A Democrat's Pornographic Campaign Finance

Cuckold? Where was that? This seems more exhibitionistic than cuckold. Cuckold would be if her husband watched her do sexual things with another man. I still don't see the relevance at all whether she made porn. Not a net positive or negative for being a good policymaker. Not nearly as bad as taking campaign contributions from special interests like all of them.

Liberal? There were words? Lol.. j/k... I just remember it was ridiculously soft porn far inferior to anything you can get for free on the internet. Maxim was even worse, but I guess maybe teens could buy that one.

 

Where? Along with this is a rumor that the lady of the house is "ethically non monogamous" IE her husband let's her **** other men IE a cuckold
The rumor started alongside the rumor of videos, then the videos came out. I have assumed it.
If it was exhibitionistic I'd expect her to be more enthused. She's pretty clearly faking for the camera. Makes my pp lost interest.
Positive or negative:

The fact I know she's a whore is nice I guess, but I prefer no whores in office whether they strictly suck dick for money figuratively, literally, or both. The idea is to get all the whores, as stated of any stripe, out of office, not have them proudly wearing their affiliations to special interests. Fewer whores, not more.

Yeah man, free love, let Hef pimp you out. Very liberal. Progressive even.
Yes, there were words, mainly pornographic stories which could be quite exciting.

Maxim was not porn, it was a swimsuit style catalog without nudity therefore purchasable by minors. Show bush and/or tits and its porn. Show underboob and a wet bikini? Good clean family fun.

 

Public office is not employment dude. Not the same rules.

Further: Public person publicly published personal porno pushed porno site personally provided pruriently to the public , fair use, political commentary.
So no, not how it works.

Did you read the statute? This isn't a sloppy law, its something that buts against the 1st amendment and so must follow strict scrutiny. That means some uses are ok if they don't tag the mens rea and publishing porn you sent out to the public on a NO LOGIN PORN SITE THAT ITS COMMON KNOWLEDGE PEOPLE ARE AND DO CAPTURE AND REPOST STREAMS OF as a person running for office, and someone saying "hey this is the person running for public office" doesn't tag those mens rea.
She's not being blackmailed or coerced. They didn't send it to her and say " drop out or else" and when she refused drop it. THAT would be the statute.
There was no threat. Facts about a public figure are not harassment.
If she'd sent this privately, and that person published she MIGHT have a gripe. But she STREAMED IT to 5k+ random people on the internet on a site that allows capture.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

I mean if you allow your child unfettered access to the internet, you're a **** parent.

 

Not something I look up to particularly, but better than the ways some other politicians have made their money.

 

like I said, I am not a lawyer, and have not read the law, but often laws can be used in ways not intended

the DMCA is often used to silence people trying to talk about dns addresses hidden in spyware for instance

 

so you think first ladies should be banned from search requests now that one has released porn on the net

said, but your right, Trump search requests are not child safe

 

Yes, you're very obviously not a lawyer.

However: You don't have to be a lawyer to read a statute. So I ask again: DID. YOU. READ. THE. STATUTE.?
Its a simple yes or no. Spoiler alert: If you haven't read the 2 paragraph statute you think might trigger, please do so before posting about the statute again.
You don't KNOW what the statute says or what triggers it if you haven't read it yourself.

 

Google has this thing called "safe search" where it won't put out tits or ***** or dick even if you search for it.
Hell AOL had a feature where if the controls triggered your parent got a ****ing email about it with the address.
Have you never used a filtered internet feature before?

Many many search requests are not safe. FFS I looked up the term "gooning" in reference to a cult sleepaway dragooning for teens camp article I read, and apparently that term is also INCREDIBLY pornographic.
Like.... don't look it up dude, I needed eyebleach after.

 

are you able to read, I have said about 3 times at least in this thread I have not read the law she referenced, even said that in the post you replied too

if you found something, just quote it here, or give a link

 

even with safe search, it returned this on results

https://www.al.com/news/2016/08/new_york_post_publishes_nude_p.html

which inside linked to

https://nypost.com/2016/07/30/melania-trump-like-youve-never-seen-her-before/

that said, most teens know how to disable that easily

 

Yeah that's google safe search, not actual parental controls you've placed on your computer and slaved to someone else's.

https://www.pcmag.com/picks/the-best-parental-control-software

 

yep, even then they can use a friend's phone, etc.... kids see this stuff

when my kids were little we used opendns... but back then kids used pc's, did not have tablet and smartphones

 

If the friend's phone is unfettered, and you let your kid hang out with them, you're a **** parent.

Do you not understand that apps are just programs? Do you not understand that these programs obviously exist on phones and tablets too because MONEY IS THE MOTIVATION?

You didn't read the statute, and you didn't even GLANCE at the link just now or you'd know that.

 

lol, I guess you home school or never had teen aged kids

 

My dude I was a teenaged kid once. I would've felt weird asking a friend for their phone so I could beat off in the school bathroom. ****'s weird man.
The AOL reference? Shows my age. The fact **** got referred if you got bounced? Happened to me.

I TRIED to find porno through the filter, I could not. Best I could do was **** like maxim or sports illustrated, or various popstars and models photo shoots.
I got around it by using internet explorer eventually which my boomer parents didn't realize was freely accessible because THEY WERE PAYING FOR AOL AS IF YOU HAD TO USE IT TO HAVE THE NET.
That wouldn't work now, it only worked when the net was new.
Now? You buy a program that has things like keystroke loggers, URL history that can't be deleted, a black list or a white list (white list means only what's on the list, black list means anything not on the list), and can lock down a device at the admin level so they can't load other programs.

If the kid can get around that **** on their own? Excellent, I'm calling the FBI and they're getting a ****ing job.

 

Okay sure. But if both of them are okay with that, then there's nothing wrong with it. That's their relationship and it doesn't have to work for me or you for it to work for them. Especially if it's really "ethical" non-monogamy, i.e. not leading people on just to get sex.

I don't see anything corrupt about it. Corrupt would be betraying somebody you have an obligation to, such as your voters, for money. Her husband is not being betrayed - he's in on it and okay with it.

It's just an emotionally charged meaningless word the way you're using it. Everybody with a job does things for money. Does sexual work make it being a whore? No, you're calling affiliation to special interests being a whore. Whether she made a porn for money really has no bearing on whether she is particularly corruptible by money from special interests.

They were the same to me, at least past the age of 13 or so. I mean, muslims consider it pornographic to show a woman's thigh or face, so it's all relative. All I know is, still "tasteful" pictures aren't enough to be exciting, at least once actual videos were available on the internet.

 

wow, you took it dark quick, we were talking about kids seeing this on the internet, you were thinking that, guess we were not on the same wavelength

 

Yeah but usually kids by the time they are teens are more tech savvy than their parents. New stuff comes out all the time. I will say that iphone stuff is easier to control since it's so damned rigid. Put some kid on life360 on an iphone and they're screwed in terms of always knowing where their phone is (well maybe, there are ways, but not easy). On an android, they can use developer tools, spoof their location with an app, and hide the app, for example.

 

You can actually create an admin style login and lock those devices down.
They can't change settings, they can't use dev tools. Etc. Requires your password, you can tie it to 2 factor auth ffs.
If they can get past that, they are Zerocool and I'm getting them a job with the feebs as a pre-teen before they get ****ing arrested.

 

We are talking about kids getting around obscenity filters, that's a pretty dark subject. You posed I had no experience with children or was homeschooled, I corrected you and stated outright that I had been such a nere-do-well so I know of which I speak.

Parental control programs are far more robust and easy to load and use these days.

 

Probably would be easier for them to get a 2nd device without your knowledge in that case. No hacking required, just lying, maybe stealing.

 

Wrong with it? Arguable. You took umbridge with me calling him a cuckold as if it didn't apply. Letting your wife **** other men would be the definition and as stated that is the rumor I am willing to believe is true based on reasons already explained.
It doesn't have to work for me if they keep it private. If they make it public, its everyone's business and I will freely form an opinion.

Pay me money to join my marital bed. Sounds corrupt to me, whether or not her husband is as big a degen as she is or not.
Opinions are allowed to vary, so you don't have to agree. Likewise, were I in her constituency I would not be obligated to give her a vote.

No, its a proper noun applied per its definition. A person who performs sex acts for money is a whore, or a prostitute, or a slattern, or any of numerous terms from numerous time periods and cultures which describe the world's oldest profession. I prefer my politicos to not be willing to take bukkake for money, figuratively or literally. If they're willing to do one, I assume they're willing to do the other its just a matter of price.
No thanks. You're free to vote in a whore of course, of either stripe or both. No one is saying strike her from the ballot because she took dick for money, they're saying I'm not going to vote for her because she took dick for money.

Pardon, but whether or not she'll take dick for money does have some bearing on whether or not she'd be willing to do degrading or immoral things for money. Hell, selling legislation wouldn't make you feel as bad as taking dick for cash. You can even feel good about it, and they let you insider trade. Secure that bag queen! But I'm not going to vote for you if given the opportunity (I assume we'll see her in the fed sphere eventually. President lady camacho? She just needs to do some professional wrestling in addition to porn).

I even think prostitution should be legal. But I wouldn't vote for one, and I wouldn't want my wife to be a whore.

Yeah but we're talking american law, not muslim cultural norms.

 

Check your router for number of devices. Count officials. QED.