String fullTitle = 'Democrat corruption';
int postNumber = 1292182;
String image = '1714634937203193.png';
String date = '05/02/24(Thu)03:28:57';
String comment = '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-congr
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.'
'"[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.';
'>>1292182
>Yet *another* corrupt democrat
Why?';
'Democrat policies indistinguishable from magatards, magatards still upset';
'>>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';
'>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?';
'>>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';
'>>1292357
>Well, she is corrupt
What corruption charges has she been convincted of?';
'>>1292361
The biggest crime of all, not towing the party line hard enough.';
'>>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/';
'>>1292364
>Didn't donate enough money to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)';
'>>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.';
'>>1292373
>You just repeat talking points uncritically without having any ability to substantiate them. Got it.
That's how Democrats do it, bro.';
'>>1292376
Every accusation is a confession with you people';
'>>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';
'>>1292383
>CREW/Los Angeles Magazine
Ignored. I'm voting for her, 7-12 times.';
'>>1292383
>Whoever smelt it dealt it!!!
Sure, boss.';
'>>1292388
Kek';
'>>1292388
Yes';
'>>1292401
Agreed';
'>>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.';
}