Women's March mocked for pre-written press release opposing Supreme Court nominee 'XX'
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Women’s March opposes XX.
A pre-written — and poorly edited — statement from the Women’s March on President Trump’s Supreme Court nomination became the subject of mockery on Twitter on Monday night, including from Mr. Trump’s former press secretary.
The feminist group blasted out a statement shortly after Mr. Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh, saying him confimation would “further erode protections for almost every marginalized group in America.”
The introduction to the statement read “In response to Donald Trump’s nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
Tags
Who is online
85 visitors
Oh Damn, you weren't supposed to make it that obvious.
Maybe they didn't know how to spell his name.
Worse..... far worse. Since his name was in all the newspapers, they didn't even know how to COPY it.
What;s worse than not being able to copy his name, is the fact Trump could have nominated a woman and they would have said the exact same thing about her as they planned for all the men!
Why does that seem so strange to you? All SCOTUS nominees that he considered had the same anti-woman beliefs, and yes even the female nominee (that everyone knew he would not select) was opposed to women's rights.
Their protests applied to everyone he was considering.
Exactly. He picked from a pool of the same train of thought.
that was funny as hell---a march held by the poorly educated and ii-informed for sure...poor soros, good marchers are hard to find these days since more people have real jobs now
Canned ham.
Like the snowflake response couldn't be predicted.
It's like a broken record that keeps repeating the same notes, over and over and over. At some point, no listens anymore.
Yeah, protesting is what they're good at. Proofreading? Not so much. And the pre-printed signs thing-in such a hurry to protest the pick, it really didn't matter who it was.
Thought you might get a kick out of this one:
I've got plenty more, but at your level, tis all you get.
This is the one I like. LOL
The irony of your post is astonishing.
Well, the main reason is that comment 1.2.4 is an untruthful Sweeping Generalization about Trump supporters when the article is about the Women's March participants who protested at the Supreme Court.
Liberals spend all day every day mocking and insulting people who disagree with them yet that goes unnoticed.
How can you complain about "Sweeping Generalizations" when every comment above hers is a "Sweeping Generalization"?
Can you please explain exactly how comment # 1.2.12 is a complaint? I made an accurate assessment that compared someone's sweeping generalization comment to the very specific topic of this seed.
Snowflake? Coloring books and crayons? Blankies and binkies?
Wasn't liberals who started throwing that out there
Morons? Deplorables? Racists? Misogynists, Nazis, white supremacits? Knuckle draggers? Neanderthals?
They threw their own so they’re full of shit.
You want civility from us but are unwilling to reciprocate.
Yes, it rings completely disingenuous when they all but fall at the feet of Mr. Trump embracing and celebrating what most human beings would consider unacceptable behavior.
Mr. Trump followers are at fault for the discord that has taken the country hostage.
I'm trying to figure out the point your are trying to make and the relevance it has to my comment.
You know what....no more derisive than "teabagger"
If some of your buddies continue to fling insults regarding coloring books I will continue to mock with the word teabagger. Afterall, the tea party morons called themselves that before they realized what it actually meant. By then, the damage had been done.
But don't go acting all innocent and pretend that your side doesn't mock and fling insults. "Libtard" seems to be a favorite amongst your buddies.
I don't think you do, but you continue to think in whatever way it makes you feel better
that one was hilarious--kinda like the FBI deciding hillary was inncocent 6 month before they looked at any evidence.
Thanks for making my point
I wrote out a lengthy response but the site crashed and I don't feel like retyping it. But I'll tell ya what. Turn on the t.v. - OR - read a newspaper and I'm confident you will find examples of Mr. Trump's supporters making excuses for his behavior and actions against everyone ...........well everyone except Putin.
oh and don't forget it wasn't a trump supporters that went to the baseball field with a list of republicans to shoot--
not one democrat would stand up when scalize entered the congressional chamber with canes to walk..
not one democrat would stand up for the families who lost children to the violence of illegals.
and it was a democrat who got on the bullhorn and said make it uncomfortable for them to go anywhere, into a store, a restaurant, a gas station and harass them.
so yah don't expect us to be nice and civil and not push back and make sure we are protecting our first & second amendment..the left may get what they keep asking for and they won't like, it just like schumer doesn't like the rules they made for themselves when obama was president and now they have to play by them.
Deleted
I like civility period but at least recognize that one side is no better than the other in this respect.
Well it’s not like they’re unbiased media. They’re part of the Trump resistance so they’re supposed to trash his supporters. But trashing his supporters will probably get him re-elected and then democrats can blame Putin or emissaries of the Klingon empire or whatever lame excuse they can think up.
No, I'll blame those who are to blame, Mr. Trump's followers. Facts don't lie. You don't like the way Mr. Trump is being portrayed? Then hold his behavior accountable and make him change his vulgar hateful rhetoric.
It's really rather simple. As I've said time and again, a child will continue to do what he is able to get away with. His follower's are allowing him to do whatever he wants with no consequences. If the country falls it will be the fault of Mr. Trump's followers.
Facts don't lie but they’re often spun. If you want to spend your time pointing your finger at them while they point back at you, then knock yourself out. And if the press wants to act as the Trump resistance, that’s fine too. His supporters will just continue to tune the press out and re-elect him.
They don’t see it as you do or care what you think. They think the country has already fallen in some respect and they’re looking to Trump to fix it even if they think he’s obnoxious. For instance, some will endure anything to get conservative justices. Others want border control. Some want Roe reversed. Some are focused on the economy. Some have other issues. But what all have in common is the belief that they can’t get what they want from anybody but Trump.
I know......I've been reading your posts for years.
That you continue to try and protect Mr. Trump and make excuses for his behavior says more about you then him.
I'm so bummed because I really really liked you even though I find some of your comments a bit homophobic and misogynistic - but - this whole defending Mr. Trump is something I just cannot turn a blind eye to. We are not compatible. I'm quitting you 1ofmany (that's what my brother used to say when he was little about breaking up with his girlfriend - he quit her) lol
Liberals are the new leaders of the Democrat Party. They've decided to call themselves Democratic Socialists, but there are still some Democrats in the Party who haven't fell in line with this new leadership. A lot of them voted for Trump.
If I let you can play with my saber, then you’ll come running back . . . dodging cars, jumping over thrash cans, pushing through crowds. lol.
maybe.....
All working to get Trump re-elected through sheer stupidity.
Vixen
The party of No.
It ain't rocket science. Name one of any of those vetted (everybody knew) and tell us which one supports a woman's right to full personal rights. Which one wasn't far right on the issues? Which one has extensively and publicly advocated protecting a sitting president? When I knew he was one of the top picks I guessed he be the pick for exactly that reason.
And don't listen at your peril.
Roe VS Wade is outdated and legalizes murder. Are you really opposed to moving the date back far enough that you aren't killing a baby capable of life outside the womb?
I don't believe that and my spiritual beliefs back them up. How dare you try to force your particular crap on all women. Abortion is not murder and not your business. Feel free to live any way you like to your values, but stay the hell out of mine.
Do you believe EVERYTHING in the Declaration of Independence, lib50?
Life begins _________. Doesn't matter, what matters is the fact that a fetus will never have rights over a woman. If you think it should then you have no regard for the woman herself and want to reduce her to a human incubator against her will.
Abortion once the baby can survive outside the womb IS murder and I'm not OK with murder. When is it murder in YOUR opinion? Are you are ok with a mom that is overdue on delivery 2 weeks murdering her child? Do you still want to be able to kill it once you start labor? Is it not murder until the baby takes it's first breath? Until the cord is cut? Can't we even agree on when a baby is a baby?
People that don't like being called a murderer because they would kill a healthy child that could survive out of the womb should look in the mirror and think a little more about what they really stand for.
I would like to point out I have no interest of denying you being able to kill your own fetus, I just don't want people murdering babies, so let's talk about when it becomes a baby because that is the real issue when you defend Roe VS Wade, and that is the issue most the left won't even talk about. Why is that? Is it because then you would have to admit that in some cases ABORTION IS IN FACT MURDER?
Taking 10 to 1 odds there will be no reply to this post that opens dialog of when it becomes murder from the pro choice crowd.
So you think abortion should be legal after the baby could survive outside the womb? Is it not murder until the child takes it's first breath? At what point EXACTLY does the baby have the same rights YOU do? When EXACTLY is it murder? We are not talking about if a woman has the right to abort a fetus we are talking about when the fetus becomes a baby. I know you don't want to talk about it but have you ever thought about it?
Good find, Tessy. It shows that the American College of Pediatrics really is a far-right fringe group.
Abortionist Kermit Gosnell agrees with you. Fortunately, our legal system disagrees with both of you, because he's serving life without parole (plus 30 years) for first degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and other crimes.
Who's killing babies that can survive outside the womb? If you know of these murderers, call the police so that they can be prosecuted
Ok, how dare women think that they can treat their unborn child as a wad of snot and kill it with impunity. A woman’s real choice over her body is to either use contraceptives or keep her damn legs closed. Once she procreates, then she has arguably created another person who may have rights the state can protect.
Age of 21 is point of EXACTLY same rights.
Disclaimer: My personal feelings on abortion are of no consequence - I am merely curious to what extent the opposition to abortion has thought out the "what's next" part of the equation ...
Which opens up a whole other can of worms … unwanted children being carried to term .. then what?
Tax payer financed foster care is broken and over loaded … not everyone has family that is willing to take in another mouth to feed nor raise the ditzes baby that could not figure out birth control - so then who is it that takes care of these unwanted children carried to term?
The dreaded "welfare queen" is being vilified … social safety nets become a life long support system - many feel that these programs should be cut .. so now where do these unwanted children carried term turn next?
I understand that individuals do not approve of abortion, see it as immoral etc etc etc... yet what is worse .. a child aborted unaware that he/she was not wanted - or to grow up feeling/knowing they were/are unwanted?
Just asking...
HA! Once I was asked at what age a child is viable outside the womb .. the only thing I could think of to say was ..When they buy their own food!
Unborn children, if declared to be people, may have a right to live no matter how inconvenient they are to others or how unaware they are of their own murder. If being aware were the standard, then it would be ok to murder people while asleep or unconscious. To me, it never was a constitutional or legal issue to begin with. It’s a moral issue more appropriate for a state legislature to determine just like they do anything else.
So when science disagrees with you it's because it is "right wing science"?
You're laughing about baby killers?
Now they are baby killers too? Do they preform abortions?
It's a fake moral issue for people who consistently show immorality in their own personal lives. I refer specifically to those several "pro-life" republiscum politicians (and, of course, the sanctimonious hypocrites who voted for them) who pressured their mistresses (!) to get abortions. This feigned concern for the unborn is also against a backdrop of total indifference if not outright callousness toward the plight of actual children, whether American born in poverty or those brought here in the hopes of escaping horrendous violence in other countries. Time and time again we're confronted by the disgusting double standard these "moral" people show us. They sicken the country with their hypocrisy.
The age a of successful survival outside the womb has changed since the law was written. Unless you are flat out denying these advances in medicine and science in general, or are FOR killing babies that could survive outside the womb, why would you be against changing the dates/range of "viability" in Roe vs Wade?
Given advances in medicine and the refusal to change the term of "viability" in Roe vs Wade, The irony in your statement is you probably know someone personally who fits that description, whether you know it or not...
But doncha know that's different because it happened to them. /s
Is that why you don't know what to do when someone approaches you about changing the range of "viability" in roe vs Wade?
When does the expansion and recognition of individual rights become outdated?
No it doesn't. Abortion is not murder.
The cutoff for elective abortions is generally at the point of viability. Before that point, a fetus is incapable o surviving outside the womb. So what's the problem?
Then it's murder, and not abortion.
Birth.
Such hyperbole, to the point of being completely asinine! I doubt women consider "murdering their child" if they're overdue. It's more likely they'll be worried that there is a medical problem. In such cases, a doctor can induce labor or perform a C-section.
Birth.
Who's advocating killing children?
Good, because it's really none of your or anyone else's business.
Murdering babies is illegal. o if you know anyone doing that, you should contact the authorities immediately.
Birth.
No. Roe is about women's rights and autonomy. It established woman cannot be denied their right to choose. Roe touched on when abortions are permissible or not. Subsequent abortion cases only expanded on that.
What's to talk about exactly? Abortion is a settled matter and established legal precedent.
What "cases" precisely? Calling abortion murder is factually and legally incorrect.
Looks like you just lost that bet.
it already is. But usually in cases of medical necessity.
Birth. (I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself here)
Geez, I am repeating myself. Ok, once again, birth!
What's to think about: abortion is a woman's legal right, it her business and no one else's, her reasons for choosing to have an abortion or not are hers and hers alone, and it's not a baby until birth (before then, it's a fetus). Not only did I talk about it, I also summed it up for you.
Viability is a medical determination, not a legal one. The courts simply used that determination to establish limits on elective abortion.
Viability is approximately 23 weeks gestation. Even at that point, a fetus only has a 50% chance of survival at best.
Medical science has not reduced the point of viability. Only the survival chances at that point.
I won't discuss a serious issue with someone who isn't serious.
My daughter is a Neo-Natal Nurse and has taken care of preemies that were born right around the 24 week gestation age.** She said they can usually make it with the technology they have at the hospital. Anything less than 24 week gestation and the child almost always dies.
**Of course that's not even going into the developmental difficulties the child may have
My respect and admiration for your daughter. Neonatal nursing is a stressful and difficult field of nursing. Kudos to her.
True. As I said, medical science only improves the chances of survival, not necessarily the point of survival.
indeed.
Yet that is the point 1ofmany … it is the child that ultimately pays the price for that right to life … even though they did not have a say in it.
Schools are full of students whose mothers and fathers cannot even take the time to attend a parent teachers conference .. take no interest in their child's goals, the child's achievements - nor needed discipline .. many young people are raising themselves.. Which opens up the conversation to quality of said right to life ...… my sons have had, still have friends that parents could not careless about them .. unless said parents are inconvenienced by them - in which case I get a knock at the door as said children seek refuge at my house.
I am a strong supporter in States rights .. and am a bit originalist when it comes to the Constitution ………. yet abortion is a legal issue, ever bit as much as it is a moral issue .. as soon as a State makes a decision one way or another regarding abortion … it becomes a matter of law, as well as a court issue on how the law is to be enforced / implemented .. abortion is far outside the realm of what a religion believes, or an individual believes is morality... in my opinion anyways …
How unwanted children should be paid for has still not been addressed .. I think that is a extremely big factor - especially when individuals scream about the costs of Medicaid .. food stamps etc...
They think a baby just plops out and survives on it's own. Strange criteria. Regardless of how many weeks of growth, a baby can not survive without assistance.
Thank-you. She loves her job. She decided to go into neo-natal when she was working as a nurse tech while in school. She can't stand taking care of adults because all they do is complain.
I've had 2 babies of my own. I know they don't just "plop out". Stop insulting our intelligence
That's always important.
Good for her, to make such a career choice. She should be very proud.
So true. just look at some of them complain here, LOL
Maybe with you, and some others. My wife was a baby machine. Water breaks, 35 minutes later we have a son, daughter and another son....and no....not all at the same time. Doctor never made it into the delivery room any of those times. Saved me bunches of bucks. I suppose you could say, some are more Blessed than others.
I understand your position but I disagree. The constitution is not a panacea for every situation. All the Court has to do is say that it’s isn't addressed in the constitution and then leave it to each state to decide under the 10th amendment.
These are the same people that are okay with someone going into a school shooting up teenagers.
They have no credibility. Talk about phucked up logic. Don't waste your time. You're a woman and therefore they need to tell you how to behave and what to believe.
And they continue with the "sanctity of life" and "all life is sacred" memes.
They totally contradict themselves when they support cutting off support for Medicare and supporting the War Machine
Good points. I forgot how they actively work against the elderly and the very poor.
Schumer isn’t likely to get any bipartisan support when liberal groups make it obvious that they’re driven by blind hatred of anybody Trump nominates. Trump should thank the Women’s March for their help.
Well it isn't like it wasn't already common knowledge, it just makes it harder to deny.
Democrats sound like they’re in a hillbilly feud where one side’s comment about the other is “it don’t matter what he says, if he’s fer it, then I’m agin it.” And, after saying it, they look surprised when the other side responds by sticking shotguns out the window and aiming at them.
hell dems have said they are against tax cuts- people having more money,,they are against lower unemployment, they are against a stronger GDP---weren't they praising obama for doing this by 1% and now trump has done it by 4% and they are agin it........
(Deleted)
Maybe that's why they want to ban guns.
It's truly a remarkable display of a complete lack of awareness that someone could think that after how ( deleted ) treated Obama's nominee for Scalia's replacement in 2016. Scalia's empty seat on the court was simply stolen--no two ways about it.
Off topic much? President Trump already has one nomination seated. His name is Neil Gorsuch. So you are only worried about the 2nd nomnation? Wait until Judge Ginsberg retires.....you will be absolutely apoplectic.
Probably should have gone after the Dems a few years back, when they decided to wave the super majority requirments for their appointees. Anyone with a lick of common sense could have seen that it would actually bite them in the ass.
Desperate not to face reality and the consequences of the fascist-like behavior ( deleted )
i do think mconnell tried to warn reid at the time----now it is biting them in the ass and they are cryin, hey chuckie schumer.
Uh huh. Well you mosey on over and see if you can work out a bipartisan deal after calling them ( Deleted )
Seats can’t be owned or reserved. But if they can be, then Scalia’s seat was reserved for another conservative like Scalia and Republicans stopped Democrats from stealing it.
“In response to Donald Trump’s nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
What they should have done...“In response to Donald Trump’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
At least they wouldn't look too much like a bunch of dumbasses.
That would require actual thought process...
That's not part of a liberal skill set.
You mean like this one:
I don't see the relevance....did Santorum make an ass of himself? He stated an opinion based on the actual person picked not a blanket statement prior to any nominee.
Not even close. Sanatorum not only knows who the pick is, he demonstrated he actually knows some facts about the pick as well and made objections based on those facts. Are there any other examples of bat shit crazy VS sensible approach you would like to point out?
Weaponized outrage. It's the new political tool. It doesn't matter if you are actually outraged... it only matters if you can attack the other side with your opinion.
just like the group who was protesting ice while they were making arrests.... of child traffickers. In their mind ICE is bad and no matter what they do they will protest them. Same with trump. He could have picked a liberal judge and they would have found a reason to protest.
LET'S SEE THE ACTUAL, FULL TWEET!
LET'S SEE THE SOURCE OF THE SO-CALLED TWEET!
This is A TWEET ABOUT THE ALLEGED TWEET … IT IS NOT THE TWEET ITSELF … if there actually is one …
As far as I can tell, the "report" come from the WASHINGTON TIMES and INFO WARS.
Between 1998 and 2004, the Times covered every biennial American Renaissance conference, hosted by the white supremacist New Century Foundation. According to the Columbia Journalism Review , "the paper’s coverage of these events—which are hotbeds for holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis, and eugenicists—was stunningly one sided," favorably depicting the conference content and conference goers. [76]
Under Pruden's editorship, the Times regularly printed excerpts from white supremacist publications, such as VDARE and American Renaissance magazine, and Bill White , leader of the American National Socialist Workers' Party, in its Culture Briefs section. [76] Under Pruden's editorship, an entire page in the Sunday edition was devoted to the American Civil War, often times glorifying the Confederacy. [76]
Pruden himself authored columns where he argued that Barack Obama could not understand or appreciate America due to his race. In a 2009 column entitled "'Inner Muslim' at work in Cairo", Pruden wrote that Obama is the "first president without an instinctive appreciation of the culture, history, tradition, common law and literature whence America sprang. The genetic imprint writ large in his 43 predecessors is missing from the Obama DNA." [76] In another 2009 column, Pruden wrote that Obama had “no natural instinct or blood impulse” for what America was about because he was “sired by a Kenyan father” and “born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World.” [76] These columns stirred controversy, leading the Times to assign the Deputy Editorial Page Editor to edit Pruden's work. [76] The editor in question, David Mastio, said that drafts provided by Pruden used subtle racism and glorified the Confederacy, "He was constantly re-litigating the Civil War, and attacking the historical figures on the right side of the war, Lincoln and Grant being his favorites... He also used terms with animal implications when referring to blacks". [76]
News and opinion
InfoWars (stylized as INFO WA RS) is an American conspiracy theorist and fake news website and media platform owned by Alex Jones 's Free Speech Systems LLC. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] It was founded in 1999.
Talk shows and other content are created primarily in studios at an undisclosed location in an industrial area outside Austin , Texas. [8] The InfoWars website receives approximately 10 million monthly visits, making it more visited than some mainstream news websites such as The Economist and Newsweek . [9] [10]
______________________________________________________________
Find and post a VERIFIABLE, ORIGINAL TWEET FROM THE ALLEGED SOURCE … and I will apologize unequivocally for what I have implied … otherwise, the seeded article is the usual right-wing bullshit/hate screed crap.
Well golly I'm sure you're not going to see a article on this in any leftwing news site so you can be safe in your denial that it ever happened.
Ridiculous right?
sorry but the vast majority of americans really don't care how much the libs protest and cry and whine about this---the left is going to have very rough next 6 yrs...trump is your president just deal with it.. you see elections have consequences and we won--gee who said that ?
That's some beautiful whistling (past the graveyard) you got goin' there. Have you ever thought of trying out for this new show, America's Got No Talent?
And yet, many of them CARE ENOUGH TO TAKE THE TIME AND MAKE THE EFFORT TO TELL US HOW MUCH THEY DON'T CARE!
So who's actually crying and whining?
I'm f'n shocked that Carrie would say such a thing!
Carrie?
Carrie … really?
Carrie Severino is an American lawyer. She serves as chief counsel and policy director at the Judicial Crisis Network , a conservative legal organization. [3] [4] She was previously a law clerk to United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and to Judge David B. Sentelle of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit . [5] She is a contributor to National Review . [6] [7]
Severino has been involved with constitutional challenges to the Affordable Care Act . [9] [10]
I give you specifics regarding her background and agenda, and you, whom I question as to your qualifications to evaluate hers, declare her wonderfulness.
THIS is the Trumpian mentality … simplistic, fact-free pronouncements.
Frightening.