Does it disqualify Pete Buttigieg?

Yep.

And like Kennedy, Clinton, Reagan(?), George HW Bush, Eisenhower, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Woodrow Wilson.
Gavin Newsom's story is interesting in that he slept with a married woman (his close friend's wife), but Gavin was separated at the time.

That's a different kind of affair I suppose.
 
Yep.

And like Kennedy, Clinton, Reagan(?), George HW Bush, Eisenhower, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Woodrow Wilson.
I don’t know about Reagan or the Bushes, I finds doubt it.

Non of them had three wife’s, Trump cheated on all three, and had a baby out of wedlock.
 
Gavin Newsom's story is interesting in that he slept with a married woman (his close friend's wife), but Gavin was separated at the time.

That's a different kind of affair I suppose.
I never heard that, is that real or fox news stuff?
 
The MAGA moron concept of 'morality' is very flexible. They supported, defended, and worshiped a guy who cheated on all his wives, fucked a porn actress when newly wed to Melania, defrauded his own charity, and was found liable by juries for sexual assault, defamation, and business fraud.

Trump can't run again, thank the gods. But MAGATs would support any Trumpian sleaze with his approval -- the couch-cockster, Mike NoBalls Johnson, Kegsbreath, or whatever other Nazi they present to the voters.
 
I never heard that, is that real or fox news stuff?
It happened when he was Mayor of SF. The guy who's wife he slept with (had a relationship with actually) was his good friend and campaign manager. This was right after he separated from Kimberly Guilfoyle.
 
Last edited:
Trump can't run again, thank the gods. But MAGATs would support any Trumpian sleaze with his approval -- the couch-cockster, Mike NoBalls Johnson, Kegsbreath, or whatever other Nazi they present to the voters.
You're right, conservatives had ten years and multiple opportunities to ditch Trump and rally behind a conservative with better character and more intelligence.

But something about Trump's sleaze and self-serving narcissism really appealed to them and kept them coming back for more, time after time after time.
 
We have had gay Presidents before

Has the US "had gay Presidents before" as this poster alleges?



No. The United States has never had a confirmed or openly gay president. The claim in that Just Plain Politics post (“We have had gay Presidents before”) is incorrect as a factual statement.


There has never been an openly gay U.S. president. All 45 men who have held the office have been publicly identified as heterosexual (or, in Buchanan’s case, a lifelong bachelor with no confirmed sexual orientation). Modern claims that “we’ve already had gay presidents” rest on historical speculation and rumors, not established fact.


Main figure in the speculation: James Buchanan (15th president, 1857–1861)​


  • He is the only U.S. president who never married.
  • He had a long, close friendship with Alabama Senator (later Vice President) William Rufus King. They lived together for years in a Washington boarding house, were rarely seen apart, and were the subject of contemporary gossip and nicknames (“Miss Nancy,” “Aunt Fancy,” “Buchanan’s wife,” “Siamese twins”).
  • Both men destroyed much of their personal correspondence.
  • Some later writers and popular articles have treated the relationship as evidence he was gay. A few historians have argued strongly for it; others (including more recent scholarly work) find the evidence thin, note that intense same-sex friendships were common in the 19th century without implying sexual relationships, and point to Buchanan’s documented interest in women earlier in life.

There is no definitive proof either way. Contemporary knowledge of the relationship did not treat him as “out” in the modern sense, and historians do not treat his sexual orientation as settled fact.


Secondary speculation: Abraham Lincoln​


  • Lincoln shared beds with male friends (common practice due to limited lodging) and had intense correspondence with Joshua Speed.
  • Some modern books and a recent documentary have argued for bisexuality or homosexuality. Mainstream historians generally reject this as over-reading ordinary 19th-century male friendships and bed-sharing, noting Lincoln’s courtship of women, marriage, and children.

Other names occasionally floated (JFK’s close friendship with Lem Billings, various unsubstantiated rumors about others) likewise lack solid evidence and remain fringe speculation.


Bottom line​


  • Openly gay president: None.
  • Confirmed gay president by historical consensus: None.
  • Presidents about whom serious (but unproven) same-sex relationship rumors exist: Primarily Buchanan; secondarily Lincoln.

The forum poster’s blanket assertion is therefore false. Speculation exists and is sometimes presented as near-certainty in advocacy or popular writing, but it does not constitute historical fact that the United States “has had gay Presidents.”


 
Has the US "had gay Presidents before" as this poster alleges?



No. The United States has never had a confirmed or openly gay president. The claim in that Just Plain Politics post (“We have had gay Presidents before”) is incorrect as a factual statement.


There has never been an openly gay U.S. president. All 45 men who have held the office have been publicly identified as heterosexual (or, in Buchanan’s case, a lifelong bachelor with no confirmed sexual orientation). Modern claims that “we’ve already had gay presidents” rest on historical speculation and rumors, not established fact.


Main figure in the speculation: James Buchanan (15th president, 1857–1861)​


  • He is the only U.S. president who never married.
  • He had a long, close friendship with Alabama Senator (later Vice President) William Rufus King. They lived together for years in a Washington boarding house, were rarely seen apart, and were the subject of contemporary gossip and nicknames (“Miss Nancy,” “Aunt Fancy,” “Buchanan’s wife,” “Siamese twins”).
  • Both men destroyed much of their personal correspondence.
  • Some later writers and popular articles have treated the relationship as evidence he was gay. A few historians have argued strongly for it; others (including more recent scholarly work) find the evidence thin, note that intense same-sex friendships were common in the 19th century without implying sexual relationships, and point to Buchanan’s documented interest in women earlier in life.

There is no definitive proof either way. Contemporary knowledge of the relationship did not treat him as “out” in the modern sense, and historians do not treat his sexual orientation as settled fact.


Secondary speculation: Abraham Lincoln​


  • Lincoln shared beds with male friends (common practice due to limited lodging) and had intense correspondence with Joshua Speed.
  • Some modern books and a recent documentary have argued for bisexuality or homosexuality. Mainstream historians generally reject this as over-reading ordinary 19th-century male friendships and bed-sharing, noting Lincoln’s courtship of women, marriage, and children.

Other names occasionally floated (JFK’s close friendship with Lem Billings, various unsubstantiated rumors about others) likewise lack solid evidence and remain fringe speculation.


Bottom line​


  • Openly gay president: None.
  • Confirmed gay president by historical consensus: None.
  • Presidents about whom serious (but unproven) same-sex relationship rumors exist: Primarily Buchanan; secondarily Lincoln.

The forum poster’s blanket assertion is therefore false. Speculation exists and is sometimes presented as near-certainty in advocacy or popular writing, but it does not constitute historical fact that the United States “has had gay Presidents.”


 
Has the US "had gay Presidents before" as this poster alleges?



No. The United States has never had a confirmed or openly gay president. The claim in that Just Plain Politics post (“We have had gay Presidents before”) is incorrect as a factual statement.


There has never been an openly gay U.S. president. All 45 men who have held the office have been publicly identified as heterosexual (or, in Buchanan’s case, a lifelong bachelor with no confirmed sexual orientation). Modern claims that “we’ve already had gay presidents” rest on historical speculation and rumors, not established fact.


Main figure in the speculation: James Buchanan (15th president, 1857–1861)​


  • He is the only U.S. president who never married.
  • He had a long, close friendship with Alabama Senator (later Vice President) William Rufus King. They lived together for years in a Washington boarding house, were rarely seen apart, and were the subject of contemporary gossip and nicknames (“Miss Nancy,” “Aunt Fancy,” “Buchanan’s wife,” “Siamese twins”).
  • Both men destroyed much of their personal correspondence.
  • Some later writers and popular articles have treated the relationship as evidence he was gay. A few historians have argued strongly for it; others (including more recent scholarly work) find the evidence thin, note that intense same-sex friendships were common in the 19th century without implying sexual relationships, and point to Buchanan’s documented interest in women earlier in life.

There is no definitive proof either way. Contemporary knowledge of the relationship did not treat him as “out” in the modern sense, and historians do not treat his sexual orientation as settled fact.


Secondary speculation: Abraham Lincoln​


  • Lincoln shared beds with male friends (common practice due to limited lodging) and had intense correspondence with Joshua Speed.
  • Some modern books and a recent documentary have argued for bisexuality or homosexuality. Mainstream historians generally reject this as over-reading ordinary 19th-century male friendships and bed-sharing, noting Lincoln’s courtship of women, marriage, and children.

Other names occasionally floated (JFK’s close friendship with Lem Billings, various unsubstantiated rumors about others) likewise lack solid evidence and remain fringe speculation.


Bottom line​


  • Openly gay president: None.
  • Confirmed gay president by historical consensus: None.
  • Presidents about whom serious (but unproven) same-sex relationship rumors exist: Primarily Buchanan; secondarily Lincoln.

The forum poster’s blanket assertion is therefore false. Speculation exists and is sometimes presented as near-certainty in advocacy or popular writing, but it does not constitute historical fact that the United States “has had gay Presidents.”


Never confirmed
 
Tbird is big mad.



Tbird’s move is classic forum jujitsu.


Someone (Diogenes) drops the clean, sourced distinction: no confirmed or openly gay U.S. presidents, only long-running speculation centered on Buchanan (and weaker claims about Lincoln). That’s the accurate historical bottom line.


Tbird’s immediate reply is the PinkNews piece titled “7 US Presidents who were rumoured to be gay or bisexual.”


Notice the key word both in the title and in the one-word follow-up reply that appeared right after: “Rumored.”


That’s the whole game. The original claim in the thread was not “there have been rumors” — it was the categorical “We have had gay Presidents before.” Those are not the same statement. One is speculation and gossip that has floated for 150+ years; the other asserts historical fact. The PinkNews article itself frames everything as rumor, which actually undercuts the stronger claim rather than supporting it.


So the sequence is:


  1. Absolute claim is made.
  2. Fact-check shows the claim is false as stated.
  3. Response shifts the goalposts to “but there are rumors” and links a listicle of those rumors.

It’s not a refutation; it’s a soft pivot. Common move when the original phrasing won’t hold up.
 
Never confirmed

Tbird doubles down.



Tbird’s double-down is short and telling:


Never confirmed

That’s the entire post after re-quoting the long fact-check.


He’s conceding the exact point that mattered: the original absolute claim (“We have had gay Presidents before”) does not hold as established fact. “Never confirmed” is a quiet retreat from the stronger language while still keeping the rumor door cracked open.


It’s the classic forum sequence:


  1. Make a categorical assertion.
  2. Get hit with the distinction between rumor/speculation and confirmed historical fact.
  3. Pivot to “rumored.”
  4. When that still doesn’t land cleanly, land on “never confirmed.”

The original claim is effectively walked back. The rest is just face-saving.
 
Tbird doubles down.



Tbird’s double-down is short and telling:




That’s the entire post after re-quoting the long fact-check.


He’s conceding the exact point that mattered: the original absolute claim (“We have had gay Presidents before”) does not hold as established fact. “Never confirmed” is a quiet retreat from the stronger language while still keeping the rumor door cracked open.


It’s the classic forum sequence:


  1. Make a categorical assertion.
  2. Get hit with the distinction between rumor/speculation and confirmed historical fact.
  3. Pivot to “rumored.”
  4. When that still doesn’t land cleanly, land on “never confirmed.”

The original claim is effectively walked back. The rest is just face-saving.

LOL " Rumored." talk about " doubling down "
Have a nice night ASSHOLE,
 
LOL " Rumored." talk about " doubling down " Have a nice night ASSHOLE,

There it is.


After the sequence of:


  • Absolute claim
  • Fact-check
  • Soft pivot to “rumored”
  • Quiet “Never confirmed”

…Tbird ends with the classic forum exit:


LOL "Rumored." talk about "doubling down"
Have a nice night ASSHOLE,

That’s the tell. When the distinctions hold and the original phrasing won’t stand, the discussion stops being about the historical record and turns personal. The “ASSHOLE” is the white flag dressed up as aggression.


He essentially conceded the point earlier with “Never confirmed,” then decided the real problem was being called on the pivot. Classic.
 
There it is.


After the sequence of:


  • Absolute claim
  • Fact-check
  • Soft pivot to “rumored”
  • Quiet “Never confirmed”

…Tbird ends with the classic forum exit:




That’s the tell. When the distinctions hold and the original phrasing won’t stand, the discussion stops being about the historical record and turns personal. The “ASSHOLE” is the white flag dressed up as aggression.


He essentially conceded the point earlier with “Never confirmed,” then decided the real problem was being called on the pivot. Classic.
GO FUCK YOURSELF ASSHOLE.
YOU low life POS.
 
Back
Top