so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough? 2, 5, 10, 50...?
At least 2...
You aren't getting it though. One person tweeted and all of the conservative right was to blame for this one persons tweet.
Fake outrage.
My .02.
of course all tweets originate from one source. but I saw that tweet, and I also saw the comments on that tweet. the tweets from trumpsters were disgusting. to be fair,though, there were loads of people on there who say they don't agree with her policies that said they liked her more after seeing that video, it made her relatable, it was cute, etc.
but there was plenty of disgusting comments. enough for it to be a story? hard to tell. i didn't scroll through the entire thread of thousands of comments or retweets. hard to really guage what is worthy of "outrage" and what isn't.
for the record: "outrage" is being overused and has lost all meaning. People can think that something is out of step with professional behaviour without it always being labelled as "outrage".
That's EXACTLY why I used the word, lol. It's not an outrage at all, it's a figgin joke!
I never got to see any comments because the tweet was taken down.
so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough? 2, 5, 10, 50...?
At least 2...
You aren't getting it though. One person tweeted and all of the conservative right was to blame for this one persons tweet.
Fake outrage.
My .02.
of course all tweets originate from one source. but I saw that tweet, and I also saw the comments on that tweet. the tweets from trumpsters were disgusting. to be fair,though, there were loads of people on there who say they don't agree with her policies that said they liked her more after seeing that video, it made her relatable, it was cute, etc.
but there was plenty of disgusting comments. enough for it to be a story? hard to tell. i didn't scroll through the entire thread of thousands of comments or retweets. hard to really guage what is worthy of "outrage" and what isn't.
for the record: "outrage" is being overused and has lost all meaning. People can think that something is out of step with professional behaviour without it always being labelled as "outrage".
Yes, this is a good point. You don't just look at original tweets. The replies to tweets are generally the most meaningful thing.
So just so I'm clear when are facebook comments / tweets Republicans and when are they Russian bots? Cause it seems like some like to have it both ways. And when do even a hundred of internet trolls = the republican party? This is all nonsense. Though I do appreciate the person posting the dancing video because she was a mighty FINE dancer....before becoming all crazy-eyed. I do like her passion though.
so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough? 2, 5, 10, 50...?
At least 2...
You aren't getting it though. One person tweeted and all of the conservative right was to blame for this one persons tweet.
Fake outrage.
My .02.
of course all tweets originate from one source. but I saw that tweet, and I also saw the comments on that tweet. the tweets from trumpsters were disgusting. to be fair,though, there were loads of people on there who say they don't agree with her policies that said they liked her more after seeing that video, it made her relatable, it was cute, etc.
but there was plenty of disgusting comments. enough for it to be a story? hard to tell. i didn't scroll through the entire thread of thousands of comments or retweets. hard to really guage what is worthy of "outrage" and what isn't.
for the record: "outrage" is being overused and has lost all meaning. People can think that something is out of step with professional behaviour without it always being labelled as "outrage".
Yes, this is a good point. You don't just look at original tweets. The replies to tweets are generally the most meaningful thing.
So just so I'm clear when are facebook comments / tweets Republicans and when are they Russian bots? Cause it seems like some like to have it both ways. And when do even a hundred of internet trolls = the republican party? This is all nonsense. Though I do appreciate the person posting the dancing video because she was a mighty FINE dancer....before becoming all crazy-eyed. I do like her passion though.
Real people tend to have friends/followers, and stuff on their wall/in their profile. Russian bots do not. They are generally pretty easy to tell them apart. When I see inflammatory comments I do always have a quick look at the source to figure out if it's a bot or not. And I'd say the split is about 50/50. But remember, those bots do a LOT to influence the other 50%.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough? 2, 5, 10, 50...?
At least 2...
You aren't getting it though. One person tweeted and all of the conservative right was to blame for this one persons tweet.
Fake outrage.
My .02.
of course all tweets originate from one source. but I saw that tweet, and I also saw the comments on that tweet. the tweets from trumpsters were disgusting. to be fair,though, there were loads of people on there who say they don't agree with her policies that said they liked her more after seeing that video, it made her relatable, it was cute, etc.
but there was plenty of disgusting comments. enough for it to be a story? hard to tell. i didn't scroll through the entire thread of thousands of comments or retweets. hard to really guage what is worthy of "outrage" and what isn't.
for the record: "outrage" is being overused and has lost all meaning. People can think that something is out of step with professional behaviour without it always being labelled as "outrage".
Yes, this is a good point. You don't just look at original tweets. The replies to tweets are generally the most meaningful thing.
so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough? 2, 5, 10, 50...?
At least 2...
You aren't getting it though. One person tweeted and all of the conservative right was to blame for this one persons tweet.
Fake outrage.
My .02.
of course all tweets originate from one source. but I saw that tweet, and I also saw the comments on that tweet. the tweets from trumpsters were disgusting. to be fair,though, there were loads of people on there who say they don't agree with her policies that said they liked her more after seeing that video, it made her relatable, it was cute, etc.
but there was plenty of disgusting comments. enough for it to be a story? hard to tell. i didn't scroll through the entire thread of thousands of comments or retweets. hard to really guage what is worthy of "outrage" and what isn't.
for the record: "outrage" is being overused and has lost all meaning. People can think that something is out of step with professional behaviour without it always being labelled as "outrage".
Yes, this is a good point. You don't just look at original tweets. The replies to tweets are generally the most meaningful thing.
So just so I'm clear when are facebook comments / tweets Republicans and when are they Russian bots? Cause it seems like some like to have it both ways. And when do even a hundred of internet trolls = the republican party? This is all nonsense. Though I do appreciate the person posting the dancing video because she was a mighty FINE dancer....before becoming all crazy-eyed. I do like her passion though.
Real people tend to have friends/followers, and stuff on their wall/in their profile. Russian bots do not. They are generally pretty easy to tell them apart. When I see inflammatory comments I do always have a quick look at the source to figure out if it's a bot or not. And I'd say the split is about 50/50. But remember, those bots do a LOT to influence the other 50%.
just to be fair, I joined instragram late in the game. I only had a few followers at the time, only followed a few people, and got into this thing with some douche who I guess decided to look at my page to see what insults he could throw at me, and since my page was so imcomplete, he assumed I was a bot and dismissed me.
New people are joining twitter every day, and probably even facebook, so I don't think the criteria you've outlined is as black and white as you think it may be.
so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough? 2, 5, 10, 50...?
At least 2...
You aren't getting it though. One person tweeted and all of the conservative right was to blame for this one persons tweet.
Fake outrage.
My .02.
of course all tweets originate from one source. but I saw that tweet, and I also saw the comments on that tweet. the tweets from trumpsters were disgusting. to be fair,though, there were loads of people on there who say they don't agree with her policies that said they liked her more after seeing that video, it made her relatable, it was cute, etc.
but there was plenty of disgusting comments. enough for it to be a story? hard to tell. i didn't scroll through the entire thread of thousands of comments or retweets. hard to really guage what is worthy of "outrage" and what isn't.
for the record: "outrage" is being overused and has lost all meaning. People can think that something is out of step with professional behaviour without it always being labelled as "outrage".
Yes, this is a good point. You don't just look at original tweets. The replies to tweets are generally the most meaningful thing.
So just so I'm clear when are facebook comments / tweets Republicans and when are they Russian bots? Cause it seems like some like to have it both ways. And when do even a hundred of internet trolls = the republican party? This is all nonsense. Though I do appreciate the person posting the dancing video because she was a mighty FINE dancer....before becoming all crazy-eyed. I do like her passion though.
Real people tend to have friends/followers, and stuff on their wall/in their profile. Russian bots do not. They are generally pretty easy to tell them apart. When I see inflammatory comments I do always have a quick look at the source to figure out if it's a bot or not. And I'd say the split is about 50/50. But remember, those bots do a LOT to influence the other 50%.
just to be fair, I joined instragram late in the game. I only had a few followers at the time, only followed a few people, and got into this thing with some douche who I guess decided to look at my page to see what insults he could throw at me, and since my page was so imcomplete, he assumed I was a bot and dismissed me.
New people are joining twitter every day, and probably even facebook, so I don't think the criteria you've outlined is as black and white as you think it may be.
Normally the bots have literally no friends or followers though, and no posts besides profile pic edits. Even new people are those who don't use it much have more than what a bot has! And you can see when a profile was created. Really, it's not hard to tell the difference even taking the kinds of things you're talking about into account. Sure, there is a margin of error. But not a very big one at all. Because keep in mind that the posts that cause one to go check if they're a bot are also telling.
That guy you mention is indeed a douche. For me, I have been accused of it simply because my privacy settings are set high on Facebook. Some idiot thought I must be trying to hide something. People can be just so fucking dumb.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
so what is the number of tweets allowed before outrage is ok if 1 isn't enough? 2, 5, 10, 50...?
I think applying basic common sense would be best here. I think it was in 2002 I read a study that 12% of Americans thought Elvis was alive. So basically you can get 12% to believe anything, and about 12% of the population should be ignored. If only 12% of the population dislikes something, then that by any measure is a very popular idea or person. And from all accounts it was much, much less than that. Since I can't actually find any people who dislike this dance video, and apparently they only exited in the original tweet, this truly is "fake outrage." It is obvious to me that the many accounts reporting on this outrage are just people wanting an excuse to be upset over something. No one was bothered that she danced, but when I Google Search "Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez dancing" all I get are pages and pages of reports about how so many conservatives are upset with her dancing or that she made a second dance video to combat the outraged conservatives, without seeing a single conservative actually upset about it. It really is the left or the media wanting something to be angry about when there isn't anything to be angry over. You can literally find dozens of negative tweets or comments about anything. So if 1 person tweeting is enough to justify that the right is outraged, then there isn't anything that the right or left isn't "outraged" over.
Post edited by mace1229 on
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,727
Republicans are threatened by her. Because of that, the right is going to wage an online war on her. That is the only way they can try to discredit her. Expect to see much more of this bullshit happening to her in coming years.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
Republicans are threatened by her. Because of that, the right is going to wage an online war on her. That is the only way they can try to discredit her. Expect to see much more of this bullshit happening to her in coming years.
An online war that will involve sexual harassment, as is typical for any woman in the spotlight, particularly in any position of power.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Republicans are threatened by her. Because of that, the right is going to wage an online war on her. That is the only way they can try to discredit her. Expect to see much more of this bullshit happening to her in coming years.
You know they really should just let her speak. She seems to be doing enough damage to herself currently.
And republicans should not like many of her policies for sure. They should just focus on that, there is enough there. Don't need to stoop down and vilify stupid stuff.
Republicans are threatened by her. Because of that, the right is going to wage an online war on her. That is the only way they can try to discredit her. Expect to see much more of this bullshit happening to her in coming years.
You know they really should just let her speak. She seems to be doing enough damage to herself currently.
And republicans should not like many of her policies for sure. They should just focus on that, there is enough there. Don't need to stoop down and vilify stupid stuff.
bold strategy
The only thing more likable than Sandy is her policies. I wholeheartedly encourage the republicans to focus on the issues.
let's see how that works out for them
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Are the fake pictures really because she's a democrat? I mean, don't most famous women, unfortunately, go through this? Didn't Sarah Palin? Even Marcia Clark had to deal with this during the OJ trial. I just don't see this as a R vs D thing, but how many just exploit all sorts of women to begin with. If she was republican I'm sure she'd be dealing with the same thing.
Are the fake pictures really because she's a democrat? I mean, don't most famous women, unfortunately, go through this? Didn't Sarah Palin? Even Marcia Clark had to deal with this during the OJ trial. I just don't see this as a R vs D thing, but how many just exploit all sorts of women to begin with. If she was republican I'm sure she'd be dealing with the same thing.
It was posted on a right wing site so that is where the R vs D came from.
She is a good looking woman and this will happen a lot. She just needs to ignore it because it's not going to stop until they ban photoshop.
Are the fake pictures really because she's a democrat? I mean, don't most famous women, unfortunately, go through this? Didn't Sarah Palin? Even Marcia Clark had to deal with this during the OJ trial. I just don't see this as a R vs D thing, but how many just exploit all sorts of women to begin with. If she was republican I'm sure she'd be dealing with the same thing.
It was posted on a right wing site so that is where the R vs D came from.
She is a good looking woman and this will happen a lot. She just needs to ignore it because it's not going to stop until they ban photoshop.
I never heard of the Daily Caller that published the pictures. But just going to their website it has a total tabloid vibe going on, with a hint of porn with all the adds and pop-ups jumping out. I can't imagine any significant portion of the right views this as any real news source.
Are the fake pictures really because she's a democrat? I mean, don't most famous women, unfortunately, go through this? Didn't Sarah Palin? Even Marcia Clark had to deal with this during the OJ trial. I just don't see this as a R vs D thing, but how many just exploit all sorts of women to begin with. If she was republican I'm sure she'd be dealing with the same thing.
It was posted on a right wing site so that is where the R vs D came from.
She is a good looking woman and this will happen a lot. She just needs to ignore it because it's not going to stop until they ban photoshop.
I never heard of the Daily Caller that published the pictures. But just going to their website it has a total tabloid vibe going on, with a hint of porn with all the adds and pop-ups jumping out. I can't imagine any significant portion of the right views this as any real news source.
Are the fake pictures really because she's a democrat? I mean, don't most famous women, unfortunately, go through this? Didn't Sarah Palin? Even Marcia Clark had to deal with this during the OJ trial. I just don't see this as a R vs D thing, but how many just exploit all sorts of women to begin with. If she was republican I'm sure she'd be dealing with the same thing.
It was posted on a right wing site so that is where the R vs D came from.
She is a good looking woman and this will happen a lot. She just needs to ignore it because it's not going to stop until they ban photoshop.
I never heard of the Daily Caller that published the pictures. But just going to their website it has a total tabloid vibe going on, with a hint of porn with all the adds and pop-ups jumping out. I can't imagine any significant portion of the right views this as any real news source.
Ha! You are out of touch with the right then, brother!
Are the fake pictures really because she's a democrat? I mean, don't most famous women, unfortunately, go through this? Didn't Sarah Palin? Even Marcia Clark had to deal with this during the OJ trial. I just don't see this as a R vs D thing, but how many just exploit all sorts of women to begin with. If she was republican I'm sure she'd be dealing with the same thing.
It was posted on a right wing site so that is where the R vs D came from.
She is a good looking woman and this will happen a lot. She just needs to ignore it because it's not going to stop until they ban photoshop.
I never heard of the Daily Caller that published the pictures. But just going to their website it has a total tabloid vibe going on, with a hint of porn with all the adds and pop-ups jumping out. I can't imagine any significant portion of the right views this as any real news source.
Umm, the Daily Caller is big.
Edit - I should clarify that it’s crap, too.
Post edited by oftenreading on
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Are the fake pictures really because she's a democrat? I mean, don't most famous women, unfortunately, go through this? Didn't Sarah Palin? Even Marcia Clark had to deal with this during the OJ trial. I just don't see this as a R vs D thing, but how many just exploit all sorts of women to begin with. If she was republican I'm sure she'd be dealing with the same thing.
It was posted on a right wing site so that is where the R vs D came from.
She is a good looking woman and this will happen a lot. She just needs to ignore it because it's not going to stop until they ban photoshop.
I never heard of the Daily Caller that published the pictures. But just going to their website it has a total tabloid vibe going on, with a hint of porn with all the adds and pop-ups jumping out. I can't imagine any significant portion of the right views this as any real news source.
Certain posters on here link to it when they post. Regularly.
Are the fake pictures really because she's a democrat? I mean, don't most famous women, unfortunately, go through this? Didn't Sarah Palin? Even Marcia Clark had to deal with this during the OJ trial. I just don't see this as a R vs D thing, but how many just exploit all sorts of women to begin with. If she was republican I'm sure she'd be dealing with the same thing.
It was posted on a right wing site so that is where the R vs D came from.
She is a good looking woman and this will happen a lot. She just needs to ignore it because it's not going to stop until they ban photoshop.
I never heard of the Daily Caller that published the pictures. But just going to their website it has a total tabloid vibe going on, with a hint of porn with all the adds and pop-ups jumping out. I can't imagine any significant portion of the right views this as any real news source.
Certain posters on here link to it when they post. Regularly.
So I looked into the story and The Daily Caller. One, I don't think I would say its big enough to state that is where many conservatives get their news from. According to wikipedia, it has 35 million views a month. I really don't know if that's a lot of an online "newspaper," but that's only a million a day. And I assume a large portion of that are the left trolling for bad stories to complain about, and many more read it realizing it is more opinion than journalism. Howard Stern's biggest audience were those who wanted him off the air. So I'm just not convinced this is really a big news source for the right. Most of my circles (family and many friends) are right and I never hear this brought up as news fact.
Second, it doesn't look like they were part of that nude photo story. I couldn't find an original story that posted those pictures as The Guardian claimed. All I saw was an article that said fake photos were being distributed. https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/07/fake-nude-ocasio-cortez/
So if that is the only story, what is offensive about that? Did I miss the original one where they actually posted the pictures? If not, then what really is there to be angry about with this particular story in relation to The Daily Caller and conservatives?
So I looked into the story and The Daily Caller. One, I don't think I would say its big enough to state that is where many conservatives get their news from. According to wikipedia, it has 35 million views a month. I really don't know if that's a lot of an online "newspaper," but that's only a million a day. And I assume a large portion of that are the left trolling for bad stories to complain about, and many more read it realizing it is more opinion than journalism. Howard Stern's biggest audience were those who wanted him off the air. So I'm just not convinced this is really a big news source for the right. Most of my circles (family and many friends) are right and I never hear this brought up as news fact.
Second, it doesn't look like they were part of that nude photo story. I couldn't find an original story that posted those pictures as The Guardian claimed. All I saw was an article that said fake photos were being distributed. https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/07/fake-nude-ocasio-cortez/
So if that is the only story, what is offensive about that? Did I miss the original one where they actually posted the pictures? If not, then what really is there to be angry about with this particular story in relation to The Daily Caller and conservatives?
Daily Caller is consistently on lists of most popular websites visited by conservatives.
I disagree. I know this has been a often-repeated talking point in this thread: that these old, white men are scared of a feisty, Latino woman but I don't think that's the case. I think she just fits the description of someone that the Republicans find to be an easy target. And no, it's not "strong, minority woman." It's "inexperienced millennial socialist." I actually think the Republicans likes that she's possibly the "future" of the Democratic Party. It's easier to go against her than it is to go against slick, career politicians like the Clintons or Obama.
I disagree. I know this has been a often-repeated talking point in this thread: that these old, white men are scared of a feisty, Latino woman but I don't think that's the case. I think she just fits the description of someone that the Republicans find to be an easy target. And no, it's not "strong, minority woman." It's "inexperienced millennial socialist." I actually think the Republicans likes that she's possibly the "future" of the Democratic Party. It's easier to go against her than it is to go against slick, career politicians like the Clintons or Obama.
why not both? either way it's a sad state of affairs she's been so vilified
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I disagree. I know this has been a often-repeated talking point in this thread: that these old, white men are scared of a feisty, Latino woman but I don't think that's the case. I think she just fits the description of someone that the Republicans find to be an easy target. And no, it's not "strong, minority woman." It's "inexperienced millennial socialist." I actually think the Republicans likes that she's possibly the "future" of the Democratic Party. It's easier to go against her than it is to go against slick, career politicians like the Clintons or Obama.
I disagree that her gender has nothing to do with it. As evidence point #1, the repub that calls her "little girl". You know that there are many more examples.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I disagree. I know this has been a often-repeated talking point in this thread: that these old, white men are scared of a feisty, Latino woman but I don't think that's the case. I think she just fits the description of someone that the Republicans find to be an easy target. And no, it's not "strong, minority woman." It's "inexperienced millennial socialist." I actually think the Republicans likes that she's possibly the "future" of the Democratic Party. It's easier to go against her than it is to go against slick, career politicians like the Clintons or Obama.
why not both? either way it's a sad state of affairs she's been so vilified
Stuff like her being criticized for that dance video from college is ridiculous. Totally agree there. But otherwise, hey, both sides vilify each other. She seems thick-skinned and able to take it though. I guess you have to be if you're in politics.
So I looked into the story and The Daily Caller. One, I don't think I would say its big enough to state that is where many conservatives get their news from. According to wikipedia, it has 35 million views a month. I really don't know if that's a lot of an online "newspaper," but that's only a million a day. And I assume a large portion of that are the left trolling for bad stories to complain about, and many more read it realizing it is more opinion than journalism. Howard Stern's biggest audience were those who wanted him off the air. So I'm just not convinced this is really a big news source for the right. Most of my circles (family and many friends) are right and I never hear this brought up as news fact.
Second, it doesn't look like they were part of that nude photo story. I couldn't find an original story that posted those pictures as The Guardian claimed. All I saw was an article that said fake photos were being distributed. https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/07/fake-nude-ocasio-cortez/
So if that is the only story, what is offensive about that? Did I miss the original one where they actually posted the pictures? If not, then what really is there to be angry about with this particular story in relation to The Daily Caller and conservatives?
Daily Caller is consistently on lists of most popular websites visited by conservatives.
There is a huge difference between "most popular website visited by conservatives" and "most popular conservative website." The link you provided states was the latter. My point is I really just don't believe most conservatives rely on these websites for their only source of daily news. Using this data, that calculates to about 140,000 daily users on Fox's website. That really isn't that many. And how many of those are there because they hate fox and want to find something to complain about? I would bet probably half, and considering more often than not when someone is linking a Fox News article it is to put it down, that may be a conservative guess. I bet many people here visit Fox daily for various reasons, they sure link to it a lot. And out of the ones who are conservative and look there for some news, what indication does anyone have that FOX is their only source? It is probably one of many that also include liberal sites, just like everyone else. with 320 million people in our country, and only 140,000 visiting FOX that includes all groups I mentioned above, I don't see how anyone can say conservatives are gullible and only rely on FOX.
It is just a pet peeve of mine when I see blanket comments that say conservatives are so out of reality and imply that if you're a conservative you're only news source is some right wing media. That is so completely untrue. Why so many on the left think that the majority of conservatives only listen to Fox and nothing else I just don't get. That is about as accurate as me saying the left only gets their news from SNL's weekend update. I just hate blanket implications like that, and they, for the most part, aren't true.
Comments
I never got to see any comments because the tweet was taken down.
Unfortunately I never saw any of them...
New people are joining twitter every day, and probably even facebook, so I don't think the criteria you've outlined is as black and white as you think it may be.
www.headstonesband.com
I think it was in 2002 I read a study that 12% of Americans thought Elvis was alive. So basically you can get 12% to believe anything, and about 12% of the population should be ignored. If only 12% of the population dislikes something, then that by any measure is a very popular idea or person. And from all accounts it was much, much less than that. Since I can't actually find any people who dislike this dance video, and apparently they only exited in the original tweet, this truly is "fake outrage."
It is obvious to me that the many accounts reporting on this outrage are just people wanting an excuse to be upset over something. No one was bothered that she danced, but when I Google Search "Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez dancing" all I get are pages and pages of reports about how so many conservatives are upset with her dancing or that she made a second dance video to combat the outraged conservatives, without seeing a single conservative actually upset about it. It really is the left or the media wanting something to be angry about when there isn't anything to be angry over.
You can literally find dozens of negative tweets or comments about anything. So if 1 person tweeting is enough to justify that the right is outraged, then there isn't anything that the right or left isn't "outraged" over.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'm trying to focus more on her politics and ideas now.
That is what should be posted because a bunch of these things are gong to be around for a while...
And republicans should not like many of her policies for sure. They should just focus on that, there is enough there. Don't need to stoop down and vilify stupid stuff.
The only thing more likable than Sandy is her policies. I wholeheartedly encourage the republicans to focus on the issues.
let's see how that works out for them
If she was republican I'm sure she'd be dealing with the same thing.
She is a good looking woman and this will happen a lot. She just needs to ignore it because it's not going to stop until they ban photoshop.
I can't imagine any significant portion of the right views this as any real news source.
Edit - I should clarify that it’s crap, too.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
One, I don't think I would say its big enough to state that is where many conservatives get their news from. According to wikipedia, it has 35 million views a month. I really don't know if that's a lot of an online "newspaper," but that's only a million a day. And I assume a large portion of that are the left trolling for bad stories to complain about, and many more read it realizing it is more opinion than journalism. Howard Stern's biggest audience were those who wanted him off the air. So I'm just not convinced this is really a big news source for the right. Most of my circles (family and many friends) are right and I never hear this brought up as news fact.
Second, it doesn't look like they were part of that nude photo story. I couldn't find an original story that posted those pictures as The Guardian claimed. All I saw was an article that said fake photos were being distributed. https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/07/fake-nude-ocasio-cortez/
So if that is the only story, what is offensive about that? Did I miss the original one where they actually posted the pictures? If not, then what really is there to be angry about with this particular story in relation to The Daily Caller and conservatives?
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/insights.aelieve.com/website-rankings/news-media/top-conservative-websites/amp/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's response to the Trump wall speech revealed why she threatens both Democrats and Republicans
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-s-response-trump-wall-speech-revealed-why-ncna957096
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
I disagree that her gender has nothing to do with it. As evidence point #1, the repub that calls her "little girl". You know that there are many more examples.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
My point is I really just don't believe most conservatives rely on these websites for their only source of daily news. Using this data, that calculates to about 140,000 daily users on Fox's website. That really isn't that many. And how many of those are there because they hate fox and want to find something to complain about? I would bet probably half, and considering more often than not when someone is linking a Fox News article it is to put it down, that may be a conservative guess. I bet many people here visit Fox daily for various reasons, they sure link to it a lot. And out of the ones who are conservative and look there for some news, what indication does anyone have that FOX is their only source? It is probably one of many that also include liberal sites, just like everyone else. with 320 million people in our country, and only 140,000 visiting FOX that includes all groups I mentioned above, I don't see how anyone can say conservatives are gullible and only rely on FOX.
It is just a pet peeve of mine when I see blanket comments that say conservatives are so out of reality and imply that if you're a conservative you're only news source is some right wing media. That is so completely untrue. Why so many on the left think that the majority of conservatives only listen to Fox and nothing else I just don't get. That is about as accurate as me saying the left only gets their news from SNL's weekend update. I just hate blanket implications like that, and they, for the most part, aren't true.