3 ms·

I reckon it was probably just this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/style/tiktok-trump-rally-tulsa.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/style/tiktok-trump

• IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  You may be right (and the publicity alone would be sufficcient for this thin-skinned lunatic), but... doesn't that story rest on somewhat tenuous logic? I. e. they claim to have reserved far more tickets than capacity would allow to attend. But that seems to demonstrate that tickets weren't limited by capacity. So how did their action prevent other people from getting tickets?
• rvz 6y ago
  > probably Please. Perhaps you didn't realise that they already launched an investigation before the Tulsa rally and also against FaceApp for the same reason: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50639443 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50639443 EDIT: Downvoters: So the concerns, investigation requests of both TikTok and FaceApp didn't occur in 2019 and for the former, the investigations didn't happen before the Tulsa rally? Are you sure? [0] [1] [0] https://www.cotton.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1239 https://www.cotton.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1239 [1] https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-tiktok-cfius-exclusive/exclusive-u-s-opens-national-security-investigation-into-tiktok-sources-idUKKBN1XB4IL https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-tiktok-cfius-exclusive/exc...
• rgbrenner 6y ago
  Yes, I've said it before. Trump will attack you for writing an mean article about him. But somehow people believe that Trump leaving a rally visibly upset because of actions by TikTok's users and him attacking TikTok literally 3 weeks later are unrelated events. They're definitely related. It's literally an action->response... and it fits Trumps modus operandi perfectly... he's done it numerous times.