Unofficial Trump joint session speech thread

[justoh]

Trump said it was successful because information was gathered that will save lives. Intel report said "no significant" information was obtained therefore results were opposite of what Trump deemed successful.

What part of that don't you get??

Well, no part of your reply was relevant to what you were replying to. That's what I don't get.

 

[HomerJS]

There was nothing genuine about that speech. The Trump parts were when the earth moved. I'm sure he wrote that. The other real part was him going off prompter when he as someone here put it "joked" with the grieving widow because she set an applause record.

Besides when Trump speaks most of the time his staff walks it back. Everyone knows the incidents so I won't list

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Brain dead pack mentality is so yesterday.

By my agreement with PokerGuy I wasn't attacking anybody or helping to attack another person outside my perceived ideological pack as you did. This is what I meant when I referred to pack mentality.

 

[HomerJS]

Well, no part of your reply was relevant to what you were replying to. That's what I don't get.

So let's settle the question

If you believe Trump, the raid was a success.
If you believe the intel report, it wasn't

After all that's the bottom line. I put more weight on the intel report since Trump's history shows he has a strained relationship with the truth.

 

[fskimospy]

Amazing how someone gets lauded for giving a coherent, almost human-style speech. Like what you tell your 6 year old when he finally does something correctly.

I agree, it's really important not to lower the bar for what we expect from a president just because Trump is so bad. I've noticed a disturbing trend in the media, probably out of some desire for false balance, to lavishly praise Trump whenever he does things so monumental as appoint a competent cabinet secretary or give a coherent speech.

From what I've read it was a perfectly fine speech, but that should be the minimum standard. I understand we can't expect him to be as competent as Obama but surely we can hold him to a better standard than this.

 

[fskimospy]

By my agreement with PokerGuy I wasn't attacking anybody or helping to attack another person outside my perceived pact as you did. This is what I meant when I referred to pack mentality.

I was simply noting how different your perceptions of what you perceived to be populist speech pushing a highly contentious agenda were between last year and this year. Don't you think the difference is striking? How do you account for it?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So let's settle the question

If you believe Trump, the raid was a success.
If you believe the intel report, it wasn't

After all that's the bottom line. I put more weight on the intel report since Trump's history shows he has a strained relationship with the truth.

Yet you make no reference to Mattis also stating on several occasions that "significant intelligence that was gathered". So who has more credibility...the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense or one or two unnamed Pentagon sources making a judgement call that just so happens to fit a partisan and negative narrative that you prefer to believe?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I was simply noting how different your perceptions of what you perceived to be populist speech pushing a highly contentious agenda were between last year and this year. Don't you think the difference is striking? How do you account for it?

What are you babbling about now? Beyond both being populist-type speeches there was a huge difference in the content and messaging within those two speeches. Surely you aren't trying to say that they were effectively the same?

 

[Mandres]

This is the same kind of fuckery that got Trump elected. He gave a speech without detailed plans and numbers that didn't add up. And because he gave it without vomiting on himself he did well?

Agreed. He gets a gold star now for meeting the same baseline level of competency as every politician ever? He can read a prepared speech via teleprompter without stroking out, whoopity doo.

The speech didn't make sense. You can't have a massive tax cut for corporations and the middle class, a trillion dollar infrastructure project + a new tremendous wall, and a big increase in military spending without borrowing/increasing the Country's debt load. But he made a big point of attacking the Obama administration for increasing debt in the very next breath. It's completely clear that he doesn't understand what he's talking about. He has an "avid-Fox-news-viewer" level of knowledge about how the government operates, a lot of bluster and passion but very little real mastery of the subject.

 

[fskimospy]

Yet you make no reference to Mattis also stating on several occasions that "significant intelligence that was gathered". So who has more credibility...the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense or one or two unnamed Pentagon sources making a judgement call that just so happens to fit a partisan and negative narrative that you prefer to believe?

Considering the president is a well known serial liar and exaggerator there's little reason to give Trump's statements much of any credibility, wouldn't you have to agree? Also, I am aware of no actual quote from Mattis saying that significant intelligence was gathered, just Trump's claims that he said it and...well...refer to point #1.

 

[fskimospy]

What are you babbling about now? Beyond both being populist-type speeches there was a huge difference in the content and messaging within those two speeches. Surely you aren't trying to say that they were effectively the same?

So you're saying you're okay with a populist speech designed to build support for a highly contentious agenda generally, but didn't like how Obama phrased his populist speech? What specific differences were there that led you to such totally opposite conclusions about those two speeches?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Looks like another big win for President Trump and a loss for the Democrats that looked like petulant little children. Were the white dresses intended to be a surrender flag? It sure looked like it.
http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/when-did-the-white-flag-become-associated-with-surrender

 

[Sea Ray]

Stock market loved the speech:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/01/us-markets.html

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Considering the president is a well known serial liar and exaggerator there's little reason to give Trump's statements much of any credibility, wouldn't you have to agree? Also, I am aware of no actual quote from Mattis saying that significant intelligence was gathered, just Trump's claims that he said it and...well...refer to point #1.

Looks like you need to add Pence to your growing list of liars as well.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/latest-pence-trump-showed-big-heart-speech-45826403

 

[OutHouse]

You're right, certainly no one could possibly criticize Obama's speech for dishonesty or a populist tone meant to justify a highly contentious agenda. Lol.

I always enjoy watching people magically flip like that.

FTFY.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

FTFY.

He won't see the irony. Those particular neural pathways have long been dead.

 

[K1052]

Stock market loved the speech:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/01/us-markets.html

Trump's optimism has infected the markets which were already running way ahead of the fundamentals to support it. It all hinges upon his amazing, yet to be announced, tax plan plus infrastructure stimulus and regulatory reform passing. Congress shows little sign of moving on either of those and will be consumed with budget issues and the ACA for at least a year.

If (more likely when) this optimism wains the markets will run.

 

[justoh]

So let's settle the question

If you believe Trump, the raid was a success.
If you believe the intel report, it wasn't

After all that's the bottom line. I put more weight on the intel report since Trump's history shows he has a strained relationship with the truth.

In other words you aren't actually reading any of my posts. Fair enough. I mistakenly thought that you were since you were replying to them.

 

[fskimospy]

He won't see the irony. Those particular neural pathways have long been dead.

lol, speaking of dead neural pathways, nice self-ownage there.

The irony is your differential reactions to two populist speeches, not mine. I thought both speeches were fine.

 

[fskimospy]

Looks like you need to add Pence to your growing list of liars as well.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/latest-pence-trump-showed-big-heart-speech-45826403

Sure, Pence has lied consistently in defense of Trump. What's the confusion? You appeared to think that Trump is a credible source for information on his administration and I'm genuinely baffled as to why. I mean even you can't deny that he is a serial liar, right?

 

[hal2kilo]

Meh..Even when he tries to be inspirational he has somehow the wrong demeanor for it. Lots of words, pretty words, he's got all the words. . . but not one plan of action. He read a bunch of lines crafted to sound bipartisan. If someone with a shred of sincerity had said it, fine. If Trump says it, after appointing a bunch of people to cabinet positions who apparently were picked precisely because they are against everything he just pretended to be for, and who has himself repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't mean a word of it (e.g., his crocodile tears about the money we've spent on military adventures, while in the same speech asking for "one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history"), then why in the world would I stand and applaud? Can anyone be gullible enough to think he means it? It's not that people are going to disparage any genuinely good ideas merely because they don't like Trump. It's that people are well aware that using vague feel-good rhetoric to disguise a severe lack of actual genuinely good ideas is Trump's standard operating procedure. So why should we believe that Trump's vague feel-good rhetoric is a harbinger of any actual genuinely good ideas this time?

I'll wait for the specifics. Is he really going to cut the deficit? Is he really going to propose spending on needed infrastructure, or will it just be tax breaks for private companies to build toll roads and run them for their own profit? Details matter!

I thought it was an "acceptable" speech, obviously heavily edited by his staff. If any of that kumbaya shit survives his first tweet, I'll be amazed, however.

Anybody already sick of that squinty eyed, jutting chin pose he has going. Oyve!

 

[HomerJS]

Yet you make no reference to Mattis also stating on several occasions that "significant intelligence that was gathered". So who has more credibility...the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense or one or two unnamed Pentagon sources making a judgement call that just so happens to fit a partisan and negative narrative that you prefer to believe?

Trump has more of a history of lying and that's isn't a biased opinion.

Remember this little diddy

Trump: Were taking Iraq's oil
Mattis: Were not taking Iraq's oil

Right now the intel people have more credibility. Absent them we wouldn't know about Russia hacking the election

 

[PokerGuy]

I agree, it's really important not to lower the bar for what we expect from a president just because Trump is so bad. I've noticed a disturbing trend in the media, probably out of some desire for false balance, to lavishly praise Trump whenever he does things so monumental as appoint a competent cabinet secretary or give a coherent speech.

From what I've read it was a perfectly fine speech, but that should be the minimum standard. I understand we can't expect him to be as competent as Obama but surely we can hold him to a better standard than this.

haha, more babbling and flailing trying to discredit Trump. Even the CNN snap polls from last night show roughly 80% of the people had a favorable or highly favorable view of the speech. It's not the just a case of the press lauding him for doing something semi-competent -- the reality is that he did a good job on the speech and the press is largely forced to acknowledge it even if they don't like it.

 

[HomerJS]

haha, more babbling and flailing trying to discredit Trump. Even the CNN snap polls from last night show roughly 80% of the people had a favorable or highly favorable view of the speech. It's not the just a case of the press lauding him for doing something semi-competent -- the reality is that he did a good job on the speech and the press is largely forced to acknowledge it even if they don't like it.

We'll just let you give Trump his participation throphy

 

[PokerGuy]

Right now the intel people have more credibility. Absent them we wouldn't know about Russia hacking the election

Uh, the "intel people" have not said anything. "sources said to NBC" =/= "the intel people". What we have at this point is the president, sec of def etc saying we got valuable intel, and "sources" saying we didn't. We'll never know of course because whatever intel they got is obviously not going to be released. I can't make a judgement one way or another because we don't know anything. You choose to believe "sources" without any validation because you hate Trump.