ChrisWeigant.com

Trump Can't Rescind An Order He Never Gave

[ Posted Monday, April 13th, 2020 – 16:14 UTC ]

Donald Trump seems determined to reopen the country for business on the first of next month. For a while, the media kind of went along with the fantasy that there was a giant "on/off" switch in the Oval Office that, when thrown by Trump, would immediately put all Americans back to work and fully restore the economy. This was never really true, and now they've finally woken up and realized it. Trump is not king, and we have no royal edicts in this country. It just doesn't work that way. In fact, President Trump has been incredibly reluctant to offer any sort of federal top-down leadership at all during the crisis, from largely refusing to take charge of the supply lines to refusing to issue a nationwide "stay-at-home" order. Because of his absolute abdication of leadership, individual state governors had to step in and fill the gaping void. Which now means that they are the ones in charge of making the decision as to when we should all get back to work. Trump, to be blunt, cannot rescind an order that he never gave.

Trump is already chafing at this reality. He has written a script in his own head where he is the economic savior who rides in on a shining white escalator and dramatically gives the go-ahead for the country to reopen. Everyone will then immediately return to the way things were before the crisis, the stock market will boom, growth will return, and he'll be comfortably re-elected in November. As usual, however, the script in Trump's head bears little resemblance to reality.

The only thing Trump can rescind was only ever a mere suggestion in the first place -- the guidelines the C.D.C. put out which advised (note: advised, not mandated) that people should not gather in groups of 10 or more people. That's it. That's the only thing the federal government has really done, nationwide. All of the other decisions -- closing schools, restrictions on non-essential businesses, restrictions (not mere suggestions) on large gatherings, the absolute halt of all professional sports, everything -- have been made by the governors and mayors across the country, as well as business leaders who took the initiative on their own. Which means that they and they alone are the ones who will have to decide when to lift the restrictions. Trump is not legally relevant to any of these decisions, in fact, even though he seems to think he is.

Here's what Trump tweeted on the subject today:

For the purpose of creating conflict and confusion, some in the Fake News Media are saying that it is the Governors [sic] decision to open up the states, not that of the President of the United States & the Federal Government. Let it be fully understood that this is incorrect.... It is the decision of the President, and for many good reasons. With that being said, the Administration and I are working closely with the Governors, and this will continue.... [A] decision by me, in conjunction with the Governors and input from others, will be made shortly!

During last Friday's daily White House Trump show, he was asked about this by a reporter, to which Trump answered:

I like to allow governors to make decisions without overruling them, because from a constitutional standpoint, that's the way it should be done. If I disagreed, I would overrule a governor, and I have that right to do it. But I'd rather have them -- you can call it "federalist," you can call it "the Constitution," but I call it "the Constitution" -- I would rather have them make their decisions.

When pressed, Trump got even more insistent: "The states can do things if they want. I can override it if I want."

That's Trump's view. Here's an opposing view: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That's the text of the Tenth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. That -- and not what Trump mistakenly thinks -- is what "I call it the Constitution" actually says. It's crystal clear, in fact: the governors are in charge here. In Trumpian terms: "Let it be fully understood that Donald Trump is incorrect."

Now, nobody would even be making constitutional arguments at this point if Trump had indeed showed the tiniest shred of leadership from the get-go. If Trump had issued a strongly-worded opinion that all citizens must shelter in place except for essential services, few would have argued that he didn't actually have the power to do so. He would have been given the benefit of the doubt, in a time of crisis. If Trump had indeed done that, then he might have a leg to stand on when he argues that he's got the power to reverse course. But, of course, he didn't. Again: Trump can't rescind an order he did not give, period.

Maybe all of this won't be as big an issue as it now looks like. Maybe the medical professionals will win the argument in the White House, and we'll have some actual experts deciding when and how to restart the economy. Maybe they'll be able to convince Trump -- after all, he did back down on his dream of seeing "packed pews on Easter," so maybe he can be convinced that May first is an unreasonable target. Maybe we'll be on the down side of the curve by then and things will be improving. Maybe.

What's alarming people now is that all those "maybes" might not come to pass quite so smoothly. What happens if Trump decides he's smarter than the pointy-headed experts and decides to stick firm with his target date, against all advice? What happens if he issues a full-throated call for everyone to immediately get back to normal and then most of the governors immediately contradict Trump? What happens if the governors refuse to lift the restrictions and Trump's lack of leadership is stripped bare?

This could (although it doesn't have to) mean that we all have a huge partisan fight in the middle of a pandemic. This would largely depend on the Republican governors. If they defied Trump's call to reopen everything and continued telling their citizens that the emergency was not yet over, then Trump would be on one side while Democratic and Republican governors alike contradicted him. But if Republican governors all fall into line behind Trump and lift the restrictions in their states, then we're going to have a very interesting social and medical experiment on our hands. We'll be able to see whether the states that lift restrictions do experience a second wave while the blue states continue to get better. This could be a textbook example for the future, complete with hard evidence showing which was the better way to go.

But while it would be fascinating for future students of epidemiology, it would be terrible for the country in the here-and-now. What would Trump do if many governors simply ignore his call to get back to normal? Would he throw a hissy fit? This is certainly a possibility, knowing how Trump operates. Would he start using the federal government to punish these states by withholding federal funding to them (and in other insidious ways)? Again, it's within the realm of Trumpian possibility. Would he attack these governors by name in his statements and tweets? That's probably a given, when you think about it.

This is all why everyone is getting increasingly worried about the possibility of an enormous -- and entirely unnecessary -- political fight, right in the midst of a nationwide emergency. It is downright horrifying to even consider, really. Why would Trump intentionally divide the country into partisan camps right when we all really need to pull together? Well, the "why" may be impossible to adequately answer, but the fact is that this is precisely what Trump has been doing all along during the emergency. He has pitted state against state, states against the federal government, and Democrats against Republicans. He largely doesn't care what's happening out there, he only cares how he looks and how this is all going to affect his chances of getting re-elected.

Donald Trump is caught in a bind of his own making. He has consistently refused to show any nationwide leadership for the entire duration of the crisis. As a direct result of his abdication of duty, the governors have all had to step into the void he has created. But now he seems to want to be the star of the show, and be the one waving the green flag to start the economy back up again. Unfortunately for him, though, because of his failure to lead up until now, he has no power to do so, no matter what he thinks to the contrary. The public has seen leadership and vital information coming from their governors and coming from the medical experts -- and not from the president. They've built up a foundation of trust, while Trump has squandered any trust he might have gained. So who do you think the public's going to trust to tell them it is truly safe to go back out and get on with their lives once again?

Donald Trump cannot undo what was not done. He cannot rewrite his own failure to lead. And he definitely cannot rescind an order that he refused to give. Others had to issue these orders, and they will be the ones to give people the green light, and not Trump. Let's just hope someone explains this to Trump before the end of the month.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

62 Comments on “Trump Can't Rescind An Order He Never Gave”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm kind of surprised that he hasn't by now succumbed to Cabin Fever!

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Americans can be thankful, in this era of Trump, that Governors appear to have a really good grasp of what needs to be done before the stay-at-home orders can begin to be safely unlocked by way of a calibrated step-by-step approach that takes into account the epidemiology of each area of the lockdown.

    We can all be thankful, actually.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    my best abridged explanation is that whatever his faults and foibles, biden's strength is that he's always tried his best to be on the right side of history.

    That is lovely. Very nicely put. I couldn't have said it better myself.

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: As usual, however, the script in Trump's head bears little resemblance to reality.

    I know, right!? Trump flails frantically to rewrite near everything having to do with the pandemic. Example:

    Of course they were right. Yeah. Look, the Supreme Court — well, of course they were right, because what the Democrats wanted — and you know why this happened. I supported a man named Justice Kelly, who’s — Daniel Kelly, highly respected justice. And I supported him just the other day — social media. I know of him. He’s a — just a, you know, fantastic judge, justice. And I endorsed him.

    And as soon as I endorsed him, they wanted to move the election. They didn’t want to move the election. As soon as I endorsed him, the Wisconsin Democrats say, “Oh, let’s move the election to two months later.” They didn’t mind having the election until I endorsed him, which is very interesting.

    Now they talk about, “Oh, safety, safety.” Well, it was 15 minutes after I put out an endorsement that they said, “We have to move the election.” They didn’t want to move the election before that. ~ Donald Trump, April 7, 2020

    The above is a rewritten script because, in point of fact, Trump had already endorsed Kelly at a rally in Milwaukee, Wisconsin:

    Last spring, Wisconsin voters, as you know, elected a great judge to your State Supreme Court, and this spring you have a chance to re-elect another terrific judge, Justice Daniel Kelly. Go vote for Justice Daniel Kelly to defend the rule of law in Wisconsin. ~ Donald Trump, January 14, 2020

    This Milwaukee rally is but one of the many rallies Trump attended -- when he wasn't busy playing golf multiple times -- proving without any doubt whatsoever that Trump wasn't too busy being impeached (in perpetuity) to pay attention to the coronavirus.

    Fast forward to last week when many of Wisconsin's voters went out into the pandemic regardless and stood in long lines in order to vote. Honey Badger don't give a shit who Trump endorses; it just takes what it wants.

    Can't wait to hear Don the Con's rewrite of his failed endorsement.

  5. [5] 
    John M wrote:

    [4] Kick wrote:

    "Can't wait to hear Don the Con's rewrite of his failed endorsement."

    I know, right!

    Their refusal to move the election came back to bite the Republicans in the ass in a big way.

    Conservative Republican incumbent Dan Kelly, who was appointed by former Republican Gov. Scott Walker and endorsed by President Donald Trump, LOST to Liberal Democrat Jill Karofsky, for a seat on the state Supreme Court.

  6. [6] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I wonder what Biden would do if citizens simply refuse his call to get back to the normal of settling for you have no other choice.

    This is a bind completely of the Dems own making.

    The Dems can't undo what has been done or rewrite how their failure to lead has lead us to where we are now.

    But they can do the right thing going forward.

    And so can you by not promoting the script that ignores the reality that the Dems are also responsible for putting in this situation due to their reliance on big money.

    This is a completely necessary political fight that we need to have right now when the politicians are exposed and have no valid excuses. If we wait for the emergency to be over they will be back to their normal excuses.

    Wake up. Wise Up. Rise up.
    Get Real.

  7. [7] 
    John M wrote:

    [2] Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "Americans can be thankful, in this era of Trump, that Governors appear to have a really good grasp of what needs to be done before the stay-at-home orders can begin to be safely unlocked by way of a calibrated step-by-step approach that takes into account the epidemiology of each area of the lockdown."

    EXACTLY!

    More evidence of UP-WING leadership:

    Democratic governors in the Northeast and along the West Coast on Monday announced separate state compacts to coordinate one of their biggest challenges in the weeks to come: How to begin reopening society amid the coronavirus pandemic.

    The Democratic governors of New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island formed one such coalition.

    While the Democratic governors of California, Oregon and Washington announced similar plans and formed another separate coalition on Monday.

  8. [8] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Biden has always tried his best to be on the right side of history?

    Now THAT'S funny!

    I guess that's why he got out in front of delaying the primaries not just in Wisconsin but as far back as St. Patrick's Day and why he has spent the last several DECADES taking big money and working for the big money interests.

    Unless by the right side of history you mean right as in right vs. left.

    It sure can't be right vs. wrong. :D

  9. [9] 
    John M wrote:

    SAD IRONY when REALITY trumps (if you'll pardon the expression) IDEOLOGY and comes back to smack you in the face:

    Gerald O. Glenn, a Virginia bishop who defied his state’s social distancing recommendations and boasted about his church’s packed pews amid the coronavirus pandemic, died over the weekend of complications from the virus, his church announced on Facebook on Sunday.

    Glenn’s wife has also tested positive for the disease, known as COVID-19. The couple’s daughter has since urged the public to “understand the severity and the seriousness” of the virus.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    John,

    Up-wing leadership, indeed!

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A Whirlwind Global Tour of Epidemics and Health Emergencies

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA9TLGryLcM

    This is an interesting look at what the WHO Health Emergencies Programme is dealing with on a daily basis as presented by its executive director, Dr. Michael Ryan.

    Hopefully, the Trump administration won't carry through on its threat to pull funding from this critical international organization.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, it looks like president Obama is going to make his much anticipated if belated endorsement of Senator Biden.

    Whenever I think of these two men, I'm often reminded of one of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings chaired by Biden and attended by newly elected Senator Obama.

    Biden was going on … and on about some issue or other, doing his part to educate - the public and fellow senators - and Obama, while quasi-listening, wrote a short note and passed it to one of his aids. It said something to the effect of 'When will he stop talking?'

    Personally, I loved Biden's verbose explanations of things that always provided critical and colourful context. The more Biden talked, the more I learned. I think Obama came to appreciate this as well, as he found his legs on that SFRC.

  13. [13] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    although biden has never publicly come out in favor of pie, i've always had the sense that he privately had some very pronounced pro-pie leanings.

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Absolutely, positively, unequivocally.

    And, that goes double for ice cream pie!

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, every up-wing leader is in favour of pie.

  16. [16] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    But if Republican governors all fall into line behind Trump and lift the restrictions in their states, then we're going to have a very interesting social and medical experiment on our hands.

    We are already having that very interesting social and medical experiment. Recall that the Republican Governors that believed Trump's earlier downplaying of CV-19 either waited to issue statewide "stay at home" orders or haven't done so at all (Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.) These are relatively lower population states so while they aren't yet producing headline grabbing cases/deaths as, say, New York, they also don't have the medical infrastructure to handle the patients they're going to get. Throw in the fact that rural folk tend to be older, poorer and less healthy (especially in the South) and we're going to have a serious toll.

    It should be no surprise that taking CV-19 seriously or not correlates with taking climate change seriously or not. What remains to be seen is does being a rube who believed Trump correlate with a higher infection rate/death toll? That is, how much will people pay for their gullibility?

    I think this is a fascinating "Political Darwinism" natural selection process.

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @caddy,

    hopefully the more dispersed and naturally isolated population will counter some of the effects of being poorly informed.

    JL

  18. [18] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    It would be very unjust if more Democrats in the cities died than did Republicans in the country (who foisted Trump on us in the first place.)

  19. [19] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    well, score one for Jill Karofsky in Wisconsin.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    WHO's DG Dr. Tedros on not sqandering an opportunity to get ahead of and in control of the virus now (mid-February) …

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm8n3_8r-2g

    I think it's time to look a bit further afield of the oval office when determining why the US was so slow in responding to its developing epidemic during the aptly called lost month of February.

    I am sure that Drs. Fauci and Birx were following the guidance put out by the WHO if the president wasn't. Why didn't they recommend serious public health, containment and mitigation measures across the country sooner?

    In this WHO daily briefing on 18 February, when there were 800 confirmed COVID-19 cases worldwide and 3 deaths, Dr. Tedros emphasized the need for countries to seize the opportunity now to put in place measures to contain the virus. Within four weeks, it was already too late for that.

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    well, score one for Jill Karofsky in Wisconsin.

    Now, there was some good news.

  22. [22] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I think that the GOP’s defeat in Wisconsin is much bigger blow to the GOP than just losing out on their state’s Supreme Court seat — it shows that they couldn’t even score a win when they rigged the system in their favor!

    Think about it: the way the media presented the story, the GOP’s victory almost seemed like a foregone conclusion. The Democrats were already explaining how this had cost them the seat — trying to highlight that the Republicans put winning above the health of voters in that state. Cut to yesterday and the announcement that the GOP’s forced primary plan did not work out for them the way they had hoped!

    Not only did they get shown as the party so desperate that they would put voters lives in danger in the hopes of staying in power, but then they lost the election!

    That had to hurt!

  23. [23] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    So, it looks like president Obama is going to make his much anticipated if belated endorsement of Senator Biden.

    You do understand why it was best for Obama to withhold his support until we knew who the Democratic nominee was going to be, correct? How great for Trump would it have been for Obama to have given his endorsement of Biden months ago and then Andrew Yang had pulled an upset and became our nominee? Even if Obama then endorsed Yang, it would have hurt the Democrats chances of winning the election by causing doubts on the candidate!

    Obama was putting the country before the individual by not publicly endorsing Biden until now...something I think Joe knew had to be done!

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yeah, I know ...

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, Andrew Yang was never going to be the nominee. Period.

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    maybe not yang, but sanders or warren certainly could have been - or bloomberg if he hadn't imploded on the debate stage, or buttegieg if biden had dropped out, or even klobuchar if all the dominoes had fallen her way. obama took the long view and made sure not to give the appearance of putting his thumb on the scales.

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Obama did the only thing he could and, it was a very nice endorsement.

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    I think a number of the Democratic candidates other than Biden, might have ended up as the nominee. But, they would have lost to Trump. Which is why voters ended up choosing Biden.

    I have long ago learned not to underestimate the intelligence of the American voter. More often than not, they do the right thing. (I learned that from Biden, by the way)

    I think if Iowa and New Hampshire weren't the first states to vote in the Democratic primary, Biden would never have been counted out the way he was.

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    You are hilarious today.

    Biden is the most likely of all the contenders to lose to Trump. see 2016.

    No shirt you don't underestimate the intelligence of the American voter- that is a massive understatement.

    More often than not they do the right thing?!?

    Are you insane?

    What exactly did you learn from Biden- how to pretend that Biden and the big money Dems doing the wrong thing is Biden and the big money Dems doing the right thing?

    If voters did the right thing there would not be a president Trump and a Congress controlled by big money.

    And thousands of people that have or will die in this pandemic because we were not prepared would not have had to pay the price for the American voters doing the wrong thing for ridiculous invalid reasons such as it's the wrong time to do the right thing.

    If now is not the time to do the right thing there will never be one.

    Biden is more of the same old lies and more of the same is more people dying.

    A vote for Biden is a vote for killing other citizens or even yourself.

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    John M
    5

    I know, right!

    *laughs*
    *asymptomatic, yet maybe transmits SARS-CoV-2 throughout room*

    Their refusal to move the election came back to bite the Republicans in the ass in a big way.

    Big asses necessitate big bites.

    Conservative Republican incumbent Dan Kelly, who was appointed by former Republican Gov. Scott Walker and endorsed by President Donald Trump, LOST to Liberal Democrat Jill Karofsky, for a seat on the state Supreme Court.

    Honey Badger just takes what it wants:

    * First: Walker
    * Now: Kelly
    * Next: She'll "trump" them both.

    https://youtu.be/b4lpFjHsGLo?t=35

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    6

    Shut up. Shut up. Shut up.
    Dead spiel.

  32. [32] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [31]

    DH
    6

    Shut up. Shut up. Shut up.
    Dead spiel.

    AMEN!

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    13

    although biden has never publicly come out in favor of pie, i've always had the sense that he privately had some very pronounced pro-pie leanings.

    Fun Trivia

    On Super Tuesday 2020, Joe Biden visited "ButterCuP Diner" in the Bay Area and ate what dessert they are known for?

    Hint: The Capital P is for ___

    https://www.buttercupdiner.com/dessert

    Bonus points if you know what kind he ordered. :P

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    20

    In this WHO daily briefing on 18 February, when there were 800 confirmed COVID-19 cases worldwide and 3 deaths, Dr. Tedros emphasized the need for countries to seize the opportunity now to put in place measures to contain the virus. Within four weeks, it was already too late for that.

    Wait, what!? By 18 February, there were already over 75,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases worldwide and over 2,000 deaths. Just saying. :)

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    22

    This!

    Not only did they get shown as the party so desperate that they would put voters lives in danger in the hopes of staying in power, but then they lost the election!

    Next up: Honey Badger takes out the one with the dead fox on his head. :)

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Check your figures, Kick.

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    You check yours, Elizabeth. You're off by thousands. :)

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No, I think my numbers are pretty spot on, give or take a handful. I got them directly from Dr. Tedros, after all. Didn't you listen to him?

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, my dear Kick, I see the problem. I left something out that is very important. I wrote in [20]:

    In this WHO daily briefing on 18 February, when there were 800 confirmed COVID-19 cases worldwide and 3 deaths, outside China in the rest of the world, Dr. Tedros emphasized the need for countries to seize the opportunity now to put in place measures to contain the virus. Within four weeks, it was already too late for that.

    But, Dr. Tedros was very clear about it. Moral of the story, always listen to the doctor speak in the link I provided instead of read what I write. :)

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    New column up!

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    38

    No, I think my numbers are pretty spot on, give or take a handful.

    *facepalm*

    No... not unless your left hand can hold about a "handful" of 74,000+ "worldwide" COVID-19 cases and your right hand can hold a "handful" of about 2,000+ deaths because -- like I said -- you are off by thousands and thousands.

    I got them directly from Dr. Tedros, after all. Didn't you listen to him?

    Why would I want to listen to anyone who claimed something so ridiculous on its face:

    In this WHO daily briefing on 18 February, when there were 800 confirmed COVID-19 cases worldwide and 3 deaths, Dr. Tedros emphasized the need for countries to seize the opportunity now to put in place measures to contain the virus. Within four weeks, it was already too late for that. ~ Elizabeth Miller

    The only way in which you or Dr. Tedros or anyone else could possibly arrive at "800 confirmed COVID-19 cases worldwide and 3 deaths" is to exclude every bit of the data reported by China, but last time I checked, China is still indeed part of the wide world... you know, as in "worldwide."

    So to recap: By 18 February, there were already over 75,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases worldwide and over 2,000 deaths. Just saying. :)

    https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-maps-and-cases/

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sigh.

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You really are missing out, Kick, by not listening to the daily WHO briefings - whether it's Mike or Maria or Dr. Tedros, it's always good information.

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    39

    Okay, my dear Kick, I see the problem. I left something out that is very important.

    You don't say! *facepalm*

    I must have been typing while you were posting... so: Jinx.

    But, Dr. Tedros was very clear about it. Moral of the story, always listen to the doctor speak in the link I provided instead of read what I write. :)

    Better "Moral of the story":

    Best get your story straight, my dear Elizabeth Miller, because many of us follow the oft repeated Elizabeth Miller mantra of "not clicking that link"... particularly when the data provided is so totally outrageously incorrect that it's off by thousands and thousands and therefore ridiculous on its face.

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick, you're gonna drive me to drink, you know that. Geez.

    The whole point of [20] was to highlight the fact that had Trump and his science advisors listened to Dr. Tedros, on 18 February they might have acted in a more intelligent way instead of sitting back thinking the country was well protected by an ineffective travel ban.

    I mean the China and European travel bans worked so well, didn't they. Good God.

    Is it possible to have a discussion with you without you missing the point and nitpicking everything?

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Best get your story straight, my dear Elizabeth Miller, because many of us follow the oft repeated Elizabeth Miller mantra of "not clicking that link"... particularly when the data provided is so totally outrageously incorrect that it's off by thousands and thousands and therefore ridiculous on its face.

    I'll try to remember that. :)

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The data from the WHO is correct.

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How is Trump doing in Texas, these days?

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    43

    You really are missing out, Kick, by not listening to the daily WHO briefings - whether it's Mike or Maria or Dr. Tedros, it's always good information.

    You remind me of Donald Trump telling everyone he was eating "the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake you've ever seen" with Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago.

    Meaning: Donald Trump has no idea what chocolate cake any of us has seen in the same way you have no idea what I'm missing out on, Elizabeth.

    Have you suited up in full gear and gone into a COVID-19 hospital room? No? If you haven't, you're really missing out. Getting the picture yet, Liz?

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Figures, another WHO basher. Trump would be proud.

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You need some serious PRiSM in your life … Ron Takak era only (1977-1980).

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What can I say … Wisconsin bores me.

  53. [53] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Still, it's always nice chatting with you.

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Even if it's on an old thread.

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    45

    Kick, you're gonna drive me to drink, you know that. Geez.

    You've no self-control, then? So drink 'em if you got 'em.

    You'll be fine, EM; the itty bitty words won't hurt you... unless you bang your head on the keyboard or screen or something or start drinking over it. ;)

    The whole point of [20] was to highlight the fact that had Trump and his science advisors listened to Dr. Tedros, on 18 February they might have acted in a more intelligent way instead of sitting back thinking the country was well protected by an ineffective travel ban.

    Forget the WHO (figure of speech, of course); if Trump had simply listened to his own CDC science advisers alone... insert the rest of what you said here and more.

    I mean the China and European travel bans worked so well, didn't they. Good God.

    There are no bans "in effect" when American citizens are allowed back into the United States from China and Europe and SARS-CoV-2 virus and viral loads don't know the citizenship of its hosts... I know you know.

    Is it possible to have a discussion with you without you missing the point and nitpicking everything?

    It's not exactly "nitpicking" when claims are factually incorrect and numbers are off by multiple thousands and thousands. Also: I cannot always read minds to decide what the point is supposed to be... unless you become like Don Harris and just dither away your time repeating the same thing over and over like a _________ {choose your own expletive}

    Glad we could talk, Elizabeth Miller, but Elizabeth Miller informs me there is a new column up... so I regret to inform you I can no longer participate here. ;)

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There are no bans "in effect" when American citizens are allowed back into the United States from China and Europe and SARS-CoV-2 virus and viral loads don't know the citizenship of its hosts... I know you know

    Precisely!

    Well, I'm not going to be commenting on Wisconsin, so see ya tomorrow, hopefully.

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    48

    How is Trump doing in Texas, these days?

    About like he's doing in Wisconsin. :)

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Great.

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    When will we be on a first name basis?

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    When you change your moniker to "Elizabeth."

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's too late for that.

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    50

    Figures, another WHO basher.

    Playing catch-up and must have missed this one... so allow me to state for the record: I am most certainly not a WHO "basher." There's a huge difference between noting some room for improvement in the WHO and bashing them.

    Trump would be proud.

    As far as Trump, he'd be jealous that my fingers are substantially longer than his; he would obviously not fail to notice this fact because the middle one would be hovering in front of his bloated rotisserie-chicken colored face.

Comments for this article are closed.