Ignoring children's devastating injuries, 'Dr Jill' peddles vaccinations

Counselor706

Literotica Guru
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Posts
2,665
First lady Jill Biden visited children severely wounded from the Christmas parade massacre in Waukesha, Wisconsin, on Wednesday, also using the occasion to remind parents to vaccinate their children for coronavirus.

The first lady visited two children who were severely injured during the attack at Children’s Wisconsin hospital, but her public remarks focused only on vaccinations.

The first lady’s visit to Waukesha took place more than three weeks after the horrific incident as Darrell Brooks Jr. allegedly intentionally drove his SUV into a crowd watching the town’s annual Christmas parade.

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have still not visited the community to offer their sympathies.
Source
 
So the complaint is that her speech, which was on the subject.of vaccinations for children, ignores other topics?

This is the complaint?
 
What else should she say? Anything else that can be done medically for those children is presumably being done already.
 
What else should she say? Anything else that can be done medically for those children is presumably being done already.
I don’t know. Maybe Donald Trump could suggest treatments for those kids.
 
What else should she say? Anything else that can be done medically for those children is presumably being done already.

Let's put Dr. Jill in a hospital room with the injured from Charlottesville and see what she says.
 
So the complaint is that her speech, which was on the subject.of vaccinations for children, ignores other topics? This is the complaint?


Yes, and it is a valid complaint. She was using a tragedy inflicted on children, and the publicity surrounding their suffering, to advance her own agenda. It's rather despicable grandstanding in my book.

She could have spoken about what enabled that murderous attack: viz. allowing thugs with a history of violent felonies to be out on a $1000 bail. But she wouldn't do that that because it would cause problems with a core constituency of the Democrat Party,
 
Yes, and it is a valid complaint. She was using a tragedy inflicted on children, and the publicity surrounding their suffering, to advance her own agenda. It's rather despicable grandstanding in my book.

She could have spoken about what enabled that murderous attack: viz. allowing thugs with a history of violent felonies to be out on a $1000 bail. But she wouldn't do that that because it would cause problems with a core constituency of the Democrat Party,

It would not in any way have been more appropriate for her to say that.
 
She could have spoken about what enabled that murderous attack: viz. allowing thugs with a history of violent felonies to be out on a $1000 bail. But she wouldn't do that that because it would cause problems with a core constituency of the Democrat Party,

No, it wouldn't. No more than condemning the likes of Timothy McVeigh would cause problems with a core constituency of the Republic Party.
 
Back
Top