Trump can’t win a primary.
More from Trump
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.
\U0001f6a8BREAKING: Trump files new federal court lawsuit in Wisconsin challenging the results of the election.https://t.co/LfKb2PUIkq
— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) December 3, 2020
Not, I hope, Seth Abramson long. But will see.
I apologize in advance to my wife, who would very much prefer I be billing time (today's a light day, though) and to my assistant, to whom I owe some administrative stuff this will likely keep me from 😃
First, some background. Trump's suit essentially tries to Federalize the Wisconsin Supreme Court complaint his campaign filed, which we discussed here.
OK, #squidigation fans. This is a new Wisconsin case not filed by the Krake[n/d] team of Powell and Wood and NOT focusing on wild conspiracy theories. It's a competent and professional filing that raises things that would be real issues ... if you don't understand why they aren't https://t.co/ETvUiWV5du
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) December 1, 2020
If you haven't already, go read that thread. I'm not going to be re-doing the same analysis, and I'm not going to be cross-linking to that discussion as we go. (Sorry, I like you guys, and I see this as public service, but there are limits)
Also, @5DollarFeminist has a good stand-alone thread analyzing the new Federal complaint - it's worth reading as well, though some of the analysis will overlap.
Every one of these Trump election suits is the same gobbledygook garbage barge:
— Liz Dye (@5DollarFeminist) December 3, 2020
FRAUD!
It coulda happened.
Well, no, we can't prove it.
But just to be safe, best let the gerrymandered legislature give us all the electoral votes!https://t.co/Z926668H05 pic.twitter.com/xGZsJKIO7Y
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
Ironies of Luck https://t.co/5BPWGbAxFi
— Morgan Housel (@morganhousel) March 14, 2018
"Luck is the flip side of risk. They are mirrored cousins, driven by the same thing: You are one person in a 7 billion player game, and the accidental impact of other people\u2019s actions can be more consequential than your own."
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
