In a sane universe, we'd be having serious, painful discussions about #COVID19 safety, vs pedagogical concerns over kids learning virtually, vs employment disruptions if kids are at home, vs how we fund things to make schools safe(r) to attend or work at. 1/
Instead, Donald has managed to politicize the whole discussion by simply issuing a diktat that schools will open or else he'll cut off their money. And, no, the feds won't be doing anything to actually support it, except force the CDC to further water down their "guidelines." 2/
The "back to school" debate should be a serious one. There are no good, easy, failsafe answers. Under any administration this would be tough.
Donald's disengagement, his sociopathy, his obsession with winning in November, make it significantly worse. 3/3 #EnemyOfThePeople
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Just to be clear, Donald Trump has decided his lie that mail-in ballots are, on the face of it, fraudulent, means he can challenge them in Republican-controlled state legislatures and in federal courts stuffed with his appointees, including the Supreme Court. 1/
He has long asserted that he will clearly, obviously, massively win any election, even the last one he was in. Thus, if he loses, it's because his opponents are cheating, and so he should be made President, anyway. 2/
This is not beating around the bush. This is not an offhand joke or mangled malapropism. This is Donald being very clear about his plans, about his argument, and about his willingness to pursue this to the bitter end. 3/
There seems to be this weird myth going along amongst the anti-maskers, anti-distancing, anti-treating-#COVID19-as-a-serious-public-health-threat crowd, that their "opposition" are getting some special joy out of seeing people do all this stuff. 1/
This is not just wrong, this is not just insulting, but this is maddeningly offensive. 2/
I hate this. I hate *all* of this. Wearing masks. Treating my mom and in-laws like precious china and restricting myself to things that wouldn't threaten them. Not traveling on vacation. Not having folk over for game day, or BBQs, or (99% likely) Thanksgiving. I HATE it. 3/
Pretty sure Churchill didn't declare the Luftwaffe a Liberal hoax, insist he had shut them down before they could enter England, or demand Londoners bring their kids *back* from the countryside as bombs were falling. 1/
Churchill, while insisting victory would come, pulled no punches about how powerful and menacing the enemy were, or what it would take to defeat them. He didn't deny that bombings were all that bad, or that, someday, miraculously, the Reich would just disappear.
Also, pretty sure Donald never spoke -- publicly -- about any need for "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" to defeat the enemy. Or insist the nation would fight *as a whole* against the their enemy.
Meanwhile, Churchill didn't blame UK cities for being bombed. Or go golfing.
It's absolutely appropriate that Joe Biden not pre-announce a short list of SCOTUS nominees, if only to not look like a dangerous radical like Donald Trump, who just short-listed Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz on his own list. 1/
Tom Cotton's first comment after the mention by Trump, by the way. 2/
I mean, honestly, the idea that Trump will get to name at least 1 new SCOTUS justice in a second term is sufficient reason to vote him out. Proposing Cotton or Cruz should have folk literally throwing money at the Biden campaign. 3/
The Trump Administration's work in cobbling together a brief respite in the Middle East, twisting the arms of two close allies that owe him a lot of favors to make at least temporary nice is not nothing, but it's also an example of a bare minimum of effort. 2/
Especially since every other aspect of his foreign policy in the Middle East has consisted of (a) giving Israel support for all their actions, (b) hanging out with petro-autocrats, and (c) periodically threatening war with Iran. 3/
So the story here appears to be that (1) there are insufficient Catholic priests in the Chaplain Corps, (2) the Navy has in the past spent money to contract for additional Catholic priests, but (3) they have decided not to do so any more for US bases. 1/
This is not discrimination against Catholics. The US Navy is not obliged to provide ministers of any given faith or denomination to its sailors, particularly those based at US bases where there are presumably civilian resources for them to go to. 2/
For Navy personnel aboard ships and at overseas bases, Catholic priests will still be provided. I suspect that any US Navy bases in the US have communities with Catholic churches in them. 3/