>>9962688 (pb)
They can turn down requests and change up what they'rerequestedto say on Cameo.
He chose to do it.
And you can tell that he knowingly worded that as he did.
>>9962688 (pb)
>They can turn down requests and change up what they're requested to say on Cameo.
Follow-up:
If you'd like a lil' more evidence…
Check out this one from Corey Lewandowski.
What does/doesn't he say?
How does heCHOOSEto say what he does and "doesn't"?
(This is an older one, so don't worry about no-table-ing.)
Yup.
Some will say just about anything for money.
But since when does that accurately describe Arpaio?
If you're going to go with the disclaimer that Cameo is a site where you can pay people for their time to make a video along the user's proposed lines, then you need to make sure that the "dear reader" understands that the content of the video is ultimately up to the person making it.
The person doing the Cameo is under no obligation to treat the 250 character limit as a script.
("Scripted" being the concept you appear to be pushing.)
I think if someone were trying to be deceptive, then they would have cropped it out or removed the CAMEO at the bottom. Don'tcha think?
…..
Well at least someone caught on.
Remember Kevin Sorbo reading the Armor of God passage?
Some things he declined to say, but he did that much at least.
But… Ksorbs, Lewandowski, and Arpaio are all people who would be theoretically aware of Q.
Take the idea a step further and look for folks who WOULDN'T know about Q to decline it.
Especially if you frame it as for a site like qmap.pub or wearethene.ws or "Follow @soandso on twitter. They've got good info." or whatever.
If they know what Q is, they may decline because "it's political" or whatever.
dassa nice image right ther'
quads.floor(checked and a half)
Don't forget Stormy Daniels and Omarosa and The Mooch, too!
oh myyyyy