Will you be watching Trump's first SOTU?

[theprestige]

It is tragicomic, how incensed the progs are that the president dared to turn their emotionally-laden "dreamer" rhetoric back on them.

I would love to have an emotion-free, utilitiarian debate about government policy, but sadly politics don't seem to work that way.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As noted by the Slate and posted elsewhere by myself.

Trump called on Congress to give him unprecedented and unquestionably antidemocratic powers: “Tonight,” he said, “I call on the congress to empower every Cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers—and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.”

But dwell on it for a moment, Under Trump’s proposal, any Cabinet secretary could decide that, say, a law enforcement official investigating the president had “undermined the public trust” or “failed the American people”—and fire him on the spot.

Same for the IRS, FBI Department of Justice, or any other federal agency..

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...to-end-the-rule-of-law.html?via=recirc_recent

 

[bruto]

Huh.
Nah. You'd have to actually follow the teachings of Jesus to be a Christian.

I didn't say he's a good Christian. Or a good anything else for that matter, but what constitutes following the teachings of Jesus remains a bit murky, as does even the existence of the fellow, but the question did not seem to require doctrinal distinctions or judgments of what is a true Christian. If you disqualify believers based on what you consider good or valid, then the question has little if any meaning.

 

[Shalamar]

It is tragicomic, how incensed the progs are that the president dared to turn their emotionally-laden "dreamer" rhetoric back on them.

I would love to have an emotion-free, utilitiarian debate about government policy, but sadly politics don't seem to work that way.

It's the fault of those damned filthy porgs. If only we didn't have people spouting epithets, then we might be able to have a discussion!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The problem is not that he looks like Archie. The problem is that the Dems have decided to push an aristocrat as the answer to trump’s populist shtick. That seems odd, given the theme of the last election.

Fortunately Kennedy gave a great speech.

Looks like all the right wing has to complain about amounts to immature name calling.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seriously. It reflects a complete lack of self-awareness on the part of the DNC.

Because?

Let's see:

too rich
dislike name
too many freckles​

What else?

 

[SOdhner]

Because?

Let's see:

too rich
dislike name
too many freckles​

What else?

Corner of mouth too shiny?

I haven't seen it, but I haven't seen any actual complaints about the substance.

I also didn't see the state of the union address, and have no desire to. It's *always* a waste of my time, doubly so with Trump. Maybe if he refused the teleprompter and we got to hear what he really thinks and understands about what's going on it would be interesting, but the prepared speech for SotU are always pretty bad in my opinion, even with presidents I like.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You could invite a high profile white nationalist and Holocaust denier.

Buyer's remorse?

The congressman said he had an extra ticket after his father came down with bronchitis and couldn’t make it. Johnson just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

 

[Cleon]

Because?

Let's see:

too rich
dislike name
too many freckles​

What else?

In these days of Dreamers, Black Lives Matter, and #MeToo, the best rebuttal to Donald Trump is a super rich white dude from a century-old political dynasty that has a looong history of producing philandering playboys?

Nah, it's totally the freckles.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As noted by the Slate and posted elsewhere by myself.

Trump called on Congress to give him unprecedented and unquestionably antidemocratic powers: “Tonight,” he said, “I call on the congress to empower every Cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers—and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.”

But dwell on it for a moment, Under Trump’s proposal, any Cabinet secretary could decide that, say, a law enforcement official investigating the president had “undermined the public trust” or “failed the American people”—and fire him on the spot.

Same for the IRS, FBI Department of Justice, or any other federal agency..

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...to-end-the-rule-of-law.html?via=recirc_recent

I'm waiting for this one to get more news coverage. So far the MSN seems to be focused on fact checking and divisiveness of the speech.

But the print(online) media has noticed.

From your Slate link:

Trump called on Congress to give him unprecedented and unquestionably antidemocratic powers: “Tonight,” he said, “I call on the congress to empower every Cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers—and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.”

By design, it is easy to overlook the true significance of the second half of that phrase. But dwell on it for a moment, and imagine what this would actually look like in practice. Under Trump’s proposal, any Cabinet secretary could decide that, say, a law enforcement official investigating the president had “undermined the public trust” or “failed the American people”—and fire him on the spot. In other words, Trump is calling for an end to any semblance of independence for the IRS, the FBI, the Department of Justice, or any other federal agency.

Huff Po: Trump Calls On Congress To Empower Agencies To Oust Federal Workers

Trump’s statement “serves the goal of politicizing the career ranks,” said former U.S. ethics chief Walter Shaub....

President Donald Trump also called on Congress to give government agencies the power to oust federal workers.

“All Americans deserve accountability and respect ― and that is what we are giving them,” Trump said during his first State of the Union Address. “I call on the Congress to empower every Cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.”

Their take on it is to shift career employees toward partisanship. Think about it, every appointed administrator can simply appoint a whole new agency staff. No wonder Trump wants this, get those pesky FBI employees out who aren't Trumpers.

And think of all those crony reward jobs it opens up.

This is one of those insidious changes if Trump gets his way.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In these days of Dreamers, Black Lives Matter, and #MeToo, the best rebuttal to Donald Trump is a super rich white dude from a century-old political dynasty that has a looong history of producing philandering playboys?

Nah, it's totally the freckles.

So you got nothing about the speech, just that one of his relatives was a serial harasser and several of them were philanderers?

Let's see, there was the JFK nephew, William Kennedy Smith tried on rape charges and accused of sexual harassment by multiple women. He was not convicted including in a civil case but he did settle one case out of court. His innocence was doubtful, probably had a good lawyer.

And of course there was Chappaquiddick.

So what else you got? JFK was a philanderer. That's not what the #MeToo is about. Yes, there was the nephew.

Sorry, the Kennedys are not Bill Clinton.


The fact so many objections to Joe Kennedy are about his relatives, not about him, or if they are, they are about his looks and his 'old money' suggests the speech was pretty good, like I said.

 

[Cleon]

So you got nothing about the speech, just that one of his relatives was a serial harasser and several of them were philanderers?

Snort. Yeah, that's exactly the lack of self-reflection I was talking about. Good luck in 2018, Democrats.

 

[Giz]

So you got nothing about the speech, just that one of his relatives was a serial harasser and several of them were philanderers?

Let's see, there was the JFK nephew, William Kennedy Smith tried on rape charges and accused of sexual harassment by multiple women. He was not convicted including in a civil case but he did settle one case out of court. His innocence was doubtful, probably had a good lawyer.

And of course there was Chappaquiddick.

So what else you got? JFK was a philanderer. That's not what the #MeToo is about. Yes, there was the nephew.

Sorry, the Kennedys are not Bill Clinton.


The fact so many objections to Joe Kennedy are about his relatives, not about him, or if they are, they are about his looks and his 'old money' suggests the speech was pretty good, like I said.

OK, so after Clinton was seen by too many as 'too entitled/a coronation' and 'part of the establishment'... you are going with a Kennedy, heir to Camelot.

Great plan. Really.

 

[Cleon]

OK, so after Clinton was seen by too many as 'too entitled/a coronation' and 'part of the establishment'... you are going with a Kennedy, heir to Camelot.

Great plan. Really.

Doing the same thing over and over again is a sure path to victory!

 

[a_unique_person]

Seriously. It reflects a complete lack of self-awareness on the part of the DNC.

Running Hillary for president should have taught them that. Obama won and Hillary lost.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, undo 60% because he could **** on the dining room table of the 40% and they still give him a positive favorability rating.

He could walk outside and shoot someone.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Snort. Yeah, that's exactly the lack of self-reflection I was talking about. Good luck in 2018, Democrats.

OK, so after Clinton was seen by too many as 'too entitled/a coronation' and 'part of the establishment'... you are going with a Kennedy, heir to Camelot.

Great plan. Really.

Doing the same thing over and over again is a sure path to victory!

And the usual alt-right campaign tactic of personal attacks starts and Joe Kennedy isn't even running for POTUS yet.

Got anything to say about the speech?

 

[theprestige]

It's the fault of those damned filthy porgs. If only we didn't have people spouting epithets, then we might be able to have a discussion!

The ship has already sailed. Now we move with the wind. Will you join me in charting a new course? Do you not like being thought of, and referred to, as a progressive?

 

[Cleon]

And the usual alt-right campaign tactic of personal attacks starts and Joe Kennedy isn't even running for POTUS yet.

Got anything to say about the speech?

Wow... did you just call me alt-right?

Right (heh) after I brought up Dreamers, BLM, and #Metoo?

Wow (again).

Look, I realize that for you partisanship is more important than anything else, but that's not the case for all of us.

It was a mistake to clean out my ignore list, apparently. Have a nice day, SG.

 

[tyr_13]

Doing the same thing over and over again is a sure path to victory!

If he campaigned in rustbelt states, he'd win with as hefty a margin as Hillary would have if she'd done the same.

He wouldn't be my choice for candidate and I get that failure to energize the base was one of the factors that hurt the Dems in the last election, but this idea that everything has to change gets trotted out a lot and it's not right. There are costs to every change and some of those might be greater than the benefits. 'You lost so everything you did was wrong' is fallacious reasoning in the extreme (and no, I don't think this is the argument you're making but it is the one both regressives and more extreme progressives make about the dems).

I'll give an example. The dems have been much, much more favorable to LGBTQ rights and protection than the GOP. There has been a lot of backlash to this for the Dems including in the very states that they lost like PA. Does this mean that the Dems should change their stances there? Hell no. I likewise don't think that rejecting a candidate for being a straight, white, male would be any more wise than rejecting one for being a person of color disabled vet.

So the argument 'you lost therefore my advice is right' is fallacious and using too many shortcuts. Any advice has to have other supports and stand on more merit than 'the dems lost'.