Politics And Current Events
-
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:57 pm
Politics And Current Events
I have about 40 mins left in the speech. I always loved how it’s an applause gallery on one side and not on the other based on which party the president is in. IMO it’s one of those things that’s just tongue in cheek at this point.
So far though if you take out the applause and glad handing, this speech (and any state of the union) might be 15 mins long. I would prefer a transcript be put online immediately after to cut out the pomp and circumstance.
So far though if you take out the applause and glad handing, this speech (and any state of the union) might be 15 mins long. I would prefer a transcript be put online immediately after to cut out the pomp and circumstance.
-
- Posts: 35741
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
- Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
- Contact:
Politics And Current Events
How about just don’t do it anymore. It’s basically a campaign speech for a president running again or victory lap if not.
Politics And Current Events
I remember that in my American History class we had to do a report on the SOTU address (Clinton's final one) and I think I got to 40 stand ovations before I stopped counting. It was dumb. And it was the one side and not the other as you pointed out. Also dumb.I have about 40 mins left in the speech. I always loved how it’s an applause gallery on one side and not on the other based on which party the president is in. IMO it’s one of those things that’s just tongue in cheek at this point.
So far though if you take out the applause and glad handing, this speech (and any state of the union) might be 15 mins long. I would prefer a transcript be put online immediately after to cut out the pomp and circumstance.
-
- Posts: 35313
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
- Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry
Politics And Current Events
We didn't do it for a long time until the Fascist and by far the worst President ever, Woodrow Wilson, decided that instead of just sending a letter, as Washington had done, he would give a Beer Hall Putsch speech to Congress in 1913.How about just don’t do it anymore. It’s basically a campaign speech for a president running again or victory lap if not.
-
- Posts: 35741
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:06 pm
- Location: All things must pass. With six you get eggroll. No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
- Contact:
Politics And Current Events
Beer Hall Putsch is such a great name for such a terrible thing... it's unfortunate really.
-
- Posts: 27631
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm
Politics And Current Events
TIL I learned that Glenn Beck and Paul Ryan routinely dodint about Woodrow Wilson, lol.
-
- Posts: 27631
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm
Politics And Current Events
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ism-213388
Clearly racist, but was progressive. The latter being the actual problem.
Clearly racist, but was progressive. The latter being the actual problem.
-
- Posts: 35313
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
- Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry
Politics And Current Events
Saying Woodrow Wilson's "actual problem" was his "progressivism" is like saying the biggest issue with cancer is that your hair falls out.https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ism-213388
Clearly racist, but was progressive. The latter being the actual problem.
-
- Posts: 35313
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
- Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry
Politics And Current Events
3 SOTU Thoughts:
1. Why do the VP and Speaker even need copies of the speech? Why can't they just listen to it like every other member of Congress?
2. Can we end the "special guests"? Every person that gets introduced just drags the whole thing out longer than it needs to be.
3. How refreshing would it be to hear a President start their speech by telling Congress to stay seated and hold applause until the end? Maybe just inform everyone how we're doing and what we need to improve and end the speech in about 20 minutes.
1. Why do the VP and Speaker even need copies of the speech? Why can't they just listen to it like every other member of Congress?
2. Can we end the "special guests"? Every person that gets introduced just drags the whole thing out longer than it needs to be.
3. How refreshing would it be to hear a President start their speech by telling Congress to stay seated and hold applause until the end? Maybe just inform everyone how we're doing and what we need to improve and end the speech in about 20 minutes.
Last edited by Nuge on Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 19483
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:02 pm
- Location: Monroeville, PA
Politics And Current Events
So obviously Trump is getting acquitted. It seems no republicans at all are crossing lines. It seems though a few democrats may vote to acquit. If that happens does that just make them look like fools at this point. Not only did you not sway anyone (which was unlikely), but a few people in your own party actually voted to acquit.
-
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:57 pm
Politics And Current Events
Subscribe? Da fuq WSJ.
Politics And Current Events
It was Jefferson who began the letter-only campaign (Washington and Adams both delivered their letters-as-addresses in person), and there have been fewer than 200 in-person speeches. But yes I agree and think it would be better if they skipped the theatrics altogether. But in the age of live TV, I don't think that's ever likely to be a thing again.We didn't do it for a long time until the Fascist and by far the worst President ever, Woodrow Wilson, decided that instead of just sending a letter, as Washington had done, he would give a Beer Hall Putsch speech to Congress in 1913.How about just don’t do it anymore. It’s basically a campaign speech for a president running again or victory lap if not.
Politics And Current Events
imo the best course was to drag it out and get the subpeonas dragged in court. They thought it'd make an impact in the news, but then you have people who didn't even know Mayor Pete was gay, getting upset because they voted for him, and he was gay.So obviously Trump is getting acquitted. It seems no republicans at all are crossing lines. It seems though a few democrats may vote to acquit. If that happens does that just make them look like fools at this point. Not only did you not sway anyone (which was unlikely), but a few people in your own party actually voted to acquit.
Politics And Current Events
It's all contextual imo. I don't think they ever pursued this with the intent of changing hearts and minds in the Senate, but if getting this information out into the public sphere can influence voters... and we can argue the merits of that - impeachment as electoral politics - from now until November.So obviously Trump is getting acquitted. It seems no republicans at all are crossing lines. It seems though a few democrats may vote to acquit. If that happens does that just make them look like fools at this point. Not only did you not sway anyone (which was unlikely), but a few people in your own party actually voted to acquit.
Clinton had 10 Republicans vote to acquit on one of his articles, and I think 4 or 5 on the other. And that impeachment was initiated and voted on during the lame duck session of 1998, and the trial taking place at the outset of the incoming Congress in 1999.
-
- Posts: 35313
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
- Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry
Politics And Current Events
Doug Jones did the politically smart thing. He's going to lose in November no matter what as the GOP is not going to run a child molester this time.
Voting to convict at least gives him a plausible line to the political analyst grifter game.
Voting to convict at least gives him a plausible line to the political analyst grifter game.
-
- Posts: 27631
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm
Politics And Current Events
I think that the House was afraid what would happen if this intra-branch fight went to the SCOTUS. What if this group of partisan justices ruled that congress doesn't have the authority to compel documents and testimony from the executive branch? Could have basically removed any oversight powers. As Shyster has pointed out, that is not something defined in the constitution or anything, the convenient orginalists could have used that to justify siding with the admin.imo the best course was to drag it out and get the subpeonas dragged in court. They thought it'd make an impact in the news, but then you have people who didn't even know Mayor Pete was gay, getting upset because they voted for him, and he was gay.So obviously Trump is getting acquitted. It seems no republicans at all are crossing lines. It seems though a few democrats may vote to acquit. If that happens does that just make them look like fools at this point. Not only did you not sway anyone (which was unlikely), but a few people in your own party actually voted to acquit.
The long term view here is, I assume, that this will be the last time the country elects a transparently corrupt executive who's borderline actions in varying arenas requires them to conceal everything they can.
-
- Posts: 27631
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm
Politics And Current Events
Public opinion was also like 70%+ against impeachment. With Trump it's 50/50.It's all contextual imo. I don't think they ever pursued this with the intent of changing hearts and minds in the Senate, but if getting this information out into the public sphere can influence voters... and we can argue the merits of that - impeachment as electoral politics - from now until November.So obviously Trump is getting acquitted. It seems no republicans at all are crossing lines. It seems though a few democrats may vote to acquit. If that happens does that just make them look like fools at this point. Not only did you not sway anyone (which was unlikely), but a few people in your own party actually voted to acquit.
Clinton had 10 Republicans vote to acquit on one of his articles, and I think 4 or 5 on the other. And that impeachment was initiated and voted on during the lame duck session of 1998, and the trial taking place at the outset of the incoming Congress in 1999.
Politics And Current Events
In regards to the last thought, I think you're underestimating general population.I think that the House was afraid what would happen if this intra-branch fight went to the SCOTUS. What if this group of partisan justices ruled that congress doesn't have the authority to compel documents and testimony from the executive branch? Could have basically removed any oversight powers. As Shyster has pointed out, that is not something defined in the constitution or anything, the convenient orginalists could have used that to justify siding with the admin.imo the best course was to drag it out and get the subpeonas dragged in court. They thought it'd make an impact in the news, but then you have people who didn't even know Mayor Pete was gay, getting upset because they voted for him, and he was gay.So obviously Trump is getting acquitted. It seems no republicans at all are crossing lines. It seems though a few democrats may vote to acquit. If that happens does that just make them look like fools at this point. Not only did you not sway anyone (which was unlikely), but a few people in your own party actually voted to acquit.
The long term view here is, I assume, that this will be the last time the country elects a transparently corrupt executive who's borderline actions in varying arenas requires them to conceal everything they can.
To the first part - that's being decided anyways when it comes to the tax cases. They're a few major decisions away from allowing sitting presidents to hide their tax returns, and Trump's DOJ argued that asking for them is nothing more than presidential harassment and it's unconstitutional at the state and executive level. There's a very real possibility that they side with Trump, and then the corruption doors are completely gone and off the hinges at that point.
-
- Posts: 27631
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:03 pm
Politics And Current Events
That's different from the tax returns, I believe they are requesting information prior to him becoming president. Taking the impeachment subpoenas to the supreme court could challenge the authority of congress to compel any executive agency to adhere to legislative oversight.
To the first part - that's being decided anyways when it comes to the tax cases. They're a few major decisions away from allowing sitting presidents to hide their tax returns, and Trump's DOJ argued that asking for them is nothing more than presidential harassment and it's unconstitutional at the state and executive level. There's a very real possibility that they side with Trump, and then the corruption doors are completely gone and off the hinges at that point.
-
- Posts: 35313
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
- Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry
Politics And Current Events
Kind of like "Rage Against the Machine"Beer Hall Putsch is such a great name for such a terrible thing... it's unfortunate really.
-
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:57 pm
Politics And Current Events
Just saw Wendy Bell pandering to her lowest common denominator. Yikes.
Politics And Current Events
Source of the post Wendy Bell
-
- Posts: 8988
- Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:02 am
Politics And Current Events
She is cray. Everywhere she goes, trouble followsJust saw Wendy Bell pandering to her lowest common denominator. Yikes.