Sunday, September 25, 2016

Sunday morning tweetstorm

Image via Seen2.

So somebody this morning got pissed off by something I tweeted last night, when—though I usually try not to engage at all with the Steinsters—I sort of couldn't help myself:

I'll spare you the next six items, where I outlined the Politifact case that it wasn't anything like "all" the uranium rights, that Clinton had relatively little to do with the decision, and that there's no evidence Clinton Foundation donors had anything to do with it anyway, under the assumption (undoubtedly correct) that @PoliticallyLib would never click the link. In fact my interlocutor couldn't even read my responses, or at least respond to them:

But they sent in some reinforcements:

The interesting point here is that it's all about branding. @GeeOhPees2 (cute how this person, "People over Party", can't even bother to hide his or her Republican origins) didn't regard the Times story as evidence of whether the allegations were true or not, but as something I was obliged to accept, because I obviously accept whatever appears in the Times, because:

Oh well, aren't you special.

You can stand the prospect of a Supreme Court gutting what voting rights and abortion rights and affirmative action programs we still have left and the end to regulation of campaign finance and marriage equality and the progressive income tax and the federal minimum wage and the right of workers to organize and the turn to renewable energy and "bomb the shit out of them" and "take all the oil" but you can't stand the prospect of voting for somebody who "doesn't represent" you like you like Pepsi and she's Coke, because voting is a self-actualizing consumer choice, right?

No comments:

Post a Comment