I can't believe it. I thought this thread would have been started seconds after, (or before), the address was finished. Am I really the first?
Okay folks, what did you think?
I feel like a giggling schoolgirl on a Comedy Central skit. I actually fell off the fence when I saw the Democrats forced to stand and clap, (because of the subject it would have been callous not to).
And when he had the Democrat women in white standing and chanting; USA! USA! USA! I nearly fell out of my chair.
Now, in my haste to start this thread, I am listening to the Stacy Abrams rebuttal. Except that it is not a rebuttal of the speech at all. It is, (that should be was, it just ended), a Democrat bash of Trump - nothing to do with the speech), merely a Democrat criticism of Pres. Trump. Geesh.
And now, as I watch CNN tear into the speech, they can only criticize what he didn't say - not what he did say.
Lordy, lordy, I better stop and let you folks weigh in.
[EDIT] Oops. I forgot to add that in fairness of full disclosure -- in anticipation of this speech, I declared a Domicile National Martini Emergency and prepped accordingly.
And when he had the Democrat women in white standing and chanting; USA! USA! USA! I nearly fell out of my chair.
Their shot at him made me smile.
Must be the martini(s) Islandbites. I don't think I get what you mean.
Are you saying they were mocking him? Or that their chant was a not-so-subtle message of challenge rather than an acknowledgment of the point?
I took the point that started their chant as a nod to the strides the women had made--which I applaud. Did I miss the real point?
Maybe. The read on it I saw is that they were cheering because Trump WAS responsible for their new jobs, just not in the way he was taking credit for.
How many martinis did you have, Gus? As Crank pointed out, the women were cheering their new jobs in Congress which Trump guaranteed with his idiotic agenda. He said, "You weren't supposed to do that!"
I went back to ABC's video of the speech: President Trump's 2019 State of the Union Address
And I did find that "You weren't supposed to do that!" comment. It followed his reference to women filling 58% of the new jobs created. You can see it at about 1:16:40 of the video. And right or wrong, my reading of the "You weren't supposed to do that!" was directed at their standing and cheering a point in his speech - not their taking 58% of the jobs. I replayed it a couple times and feel confident in that interpretation of what he was speaking to.
My point about the USA! chant follows that at around 1:18:50, after he says; "We also have more women serving in Congress than at any time before..." That chant doesn't seem to have anything to do with his previous reference to women taking 58% of the newly created jobs, or his comment that "You weren't supposed to do that!"
Even after two martinis, I think I will stick with my interpretation Randy. The video replay does seem to reinforce my original impression.
How about you look at my video link, and the time intervals noted, and see if you still want to hold with your interpretation of the inferences involved. Can you subjectively do that?
There are remarks intervening between the comments that you interpret your way, and I interpret another way. Can you note the remarks that support your interpretation?
Perhaps with a few martinis, yes. Understandable though.
That may be true crankalicious, but my comment, the one you responded to, was about whether or not Pelosi urged the group to stand and chant.
Regarding the motivation of that chant, I think there could be multiple perspectives, ranging from ironic to just celebratory. My view saw it as a hurrah for us, (women).
Nancy is enjoying a surge in popularity fueled by internet memes, including her now famous SOTU clapback.
https://www.vogue.com/article/nancy-pel … union-meme
Of course, I can't take issue with your "take" on it Cranalicious, because I can only speak from my take on it. And my take didn't see it that way.
To be clear, my "take" didn't really stop to consider any subtleties, (maybe it was the martinis). I only saw him acknowledging the strides made by the women and their response as an affirmation of that acknowledgment.
Now, what is the message of such opposite interpretations? Is mine a shallow impression formed only by the moment, (I admit that is the case)? Is your's a more considered impression influenced by nuance and a deeper interpretation of their reaction?
I like your take better than mine, and hope it is the right one. I looked at that sea of white, all clustered together, and could only think "Great! That's all we need - yet another great divide in our congress!" It didn't help to watch Pelosi motioning them to all stand in lockstep, either.
Did you feel the same way looking at the sea of dark suits on the Republican side?
No - why would I? They were pretty well distributed over the entire area. Had those white dresses been likewise distributed I would not have had that reaction. But they weren't, now were they?
It's amazing how we can view things so differently. A sea of male suits is not jarring to you, but a sea of female unity is interpreted as "divide."
"Female unity" is the key, isn't it - you spotted it, too. Didn't see any "male unity" (on the R side) - the sexes were distributed with no apparent grouping of either. They were all just members of congress.
But the D side most definitely grouped the congresswomen together, separate from congressmen. Hopefully not as "female unity" (your words) but as GA said - to make a political statement about diversity in the Democrats. Although there was a lot of high fives and fist pumping...between the women. Didn't see women high fiving any men about the "diversity". Or the "female unity".
Wonder if they'll start requiring races or religions to wear distinctive clothing, too, to make it even more obvious? Guess they could have a white top, green slacks and a black shawl or something, but where would they seat a black Muslim woman? Or a Hispanic, Buddhist, transgender woman?
"Wonder if they'll start requiring races or religions to wear distinctive clothing, too, to make it even more obvious? Guess they could have a white top, green slacks and a black shawl or something, but where would they seat a black Muslim woman? Or a Hispanic, Buddhist, transgender woman?"
Or homosexual member of Congress could dress in rainbow colored clothes......
Ah, I see now that you DID mention transgender. Sorry.
This is precisely the problem. A sea of white males never bothers Republicans because, it would seem, it's what they want and are comfortable with.
We don't differ on your "sea of white" point Wilderness. That is why I was so blown away by their chant. When I went back and looked at the video link, (the one in my comment to Randy), I didn't see Pelosi prompting them to stand and do it. As I think about it, not only didn't I see her do it, I can't imagine that she could bring herself to do so.
I did see her motion to do so on a couple aspects - but not on that one. Maybe I missed a camera angle.
To keep with that "Full Disclosure" thing, (and PrettyPanther's thought), this thread is so entertaining that I have how broken the martini rule and am on my third one. ;-)
Pelosi made a gesture, raising both forearms slightly as if to say "stand up", and I think it was in the segment about how far women have come in their congressional membership. Perhaps a different camera crew? I watched CBS.
Which brought out an interesting, if informal, poll immediately after the address. Seems 72% of respondents favored Trumps plan on immigration.
It's a small point. I was watching CNN, but we were both watching live, so, it's a small point.
I haven't seen any poll information yet. Too involved enjoying this thread. ;-)
Hells bells, that's a thought for an analyst's couch, isn't it? Why do I find it so hard to find conversations to enjoy? Must be a mother fixation. Maybe she didn't cut up my food as she did for my brothers? Or maybe it's because she didn't always remember to add the Stolis to my milk bottles? *shrug*
People get stomped on their entire lives and when they stand up, the people who have been doing the stomping don't like it.
I am missing your point crankalicious. At least as it relates to my comment.
The women were wearing white in honor of women's suffrage, the fight for their right to vote. They cheered because they got elected to Congress because people dislike Trump and his R cronies who are afraid to stand up for him no matter how much he hurts the country to throw his tantrums. They got those jobs because of the people who wouldn't vote R in rejection of Trump.
And it's not you on this thread, but we D's had to see a group of mostly old men in blue suits, it's always almost all men in the R party. That's what you are missing. This is a country where only white, male, landowners had the right to vote. It took many years more for women and people of color.
That's what I think is getting lost here.
I understand the suffrage part Jean, and I understand the solidarity symbolism of wearing white, but I am less sure it was an 'in spite of Trump' chant.
As mentioned to crankalicous, I think it was a "Hurrah for us, (women!") chant.. Obviously, that may just be my male perspective, but it was my take on the event.
I agree, it was celebratory too. I didn't mean that in a sexist spirit, I know many nice men, you among them. Just because we all don't agree on these forums, doesn't mean we have to ignore each other's better qualities.
A spirit of compromise and not being so nasty has to start somewhere, so why not here? If I was writing an article regarding this, it would be about setting a positive attitude to get there. Hmm-better write that down on article ideas.
Jean, you are always a lady- a class act in the forums.
You are killing me Jean. If it gets around that I might be a nice man, or, heaven forbid, that I might be willing to consider other perspectives, everyone will begin to expect it. Can you imagine that, a rational political discussion? Blasphemy!
The point was that these women had jobs because they were elected to Congress as Democrats, in opposition to so much of what he has done in his Presidency. I hope they don't squander the chance to actually get something done together by both sides. It seemed Trump left the door open for negotiation. Many thought he would use the SOTU address to call a National Emergency.
The martini was an excellent idea, I was getting bored.
I agree Jean. The martini was a great idea. And the way the conversation is going, (predictably), that first martini's followers are showing their worth too. ;-)
ps. As noted in another reply, I didn't see his acknowledgment of their, (the Congress women), increase as a reference to anything to do with him. I think it was just an acknowledgment of their increase. I think any other interpretation can only be based on a previously held bias. (but that may be the martinis speaking - we will see in the morning)
I am curious about this:
"I am listening to the Stacy Abrams rebuttal. Except that it is not a rebuttal of the speech at all. It is, (that should be was, it just ended), a Democrat bash of Trump - nothing to do with the speech), merely a Democrat criticism of Pres. Trump. Geesh."
I didn't hear Trump bashing. I heard her touch upon many issues that are important to Democrats, such as education, health care, gun violence, voter suppression, and climate change. I'm not saying the bashing wasn't there, just that I didn't hear it. So, I took some time to skim over the transcript of Abrams' speech and I didn't see any bashing. Would you mind explaining what parts felt like bashing to you?
Nope! Can't do it. Between the martinis and participation in this thread, I was only half listening to her response. I did not hear her addressing the speech, but the other interpretation of Trump-bashing may have been a way off-base description because it is what I was expecting.
Plus, I was well into my second one by then. So if necessary, (and I trust your perspective enough to believe it is), then I fully retract my Stacy Abrams rebuttal speech comment. Mia Culpa.
Now, let's get back to the State of the Union. That is where the real meat is. And, where I don't think I am so off-base.
I will even toss you a crumb... the part about "partisan investigations..." That is what I expected his whole speech to sound like, not just that brief interjection into the speech.
Now, who gets the credit for what I see as his restraint? His speech writers? His political advisors? Or Pres. Trump himself?
Tell me Prettypanther, even with your bias and low-expectations, and the tidbits like that "partisan investigations," can you really say this speech, (and the prompted in-chamber Democrat responses), didn't surprise you?
Lol, I have seen Trump deliver several scripted speeches quite competently so, no, I wasn't surprised. Except, I did expect at least one ill-advised unscripted tangent and I didn't hear one.
I did think I heard him say that if Dems want their legislation passed, they must stop the investigations, but that could be my biased interpretation. I would have to check to be sure.
As for all those positive proposals that Dems were forced to applaud, I am skeptical of his sincerity. Imagine that.
Really? No Trump bashing?
"The shutdown was a stunt, engineered by the president of the United States, one that defied every tenet of fairness, and abandoned not just our people, but our values."
"Yet this White House responds timidly..."
"But instead, families' hopes are being crushed by Republican leadership <Trump> that ignores real life or just doesn't understand it"
"But we need him to tell the truth, and to respect his duties, and respect the extraordinary diversity that defines America."
We have a different idea of what constitutes "Trump bashing".
Expressing a need for POTUS to tell the truth is not bashing in my world.
The shutdown was a stunt. He waited until the Dems were in power to take a stand on the wall. He could have done it when he had both houses.
The rest is very mild compared to what Trump himself says on a daily basis.
Eye of the beholder.
Yep - eye of the beholder. If we can just twist or spin it into something that sounds reasonable then it isn't "bashing". Especially if we can make excuses or only look at a part of the picture. And doubly so if we only say "Well HE did it first!" - that always makes bashing/uncivility OK.
The speech was excellent and try to bring the country together in unity. It was not to be by the democrats reaction.
My only regret is he was reading from the teleprompter. He should have spoken from the heart like he usually does at one of his rallies. It would have been more powerful.
He does look and sound presidential...and from the result poll, 76% of the public thought so too.
The better speech was two days later when he gave a speech at the National Day of Prayer meeting. Unfortunately, most of the media did not cover it, only Fox news.
I was very impressed by president Trumps speech from beginning to end. I found it inspiring to hear his accomplishments and plans for the future. I found it beneficial to see him reach out to the other side and ask for unity to get things done. It was straight forward and geared to enlighten the people, all of the people.
I think you had too much to drink and the USA chants from the women in white went right over your head.
Okay, first, I did not break the martini rule. I only had two! And second, it is Bazingo!, not whoosh.
And thridly, (ha! thirdly, spell check and grammerly say that isn't right -- but I like it), after Crank's comment, (and Randy's), I am off to find a replay to see what I missed. I was watching, but at my age, these eyes might miss a detail or two.
Eh, we're always mocking Trump's lying braggadocio, so we know it when we see it.
I understand that point. It is not unexpected. But, if you had to take things at face value, (as they appear), and not as you are pre-disposed to take them, do you really think my take is so wrong?
Without a pro or anti Trump bias, is my perspective inconceivable?
I started watching with a very low bar of credibility set. From my fence post perch, I expected Pres. Trump to practically self-destruct with anti-Democrat pro-Trump rhetoric. I didn't see that. I fell off the fence and give him kudos for a speech I did not expect.
Instead, what I saw was point after point that the Democrats could not refuse to acknowledge.
It is true that I also saw a few pure Trump jabs, (and "Trump fact" representations), but overall I was impressed by his control.
ps. as noted to Wilderness, I have now broken the rule. We will have to see how badly I stepped in it in the morning. ;-)
It's refreshing to see you more freely speak your mind. :-)
Edit: I will rewatch that portion of the speech tomorrow and will try to momentarily suspend my anti-Trump mindset.
I know. Ain't it great! It's tough to try to be fair-minded in a political forum. What, with all the wiggling, fence sitting can be tough on the bum.
But thanks to Pres.Trump, I have stripped to my socks and am dashing out the door to streak the neighborhood!
El Paso Sheriff essentially calls Bozo Trump a LIAR: By now, what else but a "Clown Circus of Deception & LIES" could anyone expect from this soon to be indicted and impeached dishonest charlatan?: I actually tuned boring predictable yet ever so dangerous Donald out after I counted the first 5 LIES and then just watched to see the VIBRANT New Women of the Democratic Congress respond to him which was usually in disbelief and astonishment for most of the time as he recited falsehood after falsehood, hate syllable after hate syllable:
No Bozo Trump, El Paso Texas was never as you depicted it and how would you know anyway from waking Up at 11:00 am then spending most of OUR time eating fried chicken buckets while watching Fox FAKE News and then wasting even MORE of our time in a rabid twitter rage either acting like an idiot or committing crimes??
"El Paso sheriff blasts Trump's 'false narrative' on border crime"
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/wat … 7986883517
“This was probably the worst delivered speech I’ve heard Donald Trump give. He ran over his lines, he mixed up, he didn’t deliver his punchlines, he would deliver a line and go to the next issue, and I don’t think he even realized he was moving on to the next issue. ... Someone didn’t do a good job of breaking his speech so he knew what to do. That was the problem...
In an hour and half, Donald Trump proposed eight domestic policies. Eight! And two of those eight were child cancer and AIDS. So this was not a big speech.” - Rick Santorum
Here is video of that speech...
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump+speech+ … nLMPCjXgys
Everyone with half a brain knew Bozo Trump was NEVER gonna' build a useless concrete SCAM wall at the southern border for almost a million reasons, not the least of which the FEDS DON"T EVEN OWN the land required to build one and NEVER will, but hey, WHY let reality get in the way of his racist, mad Nazi Germany style delusion:
But at least he has an "OUT" and he started uttering his NEW Grand LIE to his gullible little sheep last night claiming much of the wall has already been built even though it's not true, so we need to change the creepy little cult chant from "Build That Wall" to "Finish The Wall": So there ya go, another LIE to sooth the alt-right nut jobs:
by Ralph Schwartz 6 months ago
Congress has ramped up efforts to secure the tax returns of President Trump, demanding the IRS hand them over for scrutiny, launching what appears to be a legal battle between the Executive and Legislative branches.There is no existing law which requires the President or any other private citizen...
by Susie Lehto 3 years ago
On immigration:But there are some areas that the federal government should not leave and should address and address strongly. One of these areas is the problem of illegal immigration. After years of neglect, this administration has taken a strong stand to stiffen the protection of our borders. We...
by JAKE Earthshine 8 months ago
At least security personnel in Russia like the KGB and derivatives thereof are getting paid so they are motivated to do a good job, unlike our law enforcement agents here in the USA who are in an unnecessary state of financial turmoil and serious emotional distress because of Donald Trump's mad...
by fishskinfreak2008 9 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/27 … 9049.shtmlThis should remind us of Mr. Obama's inauguration again, when his approval ratings were around 80%. This latest indicator suggests that HE IS DOING PRETTY WELL (and this assessment INCLUDES HEALTHCARE. Now if we could get a...
by Readmikenow 7 months ago
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is setting a high bar for impeachment of President Donald Trump, saying he is “just not worth it” even as some on her left flank clamor to start proceedings. Pelosi said in an interview with The Washington Post that “I’m not for impeachment” of...
by Susie Lehto 3 years ago
“How Else Could A Socialist Win 22 States?” Moore said.* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLsRFcgHkvAHe claims that no one trusts Democrats anymore – because if they did a “socialist” (Bernie) would not have won 22 states.I don't agree with Micheal Moore very often but in the past...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|