Trump's Congressional Address

[Ben]

Did anyone else see it? I was really, really impressed. This was absolutely President Trump. One of the best addresses I have ever heard. No "Twitter Trump". This was a guy who talked about everyone coming together, but still clearly stating the agenda that got him elected. None of the "We won, you lost, get in the back seat" stuff that the last guy said. For someone who everyone says is a self-absorbed megalomaniac, he made "I" and "me" references 60% less than Obama in his first address (as per counters, and Obama doubled down in his later addresses).

Recognizing the fallen SEAL apparently even moved most Dems and even a lot of the media. The shots of the widow looking to heaven were really powerful.

Most of the Dem reps looked like petulant children. I will give credit that some few of them rose to clap on things like infrastructure spending (which dems are in favor of), to the consternation of their peers. Some of the "women in white" looked like undisciplined 13 year old girls with their giggly faces as they did the "thumbs down" thing for the cameras. Pelosi and Warren looked miserable. The look on Warren's face was best described by Newt Gringrich: "She looked like a librarian afraid someone was going to touch the books."  

Anyway, again, I was really impressed with his tone, demeanor, and "on message" topics.

[zxcvbob]

I watched it; I thought he did a great job.  Unexpectedly good.

I couldn't figure out what was going on with the audio during the applause for Mrs Owens, then realized it was Trump clapping too close to his microphone, and everytime he did it cut the house mics or the automatic gain control kicked in. :D

BTW, the Democrats should welcome that VOICE thing; if illegal alien crime is not a real thing, VOICE will expose that -- they will only find a dozen or so isolated incidents and Trump will look foolish.  (I don't think that's likely to happen)

[MillCreek]

My wife and I watched it from beginning to end, including the Democratic rebuttal.  We were pleasantly surprised by the demeanor and the material as presented by the President.

[cordex]

BTW, the Democrats should welcome that VOICE thing; if illegal alien crime is not a real thing, VOICE will expose that -- they will only find a dozen or so isolated incidents and Trump will look foolish.  (I don't think that's likely to happen)

I really don't like the idea.  To me it's like "hate crimes" - arbitrarily calling out certain crimes as more heinous, important or worthy of attention based on some irrelevant feature of the perpetrator as opposed to the crime itself.  You're not more dead if you're killed by Jose the border criminal than by Joe from Kansas.  Rape is not worse if it is committed by an illegal immigrant than by a guy whose family has lived here since the 1700s.

I wasn't planning on watching, but ended up seeing the whole thing.  It was probably the best speech I've seen Trump give - which is admittedly not saying a lot.  Trump is an abysmal orator, especially when speaking off the cuff.  Turns out that with the right speechwriters and TOTUS helping out he does okay.

A few of his ideas didn't impress me, but I cringed much less than usual.

[Ben]

I really don't like the idea.  To me it's like "hate crimes" - arbitrarily calling out certain crimes as more heinous, important or worthy of attention based on some irrelevant feature of the perpetrator as opposed to the crime itself.  You're not more dead if you're killed by Jose the border criminal than by Joe from Kansas.  Rape is not worse if it is committed by an illegal immigrant than by a guy whose family has lived here since the 1700s.

I can see that POV, and I think even agree with it. Depending on what VOICE is actually about - I don't know the details.

Otherwise, yeah, the way I would look at it is from another angle: Rather than try and create a "hate crime" analog, focus on the fact that the progressive view seems to be that illegals should be punished less than citizens. A good example is the CA Senate Chair, who publicly stated that identity theft isn't a crime if illegals do it, because "it's how they get a job."

It should be as simple as, "You committed a robbery. Ten years in prison. When you're done with that, because you're also here illegally, you will immediately be deported after you paid for the other crime." For less serious non-violent crimes, I guess I'm up in the air. While I would like to see someone face full punishment for identity theft, it could be better for the country to just immediately deport the perpetrator and save the expense of 1-5 in the klink. However there should definitely be no "amnesty" for identity theft because you "needed" to do it to not get caught committing a crime (illegal entry) while job (or EBT) hunting.

[K Frame]

No one is saying that a crime committed by an illegal is worse than a crime committed by a citizen.

This is really in a lot of ways a stick in the eye of the Democrats because it's going to be a centralized point of collection for such incidents, and the Dems know it.

What it really comes down to is that the Democrats, given their reaction last night, have finally encountered a victim class -- in this case REAL victims -- who they won't embrace, and the right is going to beat them with it in a very organized way. And to be perfectly honest, I am ALL for that.

This is going to be the right's "school shooting tracker," on in this case the data is going to be a lot more truthful, as in "No, a police officer firing shots at an unarmed suspect 1,000 yards away is NOT a school shooting."

[TommyGunn]

I really don't like the idea.  To me it's like "hate crimes" - arbitrarily calling out certain crimes as more heinous, important or worthy of attention based on some irrelevant feature of the perpetrator as opposed to the crime itself.  You're not more dead if you're killed by Jose the border criminal than by Joe from Kansas.  Rape is not worse if it is committed by an illegal immigrant than by a guy whose family has lived here since the 1700s.

I wasn't planning on watching, but ended up seeing the whole thing.  It was probably the best speech I've seen Trump give - which is admittedly not saying a lot.  Trump is an abysmal orator, especially when speaking off the cuff.  Turns out that with the right speechwriters and TOTUS helping out he does okay.

A few of his ideas didn't impress me, but I cringed much less than usual.

I take your point about it being no worse to be raped by an illegal than a citizen -- to a degree.  I think there is an argument that being attacked by someone who should not be there  is worse in a way --- since, obviously, if the perp wasn't there, the crime would not have happened.
However ....yeah, you can always retort "if the bad guy wasn't there" iregardless of his being an ilegal.  Either way you wind up with a "coulda woulda shoulda" argument.  What was, was, and wishing it wasn't so doesn't make it so, and so on.

One point though .... look at the % of prisoners in our system(s) that are illegal aliens .... and tell me that illegal alien criminals are not a big problem.
We need to crack down on this problem harder.   People claim Obama deported more than previous presidents ... true, to a degree; he deported more what were called "turnarounds" -- those caught at the border and immediatly returned, while dropping the "turnaround" tag thus conflating them with other administrative deportations from the interior -- but he simultaneously eased off the number of interior deportation enforcement.

In terms of Trump's first major speech to congress, he did a surprisingly good job.   B+!  

[makattak]

People claim Obama deported more than previous presidents ... true, to a degree; he deported more what were called "turnarounds" -- those caught at the border and immediatly returned, while dropping the "turnaround" tag thus conflating them with other administrative deportations from the interior -- but he simultaneously eased off the number of interior deportation enforcement.

No, people who claim that are lying. Obama changed the reporting. "Turnarounds" never counted as deportations before. He counted them as "deportations" and then compared THAT number to the previous actual deportations.

It's smoke and mirrors. It's lies. It's the democrat playbook.

[TommyGunn]

No, people who claim that are lying. Obama changed the reporting. "Turnarounds" never counted as deportations before. He counted them as "deportations" and then compared THAT number to the previous actual deportations.

It's smoke and mirrors. It's lies. It's the democrat playbook.

   I thought that was what I said.   It's what I meant to say.   Maybe I just need decaf coffee from now on ......

[makattak]

   I thought that was what I said.   It's what I meant to say.   Maybe I just need decaf coffee from now on ......

Maybe you had. Your statement seemed to indicate that Obama was responsible for more "turnarounds", even while calling them "deportations", so I wanted to make it clear that it wasn't true, in any respect.

[Triphammer]

Wife & I watched the whole address and the aftermath. Can't call that speech from the for Ky  Governor a rebuttal though. it seemed to be recorded earlier in the day and written days ago based on the general accusation the left has been throwing at the Donald. Nothing in the Democratic response seems to fit with anything Trump presented in his address.
 What bothered me more was the insistence that the mission is which the memorialized SEAL was killed had been reported as unsuccessful, that it didn't produce good or any results THOUGH TRUMP LAUDED IT'S SUCCESS AND ALL THE GREAT INTEL. First, no one speaking has TS. Second, they have no "Need to know".  What they had been told or what they might understand is of no consequence.
BUT WHY WOULD YOU TELL A GREIVING WIDOW HER HUSBAND DIED FOR NOTHING!!!

[zxcvbob]

[snip]
 What bothered me more was the insistence that the mission is which the memorialized SEAL was killed had been reported as unsuccessful, that it didn't produce good or any results THOUGH TRUMP LAUDED IT'S SUCCESS AND ALL THE GREAT INTEL. First, no one speaking has TS. Second, they have no "Need to know".  What they had been told or what they might understand is of no consequence.
BUT WHY WOULD YOU TELL A GREIVING WIDOW HER HUSBAND DIED FOR NOTHING!!!

Because you're evil?

[TommyGunn]

Maybe you had. Your statement seemed to indicate that Obama was responsible for more "turnarounds", even while calling them "deportations", so I wanted to make it clear that it wasn't true, in any respect.

OK.  Well, anyway, I agree with this; "It's smoke and mirrors. It's lies. It's the democrat playbook."  Simple, pithy, and true.  

[Ben]

Can't call that speech from the for Ky  Governor a rebuttal though. it seemed to be recorded earlier in the day and written days ago based on the general accusation the left has been throwing at the Donald. Nothing in the Democratic response seems to fit with anything Trump presented in his address.

Yup, that one was in the can well before the address. What's funny is that I read that he flubbed the opening. He wasn't supposed to say he was a Republican.  

I think Trump somewhat threw them on the content of his address, which only made the pre-recorded video look that much more out of touch. They truly are usurping the "stupid party" title.

[Monkeyleg]

I thought Trump's speech was excellent. It's hard to remember state of the union addresses, but I heard a few talking heads on Fox say it was one of the best they ever heard, so I'll take that into account. The amount of his proposed spending bothers me a lot. Another trillion dollar "infrastructure" bill. :( Paid child care, etc.

The Democrats didn't stand when Trump walked into the chamber. They didn't stand for most of the lines that brought substantial applause from the Republicans and those in the gallery. They didn't even stand when he proposed Democrat-like ideas. As pointed out earlier, some didn't even stand for the SEAL widow. They walked out immediately after the speech. I hope America saw all of that and remembers. Trump extended a hand to them time after time.

[230RN]

Doggone, I dozed off before I turned the TV on, so missed all but the last couple of minutes.  I disliked former Governor Beshear's remarks in "rebuttal," mainly because he just tooted his own horn and seemed to  try to just reiterate the left's failed outlook:  "Trump's provably wrong because we think we're correct."

But I was still sleepy-groggy at that point.

cordex remarked,

To me it's like "hate crimes" - arbitrarily calling out certain crimes as more heinous, important or worthy of attention based on some irrelevant feature of the perpetrator as opposed to the crime itself.

Not to change the subject, but since cordex brought it up, "some irrelevant feature of the perpetrator" is not "irrelevant."  The hatred of that "perp" is an inherent component of the crime, to my mind, and therefore compounds the severity of the crime.

That's just the way I see it, but we've hassled that out before --to no effective conclusion.  To me it's sort of like "Fines Doubled" signs on the highway because "we" really think speeding is particularly bad in that particular area.

All in all, I think Trump's becoming more "Presidential" is not unlike the process of any new President taking office, except he's "coming up" from a different perspective from most Presidents, who've got years, decades, of very careful training in delicately-scented political bullshit.

To his credit, I might add.

Terry, 230RN

[TechMan]

Wife & I watched the whole address and the aftermath. Can't call that speech from the for Ky  Governor a rebuttal though. it seemed to be recorded earlier in the day and written days ago based on the general accusation the left has been throwing at the Donald. Nothing in the Democratic response seems to fit with anything Trump presented in his address.
 What bothered me more was the insistence that the mission is which the memorialized SEAL was killed had been reported as unsuccessful, that it didn't produce good or any results THOUGH TRUMP LAUDED IT'S SUCCESS AND ALL THE GREAT INTEL. First, no one speaking has TS. Second, they have no "Need to know".  What they had been told or what they might understand is of no consequence.
BUT WHY WOULD YOU TELL A GREIVING WIDOW HER HUSBAND DIED FOR NOTHING!!!

It wouldn't be the current Governor of KY, as he is a tea party member.  Ah it is the former Governor of KY, that makes sense.

[Ben]

They walked out immediately after the speech. I hope America saw all of that and remembers. Trump extended a hand to them time after time.

Walked? Heck, it almost looked like they ran out of the chambers. I can't recall seeing a more blatant display of that kind of behavior for any other President. Seriously, it was like the lunch bell rang at Junior High.

[BobR]

Trump extended a hand to them time after time.

I was mentioning that to my wife, multiple times he asked them to work together for the good of America and the American people. Now as they continue to be obstructionists and acting like petulant children their value to the people will go down and maybe a few will get replaced.

It wasn't an accident he was asking for unity.

bob

[Perd Hapley]

I heard a bit of it on the radio last night, but I didn't see it. Did they have the giant swastika banners out? Did he announce a Final Solution? Was there blood libel? Lots and lots of blood libel?

[K Frame]

I heard a bit of it on the radio last night, but I didn't see it. Did they have the giant swastika banners out? Did he announce a Final Solution? Was there blood libel? Lots and lots of blood libel?

You'd really think so by some of the reactions I've seen.

[cordex]

Not to change the subject, but since cordex brought it up, "some irrelevant feature of the perpetrator" is not "irrelevant."  The hatred of that "perp" is an inherent component of the crime, to my mind, and therefore compounds the severity of the crime.

Hate might go toward premeditation, but as a standalone issue it is irrelevant.
Would you punish a serial killer less because he didn't hate his victims?  An assassin?

[Scout26]

From our cousins across the pond:

http://investmentwatchblog.com/british-mp-trump-will-go-down-in-history-as-the-only-politician-condemned-for-keeping-his-promises/

[Ben]

From our cousins across the pond:

http://investmentwatchblog.com/british-mp-trump-will-go-down-in-history-as-the-only-politician-condemned-for-keeping-his-promises/

Huh. What surprised me most in that story was the few times US Presidents have made official state visits to the UK. I would have figured that was something every single President would do at least once, given our close ties.

[MillCreek]

^^^Huh. I wonder how a visit by a US President is categorized as a 'state visit' as opposed to just popping by for tea and biscuits?