1. We don't know how sick the president is 2. There are clear protocols for both someone with the disease & for how the WH should function if he is incapacitated 3. Trump doesn't do much and what he does is usually damaging so having him out of commission is not a disaster
4. There is an election in four weeks and it is likely the president will be replaced 5. Since the likelihood is Trump will recover, the net substantive impact of this is likely pretty low 6. The president's mental issues, foreign ties & general unfitness remain bigger worries
7. The election and inauguration dates are set and won't be changed 8. Most of the gov't has learned to operate without the involvement of Trump anyway...many, even his supporters, prefer that 9. Trump will have excellent care
10. The reality is an incapacitated Trump is likely to do less damage...especially during these last, waning weeks of an election campaign in which he is far behind and his prospects range from lousy to historically bad
So...let's not hyperventilate here. Because the biggest real risk from Trump having COVID is that it distracts from the urgency of removing him from office, from his crimes, from his racism, from his manifold failures, from the fact that he has betrayed the country.
Perhaps most importantly, let's remember that among the greatest of those crimes is that this president had the information and tools to contain the COVID crisis as other nations did...and he did not do it. Further, he did not do it for reasons that were entirely selfish.
He placed his political well-being ahead of the health, security and well-being of the country and nearly 210,000 are dead as a result, tens of millions out of work, tens of millions more struggling, industries crushed.
He compounded the risks of the virus with his arrogance, rejection of science, corruption and narcissism...all character flaws that were fully on display in the run up to his contraction of the virus and were, in fact, responsible for it.
Don't lament the fate of the arsonist who is singed while burning down your home. Don't fret about the temporary absence from his post of a man who has abused and degraded that high position every moment he has occupied it.
Show decency, of course. Show compassion. But keep it in perspective. Don't let it overshadow what is more important. Trump getting COVID is a further indictment of Trump's despicable record in responding to the disease, not a reason to forget that record even for a moment.
If you are concerned with the health and security of the nation there is one critical step we must take and that is removing Donald Trump from power. He is not the victim here. He is the root cause of many of the most serious problems this country has faced in its history.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Every single time you engage in the delusion that Trump has a "policy position" on traditional issues you normalize him. Trump has no beliefs, no traditional policy views. For him, policies are like his blue suit & dumb long red ties, a costume he wears to hide who he really is.
He is a terrorist calling himself a freedom fighter. This election is not about his tax policy versus that of Kamala Harris, even if he has proposals in that area. It is about the fact that he is a criminal, a traitor, a fraudster, a liar, the worst president in our history...
...a terrible human being who seeks to reward himself & his friends at the expense of everyone else. Everything he does is first and foremost about what is in it for him and occasionally for his supporters (because he needs to pay them off to get what he wants for himself.)
Given the number of ways that a candidate can communicate directly with voters--the relevance and wisdom of doing so through intermediaries who will filter the news and who often will bend it to suit other agendas has diminished. That seems reasonable to me.
The argument that the press is the objective presenter of facts has been weakened as virtually all media seek to adjust their presentation of content to suit business or political objectives. There are fewer and fewer journalists who can be relied upon to seek objective truth.
Too many are compromised not only by the agenda of their company's owners but by their own history of access journalism or sensationalism or focusing on the trending rather than the important story. They howl at being ignored or bypassed. But they share some of the blame.
The argument that Harris is somehow not speaking enough to the press is ridiculous on several levels: 1.) She actually does speak to the press, 2.) She has been visible constantly since she became the candidate, 3.) She has been clear and detailed about all her policy goals.
4.) She has been readily available to the press for four years. There are few questions about her that have not already been asked and answered. 5.) The goal of the campaign is for her to communicate with voters. So far, they seem to have responded well to what she has said.
6.) Her opponent is actually not campaigning, is primarily speaking to patsies in the press when he does speak to the media, and lies constantly so it doesn't matter what he is asked because he won't answer truthfully.
Folks, if you want a US policy toward Israel and Gaza that is more focused on relieving the suffering the people of Gaza and achieving a lasting, just peace, disrupting the campaign of the one person most likely to deliver that is a bad idea. Especially when...
...she has indicated a willingness to meet with groups that share your views. She may not agree with all of your ideas and suggestions. But she is by far your best and only legitimate hope of change and weakening her is a crazily self-destructive process.
You may not like this reality. But you would like the alternatives--Trump or the status quo--much much much less. You may not feel you can wait for our political processes to work out...but frankly, there is no alternative choice that is available or possible.
To all the geniuses who feel Harris should have picked Shapiro to "win Pennsylvania" I ask, um, when was the last time that was the reason a VP was picked? (Hint: It is seldom if ever the reason a VP candidate was picked.)
Here, let me do some quick math for you. Biden certainly didn't pick Harris to win a contested state. Trump picked neither Vance nor Pence to win contested states. HRC picked Tim Kaine to help in Va., that's true, and he helped. It was an outlier.
Do you think McCain picked Palin to win Alaska? Edwards did not help Kerry win North Carolina. Did Cheney get picked to help Bush in Montana? No. How about Lieberman to help Gore in Connecticut. No. Clinton did win Al Gore's home state of Tennessee...
The recent discussion about Biden has gone through phases. The first was about the debate performance. The second was about whether that was a signal of potential problems to come. But we are now in a third phase which turns more fears about the state of the campaign.
These concerns are largely from political professionals (not commentators). They turn not just on setbacks since the debate but on the fact that the campaign was seemingly spinning its wheels even beforehand. I sense a bunch of it is from worried folks down the ballot.
These conversations seem to be continuing despite Biden's repeated statements that he is definitely running and in it for the long haul and have not been helped by recent polling data, the Cook Report downgrade of Dem battleground prospects, etc.