VA Democratic House candidate performed sex acts online for tips

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

Gibson obviously doesn’t agree with you as she is trying to delete everything off the web.

She didn’t knowingly consent to it being widely available.

I was talking about PP’s judgmental attitude. Why does she think her “morals” are any more important than anyone else’s?

The terms of service make it abundantly clear what her agreement to stream her sexual acts for money over the service entail. She consented. Now she’s trying in vain to pull everything off the internet.

I said “knowingly”.

The TOS are just to protect the hosting company. The people who recorded did so without her consent and shared without her consent. It’s still a violation even if the hosting company is protected legally. She can certainly go after whoever recorded and shared it.

There was no copyright. She can’t go after anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morning drive time radio stations in RVA are having a field day with reading and playing her transcripts bleeped of course. But hilarious nonetheless.

And this is extremely helpful in getting women to vote for Republicans.

Why?

I was being sarcastic. Because Republicans already have a major problem with attracting women to vote for them and mocking a woman for her sex life will not help their cause at all.

Are women voters a monolith? Many women think what this woman did was reprehensible, and they can still laugh at radio jokes about it without running out to vote for Dems.

Pretty much. Republicans have a major young, educated women problem.

Wow. Believe that at your own risk.

I don't believe in anything. I'm a data person and a CFA, and when I look at the voting patterns of young women with college degrees or more, I'm not seeing anything for Republicans. The young, poor males in rural America definitely lean conservative however they don't vote very often or cannot vote due to felonies. The life expectancy is decreasing too, so the old, conservative base is dropping dead, especially in low income rural area, that are overwhelmingly Republican.
I'm not even talking about the ticking bomb that is generation Z. I have one in high school who will be able to vote soon.

LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

Gibson obviously doesn’t agree with you as she is trying to delete everything off the web.

She didn’t knowingly consent to it being widely available.

I was talking about PP’s judgmental attitude. Why does she think her “morals” are any more important than anyone else’s?

The terms of service make it abundantly clear what her agreement to stream her sexual acts for money over the service entail. She consented. Now she’s trying in vain to pull everything off the internet.

I said “knowingly”.

Do you honestly think this person is so incredibly stupid, I'm talking IQ of 60 or lower, that they wouldn't realize what they were doing was not private in any way, shape, or form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

Gibson obviously doesn’t agree with you as she is trying to delete everything off the web.

She didn’t knowingly consent to it being widely available.

I was talking about PP’s judgmental attitude. Why does she think her “morals” are any more important than anyone else’s?

The terms of service make it abundantly clear what her agreement to stream her sexual acts for money over the service entail. She consented. Now she’s trying in vain to pull everything off the internet.

I said “knowingly”.

The TOS are just to protect the hosting company. The people who recorded did so without her consent and shared without her consent. It’s still a violation even if the hosting company is protected legally. She can certainly go after whoever recorded and shared it.

NP here. She can "certainly go after" whoever she wants, and that party file a motion for it to be dismissed which it probably would be. How it is a violation (it is not)? She did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and she does not hold a copyright to her performance. Her and her husband are incredibly dumb, naive and delusional. Ignorance of the law isn't a defense. "I didn't know" isn't going to win her a case. Doesn't sound like she has deep pockets to fund a witch hunt like this, but it would be interesting if she did. I would love to see this be litigated.

I am sorry she did this, because I want a democrat to take this election. But you can't help stupid, and those two are super stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

Gibson obviously doesn’t agree with you as she is trying to delete everything off the web.

She didn’t knowingly consent to it being widely available.

I was talking about PP’s judgmental attitude. Why does she think her “morals” are any more important than anyone else’s?

The terms of service make it abundantly clear what her agreement to stream her sexual acts for money over the service entail. She consented. Now she’s trying in vain to pull everything off the internet.

I said “knowingly”.

The TOS are just to protect the hosting company. The people who recorded did so without her consent and shared without her consent. It’s still a violation even if the hosting company is protected legally. She can certainly go after whoever recorded and shared it.

NP here. She can "certainly go after" whoever she wants, and that party file a motion for it to be dismissed which it probably would be. How it is a violation (it is not)? She did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and she does not hold a copyright to her performance. Her and her husband are incredibly dumb, naive and delusional. Ignorance of the law isn't a defense. "I didn't know" isn't going to win her a case. Doesn't sound like she has deep pockets to fund a witch hunt like this, but it would be interesting if she did. I would love to see this be litigated.

I am sorry she did this, because I want a democrat to take this election. But you can't help stupid, and those two are super stupid.

Naive? Poor judgment? Yes. But it was recorded and shared without her consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morning drive time radio stations in RVA are having a field day with reading and playing her transcripts bleeped of course. But hilarious nonetheless.

And this is extremely helpful in getting women to vote for Republicans.

Why?

I was being sarcastic. Because Republicans already have a major problem with attracting women to vote for them and mocking a woman for her sex life will not help their cause at all.

Are women voters a monolith? Many women think what this woman did was reprehensible, and they can still laugh at radio jokes about it without running out to vote for Dems.

Pretty much. Republicans have a major young, educated women problem.

Wow. Believe that at your own risk.

I don't believe in anything. I'm a data person and a CFA, and when I look at the voting patterns of young women with college degrees or more, I'm not seeing anything for Republicans. The young, poor males in rural America definitely lean conservative however they don't vote very often or cannot vote due to felonies. The life expectancy is decreasing too, so the old, conservative base is dropping dead, especially in low income rural area, that are overwhelmingly Republican.
I'm not even talking about the ticking bomb that is generation Z. I have one in high school who will be able to vote soon.

LOL

Republicans struggle with facts and data. That's why they make up their own.

[Anonymous]

She is still trying to get elected?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

Gibson obviously doesn’t agree with you as she is trying to delete everything off the web.

She didn’t knowingly consent to it being widely available.

I was talking about PP’s judgmental attitude. Why does she think her “morals” are any more important than anyone else’s?

The terms of service make it abundantly clear what her agreement to stream her sexual acts for money over the service entail. She consented. Now she’s trying in vain to pull everything off the internet.

I said “knowingly”.

The TOS are just to protect the hosting company. The people who recorded did so without her consent and shared without her consent. It’s still a violation even if the hosting company is protected legally. She can certainly go after whoever recorded and shared it.

NP here. She can "certainly go after" whoever she wants, and that party file a motion for it to be dismissed which it probably would be. How it is a violation (it is not)? She did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and she does not hold a copyright to her performance. Her and her husband are incredibly dumb, naive and delusional. Ignorance of the law isn't a defense. "I didn't know" isn't going to win her a case. Doesn't sound like she has deep pockets to fund a witch hunt like this, but it would be interesting if she did. I would love to see this be litigated.

I am sorry she did this, because I want a democrat to take this election. But you can't help stupid, and those two are super stupid.

Naive? Poor judgment? Yes. But it was recorded and shared without her consent.

You keep harping on a concept you don’t understand under this fact pattern. She gave her consent, via posting it on the livestream per the terms of the site on the internet. Would a similarly situated person (a well educated couple with one being a lawyer) understand that they give up their right to privacy by posting this video on the internet to strangers under the terms and conditions of the website? Yes. That’s it, there is no standing. She can’t say I didn’t understand, she can’t claim I didn’t read it, she can’t claim it was a mistake (times what, 15?). She gave consent as soon as she started her livestream. Period. if she didn’t read it, that’s her problem, onerous is on her. people need to read the fine print of things they agree to.


I’m sorry you’re so upset about this. But them the breaks.



The republicans party didn’t pirate the videos and show them in a press conference. Any third party is going to point to the same

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

Gibson obviously doesn’t agree with you as she is trying to delete everything off the web.

She didn’t knowingly consent to it being widely available.

I was talking about PP’s judgmental attitude. Why does she think her “morals” are any more important than anyone else’s?

The terms of service make it abundantly clear what her agreement to stream her sexual acts for money over the service entail. She consented. Now she’s trying in vain to pull everything off the internet.

I said “knowingly”.

The TOS are just to protect the hosting company. The people who recorded did so without her consent and shared without her consent. It’s still a violation even if the hosting company is protected legally. She can certainly go after whoever recorded and shared it.

NP here. She can "certainly go after" whoever she wants, and that party file a motion for it to be dismissed which it probably would be. How it is a violation (it is not)? She did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and she does not hold a copyright to her performance. Her and her husband are incredibly dumb, naive and delusional. Ignorance of the law isn't a defense. "I didn't know" isn't going to win her a case. Doesn't sound like she has deep pockets to fund a witch hunt like this, but it would be interesting if she did. I would love to see this be litigated.

I am sorry she did this, because I want a democrat to take this election. But you can't help stupid, and those two are super stupid.

Naive? Poor judgment? Yes. But it was recorded and shared without her consent.

There was no copyright and given the terms of service she agreed to, no expectation of such.
But yes Gibson does have extremely poor judgement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

Gibson obviously doesn’t agree with you as she is trying to delete everything off the web.

She didn’t knowingly consent to it being widely available.

I was talking about PP’s judgmental attitude. Why does she think her “morals” are any more important than anyone else’s?

The terms of service make it abundantly clear what her agreement to stream her sexual acts for money over the service entail. She consented. Now she’s trying in vain to pull everything off the internet.

I said “knowingly”.

The TOS are just to protect the hosting company. The people who recorded did so without her consent and shared without her consent. It’s still a violation even if the hosting company is protected legally. She can certainly go after whoever recorded and shared it.

NP here. She can "certainly go after" whoever she wants, and that party file a motion for it to be dismissed which it probably would be. How it is a violation (it is not)? She did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and she does not hold a copyright to her performance. Her and her husband are incredibly dumb, naive and delusional. Ignorance of the law isn't a defense. "I didn't know" isn't going to win her a case. Doesn't sound like she has deep pockets to fund a witch hunt like this, but it would be interesting if she did. I would love to see this be litigated.

I am sorry she did this, because I want a democrat to take this election. But you can't help stupid, and those two are super stupid.

Naive? Poor judgment? Yes. But it was recorded and shared without her consent.

You keep harping on a concept you don’t understand under this fact pattern. She gave her consent, via posting it on the livestream per the terms of the site on the internet. Would a similarly situated person (a well educated couple with one being a lawyer) understand that they give up their right to privacy by posting this video on the internet to strangers under the terms and conditions of the website? Yes. That’s it, there is no standing. She can’t say I didn’t understand, she can’t claim I didn’t read it, she can’t claim it was a mistake (times what, 15?). She gave consent as soon as she started her livestream. Period. if she didn’t read it, that’s her problem, onerous is on her. people need to read the fine print of things they agree to.

I’m sorry you’re so upset about this. But them the breaks.

The republicans party didn’t pirate the videos and show them in a press conference. Any third party is going to point to the same

I'm not upset about it at all. But I can understand how she might feel violated that someone recorded her without her permission AND distributed it .

Distributing without consent with intent to harass certainly falls under the revenge porn laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

Gibson obviously doesn’t agree with you as she is trying to delete everything off the web.

She didn’t knowingly consent to it being widely available.

I was talking about PP’s judgmental attitude. Why does she think her “morals” are any more important than anyone else’s?

The terms of service make it abundantly clear what her agreement to stream her sexual acts for money over the service entail. She consented. Now she’s trying in vain to pull everything off the internet.

I said “knowingly”.

The TOS are just to protect the hosting company. The people who recorded did so without her consent and shared without her consent. It’s still a violation even if the hosting company is protected legally. She can certainly go after whoever recorded and shared it.

NP here. She can "certainly go after" whoever she wants, and that party file a motion for it to be dismissed which it probably would be. How it is a violation (it is not)? She did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and she does not hold a copyright to her performance. Her and her husband are incredibly dumb, naive and delusional. Ignorance of the law isn't a defense. "I didn't know" isn't going to win her a case. Doesn't sound like she has deep pockets to fund a witch hunt like this, but it would be interesting if she did. I would love to see this be litigated.

I am sorry she did this, because I want a democrat to take this election. But you can't help stupid, and those two are super stupid.

Naive? Poor judgment? Yes. But it was recorded and shared without her consent.

There was no copyright and given the terms of service she agreed to, no expectation of such.
But yes Gibson does have extremely poor judgement.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter8/section18.2-386.2/

§ 18.2-386.2. Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penalty.
A. Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

Gibson obviously doesn’t agree with you as she is trying to delete everything off the web.

She didn’t knowingly consent to it being widely available.

I was talking about PP’s judgmental attitude. Why does she think her “morals” are any more important than anyone else’s?

The terms of service make it abundantly clear what her agreement to stream her sexual acts for money over the service entail. She consented. Now she’s trying in vain to pull everything off the internet.

I said “knowingly”.

The TOS are just to protect the hosting company. The people who recorded did so without her consent and shared without her consent. It’s still a violation even if the hosting company is protected legally. She can certainly go after whoever recorded and shared it.

NP here. She can "certainly go after" whoever she wants, and that party file a motion for it to be dismissed which it probably would be. How it is a violation (it is not)? She did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and she does not hold a copyright to her performance. Her and her husband are incredibly dumb, naive and delusional. Ignorance of the law isn't a defense. "I didn't know" isn't going to win her a case. Doesn't sound like she has deep pockets to fund a witch hunt like this, but it would be interesting if she did. I would love to see this be litigated.

I am sorry she did this, because I want a democrat to take this election. But you can't help stupid, and those two are super stupid.

Naive? Poor judgment? Yes. But it was recorded and shared without her consent.

There was no copyright and given the terms of service she agreed to, no expectation of such.
But yes Gibson does have extremely poor judgement.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter8/section18.2-386.2/

§ 18.2-386.2. Unlawful dissemination or sale of images of another; penalty.
A. Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever that depicts another person who is totally nude, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

A license didn’t exist. There was no expectation that one did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is still trying to get elected?

Miss Congeniality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

When are you going to understand and admit that this isn't about what consenting adults do behind closed doors? We couldn't care less what kind of sex they enjoy. Go for it.
This wasn't "behind closed doors." It was on the internet for others to participate in and then she had the audacity to run for public office.

If it is all ok, why is she desperately trying to get the content scrubbed? Why isn't she proud of her porn site? Why not add it to her campaign website if it is all ok?

I question her judgment and her morals. I also do not believe she would be an advocate for what is best for children given her judgment.

I agree that it shows poor judgment for someone running for office.

I was addressing the PP’s comment that they do judge people based on what they do in their bedroom.

This isn't privately consenting to a sex act in your own bedroom. This is like opening the windows and inviting people to stand in the yard offering cash tips for you to do lewd acts. And yes of course I judge that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I literally don't care what any consenting adults do in their bedroom. Republican or Democrat.

Yes, we are well aware of that.

You do care what consenting adults do in their bedroom? Why is that?

I have morals.

1. It's gross that you're judging what other people do in their own bedroom. You really spend time thinking about it and deciding what is OK or not?

2. Everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and yours is no better than anyone else's. Many people in 2023 are sex positive. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and normal.

I don't get judgmental people who try to force their beliefs on others. That's not OK.

Gibson obviously doesn’t agree with you as she is trying to delete everything off the web.

She didn’t knowingly consent to it being widely available.

I was talking about PP’s judgmental attitude. Why does she think her “morals” are any more important than anyone else’s?

If you don't want it plastered on the front page of the WaPo, don't do it.
She broke the cardinal rule of politics.