>it's neither vitriol nor irrational to expect a leader to yield to experts and to relay only reliable information.
And you want to tell me that from his tweet you already know he didn't get this information from so called experts? How exactly does this tweet indicate otherwise?
>What he did instead lacked context or information necessary to mass communicate. There's a way to communicate it and it wasn't this
Welcome to the new normal, where politicians communicate via tweet. I agree that it is inappropriate but this particular example is just being used to project the usual anger onto him with multiple plausible but ultimately inappropriate rationalizations. There was, again, nothing inappropriate about a passing mention of a safe, cheap, promising drug. He could have done the same in the middle of a speech for similar effect.
Besides, what did you expect him to do, cite the relevant studies on Twitter? Sure, ideally he would, but let's not pretend that more than, say, .01 percent of the population is even capable of reading studies...
And you want to tell me that from his tweet you already know he didn't get this information from so called experts? How exactly does this tweet indicate otherwise?
>What he did instead lacked context or information necessary to mass communicate. There's a way to communicate it and it wasn't this
Welcome to the new normal, where politicians communicate via tweet. I agree that it is inappropriate but this particular example is just being used to project the usual anger onto him with multiple plausible but ultimately inappropriate rationalizations. There was, again, nothing inappropriate about a passing mention of a safe, cheap, promising drug. He could have done the same in the middle of a speech for similar effect.
Besides, what did you expect him to do, cite the relevant studies on Twitter? Sure, ideally he would, but let's not pretend that more than, say, .01 percent of the population is even capable of reading studies...
This is a shitty hill to die on.