The Bubble idiot is an "interesting" case; I took a look on her twitter and the bitch used to be fucking obsessed with a camwhore named Stormy. Now she's on the ALR train protecting Charlie from all evil.So I just never fucking get it. How does someone actually have the time and mental energy to fight people as much as Charlie and this Bubble person constantly do?
Well still a fake account that likes to talk shit about people, loves drama and has lots of free time.So Bubble isn't a sock puppet?
How sad. Doing it all for free, huh?
I believe- like many others - that Charlie just recently made the donation to pretend it was there all along. She saw the questions weren't going to stop and she needed to save face.
This video is literally someone showing how to search your email for stuff but she mentions about the charity not looking through their files which is interesting. I've never worked for a charity but I was wondering if that sort of thing is accurate? I understand cutting corners but that seems ridiculous. Does that mean anyone could contact this charity, claiming that they donated upwards of some amount and be able to get a receipt from that day claiming they had? The idea of this being a false document is interesting, but I literally couldn't imagine anyone doing this, but I mean, maybe I'm just naïve. But I mean, that's invoice fraud and I'm not 100% certain that a charity would risk fraud. It also seems more plausible that Charlie only chose to donate that day, then claimed to have not received an email.
It is true that Charlie gave this person her name and the amount she donated though, and no matter how I look at it, from a computer savvy standpoint, the dollar amount she donated is too vague. If you were searching for something like this, you'd want unique identifiers, like name, email, credit card number-- stuff like that. If her name wasn't sufficient for a search, the next question might have been "is this the email associated with the account" or "can I call you to confirm the credit card number" but "how much did you donate" isn't a good follow up question.
This person also confirms that for a small amount ($25) they received two automated emails, one with the amount in it and one without it. It seems reasonable to assume that these are confirmation emails for record keeping. But that means that the company itself must have receipts of these sent emails, so it can't be that hard for them to do a quick email search.
It's all just very bizarre. Charlie definitely has shown herself to be untrustworthy before but this kinda makes me wonder what the defense for her is.
That's my theory as well. And if true, it means that the $400 that could've been spent on paying overdue court fines and clearing that D6 from her record was INSTEAD used to save face online. She's fully aware that future success of her lifestyle 'brand' depends on people believing she's a good person at the end of the day. I guess she thinks this qualifies as proof.She didn’t forget. I think the most plausible thing is: considering the receipt does have a tax ID at the bottom of the receipt (which to me proves it’s real) but otherwise has no date of when the money was received. I think she just recently made the donation and the emails are questionable
You know when you see someone doing something that they think is so cool, but it's actually super cringy? Like a weeb kid wearing a trench coat and a Naruto headband in 100 degree heat, or some dude with a lisp talking about how Trump is powning the libtards? I get the same sickly second hand embarrassed feeling reading that tweet. A fat, stupid, useless cunt feeling like an internet tough guy because she made a slightly fatter, equally stupid, useless cunt feel bad on YouTube is super pathetic.