Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.world

41 replies

At this point I am led to believe that it is a condition to become a member

46

I think it was Michigan during your elections, the Repub candidate was asked “well what if someone tried to rape your daughter” and he said she should lie down and try to enjoy it. Truly reprehensible for such a family values party.

8

The toll of republican politicians and religious figures vs dragqueens abusing children is skyrocketing

10

Sorry, nope! Not in the good ol' US of A! None o' them weirdo English spellings, it's

Geriatric Oligarchic Pedophiles!

(Meanwhile we're all still waiting for the rest of the geriatric oligarchic pedoFiles)

4

Guys, guys, guys. He's already popular enough, you really need to stop campaigning for him. Give some other pedophiles and grifting criminals a chance, please!

14

Trump probably requires all of his senators to send him pictures of their underage daughters

43

"Yesterday, you enabled your client, Congressman Max Miller, to share and disseminate to the public an electronic Dropbox folder of materials," Chandra wrote, as reported by New York Times congressional correspondent Annie Karni. "This was in conjunction with a video rant about our client, Emily Moreno, that Miller posted on X."

The first version of the folder contained private images of Miller and Moreno's daughter, with the child's name left unredacted, the letter says.

To counter his ex-wife's statements, this Republican made sensitive pictures of him and his young daughter accessible to the Internet. He also ranted about everything on Twitter.

"At least one of those images could be considered Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) because the daughter's genitals appear to be visible," the filing says.

There appear to have been many views on the post:

The post garnered over 204,000 views before images were removed from a second version of the folder, the letter says.

And then the attorney continues...

The filing asks whether the images were removed because someone "realized that it was ill-advised (and, in the case of the potential CSAM image, illegal) to share these images with the world."

"How many people accessed and downloaded the intimate image, and each of the other images of the child, including one in which her chest is exposed?" the letter demands.

I can't imagine how the abuser will respond - or how he ever thought that any of this was sound in the first place.

Not that his father-in-law, another Ohio Republican, isn't a total piece of shit himself. But you already likely heard.

22

And I'm guessing that at least 40% of the electorate in his district will still vote for him.

Hell, there's a good chance that more than 50% will.

1

Between republicans and youth pastors no wonder drag queens felt the need to read to children.

27

Look at that DRAG QUEEN distributing CHILD PORN!

-Republicans who WILL vote for Max Miller and his Father in Law AGAIN!

14

Member of party whose ideology is centred around the inherent rightness of power and domination discovered to be true to this ideology in a socially unacceptable way.

8

This is just two typical conservatives going nuclear despite collateral damage. The photo as described is probably bath time or another normal toddler photo.

Of course his ex wife is accusing him of everything under the sun, some of those things he probably did do. And of course he's publishing family photos. Obviously his daughter doesn't get a choice of how public her life is, children are property after all /s

-12
lemmy.world

I have never, ever taken a photo of my toddlers bathing. Never received one from anyone else, either. Never saw anyone I know take such photos either.

What, exactly is a "normal toddler photo" to you?

5
femtekreply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

I made sure my kids photos never had genitals in them but I did take a couple bath photos when they were able to sit up on their own. I had a bad childhood so I was always cognizant of harm from pictures so maybe others that never had to think of that just didn't think?

5

There are many photos of toddler-me in the family photo album, but this was also back in the film camera days. They're adorable, but modern versions would earn some side-eye from me. (one has me full-frontal on a beach, waving at the camera. TBH it was hard to keep clothes on me as a toddler.)

2
lemmy.zip

Tell me you've never had kids, blah blah. Toddlers run around naked all the time, and NORMAL parents don't think of it in a sexual context, they see their kid being cute and grab the camera.

0

This is true but having had to go through the many file boxes of a local pedophile to see if he had any of children in our building I can tell you that those pictures make it into many grubby hands, where they take on a whole different connotation. And this was even back in the day when you sent film to be developed. Now you have to expect that they will make it out to the world through the Internet.

3
lemmy.world

You're describing "NORMAL" behavior from a generation ago. You are right that people up thru the 90s would act that way, but Michael Jackson news and Catholic Church scandals made this a lot less socially acceptable over the last 3 decades or so.

1
Clentreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

What does socially acceptable mean? This is occurring in the privacy of one's home, not the grocery store.

Even in the 90s it was not socially acceptable for a toddler to be naked in public.

1

No, but taking pictures of your own kids when they were naked at home for your private family album was more socially acceptable then

2

Yeah I think it's weird too, inconsiderate of the person, I wouldn't take or post photos like that either.

Still, the pictures probably depict normal day to day care of the kid, if there were specific acts portrayed those would be described in the article. They aren't. The whole article uncritically quotes both sides, who are both doing their best to be in the top position of power.

It's a shit article that doesn't even acknowledge the real problem, the parents weaponizing everything at hand at the expense of their child.

-2

You reached the end