Hashtag ’Superspreader’ Pinned To Trump’s Reckless Supreme Court Nominee
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.
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?
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.
"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
Who is online
483 visitors
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.
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.
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.
So, her desire to please Trump could have caused her kids to get sick, thats what.
You are aware that multiple people got the coronavirus at that event, arent you?
Information for parents and caregivers about COVID-19 in children and teens
What you need to know
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 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:
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.
I read something, also, about children having lasting health effects with their lungs and hearts
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.
That's very true
"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 .
Information for parents and caregivers about COVID-19 in children and teens
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 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:
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.
How old is the boy?
He's 9 years old.
Oh, how sad. I hope he's doing better
Yes, and as far as I know, there were no underlying conditions. He was a healthy little boy.
Hand Maiden.
The president of Notre Dame, who was there without a mask, and contracted the virus, has apologized for his recklessness. Will Barrett? lol.
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.
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:
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.
I think she will breeze through her confirmation hearings and Trump will get the hat trick.
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.
why are ypu opposed to her?
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.
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
Barrett signed ad in 2006 decrying ‘barbaric legacy’ of Roe v. Wade, advocating overturning the law
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.
so what?
she is a brilliant mind, you should be celebrating her instead of criticizing her so much
"you should be celebrating her instead of criticizing her so much"
Her choice, not yours.
Celebrating the closed minded fanatic for what?
post 4.2.1o
No shit Sherlock
and????
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?
"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.
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.
What decisions of hers don't you agree with, and why?
Dulay asked you 8 hours ago.
That's the best you could come up with?
That's hilarious.
And I chose not to answer. So what?
Kind of beats hell out of nothing, which you provided.
You got that right!
FFS, I asked you that question 10 HOURS ago. Try to keep up.
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.
Perhaps, she chose not to answer. So what?
Is that all you have, a critic of me not answering someone else?
"Perhaps, she chose not to answer. So what?"
"Her choice, not yours"
Some folks here think I answer to them.
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?
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,
She's a conduit for the male voice. The only thing that makes her female is her vagina and tits.
there is no end to it.
many are still criticizing her for her religious beliefs, too.
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.
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.
isn't it ironic that Democrats are being so misogynistic?
And spreading her legs whenever her husband demands it.
Well...that's not always a bad thing. Just as long as he's keeping up his part of the bargain.
her choice, not yours
It appears they're never closed.
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.
excellent reposting, hope you take it to heart
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.
Shaming a woman for having sex... No surprise.
Whether she wants to OR NOT
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.
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.
[Deleted]
”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.
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
Liberals think a male to female transgender is a "real" woman
Do you?
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.
I believe in sex and gender and biological variables.
You're confusing science and biology.
"Attacks" are only physical violence not words....at least what I was told this morning
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?
"most smartest"
Is that proper grammar?
No, but proper grammar is the least of their issues.
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.
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.
.
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
How much time you got?
Kiss of the Spider Woman!
Claudia Conway has tested positive for coronavirus.
Stephen Miller has tested positive.
I thought reptiles were immune.