monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

His campaign has always been uncertain. So has the leadership.

Okay, I am biased.

Speaking of leadership, I wonder if he still thinks the virus is a hoax?

BillW wrote:

Speaking of leadership, I wonder if he still thinks the virus is a hoax?

No, but it will all go away by Easter. I guess you didn't get the message.

It’s a hoax. It’s a charade to either drop out of the presidential race with an excuse, or claim that the virus isn’t as bad as it’s been made out to be after he recovers asymptomatically, or claim that hydroxychloriquine really works.

This would be significant enough to put Pence in charge.....

Unless Pence tests positive also. If so, then the Speaker of the House would be in charge. I forget now, who is that?

It’s a hoax. It’s a charade to either drop out of the presidential race with an excuse, or claim that the virus isn’t as bad as it’s been made out to be after he recovers asymptomatically, or claim that hydroxychloriquine really works.

it's Nancy Pelosi (the Hammer)

People in their 60s or 70s are, in general, at higher risk for severe illness than people in their 50s.

“We’re rounding the final turn, and a lot of good things are happening.”

wrong. godwin's law is only a meme, no legal authority or rationale. And american nazis are real and a domestic terrorism threat, godwin be damned.

Nonsense, as usual

You cannot provide any example of an untrue statement from any of his posts.

I do not find anything in his posts to be questionable.

If anyone does disagree with something that he says, they should address the statement that they disagree with directly instead of making vague comments about an imagined history of untrue statements.

Godwin's Law. You lose the debate.

godwin's law is only a meme, no legal authority or rationale.

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself) than others. For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. Mike Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of Godwin's law, claiming it does not articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate, hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics," Godwin wrote, "its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust."

In December 2015, Godwin commented on the Nazi and fascist comparisons being made by several articles about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying: "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician." In August 2017, Godwin made similar remarks on social networking websites Facebook and Twitter with respect to the two previous days' Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, endorsing and encouraging efforts to compare its alt-right organizers to Nazis.

In June, 2018, Godwin wrote an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times which denied the need to update or amend the rule, and which rejects the idea that whoever invokes Godwin's Law has lost their argument, and which argues that appropriate application of the rule "should function less as a conversation ender and more as a conversation starter".