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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I get that she wants to be paid to be gross, but voters have a right to know who a candidate really is. Don't run for public office if you are the kind of person who sells porn.

Ok. But that doesn’t make it ok for Republicans to send this “explicit” (their word) mailing out to thousands of homes, including images of her from a private chat room without her consent.

I watched the link newsclip. The "explicit" part is the language, for example her offering to let people watch her pee for pay.

So has any part of OP's title been accurate?

[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?

She isn’t a star. She is now notorious but in no world is she a “star.”

She starred in pornography ergo “porn star”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

I will take "Things That Didnt Happen" for $500, Alex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I get that she wants to be paid to be gross, but voters have a right to know who a candidate really is. Don't run for public office if you are the kind of person who sells porn.

Ok. But that doesn’t make it ok for Republicans to send this “explicit” (their word) mailing out to thousands of homes, including images of her from a private chat room without her consent.

I watched the link newsclip. The "explicit" part is the language, for example her offering to let people watch her pee for pay.

So has any part of OP's title been accurate?

We can add “cropped nude” or “explicit mailer” if you want to be more specific.

I asked Jeff myself to change it to the GOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you understand what shame is? If she can't feel shsme on her own, if she acts shamelessly, then the community can shame her to enforce common values.

If we are judging others based on “common values”, then how does this compare to politicians who break laws?

Expose any behavior to the light of day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I get that she wants to be paid to be gross, but voters have a right to know who a candidate really is. Don't run for public office if you are the kind of person who sells porn.

Ok. But that doesn’t make it ok for Republicans to send this “explicit” (their word) mailing out to thousands of homes, including images of her from a private chat room without her consent.

I watched the link newsclip. The "explicit" part is the language, for example her offering to let people watch her pee for pay.

So has any part of OP's title been accurate?

Looks like definitely NO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

She isn’t a star. She is now notorious but in no world is she a “star.”

She starred in pornography ergo “porn star”

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will Republicans hold him accountable for revenge porn? No, they have no problem violating women in various ways.

What is Louise nattering on about now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obviously the title of this thread is false information. Republican party mailed it out. Not Youngkin.

I guess they wanted to remind people of what type of person this lady is.

I think it was an extreme tactic but we all know political campaigning hits below the belt.

+1
And Louise Lucas is a liar too - claiming Youngkin had anything to do with this. She is truly a piece of work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously the title of this thread is false information. Republican party mailed it out. Not Youngkin.

I guess they wanted to remind people of what type of person this lady is.

I think it was an extreme tactic but we all know political campaigning hits below the belt.

Your last statement illustrates how the GOP has normalized this type of repugnant campaigning. On top of just lying. They suck. They have ruined this country.

Says the person whose candidate literally does online porn. She is beyond disgusting - as are you.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will Republicans hold him accountable for revenge porn? No, they have no problem violating women in various ways.

Kinda sidestepping the fact that the Democratic candidate is a sleaze.

EXACTLY! The cognitive dissonance here is just astounding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously the title of this thread is false information. Republican party mailed it out. Not Youngkin.

I guess they wanted to remind people of what type of person this lady is.

I think it was an extreme tactic but we all know political campaigning hits below the belt.

+1
And Louise Lucas is a liar too - claiming Youngkin had anything to do with this. She is truly a piece of work.

And no nude photos. Rather disappointing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine being so ignorant to make this post.

OP youngkin doesn't run the Republican party of Virginia. Also f you can read your own picture it says: "NOT authorized by any candidate"

L Louise is also dumb to believe it, she obviously has a problem with reading comprehension

She's a liar. Think she'll apologize to Youngkin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s more disgusting that a major political party would do this than whatever it is she did.

Like, it’s completely disqualifying. All Republicans should lose their elections since they are guilty by association, IMO.

There’s also a direct line between circulating and slut shaming and their anti-woman, anti-abortion agenda.

Shame on Republicans. Shame! SHAME!!!

Imagine if you will, that this porn-producing woman was a Republican candidate. You and all of the hyper-hypocritical LWNJs would be shaming her to your dying day. Look at the things you said about a fully clothed Lauren Boebert. You people are so far gone, it's unreal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cropped nude is not a nude. The title of this thread is still wrong.

+1
No one seems to want to acknowledge that the picture sent was not of a nude woman.