The Republican Party of Virginia mails out nude photos of a candidate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do not click on that link there really is porn.

That is absolutely unbelievable and so wrong to send it out! Shame on them. She has a great lawsuit on her hands!

And when she doesn't file one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is not revenge porn. It is pictures that were available to the public. All fair game. Revenge porn is the release of private materials. If it was her and her husband for private then fine. But this was all public.

Republicans distributed it without her consent. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it the candidate who was on the porn site? If so, then I think it is fair game. Otherwise - no.

You're OK with the Republicans sending explicit mail to mailboxes in VA? To houses where minors live?

It's not the strategy I would pick - but that's a different issue than the consent / privacy of the person in the photo. It should be a good reminder to everyone about what you do online.

What do you think about the Republicans using this strategy?

Neutral - doesn't tip the scale either way for me. It's not my area but I would NOT vote for the woman who did the porn site, if it was.

You are neutral on anyone sending “explicit” mail to homes with children?

My kids don't open my mail, and it wouldn't be addressed to them.

And for all of the other homes who don’t all work the same as yours?

Like I said, neutral. Your minor kids shouldn't be opening your mail - or if you don't teach them that, this is the consequence - you might be receiving something you don't want them to see.

So that’s a yes, you are ok with kids having easy access to “explicit” material sent to their homes by Republicans?

I still have not seen the photo so I can't say for sure. I don't have an account on X.

Musk is in full-on white nationalist mode now so probably skip if that’s not your thing.

[Anonymous]

It's like Republicans want to make sure minors see porn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the family values party who is so concerned about porn in libraries is literally mailing out porn to VA voters?

Yup.

So the pictured person does engage in porn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the family values party who is so concerned about porn in libraries is literally mailing out porn to VA voters?

Yup.

So the pictured person does engage in porn?

Yes. She is a porn star.

[Anonymous]

Talk about gross pictures. Who wants her to run for office?

[Anonymous]

This is beyond low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is beyond low.

A porn star running for office? Agreed. Seems narcissistic really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Talk about gross pictures. Who wants her to run for office?

I do. I’ll take someone who makes questionable, but legal, personal choices because the deadline has passed to replace her and she will protect women’s rights.

Given how low the bar is in politics now, thanks to the GOP, it doesn’t seem that bad. Nothing illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not revenge porn. It is pictures that were available to the public. All fair game. Revenge porn is the release of private materials. If it was her and her husband for private then fine. But this was all public.

Republicans distributed it without her consent. Period.

Public figure. The rules are different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re a p*rn star you really can’t complain about that becoming an issue by your political opponents, WTH?

The concern is mainly about kids who will be exposed to the explicit mailings from Republicans.

I’m less concerned about that and more I just think you don’t need to share explicit photos without someone’s permission to raise their existence as an issue if you want to. It’s totally gratuitous and designed to shame her. It goes against all of their supposed values. It’s low and gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not revenge porn. It is pictures that were available to the public. All fair game. Revenge porn is the release of private materials. If it was her and her husband for private then fine. But this was all public.

Republicans distributed it without her consent. Period.

Public figure. The rules are different.

The most relevant “rules” should be the ones they have for themselves, which are not the same as legality or “but my enemies are worse” or whatever other lame excuses. It’s just a question of whether you want to stand before your community and say “yeah I’m the guy who sent out explicit images of a womanout on a political mailer without her permission.”

[Anonymous]

This isn't defensible, I'm sorry. And I'd say the same if it was some odious Republicans candidate with an only fans. The fact that so many of you think this is okay is what is wrong with our system is n general.

I'm also astounded your moral line is only fans candidates when There appears to be no problem with actual rapists and sex abuse defenders and pervs and wife beaters in your party of choice.

Sexism, and disgusting. There is nothing immoral about an Only fans page.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isn't defensible, I'm sorry. And I'd say the same if it was some odious Republicans candidate with an only fans. The fact that so many of you think this is okay is what is wrong with our system is n general.

I'm also astounded your moral line is only fans candidates when There appears to be no problem with actual rapists and sex abuse defenders and pervs and wife beaters in your party of choice.

Sexism, and disgusting. There is nothing immoral about an Only fans page.

I'm a Republican and I would object to porn stars running as Republicans, too. So we are both consistent there.

And no, I never voted for Donald John-of-Stormi-Daniels Trump.