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

[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.

This is the thing. You don’t need to either vote for her or the Republican either. You can just not vote for either and move on the next line on the ballot.

[Anonymous]

Big whoop.

Your kids have all already seen her nude and sex tapes at this point.

Newsflash parents: your kids are looking at porn on their phones by the time they're 10 or 11 years old.

She put her nude stuff out there. Snail mail is a low tech way to send a Google result everyone can already do.

[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.

Google distributes her self made porn everyday to billions of people world wide. What, you gonna take it up with them too?

[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.

This is the thing. You don’t need to either vote for her or the Republican either. You can just not vote for either and move on the next line on the ballot.

Why let others voters decide if the VA GOP can ban abortion?

Either you’re ok with that happening or you’re not.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]It was obvious it would be something like this. Thank you for posting. I'm sure everyone will ignore this though. [/quote]

It was pretty clear that something was up when we kept seeing picture of the outside of the envelope, but no one was showing pictures of the actual mailer at all. The only reason why you would show pictures of the envelope and then only give a description about the mailer is because you're trying to lie to people about the contents of the mailer. The original title here - "Glenn Youngkin mails out nude photos of a candidate" was a complete lie. Turns out it's "The Republican party mails out photos of a candidate's face with zero nudity."

8 pages of outrage where everyone trusted a Twitter post and never bothered to check what the actual mailer looked like. This is why misinformation spreads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is the thing. You don’t need to either vote for her or the Republican either. You can just not vote for either and move on the next line on the ballot.

Why let others voters decide if the VA GOP can ban abortion?

Either you’re ok with that happening or you’re not.

Let’s ponder this question for a second. If VA Democrats were truly and sincerely motivated to protect women’s choice, why did they run someone with such a checkered past?

If they believed the states were actually so high, you’d think they would run better candidates.

And even putting aside her side hustle, she wasn’t even a good candidate. Had never even been involved in the community.

[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”

The word “Star” in commonly recognized nomenclature is synonymous with celebrity. She is no celebrity. She has some notoriety now due to the campaign. But you are carrying on like some Hollywood celebrity exposed her naughty bits in Playboy in 1989.

You’re really easily titillated too, aren’t you? I mean, wow. The pearl clutching…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 )

Republicans are posed to ban abortion.

I can certainly support someone who has shown poor judgment BUT hasn’t broken any laws. She’s miles ahead of criminal politicians in office/on the bench and/or actively campaigning for bigger offices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 )

Republicans are posed to ban abortion.

I can certainly support someone who has shown poor judgment BUT hasn’t broken any laws. She’s miles ahead of criminal politicians in office/on the bench and/or actively campaigning for bigger offices.

Yes, the stakes are high, but abortion is now the most important issue for 70% of Virginia women voters. This one lousy candidate won't decide abortion for the state. She isn't needed. Or wanted.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It was obvious it would be something like this. Thank you for posting. I'm sure everyone will ignore this though. [/quote]

It was pretty clear that something was up when we kept seeing picture of the outside of the envelope, but no one was showing pictures of the actual mailer at all. The only reason why you would show pictures of the envelope and then only give a description about the mailer is because you're trying to lie to people about the contents of the mailer. The original title here - "Glenn Youngkin mails out nude photos of a candidate" was a complete lie. Turns out it's "The Republican party mails out photos of a candidate's face with zero nudity."

8 pages of outrage where everyone trusted a Twitter post and never bothered to check what the actual mailer looked like. This is why misinformation spreads.[/quote]

It was a cropped image of her nude from a live chat.

VA Republicans (led by Youngkin) are sending “explicit 18+” materials (their words) to thousands of homes in VA.

Doesn’t seem like they are sincerely interested in keeping explicit material out of kids hands when they are sending it out themselves.

Republicans are so full of crap. I can’t believe anyone falls for their propaganda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 )

Republicans are posed to ban abortion.

I can certainly support someone who has shown poor judgment BUT hasn’t broken any laws. She’s miles ahead of criminal politicians in office/on the bench and/or actively campaigning for bigger offices.

PP here. I get it. Both Democrats and Republicans hold their noses all the time and vote down the party line. Not a surprise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Big whoop.

Your kids have all already seen her nude and sex tapes at this point.

Newsflash parents: your kids are looking at porn on their phones by the time they're 10 or 11 years old.

She put her nude stuff out there. Snail mail is a low tech way to send a Google result everyone can already do.

Newsflash. No, most kids are NOT looking at porn on their phones by the time they're 10 or 11 years old.

[Anonymous]

This is who we have to vote for. I mean, this is what they come up with. If the other side were normal, I'd probably vote for them. Our system is fu**ed. But you have to vote.

[Anonymous]

I'd stop seeing her has a provider, but who else are you going to vote for?

[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

I can attest to the physical mailing in the original post, but I did click on a since deleted link and that was porn- you could see it all.

She should not be running for public office.