Well, this is unfortunate.@JesseKellyDC @JonahNRO @exjon https://t.co/WAC9jpDZZC
— Beebo (@beebobaby) May 31, 2017
“WeRateDogs” is a popular Twitter account with over 2 million followers that simply, according to Wikipedia, “rates people’s dogs with a humorous comment about the dog.” Last night, President Donald Trump tweeted a word “covfefe” in a tweet that was later deleted, a goof that quickly took on a life of its own on the Internet. @Rate_Dogs was on it:
I'm so sorryhttps://t.co/7GvfnDYCqL pic.twitter.com/Myd6FM0nN4
— WeRateDogs® (@dog_rates) May 31, 2017
Kinda funny. However, that was followed up with this:
PUPDATE: half of all profits will be donated to @PPact
— WeRateDogs® (@dog_rates) May 31, 2017
Well, that’s one way to lose a lot of support with a single tweet. Many thought “WeRateDogs” might know of some good dog-related charities instead:
Then I won't buy. I don't hate you, but I'm already forced to support them with my taxes.
PS: There are lots of dog charities. https://t.co/4Xj8CiB0EL
— Crusty Gobblestein (@NathanWurtzel) May 31, 2017
You could use the money to help animals in need but you give it an org that kills babies. Disgusting. https://t.co/YrtwwsEPtj
— Lisa (@kdramamama) May 31, 2017
It's your biz, but this is a terrible business decision imo
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) May 31, 2017
agreed. It's a great account, but this is going to alienate ~1/3 -1/4 the audience, myself included
— Shoshana Weissmann, Sloth Committee Chair ? (@senatorshoshana) May 31, 2017
Yeah, dogs are bipartisan and there are worthy charities related to them. I love @dog_rates but I'm not retweeting a fundraiser for @ppact
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) May 31, 2017
https://twitter.com/ClarkHat/status/869921945617346560
https://twitter.com/OrwelliAnn_/status/869919176172896257
Dog ranking website financially supporting killing unborn puppies up to the moment of birth. Oh wait, it's only babies, so totes cool! https://t.co/6VYZlAnaKi
— TugboatPhil (@tugboatphil) May 31, 2017
https://twitter.com/VixenRogue/status/869921238386331652
https://twitter.com/RFan2004/status/869914398764224512
When the time came to choose between helping dogs / animals and killing babies, these guys chose killing babies. https://t.co/IFhQ1Q9LPm
— RBe (@RBPundit) May 31, 2017
https://twitter.com/davidharsanyi/status/869921855729266689
https://twitter.com/GlomarResponder/status/869921663361708032
It appears @Dog_Rates is unmoved by the blowback:
https://twitter.com/dog_rates/status/869791456231383040
In that case, another argument can be made:
https://twitter.com/SouthernKeeks/status/869920538231058432
So there’s that.
Update:
@Dog_Rates explained this way:
https://twitter.com/dog_rates/status/869978957906620416
All’s well that ends well?
I don't follow this account but I'm pleased at this statement from them. It is respectful and acknowledges not everything need be political. https://t.co/IlqcdGcbNO
— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) May 31, 2017
I love this guy. He's in freaking college and has one of the best accounts and is learning how to ethically balance his interests. https://t.co/eGLgL4afUA
— Shoshana Weissmann, Sloth Committee Chair ? (@senatorshoshana) May 31, 2017
https://twitter.com/ThatElJefe/status/869982446602866694
Join the conversation as a VIP Member