monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

JoanneWrightForCongress
@JWrightforCA34
· Feb 24
The Corona virus was man-made. Bill Gates is one of the financiers of the Wujan lab where it was being developed. I wouldn’t put it past them and by “them” I mean everyone from Adam Schiff to George Soros, Hillary Clinton and the Pope. #DeepStateCabal #KAG2020 @CIA https://twitter.com/MissILmom/status/1231978527748186112

"We're ordering a lot of supplies. We're ordering a lot of, uh, elements that frankly we wouldn't be ordering unless it was something like this. But we're ordering a lot of different elements of medical."

@gungasnake,
Quote:
Basically, Schiff is up to his eyeballs in the same kind of stupid **** that made Jeffrey Epstein famous.


Infamous, rather. Much like many deletes, like (former) prince Andrew, and has-been actor and child molester Kevin Spacey.

I did see a lot of panicked desperation in Schiff's eyes and general demeanor.

He's a bad lad, by the sounds of it.

Kept some interesting company.

"Kakistocracy" -

I'm not sure how or why this got done but it is good news.

but once people start dying and hospitals run into shortages of things like facemasks Trump's cavalier dismissals of the seriousness of the disease will come back and bite him in his fat ass.

Alex Jones’ Infowars is attempting to profit from the coronavirus outbreak

Jones: “I am very sad about this virus and very sad about the bioweapons and things that are going on, but it is an opportunity for people to take advantage of the products we have”

Far-right conspiracy theory outlet Infowars has been aggressively hawking bulk food packages at inflated prices while spreading wild conspiracy theories about the coronavirus outbreak. Since December, the price of bulk food at Infowars’ online store has more than doubled with the biggest package costing nearly $3,000.

pourmecoffee
@pourmecoffee
3m
JUST IN: President Trump will hold a briefing at 1:30 pm to discuss the coronavirus, his 2016 electoral college victory, and how aircraft carriers should have a pointed front for stabbing.

Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
(THREAD) I see many stories on the Coronavirus, many on the election, a few on the politics of the Coronavirus, and virtually nothing on how the Coronavirus could interrupt election season. Isn't that a conversation analysts should at least *begin*? I try to do so in this thread.
9:25 AM · Feb 29, 2020·Twitter Web Ap
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
54m
Replying to
@SethAbramson
1/ Please note that I'm only discussing *scenario-planning*. I'm not saying what will or won't come to pass—we can't know—only that not starting a discussion until we're (potentially) in the midst of an unprecedented situation makes no sense. We should discuss possibilities now.
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
51m
2/ The first thing to note is that live primaries constitute enormous gatherings of people that would likely be considered inadvisable in the *potential* future of a larger Coronavirus outbreak in the U.S. The primaries extend into June. What if the last few need to be cancelled?
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
49m
3/ The Democrats must start thinking now about what they'd do if their final primaries had to be cancelled at a time when no candidate had enough delegates to win—especially if a larger U.S. outbreak had made having a DNC (convention) in late July impossible. How would that work?
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
48m
4/ For instance, is it possible for the last primaries to be moved up to March or April? Is it possible for the Democratic National Convention to be conducted electronically? Either of those possibilities would need to be discussed and maybe set up right now, not weeks from now.
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
47m
5/ Are there future primaries that can be turned into mail-in primaries? What's the latest that that decision can be made? And political analysts would surely have to ask—if such primaries became the norm in late April, May, and early June—who would that benefit? Which candidate?
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
45m
6/ But let's put aside any question of cancelled primaries for a moment—particularly as voting lines and times and locations can be staggered to minimize human contact (and poll workers can wear medical gloves). But what about the much harder question of live political *rallies*?
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
44m
7/ Switzerland just banned *all gatherings of over 1,000 people*, and Switzerland *doesn't have a major Coronavirus outbreak yet*. How far is the U.S. from deciding that it'd be advisable for there to be a similar ban here? And who'd be most hurt if all political rallies stopped?
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
43m
8/ Understand that a ban on large gatherings—if it happened—could last indefinitely. Can you imagine a general election with no live rallies—only odd live-streamed ones—by either (say) Sanders or Trump? How would that affect turnout later on? But let's start with the *primaries*.
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
41m
9/ If Super Tuesday is a Sanders landslide, it makes the question of primary rallies moot—as the large groupings of primaries throughout March would suggest Sanders could wrap things up by March 31st. But what if voters are decidedly more split about who they want as the nominee?
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
40m
10/ I want to be clear that I'm *not* weighing in on the legality of certain decisions a presidential administration might make regarding large gatherings—let's just assume that the CDC could issue certain guidelines that *most* people would want to follow for their *own* safety.
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
38m
11/ But let's imagine the CDC issues no such guidelines, and folks just voluntarily stop attending large political rallies, or voluntarily stop showing up to the polls in person for primaries (attempting, instead, to vote absentee or early where possible). Who would that benefit?
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
37m
12/ In a general election, a lack of live events almost certainly benefits the incumbent—as he gets more "earned" media just by virtue of being the president and doing things a president does, whereas the challenger is more likely to be covered during major live political events.


Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
26m
20/ Then there are—the optimist in me says—opportunities for America to use a terrible situation to exhibit great, nation-defining resilience. Could Democrats decide that a longer run-up to Election Day than ever before means their nominee should announce...his/her whole Cabinet?
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
24m
21/ As a cultural theorist, I know that circumstances don't just shape events (history) or the actions of large groups (sociology) or the wiring of individuals (neuropsychology) or how individuals relate to their community (psychosocial dynamics). It can also change philosophies.
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
22m
22/ Understand this: whatever Trump's pampered son may say, *no one in America*—besides, I'm sure, a sociopath or two—wants the Coronavirus to become an epidemic in the US and cost *anyone* (else) their life. Saying that the Coronavirus might change us isn't *rooting* for it to.
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
20m
23/ For instance, the Coronavirus raises into even higher relief the fact that we *all* depend upon—and are affected by—the medical treatment received by our neighbors. In a nation with many millions of uninsured persons, a major virus is far *more* likely to spread far and wide.
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
19m
24/ By the same token, many Americans have decided that 16,500 lies from a single individual in our government—the one with the largest microphone—is *totally okay*. All right, but is it still okay if he spreads disinformation that costs many, many lives—and worsens an epidemic?
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
17m
25/ The sad truth—which Trump would understand if he were even slightly more human—is that no one will/should blame him for the Coronavirus, or for economic or other fallout from the virus. He'll be blamed—instead—for any lying, inaction or incompetence that *worsens* the crisis.
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
16m
26/ The Coronavirus is an opportunity for Trump and the US government to *rise to a challenge*—which would benefit *both* Trump *and* all Americans. But Trump's son taking it to "11" pre-crisis—accusing Democrats of *wanting millions to die*—confirms the GOP won't go that route.
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
14m
27/ Likewise, the Coronavirus is set to create some big challenges for the Democratic Party, which can start preparing now—ensuring it does so in a way that neither advantages nor disadvantages any candidate—or it can wait to act and risk looking like it put a hand on the scales.
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
12m
28/ Just so, the Coronavirus gives the Democratic candidates a chance to act like leaders—and to actually *lead*. Elizabeth Warren was the first to come out with a comprehensive Coronavirus plan...and the media ignored it. It should've been a major sign of her leadership ability.
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
11m
29/ The foregoing confirms that US media being willing to discuss Coronavirus *or* politics but not—in any robust, serious way—how Coronavirus could *shape* our politics going forward, and pose new hurdles that are *more than just rhetorical ones*, is really hurting us right now.
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
9m
30/ This is no time for fear: all of us should soberly pay attention to the CDC, medical experts, and local and federal health officials while—of course—ignoring anything coming from the president, as it will nine times out of ten be an incredibly dangerous and irresponsible lie.