Reply With Quote
Less views than likes - Google holding down the count? Does it get to Facebook/social media if it reaches a certain number of views?
Last edited by rmt; 10-17-2016 at 03:25 PM.
Less views than likes - Google holding down the count? Does it get to Facebook/social media if it reaches a certain number of views?
Last edited by rmt; 10-17-2016 at 03:37 PM.
Amazing how deep O'Keefe was able to infiltrate. This is indefensible what the DNC is doing. Wonder how the resident Dems will spin this.
Sorry - don't know much about social media - no Facebook, twitter - couldn't even LIKE the video as I don't have an account.
Views cap off on new videos. THe number will be updated tomorrow.
No. It gets to Facebook/social media if someone posts it there.Does it get to Facebook/social media if it reaches a certain number of views?
So, inciting violence means having people show up at rallies to be s and knowing that Trump supporters and staff will overreact.
Did I miss something or is that all?
Here's the solution: Don't overreact.
You could just watch the video.
I'm trying.
Oh hey, now we found out Super PACs are bull .
is it playing dirty?
Finished.
Here's the solution: Don't overreact.
You're blaming the victim, so to speak.
That said, I don't think this is technically illegal. Just a move.
Politics is dirty. I never said I liked it. I'm surprised this is the big reveal that O'Keefe fans were so excited about though, I think he could have edited together a much more juicy controversy.
Odd case where the victim of an act of assault is the violent actor.
And I don't really understand how I'm blaming the victim, so to speak. These people should grow a pair instead of resorting to violence when they're annoyed. Isn't that, basically, the motto of the entire Trumptroll cybersphere?
One conspiracy wasn't enough I guess.
It is deceptive - feeding the narrative that it is Trump supporters who are violent - when they plant people to incite violence. Hillary complains about the violence that goes on at Trump's campaigns and the media laps it up. That 69 year old woman with oxygen tank - a plant - smh (not that I condone any violence). And they coordinate with Hillary's campaign and DNC - everyday at 1 o'clock.
I know they're not actual victims. Blaming the victim was the easiest short hand way of putting it that I could think of. My point is that your shifting the responsibility from the person inciting violence to the person reacting -- which misses the point. My take from the video is that these people are being sent out there to incite violence. It might be easy. But to say don't "overreact" or "don't be annoyed" kinda misses the point.
By the reckoning of the conservatives here, Gandhi was victimizing the British by his form of nonviolent protest.
I'm no election law expert, but the video also mentions laws that prevent campaigns from interfering with each other. Regardless of the reaction, that would still make the incitement itself problematic.
I remember when the Republican Party ran around and screamed and yelled about the virtues of personal responsibility for your actions, demanding that those who acted foolishly (no matter the extenuating cir stances) pay the price for their actions. After all, they said, you can't be provoked into doing something stupid unless you choose to be provoked; and if you choose to be provoked, they said, what followed was your own fault.
Those were the good old days.
Jesus ing christ you're a moron
What do SuperPAC mean?
Brilliant response, Crayola. Nonetheless, Gandhi's protests included several provocative acts that spurred the British to violent reprisal.
I get where you're coming from but I think it's the whole point. The campaign is doing this because they know they can, and it will amplify a negative characteristic. If they couldn't count on people getting violent at these rallies, they wouldn't bother. So it's not like the narrative is just fabricated from nothing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
