What's the downside to Trump of demanding the "liberation" of swing states (particularly those with Democrat governers)?
Tweets are official orders, they've got the legal standing of a sneeze.
Suppose the governors go along with Trump. Two scenarios:
1. "Liberating" the states works. Not that many more people get sick, their economy gets better. Trump wins! He ordered them to do something, and it worked! Trump's a Genius!
2. "Liberating" those states doesn't work. Many people get sick, some extra deaths occur. Big deal, Trump just tweeted. He tweets what ever's on his mind.
Suppose the governor's don't go along with Trump, they listen to epidemiologists.
Same two scenarios, in (1) Trump can just write off the tweet. It was hot garbage from his lie-hole. No biggie. In (2), Trump's a genius! They should have listened to him.
This whole twitter thing should be illegal for the same reason that the USA has records laws and sunshine laws. It's essentially corrupt influence.
1 comment
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 12.8 ms ] threadTweets are official orders, they've got the legal standing of a sneeze.
Suppose the governors go along with Trump. Two scenarios:
1. "Liberating" the states works. Not that many more people get sick, their economy gets better. Trump wins! He ordered them to do something, and it worked! Trump's a Genius!
2. "Liberating" those states doesn't work. Many people get sick, some extra deaths occur. Big deal, Trump just tweeted. He tweets what ever's on his mind.
Suppose the governor's don't go along with Trump, they listen to epidemiologists.
Same two scenarios, in (1) Trump can just write off the tweet. It was hot garbage from his lie-hole. No biggie. In (2), Trump's a genius! They should have listened to him.
This whole twitter thing should be illegal for the same reason that the USA has records laws and sunshine laws. It's essentially corrupt influence.