Yes, in a very short time we'll look back on this time in history and wonder what the fuck we were doing. People will be completely dumbfounded, shocked, enraged.https://twitter.com/david_turnbull/status/1219109306450182144 …
-
The NY Times is exercising its rights to endorse who it wants. Freedom of speech, and association. I also believe it was making a point about women as candidates. It is not the downfall of humanity as we know it.
One of the great things about freedom of speech is our ability to criticize that which we disagree with. I also think they were making a point about women candidates, but in a sexist way. It's like two female candidates make one male candidate. See:https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1219115847047942144 …
-
-
More about how wrong this decision was:https://twitter.com/leahstokes/status/1219152666552496128 …
-
There's no right or wrong about this. This is an opinion, a preference, an expression of free speech. Agree or disagree, there is no 'right or wrong' to it. I'm not a Klobuchar supporter, but the NYT can pick who it wants. I'm not going to get pissy about it.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Or, it's making a point that both women are viable candidates, and we should get over our sexism on insisting our candidate be male.
-
Can you imagine them endorsing two male candidates? I can't. It's insulting. Endorsing one woman would have been the right choice. By endorsing two, they're not actually behind either, which is bullshit.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.