams instead of turning them into slacktivists that want to cut off body parts. Promote family nights, outings. Anything than what we currently have that does nothing but attack the family unit.

How does the "celebration of masculinity" specifically look here, in terms of law? Or "promoting family nights"?

And can you tell me why the UK, that shares all of these problems, doesn't have gun shootings?

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

"promote families in media" is clearly a general statement, as opposed to today, when the familiy is constantly targeted by lefties in media, all the time.

Demanding "exact details" is just a way to avoid addressing a very strong point.

Do you deny the massive role that the breakdown of the family has had on various types of violence and social dsyfunction? Because you clearly don't want to do his suggested solution but instead of having the balls to clearly express your disagreement and explain why you disagree, you demand "details".

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>"promote families in media" is clearly a general statement, as opposed to today, when the familiy is constantly targeted by lefties in media, all the time.

Is it? How? I'd just like to know what that means in terms of application.

>Do you deny the massive role that the breakdown of the family has had on various types of violence and social dsyfunction? Because you clearly don't want to do his suggested solution but instead of having the balls to clearly express your disagreement and explain why you disagree, you demand "details".

In terms of gun violence yes.

UK and Europe doesn't have this problem. Do you think we're somehow more traditionalist here?

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

I don't know their single mother rates compared to US rates.

I know in the US, populations with worse single mother rates, have vastly more crime, violence, and other types of social dsyfunction.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>I don't know their single mother rates compared to US rates.

https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_1_1_Family_size_and_composition.pdf

Among all households in OECD countries in 2011, the proportion of single-parent households was in 3-11% the range, with an average of 7.5%. It was highest in Australia (10%), Canada (10%), Mexico (10%), United States (10%), Lithuania (10%), Costa Rica (11%), Latvia (11%) and New Zealand (11%), while it was lowest in Japan (3%), Greece (4%), Switzerland (4%), Bulgaria (5), Croatia (5%), Germany (5%), Italy (5%) and Cyprus (5%). The proportion was 9% in both Ireland and the United Kingdom.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

So, in your opinon, why in AMERICA, does the various problems seem to track with single moms, and not gun ownership?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

It doesn't seem to? I mean what's your evidence here? USA has a single-parent household percentage comparable to the Anglosphere. It's only slightly worse than the Uk according to this data. We don't have mass shootings.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

Stats. You look at stats in teh us, and single mom families have massively higher rates of violence, crime and other shit.

You already know that. That is why you keep trying to pivot away from that to comparisons with the UK.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

Seeing you get taken to school is awesome. I love seeing scumbags put in their place.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

So why don't we have these same stats in the UK? Or if we do, why isn't that translating into mass shooting?

>You already know that. That is why you keep trying to pivot away from that to comparisons with the UK.

I mean it's a question for you. Americans often seem to think that the decline of the family model, mental health issues increasing (often in visibility rather than raw numbers), decline in religiosity etc etc causes more shootings in USA - but UK and Europe has all of these social problems. We simply don't see people shoot up places like you do in the USA.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

I don't know why hte UK is different. I know how things track here. I know I grew up in a gun rich area and we had no issues with them.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Well one obvious reason that I can think of is that we have massive gun control - US does not.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

Yet, gun crime does NOT track with gun ownership. So it is some more than just access to guns.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

It is certainly more, but it would be absurd to not note the very obvious differences in gun laws in the US vs. the Uk and other EU countries

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

I'm happy to NOTE it, but the implication is always that it proves that the problem is access to guns.

But that falls apart the MOMENT you actually give it any thought, or look at the numbers, becuase gun violence does not track with access to guns.

Plenty of nice neighborhoods with plenty of guns in them, and the guns stay in their nightstands and on top of refrigarators and everyone lives happily ever after.

Meanwhile, in London, with "massive gun control", people are being stabbed to death, more and more.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

>Meanwhile, in London, with "massive gun control", people are being stabbed to death, more and more.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/16/murder-graph-shows-london-killings-compare-us-cities-9971033/

This is now such an outrageous lie. The implication being that London is just as dangerous as a US city, it's just via stabbing. It is just flatout not true.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

Just making the point that violent crime is not limited to gun rich areas. That was the point I made. It was very relevant to our discussion. YOur belief that I was "implying" more is incorrect.

I am happy to admit that our cities are shit holes, and getting worse. I would be nad have been happy to discuss why that is, and what I think we should do about it.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

Oh that is what you were implying. I am glad your mentality is going the way of the dodo.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

And once again, it's all about stuff you IMAGINE I meant, not what I actually said.

Fuck off fag.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

Nope. You are a joke.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

YOu sure about that? Cause most of what you talk about is what you "imagine" I said, not what I actually said.

If you're wrong about what you "imagine" I said, then you would be the joke, wouldn't you?

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

I am not wrong. You are attempting to make it seem that is not what you are talking about. I see through you is all. Tell me what are your thoughts on Kanye's comments about Hitler and the Holocaust?

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

Sure you are wrong. You're IMAGINING shit and trying to hold me accountable.

Why should I answer your question, when you are comfortable dismissing what I said and then having a hissy fit about what you IMAGINED i said.

Just fuck off assmuncher.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

No I do not believe I am. It is rather obvious you only care about the interests of white men. Notice how I pointed out racism towards Jewish people and not blacks?

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

I notice that you are a shit talker.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

Nah I just see through you and you don't like it.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

You just admitted that you cannot read minds in the other thread, so drop the stupid shit.

You are just an asshole

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6138) 2 years ago

Okay so I should think you are completely fair and that you have no bias because you say so?

reply

[–] UncleRuckis (2627) 2 years ago

"Americans often seem to think that the decline of the family model, mental health issues increasing (often in visibility rather than raw numbers), decline in religiosity etc etc causes more shootings in USA"

Only some Americans spout this garbage, and deep down, even they know they are full of shit!

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17486) 2 years ago

Not to mention single motherhood is almost a direct pipeline to prison.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17486) 2 years ago

It's okay... they know they spent their entire lives attack the Nuclear Family, know it destroyed this country, and now deflect ad infinitum of their errors.

"It must be anything other than what we destroyed!" is the motto now...

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

An institution that was the bedrock of Western Civilization for thousands of years, they couldn't see any harm to shit canning it, and now that we do see the harm, they want to just move on to the next conversation.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17486) 2 years ago

It goes right along with the emasculation of men, and Male Role Models. Media has spent over 30+ hammering the "dumbass dad" and "idiot man" tropes. It needs to stop before the next generation shoots and kills all of us and themselves.

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

Statistically blue states are safer from gun violence than red states. Furthermore, gun violence is because of red states' lax laws which freely give guns to criminals, crazies and kiddies.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 2 years ago

Bet that looks different if you look at COUNTIES instead of whole states....

Doesn't Keelai?

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17486) 2 years ago

Shhhh, you're not supposed to break down the counties!

________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.

reply

[–] InquiringMind (2272) 2 years ago

I'm not a republican or on the right, and I am against any "common sense" gun legislation. Everyone should be able to own a gun for whatever reason with no restrictions. No matter how many people or children get shot the 2nd amendment is paramount. Now cope.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

2nd amendment applies to well-regulated militias - not individuals.

reply

[–] InquiringMind (2272) 2 years ago

And who makes up a militia? Individuals with guns.
Even before the second amendment, citizens were often required to own guns so that they could form a militia if necessary.
The reason for militias was because we did not have a military.
There was a cultural and historical tradition of militias in colonial America, and the idea of an armed citizenry as a check against government tyranny was a commonly held belief among many of the founders.
In fact, the Second Amendment was actually created as a response to concerns that the federal government might try to disarm the people or otherwise infringe upon the right to bear arms.

reply

[–] Keelai (34983) 2 years ago

You're semi-correct. But, the Constitution was referring specifically to state government militias. The Founding Fathers feared a dictatorship. They didn't want a permanent standing national army because they believed a president could use it to become a dictator. Congress could fund a national army for up to 2 years if needed, but then they had to disband.

They wanted each state government to have its own well-organized militia, if needed, without a president attempting to disarm states and institute a dictatorship.

It was never about individuals forming militias. The Founding Fathers knew most individuals were idiots and denied them the vote. Remember, only the elite could originally vote! They considered most individuals to be a threat, therefore it makes zero sense for you to believe that the Founding Fathers would entrust them to protect the republic. Au contraire, they were the unruly mob as Jan. 6th had shown and the Founding Fathers had feared.

The Supreme Court 5-4 decision overturned centuries of precedent with their politicized ruling. They have zero credibility.

reply

[–] InquiringMind (2272) 2 years ago

That is your interpretation, originalists disagree. And we are talking about the original meaning of the constitution, not a liberal interpenetration that conforms to our modern sensibilities.
The Founders generally believed in the importance of individual liberties and were skeptical of government power. Therefore, it is likely that they also intended to protect the individual right to bear arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes.
The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to protect the right of citizens to be armed and to participate in militias.
The people must necessarily have guns in order to participate in them.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 2 years ago

Gay thing about losing his job.
Louisville shooter Connor Sturgeon was notified that he was going to be terminated from Old National Bank in Louisville, Kentucky, according to a law enforcement source familiar with the investigation.

Sturgeon wrote a note for his parents and a friend indicating that he was going to shoot at the bank, the source said.

reply

[–] joej2923 (3052) 2 years ago

There didn't appear to be any warning signs with the shooter. It's an unfortunate situation but people from all parties support gun rights. I would support longer waiting periods so hotheaded people can cool down before shooting their neighbors or co-workers.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11957781/PICTURED-Louisville-shooter-Connor-Sturgeon-25-shot-death-four-bank-colleagues.html

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 2 years ago

The guy is likely a hot head as why he was getting fired. Gay people can go all out loons when they don't get there way.
'They won't listen to words or protests. Let's see if they hear this.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Evidence that this guy was gay please

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 2 years ago

Him knowing he will never get another good job with a being fired before on his record. All that is left for him is to go into being a drag queen full time.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

That's not evidence that he was gay

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 2 years ago

His roommate at that house will make you believe it then.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

What roommate? You referring to something specific here?

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 2 years ago

Yes the press is hiding him.He didn't live in that house by himself.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

So he has a roommate... what does this roommate say? Sources please.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 2 years ago

His name is Dallas something but the press wants this played out as he got tackled to many times in football.That is why the gays are joining the womens teams so they won't get hurt.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/04/11/17/69710495-11961241-The_lawyer_said_the_shooting_was_as_unknown_and_surprising_to_Da-a-2_1681230717357.jpg

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZisQagFtGhPPGsa5bYXrIwcC_1kFxZyi84Nz3nHkJR7DM9Z35no4-PlpiHsxoQRCAi3Nwsl9FB5TktjYfZSW0wtYewPVE0Z7O9FB5Op2V9WdFbEb6c73_1NB7Xlt_1ZiYt748xf3KEtX1cOlj7xbYw7UMDnDClHHw

And where is the evidence that this guy, if he is gay, did it because he was gay? And no, "the gays" are not joining women's teams.

Can you link me the actual Daily Mail article please?

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 2 years ago

Yawn,but the bank is so much of a poof democrat woke hangout they didn't even have a guard because he would have wanted a gun.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

A bank is a "poof democrat woke hangout"?

What are you on about? Again - give me the original daily mail source please.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 2 years ago

The bank president is best friends with Kentucky poof boy democrat governor.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

So what?

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 2 years ago

It is Kentucky poof boy. But any way the press will just keep hyping the three idiots in Nashville still as they can push off it as a race thing instead of this one idiot.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

What does this even mean? What does the relationship of the bank president and the Governor of Kentucky have to do with this event?

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 2 years ago

The guy was just too much of a wacko for the bank to handle. He could have quit and went somewhere else. That would be leaving his boyfriend though.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

What does this have to do with the governor?

Again, you haven't demonstrated he had a boyfriend - or if he did, the relevance in this case. I asked you to source the daily mail article you seemed to be linking to, but you refused to.