Anonymous Democrat corruption 05/02/24(Thu)03:28:57 No. 1292182 In a shocking turn of events, a California Democrat legislator has a hate boner for gays and is running for Senate after maxing out their congressional term limits What is not surprising, is that she's corrupt https://lamag.com/politics/ex-congresswoman-labeled-most-corrupt-anti-lgbtq-now-seeking-state-senate Ex-Congresswoman Labeled 'Most Corrupt' and 'Anti-LGBTQ+' Is Now Seeking State Senate Laura Richardson, a former U.S. Congresswoman from California, is now running for California State Senate. A Democrat, Richardson formerly represented Congressional District 37 from 2007-2013. Now she hopes to be elected by the constituents of Senate District 35 — a district currently represented by State Sen. Steven Bradford, a Democrat whose term limits have hindered him from running for re-election. Richardson’s experience makes her an ideal candidate for some, but her past could be coming back to haunt her. In 1996, Richardson sent out a campaign mailer that accused her then primary-opponent, Gerrie Schipske, of being “committed to a radical gay rights agenda” and of backing “ultra-liberal” Sheila Kuehl, who was the only openly gay state legislator at the time. Schipske, a lesbian, felt the attacks were directed at her in a very targeted manner. "I was furious when I saw the mailer," Schipske told L.A. Magazine. "I was furious that she used Sheila Kuehl as the reason I supposedly had a radical gay agenda." At the time, Richardson justified the mailer by saying it had been printed and sent out unbeknownst to her — but according to Schipske, that's not true. "I called her consultant, who I knew. He said she approved the piece and personally went to the printer to pay for it," said Schipske. Schipske — the first and only lesbian to be elected to the Long Beach Community College Board and Long Beach City Council and author of LGBTQ+ Long Beach — doesn't have faith that Richardson's views have evolved over time. >>
Anonymous 05/02/24(Thu)03:29:15 No. 1292183 "[Laura Richardson] has changed her views a lot of times — each time she runs or is elected," she said, insinuating that any changes in Richardson's tune stem from political expediency not genuine reconsideration. Schipske also isn't the only one who feels this way. L.A. County Assessor and President of the L.A. County LGBTQ+ Elected Official Association Jeff Prang recalled Richardson's 1996 campaign as being a "very homophobic campaign." "At that point in the L.A. County community, for a Democrat to run an anti-gay campaign — it was pretty bad," he said. And in 2004 while Richardson was on the Long Beach City Council, she voted against a resolution to oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. “It was pretty appalling that at this day and age in a city like Long Beach, given all the pushback she received, that she continued to vote that way. Each time was followed up by an apology tour,” Prang recalled. “Don’t judge me for what I did, but what I said." "She always said ‘personally she didn’t have any issues [with same-sex marriage]', but it wasn’t reflected in her votes.” Local community member and LGBTQ+ activist Jeffrey Davis didn't mince words when asked why he won't be supporting Laura Richardson this November. "Ms. Richardson’s past actions speak volumes about her character. While she may try to cloak herself in acceptance, her history of sending out attack mailers targeting her LGBTQ+ opponent in 2004 reveals the true measure of her integrity," David said. >>
Anonymous 05/02/24(Thu)05:35:22 No. 1292213 >>1292182 >Yet *another* corrupt democrat Why?>>
Anonymous 05/02/24(Thu)05:45:18 No. 1292214 Democrat policies indistinguishable from magatards, magatards still upset >>
Anonymous 05/02/24(Thu)19:19:10 No. 1292343 >>1292214 I think it's less about her attitude towards gays, and more just the fact that it's yet another corrupt democrat politician Odd, really. Democrats still vote for her despite her hating gays. It's really like Dems don't give af who they vote for as long as that letter D is next to their name>>
Anonymous 05/02/24(Thu)19:24:22 No. 1292344 >nothing but empty platitudes What radical gay/anti-gay policies is this supposed to be about? I assume absolutely nothing except optics and PR, as per the libshit norm? What did she pass or vote on that's relevant to this story?>>
Anonymous 05/02/24(Thu)20:28:25 No. 1292357 >>1292344 >What did she pass or vote on that's relevant to this story Well, she is corrupt, but that's pretty standard for Democrats Idk maybe she dead named someone>>
Anonymous 05/02/24(Thu)20:31:20 No. 1292361 >>1292357 >Well, she is corrupt What corruption charges has she been convincted of?>>
Anonymous 05/02/24(Thu)20:32:32 No. 1292363 >>1292361 The biggest crime of all, not towing the party line hard enough.>>
Anonymous 05/02/24(Thu)20:33:13 No. 1292364 >>1292361 >In addition to the attacks on the LGBTQ+ community, Richardson was also named to the 2012 list of "Most Corrupt Members of Congress" by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Dunno, ask https://www.citizensforethics.org/>>
Anonymous 05/02/24(Thu)20:34:32 No. 1292366 >>1292364 >Didn't donate enough money to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) >>
Anonymous 05/02/24(Thu)20:41:11 No. 1292373 >>1292364 >Dunno, ask https://www.citizensforethics.org/ So you don't know. You call her corrupt but you can't name a single corruption conviction. You just repeat talking points uncritically without having any ability to substantiate them. Got it.>>
Anonymous 05/02/24(Thu)20:55:10 No. 1292376 >>1292373 >You just repeat talking points uncritically without having any ability to substantiate them. Got it. That's how Democrats do it, bro.>>
Anonymous 05/02/24(Thu)22:19:17 No. 1292383 >>1292376 Every accusation is a confession with you people>>
Anonymous 05/02/24(Thu)23:01:04 No. 1292386 >>1292373 >So you don't know I know that shes considered one of the most corrupt politicians in the US, it was even mentioned in this article, but it doesn't surprise me given her political affiliation>>
Anonymous 05/02/24(Thu)23:04:17 No. 1292387 >>1292383 >CREW/Los Angeles Magazine Ignored. I'm voting for her, 7-12 times.>>
Anonymous 05/02/24(Thu)23:05:43 No. 1292388 >>1292383 >Whoever smelt it dealt it!!! Sure, boss.>>
Anonymous 05/03/24(Fri)00:25:34 No. 1292394 >>1292388 Kek>>
Anonymous 05/03/24(Fri)01:05:39 No. 1292401 >>1292388 Yes>>
Anonymous 05/03/24(Fri)20:58:14 No. 1292627 >>1292401 Agreed>>
Anonymous 05/06/24(Mon)10:50:08 No. 1293119 >>1292343 What, precisely, implies that she is corrupt? All I'm getting from this is that she's flip-floppy whenever the wind appears to change.
Delete Post: [ File Only] Style: Yotsuba Yotsuba B Futaba Burichan Tomorrow Photon
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.