IT DOESNT MATTER IF WE CARE THAT TRUMP HAS COVID
HE HAS ALL THE RESOURCES TO SURVIVE.
This morning my 9-year-old, got up and opened his laptop to watch YouTube videos. I had over-slept because the kids were so quiet. I have a standing rule that the school day starts at 9 and if you have chosen not to eat breakfast, you can wait until 10:30 for a snack. He threw himself on the floor he cried and screamed at me that he needed food mind you it was 9:45; I did not deny him food for any length of time. There has to be a line somewhere, and my line is 9 a.m. This is the same child that was given a choice between a cookie and lunch at a restaurant and proudly gamed the system stating, “I choose both.”. Fast forward to an hour later when his brother and I were waiting for lunch and he was getting lunch at home, and he was screaming on the floor. The scenarios don't feel good, we don't hope that they happen, but they are necessary.
For the last 8 months Donald Trump has downplayed and denied the magnitude of impact the pandemic would have. He refused to wear a mask, refused to social distance, and would not stop having rallies. Every step of this process he has been a toddler refusing to do anything that is being asked of him. If he didn't want covid, he would have done anyone of those things. Instead, our fearless respected leader has behaved like an angry toddler and now he's sick. Im not actively hoping he dies, or enjoying his being sick, if he was a child it would be uncomfortable, he is an adult who got chosen to be responsible for the wellbeing of an entire country. I don't care that he got a sickness that has killed 200,000 people; he did it with purposeful indignation all the way through. My 9-year-old could have had breakfast in the 3 hours he was up before me, and Donald Trump could have worn a mask.
There have been many moments that display the double standard of American systems since Trump announced he was running for office. He gets to say it's not that bad while being airlifted to Walter Reed with his own Presidential suite. He got all the best known treatments, without delay, despite having knowingly put himself at risk. What of the people who went to his rallies? Will they get to go to Walter Reed, and get treated with the most innovative medicine available on the tax payer dime.
The Senate won't pass another stimulus. We have been asking for healthcare my entire adult life. Donald Trump isn't homeless, or unemployed, or sitting in a hospital on a ventilator. We have people marching in the streets because the police shoot unarmed citizens; we beg for the smallest dignities from our government, and Donald Trump brazenly puts himself at risk repeatedly and is still seen as worthy of empathy, and the expense of saving.
I am not Donald Trump’s mother. He should have already experienced the consequences of his behavior, but we have a society in which rich old white men fail without consequence, we built systems that make them untouchable. he has a lifetime of failure, and misdeeds, and harm that lead him to a position of power. While I sit crammed in a 3 bedroom double wide scraping my life together thinking about my every decision, and I or my loved ones would likely die if we got the severe covid. Ultimately this means that Donald Trump allowed himself to be exposed to, and eventually get a sickness that has upended the entire planet because he has the resources to survive it, then arrogantly uses it as a photo op and tells us how its not that bad.
If he cared about getting sick he would of put on a mask.
About the Creator
Kelly Morris
I am sort of a novice in numerous areas, I have an associates in elementary education, I am working on my project management degree, I love art, and painting, sewing, knitting. I am all over the place and not an expert in any one thing.
Keep reading
More stories from Kelly Morris and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
The Coulter Troll
In 2016 my friend wanted me to start a podcast with her. She picked the first book, In Trump We Trust by Ann Coulter. I thoroughly read the book, I checked sources, I considered talking points, I took tedious angry little notes all over that stupid, stupid book. I 100% read that book so you do n ot have to.
By Kelly Morris5 years ago in The Swamp
First Person Charged Under New Crossing Law: A Turning Point in Border Enforcement
The charging of the first individual under the newly introduced crossing law marks a significant moment in the government’s approach to border control and irregular migration. Designed to deter unauthorized crossings and strengthen enforcement, the new legislation represents a sharper legal response to a problem that has long dominated political debate, public concern, and humanitarian discourse. While officials describe the charge as a necessary step toward restoring control, critics warn it may signal deeper legal and moral challenges ahead. Understanding the New Crossing Law The new crossing law was introduced to address the growing number of people attempting to enter the country through irregular routes, particularly via dangerous sea crossings and unauthorized land entry. Under the legislation, individuals who knowingly enter the country without permission or assist others in doing so can face criminal charges, fines, or imprisonment. Supporters of the law argue that it closes loopholes in previous immigration frameworks that allowed repeat crossings with limited legal consequences. The government insists the law targets organized smuggling networks and discourages perilous journeys that have resulted in injuries, fatalities, and large-scale rescue operations. However, the wording of the law has raised questions about how broadly it can be applied—and who ultimately bears its consequences. The First Charge: What We Know So Far Authorities confirmed that the first person charged under the new crossing law was detained shortly after entering the country through an unauthorized route. Officials allege the individual knowingly violated immigration rules under the provisions set out in the legislation. Details of the case remain limited, but early reports suggest it will serve as a test case for how courts interpret the law. Legal experts expect the proceedings to set important precedents regarding intent, vulnerability, and the distinction between asylum seekers and deliberate lawbreakers. For the government, the charge demonstrates that the law is operational and enforceable. For critics, it raises concerns about whether the legislation risks criminalizing people fleeing war, persecution, or economic collapse. Political Significance and Government Messaging Politically, the timing of the charge is significant. Immigration remains one of the most divisive issues in modern politics, and the government has faced mounting pressure to show tangible action. Officials have framed the charge as evidence that enforcement mechanisms are finally matching political promises. Statements from senior ministers emphasize deterrence, claiming that visible consequences will discourage future unauthorized crossings and reduce pressure on border infrastructure. The government also maintains that safe and legal routes remain available for those genuinely in need of protection. Yet opposition figures argue that symbolism is driving policy, warning that headline-grabbing charges may do little to address the root causes of irregular migration. Human Rights and Legal Concerns Human rights organizations have reacted with alarm to the first charge. Advocacy groups argue that asylum seekers often have no choice but to use irregular routes due to limited legal entry options. Criminalizing their arrival, they say, risks violating international refugee protections. Legal analysts also point out potential conflicts with existing asylum laws, which protect the right to seek refuge regardless of the method of entry. The case may prompt judicial scrutiny over whether the new crossing law aligns with international obligations. There is also concern about selective enforcement. If the law is applied unevenly, critics fear it could disproportionately affect the most vulnerable while leaving organized criminal networks untouched. Public Reaction: Divided Opinions Public response to the charge has been sharply divided. Some citizens welcome stricter enforcement, arguing that border integrity is essential for national security and public trust in the immigration system. Others express discomfort at seeing individuals criminalized for actions driven by desperation rather than malice. Social media reactions reflect this split, with supporters praising decisive action and critics questioning whether punishment alone can solve a complex global issue. What This Means Going Forward The first charge under the new crossing law is likely just the beginning. If courts uphold the prosecution, authorities may pursue further cases, fundamentally reshaping how irregular migration is handled. Conversely, legal challenges could force revisions or clarifications to the legislation. Much will depend on how judges interpret intent, vulnerability, and proportionality. The case may also influence international perceptions of the country’s commitment to human rights and refugee protection. Conclusion The charging of the first individual under the new crossing law represents a pivotal moment in immigration enforcement. While the government views it as a long-awaited assertion of control, critics warn it may deepen humanitarian and legal tensions. As the case unfolds, it will test not only the strength of the law itself but also the balance between border security and compassion. In an era of global displacement and political polarization, how this law is enforced may shape the country’s immigration landscape—and moral standing—for years to come.
By Fiazahmedbrohi 7 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.