home

The UnSpeech

I didn't watch Donald Trump's speech. I won't watch anything which contains his words or voice. Jimmy Kimmel declared it a "Trump Free Tuesday on his show last night -- no references to "the orange colored man and his Russian boyfriend."

All I want to do when I hear Trump's name or see his face (or that of his family or staffers) is take another shower.

If you watched it and have something to say, go right ahead.

< Monday Open Thread
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    All he had to do was not poop in his hands and (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 08:12:46 AM EST
    Throw it at us and the morning news says 70% of us had some sort of positive thrill up our leg during the speech. Talk about reframing the soft bigotry of low expectations.

    Nobody mentioning that crap about we must have his travel ban or we risk refugees building a Beachhead of Terrorism. Not one word. It's almost like he never even said it. But I'll watch Ryan Owen's poor exploited widow sob all morning over and over and over again.

    The press is supine (none / 0) (#19)
    by smott on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 01:41:59 PM EST
    SO ready to say something positive.
    CIllizza at WaPo might be the worst of them all.

    No, Chris, the optics do not outweigh the substance, which was lies, exploitation of a war widow, and promoting an agency to focus on immigrant crime.

    Nauseating.

    Parent

    I did hear (none / 0) (#21)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 01:47:10 PM EST
    that Trump ratcheted up the anti immigrant attack--now we will have a whole sub-agency devoted to bashing immigrants.  And this was a good speech?

    Parent
    Per the MSM yes (none / 0) (#23)
    by smott on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 01:52:09 PM EST
    Van Jones was especially grotesque.
    But I guess that visit Jared paid to CNN has had an effect.

    These guys don't realize that when the shite really hits the fan, they might be the first ones lined up against a wall.

    The myopia of the press is stunning.

    I will say that Tapper has had his good moments, but my God we need a lot more where that came from.

    Cillizza must literally be on Trump's payroll. About once a month I email a Cillizza The Fix link to Wapo and let them know as long as he is on their roster I will NEVER renew my subscription.

    Parent

    As with Jimmy Kimmel's (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 12:12:49 PM EST
    Trump-free Tuesday, Trump's Tuesday speech was Trump-free. Free from the customary insults and attacks, choosing what is being acclaimed as a "toned-down" speech.

     However, his "American Carnage" continued, on display with his casual relationship with the truth, fear mongering such as terrorist beachheads, and his exploitation of a widow's grief.  And, his "concerns," for Chicago shootings, shortly after signing the Republican bill to permit the social security-determined mentally disabled to buy assault weapons. However, these qualities are just par for his course.  

    The speech appeared to be aimed at the Congressional Republicans; while he will be fixing every problem confronting the nation by himself, he may need the Republicans in Congress to give him a bigger hand than he has available to him. After all, no one knew the complexities of governing, including the Republicans.

    It has been about 15 years since House Republicans have been involved in major domestic legislation (e.g. Medicare Part D, Sarbanes-Oxley) and only 51 of the 238 current House Republicans were around in those days. Compromise has no place for them in crafting legislation.  House Republicans have more experience in the prevention of governance, which leaves a bad mix of an unfocused Trump, a far right Cabinet and  sorry Congressional Republicans.

    Trump, essentially, called for an "Amexit". Trump appears to offer himself, first and only, as an American leader not as a world leader--as if the two are mutually exclusive.  

     As with Brexit, his American Firstness sees America as the only winner, save, perhaps, for Russia.  The possibility of undermining global stability, rule of law, and peace since WW II, through NATO, UN, EU,trade agreements, and Bannon's vision of economic nationalism are given short shrift. A bigger military budget will do.

    The targets of the joint session speech included the needy:  the Congressional Republicans--to assure them that Trump is functioning, and Trump, to provide juicing applause.  The Democrats could have helped in achieving those needs by reactions from a Wilsonian calling out, "You Lie," or by giving an Alito nod of authoritative disagreement.  They did not take the bait; they were decorous.

    I watched the first 10 minutes before losing (none / 0) (#1)
    by McBain on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 01:15:41 AM EST
    interest.  That's longer than I can usually tolerate political speeches.

    Well (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 08:26:44 AM EST
    apparently if you're a Republican and you don't drool all over yourself it is considered a good speech. Personally though since most of his agenda seems to be DOA I don't know why anybody would spend their time watching the speech.

    Don't agree that most of his agenda is DOA (none / 0) (#4)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 10:52:43 AM EST
    Significant deregulation is coming in multiple areas. Some of this will be quite significant. EPA rules and enforcement will change, probably fairly significantly. DOJ enforcement and priorities will surely change. Portions of Dodd-Frank will likely go away or be changed. Two pipelines have received approval, but will have to go through court challenges. Many Obama era orders have been withdrawn. Changes will come in immigration, but not clear how far changes will go. Can't imagine much progress will be made on building a wall, but who knows what could happen with this guy.

    Federal courts and Sup. Ct. judges will be selected and be fairly conservative. Changes will come in Obamacare, but not clear what will be done or how big changes will be. Think method of funding Medicaid will likely change. II would think some sort of tax reform will be done, and perhaps even larger changes.

    The US will be more aggressive and less passive in foreign policy. Probably more aggressive against ISIS and other tough group/areas/wars.

    Not clear what DeVos will or can do. Assume DOE will back away from some of the Dear Colleague letter.

    Global trade is going to change at least to some extent. See withdrawal from Trans-Pacific partnership. This all may develop into big fights and a mess.

    The US will back off from Climate Change initiatives. Barriers will be lifted from expanded energy production.

    Don't know what will be done with Infrastructure. Smaller programs like funding for Planned Parenthood, arts, etc. probably going away or in serious jeopardy.

    Israel will receive more support. Not clear what will happen with the Iran deal. The US will be more aggressive in enforcement, or at least talk big, at a minimum.

    Legislative agenda may be tougher to agree on or get done. Not DOA, but harder to get agreement on and move it forward.

    Not clear if anything big will be done with social security and medicare, given the difference between Trump's view and most Repub's views.

    Parent

    The TPP was already dead (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 11:10:40 AM EST
    I'm so tired of hearing Trump did it...no he didn't

    Parent
    I don't agree with you (none / 0) (#6)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 11:30:20 AM EST
    While the TPP was not yet approved by Congress, and Congress was split, there was significant support among Repubs and others. Trump killed TPP.

    Parent
    The debt (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 11:56:05 AM EST
    ceiling is going to interfere with all his plans unless you think the GOP is going to do a 180 and do a 10 trillion dollar increase.

    Parent
    lol; that's exactly what they'll do. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 12:18:35 PM EST
    that's what everybody does when change comes to Washington.  The lobbyists line up at the taxpayer feeding trough and dig in with their shovels.  Congress works for the lobbyists, not us.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 12:28:35 PM EST
    if they do raise the debt ceiling by 10 trillion I will laugh and laugh and rub every Republican's nose in it. And then laugh some more and rub their nose in it some more.

    Parent
    I agree on the debt ceiling thing, but (none / 0) (#13)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 12:47:12 PM EST
    also enjoy seeing Dems being so concerned about spending increases and paying for new programs. Glad they now have the religion. Ha.

    Parent
    The GOP (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 12:54:48 PM EST
    has never believed in paying for anything since Reagan. It's all gonna be free you know. And Bill Clinton balanced the budget and got no thanks from you guys only hatred and Obama actually did pay attention to debt though obviously you've bought into the alternative facts agenda where the GOP actually thinks it should pay for something. Your statement is not fact based. It is fantasy based.

    Parent
    "Found religion"? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 02:16:11 PM EST
    Democrats do not support universal spending increases.  They have frequently opposed massive increases in defense spending, as Trump is proposing, particularly when such spending is at the expense of other, vital programs.

    Parent
    Actually, debt ceiling isn't going to interfere (none / 0) (#12)
    by Green26 on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 12:45:22 PM EST
    with many of his plans that I cited above. Infrastructure, for sure. He can be more aggressive militarily without his announced increased defense spending, but yes debt increase debt problems with the announced defense spending increase. Tax reform, probably yes, but depends what is done. Don't know how Obamacare changes shake out in terms of cost/debt.

    What else listed above causes increased debt problems? I may have missed something.

    Personally, I think the previously cited things will be huge changes in the US.

    Parent

    Tax reform (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 12:51:55 PM EST
    DOA, infrastructure DOA, increased military spending DOA, anything that requires money is DOA unless you guys raise the debt ceiling and then I am going to laugh in your face and rub your noses in it for a long, long time.

    As far as being more aggressive militarily, you want more repeats of the disaster in Yemen? The guy has no clue here what he is doing.

    And as I said below reforms to Obamacare are going to fail because the GOP has already said they don't want to own it and have to face the voters with any sort of "reform". Besides the GOP plan is basically You Pay for Everything and Insurance Pays For Nothing. Yep, definitely understand why congress wouldn't want to have to face the voters with THAT plan.

    Parent

    Money talks...... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by NYShooter on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 01:36:57 PM EST
    The Stock Market (Dow Jones Industrial Avg.) is up almost 3000 points since last year's election (up 300+ today.)

    Of course, this doesn't mean that investors think that things will be looking up for most Americans. Just like many people don't understand why a company's stock price shoots up after it announces "bad news," laying off thousands of its employees, this "Trump Rally" doesn't mean investors think Americans will be better off in the future. It, simply, means they believe company profits will be going up.

    Trump proposals: Lower Corporate taxes, less regulation, less foreign competition, more automation and, greater use of robotics will increase profits, even if there's no increase in sales.

    Unfortunately, a lot of the profit increases will be done on the backs of their employees.

    The only solution to this bleak situation, IMO, is election finance reform. But, as long as both major political parties are beholden to the corporations no relief for average, working people is possible. Unless we, somehow, can get more political parties into the system, the only future I see for most Americans is bad, or, less bad.

    And, fwiw, I don't believe either Party can be reformed from within. They are simply too corrupt after years and years of selling out to the highest bidder. Obamacare is just one example of a good idea being destroyed due to our "Pay to Play, Congress.

    Parent

    Third parties (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 01:48:02 PM EST
    are a pipe dream. The only way they will work is to start by getting rid of the EC as the first thing. Then you would need to reform the entire system to a parliamentary system. Can that be done? Sure. But you have to realize you might not live to see it happen.

    Parent
    Republicans (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 11:57:30 AM EST
    are already admitting the Obamacare repeal and replace is DOA because none of the GOP wants to own the abysmal plan the GOP has put forth.

    Parent
    Those changes are not (none / 0) (#24)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 01:54:09 PM EST
    the heart of his agenda.  All of that will follow from any Republican President and does not require Congressional legislation.

    How about the big ticket items:  The Wall being built, the Wall being paid for by Mexico, manufacturing being brought back to the Midwest, expelling the undocumented,  repealing Obamacare, cutting taxes for the wealthy.

    No progress on any of that.  

    Parent

    He's going to be (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 02:15:50 PM EST
    eating most of those. The wall will probably never be built and it's not going to be paid for by Mexico. He's already doffed on repealing Obamacare. Expelling the undocumented is already ticking off people in rural America because they mean not "their undocumented" they mean "those undocumented". There was a story in the NYT about an undocumented immigrant who owned a restaurant in rural IL and was a big contributor to the community who got hauled off into somewhere nobody knows about because he had two DUIs 10 years ago.

    Parent
    More aggresive against ISIS???? (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 01:58:55 PM EST
    You mean like the Yemen raid?

    You mean U.S. ground forces to take Raqqa?

    More aggressive....maybe bigger talk, or maybe more "bigly" talk.  But Trump has no idea what he is doing, so his "bigly" talk will be incoherent.  

    Parent

    I can't watch that guy. (none / 0) (#16)
    by desertswine on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 01:16:13 PM EST
    I watched an X-Files re-run instead.  He's just a con-man.

    CNN Polls were shocking (none / 0) (#18)
    by smott on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 01:39:57 PM EST
    78% viewers had positive reaction.

    And before you say the viewers were 99% Repub, the audience was only 8% more Repub than country as a whole.

    WASF.

    I think it's a little odd that Trump (none / 0) (#20)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 01:45:22 PM EST
    and "the Whitehouse" seem so phobic about specifying the ethnicity and/or religion, of the men attacked in Kansas, while being so intent on being specific in mentioning the Jewish cemeteries and Jewish community centers..

    After some prodding after the Kansas shooting, the Whitehouse issued a somewhat generally-worded condemnation of "racially motivated attacks", but still, as far as I'm aware, no mention of the specific ethnic background of the victims.

    Why is that?

    Because it (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 01, 2017 at 02:19:34 PM EST
    undercuts the GOP narrative that all the people who kill are POC and all the victims are white.

    Parent