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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She should sue for a copyright violation. Make bank.

Everyone records chaturbate streams, including bots programed by guys who will resell them on archive sites. anytime a streamer logs in, they are recorded. there's certainly more than one of her and her husband’s vids on the internet.

You don't want your sex shows and nude photos all over the internet, don't put your sex shows and nude photos on the Internet, especially one of the most popular porn/sex sites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should sue for a copyright violation. Make bank.

Everyone records chaturbate streams, including bots programed by guys who will resell them on archive sites. anytime a streamer logs in, they are recorded. there's certainly more than one of her and her husband’s vids on the internet.

You don't want your sex shows and nude photos all over the internet, don't put your sex shows and nude photos on the Internet, especially one of the most popular porn/sex sites.

We aren't talking about content on the internet; we're talking about Republicans printing and sending out explicit mailers to thousands of unsuspecting people in VA.

[Anonymous]

Spare us your phony indignation and outage. If this were a Republican candidate, Dems would be projecting the video on the statehouse building at night and hiring trucks with monitors on the sides to park next to I 95 so commuters could see it.


I’m old enough to remember all the laughs about the porno movie from 2008 where an actress pretended to be Sarah Palin. Everyone thought that was soooooo funny.

Now that it’s a Dem who is an ACTUAL pornographer, suddenly it’s all outrage and pearl clutching.

Get bent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should sue for a copyright violation. Make bank.

Everyone records chaturbate streams, including bots programed by guys who will resell them on archive sites. anytime a streamer logs in, they are recorded. there's certainly more than one of her and her husband’s vids on the internet.

You don't want your sex shows and nude photos all over the internet, don't put your sex shows and nude photos on the Internet, especially one of the most popular porn/sex sites.

We aren't talking about content on the internet; we're talking about Republicans printing and sending out explicit mailers to thousands of unsuspecting people in VA.

Explicit mailers that show far less nudity than books Dems want in middle school libraries.

Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should sue for a copyright violation. Make bank.

Everyone records chaturbate streams, including bots programed by guys who will resell them on archive sites. anytime a streamer logs in, they are recorded. there's certainly more than one of her and her husband’s vids on the internet.

You don't want your sex shows and nude photos all over the internet, don't put your sex shows and nude photos on the Internet, especially one of the most popular porn/sex sites.

We aren't talking about content on the internet; we're talking about Republicans printing and sending out explicit mailers to thousands of unsuspecting people in VA.

The candidate hid the fact she and her husband had sex online for tips.

Husband is an attorney and they have 2 kids.

Republicans mailed out this information in envelopes marked appropriately to warn the receiver that the contents of the envelope contained information about a candidate for public office producing pornography on live stream at one of the most popular porn sites in the world.

So you don’t like the fact that voters now know a porn actress is running for office? You wanted that hidden from voters?

Cry me a river. I am waiting for some democrat shill maniacally wailing to cameras that their child opened the envelope and saw a screen shot of a woman’s face that was printed out. Anything to avoid responsibility for a married couple that rutted like pigs online for money.

She should be elected easily; DC is the home of rutting pigs. She will fit right in.
Think of how much she and her husband can charge after she gets elected? Ka-ching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol, the party of legalize marijuana, shrooms, virtually all drugs, sex work, prostitution, and unfettered crime all of the sudden is mad someone mails what everyone can easily Google and find online in about 29 seconds?

Hypocrisy is astounding.

You are OK with Republicans mailing EXPLICIT materials to thousands of people, many with young kids, straight to their home?

Your kids already look at porn behind your back. Don’t be dumb. Porn is everywhere.

So that's a yes, you are OK with Republicans mailing explicit content to families with young kids?

She’s the one generating explicit content that your kids can access online. You’re mad that someone is providing the same results as a 10 second google search. Your kids already watched her porn videos on pornhub or some other site their friends told them about.

Parents know that they have options to control access to screens/porn. Parents weren't expecting explicit content to come in the mail from the Republicans.

My kids love halloween and dig through the mail this time of year looking for various halloween costume catalogs.

If your kids are old enough to dig through the mail “looking for Halloween costume catalogs” (if that’s still a thing, since the internet exists ) then they’re also old enough to NOT confuse things like Halloween costume catalogs from political mailers in blank white envelopes. Because the two pieces of mail look exactly nothing alike. And it would be a very … inattentive…. child to confuse the two.

Is your child prone to such confusion? Is that the issue here?

Or are you just making up ridiculous hypotheticals that would never ever occur in real life?

You have kids? And you don’t receive these catalogs? Be thankful - some are crazy expensive.

If Republicans don’t want kids exposed to “explicit” material then maybe they should stop sending to their homes.

My kids are in college. But even in the dying days of mailed catalogs a decade ago, we never got any for Halloween. Lax and field hockey and dressage, absolutely (until they all went to online only) but no Halloween catalogs.

But again, I’ll ask because it’s relevant to this discussion you started: why would your kids mistake a white business sized envelope with nothing on it for a Halloween catalog, which presumably is larger, and plastered with pictures of Halloween stuff for sale on the front and back covers? How is it you think your kids will make that sort of mistake?

This year, we got PBK kids halloween, chasing fireflies, and one other cheapie one.

Why do think my kids would mistake the envelope for anything?

Why should I have to worry about them sorting through the mail and coming across explicit content that the Republicans sent to our home?

Yes, that was the question I’ve asked you (and you’ve deflected) three times now.

Again - why do you think your kids would mistakenly open a white business envelope thinking it was a Halloween catalog? Why? Given that the two pieces of mail look nothing alike, I’d like to understand the nature of how you think something like that could happen.

If your kids are astute enough to understand what a “Halloween catalog” is, then they also understand what it looks like - and what it doesn’t. I’d like you to explain why they’d open up something that looks nothing at all like a Halloween catalog, thinking it was a Halloween catalog.

Can you please answer that for us?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So just as a review:

1. There were no nude pictures in the mailing

2. The non-nude pictures were from a public/non pay wall porn site

Got it. 🤣

+ eleventy

at posters on this thread trying sooooooo hard to make fetch happen, hahaha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol, the party of legalize marijuana, shrooms, virtually all drugs, sex work, prostitution, and unfettered crime all of the sudden is mad someone mails what everyone can easily Google and find online in about 29 seconds?

Hypocrisy is astounding.

You are OK with Republicans mailing EXPLICIT materials to thousands of people, many with young kids, straight to their home?

Your kids already look at porn behind your back. Don’t be dumb. Porn is everywhere.

So that's a yes, you are OK with Republicans mailing explicit content to families with young kids?

She’s the one generating explicit content that your kids can access online. You’re mad that someone is providing the same results as a 10 second google search. Your kids already watched her porn videos on pornhub or some other site their friends told them about.

Parents know that they have options to control access to screens/porn. Parents weren't expecting explicit content to come in the mail from the Republicans.

My kids love halloween and dig through the mail this time of year looking for various halloween costume catalogs.

If your kids are old enough to dig through the mail “looking for Halloween costume catalogs” (if that’s still a thing, since the internet exists ) then they’re also old enough to NOT confuse things like Halloween costume catalogs from political mailers in blank white envelopes. Because the two pieces of mail look exactly nothing alike. And it would be a very … inattentive…. child to confuse the two.

Is your child prone to such confusion? Is that the issue here?

Or are you just making up ridiculous hypotheticals that would never ever occur in real life?

You have kids? And you don’t receive these catalogs? Be thankful - some are crazy expensive.

If Republicans don’t want kids exposed to “explicit” material then maybe they should stop sending to their homes.

My kids are in college. But even in the dying days of mailed catalogs a decade ago, we never got any for Halloween. Lax and field hockey and dressage, absolutely (until they all went to online only) but no Halloween catalogs.

But again, I’ll ask because it’s relevant to this discussion you started: why would your kids mistake a white business sized envelope with nothing on it for a Halloween catalog, which presumably is larger, and plastered with pictures of Halloween stuff for sale on the front and back covers? How is it you think your kids will make that sort of mistake?

This year, we got PBK kids halloween, chasing fireflies, and one other cheapie one.

Why do think my kids would mistake the envelope for anything?

Why should I have to worry about them sorting through the mail and coming across explicit content that the Republicans sent to our home?

Yes, that was the question I’ve asked you (and you’ve deflected) three times now.

Again - why do you think your kids would mistakenly open a white business envelope thinking it was a Halloween catalog? Why? Given that the two pieces of mail look nothing alike, I’d like to understand the nature of how you think something like that could happen.

If your kids are astute enough to understand what a “Halloween catalog” is, then they also understand what it looks like - and what it doesn’t. I’d like you to explain why they’d open up something that looks nothing at all like a Halloween catalog, thinking it was a Halloween catalog.

Can you please answer that for us?

Go back and re-read. I never said that they would think it was a Halloween catalog.

Cue next obtuse question…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should sue for a copyright violation. Make bank.

Everyone records chaturbate streams, including bots programed by guys who will resell them on archive sites. anytime a streamer logs in, they are recorded. there's certainly more than one of her and her husband’s vids on the internet.

You don't want your sex shows and nude photos all over the internet, don't put your sex shows and nude photos on the Internet, especially one of the most popular porn/sex sites.

We aren't talking about content on the internet; we're talking about Republicans printing and sending out explicit mailers to thousands of unsuspecting people in VA.

Explicit mailers that show far less nudity than books Dems want in middle school libraries.

Got it.

Which books show nudity? Oh, do you mean a few cartoony pics that don’t actually show anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should sue for a copyright violation. Make bank.

Everyone records chaturbate streams, including bots programed by guys who will resell them on archive sites. anytime a streamer logs in, they are recorded. there's certainly more than one of her and her husband’s vids on the internet.

You don't want your sex shows and nude photos all over the internet, don't put your sex shows and nude photos on the Internet, especially one of the most popular porn/sex sites.

We aren't talking about content on the internet; we're talking about Republicans printing and sending out explicit mailers to thousands of unsuspecting people in VA.

The candidate hid the fact she and her husband had sex online for tips.

Husband is an attorney and they have 2 kids.

Republicans mailed out this information in envelopes marked appropriately to warn the receiver that the contents of the envelope contained information about a candidate for public office producing pornography on live stream at one of the most popular porn sites in the world.

So you don’t like the fact that voters now know a porn actress is running for office? You wanted that hidden from voters?

Cry me a river. I am waiting for some democrat shill maniacally wailing to cameras that their child opened the envelope and saw a screen shot of a woman’s face that was printed out. Anything to avoid responsibility for a married couple that rutted like pigs online for money.

She should be elected easily; DC is the home of rutting pigs. She will fit right in.
Think of how much she and her husband can charge after she gets elected? Ka-ching.

No, it shouldn’t be hidden from voters but Republicans have a revolting way to “inform” people. Bottom line - they shouldn’t have sent explicit mailers to people who didn’t want or expect them.

Republicans have zero concept of consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should sue for a copyright violation. Make bank.

Everyone records chaturbate streams, including bots programed by guys who will resell them on archive sites. anytime a streamer logs in, they are recorded. there's certainly more than one of her and her husband’s vids on the internet.

You don't want your sex shows and nude photos all over the internet, don't put your sex shows and nude photos on the Internet, especially one of the most popular porn/sex sites.

We aren't talking about content on the internet; we're talking about Republicans printing and sending out explicit mailers to thousands of unsuspecting people in VA.

Explicit mailers that show far less nudity than books Dems want in middle school libraries.

Got it.

Which books show nudity? Oh, do you mean a few cartoony pics that don’t actually show anything?

On Page 9, I came across the first illustration I recognized from the controversy. In the chapter “Making Love,” there are three graphic images that show adult bodies having sex. There is no visible penetration, but it’s still eye-popping. I was sure I wouldn’t hand this book to my kids when they are 10. And I began to wonder if in my own allergy to the book-burning fervor, I had been a little too dismissive of the parents at the root of this fight.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/09/banned-books-list-its-perfectly-normal-facebook.html

It’s Perfectly Normal, more than any other frequently banned title I have flipped through, challenged my view. The images are not “pornographic,” and it’s obvious that anti-gay sentiment is partly fueling the objection to the book. But the images are graphic, and it’s startling to me to think they’re intended for kids who aren’t even in middle school yet. I realize my kids will be able to see worse on the internet before I know it, but I still wondered: Is it so crazy not to want them to be able to find this in the library?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should sue for a copyright violation. Make bank.

Everyone records chaturbate streams, including bots programed by guys who will resell them on archive sites. anytime a streamer logs in, they are recorded. there's certainly more than one of her and her husband’s vids on the internet.

You don't want your sex shows and nude photos all over the internet, don't put your sex shows and nude photos on the Internet, especially one of the most popular porn/sex sites.

We aren't talking about content on the internet; we're talking about Republicans printing and sending out explicit mailers to thousands of unsuspecting people in VA.

Explicit mailers that show far less nudity than books Dems want in middle school libraries.

Got it.

Which books show nudity? Oh, do you mean a few cartoony pics that don’t actually show anything?

On Page 9, I came across the first illustration I recognized from the controversy. In the chapter “Making Love,” there are three graphic images that show adult bodies having sex. There is no visible penetration, but it’s still eye-popping. I was sure I wouldn’t hand this book to my kids when they are 10. And I began to wonder if in my own allergy to the book-burning fervor, I had been a little too dismissive of the parents at the root of this fight.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/09/banned-books-list-its-perfectly-normal-facebook.html

It’s Perfectly Normal, more than any other frequently banned title I have flipped through, challenged my view. The images are not “pornographic,” and it’s obvious that anti-gay sentiment is partly fueling the objection to the book. But the images are graphic, and it’s startling to me to think they’re intended for kids who aren’t even in middle school yet. I realize my kids will be able to see worse on the internet before I know it, but I still wondered: Is it so crazy not to want them to be able to find this in the library?

So that’s a, yes, cartoony images. These from a very popular children’s sex ed book.

Do you have an issue with the illustrations of genitals in sex ed too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should sue for a copyright violation. Make bank.

Everyone records chaturbate streams, including bots programed by guys who will resell them on archive sites. anytime a streamer logs in, they are recorded. there's certainly more than one of her and her husband’s vids on the internet.

You don't want your sex shows and nude photos all over the internet, don't put your sex shows and nude photos on the Internet, especially one of the most popular porn/sex sites.

We aren't talking about content on the internet; we're talking about Republicans printing and sending out explicit mailers to thousands of unsuspecting people in VA.

The candidate hid the fact she and her husband had sex online for tips.

Husband is an attorney and they have 2 kids.

Republicans mailed out this information in envelopes marked appropriately to warn the receiver that the contents of the envelope contained information about a candidate for public office producing pornography on live stream at one of the most popular porn sites in the world.

So you don’t like the fact that voters now know a porn actress is running for office? You wanted that hidden from voters?

Cry me a river. I am waiting for some democrat shill maniacally wailing to cameras that their child opened the envelope and saw a screen shot of a woman’s face that was printed out. Anything to avoid responsibility for a married couple that rutted like pigs online for money.

She should be elected easily; DC is the home of rutting pigs. She will fit right in.
Think of how much she and her husband can charge after she gets elected? Ka-ching.

No, it shouldn’t be hidden from voters but Republicans have a revolting way to “inform” people. Bottom line - they shouldn’t have sent explicit mailers to people who didn’t want or expect them.

Republicans have zero concept of consent.

Consent? The woman and her husband engage in porn and livestream it for money. They know people are recording their sex.

It was being hidden from voters and republicans actually informed voters in a responsible way.

If this woman and her husband have live sex online, they should have informed voters.

How about voters should know if they are voting for a porn actress?

Consent is an agreement between people to have sex. What the candidate was doing was hiding her porn career. She already consented to having sex and being watched and recorded.

Nobody gets to consent to having the truth told about them when the are asking for people to vote for them and gaining public office.

So if a man who is a candidate is having sex with his secretary, is their sex life of no matter because he won’t consent to people finding out? Everyone who gets caught doing sleazy sexual stuff can just clutch their pearls and say oh no I didn’t consent to people finding out. lol yeah right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She should sue for a copyright violation. Make bank.

Everyone records chaturbate streams, including bots programed by guys who will resell them on archive sites. anytime a streamer logs in, they are recorded. there's certainly more than one of her and her husband’s vids on the internet.

You don't want your sex shows and nude photos all over the internet, don't put your sex shows and nude photos on the Internet, especially one of the most popular porn/sex sites.

We aren't talking about content on the internet; we're talking about Republicans printing and sending out explicit mailers to thousands of unsuspecting people in VA.

Explicit mailers that show far less nudity than books Dems want in middle school libraries.

Got it.

Which books show nudity? Oh, do you mean a few cartoony pics that don’t actually show anything?

On Page 9, I came across the first illustration I recognized from the controversy. In the chapter “Making Love,” there are three graphic images that show adult bodies having sex. There is no visible penetration, but it’s still eye-popping. I was sure I wouldn’t hand this book to my kids when they are 10. And I began to wonder if in my own allergy to the book-burning fervor, I had been a little too dismissive of the parents at the root of this fight.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/09/banned-books-list-its-perfectly-normal-facebook.html

It’s Perfectly Normal, more than any other frequently banned title I have flipped through, challenged my view. The images are not “pornographic,” and it’s obvious that anti-gay sentiment is partly fueling the objection to the book. But the images are graphic, and it’s startling to me to think they’re intended for kids who aren’t even in middle school yet. I realize my kids will be able to see worse on the internet before I know it, but I still wondered: Is it so crazy not to want them to be able to find this in the library?

So that’s a, yes, cartoony images. These from a very popular children’s sex ed book.

Do you have an issue with the illustrations of genitals in sex ed too?

Cartoony? They are called illustrations. They are illustrating the book because actual pictures of children doing these things would be considered child porn.

Cartoony is an idiotic way of describing realistic drawings of child porn.

[Anonymous]

[img]

[/img]

I mean the illustration with the child bending over, how would they publish a picture of a real child doing so? They cannot. So draw it.

Let me guess- if you knew that picture was saved on your husband’s phone, you’d freak out. But somehow kids can have access to it because it’s “educational?”