It’s astounding how election day seems to both be speeding toward us and simultaneously taking its own freaking sweet time. As fast as it’s moving, it’s also taking forever. We are becoming that desperate to get Trump out of office that every day he’s still there seems like ten.
It’s also been ten days since Trump came down with Covid. After coming out of a several day stay at Walter Reed that would have cost the average American citizen around $100,000, he has paraded around the White House maskless, standing on a balcony and invoking recollections of “Evita.” Meanwhile the White House itself has become something of a ghost town. Thirty-four staffers (that we know of) have contracted Covid, in addition to Melania Trump, Hope Hicks, Steven Miller, Kayleigh McEnany, (and my guess is Mike Pence as well.). Most staffers are working from home while Trump continues to insist that he’s fine, not communicable, recovering nicely, in terrific physical shape rather than being morbidly obese, and declaring that people should be perfectly fine with living with a disease that has killed over 210,000 Americans with no end in sight. At the same time, his staff refuses to specify when was the last time he tested negative. That reluctance suggests one of two things: Either he knew he had it when he went to debate Biden and hoped he’d give it to his opponent. Or his statements that he was being tested every other day were lies and he wasn’t being tested at all. Neither reflects well.
Meanwhile schools remain in a state of flux as students and teachers come down with it and Broadway has announced that they are going to remain shut down until May of 2021. Thousands of people remain unemployed, billions of dollars annually won’t flow into New York’s coffers, and obviously there won’t be any Tony Awards in 2021. But hey, at least Trump is feeling well enough to…
Okay. Clearly he’s not feeling well enough to do pretty much anything.
The country is witnessing something unique in our history: We are watching a chief executive of the United States having a complete mental breakdown.
This is not hyperbole. This is not a typical assessment that Trump is an egotistical narcissist.
We are genuinely watching a walking advertisement for the 25th Amendment. Nancy Pelosi obviously agrees, because she is currently introducing a bill regarding it that many speculate is because she wants to activate it.
Trump has retreated to his comfort bubble of Fox News and rallies. He rambles for an hour at a time to hapless Fox commentators who keep lobbing him softball questions while he rants about why hasn’t Hillary Clinton been indicted (for what? No clue.) and calls Kamala Harris a monster in the same way that an angry teen would describe the girl who dumped him a week before prom. When it was decided that the next presidential debate would be done virtually, Trump dismissed the idea. Of course he did. He has no record to run on; he has a huge target on his back thanks to Covid and the collapsing economy. His assertions that Biden is lacking mentally were totally demolished thanks to Biden’s performance in the first shout fest. (And it’s now turned out that Trump’s constant interruptions were a strategy suggested by Chris Christie deliberately to try and trigger Biden’s stammer, which could then be sold as proof of dementia. I hope some sort of karmic revenge is exerted on Christie so that…what? Excuse me? Christie has Covid, too? Wow, that was fast.). It’s natural that Trump would therefore shun the notion of a virtual debate. His entire debate strategy depends on looming and trying to shout over his opponent. If he’s on a TV screen, he’s entirely at the mercy of the moderators. I’m reasonably sure they watched the first debate, know exactly what Trump will do, and will not hesitate to shut him down. If he’s in person and they mute his mic, he can shout in hopes his voice will be picked up over Biden’s microphone. If he’s on a video screen, they just mute him. It’ll be like debating Max Headroom.
Biden, of course, agreed to the format, which is perfect. Ninety minutes of a Trump-free town hall should be all that’s required to nail down the final support Biden needs to take the election in such an indisputable fashion that Trump will never be able to offer proof of wrong-doing among voters.
Besides, Trump has other things to worry about now. It’s been announced that five years ago, Trump received a $21.1 million tax break after promising to preserve over 150 acres of woodland near his getaway estate, Seven Springs. As something that should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention, Trump’s people doubled the value of the land in order to jack up the tax break, and that is now under investigation. It’s unlikely that anything will come from this new inquiry before election day, but it’s yet another Trump tax crime to be piled onto the steaming corpse of his tax dodging activities.
God knows there are already enough books out there about Trump, but in the future there are going to be entire volumes written about the 2020 election. We’re watching something unique: a campaign that is literally falling apart on a national level. They’re running out of money; their competitor is leading them in all polls by double digits; Trump pulled one campaign manager because of the under attendance of his Oklahoma rally and the new manager has Covid. It’s like his whole campaign is being run by Milo Murphy.
It has to end.
So I want all of you to get out there today and vote to…
What? Another month?
Dammit.
PAD
• 
I mailed mine in already. You didn’t? Slacker!
Early voting in my state is less than two weeks away. And it’s already started in other states. I am going on Day One.
Go on day 2. Day 1 will be an insane asylum.
I agree and am looking forward to casting my vote. I’m amazed at the number of people who still support him. Reading the comments on any fox news article is like stepping into another world. Apparently quite a few claim that they avoid the pollsters – and they expect Trump to win again just like 2016. We can’t take anything for granted – everybody needs to go vote.
It is not like Milo Murphy’s in charge of Milo Murphy is a good person also leave Weird Al out of this
Correction, thanks to idiotic autocorrect: It is NOT like Milo Murphy’s in charge. Milo Murphy is a good person. ALSO, leave Weird Al out of this.
I’m surprised by the lack of commentary on Trump’s incredibly erratic Behavior this week from again calling for his opponents to be jailed too well tanking the stock market because he didn’t want to let the stimulus package go through he’s had a busy week for a man should still be in the hospital
The National Disgrace is as transparent with his tax history as he has been with his recent (and current) medical status. He has damaged his doctor’s credibility by pressuring him to prioritize politics over ethics. If the National Disgrace is actually “cured” and in “terrific physical shape”, then Senate Republicans should have no problem meeting with him face-to-face…oh wait. McConnell refuses to meet with him because of the White House’s compromised Covid safety protocols. Guess that’s one way to distance oneself from him.
My husband and I voted in Los Angeles County today. We dropped them in one of the many provided ballot drop boxes in our city.
Without triggering a left/right debate (like I need to try!), but what exactly do people think your President (or Governor, or Mayor) was supposed to do? Speaking from here in ye Olde Commonwealth, it seems like a lot of people expect a lot more of your politicians than they are legally, constitutionally able to do. Our lot have a different set of powers, and I don’t think the USA would put up with the sort of over reach and authoritarianism that has happened in say, Australia.
Your death count seems to be in direct correlation to the level of ‘freedom’ expected.
Take the question in good faith – what, if anything, should have been done differently?
I’m not really sure what an acceptable ratio of deaths to freedom would look like. But on the question of freedom: It has been well established that the United States Government can definitely require its citizens to stay at home or wear masks. One citizen isn’t free to endanger another, nor should they be.
Lets set aside any legal issues. I’ll just talk about a few ways that they could have responded differently without any risk of curbing freedoms.
They could have listened to the experts, followed their advice, and told us the truth. We know now that the President knew how serious Covid was very early on, but instead of tell us that he chose to downplay it – to say it would go away soon and wasn’t that serious anyway. If he had just acknowledged the seriousness of the situation, some people would have taken it more seriously and we would have fewer dead. Yes I know that he claims he didn’t want to start a panic. I believe that a component President could have found a way to alert people to the danger without inciting a panic.
The President could have avoided making basic common-sense precautions political issues – like wearing masks or staying home. Even if he’d just asked people to wear masks and stay home (not even required it) many more would have worn masks when they went out and stayed home more often.
The federal government could have coordinated the states responses and provided support. The federal government is supposed to provide states with assistance – like medical supplies and funding. We now know that the President dropped federal response plans when the virus was primarily affecting blue states. Also, the national pandemic response team was dismantled about a year into his presidency and states were denied access to national stockpiles of medical supplies. States were forced to bid against each other to get respirators. If the federal government had coordinated the response and made sure states had the supplies they needed, we would have fewer dead.
I’ve tried to answer your question in good faith. Do me a favor and try to respond in kind. That means not demanding proof when you could look it up. It means not posting links to hard right wing “news” sites that provide alternative facts. It means not taking part of this out of context or building strawman arguments or any other flavor of logical fallacy.
Last thought: The real ratio that matters is that the US has 4.25% of the worlds population, but 21% of all Covid 19 deaths.
Is the World Health Organisation website sufficiently centrist for you? *chuckle* Even now they seem to go back and forth on whether masks are truly effective. In the early days they didn’t think it was particularly effective (at least on their own)
https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331693
It didn’t help when Ol’ Doc Fauci himself (for a different reason, namely to prevent shortage of masks for medical staff whilst production ramped up) suggested there was no need to wear masks:
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising-against-masks-early-in-pandemic-2020-7?r=US&IR=T
Were the various levels of government ‘following the science’ at the time, or not? It seems to me even the advisors were just muddling through, just like the rest of us, and the advice wasn’t as clear cut as people now like to remember it as.
Oh, and as for the national pandemic response team being canned; I think you might be overselling that as a significant factor. See for example
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-trump-fired-pandemic-team-idUSKBN21C32M
Maybe I’m being too generous? You know the US better than I do; would it have made an appreciable difference if say Trump HAD told people to wear a mask? From over here it looks like half the people would have ignored that advice anyway, just because of who it came from. As opposed to ignoring advice anytime they wanted to go to a BLM rally, or John Lewis’ funeral, etc etc
The respirators – ehh; I concede; I don’t know enough about that particular facet to comment intelligently (cue the peanut gallery – “You never comment intelligently!” *ahem*). More coordination is better than less – I just assumed it was due to the particular American fetish for laissez faire above all other considerations. But would it have changed the overall number of respirators available? I had assumed it just affected the distribution, not the number.
I guess I’m just questioning why everyone is so keen to blame individual people for what seems to be systemic or organisational issues. The two are related, but saying so-and-so killed people is a bit of a stretch, isn’t it? I’m not pointing directly at you for that one, but it’s hard not to notice a lot of people seem to want a two-minutes of hate target right now. I don’t see that as either helpful of justified.
With one exception: Cuomo sending COVID patients to nursing homes rather than hospitals is a clear case of one person’s decision having a direct effect (intentional or not) on how many people died.
https://khn.org/news/is-cuomo-directive-to-blame-for-nursing-home-covid-deaths-as-us-official-claims/
Test
You’re pretty much wasting your breath trying to provide a reasonable response to MordWa. It won’t register. (Actually, it will, but he’ll still ignore it. IT’s what trolls do. Don’t feed them.)
Ugh. I just had the site swallow a longer annotated response. I’ll summarise, because life is too short
I think people who want ‘to follow the science’, ‘listen to the experts’ etc are jumping over some inconvenient facts – like the World Health Organisation going back and forth on whether masks are worthwhile (on their own, without significant additional measures). I hope the WHO website isn’t too right-wing for your taste? *chuckle*
https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331693
Similarly, can you really blame Trump for not following advice when even Ol’ Doc Fauci played fast and loose with the truth on a few things – there were reasons, such as not causing shortages of PPE for frontline medical staff. I’m not sure a different administration would have responded differently in the early days.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fauci-doesnt-regret-advising-against-masks-early-in-pandemic-2020-7?r=US&IR=T
Presumably, even if Trump HAD told people to wear masks, half the population may have ignored it just because of who gave the advice. I defer to the reader as to how much people actually listen to a President vs a Governor or Mayor – not my area of expertise, I’m afraid. Sure seemed to be ignored anytime someone turned up at a BLM rally. Or John Lewis’s funeral. Or any other time people just don’t feel like it.
As for dismantling the national pandemic response team – I think you might be overselling that a little as a major factor. It was merged and reorganised (apparently; in the endless bureaucracy who really knows if it’s more or less effective now compared to before)
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-trump-fired-pandemic-team-idUSKBN21C32M
You’re probably right that there was a better way to distribute respirators; if you’re expecting me to argue that government isn’t inefficient and often trips over it’s own feet from time-to-time, well… let’s just say I’m not falling for that trap. I just assumed that occurred due to the particular American fetish for laissez faire above all else. But isn’t it a question of distribution, not of actual numbers available? I don’t pretend to know what percentage of people who died were unable to get a respirator; I haven’t seen any numbers so wont argue one way or another.
The one I concede utterly – I don’t know enough about states funding and assistance. I haven’t seen a groundswell of discontent, however that may just be because it doesn’t get that much play here overseas. I could possibly comment intelligently (cue the peanut gallery – “when does he ever comment intelligently!” *ahem*)
Seems to me to all be systemic and organisational issues rather than due to deliberate policy measures, or even due to individual decisions* If you believe one side or another would just automatically have these things sorted, well, I think that’s naïve. Looking at governments around the world, these same issues are popping regardless of who’s in charge.
*with the exception of Gov Cuomo putting active COVID patients in nursing homes. Intentional or not, that policy strikes me as just nuts. He totally cut those people loose to die.
https://khn.org/news/is-cuomo-directive-to-blame-for-nursing-home-covid-deaths-as-us-official-claims/
“I’ve tried to answer your question in good faith. Do me a favor and try to respond in kind.”
Wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you. MordWa’s a troll. His “So the building is on fire. I mean, what exactly do you expect the fire department to do?” ridiculous question is typical.
Funny. I hear he speaks highly of you-!
And now, for the ‘Listen to the science’ crowd, apparently WHO has advised not to use lockdowns anymore. So it seems whatever position you take, eventually you’ll end up being right/ wrong/ right…
Pardon me, are you suggesting that scientists, when given more facts than they first had, must ignore the new facts in favor of what they originally said because they cannot learn anything new?
That’s not how the scientific method works. Instead, they consider the facts in evidence, develop a hypothesis, test it and use the resulting new information to support, modify or even set aside that original hypothesis. Expecting there to never be any mistakes that require changes indicates a certain mental laziness decent scientists reject.
But, Brian. That would require trump’s enablers actually believe one can learn things and not insistently stick to what they’ve been told to say. Two things they are incapable of doing themselves so they (insistently) object to others doing.
That depends on what you mean by “lock-down,” because you notably said “anymore.”
A few days ago, it was revealed that there was a plot to kidnap my governor. It was an eclectic group of people who some hated and some loved the president. However, they all seemed to believe his stories about the state being on a really strict lock down.
Right after this came out, Trump again on Twitter made similar claims that the state needed to be opened up.
Here is the thing… its pretty open. Most businesses were reopened months ago. Even gyms, which one of the would-be-terrorists named as grievance, reopened last month. The only businesses really still closed are bars that do not have outdoor seating, and they WERE open, but kept seeing spikes.
Schools are open, they just rely more on online learning. There are regulations, but are mostly things like mandatory masks and limiting number of people by size of area. What she is really fighting to keep now is unemployment benefits extensions… because people are going to many fewer places… by choice. Thus furloughs, and sadly lay-offs.
She has a nearly 60% approval rating for how she handled COVID (much higher than Trump either here, or nationally). This isn’t surprising. We went from the third worst hit state to in the low 30s. While there are certainly still economic issues, we have had one of the better economic recoveries, and life is probably as back to normal as it can be in a pandemic.
Unsurprising many of the people in this militia were not from Michigan, so very unaware of the realities of the situation. To say it is a strict lock-down is being a bit overzealous. Yet, the day after the plot was revealed he was talking about a need to open up Michigan.
That is part of the problem with the president, there are plenty of examples of governors and mayors who were able to make things work for the better. Instead of learning from them, he just makes up horseshit. He even kept talking about this need to open the state.
That is one of the biggest thing he could have done, not belittle and attack people who are having success. Also maybe learn from them.
He could have been honest with the American people back in February, so they could prepare. Reach out to governors to get a game plan.
Not pull the country out of WHO.
Make sure the CDC Did contact tracing when the first outbreaks started.
Closing flights to China was good, but what about Europe when they were starting to explode? NYC’s infection came from The Old World.
Actually talk to the American people, instead of turning every press conference into a a self-aggrandizing rally.
Be honest about the threat, since governors who are not doing anything and many people not wearing masks (the simplest and most effective way to curb the disease) cite what he says for their action or inaction.
There is a lot he could have done without violating the constitution. Even a mandatory mask mandate is not unconstitutional. Though he has already violated the emoluments clause, so how much he or many of his supporters care is actually a bit of a question mark.
Well, and if I understand the US, it’s the Governors who have responsibility for what ‘lockdown’ actually means, yes? Hence the question raised above; what was realistic vs legal etc. It sounds like you’re life goes on as normal, and so has mine, more or less. But my mother lives in an Australian state (Victoria) where you can be arrested if found more than 5km from your house without permission (with exceptions for essential workers, etc etc).
I couldn’t imagine the US putting up with that sort of restriction for any length of time. And unlike the Aussies, you didn’t give back your guns.
But I notice about half of your suggestions were about tone and language – not surprising given it’s DJT – and not so much about policy. I won’t argue about CDC doing contact tracing (except perhaps to say that’s a mixed bag – my local news is all about how the recommended apps don’t work) would be a good idea if done well.
WHO are very good on somethings, but this hasn’t been their finest hour. Like a lot of UN organisations, they are hopelessly compromised by not being able to call balls and strikes against certain countries. Though, again – would that actually change policy? Are people actually listening to them? (not argumentative – I really don’t know)
Mandatory mask updates… well, we’ve got those, it’s still unproven as to how effective that’s been – except as a conversation starter for people to yell at you how good/bad they are.
Thanks for the responses, everyone.
Just a note on nomenclature…
‘Flattening the curve’ meant just that, changing the shape of the distribution. It was intended to keep the number of serious cases below the number of IC beds available. It did not mean reducing the total number of cases or deaths. It might have reduced the total numbers, but that has never been established or intended. However, many have ‘assumed’ that it would reduce total number of cases and deaths, and then were outraged when they still happened. Until we achieve herd immunity, it is going to continue to spread, and deaths will continue to happen. However, by slowing the spread, we might actually INCREASE the number the total number of cases and deaths as previously unexposed populations are later exposed. Many patients are now recovering as the medical community is developing treatments involving antibodies, reducing the use of respirators as they cause more damage than they help, etc.
So, again, what will cause more damage in the long run, the pandemic, of the destruction of the economy, especially since that destruction focused on the lower classes and small businesses rather than larger concerns.
“It did not mean reducing the total number of cases or deaths”
Slight correction: “Flattening the curve” did aim to reduce the total number of deaths. By keeping the number of concurrent cases from overwhelming hospital capacity deaths could be avoided. Those in need of serious treatment could get it, rather than doctors just not being able to get to them.
Mea culpa, in that sense you are correct. The real problem, esp. in the early days, was that treatment was often given that did not really help, such as respirators that caused more problems since the disease was not a typical respiratory virus, but was more a coagulant. We will still have to deal with fact herd immunity was delayed, and so we will have cases for a long time, and the economic effects will be here longer!