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 …
-
-
Replying to @emahlee
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @shelleypowers
Emily Cunningham Retweeted Charlotte Clymer 🏳️🌈
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 …
Emily Cunningham added,
Charlotte Clymer 🏳️🌈Verified account @cmclymerI feel entirely confident saying that there is no scenario in which the NYT editorial board would have endorsed two men in this primary. If only men were in this primary and someone had suggested a dual endorsement, it would have been called ridiculous and insulting.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emahlee
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @shelleypowers
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emahlee
Are you pissed because they picked two people? Or because they picked Klobuchar?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.