Democratic Legislative Candidate Focks Husband On Camera For Money

[TBayXXXVII 1,957]

26 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Maybe I didn't see the whole video but how much did they "grope". Dear Lord, now porn is more acceptable than a minor public show of affection in the dark. 

Our president does it with every child he can get his hands on.

As long as the porn is being done legally, no, I have no problem with them doing it.  They're free to do as they choose.  Now, it's not going to convince me to vote for people that want to take that route, but I don't have any qualms with what they're doing.

Groping genital's in public is not acceptable, at all.  Well, unless it's two hot chicks and they're ok with me watching.  Nothing Biden did is acceptable either... only leftists are ok with that.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,196]

Just to be clear, I'd still hit that shiat once a day and twice on Sundays until I got bored with it. 

[IGotWorms 2,845]

48 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

As long as the porn is being done legally, no, I have no problem with them doing it.  They're free to do as they choose.  Now, it's not going to convince me to vote for people that want to take that route, but I don't have any qualms with what they're doing.

Groping genital's in public is not acceptable, at all.  Well, unless it's two hot chicks and they're ok with me watching.  Nothing Biden did is acceptable either... only leftists are ok with that.

It’s basically public since she put it online.

She’s not in office (yet), but it certainly does make you question her judgment. I likely wouldn’t vote for her if I were in her district.

[TBayXXXVII 1,957]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

It’s basically public since she put it online.

She’s not in office (yet), but it certainly does make you question her judgment. I likely wouldn’t vote for her if I were in her district.

I'm only referencing the act itself.  As long as she followed the laws regarding what they were doing, I don't have a problem with it.  What they did was nothing different than what porn sites do.  There's nothing illegal about it.  Have at it, it's their life.

I judge politicians on their platform/policies, not their actions.  I don't care what people do in their private lives, I only care how their policies affect me.  As long as they're not breaking the law, I don't care.

[jerryskids 4,796]

I just looked it up; there are an estimated 2.1 million "content creators" on OnlyFans.  That's quite a few.  It makes you wonder how many people you meet or just pass by IRL who do it and you don't know.  This chick is an NP, right? For all of the doctors, PAs, and nurses I meet at Mayo, I have the good fortune of having several who are quite attractive.  I'll look at them in a new light now.   

[Strike 3,625]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I'm only referencing the act itself.  As long as she followed the laws regarding what they were doing, I don't have a problem with it.  What they did was nothing different than what porn sites do.  There's nothing illegal about it.  Have at it, it's their life.

I judge politicians on their platform/policies, not their actions.  I don't care what people do in their private lives, I only care how their policies affect me.  As long as they're not breaking the law, I don't care.

Can we stop with the "it's not illegal" shtick.  Nothing ~Stick posted here was "illegal" but for some reason he chose to delete all of it when he ran for office and his account here became public knowledge.  Nothing John Edwards did was "illegal" but his NON illegal actions torpedoed his campaign.  There are just some things you probably shouldn't do if you're running for public office.  And while it may not be a problem for YOU specifically, I would hope you can see how it might be for some others when choosing whether to vote for the candidate.

[IGotWorms 2,845]

10 minutes ago, Strike said:

Can we stop with the "it's not illegal" shtick.  Nothing ~Stick posted here was "illegal" but for some reason he chose to delete all of it when he ran for office and his account here became public knowledge.  Nothing John Edwards did was "illegal" but his NON illegal actions torpedoed his campaign.  There are just some things you probably shouldn't do if you're running for public office.  And while it may not be a problem for YOU specifically, I would hope you can see how it might be for some others when choosing whether to vote for the candidate.

John Edwards was charged with several felonies

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,196]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

It’s basically public since she put it online.

She’s not in office (yet), but it certainly does make you question her judgment. I likely wouldn’t vote for her if I were in her district.

I'd vote for her vagina, though. 

[Strike 3,625]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

John Edwards was charged with several felonies

Aren't you a focking lawyer, supposedly?  Because any charges against him were years after his affair destroyed his political career.  You can't be this stupid, can you?

[seafoam1 1,370]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

Aren't you a focking lawyer, supposedly?  Because any charges against him were years after his affair destroyed his political career.  You can't be this stupid, can you?

[TBayXXXVII 1,957]

24 minutes ago, Strike said:

Can we stop with the "it's not illegal" shtick.  Nothing ~Stick posted here was "illegal" but for some reason he chose to delete all of it when he ran for office and his account here became public knowledge.  Nothing John Edwards did was "illegal" but his NON illegal actions torpedoed his campaign.  There are just some things you probably shouldn't do if you're running for public office.  And while it may not be a problem for YOU specifically, I would hope you can see how it might be for some others when choosing whether to vote for the candidate.

I'm not telling anyone what to think and how to respond.  She did something well within the realm of her personal freedoms.  I'm not going to complain about it.  If you want to, go ahead.

[Strike 3,625]

6 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I'm not telling anyone what to think and how to respond.  She did something well within the realm of her personal freedoms.  I'm not going to complain about it.  If you want to, go ahead.

I haven't complained about her actions, OR Boobert's.  BOTH were legal and within their rights.  Not acknowledging the potential negative impact on their campaigns is disingenuous though.

[IGotWorms 2,845]

18 minutes ago, Strike said:

Aren't you a focking lawyer, supposedly?  Because any charges against him were years after his affair destroyed his political career.  You can't be this stupid, can you?

TILT!

[Strike 3,625]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

TILT!

Yep, as usual, doesn't want to actually discuss the topic at hand. 

[IGotWorms 2,845]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

Yep, as usual, doesn't want to actually discuss the topic at hand. 

I’ve been discussing it for five pages  

[seafoam1 1,370]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I’ve been discussing it for five pages  

Commenting on it. The distinction is important mr. legal guru. 

[Strike 3,625]

18 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I’ve been discussing it for five pages  

I'm specifically talking about the tangent I started that you CHOSE to respond to.  You didn't have to, as my post was in reply to someone else, but you chose to.  And here is how it went:

Me (to someone else):  Let's stop talking about the legalities and acknowledge the impact to a campaign.  Here are two examples of people doing completely legal stuff but where their legal stuff was detrimental to their campaign.

Worms:  One of those people was indicted.

Me (to Worms):  That was years after the incident that destroyed their campaign.

Worms:  Tilt.

Your first response was idiotic, and your second was just retarded.  No intelligent discussion of the tangent I started at all.  I can only hope your other "discussions" over the last five pages have been at least marginally more constructive but given your posting history I doubt it.

[jerryskids 4,796]

I wonder what Gen Z or millennials think about this?  Maybe it's no big deal to them. I'd ask my daughter but that might be an awkward conversation.

Personally i would have a hard time taking her seriously, but I'm an old-ish fart

 

[MDC 5,418]

7 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I wonder what Gen Z or millennials think about this?  Maybe it's no big deal to them. I'd ask my daughter but that might be an awkward conversation.

Personally i would have a hard time taking her seriously, but I'm an old-ish fart

 

They probably wouldn’t care. But I doubt many of them vote.

I wouldn’t care about the Chaturbate thing or OF but not disclosing it before the campaign is a bad look. It was bound to get out.

Far as the online pron everyone here is a consumer so sort of hypocritical to wag the finger at the people making the product. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,196]

2 hours ago, Strike said:

Yep, as usual, doesn't want to actually discuss the topic at hand. 

Yes, Worms literally CAN be that stupid.

[TimHauck 1,568]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

They probably wouldn’t care. But I doubt many of them vote.

I wouldn’t care about the Chaturbate thing or OF but not disclosing it before the campaign is a bad look. It was bound to get out.

I think I read that she was doing it to fundraise FOR the campaign?

[TBayXXXVII 1,957]

14 hours ago, Strike said:

I haven't complained about her actions, OR Boobert's.  BOTH were legal and within their rights.  Not acknowledging the potential negative impact on their campaigns is disingenuous though.

I didn't say it wouldn't have a negative impact.  I'm simply saying this isn't an issue for me.  I think a bigger disgrace is that she registered as a Democrat.  

[thegeneral 839]

14 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I wonder what Gen Z or millennials think about this?  Maybe it's no big deal to them. I'd ask my daughter but that might be an awkward conversation.

Personally i would have a hard time taking her seriously, but I'm an old-ish fart

 

I’m not taking a person who is putting porn online to make some extra bucks seriously. This lady’s political career that never started is over

[Mike Honcho 3,687]

16 hours ago, Strike said:

Can we stop with the "it's not illegal" shtick.  Nothing ~Stick posted here was "illegal" but for some reason he chose to delete all of it when he ran for office and his account here became public knowledge.  Nothing John Edwards did was "illegal" but his NON illegal actions torpedoed his campaign.  There are just some things you probably shouldn't do if you're running for public office.  And while it may not be a problem for YOU specifically, I would hope you can see how it might be for some others when choosing whether to vote for the candidate.

Nothing ~Stick posted was illegal, the activities he described were, big difference. 

[MDC 5,418]

She lost.  

Virginia GOP mailed screenshots of Gibson focking to voter homes.

Homes that CHILDREN LIVE IN???  

Just leave the kids alone, alright? Is that so hard?

Leave em alone.  

 

[GutterBoy 2,276]

1 minute ago, MDC said:

She lost.  

Virginia GOP mailed screenshots of Gibson focking to voter homes.

Homes that CHILDREN LIVE IN???  

Just leave the kids alone, alright? Is that so hard?

Leave em alone.  

 

Republicans are pushing sex on kids.  When will it stop?

[Tree of Knowledge 597]

13 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Republicans are pushing sex on kids.  When will it stop?

She can go work at Only Fans full time.  

[IGotWorms 2,845]

31 minutes ago, MDC said:

She lost.  

Virginia GOP mailed screenshots of Gibson focking to voter homes.

Homes that CHILDREN LIVE IN???  

Just leave the kids alone, alright? Is that so hard?

Leave em alone.  

 

That’s disgusting 

[HellToupee 531]

Lost by 1,000 votes. This shows it’s the D next to a name that matters, nothing else. Just like Fetterman. 

[MDC 5,418]

2 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Lost by 1,000 votes. This shows it’s the D next to a name that matters, nothing else. Just like Fetterman. 

I don’t know anything about her quals vs the other candidate. The Chatterbate thing should t disqualify her but the decision not to get ahead of it was really, really dumb. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,196]

59 minutes ago, MDC said:

She lost.  

Virginia GOP mailed screenshots of Gibson focking to voter homes.

Homes that CHILDREN LIVE IN???  

Just leave the kids alone, alright? Is that so hard?

Leave em alone.  

 

Just to clarify, were the letters addressed directly to the kids?

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,196]

29 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

That’s disgusting 

All's fair in politics.

Unless the letters themselves were addressed directly to the kids, I'm not seeing a problem. Be no different than getting a penthouse magazine in the mail. The USPS is not going to send out pornography that's visible in the mail.

[Hardcore troubadour 11,507]

1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Just to clarify, were the letters addressed directly to the kids?

No, but it’s still stupid. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,196]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

No, but it’s still stupid. 

I don't know. I kind of feel like that's just part of the game.

Were the pictures exposed directly in the mail? Or was it like a letter that they had to open up to actually look at the screenshots?

[Hardcore troubadour 11,507]

Just now, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I don't know. I kind of feel like that's just part of the game.

Were the pictures exposed directly in the mail? Or was it like a letter that they had to open up to actually look at the screenshots?

 No need for the pictures. The point could have been made without them. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,196]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

 No need for the pictures. The point could have been made without them. 

Yeah I suppose that makes sense.

Bit disappointed that I didn't get any of those pictures. I I needed them for my research.

[HellToupee 531]

winning by only around 1,000 votes to me tells me it was prudent decision . It had to flip people 

[Alias Detective 1,085]

WHAT PICTURES?

[TimHauck 1,568]

25 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I don't know. I kind of feel like that's just part of the game.

Were the pictures exposed directly in the mail? Or was it like a letter that they had to open up to actually look at the screenshots?

It said, “explicit material, do not open if you are under 18” so I’m sure no kids opened it, right?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/10/republican-party-virginia-takes-gloves-mails-thousands-explicit/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=republican-party-virginia-takes-gloves-mails-thousands-explicit
 

 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,196]

11 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

It said, “explicit material, do not open if you are under 18” so I’m sure no kids opened it, right?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/10/republican-party-virginia-takes-gloves-mails-thousands-explicit/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=republican-party-virginia-takes-gloves-mails-thousands-explicit

Were they addressed directly to the children?  Do your kids open up YOUR mail?   Mine don't. GTFO.

Trannies and strippers flailing their junk in front of ACTUAL children you don't bat an eye.  "All Good", says Tim Hauck.

Adults sending explicit pictures only to adults: "OMG!!! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!", says Tim Hauck. GTFO.  Yeah, you get another one.