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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s a cropped image from the screen capture. She’s nude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Including Republicans sending “explicit” mailings to thousands of families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we see the nude photos or do I need to take your word for it?

Click on the link

I didn't see any nude photos. Still waiting to see the nude photos that are claimed in the title.

Click on the link and go to the comments to see the exact flyer.

I still don't see any nude photos. Where are the nude photos?

https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/FILE_7192.pdf

Don’t click the link.

OMG, too late. She is so, so, so disgusting. As is her husband.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s about consent, not that you’d understand anything about that.

Boebert fondled genitalia in front of kids and people who didn’t consent.

Up until this GOP mailing, everyone who watched Gibson sought it out; they consented.

Republicans like to force themselves on everyone else.

Why do you want a porn producing woman as your candidate?

Because:
1) I DGAF what consenting adults do in the bedroom
2) I would prefer a candidate with better judgment but ultimately it was legal and the deadline passed to replace her
3) she will defend women in VA (!)

[Anonymous]

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

Oh, the irony. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They show the flier that was mailed out at the beginning of this piece:

https://www.nbc12.com/2023/10/24/republican-party-virginia-mails-out-thousands-explicit-fliers-about-susanna-gibson-scandal/?outputType=amp

It has a few pictures of her face and there's zero nudity.

+1
No nudes were in this flyer. Just her disgusting commentary.

[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?

Nope.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Nope.
DP

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: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.

It’s a cropped image from the screen capture. She’s nude.

She.Is.Not.Nude.In.The.Mailing. Stop lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s about consent, not that you’d understand anything about that.

Boebert fondled genitalia in front of kids and people who didn’t consent.

Up until this GOP mailing, everyone who watched Gibson sought it out; they consented.

Republicans like to force themselves on everyone else.

Why do you want a porn producing woman as your candidate?

Because:
1) I DGAF what consenting adults do in the bedroom
2) I would prefer a candidate with better judgment but ultimately it was legal and the deadline passed to replace her
3) she will defend women in VA (!)

I am as single-issue voter pro-abortion voter out there but c'mon she needs to go. She is not the boy with his finger in the dyke, she is not the sole deciding vote, she is not that important. Not worth this. She needs to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s about consent, not that you’d understand anything about that.

Boebert fondled genitalia in front of kids and people who didn’t consent.

Up until this GOP mailing, everyone who watched Gibson sought it out; they consented.

Republicans like to force themselves on everyone else.

Why do you want a porn producing woman as your candidate?

Because:
1) I DGAF what consenting adults do in the bedroom
2) I would prefer a candidate with better judgment but ultimately it was legal and the deadline passed to replace her
3) she will defend women in VA (!)

I am as single-issue voter pro-abortion voter out there but c'mon she needs to go. She is not the boy with his finger in the dyke, she is not the sole deciding vote, she is not that important. Not worth this. She needs to go.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s about consent, not that you’d understand anything about that.

Boebert fondled genitalia in front of kids and people who didn’t consent.

Up until this GOP mailing, everyone who watched Gibson sought it out; they consented.

Republicans like to force themselves on everyone else.

Why do you want a porn producing woman as your candidate?

Because:
1) I DGAF what consenting adults do in the bedroom
2) I would prefer a candidate with better judgment but ultimately it was legal and the deadline passed to replace her
3) she will defend women in VA (!)

I am as single-issue voter pro-abortion voter out there but c'mon she needs to go. She is not the boy with his finger in the dyke, she is not the sole deciding vote, she is not that important. Not worth this. She needs to go.

Not with the numbers so close in the General Assembly.

Was it great judgement? No. Was it illegal? Also no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s about consent, not that you’d understand anything about that.

Boebert fondled genitalia in front of kids and people who didn’t consent.

Up until this GOP mailing, everyone who watched Gibson sought it out; they consented.

Republicans like to force themselves on everyone else.

Why do you want a porn producing woman as your candidate?

Because:
1) I DGAF what consenting adults do in the bedroom
2) I would prefer a candidate with better judgment but ultimately it was legal and the deadline passed to replace her
3) she will defend women in VA (!)

I am as single-issue voter pro-abortion voter out there but c'mon she needs to go. She is not the boy with his finger in the dyke, she is not the sole deciding vote, she is not that important. Not worth this. She needs to go.

Not with the numbers so close in the General Assembly.

Was it great judgement? No. Was it illegal? Also no.

So...vote blue, no matter who. (just politics as usual )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone can print anything.

Genius. Any other obvious impressions you'd like to share with us?

[Anonymous]

If you are a female and you vote for one republican you are an idiot

This is not hard we are headed to lose every right we had ladies this is not about abortion is about all our rights

Please ask the Republican Party why no female is slated to be Queen of-the US

Again Republican women are stupid


If you are on this forum you can look stuff up dummies not like the plans aren’t public

Your daughters college education is now worthless