Unofficial Trump joint session speech thread

[fskimospy]

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.

Haha, I always love it when people like you expose their extreme bias. When the press criticizes Trump it's because they are biased. When the press praises Trump it's because they were somehow forced to despite their imaginary bias. The bubble must be preserved!

Like I said, giving a good state of the union speech is the minimum standard. It's a venue literally crafted to make the president look good. If he can't succeed there it's unlikely he's competent enough to succeed anywhere. We should be careful not to grade him on a curve.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Well the read from this speech was that drumpf was presidential (finally) yet still vague on particulars. But I think that can be said for most presidents. Here's hoping he keeps that even keel running.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

No, we have the president saying that Mattis said something and we know the president is a serial liar. I asked DSF this but he didn't answer: even you can admit Trump is a serial liar, correct? If so, why would you believe him here?

I'm unaware of any quote from Mattis that said we got valuable intelligence but if there is one can you point me to it?

 

[PokerGuy]

We'll just let you give Trump his participation throphy

So blinded by hatred that you can't even acknowledge that he did a good job with the speech. Regardless of whether you believe anything he said, he struck the right notes and overall did very well, as polls show today. The white suit idiot brigate and the rest of the dems were made to look like petulant children when they couldn't even stand up in support of things that everyone should support.

 

[Brainonska511]

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.

Donny didn't poop on the carpet this time. Good boy!

 

[PokerGuy]

No, we have the president saying that Mattis said something and we know the president is a serial liar. I asked DSF this but he didn't answer: even you can admit Trump is a serial liar, correct? If so, why would you believe him here?

No more of a serial liar than every other politician, but hey, you are free to believe whatever you want. By your logic, if you believe that Trump is a serial liar and he says water is wet, we have to believe water is not wet. That's not how it works. Right now, we have "sources said", and we have a matter where actual information can not be divulged for obvious reasons if it exists. Basically, it's a non-issue to all but the most hardened Trump haters. The rest of the world doesn't care about what "sources said" on this.

I'm unaware of any quote from Mattis that said we got valuable intelligence but if there is one can you point me to it?

I recall reading it, but don't have a source. I'll look later, but it doesn't matter regardless. We still have nothing more than "sources said".

 

[fskimospy]

So blinded by hatred that you can't even acknowledge that he did a good job with the speech. Regardless of whether you believe anything he said, he struck the right notes and overall did very well, as polls show today. The white suit idiot brigate and the rest of the dems were made to look like petulant children when they couldn't even stand up in support of things that everyone should support.

So in other words you thought Republicans were petulant children in every one of Obama's speeches?

 

[jmagg]

I'll admit Trump is a liar if you admit Obama is a liar.

 

[HomerJS]

So blinded by hatred that you can't even acknowledge that he did a good job with the speech. Regardless of whether you believe anything he said, he struck the right notes and overall did very well, as polls show today. The white suit idiot brigate and the rest of the dems were made to look like petulant children when they couldn't even stand up in support of things that everyone should support.

I never said he did a bad job reading the speech. Its just my expectations for POTUS are a tad higher.
I patted my son on the head when he was in the 2nd grade for finishing "One Fish, Two Fish"

Oh BTW - if you can't believe what he says, what's the point?

 

[Sea Ray]

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.

I gotta love how the left now values inside sources. Inside sources said Hillary is a lesbian and some of them weren't even anonymous (Gennifer Flowers), but the left always berated right wing sites like Breitbart for even printing such things.

If we've learned anything so far it's that there are a lot of Obama holdovers in Washington today who are doing whatever they can to undermine this Presidency. In other words these "sources" have an agenda.

 

[fskimospy]

No more of a serial liar than every other politician, but hey, you are free to believe whatever you want. By your logic, if you believe that Trump is a serial liar and he says water is wet, we have to believe water is not wet. That's not how it works. Right now, we have "sources said", and we have a matter where actual information can not be divulged for obvious reasons if it exists. Basically, it's a non-issue to all but the most hardened Trump haters. The rest of the world doesn't care about what "sources said" on this.

Are you actually trying to claim that Trump is no more dishonest than any other president?

I recall reading it, but don't have a source. I'll look later, but it doesn't matter regardless. We still have nothing more than "sources said".

I would love to see a source where Mattis actually said this, as taking the word of a serial liar is a poor idea, wouldn't you agree?

 

[fskimospy]

I gotta love how the left now values inside sources. Inside sources said Hillary is a lesbian and some of them weren't even anonymous (Gennifer Flowers), but the left always berated right wing sites like Breitbart for even printing such things.

lolwut.

If we've learned anything so far it's that there are a lot of Obama holdovers in Washington today who are doing whatever they can to undermine this Presidency. In other words these "sources" have an agenda.

Can you explain to me how you learned the agenda of these sources?

 

[xthetenth]

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.

Your posts are incoherent garbage. You're using the word regressive as if it means a whole bunch of things it doesn't. Pretend you're talking to people who haven't been marinating their brains in the raw stuff of alt-right youtube until it turns doughy and don't have an entire pavlovian worldview summoned by ritualistic invocation of the word regressive.


Also congrats to Trump for being so unremittingly awful at his job that a mediocrity like that is a pleasant surprise.

 

[HomerJS]

lolwut.



Can you explain to me how you learned the agenda of these sources?

He didn't. Like all Trump supporters, my Lord said it so it must be true.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Trump, for the most part, avoided stepping on his own dick for possibly the first time since he entered politics. Given the very low bar, I suppose he ought to be given credit for having accomplished that much. That said, I'm not optimistic that he is capable of successfully transforming political platitudes into effective policy, foreign or domestic. If my ears didn't deceive me, he called for paid family leave for all working Americans. The Republicans in Congress probably choked a bit on that one, and will pretend it was never said. Big tax cuts for everyone, plus massive military spending increases. We shall see how that works out. We know how that played out when GWB did it. Also, just even getting the Republicans to address health care at all is a victory, of sorts.

But really, this sort of "First Address" thing is always short on details. He could have though given it a bit earlier and held back on some of the executive orders until after it, and thus allowed the EOs to be better drafted, and it would have come together better. It looks like that he is signaling the Hard Right is likely going to get a lot of their fiscal agenda through and in return they will help him say he got his populist-protectionist projects going, but it all will be figured out over the next few months despite his bluster about doing more than anyone in his first days in office.

 

[Sea Ray]

lolwut.

Seeing as you haven't had that response to these unnamed sources proves my point

Can you explain to me how you learned the agenda of these sources?

Easy. How often are these unnamed sources reporting things that reflect positively on Trump?

 

[brycejones]

Are you actually trying to claim that Trump is no more dishonest than any other president?

Stop trying to split hairs. Just because Trump lies at 2.7x the rate of Obama isn't important.

 

[fskimospy]

Seeing as you haven't had that response to these unnamed sources proves my point

If you think someone calling Hillary Clinton a lesbian is equivalent to what we're talking about here I simply don't know what to tell you as you're too far gone.

Easy. How often are these unnamed sources reporting things that reflect positively on Trump?

If they were things that reflected positively on Trump they wouldn't need to be anonymous. I mean...duh?

 

[Thebobo]

So blinded by hatred that you can't even acknowledge that he did a good job with the speech. Regardless of whether you believe anything he said, he struck the right notes and overall did very well, as polls show today. The white suit idiot brigate and the rest of the dems were made to look like petulant children when they couldn't even stand up in support of things that everyone should support.

With the exception of infrastructure there is NOTHING that I agree with Trump on. Words mean nothing it's what he has done and will do that matters. And so far he has flunked, Bigly

 

[Bowfinger]

I gotta love how the left now values inside sources. Inside sources said Hillary is a lesbian and some of them weren't even anonymous (Gennifer Flowers), but the left always berated right wing sites like Breitbart for even printing such things.

If we've learned anything so far it's that there are a lot of Obama holdovers in Washington today who are doing whatever they can to undermine this Presidency. In other words these "sources" have an agenda.

Donnie's own words and his repugnant positions undermine his Presidency. He hates the media because they accurately report his words and positions.

 

[jmagg]

Thats what I thought. Heres a few whoppers.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/ten-of-barack-obamas-worst-lies/

 

[justoh]

Your posts are incoherent garbage. You're using the word regressive as if it means a whole bunch of things it doesn't.

I guess it must be incoherent, since nobody replying has done so substantively. A part of me still thinks that the problem is that regressives gonna regress.

 

[fskimospy]

I guess it must be incoherent, since nobody replying has done so substantively. A part of me still thinks that the problem is that regressives gonna regress.

My mom always says that if you have a problem with one person, the problem probably lies with them. If you have that problem with lots of people, the problem probably lies with you.

I'm curious, do you think that has any application here?

 

[ElFenix]

With the exception of infrastructure there is NOTHING that I agree with Trump on. Words mean nothing it's what he has done and will do that matters. And so far he has flunked, Bigly

and trump's infrastructure is

via Imgflip Meme Generator


ask us how much we like that down here in texas

 

[PokerGuy]

So in other words you thought Republicans were petulant children in every one of Obama's speeches?

Nope, they were valiant heroes standing up to obummer tyranny! Duh!

I know they always do this thing where roughly half the room stands up and applauds for certain things, while others don't etc, but I don't remember the republicans refusing to stand up for things that are universally accepted as good things. It certainly could have happened, which would just show there are some petulant children on the right side of the isle as well. I get not applauding things you don't agree with, but everything?