Hate to break it to you but if Trump had won, there would have been violence on Wednesday, and it most certainly would have been worse. How do I know? Because Democrats have been endorsing violence as a political tactic throughout the Trump Administration.
Point of this thread is not “whataboutism” as some will reflexively contend; it’s that Dems have actively encouraged turning American politics into the powder keg they now decry. Violence was coming no matter who won.
This is a wakeup call. It’s past time for Americans to take our power back from politicians. Peacefully!
More from Trump
A lot of conversations today among Republican senators over move by @HawleyMO to challenge the certification of Biden\u2019s Electoral College victory. Small groups of Rs were huddling on & off the floor trying to game out the politics of what will happen Jan. 6
— John Bresnahan (@bresreports) January 1, 2021
2. to hedge off these threats will also create fissures & fractures for these incumbents among other elements of their party that could complicate their renominations. Indeed, what worries me the most about the potential for the country to slip into @anneapplebaum territory is
3. that what should be robust and intense push back from the party establishment against actually ending democracy- bc that's what Trump's request would do, if it was granted, is fairly muted. What we SHOULD be seeing from the mainstream of the party is threats to strip committee
4. assignments, chairs, privileges, even reelection funds, if anyone gets involved in this bullshit- in the House & the Senate, and the fact that you don't see it is more than a story of McConnell & McCarthy being afraid of Trump & his base. Its a story of receptivity, of the
5. level of receptivity the congressional and party leadership is dealing with both within the rank and file membership of the party and within its donor class, and THAT, my friends, is why you find me so concerned. That, and my decision to finally pull @anneapplebaum's book
Looks like the CDC Guidelines say Trump should be in the category that needs to isolate for 20 days after symptom onset.👇
Plus ...
Severe COVID Pneumonia defined as low oxygen sats <94 % as confirmed by the President\u2019s chief of staff, in addition to other clinically consistent information: shortness of breath to name one.
— Vin Gupta \u201c\U0001f637!\u201d MD (@VinGuptaMD) October 9, 2020
That buys 20 days of isolation. At 74 with co-morbidities, \u2066@CDCgov\u2069 is right pic.twitter.com/fR3jc9jYQI
2. Fauci on Thursday used a (test-based) approach, in which case, per Fauci:
Trump needs to isolate for 10 days after symptoms RESOLVE (not symptoms onset) and then two negative tests.
Note: based on his coughing on Hannity last night, Trump’s symptoms haven’t resolved yet.
Dr. Fauci: "If the President goes 10 days w/o symptoms & they do the tests-then you could make the assumption, based on good science, that he is not infected. But you have to make sure you go through those particular benchmarks delineated in the CDC guidelines." #AMRstaff
— Andrea Mitchell (@mitchellreports) October 8, 2020
3. Here’s a longer quote from Fauci (via @MarionRenault):
https://t.co/oRdrtxQe80
4. Also noteworthy: on Hannity last night, Trump wouldn’t say he’s tested negative.👇
Thus failing one of the conditions required by Fauci for Trump to be considered no longer contagious.
Mark the date, we have reached the point where even Sean Hannity is asking Trump simple questions that the president can\u2019t or won\u2019t answer https://t.co/HgMpIsOCJn
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) October 9, 2020
5/5. This resource on coronavirus (UpToDate) has been specially made available to the public. It describes the test-based and non-test-based approaches.
You know … Lindsey … I want you to think about something
F$&kin\u2019 dare yah, dare yah (dammit, already thought of one) to find a time in history when the following has been more true. \u201cNever doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.\u201d - Margaret Mead
— Moondeer (@kelleydawg) February 15, 2021
Now if a small group can change the country, what do you want to f$&kin’ bet that ONE MF can change this country?
Oh thank Christ! I was worried you might go the other way and that would totally f$&k up everything I had left to say.
‘Cause Lindsey, I have learned something this week. We are all familiar with the phrase:
You May Also Like
Once upon a time there was a Raja named Uttānapāda born of Svayambhuva Manu,1st man on earth.He had 2 beautiful wives - Suniti & Suruchi & two sons were born of them Dhruva & Uttama respectively.
#talesofkrishna https://t.co/E85MTPkF9W
Prabhu says i reside in the heart of my bhakt.
— Right Singh (@rightwingchora) December 21, 2020
Guess the event. pic.twitter.com/yFUmbfe5KL
Now Suniti was the daughter of a tribal chief while Suruchi was the daughter of a rich king. Hence Suruchi was always favored the most by Raja while Suniti was ignored. But while Suniti was gentle & kind hearted by nature Suruchi was venomous inside.
#KrishnaLeela
The story is of a time when ideally the eldest son of the king becomes the heir to the throne. Hence the sinhasan of the Raja belonged to Dhruva.This is why Suruchi who was the 2nd wife nourished poison in her heart for Dhruva as she knew her son will never get the throne.
One day when Dhruva was just 5 years old he went on to sit on his father's lap. Suruchi, the jealous queen, got enraged and shoved him away from Raja as she never wanted Raja to shower Dhruva with his fatherly affection.
Dhruva protested questioning his step mother "why can't i sit on my own father's lap?" A furious Suruchi berated him saying "only God can allow him that privilege. Go ask him"