OT.....Lindsay Graham has passed away *

Pinkgimp

Sophomore
Jan 27, 2002
204
199
43
I just see Norman as a cantankerous old fart.Surely we can do better.I would love for Trey Gowdy to run.But he had enough of Washington which makes him even more attractive.I remember hearing that Dem opposition research on him came back with nothing on him.In fact I believe they called him a Boy Scout,when that was a compliment.

Barf
 

PrestonyteParrot

All-Conference
May 28, 2024
2,905
2,863
113
I just see Norman as a cantankerous old fart.Surely we can do better.I would love for Trey Gowdy to run.But he had enough of Washington which makes him even more attractive.I remember hearing that Dem opposition research on him came back with nothing on him.In fact I believe they called him a Boy Scout,when that was a compliment.
Trey Gowdy :eek: Research came back with nothing because he is a nothing.
 

gamecock stock

All-Conference
Jan 21, 2022
3,550
3,194
113
Mark Sanford's name is being floated. I know, I know the Appalachian Trail thing blah, blah, blah. Trump has endorsed Lindsey's sister. And based on her comment, I'm not so sure she has ruled out a run.
 

gamecock stock

All-Conference
Jan 21, 2022
3,550
3,194
113
Whoever replaces Graham, better be someone who will work to do something about our national debt. Both the 10-year and 30-year bonds have risen above 4.5% and 5% respectively for 9 consecutive days through this past Friday.. Those are thresholds. They are danger zones. I do not want the bond market to blow up. If it does, whether Shane Beamer can save his job this season will be the least of our thoughts.
 
Last edited:

DannyTree1

Redshirt
Jun 4, 2026
95
42
3
Obama has absolutely no qualifications to run for POTUS. I would not understand the attraction. Regardless, I have not seen her name brought up for 2028.

Regarding Graham, being up there and looking in the mirror seeing a Senator, what will go through her mind? What will she think to herself? "Why not me?" Ego can sometimes overtake common sense. If she does, as I indicated above, she will waste her time.

In the meantime, I got a text today from a prospective GOP candidate attacking Ralph Norman, who announced for the job. A friend, Sunday morning while in West Virginia, was enthusiastic for the 73 year-old Norman. I don't see it. I would think a younger, known person will go for it. Regardless, old timers need to step aside for the generation behind them. They have had their turn. I sense the country is tired of octogenarians or near octogenarians running things.

It's amazing with all the Republican business people in South Carolina, republicans will get 4 time warmed over oatmeal to pick from (outside of Graham's sister who might be fine- I have no idea).

73 year old Ralph Norman? Good lord.

Or another lawyer?

I meet all types in my business. I talked with CEOS, business owners of some reputable companies in South Carolina on a weekly basis. I would estimate that about 60% of them or maybe a bit higher lean Conservative. Most of them would be excellent candidates for higher office.

I think the problem is most of them have no interest in fighting the cultural battles that are required in South Carolina. Most of them lead large, diverse businesses and just don't care about the cultural stuff and certainly don't want to get involved in the fray so they stay out. I personally know of one that would actually be a very strong Republican candidate, but he's not remotely interested in the culture war stuff.
 
Last edited:

DannyTree1

Redshirt
Jun 4, 2026
95
42
3
I see your confusion.

Bill's investigation was into something he actually did. He really was banging interns in the oval office. One can argue the importance of it, but not that it happened.

Russiagate was fake, arranged by the outgoing administration and his opponent at the time. The fake impeachment was just that too. The criminal investigations speak for themselves, and the Epstein connection is pretty much dead to anyone being realistic.

To put it shortly, "checking under the hood" means looking for dirt on an opponent. Dirt meaning something they actually did. The things mentioned about Trump, were things made up about him.

And radio people "saying rhings" about a president, or Trump "saying things" about the birth certificate does not approach false impeachment or disingenuous criminal prosecutions.

They are not in the same ballpark.

So, to put it shortly, I think the disconnect is the idea that digging up dirt on someone does not equal faking dirt on people.
Yes on Bill.

Russia Gate wasn't "fake." The issue was the investigation, which should have been conducted and was conducted, could not prove a conspiracy.

" The investigation documented dozens of interactions between Trump campaign associates and individuals linked to Russia, including offers of assistance. These contacts were concerning but did not meet the legal threshold for conspiracy. "

It certainly wasn't a fake impeachment. It was a real effort at impeachment given the President of the united states openly encouraged a foreign head of state to investigate the president's political rival.

I don't think anyone has to rake dirt on Donald Trump. The pile is very, very high.
 

DannyTree1

Redshirt
Jun 4, 2026
95
42
3
I understand that there are very few real qualifications for running for public office. That is why I didn't use that word.


you wrote " What makes a sister suddenly worthy of being a senator?"

I answered by using the word "qualifications" as "worthy" is irrelevant. There is no requirement or even expectation anyone be worthy - not even a little bit.

Certainly Congress is full of people that many see as "unworthy" in whatever way they define such a subjective term.

So I used the word qualifications to underscore there are none outside of the few in the constitution. Congress is also full of people that many see as totally unqualified, including those with failed personal lives, a long train of failed ventures, etc.
 
Last edited:

DannyTree1

Redshirt
Jun 4, 2026
95
42
3
I see your confusion here too. The problem is you didn't repeat the full quote. It was not that the dems only downplayed the epidemic, it was that they were hypocritical in downplaying it, THEN turned around to blame Trump for it.

The hypocrisy was issue, not the downplaying. At least as far as I read it.

The hypocrisy was posting about Berne Sanders and Nancy Pelolosi downplaying it but not mentionng the actual president of the united states downplaying it and bragging about downplaying it.

Democrats are hypocrites.

Republicans are hypocrites.

Trump is a hypocrite.

Joe Biden was a hypocrite.

Conservatives are hypocrites

Liberals are hypocrites.
 

Lurker123

All-American
May 4, 2020
6,226
5,185
113
Yes on Bill.

Russia Gate wasn't "fake." The issue was the investigation, which should have been conducted and was conducted, could not prove a conspiracy.

" The investigation documented dozens of interactions between Trump campaign associates and individuals linked to Russia, including offers of assistance. These contacts were concerning but did not meet the legal threshold for conspiracy. "

It certainly wasn't a fake impeachment. It was a real effort at impeachment given the President of the united states openly encouraged a foreign head of state to investigate the president's political rival.

I don't think anyone has to rake dirt on Donald Trump. The pile is very, very high.

The origin of russiagate was Hillary's campaign, and the fbi/cia knew it. The government still went through with the fake investigation, because it was purely political.

The fake impeachment stemmed from a third hand account whistle blower even though the actual transcript was available.

If Trump's pile was so high, why do people need to keep inventing fake things to go after him for? And that is a rhetorical question.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Swifty

Lurker123

All-American
May 4, 2020
6,226
5,185
113
you wrote " What makes a sister suddenly worthy of being a senator?"

I answered by using the word "qualifications" as "worthy" is irrelevant. There is no requirement or even expectation anyone be worthy - not even a little bit.

Certainly Congress is full of people that many see as "unworthy" in whatever way they define such a subjective term.

So I used the word qualifications to underscore there are none outside of the few in the constitution. Congress is also full of people that many see as totally unqualified, including those with failed personal lives, a long train of failed ventures, etc.

So again, i didn't say "qualifications", I said "worthy" which are two different things. Your opinion that "worthy" is irrelevant is certainly interesting.
 

Lurker123

All-American
May 4, 2020
6,226
5,185
113
The hypocrisy was posting about Berne Sanders and Nancy Pelolosi downplaying it but not mentionng the actual president of the united states downplaying it and bragging about downplaying it.

Democrats are hypocrites.

Republicans are hypocrites.

Trump is a hypocrite.

Joe Biden was a hypocrite.

Conservatives are hypocrites

Liberals are hypocrites.


I think you misread his post. I explained it, the author "liked" that post. Whether that means he agreed is up for debate.

Regardless, I cant explain it any simpler. But I have a hunch you know what he meant anyway.

Edit: For any posters who are curious how the original quote is being misused, here it is. The highlighting is my own, to show the part of the quote thats being conveniently left off.

2. Trying to pin a covid disaster on him (despite the dem leaders <ahem Pelosi et al> downplaying at the start)
 
Last edited:

DannyTree1

Redshirt
Jun 4, 2026
95
42
3
The origin of russiagate was Hillary's campaign, and the fbi/cia knew it. The government still went through with the fake investigation, because it was purely political.

The fake impeachment stemmed from a third hand account whistle blower even though the actual transcript was available.

If Trump's pile was so high, why do people need to keep inventing fake things to go after him for? And that is a rhetorical question.

no shock to anyone that we disagree on these issues.

My repeated disclaimer- I detested Hillary Clinton - but I also detest Donald Trump.
 

DannyTree1

Redshirt
Jun 4, 2026
95
42
3
So again, i didn't say "qualifications", I said "worthy" which are two different things. Your opinion that "worthy" is irrelevant is certainly interesting.
I posted that qualifications aren't an issue- and neither is "worthy" - all irrelevant.

There is no "worthy" requirement or issue. It's not even a goal. It's a made up qualification.

Totally subjective issues.

People aren't elected who are "worthy." people are elected because mostly they like one crappy candidate over the other crappy candidate.
 

DannyTree1

Redshirt
Jun 4, 2026
95
42
3
I think you misread his post. I explained it, the author "liked" that post. Whether that means he agreed is up for debate.

Regardless, I cant explain it any simpler. But I have a hunch you know what he meant anyway.

Edit: For any posters who are curious how the original quote is being misused, here it is. The highlighting is my own, to show the part of the quote thats being conveniently left off.

2. Trying to pin a covid disaster on him (despite the dem leaders <ahem Pelosi et al> downplaying at the start)
My last post on this nutty subject.

I didn't misread the post. You keep trying to "splain" everyone's post and that's not going to work well.

Donald Trump was president when the Covid pandemic started. If people want to "pin" it on him, that's certainly fine, especially someone like Trump who likes to blame everyone under God's heaven on everyone and anyone but himself. I certainly wont' cry and whine about it that someone blamed something on him.

If Covid had started under Obama, you and lots of people here would be blaming him for it. That would be fine, I wouldn't care. But it started under Trump, so you defend Trump about it.

Now, I didn't blame Covid on Trump. But some politicians certainly did because that's what politicians do- they point fingers.

As if Trump never blames anyone else for anything- and in this case- didn't downplay things himself- which bit him in the *** too.
 

Lurker123

All-American
May 4, 2020
6,226
5,185
113
I posted that qualifications aren't an issue- and neither is "worthy" - all irrelevant.

There is no "worthy" requirement or issue. It's not even a goal. It's a made up qualification.

Totally subjective issues.

People aren't elected who are "worthy." people are elected because mostly they like one crappy candidate over the other crappy candidate.

I feel like I covered this already, so I'll just repost.

So again, i didn't say "qualifications", I said "worthy" which are two different things. Your opinion that "worthy" is irrelevant is certainly interesting.
 

Lurker123

All-American
May 4, 2020
6,226
5,185
113
My last post on this nutty subject.

I didn't misread the post. You keep trying to "splain" everyone's post and that's not going to work well.

It usually works quite well, but it takes an audience thats willing to admit they made a mistake in their initial impressions.

As I've said, I cant explain it any simpler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kidrobinski

Uscg1984

All-Conference
Mar 9, 2006
2,503
3,283
113
I think the problem is most of them have no interest in fighting the cultural battles that are required in South Carolina. Most of them lead large, diverse businesses and just don't care about the cultural stuff and certainly don't want to get involved in the fray so they stay out. I personally know of one that would actually be a very strong Republican candidate, but he's not remotely interested in the culture war stuff.
I'm not sure about the "culture war" stuff, but I don't think the problem of good people not wanting to get into politics is limited to SC. The current state of politics and what passes for political discourse in America would discourage any normal-thinking person from entering the fray. One's motives would have to be either completely sacrificial (an awfully high bar) or extremely narcissistic. Anyone who sincerely wants to tackle the issues that our country faces is probably also the type to not want to put their family through all that comes with the political process.