Trump's address to Congress

[CowboyJD]

My opinion on the speech itself:

It was very good. The best rhetoric (not using it in the perjorative sense) I've heard from him yet. Wasn't anything like his tweets or other speeches in the past. It was focused and substantive in its entirety. I hope this continues to be the path and style of communication.

Why restrict a victim's advocate group in government to those victims of illegal aliens? Seems to give the short end of the stick to victims of other groups as well to me.

Did I hear him again claim that everyone will be covered when it comes health care with an expansion of Medicare? I think I did.

 

[CowboyJD]

Also, he got rid of the overly long tie and baggy, unbutton suit coat in favor of a tailored suit, cuffed shirt sleeves, proper length tie, and buttoned up.

Which I like to see.

 

[OKSTATE1]

My opinion on the speech itself:

It was very good. The best rhetoric (not using it in the perjorative sense) I've heard from him yet. Wasn't anything like his tweets or other speeches in the past. It was focused and substantive in its entirety. I hope this continues to be the path and style of communication.

Why restrict a victim's advocate group in government to those victims of illegal aliens? Seems to give the short end of the stick to victims of other groups as well to me.

Did I hear him again claim that everyone will be covered when it comes health care with an expansion of Medicare? I think I did.

My opinion on the advocate's group: We can not afford it for everyone, but the victim's of murder or other hard crimes from illegal immigrants who in some instances have been deported several times is a government that failed the taxpayer who paid for security from illegal immigrants and for the government to enforce its own laws and so in part the government has let that taxpayer down and has blood on its hands, I do think we owe those citizens more than sorry. All of this looks like a big lawsuit waiting to happen IMO because it appears to be deaths that could have been prevented if the Feds, State, and local governments had enforced our laws? Our entire society has let these victims down, these criminals never belonged on our streets to begin with and to rub salt in the wound some cities want to be sanctuaries for these people? At least we can do is offer some sanctuary to the victims. These poor parents deserve something IMO, if this happened in my family? It would be harder to take than a random act of violence committed in the U.S. by a legal citizen, you blame the individual, not the government because they caught and released a known illegal immigrant with past deportations. Fix the problem and we can get rid of VOICE.

 

[CowboyPhil]

I think most opinion polls from MSM were proven wrong on the evening of Nov 8 2016.

Personally I don't pay much attention to polls one way or the other as they seem to concentrate on those (people/sheep) that will give them the answers they are looking for.

 

[imprimis]

I watched frank lutz be surprised by his focus groups being pro trump and fighting with them in the primaries.

Early in the campaign Luntz sent a questionnaire out which was 100% anti-Trump. Every question had a group of "incendiary" past Trump quotes taken out of context and each asked if I wanted a person who said that in the WH. I lost all respect I had for him at that point.

 

[BvillePoker]

I did not watch the speech last night because I was watching the refs hand a win to ISU. But watched the full replay this morning. My thoughts on his speech? G** DAMMIT MOTHERF***** JESUS HOLY HELL CHRIST. Because I cannot find too much to complain about and he showed he could be presidential. Really was looking forward to ripping him this morning.

 

[imprimis]

I did not watch the speech last night because I was watching the refs hand a win to ISU. But watched the full replay this morning. My thoughts on his speech? G** DAMMIT MOTHERF***** JESUS HOLY HELL CHRIST. Because I cannot find too much to complain about and he showed he could be presidential. Really was looking forward to ripping him this morning.

Big 12 refs are the absolute worst.

 

[NZ Poke]

Also, he got rid of the overly long tie and baggy, unbutton suit coat in favor of a tailored suit, cuffed shirt sleeves, proper length tie, and buttoned up.

Which I like to see.

Apparently he has long worn a bulletproof vest and has also been packing.

Wonder if that has to do with it.

 

[imprimis]

Also, he got rid of the overly long tie and baggy, unbutton suit coat in favor of a tailored suit, cuffed shirt sleeves, proper length tie, and buttoned up.

Which I like to see.

My guess is it's a Kevlar suit similar to what Obama worn at the insistence of the Secret Service.

 

[CowboyJD]

My opinion on the advocate's group: We can not afford it for everyone, but the victim's of murder or other hard crimes from illegal immigrants who in some instances have been deported several times is a government that failed the taxpayer who paid for security from illegal immigrants and for the government to enforce its own laws and so in part the government has let that taxpayer down and has blood on its hands, I do think we owe those citizens more than sorry. All of this looks like a big lawsuit waiting to happen IMO because it appears to be deaths that could have been prevented if the Feds, State, and local governments had enforced our laws? Our entire society has let these victims down, these criminals never belonged on our streets to begin with and to rub salt in the wound some cities want to be sanctuaries for these people? At least we can do is offer some sanctuary to the victims. These poor parents deserve something IMO, if this happened in my family? It would be harder to take than a random act of violence committed in the U.S. by a legal citizen, you blame the individual, not the government because they caught and released a known illegal immigrant with past deportations. Fix the problem and we can get rid of VOICE.

IMO, there is nothing more egregious or concerning about a crime committed by an illegal immigrant compared to a crime committed by a legal immigrant or a US Citizen.

I know from a "lawsuit" perspective I know that there is zero liability in any of those instances on behalf of the government.

 

[OKSTATE1]

IMO, there is nothing more egregious or concerning about a crime committed by an illegal immigrant compared to a crime committed by a legal immigrant or a US Citizen.

I know from a "lawsuit" perspective I know that there is zero liability in any of those instances on behalf of the government.

We can agree to disagree....these crimes may have been prevented if the Fed, State, and local government had enforced the laws, I have no doubt about that and do not understand how anyone would dispute it. That illegal immigrant should have either been in Mexico or a US jail, that would have prevented the crime. There is definitely an element of prevention that could have taken place by the government in some of these instances, that makes it more egregious IMO because the Fed, State, and local government was negligent in enforcing laws that could have prevented the crime. Bob Barry Jr might still be here today if laws and security had been enforced, that made his death national news and tougher to understand the loss of life, it would not have been if it was a normal accident.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

IMO, there is nothing more egregious or concerning about a crime committed by an illegal immigrant compared to a crime committed by a legal immigrant or a US Citizen.

Well, except the illegal immigrant isn't supposed to be in this country to begin with. Whether you can sue the government or not, I imagine that might color one's feelings about the government if your relative was killed/raped by an illegal.

 

[NZ Poke]

 

[squeak]

Lulz, polls are "proven wrong" when you disagree with them.

How are opinion polls ever "proven wrong".

When the people polled is not a representative sample of the people whose opinion the poll is supposedly measuring.

 

[imprimis]

View embedded media

Judging by the age of many of the dems, it was long past their bedtimes.

 

[Ponca Dan]

It was the same reaction to Trump's nationalist RNC speech last summer.

Of course, instead of analyzing the substance of nationalist policies (which the American people overwhelmingly support), the corporate media immediately went back to attacking Trump personally (ie how "divisive" and "chaotic" he is).

No politician (from either party) can provide a straight answer as to why we've spent trillions building / defending other countries (with US tax dollars) while our own infrastructure has gone to hell.

I don't for one minute dispute your assertion that a majority of Americans support Trump's "nationalism agenda." Would you kindly explain exactly what that agenda is, and what you think will be the ultimate result from its enactment?

 

[MegaPoke]

I don't for one minute dispute your assertion that a majority of Americans support Trump's "nationalism agenda." Would you kindly explain exactly what that agenda is, and what you think will be the ultimate result from its enactment?

I'm not NZ and I look forward to his reply here, but I can confidently predict what won't be the ultimate result of Trump's nationalism agenda. It may or may not work, but I'm pretty sure it won't be a dystopian hellscape of authoritarianism, loss of liberty etc. I'm just assuming that's your concern to a lesser degree - I apologize in advance for assuming this to be your concern if it is not.

It's really interesting to watch what this election has done as far as dividing libertarian types. That probably deserves it's own thread topic.

 

[Cordellhall83]

Best poll I've seen this morning is the stock market.

 

[CowboyJD]

We can agree to disagree....these crimes may have been prevented if the Fed, State, and local government had enforced the laws, I have no doubt about that and do not understand how anyone would dispute it. That illegal immigrant should have either been in Mexico or a US jail, that would have prevented the crime. There is definitely an element of prevention that could have taken place by the government in some of these instances, that makes it more egregious IMO because the Fed, State, and local government was negligent in enforcing laws that could have prevented the crime. Bob Barry Jr might still be here today if laws and security had been enforced, that made his death national news and tougher to understand the loss of life, it would not have been if it was a normal accident.

Crimes by other citizens or individuals "may have been been prevented" if the government had investigated them and focused on them for prior illegal acts they had committed as well.

I'm always good with agreeing to disagree.

 

[CowboyJD]

When the people polled is not a representative sample of the people whose opinion the poll is supposedly measuring.

I'm certain Cernovich took a lot of time to check the representative samples of the respective CNN polls that he has dismissed and cited approvingly. I'm certain NZ did the same thing.

 

[CowboyJD]

Sure.

I've been saying for a while that the recent tide of political events in the US, Europe (with Brexit and the rise of Marine Le Pen), and now South America (Brazil) has little to do with liberal vs conservative (or left vs right) --- and everything to do with nationalism (populism) vs globalism.

Since WW2 ended, and especially since the fall of the USSR in the early 90s, there has been a dramatic shift away from national sovereignty (power within individual nation states) -- and shift towards global treaties.

This has come about in many different forms, such as the increasing power of UN (and UN treaties like the Kyoto protocol), "free trade" agreements between nations (NAFTA and the incredibly massive and nearly-signed TPP), and a range of technologies that make it simple to go around nation state borders.

Here are unedited quotes from leaders across the political spectrum promoting this shift towards globalism (referred to as the "new world order") and away from nation states).

View embedded media

The original backlash towards the rush towards globalism / globalization primarily came from the left, but now has included the right. (I.e. Trump).

Some the nationalist policies against globalism include:

- restricting immigration
- tariffs on goods produced overseas
- less foreign engagement (from the US military)
- Decisonmaking based on US interests instead of regional / global interests


What will these policies create? It's hard to say --- we are in completely unparalleled times.

The establishment left and right in the US are pro-globalism (i.e. neo-liberals like the Clinton and neo-conservatives like the Bushes and Paul Ryan).

There is a lot more I could add, like the rapid shift towards "global" culture in movies and mass entertainment, and its drowning effect on quirky regional cultures (like the Cajuns), but I am out of time.

I will say that during my six years in NZ (2005 - 2011), I was completely pro-globalization.

I've had a rapid shift as I've seen how most cultures in the world disapprove / don't allow free speech. (And disapprove of questioning things --- America stands alone when it comes to protecting the right of the individual, nearly everywhere else promotes group intrerests first)

IMO, I would like to see more posts like this from you than the usual spam.

I even "liked" this post.

 

[squeak]

I'm certain Cernovich took a lot of time to check the representative samples of the respective CNN polls that he has dismissed and cited approvingly. I'm certain NZ did the same thing.

Some polls don't disclose who was sampled and how. Some do. I pointed out some polls before the election that made no sense because of who they sampled. This CNN poll was a random sample of people across the nation who watched. Looks like a good poll to me based on who was sample and what was being measured.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I'm not NZ and I look forward to his reply here, but I can confidently predict what won't be the ultimate result of Trump's nationalism agenda. It may or may not work, but I'm pretty sure it won't be a dystopian hellscape of authoritarianism, loss of liberty etc. I'm just assuming that's your concern to a lesser degree - I apologize in advance for assuming this to be your concern if it is not.

It's really interesting to watch what this election has done as far as dividing libertarian types. That probably deserves it's own thread topic.

No, I mainly just don't know what people mean when they talk about Trump's nationalist agenda. I rarely see specifics, so I worry that it is one of those topics that means whatever the person talking about it thinks it means. Just curious about the specifics. You are probably right that I will disapprove of at least part of the agenda (the economic protectionism side that I expect the hear about), but, believe it or not, I generally try to keep an open mind.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Sure.

I've been saying for a while that the recent tide of political events in the US, Europe (with Brexit and the rise of Marine Le Pen), and now South America (Brazil) has little to do with liberal vs conservative (or left vs right) --- and everything to do with nationalism (populism) vs globalism.

Since WW2 ended, and especially since the fall of the USSR in the early 90s, there has been a dramatic shift away from national sovereignty (power within individual nation states) -- and shift towards global treaties.

This has come about in many different forms, such as the increasing power of UN (and UN treaties like the Kyoto protocol), "free trade" agreements between nations (NAFTA and the incredibly massive and nearly-signed TPP), and a range of technologies that make it simple to go around nation state borders.

Here are unedited quotes from leaders across the political spectrum promoting this shift towards globalism (referred to as the "new world order") and away from nation states).

View embedded media

The original backlash towards the rush towards globalism / globalization primarily came from the left, but now has included the right. (I.e. Trump).

Some the nationalist policies against globalism include:

- restricting immigration
- tariffs on goods produced overseas
- less foreign engagement (from the US military)
- Decisonmaking based on US interests instead of regional / global interests


What will these policies create? It's hard to say --- we are in completely unparalleled times.

The establishment left and right in the US are pro-globalism (i.e. neo-liberals like the Clinton and neo-conservatives like the Bushes and Paul Ryan).

There is a lot more I could add, like the rapid shift towards "global" culture in movies and mass entertainment, and its drowning effect on quirky regional cultures (like the Cajuns), but I am out of time.

I will say that during my six years in NZ (2005 - 2011), I was completely pro-globalization.

I've had a rapid shift as I've seen how most cultures in the world disapprove / don't allow free speech. (And disapprove of questioning things --- America stands alone when it comes to protecting the right of the individual, nearly everywhere else promotes group intrerests first)

Thanks for your reply!

Sure.

I've been saying for a while that the recent tide of political events in the US, Europe (with Brexit and the rise of Marine Le Pen), and now South America (Brazil) has little to do with liberal vs conservative (or left vs right) --- and everything to do with nationalism (populism) vs globalism.

Since WW2 ended, and especially since the fall of the USSR in the early 90s, there has been a dramatic shift away from national sovereignty (power within individual nation states) -- and shift towards global treaties.

This has come about in many different forms, such as the increasing power of UN (and UN treaties like the Kyoto protocol), "free trade" agreements between nations (NAFTA and the incredibly massive and nearly-signed TPP), and a range of technologies that make it simple to go around nation state borders.

Here are unedited quotes from leaders across the political spectrum promoting this shift towards globalism (referred to as the "new world order") and away from nation states).

View embedded media

The original backlash towards the rush towards globalism / globalization primarily came from the left, but now has included the right. (I.e. Trump).

Some the nationalist policies against globalism include:

- restricting immigration
- tariffs on goods produced overseas
- less foreign engagement (from the US military)
- Decisonmaking based on US interests instead of regional / global interests


What will these policies create? It's hard to say --- we are in completely unparalleled times.

The establishment left and right in the US are pro-globalism (i.e. neo-liberals like the Clinton and neo-conservatives like the Bushes and Paul Ryan).

There is a lot more I could add, like the rapid shift towards "global" culture in movies and mass entertainment, and its drowning effect on quirky regional cultures (like the Cajuns), but I am out of time.

I will say that during my six years in NZ (2005 - 2011), I was completely pro-globalization.

I've had a rapid shift as I've seen how most cultures in the world disapprove / don't allow free speech. (And disapprove of questioning things --- America stands alone when it comes to protecting the right of the individual, nearly everywhere else promotes group intrerests first)

 

[07pilt]

It's really interesting to watch what this election has done as far as dividing libertarian types.

Yeah turns out some people were real libertarians and some people needed an outlet for their hatred of liberals that didn't involve GWB or John McCain.

 

[NZ Poke]

IMO, I would like to see more posts like this from you than the usual spam.

I even "liked" this post.

Thank you. I can do both.

While I love creating content, I specialize in information warfare. =)

 

[NZ Poke]

Sound familiar?

 

[Ponca Dan]

Thanks for your reply!

Well that was quick! I guess my computer didn't want to hear what I had to say!

I would like to respond to your four elements of nationalism:

1) restricting immigration
2) tariffs on goods produced overseas
3) less foreign military intervention
4) decisions advancing US interests first

1) I personally am so conflicted on this issue that there's really nothing I would want to add to the conversation.
2) What do you see as the purpose of our government inflicting tariffs on products produced overseas? And is there a limit, a stopping point you see as reasonable when it comes to tariffs? Personally I think import taxes (tariffs) are one of the most bone-headed moves any government can make. The argument protectionists seem to be making centers around how protection will protect American workers, and bring (or keep) good paying jobs home. Would someone please explain to me how that would work? And is there a line over which protection steps? Take auto manufacturing, for example. I've seen somewhere that as much as 40% of the parts that are used to make cars are produced overseas. Should the manufacturers of those parts also be protected? Should we demand that all parts that comprise a car be manufactured in America? How about the machines that make those parts? If the machines that make the parts that are put in cars are manufactured overseas, should we demand that they be made in America before we allow them to make the parts that are put in cars? Shouldn't we be protecting those jobs as well? Why only the jobs of people that assemble the cars? My question is where does it end? Furthermore it appears to me the protectionists are doing their dead-level best to protect the jobs of a few thousand workers at the expense of hundreds of millions of consumers. Protectionists are declaring that you and I - and all car buyers - should be forced by law (tariffs) to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars more for a car than we would have to pay otherwise. Where is the protection for the consumer in the protection agenda?
3) I wholeheartedly agree with the notion on non-intervention militarily! Yea! I agree with the nationalist agenda on that point!
4) What exactly is meant by "decision making based on US interests?" What US interests? Are you talking about trade agreements? Why should the government be involved in trade agreements? Someone in China wants to buy my wheat; we negotiate a price that is acceptable to both. Why does the government have to stick its nose in our personal trade agreement? Someone in China wants to sell me his silk; we agree on a mutually acceptable price. Why should that be of any interest to the government?

As I see it almost all the ills in our country can be traced back to government meddling, whether it be sending our young people to die in wars, or whether economic "bubbles" burst. We need to quit our dependence, we need to quit turning a blind eye to its interference, we need to quit thinking we don't have to think about something because good old Uncle Sam is taking care of it for us.

My two cents.

 

[MegaPoke]

Yeah turns out some people were real libertarians and some people needed an outlet for their hatred of liberals that didn't involve GWB or John McCain.

 

[CowboyJD]

Thank you. I can do both.

While I love creating content, I specialize in information warfare. =)

Governance by meme...

 

[MegaPoke]

Governance by meme...

He who controls the meme controls the universe.

 

[CowboyJD]

He who controls the meme controls the universe.

An unfortunate truth into today's world.....particularly for a policy wonk like myself.

 

[NZ Poke]

An unfortunate truth into today's world.....particularly for a policy wonk like myself.

There's plenty of space / need / demand for policy wonks.

Look at the rapid growth of YouTube channels where people spend 10 to 20 minutes (or longer) giving extended lectures / podcast on any subject, no matter how specialist / niche.

Those kinds of channels are destroying traditional tv because they're so much better --- plus there's zero commercials and they are completely able to discuss any subject with zero restrictions.

On TV, they're tying to condense complex subjects into short segments / soundbytes before the next commercial break (impossible with complicated subject matter). On YouTube lectures, you can get so much more detailed. (Hence there being a place for long written content, videos and memes -- all of the above)

If you haven't already, I suggest downloading the YouTube app, signing up for YouTube Red (no commercials), and following certain channels you like.

Then you'll get new videos and suggested videos showing up in your feed all the time. The best thing for drives too and from work, listening to videos on YouTube.

 

[NeekReevers]

Also, he got rid of the overly long tie and baggy, unbutton suit coat in favor of a tailored suit, cuffed shirt sleeves, proper length tie, and buttoned up.

Which I like to see.

Fashion CowboyJD appears!

 

[AC_Exotic]

Tremendous speech.

His attempt to speak in a way that would hope to bring about national unity was admirable.

 

[CowboyJD]

Tremendous speech.

His attempt to speak in a way that would hope to bring about national unity was admirable.

Hope to see more communication like this over 148 character policy statements about fake news, so-called judges, SNL, and how the intelligence community are like the Gestapo.

That would be good.

 

[Cowpoke]

I've only seen about half of it so far, but that's more like I expected after the election. Honestly, if HRC had given much of the same speech it wouldn't have been too out of place. I figured once the election was over we'd see a more even keeled, less divisive Trump. First time it's shown up.

 

[JonnyVito]

Lol at the haters

 

[MegaPoke]

 

[Medic007]

View embedded media

Fake news to lure Trump supporters in for the clicks. Next week they'll publish a poll showing Trump's approval rating is at 12% following the scandal of Kellyanne's feet on the furniture of the Slick Willy Oral Office.