Social Abraham Lincoln R* the 1st homosexual President of America ...?

[GearSolidMetal]

They have his love letters you goofball and his stepmother's words.

Yeah, repeated by historians, so who cares what they have to say?

Pretty ironic you've pointed to the historians featured in the documentary throughout the thread, and I point out the most accredited historian featured in the documentary (PhD & Psychoanalyst) clearly doesn't agree with the narrative you parrot.

And suddenly you're changing your tune to "Nobody cares what some historian thinks when they never knew Abe personally."

Oh the beautiful beautiful irony.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

Yeah, repeated by historians, so who cares what they have to say?

Pretty ironic you've pointed to the historians featured in the documentary throughout the thread, and I point out the most accredited historian featured in the documentary (PhD & Psychoanalyst) clearly doesn't agree with the narrative you parrot.

And suddenly you're changing your tune to "Nobody cares what some historian thinks when they never knew Abe personally."

Oh the beautiful beautiful irony.

Nice strawman attempt. Your dishonesty is showing again. I never said that historians' opinions are worthless. I simply said that Sarah Lincoln's words trump theirs. They count for more. Again, she raised him and knew him his entire life with the exception of the first 9 years of his life. Meanwhile you still can't name a single historian that's on record stating that they believe Abe was straight. You also still refuse to answer the tough questions that @WklySportsMemes and myself have asked you. Stop ducking them.

 

[WklySportsMemes]

Incorrect.
I said the historians that are in the documentary are being paid to be in the documentary, and they're the relatively few in comparison to the 3500 accredited historians.

I chose the mainstream consensus of historians, rather than a fringe minority opinion.


All 'experts' were not created equal, so go find an 'expert' on your side that has better credientials than Charles Strozier.

And given there's 3500 historians and only a few have endorced such a theory, I'm quite positive historians are on my side.

LOL @ you accusing others of confirmation bias while you claim Lincoln's Stepmother outted him.



Its like thinking a speeding ticket is a winning lottery ticket.


I'll take "Shit That Doesn't Matter" for $1000, Alex?

@Kovalev's "Man Bag" & @WklySportsMemes in this thread -

You post like a teen girl on Tik tok. No wonder you are so confused about orientation.

 

[emefer]

Log Cabin Republicans were originally called the Lincoln Club

Their get togethers a were called log jams.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

I simply said that Sarah Lincoln's words trump theirs. They count for more. Again, she raised him and knew him his entire life with the exception of the first 9 years of his life.

Except Sarah Lincoln's words don't say what you say they say.

You want everyone to focus on one sentence, and completely ignore everything else in the entire quote. Its pathetically transparent your entire argument required for everyone to ignore the complete context.

And even your claims about Sarah Lincoln knowing him his entire life are 'technically true but intentionally leaves out context.' Sarah and Abe never lived together after he left the farm at 21 years of age. They occasionally visited eachother but in the early-to-mid 1800s travel was far more costly, difficult, and time-consuming. So they mostly communicated by letters throughout the vast majority of his adult life.

Which explains why her quote 'wasn't fold of girls' obviously was referring to his youth, as to she attended his wedding and obviously knew of his four children.

At this point the odds of you accepting that point are about as minute as you winning the lottery, so I'm going to keep explaining it in different ways to get the point across how you're a brainwashed zealot.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

You post like a teen girl on Tik tok. No wonder you are so confused about orientation.

There's only two in this thread who are confused, and its you and @Kovalev's "Man Bag"

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

You post like a teen girl on Tik tok. No wonder you are so confused about orientation.

His silence on the question you asked him is telling. Let's interpret it as him saying that he wouldn't spoon with another man in bed. This would imply that he doesn't believe Abe was straight. Like you said, he doesn't even believe his own bullshit. Makes it up as he goes. He desperately tries to retrofit the facts to his narrative. What a loser.

 

[WklySportsMemes]

There's only two in this thread who are confused, and its you and @Kovalev's "Man Bag"

Teenage years is always a bizarre time in every boy's life, and they may have some homosexual thoughts or fantasies. And by your standards, like 70% of the entire male population of the planet is forever gay til the day they die based off thoughts and feelings from their teenage years.

Don't think most would agree with those standards of gayness.

You literally think heterosexual men were confused because you were. Nah. Lmao
The biggest self outing in a while. Stand in your truth my guy. Wish you would fully own it.

 

[WklySportsMemes]

His silence on the question you asked him is telling. Let's interpret it as him saying that he wouldn't spoon with another man in bed. This would imply that he doesn't believe Abe was straight. Like you said, he doesn't even believe his own bullshit. Makes it up as he goes. He desperately tries to retrofit the facts to his narrative. What a loser.

He thinks 70% of heterosexual men fantasties about the D.... Hes as straight as George Santos

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

He thinks 70% of heterosexual men fantasties about the D.... Hes as straight as George Santos

I'll bet he even looks similar to George Santos in drag. Disgusting.

 

[Larzon]

Who cares if a bloke likes dick. You Americans are an odd bunch

 

[GearSolidMetal]

You literally think heterosexual men were confused because you were. Nah. Lmao
The biggest self outing in a while. Stand in your truth my guy. Wish you would fully own it.

You have the habit of selectively forgetting words in posts. Like you forgot the word 'may' in my post you just quoted.

And you're trying to label me as a homosexual, and its about as pathetic as your attempt to label Lincoln as a homosexual.

His silence on the question you asked him is telling. Let's interpret it as him saying that he wouldn't spoon with another man in bed. This would imply that he doesn't believe Abe was straight. Like you said, he doesn't even believe his own bullshit. Makes it up as he goes. He desperately tries to retrofit the facts to his narrative. What a loser.

I already adressed that question pages ago.
Yet another example of you also forgetting previous posts so you don't have to address flaws to your own arguments.

In short, @WklySportsMemes and @Kovalev's "Man Bag", your entire arguments have been defeated at every point, and you've pathetically devolved to accusing those who don't believe Lincoln was gay are actually gay.

Apparently you didn't watch the documentary trailer...



...because practically all gays are on your side of this argument.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

You have the habit of selectively forgetting words in posts. Like you forgot the word 'may' in my post you just quoted.

And you're trying to label me as a homosexual, and its about as pathetic as your attempt to label Lincoln as a homosexual.


I already adressed that question pages ago.
Yet another example of you also forgetting previous posts so you don't have to address flaws to your own arguments.

In short, @WklySportsMemes and @Kovalev's "Man Bag", your entire arguments have been defeated at every point, and you've pathetically devolved to accusing those who don't believe Lincoln was gay are actually gay.

Apparently you didn't watch the documentary trailer...



...because practically all gays are on your side of this argument.

You answered Memes' question? Go ahead and quote your own post then. You still haven't answered mine and it was simple. Abe was bisexual or even gay. Now the rest of the world can decide for themselves. Remember, this isn't a criminal court of law it's the court of public opinion. The burden of proof is much lower than it'd be in a criminal or even civil court. All of the evidence, both direct & circumstantial, has satisfied it.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

All of the evidence, both direct & circumstantial, has satisfied it.

That says so much about what you consider to be 'direct evidence' because the entirety of the evidence is circumstantial.

You answered Memes' question? Go ahead and quote your own post then. You still haven't answered mine and it was simple.

I posted my answer a while go, and you forgot about it, so I won't bother to go back several pages to repost it so you'll forget it again.

And it says so much that both of you want to know so much about me, to deflect from how you've been completely embarassed in this thread.

Remember, this isn't a criminal court of law it's the court of public opinion. The burden of proof is much lower than it'd be in a criminal or even civil court.

And there's billions of jurors in the court of public opinion, which means there'll be hundreds of millions of idiots that will be easily fooled by a dishonest documentary.... and complete fools that believe it without even seeing the documentary, like yourself.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

That says so much about what you consider to be 'direct evidence' because the entirety of the evidence is circumstantial.



I posted my answer a while go, and you forgot about it, so I won't bother to go back several pages to repost it so you'll forget it again.

And it says so much that both of you want to know so much about me, to deflect from how you've been completely embarassed in this thread.



And there's billions of jurors in the court of public opinion, which means there'll be hundreds of millions of idiots that will be easily fooled by a dishonest documentary.... and complete fools that believe it without even seeing the documentary, like yourself.

You never answered Memes' question. You're full of shit as usual. All of the evidence is circumstantial? So scholars from major universities such as the University of Michigan are wrong? Nope.

“On its own, this circumstantial evidence could never convince a skeptic, though it can perhaps add depth and texture to the discussion of the second category of evidence, which might be called the direct evidence: that Lincoln is known to have slept in the same bed with a number of men, including the closest friend of his young adulthood, Joshua Speed.”

Did Abraham Lincoln Sleep with His Bodyguard? Another Look at the Evidence

 

[GearSolidMetal]

You never answered Memes' question. You're full of shit as usual.

I humored the question by answering it a while ago, but just that one question because its painfully transparent you'd like to focus on me rather than how badly you're losing in the thread.

Don't think you cared for my answer since you obviously forgot what it was.

Go search for it if you suddenly care passionately about an answer.

All of the evidence is circumstantial? So scholars from major universities such as the University of Michigan are wrong? Nope.

Say you have no idea of the different between Direct & Circumstantial Evidence without saying it.

Here ya go bro. You got some learning to do.

Direct vs Indirect (Circumstantial) Evidence - A Legal Guide

Direct evidence directly proves a key fact at issue. Indirect evidence is a fact or set of facts that, if true, allow jurors to infer the fact at issue.

www.shouselaw.com

“On its own, this circumstantial evidence could never convince a skeptic, though it can perhaps add depth and texture to the discussion of the second category of evidence, which might be called the direct evidence: that Lincoln is known to have slept in the same bed with a number of men, including the closest friend of his young adulthood, Joshua Speed.”

And isn't 'direct evidence' because sleeping in a bed with someone isn't necessarily sexual.

Mothers have slept with daughters in beds.
Fathers have slept with sons in bed.
Boys have slept with friends in bed.
Girls have slept with friends in bed.
People in relationships yet to become sexual have achieved a level of intimacy of sleeping in a bed together without having sex.

And this may be a shocking twist for you prudes, but people have sex without beds being involved.

Respond back after you're done being shocked, and after you're shocked after realizing that 200 years ago culture has changed in vastly different ways.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

I humored the question by answering it a while ago, but just that one question because its painfully transparent you'd like to focus on me rather than how badly you're losing in the thread.

Don't think you cared for my answer since you obviously forgot what it was.

Go search for it if you suddenly care passionately about an answer.



Say you have no idea of the different between Direct & Circumstantial Evidence without saying it.

Here ya go bro. You got some learning to do.

Direct vs Indirect (Circumstantial) Evidence - A Legal Guide

Direct evidence directly proves a key fact at issue. Indirect evidence is a fact or set of facts that, if true, allow jurors to infer the fact at issue.

www.shouselaw.com

And isn't 'direct evidence' because sleeping in a bed with someone isn't necessarily sexual.

Mothers have slept with daughters in beds.
Fathers have slept with sons in bed.
Boys have slept with friends in bed.
Girls have slept with friends in bed.
People in relationships yet to become sexual have achieved a level of intimacy of sleeping in a bed together without having sex.

And this may be a shocking twist for you prudes, but people have sex without beds being involved.

Respond back after you're done being shocked, and after you're shocked after realizing that 200 years ago culture has changed in vastly different ways.

Excuses. You always think you're right even when you get your sorry arguments debunked. Time for me to educate you again.

"Can a Jury Convict Someone Based Solely on Circumstantial Evidence? Yes—actually, most criminal convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence.

“Circumstantial evidence is often used in criminal convictions, and in some cases it can be stronger than direct evidence. For example, if the witness is unreliable or untrustworthy, circumstantial evidence may be stronger.”

Circumstantial Evidence in Criminal Cases | Eisner Gorin LLP

Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer describes circumstantial evidence as proof of a fact or set of facts from which someone could infer the facts in question.

www.egattorneys.com

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Excuses. You always think you're right even when you get your sorry arguments debunked. Time for me to educate you again.

I took law classes in high school, so I've known circumstantial evidence can be used to convict in criminal courts for over two decades as opposed to you that learned about it two minutes ago.

And you just said this isn't a criminal court, but the court of public opinion. You keep changing your own standards, so stick with runors and insinuations out of context because its your least pathetic argument.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

I took law classes in high school, so I've known circumstantial evidence can be used to convict in criminal courts for over two decades as opposed to you that learned about it two minutes ago.

And you just said this isn't a criminal court, but the court of public opinion. You keep changing your own standards, so stick with runors and insinuations out of context because its your least pathetic argument.

Disgraceful. No, you didn't take law classes anywhere. You just got fucking schooled, pal. Just a couple posts up you were dismissing the evidence against Abe as circumstantial in its entirety. Implying that it wasn't good enough. Now you're pretending to know what the hell you're talking about lol. Hilarious!

Another straw man attempt from you. I said that this wasn't a criminal or civil court, yes, but that means that the burden of proof is FAR lower in the court of public opinion. In other words, the public has more than enough evidence to convince them that he wasn't straight.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Disgraceful. No, you didn't take law classes anywhere. You just got fucking schooled, pal.

You live in your own special reality, that circumstantial (indirect) evidence is superior to direct evidence.

Just a couple posts up you were dismissing the evidence against Abe as circumstantial in its entirety. Implying that it wasn't good enough. Now you're pretending to know what the hell you're talking about lol. Hilarious!

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, as you pointed out that everybody already knew but you that circumstantial evidence has resulted in criminal convinctions.... but only having circumstantial evidence is still a weak case that in far more cases than not result in acquittals.

Oh, acquittals are Not Guilty verdicts.
I just saved you the time to look that up.
You're welcome.

Another straw man attempt from you. I said that this wasn't a criminal or civil court, yes, but that means that the burden of proof is FAR lower in the court of public opinion. In other words, the public has more than enough evidence to convince them that he wasn't straight.

You're the perfect example that there is no 'burden of proof' whatsoever in the court of public opinion.

You believe Lincoln was gay, because you've been told to believe he was gay, and that's convincing to you.

*The complete lack of direct evidence... doesn't matter to you.
*The weak circumstantial evidence... doesn't matter to you.
*Most of the quotes from the letters proven to be taken out of context... doesn't matter to you.
*The unique social standards of the time... doesn't matter to you.
*The fact its a fringe opinion within the historian community... doesn't matter to you.
*The PhD Historian that consulted on the documentary doesn't agree with the premise of the argument... doesn't matter to you.

What matters to you, is only the lies that contribute to your delusional conculsion.

Because you don't have the intelligence to recognize you are wrong, or the integrity to publicly admit it.

Just keep ignoring facts and double down, as you have throughout this entire thread.