,
3 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Your analogy only makes sense if she threatened to poison the people who ate there.
Other than that, it's obviously inappropriate for the press to target a private citizen for their (crazy) views.
Otherwise, you're justifying press vetting every random person.
Other than that, it's obviously inappropriate for the press to target a private citizen for their (crazy) views.
Otherwise, you're justifying press vetting every random person.
Using this logic, press should vet the views of every person who works in any restaurant. Also, every maid/janitor/clerk etc.
If people weren't blinded by this involving Trump and this particular conspiracy, they'd realize how crazy/irresponsible that is.
If people weren't blinded by this involving Trump and this particular conspiracy, they'd realize how crazy/irresponsible that is.
Do people have any idea how many crazy things random Americans believe?
If you use this standard consistently, it would destroy the concept of free speech.
Except of course these outlets are selectively targeting whose crazy views get outed and subjected to an outrage mob.
If you use this standard consistently, it would destroy the concept of free speech.
Except of course these outlets are selectively targeting whose crazy views get outed and subjected to an outrage mob.
