State of the Union

[GMDino]

Gonna be REALLY difficult to make Democrats "not applauding" bad for a long time.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-31-2018, 03:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Gonna be REALLY difficult to make Democrats "not applauding" bad for a long time.

Doesn't this fall under your what about? It was one guy one time.  Not the entire Republican Party.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(01-31-2018, 03:33 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 90%? C'mon man. I'd say 90% of what he said was stuff we should all be agreeing on. Now Guantanamo Bay and immigration policies I could see some differences, but even there I'm not sure why people would "hate" what he said. He doesn't want to keep everyone out, he just wants the process to be less random. Take the best other countries have to offer, rather than some lottery system.

Anyways, I'm glad you can admit that it wasn't the best look last night. I was expecting Trump to say something stupid at some point, but he knocked it out of the park IMO, and it was mostly stuff we should all be agreeing on. Stuff that should be uniting us.

How often did you look at Barack Obama's speeches and think: "90% of this stuff is hot garbage". I'm betting more often than not.  On the flipside of that, I enjoyed what he had to say and didn't see why anyone would "hate" it; why anyone would not jump on board with this dude and help progress the country.

I don't expect you to agree with me there, even though I don't know why you don't.

Same situation, just in reverse. I can occasionally feel like he has some good ideas, but the majority of his policy suggestions are fart-noise worthy.

I will agree, that for the most part, he did not make himself look like an ass.....he did that to the Democrats instead. That was unexpected. And for parts of the address, he actually seemed presidential, rather than the twitter buffoon we've come to know.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2018, 03:33 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 90%? C'mon man. I'd say 90% of what he said was stuff we should all be agreeing on. Now Guantanamo Bay and immigration policies I could see some differences, but even there I'm not sure why people would "hate" what he said. He doesn't want to keep everyone out, he just wants the process to be less random. Take the best other countries have to offer, rather than some lottery system.

Anyways, I'm glad you can admit that it wasn't the best look last night. I was expecting Trump to say something stupid at some point, but he knocked it out of the park IMO, and it was mostly stuff we should all be agreeing on. Stuff that should be uniting us.

You do know that the lottery system still has work and education requirements, right?

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2018, 03:55 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I will agree, that for the most part, he did not make himself look like an ass.....he did that to the Democrats instead. That was unexpected. And for parts of the address, he actually seemed presidential, rather than the twitter buffoon we've come to know.

He can read from a teleprompter. I don't know why people count this as presidential. I count it as "he didn't screw it up too bad".

[GMDino]

(01-31-2018, 03:51 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Doesn't this fall under your what about? It was one guy one time.  Not the entire Republican Party.

For years one side or the other didn't applaud.  If I wanted to "whatabout" I'd cite that.

This falls under a member of the GOP called the POTUS a liar during the SOTU speech.

Remember is he was "rebuked" by the House...but the GOP didn't vote for it.  And Wilson refused to apologize...(edit) saying Obama accepted his apology

https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/blogging-the-house-action-on-wilson/

"not applauding" doesn't come close to what that dbag did.  And the entire party looked bad for it.

[GMDino]

(01-31-2018, 03:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He can read from a teleprompter. I don't know why people count this as presidential. I count it as "he didn't screw it up too bad".

Again, the bar is so low that not looking like the fool he usually is is good enough.

It's sad.

[Shake n Blake]

(01-31-2018, 03:55 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: How often did you look at Barack Obama's speeches and think: "90% of this stuff is hot garbage". I'm betting more often than not.  On the flipside of that, I enjoyed what he had to say and didn't see why anyone would "hate" it; why anyone would not jump on board with this dude and help progress the country.

I don't expect you to agree with me there, even though I don't know why you don't.

Same situation, just in reverse. I can occasionally feel like he has some good ideas, but the majority of his policy suggestions are fart-noise worthy.

I will agree, that for the most part, he did not make himself look like an ass.....he did that to the Democrats instead. That was unexpected. And for parts of the address, he actually seemed presidential, rather than the twitter buffoon we've come to know.

1. I can honestly say "never". I kept an open mind with Obama. Understood where he was coming from on some issues and even agreed, but mostly disagreed with him on the hot button topics.

2. That was the most pleasing thing to me. I've never been happy with his demeanor as President, but I've been able to look past it and see the important things. I mostly agree with him on key issues and approve of the job he's done thus far. I wish he'd do more to help with race relations, but (a) Obama also did nothing and (b) I'm not sure Trump really can do anything to help. Anything he tries will be met with strong resistance and wild accusations of racism. Such as when he attended the opening of that civil rights museum. 

He can't win there. Dems have to convince their base that Trump is all evil, all the time.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(01-31-2018, 03:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He can read from a teleprompter. I don't know why people count this as presidential. I count it as "he didn't screw it up too bad".

Well, the bar has been set pretty low. Look at his other debates/addresses/speeches/tirades. It was an upgrade from what we've gotten for the last two years.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(01-31-2018, 04:08 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: He can't win there. Dems have to convince their base that Trump is all evil, all the time.

As concerned and responsible citizens, we must realize that he's only mostly evil, most of the time.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-31-2018, 04:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: For years one side or the other didn't applaud.  If I wanted to "whatabout" I'd cite that.

This falls under a member of the GOP called the POTUS a liar during the SOTU speech.

Remember is he was "rebuked" by the House...but the GOP didn't vote for it.  And Wilson refused to apologize...(edit) saying Obama accepted his apology

https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/blogging-the-house-action-on-wilson/

"not applauding" doesn't come close to what that dbag did.  And the entire party looked bad for it.

When did someone yell "you lie" at a SOTU? 

[Shake n Blake]

(01-31-2018, 04:11 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: As concerned and responsible citizens, we must realize that he's only mostly evil, most of the time.

And with that, back to JN for me. You kiddos have fun.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-31-2018, 04:14 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote:

And with that, back to JN for me. You kiddos have fun.

Now you all did it.  Shake is headed back to JN because it's too crazy here.     You all eclipsed JN.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2018, 04:09 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Well, the bar has been set pretty low. Look at his other debates/addresses/speeches/tirades. It was an upgrade from what we've gotten for the last two years.

He's shown he can stay on script, before. It's when he doesn't have one in front of him, or he is addressing his base, that the real Trump comes out.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(01-31-2018, 04:15 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Now you all did it.  Shake is headed back to JN because it's too crazy here.     You all eclipsed JN.

Not possible. Even the day after the election, this place wasn't as bad as JN after a Bengals loss.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2018, 04:11 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: As concerned and responsible citizens, we must realize that he's only mostly evil, most of the time.

I don't think he is evil, I just think he is incompetent and has ceded leadership responsibility and the responsibility for policy to unelected people that are also incompetent (or an enemy of the very institution they have been called upon to run). He is also a terrible example of humanity.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(01-31-2018, 04:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think he is evil, I just think he is incompetent and has ceded leadership responsibility and the responsibility for policy to unelected people that are also incompetent (or an enemy of the very institution they have been called upon to run). He is also a terrible example of humanity.

I was kind of joking around with Shake....shoulda used a ninja.

BUT....what you just described sounds pretty damned evil to me. Not like Satan evil....or Hitler evil....or Roethlisberger evil, but still evil based on the 'Profoundly Immoral' definition of the word.

[Dill]

(01-31-2018, 02:46 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I'll just leave this here: amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/31/blinded-their-hatred-trump-dems-reveal-theyre-not-/

If there’s one thing President Donald Trump excels at as a politician it’s his uncanny knack to draw his opponents onto a high-profile, national stage where they reveal their ugliest traits for the world to see.

He was able to do it in the 2016 Republican primary multiple times. Think about Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) beclowning himself with talk of small hands during a primary debate in Las Vegas. Think of his ability to draw biased journalists out of their fake objectivity during debates and subsequently in their every-day coverage of the president.

Again and again, those who oppose him are sidetracked and distracted by their own rage and frustration against a man they truly believe is not worthy of the position he has attained. He gets his opponents to reveal that rage and their hatred for Trump the man and in so doing, they reveal the worst in themselves.

And he did it again last night, in what was probably the highest profile moment of his presidency, his first State of the Union Address.

I am surprised that this kind of propaganda seems to work, even if for a limited sector of voters. 

Can articles like this this really, successfully, displace Trump's rage, frustration, and "beclowning" moments onto his opponents?  Trump's opponents "rage" at him for things he actually says and does--e.g., grab P, ban Muslims, and lie about illegal voting. Not to mention his vindictive humiliation of his own AG and WH Staff.

He is not "getting" opponents to express frustration with him.  Rather, he cannot control himself and has no sense of consequences or accountability. That is why people "hate" seeing such a bad role model and incompetent in a position of such power.

People are revealing "the worst" in themselves when they criticize Trump's documented bad behavior?  Jeezuz . . . . .

This is just top of the line mystification if it works.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2018, 05:06 PM)Dill Wrote: I am surprised that this kind of propaganda seems to work, even if for a limited sector of voters. 

Can articles like this this really, successfully, displace Trump's rage, frustration, and "beclowning" moments onto his opponents?  Trump's opponents "rage" at him for things he actually says and does--e.g., grab P, ban Muslims, and lie about illegal voting. Not to mention his vindictive humiliation of his own AG WH Staff.

He is not "getting" opponents to express frustration with him.  Rather, he cannot control himself and has no sense of consequences or accountability. That is why people "hate" seeing such a bad role model and incompetent in a position of such power.

People are revealing "the worst" in themselves when they criticize Trump's documented bad behavior?  Jeezuz . . . . .

This is just top of the line mystification if it works.

Dill, I have some sad news for you...

[StLucieBengal]

(01-31-2018, 12:11 PM)Benton Wrote: That’s what he inferred but not what he said. That’s pretty good by trump standards. I don’t think calling out ms13 and other gangs is racist, not when they’re almost entirely composed of one race and members are committing terrible acts.

But if it makes you feel better, I was pretty bummed by his call for increased spending. Republicans are spending money faster than we can print it, and now he wants to ramp up infrastructure spending? Wtf? We need it, but bridges aren’t cheap. You can’t jusy say “give me a trillion bucks cause it’s the best thing to do.”

And I thought it was naive when he was complaining about permitting holding up bioding projects. There’s only two ways to fix that: spend more money hiring enough civil engineers to get studies done quicker, or loosen regulations. As a developer I’m sure he’s leaning towards the latter, which is a horrible idea. I don’t know about federally, but in Kentucky a lot of our construction regulations came along in the early 90s after shoddy development left municipalities in some places in the hook for millions of screwed up, shoddy cobstruction projects.

But it is what it is. Trump is trying to relive the 80s, along with the war on drugs that led to our prison population growth. It amazes me that the party that sticks with “guns laws don’t stop gun violence” also adheres to “drug laws stop drug abuse.”

Isn’t the infrastructure number a bit of a myth. 1.5 Trillion total but isn’t it like only 200b gov money the rest private. I could be wrong but I swear it was something like that.... Pelosi was furious about it he other day on Cuomo’s Show