Trump: “Tonight, FLOTUS and I tested positive for Covid-19.” | Hacker News Reader

Trump: “Tonight, FLOTUS and I tested positive for Covid-19.”

twitter.com

169 pointsbmcn2020101 comments

Never seen an article so heavily weighted down on HN before. I think there could be some interesting discussion about predicting what treatment the President will receive.

The military has some advanced technologies to fight new diseases. It wouldn't surprise me if they get used here.

https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2017-02-06a

probably something much more boring like a steroid and blood thinner cocktail.

edit: looks like it was an antibody cocktail. even better.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/02/white-house-reveals-trumps-c...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/29/health/regeneron-covid-19-ear...

Google Meet or Zoom or Microsoft Team for the next presidential debate? Finally the moderator can mute the candidates!

Yes please. I think it’s a great idea. Not only would put the politicians in the same situation that rest of us are but also I can’t wait for a debate where every candidate can speak his views without interruptions.

Why would a single person like moderator allows to choose what I can hear or not? Muting should be my choice not someone determining what I can hear or not? The debate was not even between candidate. It was the worst presidential debate moderation ever. It looks as if Chris is running as Democratic candidate.

I thought it was because the rules allowed for interruption free segments

Wallace called that out - those segments were not for back and forth

Also if someone is answering a question why would the other candidate start talking?

>Also if someone is answering a question why would the other candidate start talking?

Because many Americans want to see displays of defiance and aggression in their political candidates. Most couldn't care less about what the other party has to say, they want to see their side dominate and smack down the other side, or they want to see who the alpha dog is and vote for them.

Chris Wallace (the moderator of the debate earlier this week) actually made that point this morning. He said that he would not feel comfortable as a moderator deciding to cut off what a candidate was saying. He advised against muting by the moderator.

The speaker could mute the other person while they are talking, so they can focus.

I dont care if the injector, babbling away, still gets to broadcast their rant, but people should have the option to only listen to the "designated speaker" audio track, and the person speaking should be free from interjection if that is the rules agreed upon.

As someone who never uses twitter unless someone links it from reddit or here, what are the 1000s of replies with the weird chars[0]?

[0] https://twitter.com/decadee_/status/1311907476254658561?s=21

Some new zalgo type thing... If you click "translate" it's all some kind of apocalyptic texts

Edit: Language ID fail. See below.

they leaked Azerbaijan Navy details, so seems to be an online-ish conflict as well: https://cybernews.com/news/nagorno-karabakh-war-azeri-navy-d...

Thats Aramaic and NOT Armenian

Google Translate says Amharic (Ethiopian)? But not Armenian, so my bad, seems to be run of the mill religious doomsday prophecying.

https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto...

It may also be bots. Twitter is jam-packed with bots (probably Chinese and Russian run) that push the Democrats and Republicans to fight each other. It's an interesting problem.

In some cases they create obvious bots that make each side go "Aha! See their supporters are all bots!"

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABo_72Ov9dI

>As someone who never uses twitter unless someone links it from reddit or here, what are the 1000s of replies with the weird chars[0]?

I only saw one but apparently many have already been removed. According to Google Translate[0], the text is 'Amharic': "ኃጢአተኛ ነፍስህ ከመዳን በላይ ናት እናም ሰላምን ወይም ሥቃይን አታውቅም ፣ የንስሐ ቅዝቃዜ ብቻ አብቅቷል ፣ ምክንያቱም ኃጢአቶችህ ከማንኛውም ተልእኮ የላቀ ስለሆነ ፣ መጨረሻው ቀርቧል ፣ የኃጢአት መርከቦች"

translates to: "Your sinful soul is beyond salvation and you do not know peace or pain, only the cold of repentance is over, because your sins are greater than any mission, the end is near, the ships of sin"

Apparently not a get-well card.

[0] https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto... ነፍስህ ከመዳን በላይ ናት እናም ሰላምን ወይም ሥቃይን አታውቅም ፣ የንስሐ ቅዝቃዜ ብቻ አብቅቷል ፣ ምክንያቱም ኃጢአቶችህ ከማንኛውም ተልእኮ የላቀ ስለሆነ ፣ መጨረሻው ቀርቧል ፣ የኃጢአት መርከቦች

It's the latest TikTok meme.

Writing curses and hexes against Donald Trump in Ahramaic is the new random K-Pop gifs.

It’s people writing stuff in Amharic, an Ethiopian language, because they think it looks sinister and “cursed”. It’s not great because Amharic is an actual language used by millions of people ):

Of course, no one deserves to die this way and we hope he gets better. But the...irony (?) here is pretty thick

Should we shed tears for someone who repeatedly chose to expose himself, his family and our nation to a dangerous virus despite being fully aware of the consequences?

I'm not shedding any tears regardless of the outcome, but I am nervous about what the potential implications could be. This could be a very unstabilizing event in an already dangerous moment.

Yes. Compassion above all.

I hope that he doesn't die purely so he can be tried when he hopefully loses the election. Even if he gets pardoned somehow he'll probably be at war with NY for the rest of his waking hours.

This brings up an interesting question: If a party's nominated presidential candidate is incapable of assuming the presidency, is there a mechanism for the party to nominate someone else?

Wouldn't it just be easier for him to be nominated in name and then hand the presidency over to his running mate, in the case that he wins? Or does his running mate automatically get the nod in case the worst happens before election night?

If the worst happens... he will be fit and well and accept his presidency.

If the candidate dies pre-election: the party picks a replacement.

If they die after winning but pre-electoral college: electors pick.

If they die after the electors vote: then standard succession rules apply.

The election is already under way, so does that rule out the first option?

No, the election is November, between November and inauguration is option 2 and then 3

Many people have already voted, ballots are being sent out, there is not enough notice to reprint ballots.

President is chosen by the electorate and not the voters directly, they cast in their vote at a specific date (I need to look it up). So, even if voters have voted, the date I am referring to is far away from now.

> President is chosen by the electorate and not the voters directly

The Electoral College, but the members are not, in quite a few states, free to vote other than as directed by law, and in 14 states their votes are actually cancelled if they vote for any but the pledged candidate.

I think, technically, they have just already dropped off their ballot. Their vote won't be counted until 3th.

>I think, technically, they have just already dropped off their ballot. Their vote won't be counted until 3th.

Actually, that's determined by state law and, as such, may be so where you live, but not everywhere[0].

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/09/05/electi...

It's a bit more complicated:

If they die in time for whatever the ballot cutoff is in each state, the parties can select a replacement, but I'm pretty sure that time has passed (it must have where ballots are already being cast); they may do so later, but this will have different effects in different states.

After the people have voted (even before the electors cast their ballots) faithless elector laws come into play, and 14 states cancel votes of electors that do not cast their votes for the pledged candidate, and AFAIK none of those 14 states have post-popular-vote change of pledge rules. Conceivably, electors in the other states could change their votes (some with some penalties, but not vote cancellation), whether or not the party directed them one particular way before or after the people voted. But any votes that are out of line with the outcome of the state vote, even if by reason of the elector choosing an alternate because of candidate death, are outside of the safe harbor law (which is probably not enforceable, but that just means other votes within the safe harbor could in theory also be at risk) and potentially subject to challenge and potential cancellation when Congress counts the electoral votes. Congress may, in this case, also accept offered competing electoral votes, if such exist.

But if no candidate receives the required majority of available (not tallied) electoral votes for either President of VP (or both) as judged by Congress, the succession rules for that office come into play when the term starts with the office vacant.

> After the people have voted (even before the electors cast their ballots) faithless elector laws come into play, and 14 states cancel votes of electors that do not cast their votes for the pledged candidate, and AFAIK none of those 14 states have post-popular-vote change of pledge rules.

Are those states required to prosecute based on those laws?

I’m pretty sure that this late in the game it’s way passed the legal deadline to get new names on ballots in all of the states. Thousands and thousands are already voting. What would likely happen is the Vice President would become President in January and select a new Vice President.

Doesn't the Vice President's term expire at the same moment as the President's?

Topic of a current HN submission:

"With News That the President Has Tested Positive for Coronavirus (and He Was in Contact with Joe Biden at the Debate Earlier in the Week), What Happens If a Presidential Candidate Dies or is Incapacitated Before Election Day? A Mess"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24659844

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116098

> If a party's nominated presidential candidate is incapable of assuming the presidency, is there a mechanism for the party to nominate someone else?

That's apparently an excellent question. Fortunately, there's a discussion here[0] about it.

I know this because dsr12[1] helpfully submitted it here on HN[2].

It's an interesting article and I will go over to the discussion page shortly, as it already has a bunch of comments.

[0] https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116098

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dsr12

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24659844

I asked this question on Twitter last night, when we only knew about Hope Hicks. Here's the best answer I've gotten so far.

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=116098

As I pretty much expected: the parties would quickly nominate new candidates, and then scramble to get them on ballots despite being past normal deadlines. Courts would probably have to get involved. Does not address what would happen to votes already cast.

Since this is flagged for politics, but people are still here looking for a conversation — I think the interesting conversation is around chain of command, readiness, and protocol. That’s not really politics per se, but more about the “systems design” of the government.

The many many hours I’ve spent watching West Wing have taught me that White House protocol is pretty wild when it comes to any potential threats within. This will make the tick-tock reporting (who knew what when, not the social network) particularly interesting in the coming days.

This will be good for his election chances.

Probabilistically nothing much will happen to him, which aligns with his governing.

In what way could this possibly be good for his election chances?

Well, he can claim, that he is there evidence, that it isn't so bad (assuming her comes though fine) And that he doesn't put the population through anything he himself did experience.

I seriously doubt that would sway any undecided voters, and it certainly won't sway a single decided voter.

It has the potential to throw things into a bit of chaos, and maybe the uncertainty could give them something they could take advantage of. But I doubt it, and I don't buy the conspiracy theories around this.

He is a morbidly obese man in his 70s with a 'history' of cardiovascular problems. He does get a lot of vitamin-D and some moderate exercise via golf. And he has the absolute best medical care in the world, probably better that the Queen of England.

It's a bit of a toss-up, but his underlying health issues aren't pulling up any anchors. There is a very real chance he ends up like Boris.

Disagree, this is very bad for him. Trump’s entire brand is a strong man who will protect America from harm. Him and his family catching this disease reveals he can’t even protect himself or his family against the backdrop of 200,000 dead. The last thing he wants to be talking about it Covid. Now we are not only going to be talking about this non stop, for the next few news cycles we will be asked to hypothetically picture his VP as the next president. The last thing a nominee wants going into an election is the country picturing his running mate as his successor. Not to mention the fact that this derails his campaign rallies, derails the debate he desperately needs to do well at, and calls into question the timeline of his Supreme Court nomination as now the nominee as well as GOP senators are all potentially exposed.

This is a clusterfuck collapse for the campaign.

first reaction: is this authentic? how can i tell?

The E-6Bs make it seem pretty authentic.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24659548

I'm sorry I have no idea whaty you're saying. They're talking about (military) planes, right?

Flying command posts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-6_Mercury

And what does this have to do with Covid? Is the President on these planes now? Is he always when he gets ill?

edit: for other non-Americans: apparently the US Gov has a procedure to start flying these planes everytime anything happens to the POTUS just in case they might need to nuke everyone.

Seems hardly relevant here but political reporters are using the execution of the tax money burning ritual as a sign that POTUS might actually have Covid.

After reading through the tweets, it seems that plane is very special and contains launch codes for nukes. If the president would be harmed or in general the security at the white house unable to operate, this plane takes over. A precaution, it seems, in case somebody wants to attack the USA. But as I understood it, starting the plane is more of a signal for defense readiness conditions (DEFCON) and helps signaling other planes and stations to be aware. It's pretty interesting IMHO that the plane started before the president announced it on twitter or anything, giving a solid hint that something is very off in DC.

Hypothetical: Biden tests positive in a week, then dies a couple of weeks before the election.

The potential complications are daunting.

But the autopsy shows novichok.

Now that’s a little out there. It’s not that I see it as impossible, but that my scenario doesn’t require malicious actors - it’s reasonably likely given only random chance at this point.

Zero members of Congress have died, while at least 18 have tested positive. The disease mostly kills the poor and those who do not have access to quality medical care. Trump will probably be fine.

Hermain Cain, the co-chairman of Black Voices for Trump, died of Covid-19 on July 30th, 2020. [1]

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain#Health_and_death

Not a member of Congress. A bunch of state level politicians have died too, but they definitely don't have the clout/power of senators/reps.

Agreed he most likely won't die, but Boris Johnson had a very severe case, and was in pretty bad shape for a while.

While almost everyone is "probably fine" after he is in a risk age group at 74.

Being overweight and not eating healthy is only going to make it riskier.

He will have world class treatment, though. But it's still a roll of the dice at that age.

Trump is particularly unfit and old so I am not confident that he'll come out unscathed

This is going two ways...

1. Trump recovers quickly and declares coronavirus just a bad cold.

2. Trump has a severe case of coronavirus and becomes more cautious moving forward in his speech and actions as they relate to coronavirus.

I think I’d put my money on number 1.

It would be movie material if the illness was faked to plan reappearing in 2 weeks as the indestructible leader.

Overcoming a major obstacle is a huge comeback material which translates into votes. Not a fake, but in 1995 Spanish candidate Aznar had a terrorist attack during the election campaign were he was pictured without a scratch next to his bombed car. The comeback was so big he won the election.

What not option 3: He has a really bad case ends up on ventilator for 2-3 weeks, dies or becomes severely limited in activity for a long time like that actor who had his leg cut off then died like 180 days later. Maybe he dies or doesn't, but he may be an invalid and that could change him quite a bit being wheelchair bound and on his death bed.

The timing does seem rather, um, convenient. Quarantine fully passed in time for the election, get's to show he's one with the voters, perhaps even some sympathy. But gets to skip a tricky debate.

And in a couple of weeks he'll be declaring how strong and healthy he is as evidenced by having brushed aside covid with only mild symptoms. No need to bribe a doctor to declare him as in the greatest of great health. Will be his version of Putin's manly horse riding pictures.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24659548

Will he get disinfectant injections as treatment?

It's only a personal suspicion, but I think this is his way to step down from the presidency with a sense of dignity and hope it will give him some sympathy credit when the dust settles.

>with a sense of dignity

Are we thinking about the same guy? When has he shown any desire for dignity?

He'll want to return to Manhattan some day after he leaves the presidency.

I assume he doesn't want to be a pariah in the city that has meant so much to him over the course of his life.

I think he's perfectly fine with his peers shunning him while he's in office, but when he leaves office and the rallies and MAGA hats are behind him, he's going to be all alone.

If it’s a strategy, he could also use it to brag about how big and strong and awesome he is after he recovers.

Unfortunately for him, the media portrayal of his illness doesn't seem to be following that narrative arc.

What evidence do you see that makes you think he wants to step down?

I'm assuming that his legal team is trying to game out different approaches to avoiding future tax-evasion charges following the NYT articles.

Some of those scenarios have to include the possibility of not winning re-election.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com