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: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.

Voters didn’t give consent to send EXPLICIT mailers to their homes.

Zero concept of consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok. So we agree that cartoony pics AKA illustrations aren’t porn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[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?”

So you are against illustrations for sex ed books?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok. So we agree that cartoony pics AKA illustrations aren’t porn.

They have to draw the naked, exposed children because actual photos can’t be taken. The illustrations are drawn child porn. How that makes it better idk. What would you do if you saw drawings like that on your husband’s phone, your children’s teachers phone, a priest’s phone? Say they are educational?

[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.

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.

Voters didn’t give consent to send EXPLICIT mailers to their homes.

Zero concept of consent.

We already know the mailers weren’t explicit. You are just butthurt because a democrat got outed for being a gross scumbag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans consider it "explicit material" and then proceed to send it to families with young kids.

Republicans think they are explicit.

Going to let your ES kids read it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok. So we agree that cartoony pics AKA illustrations aren’t porn.

They have to draw the naked, exposed children because actual photos can’t be taken. The illustrations are drawn child porn. How that makes it better idk. What would you do if you saw drawings like that on your husband’s phone, your children’s teachers phone, a priest’s phone? Say they are educational?

You think these sex ed books are porn?

[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.

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.

Voters didn’t give consent to send EXPLICIT mailers to their homes.

Zero concept of consent.

Wait, I need to give consent to receive mail? Has someone told the USPO about this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans consider it "explicit material" and then proceed to send it to families with young kids.

Republicans think they are explicit.

Going to let your ES kids read it?

I could call it a cabbage, but that doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[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?”

BUNGO BINGO BINGO.


mic. drop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Voters didn’t give consent to send EXPLICIT mailers to their homes.

Zero concept of consent.

Wait, I need to give consent to receive mail? Has someone told the USPO about this?

Explicit mail - yes.

Republicans need to stop forcing themselves onto everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[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?”

BUNGO BINGO BINGO.


mic. drop.

You think these sex ed books are porn?

[Anonymous]

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.

EXACTLY. And don't forget, they have insisted that kids have access to graphically sexual images in school libraries. Dems and their faux outrage... so predictable.

Kids didn’t have explicit material sent directly to their homes until the Republicans sent it.

And the goalposts have moved all the way back from Youngkin sent nude pictures, to the GOP sent nude pictures, to the GOP mailed explicit material. If those goalposts didn't have wheels, you wouldn't have an argument.

+1
Every thread Democrats start follows that pattern. Salacious accusation, slowly walked back in light of actual facts. But never any apology or acknowledgement that they were misrepresenting facts, at best - lying at worst.

[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.

Exactly this. We tell our kids to never put anything online they would later regret - this is no different. This woman and her husband clearly have mental issues. Their need for others to witness them having sex is beyond anything that even resembles normalcy.

[Anonymous]

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.

EXACTLY. And don't forget, they have insisted that kids have access to graphically sexual images in school libraries. Dems and their faux outrage... so predictable.

Kids didn’t have explicit material sent directly to their homes until the Republicans sent it.

And the goalposts have moved all the way back from Youngkin sent nude pictures, to the GOP sent nude pictures, to the GOP mailed explicit material. If those goalposts didn't have wheels, you wouldn't have an argument.

+1
Every thread Democrats start follows that pattern. Salacious accusation, slowly walked back in light of actual facts. But never any apology or acknowledgement that they were misrepresenting facts, at best - lying at worst.

I’m op and I asked Jeff to change the title. And it’s a screenshot of her, nude, from her private adult chat.

Still waiting on Republicans to say that sending explicit mailers to thousands of homes, many with young kids, is not acceptable.

Or maybe you’ll go on defending the indefensible.