(02-05-2020 12:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Upon reflection, I find it heartening that some posters on here appear to be rather offended or piqued at Pelosi and the Dems for how they acted at the SOTU - sitting down/not applauding, tearing up a speech, etc.
They too have been furious at Trump for all of his actions over the past few years, and understand exactly why his actions, and the embrace of Trump by the Republican party has pushed voters away from them.
I wouldn't say I was offended. But my first thought was the mirror image of yours - I wonder what Democrats who have made such a big deal of Trump's bad behavior will think of less-than-polite behavior on the part of some of their icons?
Now I know. They will defend it.
This is totally partisan both ways. Democrats who railed at a representative for yelling "liar" during one of Obama's SOTU speeches (and IIRC he was lying at the time) see nothing wrong with Nancy's antics. Vice versa for republicans. As long as the standard of behavior remains governed by partisan considerations on both sides, it will just get worse.
Quite frankly, I think we need to have a version of the UK's Prime Minister's Questions, where all rules of propriety are kind of thrown out the window and you get to be as rude and ugly as you like. Let off steam with than, and then maybe it would be easier to work in a more honorable way the rest of the time.
On the one hand, I hate the visuals of partisan rancor. On the other hand, given what both parties are proposing, I strongly favor gridlock. I don't want either one's ideas to be implemented. So the longer they stay too angry at each other to get anything done, the better.
Reps. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., all reacted with apparent endorsements of Pelosi's actions. While the House speaker drew criticism from Republicans, Tlaib -- who walked out mid-speech -- said she would have gone even further.
Pressley was a no-show at the event but retweeted an enthusiastic post from her policy adviser Lynese Wallace.
Despite her absence at the State of the Union, Pressley delivered the official response from the Working Families Party, accusing Trump and his administration of "racist, xenophobic, hateful rhetoric."
(02-05-2020 12:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Upon reflection, I find it heartening that some posters on here appear to be rather offended or piqued at Pelosi and the Dems for how they acted at the SOTU - sitting down/not applauding, tearing up a speech, etc.
They too have been furious at Trump for all of his actions over the past few years, and understand exactly why his actions, and the embrace of Trump by the Republican party has pushed voters away from them.
I wouldn't say I was offended. But my first thought was the mirror image of yours - I wonder what Democrats who have made such a big deal of Trump's bad behavior will think of less-than-polite behavior on the part of some of their icons?
Now I know. They will defend it.
This is totally partisan both ways. Democrats who railed at a representative for yelling "liar" during one of Obama's SOTU speeches (and IIRC he was lying at the time) see nothing wrong with Nancy's antics. Vice versa for republicans. As long as the standard of behavior remains governed by partisan considerations on both sides, it will just get worse.
Quite frankly, I think we need to have a version of the UK's Prime Minister's Questions, where all rules of propriety are kind of thrown out the window and you get to be as rude and ugly as you like. Let off steam with than, and then maybe it would be easier to work in a more honorable way the rest of the time.
On the one hand, I hate the visuals of partisan rancor. On the other hand, given what both parties are proposing, I strongly favor gridlock. I don't want either one's ideas to be implemented. So the longer they stay too angry at each other to get anything done, the better.
Actually I did find the back bencher yelling 'liar' reprehensible. Obama *was* lying, but the SOTU isnt the province for the yelling ---
But then again Obama slammed the SCOTUS at that same SOTU, iirc, with another brazen faced lie.
Getting back to the guy who yelled 'liar' -- he *was* reprimanded by the House for his action; rightfully so. And, Pelosi substantially raised the bar on this one, yet somehow our fair-feathered friends on left seemingly look to the action of Rep. Wilson as congruence.
Members of Congress from both parties condemned that outburst. "Totally disrespectful", said Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) of Wilson's utterance. "No place for it in that setting or any other and he should apologize immediately." Wilson then apologized.
On September 15, the House approved a "resolution of disapproval" against Wilson, on 240–179 vote almost exactly along party lines, when Wilson refused to apologize a second time.
So no, these are not equivalent at this point. Not in the gd slightest.
Over the past few election cycles I’ve been more fascinated by the “process” than the actual issues. I really think that at this point, the process matters more.
After each election cycle the party out of power begins to build their case for defeating the other party. Formerly, there was a lot more discussion of the issues. Now the process takes center stage in the form of innuendo, insult, slights and flat out lying. It acts like a coiled spring. It’s always been that way. All the way back to the early 19th century. But worse now.
This coiled spring has gotten tighter and tighter with each election cycle. So, now when a new party comes to power we get executive orders instead of compromise. Ignoring laws. Active hostility toward settled laws. And using impeachment as a bludgeon. And I’m talking about the Bush, Clinton, Obama and Trump administrations.
So, when the new party comes to power in one or four years, unless the approach changes, you can count on a coiled spring seismic shift to the left. With all of the lack of civility that has been displayed by the previous administrations. No immigration reform, no rational talk about firearm violence, no entitlement reform, no medical coverage discussions.
The future looks bleak to me. Not because of the issues. Because of the process
(02-05-2020 12:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Could you imagine the uproar if Paul Ryan had overtly ripped up an Obama SOTU address?
Could you imagine the uproar if Obama had refused to shake John Boehner or Paul Ryan's hand? I don't think Pelosi should have ripped Trump's speech in half. I think it was in bad taste and disrespected the office. I also don't think Trump should have refused to shake her hand before the speech. I think it was in bad taste and disrespected the office. I also think giving a medal to Limbaugh, a very divisive figure, in the middle of the speech was in bad taste and disrespected the purpose of the state of the union.
(02-05-2020 12:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Granted the SOTU is grand acting, but the petulant attitude by Pelosi was strangely in line and echoed the stony silence of the Democrats. I mean, did you see the jerks just sit there like rocks when Trump noted the unemployment figures? I guess they dont like low unemployment. Pelosi's act just capped it off wonderfully.
They sat because Trump spent a significant portion of the address attacking Obama's handling of the economy while patting himself on the back. In reality, most economic trends were very steady the last 5-6 years of Obama's presidency and have continued for 3 years under Trump.
(02-04-2020 10:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Yes it was a deal. He traded flexibility in negotiations for time to help his election. A clear quid pro quo.
The concessions he was talking about when he said he could be more flexible.
More flexible in what? Yoga?
This intentional denseness is getting old. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Here we have a true quid pro quo. Something for something, and it was in furtherance of his election.
But it was OK, since he is a Democrat. Go Team!!! Beat Other-team!!!! We're different!! We're better!!! Only the other-team commits fouls!!!!
Be fair, Big.
He traded flexibility for time? What does that even mean? Trump was trying to trade hundreds of millions dollars in aid and a personal meeting with him for the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. That is concrete, easy to understand, and was against US foreign policy as it had been communicated throughout the federal government. If you told me that Obama gave up something concrete, then maybe I would be with you. If I had a compelling reason to believe "time" was against US foreign policy interests, then maybe I would be with you. Feel free to explain those, I will read your response and give it consideration.
(02-04-2020 10:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Yes it was a deal. He traded flexibility in negotiations for time to help his election. A clear quid pro quo.
The concessions he was talking about when he said he could be more flexible.
More flexible in what? Yoga?
This intentional denseness is getting old. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Here we have a true quid pro quo. Something for something, and it was in furtherance of his election.
But it was OK, since he is a Democrat. Go Team!!! Beat Other-team!!!! We're different!! We're better!!! Only the other-team commits fouls!!!!
Be fair, Big.
He traded flexibility for time? What does that even mean? Trump was trying to trade hundreds of millions dollars in aid and a personal meeting with him for the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. That is concrete, easy to understand, and was against US foreign policy as it had been communicated throughout the federal government. If you told me that Obama gave up something concrete, then maybe I would be with you. If I had a compelling reason to believe "time" was against US foreign policy interests, then maybe I would be with you. Feel free to explain those, I will read your response and give it consideration.
Not everything people trade is tangible.
Read any bill of sale. Find the words "good and valuable consideration".
Doesn't have to be cash. The time to conduct the election without having to explain concessions to the Russians had value to Obama.
Did Obama receive anything of value to him? Yes. If it wasn't valuable to him, he wouldn't need to ask.
Did Obama give up something in return? Apparently the
Russians thought that his flexibility was well worth their wait. Or is it your position that the Russians were just doing a favor for a friend?
Same as the old " I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today".
More so, both sides on the Obama deal got their "quid". Completed deal. Trump didn't get his quid(an investigation), and Ukraine got their aid.
I still would like to see an investigation into the Bidens. Why don't Democrats want an investigation? See if you can find an excuse that doesn't sound hollow or hypocritical.
(02-05-2020 12:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Could you imagine the uproar if Paul Ryan had overtly ripped up an Obama SOTU address?
Could you imagine the uproar if Obama had refused to shake John Boehner or Paul Ryan's hand? I don't think Pelosi should have ripped Trump's speech in half. I think it was in bad taste and disrespected the office. I also don't think Trump should have refused to shake her hand before the speech. I think it was in bad taste and disrespected the office. I also think giving a medal to Limbaugh, a very divisive figure, in the middle of the speech was in bad taste and disrespected the purpose of the state of the union.
(02-05-2020 12:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Granted the SOTU is grand acting, but the petulant attitude by Pelosi was strangely in line and echoed the stony silence of the Democrats. I mean, did you see the jerks just sit there like rocks when Trump noted the unemployment figures? I guess they dont like low unemployment. Pelosi's act just capped it off wonderfully.
They sat because Trump spent a significant portion of the address attacking Obama's handling of the economy while patting himself on the back. In reality, most economic trends were very steady the last 5-6 years of Obama's presidency and have continued for 3 years under Trump.
So when *you* dont agree with someone they are tagged as 'divisive'. Got it. Lolz.
And funny, I will bet you again, dollars to donuts, when economic trends roll negative you will be the *first* to lay them at the feet of President --- that is one with an R by their name.
I guess that having a ginormously low unemployment is divisive? Not worthy of being commended?
(02-05-2020 12:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Granted the SOTU is grand acting, but the petulant attitude by Pelosi was strangely in line and echoed the stony silence of the Democrats. I mean, did you see the jerks just sit there like rocks when Trump noted the unemployment figures? I guess they dont like low unemployment. Pelosi's act just capped it off wonderfully.
They sat because Trump spent a significant portion of the address attacking Obama's handling of the economy while patting himself on the back. In reality, most economic trends were very steady the last 5-6 years of Obama's presidency and have continued for 3 years under Trump.
Presidents always take far too much credit and receive far too much blame for economic statistics. Modern economies are big, complicated, full of lags, and widely misunderstood; about the best I ever hope for with any President or Congress is that they will not try too hard to screw it up. For that very reason, the clunkiness of the American legislative process and the resilience of a free economy are inestimable saving graces.
(02-05-2020 12:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Granted the SOTU is grand acting, but the petulant attitude by Pelosi was strangely in line and echoed the stony silence of the Democrats. I mean, did you see the jerks just sit there like rocks when Trump noted the unemployment figures? I guess they dont like low unemployment. Pelosi's act just capped it off wonderfully.
They sat because Trump spent a significant portion of the address attacking Obama's handling of the economy while patting himself on the back. In reality, most economic trends were very steady the last 5-6 years of Obama's presidency and have continued for 3 years under Trump.
Presidents always take far too much credit and receive far too much blame for economic statistics. Modern economies are big, complicated, full of lags, and widely misunderstood; about the best I ever hope for with any President or Congress is that they will not try too hard to screw it up. For that very reason, the clunkiness of the American legislative process and the resilience of a free economy are inestimable saving graces.
Presidents = quarterbacks.
Still, I don't want to bench the guy winning the games in favor of somebody whose best asset is politeness.
(This post was last modified: 02-05-2020 04:26 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
(02-05-2020 12:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Granted the SOTU is grand acting, but the petulant attitude by Pelosi was strangely in line and echoed the stony silence of the Democrats. I mean, did you see the jerks just sit there like rocks when Trump noted the unemployment figures? I guess they dont like low unemployment. Pelosi's act just capped it off wonderfully.
They sat because Trump spent a significant portion of the address attacking Obama's handling of the economy while patting himself on the back. In reality, most economic trends were very steady the last 5-6 years of Obama's presidency and have continued for 3 years under Trump.
Presidents always take far too much credit and receive far too much blame for economic statistics. Modern economies are big, complicated, full of lags, and widely misunderstood; about the best I ever hope for with any President or Congress is that they will not try too hard to screw it up. For that very reason, the clunkiness of the American legislative process and the resilience of a free economy are inestimable saving graces.
Too bad the ideals of a free economy are anathema to one side in the political debate on this.
+1 on your first sentence.
And kudos to Trump for not doing what has happened numerous times in my lifetime -- getting in the way. But, dont anyone fing dare clap for that....
I find the state of the union addresses to be almost unwatchable. I tried to watch all of Obama's and Bush's and Trump's and I usually turn them off. I think Congress should pass a law or something to stop the ridiculous ovations that occur 500 times during each one. Drives me crazy just listening to people clap every few sentences.
In other news, Paul Ryan didn't clap during Obama's recitation of good economic news during the 2016 state of the union, which included low unemployment. I'm sure everyone was super upset about it. I didn't care. Go to 10:38 in the video if it doesn't go there automatically.
Interestingly, if you listen to these 1-2 minutes of Obama's 2014 state of the union (go to 2:24 in the video if it doesn't do it automatically), it sounded a lot like Trump's positive economic report from last night (with the obvious exception that Obama didn't spend his time during the state of the union blaming W Bush for the recession). Kind of proves the democratic point that Trump inherited a pretty decent economy from Obama.
(This post was last modified: 02-05-2020 05:41 PM by mrbig.)
Yeah, never, not once in 8 years, did Obama ever refer to the mess he inherited.
Whatever Trump inherited from Obama, he has taken to new heights, as evidence by the Dow, unemployment, wages , and a lot of other indicators of economic goodness.
BTW, Dow back to over 29K today. gas down to $1.88. Good thing gas is cheap - a lot of people drive to work.
(This post was last modified: 02-05-2020 04:50 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
(02-05-2020 04:03 PM)mrbig Wrote: They sat because Trump spent a significant portion of the address attacking Obama's handling of the economy while patting himself on the back. In reality, most economic trends were very steady the last 5-6 years of Obama's presidency and have continued for 3 years under Trump.
Presidents always take far too much credit and receive far too much blame for economic statistics. Modern economies are big, complicated, full of lags, and widely misunderstood;
I agree and I was trying to make a similar point. I am concerned there will be some lag effect from the trade war with China, Brexit, and normal economic cycles that start appearing soon. The trajectory hasn't shifted, positively or negatively, since Trump took over. There are still some weaknesses and areas to improve. But unemployment and job growth have been on the same trajectory for almost 1 decade now.
(02-05-2020 03:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Actually I did find the back bencher yelling 'liar' reprehensible. Obama *was* lying, but the SOTU isnt the province for the yelling ---
(02-05-2020 12:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Democrats who railed at a representative for yelling "liar" during one of Obama's SOTU speeches (and IIRC he was lying at the time) see nothing wrong with Nancy's antics.
(02-05-2020 12:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I thought the shout of "liar" by the representative from Louisiana was outside of protocol, but I did understand that Obama was lying at the time. I believe he was reprimanded by the HOR for that, and although I would have voted against the reprimand I understood why it was done.
Fact-checking can be exhausting, but let's give this a try. Maybe we can all agree on the facts (for once)?
Obama said:
Quote:There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
Quote:Undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible to buy Marketplace health coverage, or for premium tax credits and other savings on Marketplace plans. But they may apply for coverage on behalf of documented individuals.
Quote:Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar.
Can we agree on the facts now? I'm not trying to send us down some rabbit hole or off on a tangent here.
(02-05-2020 03:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Actually I did find the back bencher yelling 'liar' reprehensible. Obama *was* lying, but the SOTU isnt the province for the yelling ---
(02-05-2020 12:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Democrats who railed at a representative for yelling "liar" during one of Obama's SOTU speeches (and IIRC he was lying at the time) see nothing wrong with Nancy's antics.
(02-05-2020 12:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I thought the shout of "liar" by the representative from Louisiana was outside of protocol, but I did understand that Obama was lying at the time. I believe he was reprimanded by the HOR for that, and although I would have voted against the reprimand I understood why it was done.
Fact-checking can be exhausting, but let's give this a try. Maybe we can all agree on the facts (for once)?
Obama said:
Quote:There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
Quote:Undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible to buy Marketplace health coverage, or for premium tax credits and other savings on Marketplace plans. But they may apply for coverage on behalf of documented individuals.
Quote:Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar.
Can we agree on the facts now? I'm not trying to send us down some rabbit hole or off on a tangent here.
The proposal, at the time of the speech, did not bar non-citizens from buying their own health insurance coverage through the health insurance exchange. However, it did bar non-citizens from credits in it. Only after the speech was that provision barring any participation by illegals placed into the measure.
The Baucus plan, revealed nearly a week after the speech, had the no illegal provision within it.
The strict words of Obama's statement are false.
I will backtrack and state that I dotn know fully whether Obama knew of the falsity of not; thus it is indeterminate if he was 'lying'. But, the statement, at the time of the speech, was false.
(This post was last modified: 02-05-2020 06:28 PM by tanqtonic.)
Quote:The response to the digital assault was also “tempered … over concerns about appearing to act politically on behalf of one candidate, undermining public confidence in the election, and provoking additional Russian actions,” the panel found.
The 54-page, partially redacted report focuses exclusively on the Obama administration’s efforts to deal with Moscow’s interference ahead of Election Day.
It lays out several factors that hamstrung the White House’s ability to coordinate a response, including partisan concerns not only on the campaign trail, but also in Congress.
The report details resistance by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to issuing a bipartisan statement in 2016 about the Russian effort.
Former homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco recalled a conversation with McConnell where he stated, "You security people should be careful that you're not getting used," which she interpreted as the GOP leader doubting the intelligence concluding Russia was attempting to interfere...
Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the panel’s top Democrat, said there “were many flaws with the U.S. response to the 2016 attack, but it's worth noting that many of those were due to problems with our own system.”
“I am particularly concerned however, that a legitimate fear raised by the Obama Administration — that warning the public of the Russian attack could backfire politically — is still present in our hyper-partisan environment...”
In an addendum to the report, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a senior panel member, wrote that not issuing a “bipartisan public acknowledgment of the ongoing attack by Russia” was a mistake.
“An acknowledgment of Russian influence operations, particularly operations intended to help Donald Trump, would have reflected poorly on the candidate and his campaign,” he wrote. “But that should not have been a reason for the administration and members of Congress to withhold from the public warning of an ongoing attack by a foreign adversary...”
The committee also emphasized that in case of future attacks, the public should be notified “as soon as possible with a clear and succinct statement of the threat.”
Lawmakers urged the executive branch to develop “a range of standing response options that can be rapidly executed” in the event of an election attacks.
Quote:The response to the digital assault was also “tempered … over concerns about appearing to act politically on behalf of one candidate, undermining public confidence in the election, and provoking additional Russian actions,” the panel found.
The 54-page, partially redacted report focuses exclusively on the Obama administration’s efforts to deal with Moscow’s interference ahead of Election Day.
It lays out several factors that hamstrung the White House’s ability to coordinate a response, including partisan concerns not only on the campaign trail, but also in Congress.
The report details resistance by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to issuing a bipartisan statement in 2016 about the Russian effort.
Former homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco recalled a conversation with McConnell where he stated, "You security people should be careful that you're not getting used," which she interpreted as the GOP leader doubting the intelligence concluding Russia was attempting to interfere...
Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the panel’s top Democrat, said there “were many flaws with the U.S. response to the 2016 attack, but it's worth noting that many of those were due to problems with our own system.”
“I am particularly concerned however, that a legitimate fear raised by the Obama Administration — that warning the public of the Russian attack could backfire politically — is still present in our hyper-partisan environment...”
In an addendum to the report, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a senior panel member, wrote that not issuing a “bipartisan public acknowledgment of the ongoing attack by Russia” was a mistake.
“An acknowledgment of Russian influence operations, particularly operations intended to help Donald Trump, would have reflected poorly on the candidate and his campaign,” he wrote. “But that should not have been a reason for the administration and members of Congress to withhold from the public warning of an ongoing attack by a foreign adversary...”
The committee also emphasized that in case of future attacks, the public should be notified “as soon as possible with a clear and succinct statement of the threat.”
Lawmakers urged the executive branch to develop “a range of standing response options that can be rapidly executed” in the event of an election attacks.
I think the current year is 2020, so a report on what should have been done or said in 2016 is hindsight, and hindsight is always...20-20. (There is some of that humor you said you were looking for, Big)
I do hope that in the future security concerns are not overwhelmed by political concerns. I hope that in the case of either Republican or Democratic administrations. That is the takeaway I get from this bipartisan report.
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2020 06:35 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
![[Image: MW-HY141_jobs_r_20200110085702_NS.jpg?uu...8e992d421e]](https://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2020/01/10/Photos/NS/MW-HY141_jobs_r_20200110085702_NS.jpg?uuid=13d8726c-33b1-11ea-af03-9c8e992d421e)
(There is some of that humor you said you were looking for, Big)