Since some people are confused, let me lay out how this works. She sees the nomination of Barrett and chooses to write about liberal anti-Catholicism. She obviously not coming out in support of Barrett. But the water carrying is through obfuscation and changing the conversation.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Preordained, so to speak.
-
HAHAHAHAHA I SAW WHAT YOU DID THEREpic.twitter.com/nr20d9cHgW
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If Barrett Joins, Supreme Court Would Have Six Catholicshttps://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-09-26/if-barrett-joins-supreme-court-would-have-six-catholics …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That’s not how I interpreted the article.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
In other words, she obscures the issues and distracts from Barrett's horror show. Which is water carrying.
- Show replies
-
-
-
If you still want those dinner party invites you have to play the game.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
why is Barrett even working? SHE should be home in the kitchen or are her beliefs only for other women?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I read it and I see Erik’s point. Liz’s Catholic empathy kicks off discourse of how Catholics have been on the outside looking in for liberal religious tolerance, but ACB isn’t an underdog of liberalism, she’s a dogmatic lunatic. that is all she deserves to be discussed as
- Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.