Posted by alexandra_k on October 6, 2020, at 14:00:26
I wonder if Trump got one.
While in a safe environment of the military hospital.
The American People did vote for him. The idea. The ideal of him. I guess they wanted someone who appeared strong. Someone who appeared wealthy. Someone who appeared to know how to grow the economy in ways that are visible (accommodation). Get things done. Buildings built.
What's he supposed to do / say?
He's right that he couldn't hunker down in a bunker. He needs to be seen doing his job as the elected representative of the people.
Jacinda Ardern doesn't communicate so well with a face mask on.
She's been very judicious with her public appearances with face masks.
When you see her with one in public... Interacting... You see why Trump is reluctant.
People generally start to look a bit shifty and shady when you only see their eyes and their eyebrows.
Especially if you are a bit suspicious of them in the first place.
The media and people generally misunderstand communications that often seem (to me) very clear.
How many more misunderstandings and miscommunications with face masks on.
The hearing impaired community has been having trouble when they can't lip read.
Most of us are actually deafer than we would like to admit.
I suspect Trump has a hard time hearing people with face masks on.
But he can't say that without appearing weak...
So it's a conundrum.It would make a lot of sense that he got a live attenuated vaccine and his development of immunity was kept slow and steady with steroids to prevent things getting out of hand.
He's in the high risk demographic.
He needed to be innoculated at some point.
I guess the development of the treatment was developed enough for them to think it was worth the risk.
Let's face it...
He's not his own person. He belongs to the people.
He's their elected representative.
YOu can't have the president of the United States dying of Covid.
So he has to be innoculated before the election runs his course...
I would imagine.
I would imagine being thought by the people to have developed immunity would be seen to be a strength.
It is a bit concerning that the media doesn't really convey elections as a genuine 2 horse race, a lot of the time. Tehy are presented as foregone conclusions, often.
Ours, too.
____________
There was something about how Parliament made some wage subsidy law... It allowed businesses to claim free money from the government so they could pay their workers if they could show their profits to be down a certain amount (30 per cent or 50 per cent) on what they had been predicted to be.
So there was a flurry of 'good bookkeeping' to ensure businesses could claim the wage subsidy.
Then they publish incredable profits -- up on last year etc etc.
So teh Prime MInister says that them taking teh wage subsidy is morally wrong but not strictly illegal because it was intended to keep people employed rather than being laid off when it looked like busineseses would need to lay off employees without the wage subsidy relief.
So the leader of the opposition says that them the wage subsidy is morally wrong and that parliament should retrospectively change the law so they are required to give it back. But it would be difficult to figure how to write the law so that only the businesses posting exhorbitant profits were required to give the money back.
And of course nobody says the obvious: Government prosecutors prosecuted the morally wrong action on the grounds that parliament never intended to allow that. Parliament is agreed they never intended to allow that. If they wrote a law where it looks like technically they were allowing the morally corrupt actions of big business with 'clever' accountants then that is a mistaken interpretation of parliaments intent in writing the law.
ffs.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1112224
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20200805/msgs/1112224.html