A Candidate For President Of The United States Just Retweeted A Gay Porn Star

Posted July 30, 2016 by with 61 comments

trump2Sorry, this RT doesn’t involve Donald Trump, but it if did, that probably wouldn’t be a surprise, given his many supporters in the gay porn industry.

The presidential candidate who RT’d a gay porn star was actually Green Party nominee Dr. Jill Stein. If you haven’t already guessed, the gay porn star she RT’d was Conner Habib:

jill

As her poll numbers continue to rise (from, like, 1% to 3%), Stein has been hit with criticism that she’s an anti-vaccine nut, and Conner Habib was there to help her push back on those apparently false claims.

Here’s Dr. Jill crashing the DNC earlier this week:

Dr. Jill RT’ing Conner Habib isn’t the first time a gay porn star has caught the attention of a candidate for president, or even an actual president. As you’ll recall, gay porn star Gavin Waters met with Hillary Clinton last October, and former ActiveDuty.com gay porn star David Townsend posed with President Bill Clinton back in 2009 or 2010.

gavin davidclinton

Dare to dream, Jacob Ford (a.k.a. Sean Cody’s Porter). If these guys can do it, maybe you too can one day meet your hero, Donald Trump.

  • a b

    “Radical leftists” after Trump tightly wins the presidency: “Welp, I’ve done my part, I’m one of the 3% that voted for Jill Stein #neverhillary”

  • Todd
    • Greg

      Always trying to be so politically correct. I see him for what he really is.

      • Sean

        Typical of the repressed slut shamers. I guess if a guy has sex for money he is bad, BUT if you watch it you are ok? By the way, I do not even know who this porn model is, but if he has thought about it enough to see Dr Jill Stein as being a great candidate, then he has taken some time beyond what idiots like Sam Truitt have

  • a b

    “As a medical doctor, there was a time where I looked very closely at those issues, and not all those issues were completely resolved… There were concerns among physicians about what the vaccination schedule meant, the toxic substances like mercury which used to be rampant in vaccines. There were real questions that needed to be addressed. I think some of them at least have been addressed. I don’t know if all of them have been addressed.”
    Jill Stein in interview to the Washington Post

    • Jer

      She’s a medical doc yet clueless about the current state of vaccines and genetic engineering? So she blew her way through med school?

      • a b

        She’s a politician interested in shameful self-promotion. That’s why she panders to the anti-vaccine crowd, that’s why she is competing in the first place (acknowledging she will not win). As the major third candidate in this presidential election, she will receive a lot of attention from the media that will assure her a cheap re-election in a legislative body of her choice in a couple of years.

      • Sean

        No, if you can READ, she looked into these issues and vaccination schedules have been changed. There is NOTHING wrong with changing things as the SCIENCE shows it to have more efficacy. That is the sign of an INTELLIGENT person.

        • Jer

          Uh, vaccine schedules have been changed to increase the number of vaccinations and how quickly we do them. I literally give hundreds of thousands of vaccines a year to my patients; she sounds like she hasn’t read up on them since 1980.

  • FrenchBug

    That Conner Habib supports Jill Stein (in a rather typical self-righteous way based on that tweet) underscores what I and many others have been saying about him for a long time: using five-syllable words and being able to write at length on pretentiously obscure topics does not, indeed, make one “smart”.
    Or, stated another way, his erudition is to intelligence what a big cock is to good sex. Neither necessary, nor sufficient.

    • Sean

      Voting for somebody you do not trust or like does not make you smart wither just because it is the lesser of two evils or because she has a vagina. Dr Jill Stein is far smarter than you are, and would be a far superior president than the two major party candidates.

      • AmerAdvocat1

        Sean,

        And voting for someone who you perceive to be smarter or “far superior” to those who you may not like or trust is no more the sounder path to action than you think either. What makes this country beautiful is the fact that its citizens have the ability to openly and freely exercise their voices and relate their opinions on numerous things in venues like this discussion board here in Str8UpGayPorn.com. The problem is that many of us give far too much weight to our personal opinions to the point we feel it necessary to invalidate others that challenge how we think and feel about certain things. What worries me most is that people are putting too much emphasis on who they “like” and “trust” as the determining factors for who they will vote for (more accurately against). Has that been enough in the past?

        For instance, many people “loved” Ronald Reagan, to this day calling him the paragon and paradigm of conservatism and leadership, but he left the country in a frightful state at the end of his presidency. Not to mention all the congressional inquiries and hearings into that administration’s activities. Bill Clinton was “liked” by the working class and poor, but was greatly despised by his opposing colleagues and conservatives alike. Often, his positions and policies were aggressively questioned, but despite it all, he left the country in a positive state upon his exit. GWB was also “liked” and “trusted” by some and despised by others, but we all know the state this country was in after he left office. Now with Obama, a president who has been disrespected, hated, and criticized at nearly every turn more so than any of his predecessors, has done a wealth of good for this country despite the obstructionism and propaganda his opponents have produced and continue to produce throughout his terms. So, in looking at this, what does who we like or who we trust have to do with anything? Those feelings have not necessarily secured great presidents each every time. But, what has been consistent is that those candidates who have strong records of doing service for others have been positive result producing presidents. So why base such a decision on “likes” and perceived “trust?” We are fallible people just like those running for president, so we should be searching for other things to consider in making the choice. It would be presumptuous of me to say that most people are treating this election like a high school popularity contest; however, comments I have seen and conversations I have had with others about it have suggested I may be right.

        From my view, to “like” or “trust” a person requires that you at least personally “know” who the person is. Otherwise, any generalizations or criticisms of that person’s ability, capability, and character are mere judgments. Being a gay man, I’m all too tired of the judgments of others towards me and our community and refuse to disparage the progresses our community has made by paying our movements forward through judging these people not knowing who they are. The only way to objectively look at either of them is to research their service to society. I can agree/disagree with their opinions and positions, but in the end, it is what they do for others in service of others that measures their ability to lead, to govern, and to be of service to this country. That is what the presidency should be about.

        With Trump, we see a man that revels in gimmicks and slogans, but given his extensive professional history and background, he has done a wealth of harm rather than good to scores of different people. That history is well known, so I’m not going to regurgitate it here. With Clinton, we see a woman who is as multi-layered and complex as they come. That’s why I suspect many people are on the fence about her. She is not a person easily read, and for many, they find that to be a problem. I for one don’t because it shows that she is her own person rather than presenting a facade of who people think/want her to be. On one hand, she has amassed great wealth over the years through various enterprises and has fostered relationships with different people be they within corporate America or the average Joe who crosses the streets of impoverished or urban America. Professionally, she has one heck of a résumé. Those areas alone have brought her all sorts of criticism, conspiracy theories, personal indictments, and the lists goes on. However, since she was young adult, she has done a wealth of good for children, women, families, and other diverse groups and communities. In government, she has been praised often by both sides for her ability to work with others and get things done. Has she made mistakes? Freaking absolutely! Has she made poor judgment at times? Of course she has! However, her faults as person does not erase all the good she has done for others in service of others over the decades that has been well recorded. With Stein, my knowledge of her history is limited, but from what I do know of her, she has her opinions on many things, she’s served as a councilwoman, and she runs for president essentially every four years. She has for a long time protested many situations in health, government, and business, and has made strives to build the party she is a part of. However, beyond that, these actions seemed designed to bring attention to her causes rather than being of service to others. Anyone can stand up for something and advocate strongly against another, but where is the list of her services to others that document where she has strived to make life better for someone else? Unfortunately, It’s not as apparent or available as it should be. In the end, they all have hits and misses against them. Neither one of them are perfect, but one of them stands out in having a verifiable record of doing a lot of good for a lot of people over a long period of time.

        My apologies for this long rant fellow posters. Just wanted to offer another perspective to the conversation.

  • Greg

    Dr. Jill Stein, who’s that?

  • Christian

    Sigh

  • jviia

    I like Jill, at least much more than the other candidates. Will be voting for her again in this upcoming election!

    • Maximus

      And if Trump wins because you split the leftwing vote, you’ll be able to sleep at night? You would deny society of the benefits of a liberal Supreme Court, an expansion of Medicare/Medicaid, stricter gun laws, respect for America within the international community, lighter sentences for minor drug offenses, police training that includes efforts to combat implicit racial bias, a constitutional amendment that imposes new campaign finance restrictions, federal sexual orientation/gender identity anti-discrimination laws, a strategic use of intelligence and targeted military action in the Middle East, equal pay for women, paid parental leave, subsidized early childcare, comprehensive immigration reform, progressive taxation, investment in domestic infrastructure, compliance with and enforcement of the Paris climate change treaty, etc.

      Hillary can’t promise to provide all of these things, but Trump would ensure that we wouldn’t get any of them. Our political system is about compromise and doing the most good for the most people. Regardless of her flaws—don’t even get me started on how disappointed I was by her response to the FBI email investigation—Hillary is the only option. A vote for any other candidate (or no candidate at all) would be completely immoral.

      • Pinko of the Grange

        Unless J lives in one of the 10 swing states, a vote for Green or Libertarian Pres, might be a good thing.

        • Maximus

          That would be a fair point if this race were following the usual pattern, but some historically red states might vote blue—e.g., Arizona—and some historically blue states might vote red—e.g., Pennsylvania. Trump is an unprecedented anomaly who has been successful despite violating every norm for presidential campaigns. We can’t take anything for granted this November.

          • Pinko of the Grange

            Those would be swing states then wouldn’t they.

            If I intended the usual suspects I would of used “The Swing States” 😉

          • Benton Fraser

            Would have, not would of (would’ve = would have).

          • Pinko of the Grange

            yes yes that’s nice
            I try to have something for everyone; even the grammar police on a Sunday AM. 😉

          • moondoggy
          • Pinko of the Grange

            Michigan! What ever makes you thing I would even fly through Michigan?

            Oh the horror.

          • Maximus

            Ah, I understand what you mean. Even so, the RNC/Trump campaign efforts in New York, Connecticut, and California make me nervous. It’s clearly just Manafort’s attempt to divert some of the DNC/Clinton funds away from the true battleground states. We need to make sure that the usual blues stay blue so our gurl Miss Robby—see image below—can focus on Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida.

            http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs/2015/04/Robby-Mook.jpg

          • Pinko of the Grange

            We must never coast during this election that is very true.

          • Russell47

            Manafort = good friend of Russia & Putin

          • The gay green lartern

            Who dat? He hot gurl

          • Maximus

            Isn’t he? His name is Robby Mook. He’s Clinton’s campaign manager, and he’s the first openly gay person to manage the presidential campaign of a major party candidate.

          • kkdd1

            I saw him for the first time on cnn responding to the hacking at the DNC headquarters and thought 2 myself what a handsome young man never knowing that he was gay

        • moondoggy

          But such a symbolic vote is only smart if the voter has the discipline to split their ticket and cast strategic votes in more competitive state and local races, which most people don’t do. It also doesn’t help her govern if she is seen as having won a squeaker rather than coming in on a mandate.

          But I don’t presume to tell people how to vote. I only presume to tell people that a vote for Trump is a vote for a dangerous illusion. I disagree with most Republican candidates, but not since Reagan have I felt so assaulted by one. Even Dubya seemed like a decent person with real, if misplaced, values.

          • Pinko of the Grange

            I have hope people are intelligent.
            And it is the down ticket that I am concerned about.

            The no Hil people, in a never a swing state encourage to vote Green and dem down.
            The no Trump, if not Hil, then they should just not show up to vote at all as a sign of protest.

          • Maximus

            “Dangerous” seems to be the most used—and most fitting—word to describe Trump.

      • nick

        I’ve been trying to follow the election stuff but to be honest I dont think I even understand how the US political system works, let alone how someone wins the election, it’s so fucking complicated.

        • Maximus

          Yeah, the electoral college is a logistical clusterfuck of an institution. It’s not so much one battle as it is a war consisting of 58 discrete, simultaneous battles. Each of those battles is worth a certain number of points. A candidate wins a battle by getting a simple majority of votes and is awarded all of that territory’s points. To win the war, a candidate must have an absolute majority of points—that number will be 270 points for this election.

          • nick

            That actually explained it in simple English, thanks, I think I get it now.

        • a b

          I’m pretty sure this is the most simple explanation possible to the “first past the post system” that US use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

      • kkdd1

        The only thing more fearful than Donald Trump’s RNC acceptance speech is a Donald Trump inaugural speech . I know of no election more important than this one not just because of all the issue’s that you mention above but because this man does not have a single redeeming quality Donald Trump is not qualified to be president of a third grade class never mind president of the United States of America ! He is MORALLY bankrupt besides the fact that his business have file for bankruptcy more times than any other company in american history . One thing that can be said about president Reagan, Clinton & Obama regardless to how you felt about their politics they always acted and looked presidential DT on the other hand is like a TOILET that will not stop backing up every time he opens his mouth . I know Hillary Clinton is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but she is a far cry more qualified ,dignified and certainly more INTELLIGENT than Donald JACKASS Trump will ever be !!!

    • kkdd1

      Jill Stein is sure to get 2 votes which is double the amount she got the last time LOL !

  • WhimsyCotton

    This was semi-interesting until I reached AD’s David and suddenly everything became a blur. He was sooo dreamy in his uniform.

  • badgamer1967

    seriously…..

  • Maximus

    Dear Dr. Stein,

    http://67.media.tumblr.com/23ac0591799edf47a75ff3881114b727/tumblr_n2sm0re33X1r317bvo1_250.gif

    Your ignorance regarding the mechanisms of substantive policy change, your myopia, your distain for the core tenets of representative democracy, your perpetuation of conspiracy theories, your invalidation of black and Latino voters, your poor critical thinking skills, your unsophisticated philosophical views, and your fractiously divisive campaign of egocentrism and privileged young white angst are antithetical to our political system. You don’t give two shits about the American public; you would glady see millions of us—the majority—suffer through the reign of an unstable, inexperienced, bigoted, unrefined, violent, pathological narcissist, just so you could preserve your “ideological purity.” You are legitimately evil.

    • paultacoma51

      I recently replied to a comment on Youtube by someone who thinks Stein is an alternative 3rd party candidate. I reminded them that voting for another 3rd party candidate gave us eight years of Bush. People are so stupid.

      • sxg

        People also don’t realize that in order for you to win, you HAVE to get at least half the electoral votes, which is 270. If no one reaches that number, the house of representatives from each individual state vote on it among the top 3 candidates with the most electoral votes. Since we have a majority Republican house and senate, you can bet they’re not going to give it to Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson, or even Hillary Clinton.

      • Sean

        That is a stupid argument. If you want to say that, i can argue that a third party candidate gave us 8 years of Bill Clinton (as opposed to Bush Sr). Ross Perot took over 18% of the vote. You are like the guy who goes to the restaurant and keeps going back even though the food is average at best and leaves me still hungry, because it is close to home. If we give that restaurant several tries and it gives me nothing to come back for, I will try a NEW restaurant that serves good food and leaves me full.
        I am willing to live with 4 years of Trump to show how bad he is, and come back stronger than ever. The current path is more two party crap that is not working unless you are already wealthy

        • paultacoma51

          You could argue that, but again, that would be stupid. Because my whole point is that a 3rd party candidate can work either for or against you depending on what party you’re in (or who won). If you are comparing the prosperous years of the Clinton administration to the Bush 8-year debacle…well that’s just stupid. It’s also stupid is the idea that creating a successful party is an extremely long process. Such a 3rd party can only do 2 things. Hope to influence the issues, and divide the vote. The former is admirable, the latter is destructive. “I am willing to live with 4 years of Trump to show how bad he is…” that is perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever heard; and I’ve heard some doozies. I thought George W. would only serve 1 term. Well, look how that turned out. And look at the devastation his administration wrought in the first 4 year alone. I understand your point, but you don’t just destroy something in order to rebuild it because you may not survive. You have a very limited world view. I’m 53 years old and I might have considered your argument in my 20’s as cogent. But I was young and ignorant.

          • La Bambi

            What was the worst part of the Bush administration?

            Was it the Iraq War? Well, the majority of Democratic senators including Hillary Clinton supported it too.

            Was it the 2008 recession? Again, the recession occurred because of bipartisan banking deregulation passed in ’99, under the Clinton administration.

            If we didn’t like the Iraq War or the Great Recession, why should we vote for people who were partially responsible?

          • paultacoma51

            Let’s not conflate what happens in congress with the presidency. We all know that Bush was inept and allowed Chaney, and the other idiots run the govt, and the country was in worse shape than when he found it. Sure, everyone can be blamed about what happened. But the responsibility was Bush’s and let’s not forget he was warned many times of an impending attack and did nothing. Don’t re-write history to fit your own narrative.

    • La Bambi

      You know Black people and Latinos vote Green too? Jill running isn’t invalidating anyone, though you seem to be eager to invalidate Green politicians like Rosa Clemente, Cynthia McKinney, Ajamu Baraka, or Cheri Honkala. People of Color don’t owe anyone their vote, they can vote for whomever they like.

      Anyway, back to gay porn.

  • kevin

    David Bradberry is still all kinds of hot! He’s for Hillary and Trevor’s for Bernie. Hope they’ve worked out their differences. These two have been engaged for a little less than eternity

  • bob80

    Gavin Waters looks really hot in that pic with Hillary, I like to see a handsome man in his natural state. Gay porn studios have a tendency to over-photoshop, over-tan, over-make-up, over-pluck their men. Give me a natural looking Gavin Waters anyday over his plastic-looking porn persona.

  • jacob221

    Conner Habib, Jack of all trades Master of none

  • Pertinax

    Tell me what company you keep and I’ll tell you who you are.

  • Jer

    Well, she’s wrong about GMOs too, so she’s apparently just an idiot trying to science, except she can’t.

    • Sean

      Oh so Mansanto has not PATENTED seeds FORCING farmers to use them? GMO’s are ways agribusinesses like Mansanto can FORCE people to use their products. Nothing she said is wrong

      • Jer

        Uh, she is wrong, considering farmers don’t have to use Monsanto’s seeds. And considering I live within 10 minutes of dozens of farms and was raised ON a farm, I think I know more about Monsanto than hipsters and wannabes.

  • Xzamilloh

    Conner Habib? Sounds like something I got at a falafel stand after clubbing at Lollipop in Hanau, Germany.

  • JK3

    If only Conner Habib was as thirsty as Jill Stein is during his scenes.

  • DrunkEnough

    Conner Habib should love being retweeted by a fringe personality. He seems to spend every waking moment trying to brag about the books he’s reading or con people into buying his self-invented brand that he’s smarter than they are. Then he takes their money for speaking engagements. He’s deaf to debate, he lectures others endlessly. He’s merely thirsty. He just transferred his thirst from fucking for an audience to pontificating for one.

  • AussieB

    Next thing you’ll know they’ll allow gay porn stars to vote

  • Anthony Hyde

    Oh that fool. He was the same one who blamed the Orlando terror attacks on Atheist authors Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.

  • The Pink Unicorn

    Its sad and quite frankly pathetic that people pay thousands of dollars to meet with a war mongering demented psychopathic liar.