Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Purgatory: Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1141142144146147168

Comments

  • This morning, the White House physician sent out a memo saying the Trumps were not showing any symptoms and were isolating at the White House,

    About noon my time (or around 1500 Eastern time). They announced Trump was experiencing "mild" symptoms.

    Then three hours later they announce Trump is being transferred to Walter Reed Military Hospital "out of an abundance of caution."

    Anyone notice the progression of the disease?

    What happens if he is incapacitated? One of two things can happen. He can temporarily sign over his powers to the VP, and once he has sufficiently recovered, the can reclaim the powers.

    Or, if he cannot voluntarily do that, the VP with the approval of the cabinet can inform congress the VP will be taking over on behalf of
    the president. The VP can assume the powers for up to 30 days I think.

    And then there is the issue of what happens to the Republican campaign if Trump is permanently incapacitated. Pence became the Republican Presidential nominee and will put forth someone as the VP nominee subject to the approval of the Republican National Committee.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Please God, they do not choose Ivanka.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Or, if he cannot voluntarily do that, the VP with the approval of the cabinet can inform congress the VP will be taking over on behalf of the president. The VP can assume the powers for up to 30 days I think.

    If the Twenty-Fifth Amendment is invoked the vice president becomes the acting president until the president informs Congress that he has regained the ability to fulfill the duties of his office. There is no time limit.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    This morning, the White House physician sent out a memo saying the Trumps were not showing any symptoms and were isolating at the White House,

    About noon my time (or around 1500 Eastern time). They announced Trump was experiencing "mild" symptoms.

    Then three hours later they announce Trump is being transferred to Walter Reed Military Hospital "out of an abundance of caution."

    Anyone notice the progression of the disease?

    ....


    I don't think that's the disease progressing. I think that's reality beginning to seep in. Also, two bob to a peanut Trump is a massive hypochondriac. Reminds me of this Airplane/Flying High scene. (gratuitous objectification alert)
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Croesos--

    So if

    --Pence became acting president;

    --the Nov. 3, 2020 election took place successfully enough that there was a fair amount of multi-partisan/multi-view agreement on the result;

    --T won re-election;

    --T was still sick, so Pence continues presidenting up until the inauguration...

    What then? If T was still too unwell to serve, but won re-election, is P somehow inaugurated as acting president, or as a proxy for T? Or would P be inaugurated in his own right, since he was on the winning ticket, but the presidential candidate can't serve?

    Does that make some sense?

    And IIRC Congress has its bit to do to remove T from office.

    Thx.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    NOTE:
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Yup. Tangentially, I'm still trying to figure out why so many news outlets refer to him as "Reverend". Are there circumstances in which that's a proper way to address a Roman Catholic priest? IME, Episcopal priests tend to use "Reverend", even at a high up the candle church.

    And Fr. Jenkins signed that letter with "Fr." rather than "Rev.".

    This referred to Croesos' post, a couple slots up from mine. Cross-post in between.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Leorning Cniht--

    Thanks for the "not a vaccine" info. :)
  • CBC news has it that he knew about his exposure and risk at the time of the debate. And his family and supporters weren't masked in the audience. The ice man cometh.
  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    Ignorance and arrogance meet.

    They feel immune to everything - including Covid19.
  • Rational voters will see this unfolding disaster among Republican top brass and steer away from where 'Ignorance and arrogance meet'. But there are still surprising numbers of people too resistant to bad news, too entrenched in analysis-free thinking, too simple-minded and blinkered to take the action required.

    On the bright side this will affect mostly the arrogant, self-important dullards who think they know best and their work contacts (some of whom are unfortunately those employed to serve them in more domestic roles, who didn't decide to put themselves at risk and don't deserve it).
  • Robert ArminRobert Armin Shipmate, Glory
    My understanding was that, if Trump became so ill he had to stand down, Pence would become acting President but not Republican candidate - a new one would have to be chosen. And what would happen about all the votes already cast?
  • And what would happen about all the votes already cast?

    Well, based on the google I just did, the veep candidate's name is on the ballot as well. So, I'm not sure what the law actually says, but, logically speaking, anyone who votes for Trump is also, in effect, voting for Pence to become president in Trump's absence. So there shouldn't be a problem in counting those ballots as Republican votes.



  • If the war metaphor fits, we know whose winning in his country.
  • My understanding was that, if Trump became so ill he had to stand down, Pence would become acting President but not Republican candidate - a new one would have to be chosen. And what would happen about all the votes already cast?

    No, we are voting on a joint ticket here. I think the ballots that have already been cast for Trump/Pence will still be counted with Pence on top. After the inauguration of Pence as president, he can nominate a VP that would have to be approved by the Senate. Which would be interesting, if the Senate becomes democratic.

    There is another interesting development in the confirmation of the new justice. So far three Republican senators who were at the Rose Garden announcement have tested positive for COVID-19 as well, which means that the vote will have to be delayed until after those three have recovered--and no one else on the Republican side gets sick.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited October 2020
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Croesos--

    So if

    --Pence became acting president;

    --the Nov. 3, 2020 election took place successfully enough that there was a fair amount of multi-partisan/multi-view agreement on the result;

    --T won re-election;

    --T was still sick, so Pence continues presidenting up until the inauguration...

    What then? If T was still too unwell to serve, but won re-election, is P somehow inaugurated as acting president, or as a proxy for T? Or would P be inaugurated in his own right, since he was on the winning ticket, but the presidential candidate can't serve?

    Does that make some sense?

    And IIRC Congress has its bit to do to remove T from office.

    Thx.

    Given that scenario Pence would be inaugurated as vice president (because if Trump wins re-election then presumably Pence does too) and continues to serve as acting president.

    There are two different ways to activate the Twenty-Fifth Amendment's temporary succession clauses. The first is if the president himself notifies Congress* that there is some disability which prevents him from fulfilling the duties and obligations of his office. This has been done three times in American history, all of them involving the president getting a colonoscopy. Read whatever symbolism you like into that. In that case the vice president serves as acting president until the president notifies Congress* that the disability has been removed and he's fit to resume his duties.

    The second way is if the vice president and a majority of the cabinet transmit to Congress* that the president is unable to exercise the powers and duties of his office. This has never happened so far in American history. Such a declaration could be because the president is disabled enough that he cannot make such a declaration himself (e.g. the president is comatose) but a lot of discussions revolve around the question of what if the president goes nuts? In any event the president only regains the power of his office after transmitting to Congress* that the disability has been removed and Congress agrees with him that this is so.

    Getting to the question of elections, in the scenario you outline Donald Trump would still not be fit to exercise the powers of the presidency** so Mike Pence would continue to serve as acting president until Trump transmits to Congress that he's fit to resume office. There's no time limit on the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. It expires when the president asserts his fitness for office (and when Congress agrees with him, in the case of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment being invoked by the vice president and cabinet).
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    No, we are voting on a joint ticket here.

    Technically (and Constitutionally) the presidency and vice presidency are separately elected offices. Many states list those offices separately on their pre-printed ballots.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    After the inauguration of Pence as president, he can nominate a VP that would have to be approved by the Senate. Which would be interesting, if the Senate becomes democratic.

    Both Houses of Congress, according to the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.


    * Technically just the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) and the President pro tempore of the Senate (Chuck Grassley) have to be notified, but let's not get too far out into the weeds here.

    ** Let's leave aside, for the moment, the question of whether Donald Trump was ever fit to exercise the powers of the presidency.
  • Inauguration is not some magic ordination. If (God forbid) T wins again while he's comatose, he would simply continue being president right past the usual changeover day, and whatever arrangements were in place already would also continue. We could skip the inaugurational bullshit and save a shit ton of money. We'll certainly need it...
  • I think if the VP and Cabinet, or a group designated by Congress, invoke the 25th Amendment to declare the president unable to exercise his/her duties, and the President contests this (or after the President claims to recover from illness the VP and Cabinet or the group Kevin ally designated by Congress disagree), it takes a 2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress to overrule the President and prevent him/her from returning to his/her duties. So it’s unlikely to happen unless the composition of Congress changes drastically.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    Watched an extract of the medical briefing, the doctors say Trump was diagnosed 72 hours ago - which if correct would mean he travelled unmasked after getting a positive test result.

    Also, if he is basically fine - why was there a critical care doctor at the briefing ?

    And then a White House official has told the press core that he was on oxygen in the White House and his vital signs have been “very concerning” - somebody somewhere is bending the truth.
  • Croesus wrote

    Technically (and Constitutionally) the presidency and vice presidency are separately elected offices. Many states list those offices separately on their pre-printed ballots.

    Oh? please name three states that list the offices separately.

    It has been my understanding ever since the civil war the President and Vice President have been on joint tickets in all the states.
  • Apparently trump assistant Kellyanne Conway is also alternative healthy.
  • john holdingjohn holding Host Emeritus
    Are not votes being cast in fact for named electors, rather than, strictly, for Trump and Pence? If either becomes incapable between now and the actual election by electors, surely those electors pledged to Trump/Pence will simply vote for whoever is named by the Republican Party.
  • Joke time:

    Biden and Obama are discussing whether to send Trump a Get Well Card.

    Biden asks: "Can I write, 'Stay Positive?'"

    I will let myself out.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    FFS what do these people not understand about how you catch Covid !?!
    Republican party officials in the state of Maryland meanwhile have asked supporters to gather outside the hospital in support of the president.

    "Pick up your friends, pick up your family, and head to Walter Reed Hospital now," a mass email read.

    Walter Reed lies in Bethesda, Maryland, to the north of the US capital.a

    (Source BBC News)
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Doublethink--

    Yikes. Lost in alt reality? More afraid of losing the election and/or T, than of sickening / killing / losing voters???

    Has anyone verified the source of the e-mail? Please God, it's not an errant Democrat.
  • Are not votes being cast in fact for named electors, rather than, strictly, for Trump and Pence? If either becomes incapable between now and the actual election by electors, surely those electors pledged to Trump/Pence will simply vote for whoever is named by the Republican Party.

    Not necessarily. It depends on if the state has a Faithless Elector law and the particulars of that law. 33 states have such laws, though half contain no enforcement mechanism. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Faithless elector laws. In law, the electors have been reduced to straw men of the state legislature.

    The ironclad way is have the state legislature to authorize the change between Election Day and when the Electoral College meets on December 14th. In theory it's a variation of when a presidential election is thrown to the House, it depends on the presidential election in each state and the composition of the legislature in each state.
  • jay_emmjay_emm Kerygmania Host
    Not necessarily. It depends on if the state has a Faithless Elector law...

    So am I right in interpreting it?

    Federally, the assumption is the USA is not a country but more like the EU, USSR (possibly also Rus Fed).
    The President and Vice President are elected seperately by 'Electors' representing the States (not the people). The number of 'Electors' each State sends is assigned, but conceptually the Federation doesn't care how they chose them.
    Similarly the Senators (compare to the EU commission?), and House? (or is that more like the EU parliament, and directly democratic)?

    Each State is in practice (or by federal regulation?) Democratic, and chooses it's Electors, Senators and Representatives by public elections.
    However as they have only one role Electors are normally considered totally interchangeable and anonymous, (compare and contrast to UK MP's), and effectively always appointed by a list based system (either FPTP or PR).

    So at Federal level the assumption is the Elector can make their own mind up, and vote separately..
    But at State level, you haven't voted for an Elector who can make their mind up, you've voted based on the ticket, which (for obvious reasons) is always paired.
    And this mismatch causes a horrible problem, which is covered by the Faithless Elector law, but doesn't work in the case of dead candidates.

    __
    2 Follow on questions,
    Could say a rogue NY republican/Texas democratic party decide to run it's Electors on a Biden/Pence ticket? (would it ever be in their interest?)

    In lopsided seats, could something like the Greens run on a if we get in we're still electing a (Democrat) President, unless we win in enough states... That would still have them potentially being a spoiler party, but possibly less so as it would only happen on a state by state basis.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    That sounds very complicated
  • I was thinking that if Trump dies, the Republicans win the election, (sympathy vote). But maybe not.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited October 2020
    Are not votes being cast in fact for named electors, rather than, strictly, for Trump and Pence?

    To the best of my knowledge, there is not a slate of electors for one candidate, and another slate for another. What there is, is a set of electors who are expected to go to the electoral college meeting and faithfully vote for whoever the voters in their state have chosen, transmitting their choices--regardless of the elector's personal feelings. Think of them as messengers. You don't change the messenger just because the letter on the inside of the envelope is different. The messenger is supposed to hand the envelope over regardless.

    It's one reason why the problem of faithless electors is vanishingly rare (except when lunacy reigns, as it did in 2016 and may in 2020). These are people who took the job knowing that they would likely be asked to vote against their personal desires, and they convinced those appointing them that in fact they will do so, if asked to. So faithless electors are people who have been pushed to an unexpected brink--who thought they could handle it, who probably could have, and then the universe dropped a freaking "I can't even" on them. And who don't take the other way out (as at least one did in 2016) of simply resigning because they can't face voting for (let's just say it) Trump.

    If either becomes incapable between now and the actual election by electors, surely those electors pledged to Trump/Pence will simply vote for whoever is named by the Republican Party.

    This would be the normal expectation, yes. Unless somebody dropped crazy juice in the water supply. But again, it's not exactly "pledged to" a candidate; it is "charged with carrying a certain decision made by the population of State such-and-such."

    I'm fairly sure that if T is out of the way, the vote would simply go for Pence, given the usual mode of succession. But if both were hors de combat, we would probably end up having to get Congress and/or the Supreme Court to fish us out of the muck, because a huge number of people will feel (and say) that it's not fair allowing a leadership cabal of any major party to simply appoint the president and vice president after discussion among themselves, without any popular vote at any stage.

    Still, please God, no matter what happens to the pair of them, it will be academic. I don't see the Republicans winning this one.
  • Okay, having been corrected in real life on how electors are chosen (apparently it's a much less uniform system than I thought), I'm going to withdraw much of the above post. My apologies. (This is whacked out!)
  • Re: JayEmm

    Yes, when it comes to elections, the US is more like a collection of 50 entities than one country. electors to the Electoral Colllege, Congress has little to no authority over them. It is all in the hands of state legislatures.

    Whether the electoral college electors have any free choice depends on the state.

    Many states only put one name on the electoral college elector's ballot, the one who won the state vote on November 4th.

    17 states, the biggest of which is New York have no such laws. However with a one-name ballot, an elector can only spoil their ballot, not vote for another candidate. These states may or may not use this system.

    33 states have "Faithless Elector" laws which restrict what an elector may do. Many such state laws gave no penalty attached. Of those that do impose a penalty, a faithless elector may be fined, imprisoned or their vote voided and the elector immediately replaced, depending on state law.

    In 2020 the US Supreme Court upheld the right of states to enact faithless elector laws, which means the state legislature may direct an elector to vote in a particular way.

    In principle an individual electoral college elector has no discretion or decision power at all unless a state permits them to have such power.

    Thus any Electoral College "correction" for a dead candidate has to be done by the state legislature in 33 states and it has to be done before January 6th, 2021 when Congress counts the Electoral College votes.

    Your first question is a Fusion ticket, it has happened at state level but as a campaign tactic in the popular election, never at the presidential level.

    Your second question happens often, third parties on ballots often do that, but it doesn't work.
  • The number of electors from each state is based on the number of members of Congress each state has. For instance, Washington state has 10 in the house of representatives and two senators. Therefore, it has twelve electors. No member of Congress can serve as an elector.

    By tradition and applicable laws, our state is a winner take all state, meaning even if Biden gets 58% of the popular vote, he will get 100 percent of the electors.

    Maine and Nebraska are different in that the electors represent each congressional district, except two which represent the state as a whole. Thus, Nebraska has three congressional districts. If two of those districts vote for Trump, he will get two of the district votes. If Biden wins one district, he will get one district vote, but the two at large electors will both go to Trump.

    There is a movement now to require all electors to represent the popular vote of the state, but that will take a Constitutional Amendment to proceed.

    The Parade Magazine for Sunday, October 4, 2020, has a short article called "Ask Marilyn" by Marilyn vos Savant that discusses the relevance of the Electoral College.
    Some people don't like the electoral votes (versus popular votes) deciding the presidential elections. Can you make an argument in favor of electoral votes?---Jacob Stein, Larchmont, NY,

    We are the United States of America, and our states--starting with the original 13 colonies--are separate entities. It is understandably unacceptable to states with smaller populations to have their affairs decided by other states simply because more people live there. Suppose there would be a United Countries of Earth, would we like the idea that China (population 1.439 billion) and India (1.380 billion) running the whole show (the United States has 331 million) or would we want a leveling factor?

    In truth, though, as it is currently configured the electoral votes of smaller states has more weight than the larger states. Take Wyoming which has 3 electoral votes (1 per 192,920 population) vs California which has 55 electoral votes (1 per 713,364 population). The scale is still tilted don't you think?

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited October 2020
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The Parade Magazine for Sunday, October 4, 2020, has a short article called "Ask Marilyn" by Marilyn vos Savant that discusses the relevance of the Electoral College.
    Some people don't like the electoral votes (versus popular votes) deciding the presidential elections. Can you make an argument in favor of electoral votes?---Jacob Stein, Larchmont, NY,

    We are the United States of America, and our states--starting with the original 13 colonies--are separate entities. It is understandably unacceptable to states with smaller populations to have their affairs decided by other states simply because more people live there. Suppose there would be a United Countries of Earth, would we like the idea that China (population 1.439 billion) and India (1.380 billion) running the whole show (the United States has 331 million) or would we want a leveling factor?

    In truth, though, as it is currently configured the electoral votes of smaller states has more weight than the larger states. Take Wyoming which has 3 electoral votes (1 per 192,920 population) vs California which has 55 electoral votes (1 per 713,364 population). The scale is still tilted don't you think?

    Note that this isn't an argument for the protection of minority rights, it's an argument for minority rule. If your objection is that it's unfair that decisions are made by the most numerous group then your objection isn't to any particular electoral system, it's to the idea of democracy itself.

    For those who are interested there was an extensive discussion on the electoral college at the Old Ship back in 2012.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The Parade Magazine for Sunday, October 4, 2020, has a short article called "Ask Marilyn" by Marilyn vos Savant that discusses the relevance of the Electoral College.
    Some people don't like the electoral votes (versus popular votes) deciding the presidential elections. Can you make an argument in favor of electoral votes?---Jacob Stein, Larchmont, NY,

    We are the United States of America, and our states--starting with the original 13 colonies--are separate entities. It is understandably unacceptable to states with smaller populations to have their affairs decided by other states simply because more people live there. Suppose there would be a United Countries of Earth, would we like the idea that China (population 1.439 billion) and India (1.380 billion) running the whole show (the United States has 331 million) or would we want a leveling factor?

    In truth, though, as it is currently configured the electoral votes of smaller states has more weight than the larger states. Take Wyoming which has 3 electoral votes (1 per 192,920 population) vs California which has 55 electoral votes (1 per 713,364 population). The scale is still tilted don't you think?

    Note that this isn't an argument for the protection of minority rights, it's an argument for minority rule. If your objection is that it's unfair that decisions are made by the most numerous group then your objection isn't to any particular electoral system, it's to the idea of democracy itself.
    It is also a duplication in that the makeup of congress is supposed to balance out the inequities of population There is also the fact that most of those less populous states have their bills paid by the more populous states. As well as why should the few dictate the lives of the many? There is inequity in the system, but not always where people think it is.

  • SarasaSarasa All Saints Host
    From what I'm reading in the Guardian Trump's medical team seem to be sending out some very mixed messages about the state of his health. I understand why they might not want to alarm anyone, including Trump who I guess is listening in to all they have to say, but it makes me assume he's worse than they are letting on. From what I can gather, using Johnson as a guide, it's week two where things can get sticky, and which ever way you measure where Trump is with this disease, he isn't quite week two yet. Anyone got any insight on what the true state of affairs might be?
  • Sarasa wrote: »
    Anyone got any insight on what the true state of affairs might be?

    When he went to Walter Reid they claimed he had very mild symptoms. The next day they said he'd improved greatly from those very mild symptoms. They also contradicted the previous timeline of his diagnosis. Now they're claiming he could be discharged as early as Monday, and White House security advisor (and former COVID-19 patient) Robert O'Brien says Trump will be at Walter Reid "for at least another period of time". (Real helpful, Mr. O'Brien!) Given all this, the most that can be said for sure at the moment is that he's not dead.
  • His oxygen saturation dropped, I think twice, so not quite the rosy picture portrayed at first
  • Well, we have a series of statements saying he's very greatly improved from how he was during the last statement, which told us he was doing fine. As blogger John Cole puts it, this all feels so Soviet.
    We don’t know his temp, any lung damage, etc. Nothing. This all feels so Soviet- “Oh Andropov is fine he is just taking a week off. No, no- nothing is with Chernenko, he’s at his mountain retreat.”

    For those who prefer the historical perspective, the folks at Lawfare have compiled Public Disclosure of Presidential Illnesses: The Discouraging History.
  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    You can’t cure a virus with words, however you spin them.

    He’s either improving or he’s not. Time will tell.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Sarasa wrote: »
    Anyone got any insight on what the true state of affairs might be?

    When he went to Walter Reid they claimed he had very mild symptoms. The next day they said he'd improved greatly from those very mild symptoms. They also contradicted the previous timeline of his diagnosis. Now they're claiming he could be discharged as early as Monday, and White House security advisor (and former COVID-19 patient) Robert O'Brien says Trump will be at Walter Reid "for at least another period of time". (Real helpful, Mr. O'Brien!) Given all this, the most that can be said for sure at the moment is that he's not dead.

    I heard not that he could be discharged but that he could "be leaving the hospital on Monday." That can have two meanings.

    I've also heard they're starting steroids which you don't do for mild cases.
  • I would be SO tempted to have a sudden electrical problem involving the TV and wifi to T's room. Either that, or forbid it on medical grounds ("raising your blood pressure" etc.).

    How in the world they can say anything half-coherent with the mental pic of their patient lying in bed, his eyes bulging and his lungs wheezing out of pure rage, doubtless to be dumped on them the minute they get back inside....
  • mousethief wrote: »
    I heard not that he could be discharged but that he could "be leaving the hospital on Monday." That can have two meanings.

    The White House has facilities on site that are roughly equivalent to an urgent care center. It's possible that enough equipment is being brought in that a COVID patient could be treated on site.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Croesos--

    As to your last line, I'm not altogether sure they would tell us any time soon. Gov'ts cover things up, especially when the secrets are about their country's leader. And other people around the leader (family, friends, people with vested interests) can manipulate things, too.

    Not saying he *is* dead. But I thought about this in the last few days. And, given the whole hot super-mess that is the election, the Republican party, the gov't, the economy, the pandemic, the millions of Americans out of work (many of them "food insecure" or actually starving, and homeless or close to losing their homes), etc., etc....

    They might well hide it for a while if he dies. A chance for them to take a breath, get a grip, and figure out what to do...before the lower layers of hell* break out.

    *Possibly from 31 inter-reality gateways, providing an assortment of flavors of hell.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    I heard not that he could be discharged but that he could "be leaving the hospital on Monday." That can have two meanings.

    The White House has facilities on site that are roughly equivalent to an urgent care center. It's possible that enough equipment is being brought in that a COVID patient could be treated on site.

    He appears to be doing victory laps outside Walter Reed.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    I heard not that he could be discharged but that he could "be leaving the hospital on Monday." That can have two meanings.

    The White House has facilities on site that are roughly equivalent to an urgent care center. It's possible that enough equipment is being brought in that a COVID patient could be treated on site.

    He appears to be doing victory laps outside Walter Reed.

    Which one's the hearse?
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    That seems a bit much GK. Maybe I am naive.
  • That seems a bit much GK. Maybe I am naive.

    There's some history along these lines.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Well, yes, but none of those examples involve the actual death of the President being concealed.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    One of the doctors at Walter Reed has gone ballistic on Twitter about the drive by - pointing out all the secret service personnel etc will need to quarantine.
Sign In or Register to comment.