+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Inaugural Address (/Thread-Inaugural-Address)
Pages:
1
2
Inaugural Address - xxlt - 01-23-2017
I wasn't to surprised when the NY Times and George Will panned the Trump inaugural address. Politics makes strange bed fellows.
But I read it yesterday, and I listened to it today, and honestly I didn't think it was that horrible.
I thought it seemed like a speech he may have written himself - very simple words and sentence structure, and at least in terms of verbal IQ I don't think Trump is a very smart person. But, he may have other intelligence strengths. After all there are many ways to be smart.
And, while some of the language seemed inappropriate and out of touch - word choices such as "carnage" come to mind - some of it was pretty good, like the passage about all soldiers regardless of skin color bleeding the same red blood.
Trump may be above all else a chameleon - racists see him as a racist, rich people see him as one of them, poor people see him as their savior, etc. And this may make him a very effective political leader, as strange as that seems for me to say and likely seems for you to hear with it coming from me.
My hope is small, but I think this chameleon who perhaps doesn't believe so much of what he says may be a pragmatist who holds many values antithetical to his own rhetoric and his adopted party and so he may actually govern fairly and effectively, if he isn't just another Obama/Bush/Reagan whose only goal is for the rich to get richer.
What did you think of Trump's inaugural address?
Do you think he has any potential to govern effectively?
RE: Inaugural Address - Belsnickel - 01-23-2017
I think that after a tumultuous election cycle and with him losing the popular vote, he should have come out there with a unifying speech. But that is not what it was. This was a continuation of campaign speeches that we saw, and it had Bannon's fingerprints all over it. It was darker than past inaugural addresses, and it insulted all of the elected officials on the platform with him by blaming them for the darkness.
I don't think he has potential to govern effectively because I don't think he knows how to govern. He is still in campaign mode, and this is because he doesn't have the public service experience to know that once the election is over there is a switch that has to be flipped. He hasn't done that, and he's listening to people that either don't know that themselves or haven't been able to convince him.
RE: Inaugural Address - Benton - 01-23-2017
(01-23-2017, 10:50 AM)xxlt Wrote: I wasn't to surprised when the NY Times and George Will panned the Trump inaugural address. Politics makes strange bed fellows.
I was reading my local paper — which is ultra-conservative — on Sunday and started laughing about halfway through. There were four articles on Trump, and in three of them the writer gave Trump or his people room to talk, and then pointed out the error of what they said. Normally, to keep the story from wandering, reporters will only contradict the info if it's pertinent to the story (for example if a story about healthcare providers has a source providing anecdotal and incorrect info on heart disease rates, the reporter usually won't waste inches to contradict the source since it's not directly related to the story).
Thanks to the POTUS's petulance with the media, that's what we've got to look forward to. Four years of his every word dissected not because it pertains to how it effects the people, but because he's dishonest and unwilling to work with the public.
A retiring lawmaker years ago said one of the most important skills (and one disappearing) for a lawmaker is explaining legislation to constituents. That's a big part of the president's job. Trump can't do that effectively if he's trying to speaking to people about healthcare or energy or tort reform, and goes off on tangents about "fake news" or how big his inauguration was.
(01-23-2017, 11:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think that after a tumultuous election cycle and with him losing the popular vote, he should have come out there with a unifying speech. But that is not what it was. This was a continuation of campaign speeches that we saw, and it had Bannon's fingerprints all over it. It was darker than past inaugural addresses, and it insulted all of the elected officials on the platform with him by blaming them for the darkness.
I don't think he has potential to govern effectively because I don't think he knows how to govern. He is still in campaign mode, and this is because he doesn't have the public service experience to know that once the election is over there is a switch that has to be flipped. He hasn't done that, and he's listening to people that either don't know that themselves or haven't been able to convince him.
Agreed.
RE: Inaugural Address - Fan_in_Kettering - 01-23-2017
(01-23-2017, 10:50 AM)xxlt Wrote: I wasn't to surprised when the NY Times and George Will panned the Trump inaugural address. Politics makes strange bed fellows.
But I read it yesterday, and I listened to it today, and honestly I didn't think it was that horrible.
I thought it seemed like a speech he may have written himself - very simple words and sentence structure, and at least in terms of verbal IQ I don't think Trump is a very smart person. But, he may have other intelligence strengths. After all there are many ways to be smart.
And, while some of the language seemed inappropriate and out of touch - word choices such as "carnage" come to mind - some of it was pretty good, like the passage about all soldiers regardless of skin color bleeding the same red blood.
What did you think of Trump's inaugural address?
Do you think he has any potential to govern effectively?
Every president gives a good inaugural address. Very few can actually do the job well.
Specifically to Donald Trump's potential, I'm optimistic but for a reason you might not anticipate: He's not a career politician. Earlier in my career I spent lots of time in Washington DC and I developed a loathing of politicians, especially the long-term established ones. I'm sorry, but no career politician of any party is going to upset the apple cart. It's too comfortable for them. Also, the Constitution wasn't written with career politicians in mind but rather the citizen-legislator.
It's going to hurt when President Trump rips some band-aids off some national wounds but in the healing we will grow stronger. We staged an intervention on November 8.
RE: Inaugural Address - Benton - 01-23-2017
(01-23-2017, 12:01 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: I'm sorry, but no career politician of any party is going to upset the apple cart. It's too comfortable for them.
....
We staged an intervention on November 8.
I get that people are caught up in the movement, but there's not much Trump can do to upset the establishment. Congress wields more power, and they've already said what they plan to do. I've said for more than a decade now, for those people who are upset with the course of the country, work to make a change in Congress, not the White House.
We send back the same guys decade after decade and then get angry at the guy who has no authority to fix their mistakes.
RE: Inaugural Address - Belsnickel - 01-23-2017
(01-23-2017, 12:01 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: Every president gives a good inaugural address. Very few can actually do the job well.
Specifically to Donald Trump's potential, I'm optimistic but for a reason you might not anticipate: He's not a career politician. Earlier in my career I spent lots of time in Washington DC and I developed a loathing of politicians, especially the long-term established ones. I'm sorry, but no career politician of any party is going to upset the apple cart. It's too comfortable for them. Also, the Constitution wasn't written with career politicians in mind but rather the citizen-legislator.
It's going to hurt when President Trump rips some band-aids off some national wounds but in the healing we will grow stronger. We staged an intervention on November 8.
I disagree, entirely. The founding fathers were career politicians themselves. The executive, the judiciary (they are politicians, let's not kid ourselves), and the Senate are intended to be made up of career politicians. Without them being career politicians, nothing would be able to get done because "citizen-legislators" don't know how it works. I agree that the lower chamber in our legislature is not intended to be made up career folks, but the idea of the upper chamber being made up of longer terms is that it is supposed to provide the stability that comes with being filled with statesmen.
Now, if we want to discuss how Congress itself was intended to be a part-time job and the role of the POTUS was not anticipated to be so large, that I can concede. However, with the size of the country physically, and the size of the government, that potential does not exist.
RE: Inaugural Address - xxlt - 01-23-2017
(01-23-2017, 11:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think that after a tumultuous election cycle and with him losing the popular vote, he should have come out there with a unifying speech. But that is not what it was. This was a continuation of campaign speeches that we saw, and it had Bannon's fingerprints all over it. It was darker than past inaugural addresses, and it insulted all of the elected officials on the platform with him by blaming them for the darkness.
I don't think he has potential to govern effectively because I don't think he knows how to govern. He is still in campaign mode, and this is because he doesn't have the public service experience to know that once the election is over there is a switch that has to be flipped. He hasn't done that, and he's listening to people that either don't know that themselves or haven't been able to convince him.
Great take, as I have come to expect from you. All I will say is given the gridlock of the last 8 years maybe the tack he is taking is the right one - scolding those on the platform - I am sure much of middle America liked that and felt he was unified with them on that point. To me, this scolding was almost a more in your face version of Obama's constant refrain of Washington doesn't work because Americans aren't engaged - and rather then blaming Americans blaming their leaders for not rising above the apathy and impotence of the masses. And, the marches Saturday suggest he has more Americans willing to engage than Obama did. Most of America, Red or Blue, hates what is inside the beltway and the media that covers it and Trump seems to be striking that chord even as he has his opposition in the street marching against him. Something is happening...
I share your concerns about his lack of knowledge and experience, believe me. But, if he gets away from some of the fascist rhetoric (as this speech seemed to in places) and comes out with policy proposals like a jobs bill/infrastructure bill then no matter how much dems or repubs in DC hate him (and I think he draws contempt in equal parts from both sides of the aisle right now) they may be afraid not to back them and - Ho Le Chit - something positive could actually happen.
Of course, they could unite to impeach and remove him for a number of reasons, or they could unite to pass beneficial legislation, but either way, paradoxically, this seemingly crazy SOB may be a unifying force and DC sure as hell needs that.
RE: Inaugural Address - xxlt - 01-23-2017
(01-23-2017, 11:33 AM)Benton Wrote: I was reading my local paper — which is ultra-conservative — on Sunday and started laughing about halfway through. There were four articles on Trump, and in three of them the writer gave Trump or his people room to talk, and then pointed out the error of what they said. Normally, to keep the story from wandering, reporters will only contradict the info if it's pertinent to the story (for example if a story about healthcare providers has a source providing anecdotal and incorrect info on heart disease rates, the reporter usually won't waste inches to contradict the source since it's not directly related to the story).
Thanks to the POTUS's petulance with the media, that's what we've got to look forward to. Four years of his every word dissected not because it pertains to how it effects the people, but because he's dishonest and unwilling to work with the public.
A retiring lawmaker years ago said one of the most important skills (and one disappearing) for a lawmaker is explaining legislation to constituents. That's a big part of the president's job. Trump can't do that effectively if he's trying to speaking to people about healthcare or energy or tort reform, and goes off on tangents about "fake news" or how big his inauguration was.
Agreed.
And yet, like Reagan (the "great communicator" who was really just a great liar) somehow Trump's message does connect with constituents - they believe him, even when he lies, just as they lapped up Reagan's BS like it was sweet honey from the rock. Of course this has happened before under hardcore fascists like Benito and A.H. as well as fascist lights like St. Ronald here at home, so the real question comes down to what is the Trump policy agenda. And, there are rumblings that Trump's policy agenda may look in some ways more like Sanders' would have looked. Both connect to populist frustration over many real issues and Trump was until this election a life long Democrat. If he can get several leagues to the left of Bill Clinton but not as left as Sanders (I know that ain't happenin') we may have the second coming of LBJ, which while not a dream come true, probably is better than a sixth term for Reagan. (Those six terms being Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Obama, Obama, and HRC.)
RE: Inaugural Address - xxlt - 01-23-2017
(01-23-2017, 12:01 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: Every president gives a good inaugural address. Very few can actually do the job well.
Specifically to Donald Trump's potential, I'm optimistic but for a reason you might not anticipate: He's not a career politician. Earlier in my career I spent lots of time in Washington DC and I developed a loathing of politicians, especially the long-term established ones. I'm sorry, but no career politician of any party is going to upset the apple cart. It's too comfortable for them. Also, the Constitution wasn't written with career politicians in mind but rather the citizen-legislator.
It's going to hurt when President Trump rips some band-aids off some national wounds but in the healing we will grow stronger. We staged an intervention on November 8.
Consensus seems to be his address sucked, but maybe that is just the whining of a scorned meda?
Like I said, I thought it had its strengths, and they point to what you said about citizen legislators and healing wounds. I hope you are correct about those things.
RE: Inaugural Address - Griever - 01-23-2017
all his speech was missing was him slamming his fist on the podium
RE: Inaugural Address - wildcats forever - 01-23-2017
(01-23-2017, 01:57 PM)xxlt Wrote: Great take, as I have come to expect from you. All I will say is given the gridlock of the last 8 years maybe the tack he is taking is the right one - scolding those on the platform - I am sure much of middle America liked that and felt he was unified with them on that point. To me, this scolding was almost a more in your face version of Obama's constant refrain of Washington doesn't work because Americans aren't engaged - and rather then blaming Americans blaming their leaders for not rising above the apathy and impotence of the masses. And, the marches Saturday suggest he has more Americans willing to engage than Obama did. Most of America, Red or Blue, hates what is inside the beltway and the media that covers it and Trump seems to be striking that chord even as he has his opposition in the street marching against him. Something is happening...
I share your concerns about his lack of knowledge and experience, believe me. But, if he gets away from some of the fascist rhetoric (as this speech seemed to in places) and comes out with policy proposals like a jobs bill/infrastructure bill then no matter how much dems or repubs in DC hate him (and I think he draws contempt in equal parts from both sides of the aisle right now) they may be afraid not to back them and - Ho Le Chit - something positive could actually happen.
Of course, they could unite to impeach and remove him for a number of reasons, or they could unite to pass beneficial legislation, but either way, paradoxically, this seemingly crazy SOB may be a unifying force and DC sure as hell needs that.
My suspicion is the GOP core will use the distraction that Trump is for their benefit in ticking off as many items of their agenda as they can. Once that has been accomplished, then they will pounce on the next faux pas Trump is surely to commit, and impeach him. Pence will be their boy from that point forward.
It will be the next generation Dems that should benefit from this, with the opportunity of righting the ship after healthcare, retirement programs, and environmental issues become so weakened that a majority of the sheeple will be crying for their help. This cycling of politics has a deep tap root.
I am mainly encouraged by all of the noise 2016 made, even with some of the details being so disgusting. Real change does seem imminent if the current fever pitch continues. And that seems likely as long as we have Trump giving us such entertaining fodder to critique. However, I doubt that we will enjoy this process, and believe that it will not be over soon.
RE: Inaugural Address - xxlt - 01-23-2017
(01-23-2017, 02:34 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: My suspicion is the GOP core will use the distraction that Trump is for their benefit in ticking off as many items of their agenda as they can. Once that has been accomplished, then they will pounce on the next faux pas Trump is surely to commit, and impeach him. Pence will be their boy from that point forward.
It will be the next generation Dems that should benefit from this, with the opportunity of righting the ship after healthcare, retirement programs, and environmental issues become so weakened that a majority of the sheeple will be crying for their help. This cycling of politics has a deep tap root.
I am mainly encouraged by all of the noise 2016 made, even with some of the details being so disgusting. Real change does seem imminent if the current fever pitch continues. And that seems likely as long as we have Trump giving us such entertaining fodder to critique. However, I doubt that we will enjoy this process, and believe that it will not be over soon.
Do the republicans have enough seats in the senate to get anything passed? To override a veto? Donny Boy may be in the driver's seat and it could either mean executive orders out the ***** or continued gridlock if they can't make nice with him or some libtards on the other side of the aisle.
RE: Inaugural Address - xxlt - 01-23-2017
(01-23-2017, 02:25 PM)Griever Wrote: all his speech was missing was him slamming his fist on the podium
Saving it for the Milwaukee Putsch?
RE: Inaugural Address - McC - 01-23-2017
(01-23-2017, 01:57 PM)xxlt Wrote: Great take, as I have come to expect from you. All I will say is given the gridlock of the last 8 years maybe the tack he is taking is the right one - scolding those on the platform - I am sure much of middle America liked that and felt he was unified with them on that point. To me, this scolding was almost a more in your face version of Obama's constant refrain of Washington doesn't work because Americans aren't engaged - and rather then blaming Americans blaming their leaders for not rising above the apathy and impotence of the masses. And, the marches Saturday suggest he has more Americans willing to engage than Obama did. Most of America, Red or Blue, hates what is inside the beltway and the media that covers it and Trump seems to be striking that chord even as he has his opposition in the street marching against him. Something is happening...I think he will take his case to the American people and play the Washington outsider angle to the hilt. One thing he has done that plays well and will continue to play well is speaking of We the People. That is a strong message to a population sick and tired of political lifers. Eventually, the lifers will have no choice but follow or lose their cushy jobs.
I share your concerns about his lack of knowledge and experience, believe me. But, if he gets away from some of the fascist rhetoric (as this speech seemed to in places) and comes out with policy proposals like a jobs bill/infrastructure bill then no matter how much dems or repubs in DC hate him (and I think he draws contempt in equal parts from both sides of the aisle right now) they may be afraid not to back them and - Ho Le Chit - something positive could actually happen.
Of course, they could unite to impeach and remove him for a number of reasons, or they could unite to pass beneficial legislation, but either way, paradoxically, this seemingly crazy SOB may be a unifying force and DC sure as hell needs that.
And I admire your objectivity.
RE: Inaugural Address - xxlt - 01-23-2017
(01-23-2017, 04:58 PM)McC Wrote: I think he will take his case to the American people and play the Washington outsider angle to the hilt. One thing he has done that plays well and will continue to play well is speaking of We the People. That is a strong message to a population sick and tired of political lifers. Eventually, the lifers will have no choice but follow or lose their cushy jobs.
And I admire your objectivity.
Gracias, comrade!
RE: Inaugural Address - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 01-23-2017
(01-23-2017, 12:01 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: Every president gives a good inaugural address. Very few can actually do the job well.
Specifically to Donald Trump's potential, I'm optimistic but for a reason you might not anticipate: He's not a career politician. Earlier in my career I spent lots of time in Washington DC and I developed a loathing of politicians, especially the long-term established ones. I'm sorry, but no career politician of any party is going to upset the apple cart. It's too comfortable for them. Also, the Constitution wasn't written with career politicians in mind but rather the citizen-legislator.
It's going to hurt when President Trump rips some band-aids off some national wounds but in the healing we will grow stronger. We staged an intervention on November 8.
If your furnace breaks, do you call a gynocologist to fix it because they are an outsider?
RE: Inaugural Address - Rotobeast - 01-23-2017
(01-23-2017, 08:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If your furnace breaks, do you call a gynocologist to fix it because they are an outsider?
But..... isn't a gynecologist an "inside-her" ?
RE: Inaugural Address - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 01-24-2017
(01-23-2017, 11:17 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: But..... isn't a gynecologist an "inside-her" ?
Oh, gawd . . . You're triggering my PTSD. Not sure if I told you this story, forgive me if I have. When I did my internal medicine rotation, there was one day a month when they scheduled all the paps. You're typical internal medicine patient has multiple medical problems, a list of medications longer than your arm, elderly, and obese. What some call "a train wreck."
My preceptor told me, "You're going to do all the paps. Wanna know why?"
"Why?"
"Because shit rolls downhill."
And my internal monologue responded, "Fuuuuuuuuuuddgge," like Mikey from A Christmas Story. And much like Mikey, I didn't say fudge, either.
The horror. The horror.
Ever since then I've had that 1,000 yard stare.
RE: Inaugural Address - Rotobeast - 01-24-2017
(01-24-2017, 12:03 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Oh, gawd . . . You're triggering my PTSD. Not sure if I told you this story, forgive me if I have. When I did my internal medicine rotation, there was one day a month when they scheduled all the paps. You're typical internal medicine patient has multiple medical problems, a list of medications longer than your arm, elderly, and obese. What some call "a train wreck."
My preceptor told me, "You're going to do all the paps. Wanna know why?"
"Why?"
"Because shit rolls downhill."
And my internal monologue responded, "Fuuuuuuuuuuddgge," like Mikey from A Christmas Story. And much like Mikey, I didn't say fudge, either.
The horror. The horror.
Ever since then I've had that 1,000 yard stare.
I really want to laugh, but I can imagine how traumatic that could be.
You probably flash back, every time you see a short and curly.
Side note: Ralph/Ralphie
RE: Inaugural Address - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 01-24-2017
(01-24-2017, 12:31 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I really want to laugh, but I can imagine how traumatic that could be.
You probably flash back, every time you see a short and curly.
Side note: Ralph/Ralphie
I got one that is even funnier. I had a Coast Guard instructor who hadnt practiced medicine for awhile. Shortly after resuming patient care, he had the Post Commander's (or whatever the Coast Guard calls them) wife as a patient who needed a pelvic exam. He said when he inserted the speculum there was a film over the opening. Like a bubble wand. He said couldn't tell us why he did it, maybe he just panicked; but to get rid of the secretions on the speculum he blew on it. The Commander's wife reacted how you would expect someone to react if you blew into the speculum inserted into their vagina. Then later that day he was standing on the carpet explaining to the Commander why he blew into the speculum while performing a pelvic exam on the Commander's wife.