Also you can care about things like Supreme Court justices and other wedge issues, just like people overlooked the ills of Hilllary and wanted her. She isn’t a saint.
-
-
We’re not playing whataboutism right now.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I personally wouldn’t be caught dead financing either one of them, fwiw. The people I want don’t (and may never) win. However, I’m not going to judge people by how they vote or which political candidates they give money to, because I can’t know all of the reasons.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cyantist @kimmaicutler and
I do know Reid is historically an honest person and most likely made a mistake here. I doubt he’d ever do this on purpose. I just don’t like the hypocrisy. Had this been Peter, the coverage and hate would have been felt around the world. It’s very politically motivated.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Hate? Because he has a multi-year long track record of associating with and/or funding candidates and figures who have directed threats & hateful speech in a way where real violence or harm is possible at individuals or members of specific ethnic or racial groups?
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @cyantist and
Anyway, Reid and everyone else in this space, whatever their politics, should just have to openly publish all 501c4, 501c3, PAC and dark money spending, maybe in a yearly statement with some overarching statement about their strategy/intent. Or it should just be very restricted.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @cyantist and
Too often these conversations are mired from the outset because distinctions aren't made between tactics & goals. The question isn't who's tribe has the right values — it's always yours, of course — it's whether the home team gets a pass on defecting from the norms of engagement
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @kimmaicutler and
Right, but that's what makes it weird to bring up Thiel in this conversation. Thiel is critiqued for goals, whereas Hoffman is being critiqued on tactics. It isn't a helpful comparison in the context.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Sherveen @kimmaicutler and
The point, AFAICT, is that we're (increasingly?) unable to have a good faith conversation about norms re: tactics because people actually care more about immediate outcomes than stability/process. "Would you be so forgiving if he wasn't wearing your colors?" is a reasonable Q
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @kimmaicutler and
Yes, I think we all converge on that as a reasonable question. It's the 'both sides' comparison to Thiel that breaks the conversation.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
What "both sides" comparison are you referring to? What I'm seeing is the suggestion that PT would've been raked over the coals for doing what RH did, which is almost certainly true and not really any kind of equivocation
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason @kimmaicutler and
PT is critiqued for a category of things he either doesn't refute or explicitly participates in. Therefore, analogizing RH's functional error to PT's body of work pretty clearly confuses the conversation. "PT would not get the same treatment" isn't interesting because PT != RH.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sherveen @kimmaicutler and
The question is actually much simpler than you're making it out to be here.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show 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.