Hashtag ’Superspreader’ Pinned To Trump’s Reckless Supreme Court Nominee

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  90 comments

Hashtag ’Superspreader’ Pinned To Trump’s Reckless Supreme Court Nominee
Amy Coney Barrett brought her kids to a #SuperSpreader event. She endangered their lives. They are on the front row with Melania, including her little one with special needs.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


With the latest developments, more Rose Garden photos are circulating and Twitter users are expressing concern about Barrett bringing her seven children to the even without masks.

As the children sat on the front row at the event, they were surrounded by others who also opted not to wear masks despite the ongoing pandemic. Amid concerns about Barrett possibly being exposed to the virus, she admitted that she was diagnosed with coronavirus over the summer later recovered. Her admission has only drawn more criticism. Having contracted the virus herself, many are puzzled by Barrett's presumed lack of regard for the virus as they've described her as an irresponsible parent.








fhM1qxND_bigger.jpg















Holly Figueroa O'Reilly

@AynRandPaulRyan



·

Oct 2, 2020 Some photos of Amy Coney Barrett's super spreader nomination at the White House on Saturday. Newly covid positive diagnosed President and Trump, Hope Hicks, Mike Lee, and Father Jenkins were all in attendance. Who else will end up positive?



EjVxi1vVkAUlPIx?format=jpg&name=240x240EjVxi1uUwAcCUrv?format=jpg&name=240x240EjVxi1vVgAMJUy2?format=jpg&name=240x240EjVxi1vUwAA6EUS?format=jpg&name=240x240



More photos of Amy Coney Barrett's super spreader nomination at the White House on Saturday where newly covid positive diagnosed President and Melania Trump, Hope Hicks, Mike Lee, and Father Jenkins were all in attendance. Seeing Melania sit next to ACB's children is awful.




EjVyGQiU4AEPP6p?format=jpg&name=360x360EjVyGRVVkAAShLL?format=jpg&name=360x360


@BklynDin








Amy Coney Barrett brought her kids to a #SuperSpreader event. She endangered their lives. They are on the front row with Melania, including her little one with special needs.






Others have noted that the latest superspreader event could have possibly been avoided if Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) hadn't rushed to nominate Barrett almost immediately after the death of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.




"Ironically, if Trump & McConnell hadn't insisted on fast-tracking their SCOTUS hijacking, Trump, 3 GOP senators (Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, Thom Tillis), Kellyanne Conway, etc., wouldn't have all gotten COVID this week, endangering their lives & the nomination itself," one person tweeted.

The president, First Lady Melania Trump, and several others who attended the event have tested positive for coronavirus. As of Saturday morning, Trump appears to be the only attendee who has been hospitalized due to complications of coronavirus. He is currently being treated at Walter Reed Medical Center.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Amy Barrett wanted to do what Trump wanted. I bet you when not at the White House she follows all covid precautions as do her children. But she had to show reverence for Trump so she left her precautions at home. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
1.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

She already had the covid and now most likely has antibodies. Her plasma is in demand. Chances are her kids were already exposed when she had the virus. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.1    2 weeks ago

There is no doubt she exposed her children to the virus. I'm sure it was unintentional in her zeal to please Trump who had nominated her to this dream job. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.2  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

So what?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  MUVA @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

So, her desire to please Trump could have caused her kids to get sick, thats what. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.4  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

You mean children that seem to have very little chance of having ill effects from the virus those kids. Shelter in place hide under your bed the world is moving forward see ya.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  MUVA @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

You are aware that multiple people got the coronavirus at that event, arent you? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/children/symptoms.html

COVID-19 in Children & Teens

Information for parents and caregivers about COVID-19 in children and teens

What you need to know

Children & teens can get COVID-19.

While fewer children have been sick with COVID-19 compared to adults, children can be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19, can get sick from COVID-19, and can spread the virus that causes COVID-19 to others. Children, like adults, who have COVID-19 but have no symptoms (“asymptomatic”) can still spread the virus to others.

Most children with COVID-19 have mild symptoms or have no symptoms at all. However, some children can get severely ill from COVID-19. They might require hospitalization, intensive care, or a ventilator to help them breathe. In rare cases, they might die.

CDC and partners are investigating a rare but serious medical condition associated with COVID-19 in children called Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). We do not yet know what causes MIS-C and who is at increased risk for developing it. Learn more about  MIS-C .

Babies under 1 year old and children with certain underlying conditions may be more likely to have severe illness from COVID-19.

Babies under 1 year old might be more likely to have severe illness from COVID-19. Other children, regardless of age, with the following  underlying medical conditions  might also be at increased risk of severe illness compared to other children:

  • Asthma or chronic lung disease
  • Diabetes
  • Genetic, neurologic, or metabolic conditions
  • Heart disease since birth
  • Immunosuppression (weakened immune system due to certain medical conditions or being on medications that weaken the immune system)
  • Medical complexity (children with multiple chronic conditions that affect many parts of the body who are often dependent on technology and other significant supports for daily life)
  • Obesity

This list does not include every underlying condition that might increase the risk for severe illness in children. As more information becomes available, CDC will continue to update and share information about risk for severe illness among children.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.7  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

That doesn't mean death.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.8  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.6    2 weeks ago

Just like I said thanks.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.6    2 weeks ago

I read something, also, about children having lasting health effects with their lungs and hearts

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.10  MUVA  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.9    2 weeks ago

What did you read because I read children for the most part have very little complications that seems to be the science.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
1.1.11  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.9    2 weeks ago

children having lasting health effects with their lungs and hearts

That’s nothing compared to living with the fact that they spread the virus that killed mom and dad.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.1.11    2 weeks ago

That's very true

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  MUVA @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

Health officials worry about long-term effects of COVID-19 on kids

More than one-third of all kids tested for COVID-19 in the state are testing positive. It’s even higher in Lee County at 46%.

Now, some health officials are sounding the alarm about the potential longer-term effects of this virus on our kids.

Health experts say we still have a lot to learn.

A warning from Doctor Alina Alonso, the director of the Department of Health Palm Beach County: Just because you don’t see any COVID-19 symptoms in a child doesn’t mean damage hasn’t been done.

“And while many of these especially younger children are asymptomatic when you take x-rays of their lungs, down in Miami and other places across the country, they’re seeing that there is damage to the lungs in these asymptomatic children.”

https://www.winknews.com/2020/07/17/health-officials-worry-about-long-term-effects-of-covid-19-on-kids/

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

"What did you read because I read children for the most part have very little complications that seems to be the science."

So you don't believe the CDC?

In case you missed it the first time .  

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/children/symptoms.html

COVID-19 in Children & Teens

Information for parents and caregivers about COVID-19 in children and teens

What you need to know
Children & teens can get COVID-19.

While fewer children have been sick with COVID-19 compared to adults, children can be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19, can get sick from COVID-19, and can spread the virus that causes COVID-19 to others. Children, like adults, who have COVID-19 but have no symptoms (“asymptomatic”) can still spread the virus to others.

Most children with COVID-19 have mild symptoms or have no symptoms at all. However, some children can get severely ill from COVID-19. They might require hospitalization, intensive care, or a ventilator to help them breathe. In rare cases, they might die.

CDC and partners are investigating a rare but serious medical condition associated with COVID-19 in children called Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). We do not yet know what causes MIS-C and who is at increased risk for developing it. Learn more about   MIS-C  .

Babies under 1 year old and children with certain underlying conditions may be more likely to have severe illness from COVID-19.

Babies under 1 year old might be more likely to have severe illness from COVID-19. Other children, regardless of age, with the following   underlying medical conditions   might also be at increased risk of severe illness compared to other children:

  • Asthma or chronic lung disease
  • Diabetes
  • Genetic, neurologic, or metabolic conditions
  • Heart disease since birth
  • Immunosuppression (weakened immune system due to certain medical conditions or being on medications that weaken the immune system)
  • Medical complexity (children with multiple chronic conditions that affect many parts of the body who are often dependent on technology and other significant supports for daily life)
  • Obesity

This list does not include every underlying condition that might increase the risk for severe illness in children. As more information becomes available, CDC will continue to update and share information about risk for severe illness among children.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.9    2 weeks ago

"I read something, also, about children having lasting health effects with their lungs and hearts"

My former boss's grandson got Co-vid and was very ill for quite some time.  

I don't know how he's doing lately.

But you are correct, I heard the same thing, I imagine that could possibly affect them all their lives.

So 'for the most part have very little complications that seems to be the science'  MY BIG FAT ASS.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.16  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.15    2 weeks ago

How old is the boy?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.16    2 weeks ago

He's 9 years old.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.17    2 weeks ago

Oh, how sad. I hope he's doing better

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.18    2 weeks ago

Yes, and as far as I know, there were no underlying conditions.  He was a healthy little boy.  

 
 
 
bbl-1
2  bbl-1    2 weeks ago

Hand Maiden.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

The president of Notre Dame, who was there without a mask, and contracted the virus, has apologized for his recklessness.  Will Barrett?   lol. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago

Even for the left, this Is a pathetic attempt. 
 
Should just start  the “-She led a  gang rape gang in high school”  angle championed by a swindler next.  

 
 
 
PJ
4  PJ    2 weeks ago

So we know that both Ms. Barrett and her husband contracted COVID several months ago and "recovered" (whatever that means ......since many who recover from the virus will have long term respiratory issues and other issues still unknown).

Here's what we don't know:

  • Whether someone who has recovered form COVID can contract it again
  • Whether someone who recovered from COVID is still able to spread the virus without showing any positive symptoms themselves, e.g. test

Here's what we do know:

Ms. Barrett doesn't hold enough common sense to weigh what is known and unknown and err on the side of caution. 

Ms. Barrett is so power hungry that she is willing to do whatever necessary to gain that power including becoming re-infected or possibly infecting others, aka premeditated murder.

Ms. Barrett is so brainwashed by her religion that she thinks God will protect her but not the 209k plus who have died from the virus.  Assuming because her God didn't deem them worthy to protect.

In summary - Ms. Barrett does not hold the mental fortitude to sit on the supreme court.

Finally:  We do NOT know enough about this virus to understand all the impacts it will deliver.  The scientists are still gathering data and will be for many many years.  WEAR A MASK, SOCIAL DISTANCE, AND WASH YOUR HANDS FREQUENTLY.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
4.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  PJ @4    2 weeks ago

I think she will breeze through her confirmation hearings and Trump will get the hat trick. 

 
 
 
PJ
4.1.1  PJ  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4.1    2 weeks ago

I agree but it doesn't make it a good thing or the right thing to do.   The republican party is so morally corrupt that those who have principles have fled.  Anyone who remains a republican is probably not a good person.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  PJ @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

why are ypu opposed to her?

 
 
 
PJ
4.1.3  PJ  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

She has a religious agenda that goes against the majority of Americans.  BUT primarily because her record shows that she is not capable of being objective without inserting her personal coo coo religious beliefs which means she will twist the meaning of the Constitution for political party.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  PJ @4.1.3    2 weeks ago

so what? not everyone is religious and certainly there are lots of different religions out there.

I don't think you know enough about her judicial decisions to pass judgment on her.

democrats pull this stunt for every Republican-nominated SCOTUS in recent memory

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

Barrett signed ad in 2006 decrying ‘barbaric legacy’ of Roe v. Wade, advocating overturning the law

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/amy-coney-barrett-roe-v-wade/2020/10/01/530072aa-0412-11eb-b7ed-141dd88560ea_story.html

 
 
 
PJ
4.1.6  PJ  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.4    2 weeks ago

True, I don't know every decision or opinion she has offered but those that I do know about along with those who have spoke out against her within the legal community and space is enough to make me pause.  The sheer fact that she had to make the religious coo coo list before republicans and the President would nominate her speaks volumes.  I feel bad for those in society that follow an organized religion.  I find them weak minded at best.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  PJ @4.1.6    2 weeks ago

so what?

she is a brilliant mind, you should be celebrating her instead of criticizing her so much

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.7    2 weeks ago

"you should be celebrating her instead of criticizing her so much"

Her choice, not yours.

Celebrating the closed minded fanatic for what?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.8    2 weeks ago

post 4.2.1o

No shit Sherlock

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.5    2 weeks ago

and????

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.4    2 weeks ago
I don't think you know enough about her judicial decisions to pass judgment on her.

So since you seem to believe that knowledge of her judicial decisions is required to pass judgement on her, let's hear YOUR position on them Tex. Which decision, or group of decisions convinced YOU that she has the proper judicial temperament? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @4.1.12    2 weeks ago
"I don't think you know enough about her judicial decisions to pass judgment on her."

"So since you seem to believe that knowledge of her judicial decisions is required to pass judgement on her, let's hear YOUR position on them Tex. Which decision, or group of decisions convinced YOU that she has the proper judicial temperament?"

Silence, what a surprise.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.13    2 weeks ago
Silence, what a surprise.  

FFS, you asked TWO (2) FUCKING minutes ago.

One decision I approved of her making was the case about letting a minor's parent know before the minor gets an abortion. I believe that is acceptable for a medical procedure.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.13    2 weeks ago

What decisions of hers don't you agree with, and why?

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.15    2 weeks ago

Dulay asked you 8 hours ago.

That's the best you could come up with?

That's hilarious.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.16    2 weeks ago
Dulay asked you 8 hours ago.

And I chose not to answer. So what?

That's the best you could come up with?

Kind of beats hell out of nothing, which you provided.

That's hilarious.   

You got that right!

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.14    2 weeks ago
FFS, you asked TWO (2) FUCKING minutes ago.

FFS, I asked you that question 10 HOURS ago. Try to keep up. 

One decision I approved of her making was the case about letting a minor's parent know before the minor gets an abortion. I believe that is acceptable for a medical procedure.

That case was a dissent for denial of a en banc session, NOT on the merits of the case...

Fail...

Guess YOU don't know enough about her judicial decisions to make a judgement on her Tex. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.17    2 weeks ago
Kind of beats hell out of nothing, which you provided.

Perhaps, she chose not to answer. So what? 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.16    2 weeks ago

Is that all you have, a critic of me not answering someone else?

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @4.1.19    2 weeks ago
"Kind of beats hell out of nothing, which you provided."

"Perhaps, she chose not to answer. So what?"

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

"Her choice, not yours"

Some folks here think I answer to them.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.21    2 weeks ago

I don't think you answer to me anymore than you thought I answer to you when you complained how long I took to answer a question I am under no obligation to answer.

Get it now?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  PJ @4    2 weeks ago

Ms. Barrett is so power hungry that she is willing to do whatever necessary to gain that power including becoming re-infected or possibly infecting others, aka premeditated murder.

i mean does anything need to be said about thIs?   If you start charging people with first degree murder if they fail to properly social distance after being negative on a test, then you better build a lot of electric chairs for the residents of cities.    

also, you guys need to keep your whacky conspiracies straight.  Is One of the most Smartest, most accomplished woman in the world a Meek Plant who will follow orders  to create some sort of virtual slavery for woman or a crazed,  power hungry terror intent on making herself one of the most powerful woman in the world?

frankly, I find the left’s misogyny exhausting, but there’s apparently no end to it,

 
 
 
PJ
4.2.1  PJ  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2    2 weeks ago

She's a conduit for the male voice.  The only thing that makes her female is her vagina and tits.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2    2 weeks ago

there is no end to it.

many are still criticizing her for her religious beliefs, too.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  PJ @4.2.1    2 weeks ago

As I said, I find the misogyny of the left exhausting.  How demeaning to believe a woman has to act  and think a certain way to be a “real woman”.  The modern left is trying to set back women’s rights 150 years and force women into the  boxes they deem acceptable.

 
 
 
PJ
4.2.4  PJ  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.3    2 weeks ago

As I said and as you've proven, she is a conduit for the male voice.  You embrace her for the very fact that she follows the word of men (the bible that men wrote to lord over several factions of people including women).  If that's not the very example of setting women's rights back 150 years I don't know what is. 

I don't say this to attack you so I don't want you to take it that way Sean, but I don't need a man (you) to tell me what women's rights are.  You have to live it to recognize it.  And while not every woman's experience is the same there's enough similarities to show it exists. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.3    2 weeks ago

isn't it ironic that Democrats are being so misogynistic?

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  PJ @4.2.1    2 weeks ago

And spreading her legs whenever her husband demands it.

 
 
 
PJ
4.2.7  PJ  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.6    2 weeks ago

Well...that's not always a bad thing.  Just as long as he's keeping up his part of the bargain.  jrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.6    2 weeks ago

her choice, not yours

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.8    2 weeks ago

It appears they're never closed.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.9    2 weeks ago

so what if that's what she chooses?

of course, a minute of reflection on what you claim might let you see how wrong you are.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.11    2 weeks ago
of course, a minute of reflection on what you claim might let you see how wrong you are

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.13  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.12    2 weeks ago

excellent reposting, hope you take it to heart

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  PJ @4.2.4    2 weeks ago
s I said and as you've proven, she is a conduit for the male voice

I called her brilliant and accomplished. If being brilliant and accomplished makes one a conduit for the male voice....

You embrace her for the very fact that she follows the word of men (the bible t

Please don't project your stereotypes upon me. 

t I don't need a man (you) to tell me what women's rights are

Ah, yes. I believe a woman's primary right is to be able to do what she wants to do. She wants to be an atheist? Fine She wants to be ultra religious? That's fine too. She want's alot of kids? Great! Zero! Also great!. Be a lesbian, a celibate, sleep with the fleet or one guy your whole life. Doesn't matter. Want to be a Supreme court justice,  a truck driver or stay at home mom? All  fine.  What matters is the ability to define your own destiny and not have it dictated to you because of your gender.

Of course, that's an old fashioned liberal belief that the modern totalitarian left rejects in favor of submersion of the individual into their  racial or gender identity.  "Real" black people only think X.  Or, as you say, "real woman". only believe Y.  She can't be a real woman because she favors the textualist school of jurisprudence! 

That's the difference between us. I think women are free to do whatever they like and you want to stuff  them in a box of conformity as to how you think woman should act or think. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.9    2 weeks ago
appears they're never close

Shaming a woman for having sex... No surprise. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.15    2 weeks ago

Whether she wants to OR NOT

 
 
 
PJ
4.2.17  PJ  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.14    2 weeks ago
I called her brilliant and accomplished. If being brilliant and accomplished makes one a conduit for the male voice

Yes, you did but within the constraints of the religious beliefs she promotes which .......ding, ding, ding.......goes back to the bible which was written for and by MEN. 

Wow - we agree on the basic principles of women's rights.  Where we disagree is that you think this one woman gets to project her coo coo religious beliefs on the rest of women through manipulating and striking down laws.  If you truly believed in the rights you listed then you would NOT support Ms. Barrett.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  PJ @4.2.17    2 weeks ago
u did but within the constraints of the religious beliefs she promotes whic

No, I called her brilliant and accomplished because she is one of the leading textualist judges in the nation. Textualism has nothing to do with religion. 

re we disagree is that you think this one woman gets to project her coo coo religious beliefs on the rest of women through manipulat

No, where we disagree is you project these motivations onto her and I let her work speak for itself. I get it's almost impossible for a liberal to believe a judge would vote against her  personal beliefs and instead simply applies the law as written to the question at hand. That sort of restraint go against everything the modern liberal believes.   After all, they worship  Senator, I mean Justice RBG, who's whole approach was to start with her favored result and work backwards and  find some legal reasoning to support it.  They think of a Judge as an unelected Senator, free to impose their beliefs and morals on the law as they see fit. .  Recall the shock when Justice Scalia, the original textualist found the law against flag burning Unconstitutional , even though he opposed flag burning  himself.  A liberal justice would never do that. Their morals and political beliefs always mirror the legal result they want.  Barrett is the opposite, an  opponent of the death penalty, has upheld death penalty cases as a judge. She applies the law as written, and contra RBG type justices, didn't impose her personal views.

The best protection this country has against judges who " to project her coo coo religious beliefs on the rest of women through manipulating and striking down laws." is too support Coney Barrett. Her legal philosophy is the best protection against power mad justices imposing their personal morality on the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.  

 
 
 
bugsy
4.2.19  bugsy  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.15    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Gazoo
4.2.20  Gazoo  replied to  PJ @4.2.1    2 weeks ago

”The only thing that makes her female is her vagina and tits.”

Actually it depends on who you ask. Ask a liberal and their likely to disagree.

 
 
 
PJ
4.2.21  PJ  replied to  Gazoo @4.2.20    2 weeks ago

Maybe......but I'm not having a conversation with a liberal, I'm having a conversation with a republican.  I'm pretty sure there aren't any republican's out there who will label someone whose been altered to be a woman, a woman.  That is unless they're behind closed doors or in train station bathroom then it doesn't matter what gender they're soliciting as long as they get their rocks off.  shrug

 
 
 
MonsterMash
4.2.22  MonsterMash  replied to  Gazoo @4.2.20    2 weeks ago

Liberals think a male to female transgender is a "real" woman

 
 
 
MonsterMash
4.2.23  MonsterMash  replied to  PJ @4.2.21    2 weeks ago
I'm pretty sure there aren't any republican's out there who will label someone whose been altered to be a woman, a woman. 

Do you?

 
 
 
bugsy
4.2.24  bugsy  replied to  PJ @4.2.21    2 weeks ago
I'm pretty sure there aren't any republican's out there who will label someone whose been altered to be a woman, a woman. 

I'll bite...

I don't think so

As the "party of science", the left should accept that genetics says that if a woman has chromosomes that identifies females and men have chromosomes that identify males, then there is no science that changes that, no matter what is artificially added or cut off.

 
 
 
PJ
4.2.25  PJ  replied to  MonsterMash @4.2.23    2 weeks ago

I believe in sex and gender and biological variables. 

 
 
 
PJ
4.2.26  PJ  replied to  bugsy @4.2.24    2 weeks ago

You're confusing science and biology. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.2.27  Trout Giggles  replied to  PJ @4.2.4    2 weeks ago
I don't say this to attack

"Attacks" are only physical violence not words....at least what I was told this morning

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.28  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2    2 weeks ago
Is One of the most Smartest, most accomplished woman in the world a Meek Plant who will follow orders  to create some sort of virtual slavery for woman or a crazed,  power hungry terror intent on making herself one of the most powerful woman in the world?

WHO are you talking about? 

One of the:

'Most Smartest'? Really? 

"Most accomplished woman in the world"? Ridiculous. 

You seriously can't be claiming those titles for Barrett, can you? 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.2.29  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dulay @4.2.28    2 weeks ago

"most smartest"

Is that proper grammar?

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.2.30  dennis smith  replied to  PJ @4.2.1    2 weeks ago

You have her confused with Kalamaty Hairless.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.31  Dulay  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.2.29    2 weeks ago
Is that proper grammar?

No, but proper grammar is the least of their issues. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  PJ @4    2 weeks ago
Whether someone who recovered from COVID is still able to spread the virus without showing any positive symptoms themselves, e.g. test

She is the only one who was there that had face to face contact with many of the other people so there is a school of thought that she may have been the spreader, although most medical opinion is that she had the virus too long ago to be contagious. But as you say, no one knows for sure. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3    2 weeks ago

Using the  “many are saying” way to slime your opponent.  But tell us again how trump is a terrible person.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.2  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.1    2 weeks ago
Using the  “many are saying” way to slime your opponent. But tell us again how trump is a terrible person.

Since you've express your disapproval with using the phrase 'many are saying' one has to wonder how you don't recognize that Trump is a 'terrible person' because it's one of his favorite obfuscations. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.3.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.1    2 weeks ago

.

Trump: Some people say   'Shifty Schiff' treasonous

-

Trump claims some people say ‘men are insulted’ by Biden ...

-

" Some people say  that was not Obama's birth certificate."

-

We’re taking — as you know, the First Lady is coming. Some of you are coming. I hear it’s going to be a big event Some people say  the biggest event they’ve ever had in India. That’s what the Prime Minister told me.

-

etc etc etc

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.3.4  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.1    2 weeks ago
"But tell us again how trump is a terrible person."

How much time you got?

 
 
 
JBB
5  JBB    2 weeks ago

Kiss of the Spider Woman!

256

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6  sandy-2021492    2 weeks ago

Claudia Conway has tested positive for coronavirus.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7  sandy-2021492    2 weeks ago

Stephen Miller has tested positive.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1  Dulay  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @7.1    2 weeks ago

I thought reptiles were immune.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
8  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

120998694_10159323869786800_7711446772652946920_o.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_sid=9267fe&_nc_ohc=pEO8K1A2GgwAX9AC4eD&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&tp=6&oh=923dc09b46aa9d2cd362d4a696739987&oe=5FA3C3C7

 
 
 
Tessylo
9  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

120860870_3728920190451706_5195465757854397539_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=PXyuViCWdDkAX9MH7kO&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&tp=6&oh=366c375d148e49366e13e07275d4ce26&oe=5FA1CB99

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

FLYNAVY1
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
gooseisgone


58 visitors