,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Jack Dorsey gave Tulsi money and journalists can barely even articulate why they’re so flamboyantly upset about it. They just presume that everyone knows she’s discreditable crank -- no further elaboration needed. That’s how they police the parameters of Political Seriousness
Jack also gave to Yang, which I guess journalists also consider innately evil for reasons they can't articulate 
In a post on Gizmodo, which I'm not linking to because it's trash, Tulsi is described as very "strange," "an apologist for war criminals," beloved by David Duke, and insufficiently committed to the metaphysical certitude of Russia collusion. Therefore Jack is bad for giving her $
Vanity Fair has nothing substantial to say except that she's "come under fire for her past anti-gay views and meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad." Have these journalists ever had an original thought in their entire lives? They just read from the same pathetic script
