• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing Dem Debacle Thread: Commander will kill us all

“Just put a Scarlet A on her and send her back to California. Not that hard, guys.” - Junebug, probably
 
Junebug said:
This isn’t typical “revenge porn.” This is evidence of a potential ethics violation by a congressperson who, had the accusation been made without evidence, would have assuredly denied it. The photo of Hill naked with the bong is gratuitous, but the one of her naked brushing the female staffer’s hair is evidentiary, and publishing it is protected speech.

Something tells me that if there had been a Trump pee tape that was released without his consent, y’all wouldn’t have been wailing and moaning about revenge porn, nor should you. Public officials with skeletons, active or past, are a national security risk, and speech revealing those skeletons is important and, often, a public service, precisely because it would not be released consensually.

If you don’t want your affairs to be a matter of public concern, don’t run for office.
Click to expand...

Holy shit you’re a shitty person.
 
birdman said:
Maybe Junebug is right, this wasn’t typical revenge porn, maybe more like sabotage porn.
Click to expand...

But she's a national security risk with all those nude pics of her floating around! Meanwhile, her CA GOP House colleague, Duncan Hunter, apparently used campaign funds to pay for extramarital affairs with lobbyists and congressional staffers. He's still in office. It's almost as if there's a double standard or something.
 
Pee tape is part of Russia's leverage over Trump to mke him do stuff. FTR, I don't care if theres a video of him drinking pee last night. If he were a good president I'd be cool with it.
 
Junebug said:
I mean, she resigned. There was no standard that was applied. She just resigned.

Duncan Hunter should resign too. The fact that he hasn’t is a failure of pub leadership.

I know this will blow your dems good pubs bad mindset, but it is possible to be critical of your own party.
Click to expand...

I have been critical of her, and said that it was poor judgment, and that if she had affairs with staffers after she took office then she should have resigned. I do think claiming that she is a security risk is rich, given all of the GOPers who have done similar things and not been punished, and I do think there is a definite double standard at work here, given how many GOP pols have done the same or far worse and are still serving in office. I also find it troubling that her soon to-be ex-husband has wrecked her career by selling or giving private pictures to right-wing blog and websites, which have gleefully used it against her, and that it sets a dangerous and sexist precedent for future young female pols to be driven from office by similar blackmail. And I continue to find the determination of some posters to compare what she did (and has been accused of doing after she took office) to Kavanaugh or Trump to be absurd, absence of any evidence to the contrary.
 
Junebug said:
I mean, she resigned. There was no standard that was applied. She just resigned.

Duncan Hunter should resign too. The fact that he hasn’t is a failure of pub leadership.

I know this will blow your dems good pubs bad mindset, but it is possible to be critical of your own party.
Click to expand...

Yes it is possible. And I know it will blow your white bread, cookie cutter mindset, but many posters on the Tunnels are frequently critical of fellow Democrats. Furthermore, the entire Katie Hill story isn’t really anything to be that critical about. This doesn’t matter, should not have been a story, and now that it is, pretty much the entire media landscape is focused on all the wrong things.
 
Junebug said:
Anything that can be used to blackmail a congressperson or president is a national security risk. This is part of the reason why we should insist that our elected officials are of the highest moral fiber. Stop playing politics.
Click to expand...

No matter how you spin this, releasing the nude photos to a conservative blog and news paper was a vengeful move by the husband. If he or anybody was so concerned about blackmail or national security they should have sent the photos to the appropriate authorities, like the congressional ethics committee and they could have dealt with the material and the ethics violations formally and officially. The only intent of Publishing the material in a conservative publication for public consumption was to embarrass the lady and ruin her career. There is no retrospective high horse to get on here with the way this was handled.
 
Junebug said:
I’m not claiming one.

In any event, is it known how the photographs were released to conservative media? The husband is obviously the most likely culprit, but is that known?
Click to expand...

I read it was him that provided them to the media, I don't remember where I read that though.
 
So what? If that's what they like to do in a consensual manner, why is it anyone's business?

The fact they are doing it in the open also means it's not something that could impact security. If someone saw it and tried to blackmail them, they could say, "Go ahead. We're not ashamed."
 
Junebug said:
The Washington Examiner has an article claiming that Hill and her husband posted some nude pictures of her to a wife-swapping website before she was elected.
Click to expand...

How did they know it was Hill and her husband, not just the husband?

Can we pause for a bit too appreciate that Katie Hill is cool AF?
 
Junebug said:
The Washington Examiner has an article claiming that Hill and her husband posted some nude pictures of her to a wife-swapping website before she was elected.
Click to expand...

So, her (soon to be ex-) husband is a remorseful cuck?
 
Someone should start a website about the ex. The homepage should be; "Are you next?", "What will he do to you when he's angry?"
 
"Revenge porn is free speech and should be legal" is a great libertarian talking point. It translates as most libertarian talking points do, which is "everybody should be free to do anything, because the people who currently have power/money/privilege will use that freedom to crush the weak and the people who don't have the power/money/privilege will have no access to justice".
 
Junebug said:
GTFO with that nonsense. I’m arguing that it is free speech when used to bring down powerful people.
Click to expand...

Here's the DC definition of revenge porn:
Knowingly disclosing one or more sexual images of another identifiable person when:
The person depicted did not consent to the disclosure of the sexual image;
There was an agreement or understanding between the person depicted and the person disclosing that the sexual image would not be disclosed; and
The person disclosed the sexual image with the intent to harm the person depicted or to receive financial gain.

So what you are arguing is that a sexual partner of a "powerful person" is free to disclose intimate photographs from the relationship to "bring down" that powerful person?

Note that the definition of "revenge porn" would not include, say, a Russian kompromat video of a prominent American politician engaging in unsavory activities, taken without that politician's knowledge and therefore without the agreement of that person that it would be secret. Taking such a video would be illegal for various reasons under US law, but if the Russians sent it to a US media outlet which published it (ewww) nobody would be guilty of violating the revenge porn statute.
 
Deacon923 said:
"Revenge porn is free speech and should be legal" is a great libertarian talking point. It translates as most libertarian talking points do, which is "everybody should be free to do anything, because the people who currently have power/money/privilege will use that freedom to crush the weak and the people who don't have the power/money/privilege will have no access to justice".
Click to expand...

If you post pics of yourself on a swinger site, It’s not revenge porn it’s exposed sorry. How dumb do you have to be?

Let’s just say hypothetically Lynsey Graham was Dick out on a gay dating website, and that picture was brought to the media’s attention, do y’all seriously think the media would be all over that shit? Comon.

Having said that if Katie wants to get weird then that’s her personal business, besides being an idiot, and possibly having a nazi tattoo? She did absolutely nothing serious enough to resign. I mean comon who hasn’t been in a threesome and smoked a bong. Quit being prudes.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
If you post pics of yourself on a swinger site, It’s not revenge porn it’s exposed sorry. How dumb do you have to be?
Click to expand...

That's not what 923 is saying. He's saying that if someone received these pictures without Katie's consent (so situations where it was not actually posted to a swinger site) then it's illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top