:D I'm trying my best to be...diplomatic. In any case, Lord of the Rings taught me that no one deserves death, and that's my motto by default... even when I sometimes disagree with it
I will ignore the human aspect of Trump being sick because I don't think that is nearly the most important part. America needs to reckon with everything Trumpism has revealed about our country. Him getting seriously ill or dying would let a lot of people escape that reckoning. Not to mention that there is a non-negligible portion of this country that still refuses to believe the seriousness of this pandemic. If Trump becomes seriously ill or dies, those people are likely to view this as some sort of assignation, coup, or assault on our country. There could be real violence or prolonged civil unrest as a result. I firmly believe that the best thing for the future of this country was for Biden and the Democrats to have a decisive victory in November, put Trumpism to bed, and force the GOP to reevaluate how they allowed someone like him to take control of their party.
Please don't post poisonous comments like this to HN. You may not owe you-know-who better, but you definitely owe this community better if you're participating in it.
> Why would you hope he doesn't? Wishing harm on any human isn't a reasonable stand to take just because of political beliefs.
Sue, but there is a distinction between beliefs (including attenuated actions like voting behavior) and consequential actions here. If it's legitimate to use deadly force in self defense, it's certainly must also be to wish deadly harm as, while not an ideal outcome, a better-than-status-quo one on one that is the source of ongoing, conscious policy with unwarranted deadly harms for which there is no probable other immediate remedy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I understand that this is a tough topic to moderate, but can we expect that there will be no discussion of this development on HN at all? Every related post is getting flagged and dying.
Edit: if there will be no allowed discussion, you should at least sticky a note to the front page stating the intention and rationale.
Maybe you should step back for a second, actually look at the twitter posts/comments, and realize the majority of what's offending you is being posted from bots/troll farm.
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.
EDIT: Also this came out just 2 days ago and found no effect: "Efficacy and Safety of Hydroxychloroquine vs Placebo for Pre-exposure SARS-CoV-2 Prophylaxis Among Health Care Workers"
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.
>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.
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!"
>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"
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 ):
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.
Doesn't matter that there could be useful discussion here. People see stuff like this as an attack on Trump (and on their politics) and flag it for ideological reasons.
Yes, normally this type of post would be #1 on the front page, but there's too much partisanship and the probability of a flamewar is a bit too high. Not a big fan of this kind of heavy-handed moderation sometimes, but I guess I understand it
My assumption was that this is user generated flagging. It's not moderation. It's people saying "we don't want to see this stuff". Same reason people are down voting our comments right now :)
Probably depends a lot on where you hang out. For me, it's more conservative than most of the internet I see (outside of Facebook). Probably has a good mix which is why you can get a lot of decent discussion here.
There's a big contingent of right-leaning libertarians, and there are a decent number of conservatives and centrists present too. Even more than a few Trump fans! I'm often surprised by the variety, in a positive way.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Stories about those topics often tick the box of things that "good hackers would find interesting" – i.e., Wikileaks is an emergent phenomenon of the internet age, and NSA tracking of people via the major tech platforms is relevant to everyone who works in or cares about tech and is the kind of thing good hackers can have interesting discussions about.
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?
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.
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.
"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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
118 comments
[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 173 ms ] threadJust a little bit similar?
I would rather he lost decisively and then died.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Sue, but there is a distinction between beliefs (including attenuated actions like voting behavior) and consequential actions here. If it's legitimate to use deadly force in self defense, it's certainly must also be to wish deadly harm as, while not an ideal outcome, a better-than-status-quo one on one that is the source of ongoing, conscious policy with unwarranted deadly harms for which there is no probable other immediate remedy.
Are we thinking about the same guy? When has he shown any desire for dignity?
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.
Some of those scenarios have to include the possibility of not winning re-election.
Edit: if there will be no allowed discussion, you should at least sticky a note to the front page stating the intention and rationale.
'True' sickening evil face.
You clearly failed to read my comment didn't you. To all public officials they don't like that has been the case. Now it is plunged to a new nadir.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain#Health_and_death
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.
I guess the discussion about that should be over now in public channels.
https://news.yahoo.com/trumps-prophylactic-hydroxychloroquin...
EDIT: Also this came out just 2 days ago and found no effect: "Efficacy and Safety of Hydroxychloroquine vs Placebo for Pre-exposure SARS-CoV-2 Prophylaxis Among Health Care Workers"
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
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?
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.
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.
[0] https://twitter.com/decadee_/status/1311907476254658561?s=21
https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto...
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
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
Writing curses and hexes against Donald Trump in Ahramaic is the new random K-Pop gifs.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2017-02-06a
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...
If they die after winning but pre-electoral college: electors pick.
If they die after the electors vote: then standard succession rules apply.
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.
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...
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.
Are those states required to prosecute based on those laws?
"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
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
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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24659548
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.
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.
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.
Probabilistically nothing much will happen to him, which aligns with his governing.
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.
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.
This is a clusterfuck collapse for the campaign.
The potential complications are daunting.
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.
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.