So is everyone enjoying Hillary's new app?
So is everyone enjoying Hillary's new app?
Ryder Robinson
Other urls found in this thread:
correctrecord.org
webcache.googleusercontent.com
twitter.com
Hunter Morgan
It's obvious that trumpfaggots from Sup Forums are raiding the app's comment section, as evidenced by the shitty 26 individual one star ratings, still, it has 440+ 5 star ratings.
Why are trumpfags so dishonest and desperate to push their narrative?
Dylan Scott
...
Isaac Rivera
>implying the 5 stars are real when there are only 7 of the 4 stars
Jayden Rogers
>"test" your knowledge on these skewed and biased "facts" to improve your indoctrination!
>leaderboards so you can compete with your fellow libtards to see who's the more indoctrinated drone!
Amazing. The leaderboards should be systematically rounded up and put into FEMA camps when Trump takes presidency.
Chase Martin
may kek smite you
Ryan Roberts
Out of arguments and plenty of memes? Seems about right.
We're talking about people who support Hillary, so, it isn't surprising they are giving out 5 stars to the app rating.
Luke Watson
>HARAMBE LIVES ON FOREVER
Leo Young
>We're talking about people who are paid to correct the record, so, it isn't surprising they are giving out 5 stars to the app rating
FTFY
Isaiah Clark
>anyone who supports a candidate I don't like is a shill
Gud 1 bro
Hunter Perry
I LOL'd way to hard at that one
Grayson Bell
correctrecord.org
Correct The Record will invest more than $1 million into Barrier Breakers 2016 activities, including the more than tripling of its digital operation to engage in online messaging both for Secretary Clinton and to push back against attackers on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Instagram. Barrier Breakers 2016 is a project of Correct The Record and the brainchild of David Brock, and the task force will be overseen by President of Correct The Record Brad Woodhouse and Digital Director Benjamin Fischbein. The task force staff’s backgrounds are as diverse as the community they will be engaging with and include former reporters, bloggers, public affairs specialists, designers, Ready for Hillary alumni, and Hillary super fans who have led groups similar to those with which the task force will organize.
Lessons learned from online engagement with “Bernie Bros” during the Democratic Primary will be applied to the rest of the primary season and general election–responding quickly and forcefully to negative attacks and false narratives. Additionally, as the general election approaches, the task force will begin to push out information to Sanders supporters online, encouraging them to support Hillary Clinton.
(o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o:
(o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o:
(o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o:
(o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o: (o:
Caleb Ramirez
What does that have to do with the app's ratings?
It would seem to me you are assuming it just has to do with it without any evidence.
Also, do trumpfags honestly believe trump isn't paying shills to spam a specific rhetoric? At least Clinton has the balls to say it publicly.
Joseph Martin
>without any evidence
I just gave you evidence of shillary paying shills for online activities though.
Blake Morales
>paying for online activities
Yet, at no point did you prove that the app's ratings were a result of these paid supporters, it's pure speculation.
I also noticed you evaded my question, do you think paying for shills isn't a common practice in campaigning? Is trump not doing the same albeit privately?
Nicholas Wilson
>do you think paying for shills isn't a common practice in campaigning? Is trump not doing the same albeit privately?
wouldn't that also be
>pure speculation.
Aiden Bailey
>people who support Hillary
>people who are paid
>anyone who supports a candidate I don't like is a shill
>correctrecord.org
>without any evidence.
Mexican intellectuals everybody, you better start saving up for the wall tax paco.
Nathaniel Miller
>pure speculation
It's actually a very common thing in politics to pay for shills, whether you are in Mexico or the US, even the shitty city governors in Mexico are paying people to shill opinions online, and we're at least a decade behind the US politics strategies
What the fuck are you even trying to express here?
None of what has been posted confirms the ratings are artificial.
Thomas Morales
are all Mexicunts so buttblasted or is just you?
Caleb Allen
>None of what has been posted confirms
When did I mention confirmation? What are you trying to express here? Are you unaware of suspicion or (((((coincidence)))))?
Jose Ortiz
>It's actually a very common thing in politics to pay for shills, whether you are in Mexico or the US, even the shitty city governors in Mexico are paying people to shill opinions online, and we're at least a decade behind the US politics strategies
and yet, as you have put it, as long as you don't provide evidence, it remains as pure speculation
Angel Phillips
What makes you think I am 'buttblasted'?
You've implied there was evidence of these ratings being artificially propped up by shills, but you posted a newspiece of shills correcting opinions online.
I'm still trying to get you to explain how these two are related.
Josiah Miller
So Sup Forums, whats the correct answer
Hudson Harris
>correcting opinions
hmm
Jace Fisher
>We're talking about people who are paid to correct the record
>so, it isn't surprising they are giving out 5 stars to the app rating
>implied there was evidence
>but you posted a link to a strategic research and rapid response team of paid shills
????????
What are you trying to say?
Juan Hughes
Literally WHAT
Blake Diaz
Here's the apparent data source
They aren't comparing equal work.
"same as men of the same age with similar education and hours of work"
Adrian Hall
If you paid women more, they wouldn't produce more. That's what's wrong with women. You can confirm this because the "gender gap" argument says women should be paid the same as men because they're women not because they work as hard as men.