QuoteTrump's congressional address: What you need to know
By Erin Dooley
Jordyn Phelps
Feb 27, 2017, 10:51 AM ET
President Trump will give his first major congressional address at 9 p.m. ET on Tuesday, laying out his agenda for the nation. In addition to lawmakers, the audience is expected to include most of his cabinet, the Supreme Court justice and top military brass.
His appearance follows an invitation last month from House Speaker Paul Ryan, who called the address "an opportunity for the people and their representatives to hear directly from our new president about his vision and our shared agenda."
The Talking Points
The commander-in-chief's address comes on the heels of a rocky first 39 days: from the troubled roll-out of the travel ban to the ousting of national security adviser Michael Flynn following reports that he misled Vice President Mike Pence about his contact with Russians officials.
On Tuesday, Trump is expected to recast his fledgling presidency as a victory for the American people, outlining ways he and lawmakers can work together.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer says the address will be "the renewal of the American spirit." Possible topics that will be discussed: Trump's proposed wall along the southern U.S. border; repealing and replacing Obamacare; tax and regulatory reform; and job creation.
The Democratic Response
Trump won't get the last word Tuesday night.
Former Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear will give the Democratic response to Trump's address, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced last Friday.
The Democratic governor of a largely conservative state, Beshear, was a strong supporter of Obamacare and an expansion of Medicaid in 2014. Within two years, his state's uninsured rate fell nearly 13 percentage points, according to Gallup.
"Under Governor Beshear's leadership, Kentucky became one of the great success stories of the Affordable Care Act," Pelosi said in a statement. "Governor Beshear is an experienced job-creator and a uniquely credible voice on the devastating consequences of Republicans' plans to Make America Sick Again."
The Democrats also announced that immigration activist Astrid Silva, a DREAMer who came to the United States at age 4, will deliver the Spanish-language response.
She'll be the first non-lawmaker to deliver the official Spanish response for either party.
"While President Trump unleashes a cruel deportation dragnet on hard-working immigrant families, Astrid Silva personifies the values that have always made America strong," Pelosi said.
A Blue Dog giving the response? I like it.
First time in forever a draft of the speech was not provided to the media. Shocking.
And MSNBC just got great footage of the Donald practicing his speech in the back of the limo with the interior lights on before pulling off from the White House. It was incredibly disconcerting to watch. :lol:
Any takers on whether he gets interrupted like Obama was?
Will he start riffing a campaign speech?
What overwrought and hyperbolic doomsday vocabulary will he use tonight?
Will he do that pinky-out finger thingy he does when he talks?
Who gets the worst of it: The media? Obama-supported protesters? Fake antisemites? The blacks?
Chris Matthews is the greatest angry Irish potato that ever lived.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2017, 08:54:46 PM
Any takers on whether he gets interrupted like Obama was?
Will he start riffing a campaign speech?
What overwrought and hyperbolic doomsday vocabulary will he use tonight?
Will he do that pinky-out finger thingy he does when he talks?
Who gets the worst of it: The media? Obama-supported protesters? Fake antisemites? The blacks?
I hope for FS they're not as trigger happy as the French were this afternoon.
Quote from: Valmy on February 28, 2017, 08:33:46 PM
A Blue Dog giving the response? I like it.
A former governor, because it's getting harder and harder to find office-holding Democrats. :(
Quote from: mongers on February 28, 2017, 08:57:57 PM
I hope for FS they're not as trigger happy as the French were this afternoon.
I bet he just sneezed.
Predictions:
- He will express serious concern about the fact that we don't have as many planes as China.
- He will insult the foreign service--and I don't mean indirectly.
- He will boast about either his business acumen or his electoral margin.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on February 28, 2017, 09:01:37 PM
Predictions:
- He will express serious concern about the fact that we don't have as many planes as China.
- He will insult the foreign service--and I don't mean indirectly.
- He will boast about either his business acumen or his electoral margin.
Excellent choices. The election victory is kind of a given, though. It's the anecdote to warm the crowd up.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2017, 09:00:25 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 28, 2017, 08:57:57 PM
I hope for FS they're not as trigger happy as the French were this afternoon.
I bet he just sneezed.
I've not seen the footage yet, but the Fr president handled it OK and had the manners to visit the injured afterwards.
Can you imagine the conspiracy shitstorm/civil war if one of Trumps Secret Service bodyguards accidentally injured the president that way.
Quote from: mongers on February 28, 2017, 09:04:32 PM
Can you imagine the conspiracy shitstorm/civil war if one of Trumps Secret Service bodyguards accidentally injured the president that way.
If you seem to recall, we had a difficult enough time with the Secret Service
not protecting the President enough. But he was a negro, so it was no big deal.
"A message deeply delivered from my heart" :bleeding:
He should have dissolved the senate.
He sounds strangely subdued for him.
"We've spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas as our infrastructure collapsed"
How many trillions is that?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 28, 2017, 09:13:40 PM
He sounds strangely subdued for him.
That's because he's using a teleprompter, and he is illiterate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2017, 09:14:31 PM
"We've spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas as our infrastructure collapsed"
How many trillions is that?
As long as foriegners are told to fuck off, I can accept squishy numbers.
Our very, very beautiful land.
Why is infrastructure always crumbling?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2017, 09:16:16 PM
Our very, very beautiful land.
Why is infrastructure always crumbling?
The French sabotaged our phone system.
For the assburgers, that was a Death Race 2000 joke.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 09:16:00 PM
As long as foriegners are told to fuck off, I can accept squishy numbers.
You get the lawnbag adapter for your hoverchair yet?
Read the speech transcript. Hard to see the Congress pass his immigration or infrastructure bills.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2017, 09:25:34 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 09:16:00 PM
As long as foriegners are told to fuck off, I can accept squishy numbers.
You get the lawnbag adapter for your hoverchair yet?
Strange, the lawn care company I empoly uses white people. Huh.
I should lacroix this thread.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2017, 09:25:34 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 09:16:00 PM
As long as foriegners are told to fuck off, I can accept squishy numbers.
You get the lawnbag adapter for your hoverchair yet?
Strange, the lawn care company I empoly uses white people. Huh.
lol, overpaying.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2017, 09:32:38 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 09:29:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2017, 09:25:34 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 09:16:00 PM
As long as foriegners are told to fuck off, I can accept squishy numbers.
You get the lawnbag adapter for your hoverchair yet?
Strange, the lawn care company I empoly uses white people. Huh.
lol, overpaying.
Lol, my shit doesn't get stolen.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 09:33:41 PM
Lol, my shit doesn't get stolen.
Doesn't get cut right, either. Millennials. TWEET WHACKER
I'm liking the speech.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVRj02I4.jpg&hash=f2f0f2a2956c11c6ce5fe4e8aa3f6b9279fd59a2)
That's only because you can appreciate a 600-word vocabulary.
I believe that's the 4th crumbling infrastructure reference. What, it doesn't age? Decay? Just crumbles?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2017, 09:36:36 PM
That's only because you can appreciate a 600-word vocabulary.
I taught college students for awhile. I'm used to it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 09:39:57 PM
I taught college students for awhile. I'm used to it.
Wasn't it community college, too? Trump's probably got double the vocabulary in some cases.
Is he going off script occasionally, as he struggles somewhat to fluidly read the teleprompter?
Ryan's smile is so strained, it looks like he's screaming behind those eyes, thinking of how he's going to sell this shit to the Freedom Caucus.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 28, 2017, 09:41:25 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 09:39:57 PM
I taught college students for awhile. I'm used to it.
Wasn't it community college, too? Trump's probably got double the vocabulary in some cases.
Yes.
Quote from: mongers on February 28, 2017, 09:42:47 PM
Is he going off script occasionally, as he struggles somewhat to fluidly read the teleprompter?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2017, 09:14:56 PM
That's because he's using a teleprompter, and he is illiterate.
Gotta say, as much as I've railed against Trump-- this isn't a terrible speech.
Funny how he's mentioning clear air and clear water, considering he signed Executive Orders this week to roll back both :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2017, 09:45:55 PM
Gotta say, as much as I've railed against Trump-- this isn't a terrible speech.
It's the usual. Contradictory, flourishing, gently hyperbolic.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2017, 09:46:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2017, 09:45:55 PM
Gotta say, as much as I've railed against Trump-- this isn't a terrible speech.
It's the usual. Contradictory, flourishing, gently hyperbolic.
Especially the gentle part.
Yes, slash restraints. Across the board. Give me a free brewing license!!
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2017, 09:49:21 PM
Yes, slash restraints. Across the board. Give me a free brewing license!!
"Spicy's Ass Brewpub"
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 09:51:01 PM
"Spicy's Ass Brewpub"
I'd rather exercise my free market influence in refraining from purchasing any brew from a "spicy ass," kthx. :yuk:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 28, 2017, 09:52:54 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 09:51:01 PM
"Spicy's Ass Brewpub"
I'd rather exercise my free market influence in refraining from purchasing any brew from a "spicy ass," kthx. :yuk:
ITS GOT LOTS OF HOPS
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 09:56:31 PM
ITS GOT LOTS OF HOPS
You call it hops, I call it a Type 1. :contract:
Chilli infused.
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2017, 09:49:21 PM
Yes, slash restraints. Across the board. Give me a free brewing license!!
Fetus Ale, Dark
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 09:51:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2017, 09:49:21 PM
Yes, slash restraints. Across the board. Give me a free brewing license!!
"Spicy's Ass Brewpub"
Working on signage and t-shirts now, thanks. I already have a rudimentary bar set up in the garage.
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2017, 09:59:40 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 09:51:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2017, 09:49:21 PM
Yes, slash restraints. Across the board. Give me a free brewing license!!
"Spicy's Ass Brewpub"
Working on signage and t-shirts now, thanks. I already have a rudimentary bar set up in the garage.
:)
Wait a minute...
I GAVE AWAY THAT NAME
:(
Quote from: HVC on February 28, 2017, 10:06:55 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 10:03:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2017, 09:59:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2017, 09:49:21 PM
Yes, slash restraints. Across the board. Give me a free brewing license!!
Fetus Ale, Dark
NegroAle
Grape drink flavoured.
:licklips:
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 10:03:02 PM
:)
Wait a minute...
I GAVE AWAY THAT NAME
:(
I'll name a beer after you. Aged in Calvados barrels :worthy:
Quote from: derspiess on February 28, 2017, 10:07:35 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 10:03:02 PM
:)
Wait a minute...
I GAVE AWAY THAT NAME
:(
I'll name a beer after you. Aged in Calvados barrels :worthy:
"Ed's Strange Rash" IPA
Sorta amused the Dems had to dig up an ex governor for the rebuttal. And that accent. YEESH.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 10:50:09 PM
Sorta amused the Dems had to dig up an ex governor for the rebuttal. And that accent. YEESH.
He's from the state that overwhelmingly enrolled in ACA, and overwhelmingly voted to get rid of it. Fucking moron Confederacy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2017, 10:51:54 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 10:50:09 PM
Sorta amused the Dems had to dig up an ex governor for the rebuttal. And that accent. YEESH.
He's from the state that overwhelmingly enrolled in ACA, and overwhelmingly voted to get rid of it. Fucking moron Confederacy.
He still sounded like Andy Griffith on downers.
After he said the US should adopt Canadian style immigration policies I wondered if he understood how many Syrian's we are taking in :hmm:
And what did he mean when he said he was increasing opportunities for women with the help of our PM?
We are going to steal your women.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2017, 10:51:54 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 28, 2017, 10:50:09 PM
Sorta amused the Dems had to dig up an ex governor for the rebuttal. And that accent. YEESH.
He's from the state that overwhelmingly enrolled in ACA, and overwhelmingly voted to get rid of it. Fucking moron Confederacy.
Kentucky stayed in the union.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 28, 2017, 10:54:33 PM
And what did he mean when he said he was increasing opportunities for women with the help of our PM?
He and Trudeau started some sort of Council on Chicks in the Workplace. There were pics from Trudeau's visit. Punch was served. With roofies.
Fidel is Tredeau's father.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 28, 2017, 10:56:17 PM
Kentucky stayed in the union.
I don't care if they stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night, fuck those knuckledraggers.
You need a Moon Pie and RC cola Seedy.
Banana?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2017, 11:04:18 PM
Banana?
Of course. The food of Kings and welfare recipeants.
FUCKING AUTOCORRECT
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 28, 2017, 10:54:33 PM
After he said the US should adopt Canadian style immigration policies I wondered if he understood how many Syrian's we are taking in :hmm:
can't be that many.
Anybody hear Van Jones comment after the bigly speech? The left is crucifying him for it.
(https://scontent-vie1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17021552_10212709608361588_9119314556339019981_n.jpg?oh=c3e543a0675636348637c8525110af69&oe=592D2CBE)
And to quote Will "Shut up, Wesley" Wheaton:
QuoteThis asshole manages to read a speech for an hour and suddenly he's "presidential".
Fucking idiots.
Quote from: HVC on February 28, 2017, 09:58:48 PM
Chilli infused.
What happened to choker boy anyway?
George Takei on the speech:
QuoteGeorge Takei ✔ @GeorgeTakei
You can't be "a country united against hate" when your AG is a racist, your VP attacks LGBTs, and your top advisor is a White Nationalist.
2:27 AM - 1 Mar 2017
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 28, 2017, 09:09:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 28, 2017, 09:04:32 PM
Can you imagine the conspiracy shitstorm/civil war if one of Trumps Secret Service bodyguards accidentally injured the president that way.
If you seem to recall, we had a difficult enough time with the Secret Service not protecting the President enough. But he was a negro, so it was no big deal.
JFK was a Negro? I always thought that he was Irish-American.
Pretty good analysis I think.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/the-three-failures-of-trumps-speech/518253/
Quote
The Three Failures of Trump's Speech
Glowing reviews of the president's first address to Congress miss the crucial respects in which he fell short.
David Frum
| 9:40 AM ET
President Donald Trump wore a non-sparkly tie last night. His suit fit. He seems to have upgraded his haircut too. After some initial hesitation, Trump found something positive to say about Black History Month and something negative about anti-Semitic hate crimes.
Better still, Trump worked his way through more than an hour of television without insulting or demeaning anyone. He did not mention his crowd sizes, argue about his vote margin, or attack the press. Although he again trafficked in misleading or deceptive statements, he eschewed outright lies.
Different people will have different reactions to Trump's spotlighting of a Navy SEAL's widow to immunize himself against accusations that he cavalierly and ignorantly ordered troops into a poorly considered combat mission—but clearly, many TV viewers found the moment inspiring and affecting.
These limited but real accomplishments elicited a barrage of praise from cable and social media commentators last night. Donald Trump: presidential at last!
In the light of morning, it's time for a colder review. Trump did achieve something last night, and something important. But he failed to achieve three other things that are even more important to his presidency—and those three failures will matter much more in the days ahead.
The first failure: There's still no coherent agenda.
The purpose of these joint-session speeches is not, actually, to reassure the president's base that the leader of the country is mentally well. The purpose of the speeches is to mobilize support in Congress and the country for the president's legislative plans. President George W. Bush's 2001 address argued for his tax cut. Barack Obama's in 2009 defended and advanced his recovery program.
Donald Trump omitted to do anything like that. On every one of the issues dividing House from Senate Republicans—tax reform, healthcare, immigration—Trump avoided so much as indicating a preference, let alone leading the way. His line about Israel-Palestine ("I'm looking at two-state and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like") also seems to apply to the issues before Congress: You guys sort it out.
Health care? If Obamacare is repealed, millions of people will lose Medicaid coverage, including many Trump voters in states like Ohio and Kentucky. What does the president propose to do about that? His answer is contained in one single sentence: "We should give our great state governors the resources and flexibility they need with Medicaid to make sure no one is left out."
Tax reform? Donald Trump endorsed "massive tax relief for the middle class." No such relief is offered by the various plans circulating in House and Senate. House Speaker Paul Ryan in fact is touting a "border adjustment tax" that (while an elegant solution to inefficiencies created by the present corporate income tax) would have the side effect of increasing costs of everyday goods like clothing, shoes, and consumer electronics.
Immigration? Senators Cotton and Perdue have introduced in the Senate exactly the kind of immigration reform Trump supposedly favors. Its most important feature—lowering the absolute level of immigration—went undiscussed.
Infrastructure? Trump said he would soon ask Congress for a $1 trillion public-private program. How would it work? What would it do? Why should Americans support him? All went unargued.
As Paul Ryan told Today's Matt Lauer on the morning of the speech, Trump acts more like a chairman than a president, assigning the real work of leadership to others. The trouble is, the system cannot work that way. Without presidential leadership, House and Senate Republicans cannot agree, laws will not pass, and entropy will win. The February 28 speech ominously indicated that leadership continues to be unforthcoming.
The second failure: There's still no plan to build a majority coalition to support a Trump program.
Donald Trump's fierce need for approval has disabled him from acknowledging the strategic fact of majority disapproval. Fifty-six percent disapproval is not an insurmountable obstacle. But how can a leader surmount a difficulty that he insists does not exist?
In 2001, President Bush—elected with a narrow popular vote deficit—reckoned with the enduring popularity of the Clinton economic program by promising that his tax cut would leave the essentials of that program intact. In 1993, Bill Clinton—who had won only a 43 percent plurality of the national popular vote—responded by adopting Ross Perot's concerns with debts and deficits as his own.
Donald Trump's political plan, by contrast, continues to be premised on the idea that he commands a big latent pool of public support, awaiting only activation and mobilization by him. Unlike Bush's No Child Left Behind program or Bill Clinton and his support for NAFTA and the death penalty, Trump's offer to those who did not vote for him continues to be—like Michael Corleone in The Godfather—"Nothing."
Michael Corleone had the clout to compel acceptance of that offer. Does Trump? A year from now, millions of Hillary Clinton voters may face the imminent loss of Medicaid coverage. They could be paying higher prices at Wal-Mart (thanks to Ryan's border-adjustment tax) in order to finance a tax cut for upper-income America. If Trump's hopes for rapid job and wage growth have come true, he may get away with it. But if not, he will have no answer at all to those voters' grievances, especially if they feel themselves to be on the receiving end of Trump's angry cultural politics. Numbers are not everything in American democracy. Trump's election by itself proves that. But numbers do matter, and a lot. Trump's plan to deal with the weight of numbers against him remains a long-odds gamble that this already seven-year-old economic expansion will now accelerate rather than—as history suggests—soon come to an end.
The third failure: The scandals accumulate unanswered.
It may someday seem highly symbolic that Donald Trump delivered his first joint session speech on the same evening that his sons Don Jr. and Eric, and daughter Tiffany, had traveled out of the country to open the Trump family's newest hotel: a project build and financed by the son of a Malaysian plutocrat with a criminal record.
Suspicions of ethical violations and foreign-espionage penetration overshadow the Trump presidency. On the Monday before Trump's big speech, Sean Spicer expressed angry frustration at the refusal of the press to accept Trump's pledged word for it that there was "no there there" to the Russia connection story. By now, of course, no self-respecting journalist accepts Donald Trump's unsubstantiated word for anything—or Sean Spicer's, either.
Last night would have been the perfect occasion to call for an independent inquiry to vindicate Trump from unfair insinuations that his team colluded with Russian espionage to sway the 2016 election. If Donald Trump were conscientious, last night would have been a magnificent opportunity to review progress toward disentangling himself from the Trump business and erecting the ethical firewall his team again and again have promised to the American people.
But here, too, the gamble is: Plunge ahead and hope that nothing too damaging comes to light. Through his long business career of big risks, big failures, and big recoveries, that gambling instinct has propelled Donald Trump forward. It makes sense that he manages his presidency the same way. But never before has he faced such dangerous consequences if his gamble goes wrong. And this time, the people who will pay such consequences are not only Donald Trump's unfortunate investors, lenders, suppliers, and workers—but the whole of this great nation and its truest friends abroad.
Quote from: dps on March 01, 2017, 06:42:45 PM
JFK was a Negro? I always thought that he was Irish-American.
Worse. Catholic.
trump gives democrats something they've wanted for years, additional infrastructure and rehabilitation for drug addicts, and people still find a way to criticize him for it
Quote from: LaCroix on March 01, 2017, 08:22:31 PM
trump gives democrats something they've wanted for years, additional infrastructure and rehabilitation for drug addicts, and people still find a way to criticize him for it
To my recollection, the administration hasn't put forward a detailed plan for the supposed $1 trillion infrastructure plan. You may be more informed than I am on this subject. Could you explain, in detail, what it is?
no, trump stated his vision and left others to implement it, like all presidents to a degree. we should have the plan out at some point in the future.
:(
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/03/01/the-pundits-are-wrong-trumps-handling-of-the-ryan-owens-affair-was-contemptibly-cynical/?utm_term=.a1783a4a4a54
Quote
The pundits are wrong. Trump's handling of the Ryan Owens affair was contemptibly cynical.
By Paul Waldman
March 1 at 1:06 PM
After President Trump's first address to Congress last night, journalists and pundits were effusive in their praise of one particular moment, when Trump talked about Ryan Owens, the Navy SEAL killed in the disastrous raid of an al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) compound in Yemen that Trump ordered in late January.
"It was without a doubt one of the most kind of emotional moments we have seen in a political speech like this in quite some time," said Anderson Cooper. "That was one of the most extraordinary moments you have ever seen in American politics, period," said Van Jones. The Washington Times called it "the most riveting piece of political theater" and claimed that "the president's critics and supporters alike admired it."
Sorry — no. Was that moment, with Owens's widow in attendance, moving and sad? Absolutely. It was also one of the most cynical things Donald Trump has done as president.
The problem isn't that Trump honored Carryn Owens at a moment of terrible grief, or that he spoke movingly of her husband's death. All that was altogether appropriate. Rather, the problem is that he did this after trying to evade any responsibility for what happened, and after the White House cast any criticism of his handling of it as an insult to Ryan's legacy. In this sense, the entire story raises serious doubts about Trump's decision-making on matters of national security, and it may be a grim preview of what's to come.
Let's review the facts. The Yemen raid on Jan. 29 was the first military action of Trump's presidency. The idea for raiding this compound, partly in pursuit of the leader of AQAP leader (who wasn't there) was presented to Trump over dinner one night, and according to NBC News, military representatives "told Trump that they doubted that the Obama administration would have been bold enough to try it," which was apparently good enough to get him to sign off.
Then almost everything that could go wrong did go wrong. The militants knew they were coming, possibly tipped off by the increased sound of drones in the area. The team encountered stronger resistance than it expected. A couple of dozen civilians were killed (we don't know exactly how many, but it could be as many as 30), including children, among them an 8-year-old American girl. Owens was killed. A $75 million Osprey aircraft was damaged in a "hard landing" and had to be destroyed lest it fall into AQAP's hands.
We all know that if it had been Hillary Clinton who ordered the Yemen raid, there would already be multiple congressional investigations underway and subpoenas would be falling like rain. That's one thing the White House doesn't have to worry about. But they decided that the way to handle questions about the botched raid was to use Ryan Owens as a shield. The raid was a terrific success, said spokesman Sean Spicer, and "anyone that would suggest it's not a success does a disservice to the life of Chief Ryan Owens."
But the questions, and the criticisms, kept coming, most pointedly from Owens' father, himself a veteran. "Don't hide behind my son's death," Bill Owens told the Miami Herald, after refusing to meet with President Trump at Dover Air Force Base.
That brings us to the day of Trump's speech to Congress. With Carryn Owens invited to the speech and the tribute to her husband being written, the President went on "Fox and Friends" that morning and passed the buck for the raid, blaming it on the Obama administration and the military. "This was a mission that was started before I got here. This was something they wanted to do," he said. "They came to see me, they explained what they wanted to do ― the generals ― who are very respected, my generals are the most respected that we've had in many decades, I believe. And they lost Ryan."
Once again, imagine if Hillary Clinton were president, had ordered an operation that went terribly wrong, and then tried to blame it on the military. Republicans would have absolutely lost their minds with rage, and they would have been right. When you're president, you don't get to send American servicemembers into harm's way in an operation you obviously didn't understand, and then when it all goes wrong and one of those servicemembers is killed, claim that it was somebody else's fault.
Then that very night, Trump went before the country, looked Owens' widow in the face, and presented a tribute to her husband's undeniable service and courage. As the applause went on and Carryn Owens stood weeping, Trump offered what in the tiny, narcissistic world he exists in is the highest form of praise: "And Ryan is looking down, right now, you know that. And he's very happy, because I think he just broke a record," referring to the length of the ovation.
What exactly is that supposed to mean? Owens set the "Longest Applause for Dead Servicemember In Joint Speech to Congress" record? What kind of person could possibly think that would matter to anyone? Oh, right — Donald Trump would.
There are legitimate, outstanding questions about whether Trump's inexperience, his ignorance, and his desire to seem "tough" — in particular, tougher than Barack Obama — led to Ryan Owens' death. A president not as spectacularly unprepared and clueless as Trump might have asked a different set of questions, might not have been so easily manipulated — and certainly would have shown some desire to learn from the tragedy.
But Trump seems determined not to learn a thing. All we've heard from him and his aides in the month since the disastrous raid was what a great success it was (despite the fact that at least some reports say that the raid produced little if any useful intelligence). So what happens next time, and the time after that?
When a president makes the decision to send American troops into potentially deadly situations, he has to weigh the risks involved against the potential benefits, which requires knowledge, foresight, and some analytical capability, none of which Trump demonstrates possessing in the slightest. He also needs to consider how he'll deal with failure if it occurs.
Nearly every recent president, Democrat and Republican, has faced that moment of going before the public and saying, "I ordered this operation, and it failed. It's on me." But Trump, as we well know, is incapable of taking responsibility. He had his first chance, and his answer was to blame it on the military, then use the sacrifice of a dead SEAL and his widow for his own benefit.
So maybe it's not the time to gush about what good theater it all was.
Actually that article fails to make the case that it wasn't good theater. After all, while distasteful, something can still be good theater if it distracts.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 01, 2017, 09:21:01 PM
no, trump stated his vision and left others to implement it, like all presidents to a degree. we should have the plan out at some point in the future.
So, he has done what Obama did. Does he not understand that repeating the same action expecting a different outcome is the definition of stupid? This is a Republican congress we are talking about. They need leadership from their own party if they are going to be convinced that destroying America is not their mandate.
did obama do it with a democratic or republican congress? if the former, this is a republican congress, if the latter, the republican congress wasn't going to listen to obama
trump gives Republicans something they've wanted for years, additional infrastructure, and Congress still hasn't passed it.
Still waiting for the plan Trump has to infallibly defeat ISIS quickly and cheaply. People are dying while he dawdles.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 01, 2017, 08:22:31 PM
trump gives democrats something they've wanted for years, additional infrastructure and rehabilitation for drug addicts, and people still find a way to criticize him for it
Which of the whopping four bills he's signed would that be again? https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation
give it some time
Quote from: LaCroix on March 02, 2017, 03:53:58 PM
give it some time
How much? Given his ability to do basic budgetary math, by my count, I should give him -3.5 years, right?
I dunno, let's start with six months
He said he would have ISIS defeated in a month. Why should we give him six?
I don't think he should be held accountable to claims that are obviously ridiculous
Quote from: LaCroix on March 02, 2017, 06:46:35 PM
I don't think he should be held accountable to claims that are obviously ridiculous
You're really pushing it tonight, trollkins. Quite frankly, I really don't care what the Euros, Canadians and pussies think about how OH NOES BANNING IS BAD, you're just being a monumental fucking dick, and your ignorant ass posts are wasting bandwidth.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2017, 07:25:54 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 02, 2017, 06:46:35 PM
I don't think he should be held accountable to claims that are obviously ridiculous
You're really pushing it tonight, trollkins. Quite frankly, I really don't care what the Euros, Canadians and pussies think about how OH NOES BANNING IS BAD, you're just being a monumental fucking dick, and your ignorant ass posts are wasting bandwidth.
Cue the french designer telling you that if he's a trollkins, you are a trollkins.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 02, 2017, 07:25:54 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 02, 2017, 06:46:35 PM
I don't think he should be held accountable to claims that are obviously ridiculous
You're really pushing it tonight, trollkins. Quite frankly, I really don't care what the Euros, Canadians and pussies think about how OH NOES BANNING IS BAD, you're just being a monumental fucking dick, and your ignorant ass posts are wasting bandwidth.
Seedy: Prepare the bees(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-EfqCRNRr_40%2FVC6d4QWNpUI%2FAAAAAAAAMFY%2FVwXv668On6M%2Fs1600%2FWICKER-MAN.gif&hash=a269b6f9371fa5da23adac1f6d413b640c5db552)
Quote from: LaCroix on March 02, 2017, 06:46:35 PM
I don't think he should be held accountable to claims that are obviously ridiculous
Of course you don't. Sane people do, though. Trump doesn't get to say stupid things without accountability just because he is stupid.
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2017, 03:20:25 PM
Still waiting for the plan Trump has to infallibly defeat ISIS quickly and cheaply. People are dying while he dawdles.
Bastard hasn't cured cancer either. <_<
Quote from: citizen k on March 01, 2017, 01:36:36 PM
Anybody hear Van Jones comment after the bigly speech? The left is crucifying him for it.
Van Jones is a charismatic individual.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 02, 2017, 08:21:37 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2017, 03:20:25 PM
Still waiting for the plan Trump has to infallibly defeat ISIS quickly and cheaply. People are dying while he dawdles.
Bastard hasn't cured cancer either. <_<
When did he promise to do that? Or are you just throwing out
non sequiturs to try to hide the fact that Trump on the campaign trail promised that he had a secret infallible plan to defeat ISIS quickly and cheaply?
Maybe he should consider delegating ISIS to Russia and Assad.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 02, 2017, 06:46:35 PM
I don't think he should be held accountable to claims that are obviously ridiculous
Is there
anything he should be held accountable for? Are there
any legitimate grounds to criticize or dislike Trump?
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2017, 09:55:38 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 02, 2017, 08:21:37 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2017, 03:20:25 PM
Still waiting for the plan Trump has to infallibly defeat ISIS quickly and cheaply. People are dying while he dawdles.
Bastard hasn't cured cancer either. <_<
When did he promise to do that? Or are you just throwing out non sequiturs to try to hide the fact that Trump on the campaign trail promised that he had a secret infallible plan to defeat ISIS quickly and cheaply?
You really are not good at interpreting motives, maybe you should stop. Lord knows you bitch and moan when others do it to you.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 02, 2017, 11:15:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2017, 09:55:38 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 02, 2017, 08:21:37 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2017, 03:20:25 PM
Still waiting for the plan Trump has to infallibly defeat ISIS quickly and cheaply. People are dying while he dawdles.
Bastard hasn't cured cancer either. <_<
When did he promise to do that? Or are you just throwing out non sequiturs to try to hide the fact that Trump on the campaign trail promised that he had a secret infallible plan to defeat ISIS quickly and cheaply?
You really are not good at interpreting motives, maybe you should stop. Lord knows you bitch and moan when others do it to you.
I take it from this
non sequitur response that you again have no intellectual response to my question.
Trump is full of shit. This is not news to anyone.
The point of bringing up the cure for cancer is that it's about as plausible as his top secret Isis plan.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 03, 2017, 12:49:08 PM
Trump is full of shit. This is not news to anyone.
The point of bringing up the cure for cancer is that it's about as plausible as his top secret Isis plan.
So you think that we should be as mad over him not curing cancer as we are about him lying about a plan to defeat ISIS in order to garner a few more votes?
Nothing about Trump was plausible, and yet people voted for him anyway. His supporters doesn't get to escape from responsibility for his lies by claiming that his lies were never plausible.
It was a wry joke. Get mad at him over whatever you like.
grumbler is also joking
Quote from: LaCroix on March 03, 2017, 05:40:54 PM
grumbler is also joking
I thought he was admitting he was wrong. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2017, 10:09:46 PMIs there anything he should be held accountable for? Are there any legitimate grounds to criticize or dislike Trump?
thinking of things that all of america, not a segment, would think bad :hmm: it's a little early to tell.
cozying up to russia wasn't good of him. I suspect he's learned his lesson on that. people on his team using private email accounts, etc., doesn't sound good, but I haven't read up on those, so I don't know the context if there is any. those are off the top of my head.
(edit) with the latter, I don't know if those reports are merely people using private emails or if it's anywhere similar to the hillary scandal.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 03, 2017, 05:47:18 PM
thinking of things that all of america, not a segment, would think bad :hmm: it's a little early to tell.
cozying up to russia wasn't good of him. I suspect he's learned his lesson on that. people on his team using private email accounts, etc., doesn't sound good, but I haven't read up on those, so I don't know the context if there is any. those are off the top of my head.
(edit) with the latter, I don't know if those reports are merely people using private emails or if it's anywhere similar to the hillary scandal.
Wait a minute. I ask you if there are any legitimate grounds to criticize him, and your answer is that so far there is nothing that
all of America agrees is bad? That's what you think legitimate criticism is? :huh: