Let's discuss all of this and take potential arguments and put them out there, and then, for a second, discuss how bad it is that we have to do this.

Someone here, and I cannot find your post, so that's on me; come claim your genius prize, called Trump "Schrodinger's President"

This is because he simultaneously sick and not sick, very ill and mildly ill, all of it, at the same time.

So, scenario 1: He's really sick. In this scenario, we have a really sick fool who didn't wear a mask and who infected basically an entire garden party.
In this scenario, with claims by unreliable liars (including him), everyone got sick and one guy, Grassley, is refusing to test because he wants that judiciary committee to have a quorum.
In this scenario, McConnell, a corrupt a-hole is pulling the Senate until the 18th, to avoid voting on a bill to help ppl in distress but also to protect Senate leaders, except the judiciary committee. Which is convening on the 12th to destroy rights and access to healthcare.
In this scenario, Trump is really sick or very sick or mildly ill, depending on whether you believe the nervous looking doctors on the podium surrounded by goons in white coats who look like bouncers, not physicians.
Scenario 2: Trump is not ill. This is a ploy to gain sympathy because of his tax fraud, desperate desire not to go to jail, and his need to be the center of things. In this scenario, seasoned con artists are continuing their grift by having Trump go hang out at Walter Reed.
This scenario is bolstered by the claim that "he will be released in a few days," because this disease is not like that, but hey, his supporters are really gullible. It is in their best interests to be gullible and some of them drank bleach when he told them to.
In this scenario, he did make those videos (still not live--come on now) but at Walter Reed's where he is being treated for nothing and is hanging out in his cufflinks and regular clothes. This scenario also has the complicated reality of him using oxygen under his mask.
But they are con artists and maybe someone thought this wld be a nice touch. (In the other scenario, he's hiding the oxygen from everyone and not very well.)

Then, there are multiple variations on these scenarios, but notice NONE OF THEM are the stories they are telling us.
And now to my main point: None of it matters. The biggest takeaway is he is a serial liar and we can't believe a thing he says, which is why we're not sure what is going on.

Why would we want someone like that to be our president?

More from Trump

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x