T1B

Joe in PB wrote:State of the Union or National Pep Rally has always been about blowing smoke up citizens asses. Pass. I just can't watch it, or get past the entire fuckin' mess both parties make of determining an annual budget.



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Dinsdale wrote:I don't think I've watched one in about 15 years, when W screamed from the mountaintops that something needed to be done about Fannie and Freddie.

Then he got blamed for the recession.

Those who came to Tuesday night’s State of the Union hoping that it would be short and strange, in the “weird shit” genre of Donald Trump’s inaugural address, surely left disappointed. The president seemed tame, possibly drugged. Gone was the semi-shouting that characterized his Republican National Convention address and his “carnage” and “tombstones” inaugural speech. In its place was a slow Trump. Even when delivering the line, “we have no choice but to annihilate them,” he sounded like he was coming out of surgery. If nothing else, it made for easier listening, which was welcome in an overlong speech that may, for all we know, still be going on.

People have already derided the speech for being unremarkable in its wording and prose. But whoever wrote it—Stephen Miller is considered to be the likeliest chief author—at least managed to permit the president some Trumpy moments. Lines like “Prices will come down” could get delivered as, “Prices will come down substantially. Watch.” And “We are defending our second amendment” could be Trumpified into “We are totally defending our second amendment.” Best of all, “We have ended the war on clean coal” could be transformed into “We have ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.” Daddy, what did you do in the war against beautiful, clean coal?

In substance, the speech was useful as a barometer of Trump’s interests these days. For part one, this consisted of Trump discussing Trump, Trump’s achievements, and people doing good things because of Trump’s achievements. To be fair, all presidents take a victory-lap approach in discussing the bright spots of the past year, although Trump more so than most. The second half offered a policy focus on one big foreign-policy item, North Korea, although his words were focused mostly on how bad North Korea is rather than what to do about it (luckily, perhaps). The big ticket domestic policy item of the night was, as expected, immigration. The rest consisted of footnotes and addenda.

On immigration, Trump presented himself as the compromise between two distant sides. His own proposal is a good deal more generous toward legalization than what Republican Bob Goodlatte has come up with in the House and less generous than what Dick Durbin came up with in the Senate. But Trump’s game isn’t entirely clear. Does he think Americans will see him as the kind and wise king between two poles? It seems unlikely.

This was tied to the riskiest moment of the address, when Trump told of the murders of two teenagers on Long Island by MS-13 gang members who’d arrived illegally across the U.S. border. The parents were in attendance and Trump asked them to stand. Certainly, the story was horrific, but whether the theater of it worked or looked exploitative is the question.

The footnotes hardly mattered. Trump called for lowering drug prices. Will that happen? Probably not. He called for paid family leave. Will that happen? Well, let’s say that Paul Ryan, who hates the idea, managed to get himself to clap for it, and he wouldn’t have done it if he felt it were real. Mike Pence even offered Ryan a reassuring look and chuckle as if to say, “That’s just Trump being Trump.” Even Ivanka’s clapping looked perfunctory. (Jared Kushner, as always, had dressed for the occasion, with a crisp white shirt and a hipstery tie. You can indict the man, but not his tailoring.) He called for civil servants to be easier to fire. Yeah, everyone’s super-ready to trust him with discretion on that.

Trump certainly got Democrats to be angry. Every few minutes, we were treated to Luis Gutierrez looking angry, Nancy Pelosi looking disgusted, or Chuck Schumer looking strategic. Much to the delight of the MAGA side of Twitter, Democrats didn’t applaud. But this, too, is a decent sign of health in our democracy, for those inclined to rend their clothes. Dictators don’t experience half of a legislative body staying seated with grimaces. (On the other hand, dictators do clap for themselves. So there’s that.)

Did Trump succeed? It depends on what he wanted to do. If he hoped to make Republicans feel less demoralized, then it probably worked fine. If he hoped Americans would side with him on immigration, then maybe he advanced the ball, or maybe not. If he hoped everyone would feel he’d accomplished great things, then it probably had no great effect either way. (As my colleague Peter Hamby has adroitly noted, State of the Union addresses rarely do.) If he hoped Americans would see him as not insane, then it was a stretch—at best he showed he could spend an hour successfully repressing his lunatic alter ego on Twitter. If he hoped they would see him as big-hearted and presidential, that’d be a big no. But he didn’t move backward, which is about as much as Trump, or anyone, can hope for, given the circumstances. He should take that deal.

BSmack wrote:Looks like I didn't miss anything.

Sirfindafold wrote:liberalism is a mental disorder.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Those who came to Tuesday night’s State of the Union hoping that it would be short and strange, in the “weird shit” genre of Donald Trump’s inaugural address, surely left disappointed. The president seemed tame, possibly drugged. Gone was the semi-shouting that characterized his Republican National Convention address and his “carnage” and “tombstones” inaugural speech. In its place was a slow Trump. Even when delivering the line, “we have no choice but to annihilate them,” he sounded like he was coming out of surgery. If nothing else, it made for easier listening, which was welcome in an overlong speech that may, for all we know, still be going on.

People have already derided the speech for being unremarkable in its wording and prose. But whoever wrote it—Stephen Miller is considered to be the likeliest chief author—at least managed to permit the president some Trumpy moments. Lines like “Prices will come down” could get delivered as, “Prices will come down substantially. Watch.” And “We are defending our second amendment” could be Trumpified into “We are totally defending our second amendment.” Best of all, “We have ended the war on clean coal” could be transformed into “We have ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.” Daddy, what did you do in the war against beautiful, clean coal?

In substance, the speech was useful as a barometer of Trump’s interests these days. For part one, this consisted of Trump discussing Trump, Trump’s achievements, and people doing good things because of Trump’s achievements. To be fair, all presidents take a victory-lap approach in discussing the bright spots of the past year, although Trump more so than most. The second half offered a policy focus on one big foreign-policy item, North Korea, although his words were focused mostly on how bad North Korea is rather than what to do about it (luckily, perhaps). The big ticket domestic policy item of the night was, as expected, immigration. The rest consisted of footnotes and addenda.

On immigration, Trump presented himself as the compromise between two distant sides. His own proposal is a good deal more generous toward legalization than what Republican Bob Goodlatte has come up with in the House and less generous than what Dick Durbin came up with in the Senate. But Trump’s game isn’t entirely clear. Does he think Americans will see him as the kind and wise king between two poles? It seems unlikely.

This was tied to the riskiest moment of the address, when Trump told of the murders of two teenagers on Long Island by MS-13 gang members who’d arrived illegally across the U.S. border. The parents were in attendance and Trump asked them to stand. Certainly, the story was horrific, but whether the theater of it worked or looked exploitative is the question.

The footnotes hardly mattered. Trump called for lowering drug prices. Will that happen? Probably not. He called for paid family leave. Will that happen? Well, let’s say that Paul Ryan, who hates the idea, managed to get himself to clap for it, and he wouldn’t have done it if he felt it were real. Mike Pence even offered Ryan a reassuring look and chuckle as if to say, “That’s just Trump being Trump.” Even Ivanka’s clapping looked perfunctory. (Jared Kushner, as always, had dressed for the occasion, with a crisp white shirt and a hipstery tie. You can indict the man, but not his tailoring.) He called for civil servants to be easier to fire. Yeah, everyone’s super-ready to trust him with discretion on that.

Trump certainly got Democrats to be angry. Every few minutes, we were treated to Luis Gutierrez looking angry, Nancy Pelosi looking disgusted, or Chuck Schumer looking strategic. Much to the delight of the MAGA side of Twitter, Democrats didn’t applaud. But this, too, is a decent sign of health in our democracy, for those inclined to rend their clothes. Dictators don’t experience half of a legislative body staying seated with grimaces. (On the other hand, dictators do clap for themselves. So there’s that.)

Did Trump succeed? It depends on what he wanted to do. If he hoped to make Republicans feel less demoralized, then it probably worked fine. If he hoped Americans would side with him on immigration, then maybe he advanced the ball, or maybe not. If he hoped everyone would feel he’d accomplished great things, then it probably had no great effect either way. (As my colleague Peter Hamby has adroitly noted, State of the Union addresses rarely do.) If he hoped Americans would see him as not insane, then it was a stretch—at best he showed he could spend an hour successfully repressing his lunatic alter ego on Twitter. If he hoped they would see him as big-hearted and presidential, that’d be a big no. But he didn’t move backward, which is about as much as Trump, or anyone, can hope for, given the circumstances. He should take that deal.

Rooster wrote:CBS ran a poll immediately following the address and it won a 75% approval rating across the board for its’ call for unity and nonpartisan efforts to govern.

88 wrote:

BSmack wrote:It really speaks volumes that you're quoting an online poll.

What other poll should he have quoted? Link us up, amigo.

Joe in PB wrote:The fact it's a CBS poll must make it more palatable for Dems, certainly compared to a Fox poll which would be totally ignored.

The bottom line is most people are better off now compared to a year ago.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

BSmack wrote:

Joe in PB wrote:The fact it's a CBS poll must make it more palatable for Dems, certainly compared to a Fox poll which would be totally ignored.

The bottom line is most people are better off now compared to a year ago.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

The fact that you are not discerning the difference between a proper poll and an Internet poll shows you are either stupid, or deliberately not paying attention.

BSmack wrote:

Joe in PB wrote:The fact it's a CBS poll must make it more palatable for Dems, certainly compared to a Fox poll which would be totally ignored.

The bottom line is most people are better off now compared to a year ago.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

The fact that you are not discerning the difference between a proper poll and an Internet poll shows you are either stupid, or deliberately not paying attention.

Goober McTuber wrote:I'm good with the guessing game. Hopefully it keeps total morons like yourself occupied so as to limit time you have available to create your typically unreadable posts.

Derron wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:I'm good with the guessing game. Hopefully it keeps total morons like yourself occupied so as to limit time you have available to create your typically unreadable posts.

Well you are greatly mistaken there whiskey boy. I am not reading all that, because the words are too big and I am way too stupid to figure out where it came from.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Derron wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:I'm good with the guessing game. Hopefully it keeps total morons like yourself occupied so as to limit time you have available to create your typically unreadable posts.

Well you are greatly mistaken there whiskey boy. I am not reading all that, because the words are too big and I am way too stupid to figure out where it came from.

FTFY.

Goober McTuber wrote: You really can't figure out where a quote came from. And if you've already decided not to read it, why do you care where it came from? Moron.

Derron wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote: You really can't figure out where a quote came from. And if you've already decided not to read it, why do you care where it came from? Moron.

Typical liberal take. Post a take, unquoted

Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, who is a frequent critic of President Donald Trump, sharply criticized the President on the Senate floor Tuesday for his remarks he made where he called Democrats "treasonous."

Trump had accused stone-faced Democrats of treason for not standing and applauding during his State of the Union address.

"I have seen the President's most ardent defenders use the now-weary argument that the President's comments were meant as a joke, just sarcasm, only tongue in cheek," he said. "But treason is not a punchline, Mr. President."

During a speech outside Cincinnati, Trump called Democrats who didn't applaud for him "treasonous."

"They were like death and un-American. Un-American. Somebody said, 'Treasonous.' I mean, yeah, I guess, why not," Trump said to laughter during a speech outside Cincinnati, Ohio on Monday.

Describing the Democratic response, where many lawmakers sat and frowned as Trump spoke, the President added: "Can we call that treason? Why not."

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Tuesday the President was "clearly joking" when he made the comment.

"None of this behavior should ever be regarded as normal," Flake continued on the Senate floor. "We must never allow ourselves to lapse into thinking that this is just the way things are now. We will get through this period."

This isn't the first time Flake has spoken out against the President on the Senate floor. In January, the Arizona Republican slammed the President for his repeated attacks on the truth as well as his colleagues for failing to be a check on Trump

Flake, who announced he will not be seeking re-election in 2018, has said he will use his remaining time in the Senate to speak out against the President when he believes it is warranted.

Flake announced his decision to retire in a Senate speech in October that bemoaned the "coarsening" tenor of politics in the United States and criticized his own party's "complicity" with Trump's behavior.

One of President Donald Trump's nominees is drawing condemnation and mockery from a Republican senator over his past statements pushing conspiracy theories and unfounded political attacks on Trump's opponents.

CNN's KFile reported on Monday that Leandro Rizzuto Jr., Trump's nominee to be the US Ambassador to Barbados and several other Caribbean countries, frequently retweeted conspiracy theories and rumors about Sen. Ted Cruz and his wife Heidi, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

A spokesperson for Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse's office joked in a statement Tuesday that the Senate should probably know Rizzuto's views on the moon landing and warned that "cynics and nuts" would probably face a difficult confirmation process.

"Mr. Rizzuto should feel free to put on his tinfoil hat and visit our office with evidence for his salacious conspiracy theories and cuckoo allegations," said Sasse spokesman James Wegmann. "While he's at it, the Senate probably needs to know his views on the moon landing. I'm sure Senator Sasse will be willing to evaluate the specific evidence for his claims — but it's got to be more than a stack of National Enquirers."

Wegmann continued, "People who want to serve Americans as our diplomats and spokespeople abroad should know that words and truth matter, even during campaigns. Cynics and nuts are probably going to have a hard time securing Senate confirmation."

If confirmed, Rizzuto, a senior executive at Conair, would serve as the next ambassador to Barbados, as well as to serve concurrently as ambassador to Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, the Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Rizzuto promoted unfounded allegations that Cruz was unfaithful to his wife and that Heidi Cruz was a leading member in an effort to combine the governments of the US, Canada and Mexico. Rizzuto also promoted an unfounded conspiracy theory that long time Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Reached by phone on Monday, Rizzuto told CNN that he could not comment on his Twitter activity based on guidelines from the State Department.

Goober McTuber wrote:Here's another for you, Dohron.

One of President Donald Trump's nominees is drawing condemnation and mockery from a Republican senator over his past statements pushing conspiracy theories and unfounded political attacks on Trump's opponents.

CNN's KFile reported on Monday that Leandro Rizzuto Jr., Trump's nominee to be the US Ambassador to Barbados and several other Caribbean countries, frequently retweeted conspiracy theories and rumors about Sen. Ted Cruz and his wife Heidi, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

A spokesperson for Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse's office joked in a statement Tuesday that the Senate should probably know Rizzuto's views on the moon landing and warned that "cynics and nuts" would probably face a difficult confirmation process.

"Mr. Rizzuto should feel free to put on his tinfoil hat and visit our office with evidence for his salacious conspiracy theories and cuckoo allegations," said Sasse spokesman James Wegmann. "While he's at it, the Senate probably needs to know his views on the moon landing. I'm sure Senator Sasse will be willing to evaluate the specific evidence for his claims — but it's got to be more than a stack of National Enquirers."

Wegmann continued, "People who want to serve Americans as our diplomats and spokespeople abroad should know that words and truth matter, even during campaigns. Cynics and nuts are probably going to have a hard time securing Senate confirmation."

If confirmed, Rizzuto, a senior executive at Conair, would serve as the next ambassador to Barbados, as well as to serve concurrently as ambassador to Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, the Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Rizzuto promoted unfounded allegations that Cruz was unfaithful to his wife and that Heidi Cruz was a leading member in an effort to combine the governments of the US, Canada and Mexico. Rizzuto also promoted an unfounded conspiracy theory that long time Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Reached by phone on Monday, Rizzuto told CNN that he could not comment on his Twitter activity based on guidelines from the State Department.

Derron wrote: