I was still on a plane when the President spoke, however I was driving home from the airport when Kennedy responded. And from what I can tell it sounds like I did not miss a thing...
Both sides are still absolutely dedicated to playing to their more extreme bases. And we really should not expect any enlightened collaboration / progress from either party.
CNN State Of Union
CNN Kennedy Response
CNN 6 Take Aways
CNN 7 Elephants
MinnPost SOU 1
MinnPost SOU 2
MinnPost SOU 3
Both sides are still absolutely dedicated to playing to their more extreme bases. And we really should not expect any enlightened collaboration / progress from either party.
CNN State Of Union
CNN Kennedy Response
CNN 6 Take Aways
CNN 7 Elephants
MinnPost SOU 1
MinnPost SOU 2
MinnPost SOU 3
31 comments:
Both sides are still absolutely dedicated to playing to their more extreme bases.
Well one side is committed to the talking point to the effect that we are all just as bad as Trump. What is kind of sad is the sense even those who make that charge are aware of how insulting it is.
No. The Democrats are not as bad as Trump. Most Republicans are not as bad as Trump. America, who voted for Hillary Clinton, is not as bad as Trump. And it really is a deep and profound shame that so many people pretend to think otherwise,
--Hiram
awkward comparisons, there. There is no bad as/ worse than/ better than. First, John is an outlier. 70% of those who heard the SOTU approved/liked it. The Democrats clearly embarrassed themselves by not at least rising for the obvious applause lines-- things that NOBODY should object to, like lowest black unemployment ever. Truth is where you find it, even if Trump says it.
Well it seems to me that the DEMs just did not tune in.
I personally did not bother to listen to it after the fact. Listening to a pathological liar like Trump seems very pointless.
Reading this NPR Version with fact check seems much more useful.
oh, really? You believe NPR is a totally objective fact checker? were there even any facts to check in this symbolic, patriotic rally-type speech? and from what I read of the piece, I saw more commentary than fact checking. So far I am only seeing YOUR opinion that Trump is a "pathological liar." From where I sit, Trump is a pathological truth teller, with a hint of exaggeration thrown in to confound the opposition.
One poll broke down the respondents and found that something like 45% of Democrats approved of the speech, along with roughly 70% of independents and 90% of Republicans.
One lie every 4.5 minutes. A new personal best, it would seem.
Although the bar was VERY low.
Moose
that is a wonderful statistic. Can you name any three and explain why we should believe your perception of them is the correct one?
"We have ended the war on American energy." There was no war.
"We have ended the war on beautiful clean coal." There's no such thing as clean coal.
"Wages have started rising again." They're falling.
"We are now very proudly an exporter of energy to the world." Also true under Obama.
"Created 2.4 million new jobs last year." Technically true, but the fewest in seven years.
Facts are facts. They require no explanation.
Moose
Yes NPR is pretty good.
They did agree with Trump in many areas. They also provided links to explain why they disagree with Trump in many areas.
Moose, You have not explained why we should believe that your perception is the correct one.
- The "war on coal" that Obama started was well known and publicized.
- There is such a thing as clean coal; Obama said so. And compared to China's usage, ours is very much "clean." I know one of the engineers who made it so.
- "They're falling" sounds like an unsupported assertion, not a fact.
- Except under Obama we did not do it "proudly."
- "Technically true" is a lie? You're stretching.
"Except under Obama we did not do it "proudly.""
I timed it -- it took me literally 10 seconds to find this.
Washington Times: Obama ignores health care in radio address, focuses on energy independence
Haste makes waste. The article cites no claims of exporting energy, proudly or otherwise. Instead, it claims credit for reducing CO2-- IOW the "war on coal"-- and claims we will have the technology to produce energy AND save the planet. That's a pretty big lie by itself, but more importantly it is terrible policy.
"The article cites no claims of exporting energy, proudly or otherwise."
From the article:
"“After years of talk about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, we are actually poised to control our own energy future,” Mr. Obama said, praising his administration’s decision to spend more money on new technologies.
The president hailed the news that the U.S. in October produced more oil domestically than it imported from foreign sources for the first time since 1995.
“That’s a big deal. That’s a tremendous step towards American energy independence,” he said."
The article cites no claims of exporting energy, proudly or otherwise.
Mostly it claims that the US government is using new technologies to combat climate change. And we have ALWAYS produced more oil than we import. The only reason that might have changed is that somebody made oil drilling more expensive than importing it, and it made simple economic sense to buy elsewhere (like buying foreign cars). And the trend was reversed when fracking was discovered and done on PRIVATE land, while declining on public land.
And here's what I don't get. Why are people so eager to argue that the very "good news" Trump said, truthfully or not, cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged? Why not allow us to believe that good things are happening, whether to the degree or tempo we desire? Why all the doom and gloom? Are you afraid things might ACTUALLY get better?
Sure. There's a war on coal. Just as there was a war on Vinyl LPs, VHS tapes, or CDs.
It is not a war just because you decide to put your money and effort into a better alternative.
'Technically true' is a lie if you're trying to pass off something your predecessor did better than you as some sort of colossal achievement.
Moose
"Are you afraid things might ACTUALLY get better?"
Things got A LOT better under Obama, Trump just hasn't colossally screwed it up yet.
Moose
Ah, yes. That 12% unemployment was great, and that 1.5% GDP growth was really helpful. Iran got the bomb AND a pallet load of cash, and Lil Kim got his bomb working. Millions of people lost their health insurance and others got it but can't afford to use it. We added 1000s of pages of regulations that we didn't need, and stirred up racial tensions way beyond what may have been legitimate. If Trump manages to screw all THAT up, he might get a THIRD term.
Jerry,
Yes some bad things happened while Obama was President.
However many more good things did occur.
We can only pray Trump has as good of results...
Please also note that Trump has done little to impact North Korea or Iran.
And the reality is that other than an armed intervention, there is little the USA can do.
They are independent countries and have their rights just as the USA does.
Trump has done "little," that is true, but at least it is in the right direction rather than the wrong one. And if you want to claim Obama's other "accomplishments" as positive (even though your own cite says otherwise), I think you would have to admit that none of it was as good as it could have been. Why, for example, did it take eight years to get unemployment down to what it was when he took office? and why do we use the number that ignores all those who gave up looking for work, a.k.a. the labor force participation rate?
Good, bad and indifferent things happened during Obama's time in office. This is going to happen with all Presidents.
Based on this data it was 3.5 years and it was a massive recession.
Personally I foresee a ballooning national debt, a big recession and big stock market crash occurring before 2020... Now will that be Trump's fault, or will it be just the normal business cycle.
Even with the GOP pumping the economy full of what were previously tax dollars, 10 years is a long time to go without and recession.
I prefer to avoid this nasty, partisan habit of trying to compare one president with another. the past is past and we should learn from history, Without revising it. I don't think presidents are responsible for the economy except in the most general sense, but I think an optimist is better than a pessimist, and a capitalist is better than a socialist.
I think the Democrats shot themselves in the foot with their blatant Trump hatred and total obstruction. If they are punished at the polls, or if the Republicans are rewarded, I think the economy will continue to grow. I have always credited President Reagan with one great bit of economic wisdom. He said, "we are going to change the rules, and they will not be changed again while I am president." This allowed investment to flourish without the fear that some government economic Dido Would ruin it.
Reagan Balloons National Debt
Wrong. CONGRESS balloons national debt. And you cannot convince me that Democrats are in the least concerned about the debt/deficit, having been complicit in Obama's doubling of it.
You are so funny...
CONGRESS balloons the debt unless Obama is the President... Say what??? :-)
In this case the GOP controls Congress and the President so it should be very clear who gets the credit or blame in a year or so..
As for 2007 thru 2012, the unfortunate reality is that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were not undone until 2012. And the massive recession that started on the watch of the GOP took awhile to reverse.
And for the ... time. Obama owns some of the spending increase, however most of it was owned by Bush etal.
Congress balloons the debt ESPECIALLY if Obama is president. The facts are inescapable, that deficits were on the downturn until Obama became president, whereupon they tripled and did not return to the level of the Bush years, ever. You either have to blame Obama, or the Congress under Obama, your choice. And it is not correct to say that Republicans control Congress, since they do not control the Senate, and since there is no Democrat willing to vote for fiscal restraint, seemingly under any circumstance.
Remember what I have said... Saying it often does not make it true.
I have given you a link that disproves your assertion. Do you have a better source?
As I said elsewhere.
"Well spending has not changed in a real way for ~6 years...
Remember back when the GOP House kept blocking domestic spending increases and the DEMs kept limiting defense spending increases.
So any deficits in the next few years are on Trump and crew. They have bitten off a quite a problem.
Hopefully the DEMs can constrain the GOP's desire to spend more on the military."
deficits
"that deficits were on the downturn until Obama became president, whereupon they tripled and did not return to the level of the Bush years, ever. "
And so, rather than criticize the past, what are we going to do in the future? Hope that Trump fails?
Please remember that the 2009 deficit is from Bush's budget... Obama's does not start until 2010...
And did you really believe fiscal austerity is they way to get a country out of a deep recession? You must be one of the few.
I pray that Trump and the GOP succeed, however cutting taxes when we were already at full employment and the stock market was booming was not a very good way to maximize revenues and pay off debt. Instead it is causing us to incur more debt during an economic up turn.
So much for saving for a rainy day... It is more like charging up one's credit card during the "good times"... Or maybe a squirrel throwing away nuts during the fall, just before a Winter that we know comes every so often.
do I believe in government fiscal austerity? Let me ask a question. If the company that pays your salary runs into tough economic times and cuts back your hours, do you go on a spending spree? when you get into debt, is not the first smart thing you do to cut up your credit cards, and then start looking for ways to reduce your spending, like giving up the golf club membership or cooking your own meals?
by most accounts, the "Obama recovery" was one of the slowest ever, BECAUSE of government policies.
and speaking of State of the Union responses, I am thinking Democrats Deserve the award for "worst performance by an opposition party at the SOTU."
Post a Comment