State of the Union Speech 2023 (reaction)

[disciple Clint]

You seem to have a very short memory then. To Trump he could do no wrong and it was always someone else's fault. He would not take responsibility for anything he did wrong.

It's okay if you don't remember though, many others like me do remember and if he gets the nomination once again, he'll lose the election again and maybe we'll finally see the last of him.

I say what I say as someone who voted for him in 2016. Learned my lesson that I voted for the wrong person.

There seems to be an abundance of people with short memories, they forget that we had none of the major problems we have today when Trump was in office. Enjoy the highest inflation in decades.

 

[Isilwen]

There seems to be an abundance of people with short memories, they forget that we had none of the major problems we have today when Trump was in office. Enjoy the highest inflation in decades.

Still doesn't erase the fact that I am correct. You described Trump perfectly.

Inflation isn't just a USA problem at this moment, it is a world problem and was caused by Covid. Even if Trump was in office we would have had inflation.

 

[FenderTL5]

..we had none of the major problems we have today when Trump was in office.

None?

One of Trump's campaign promises in the run up to 2016 was concerning our southern border. He promised to build a wall that Mexico would pay for and stop illegal immigration and contraband (fentynol as example).
The border remained a problem throughout his presidency, no wall was built and no funding came from Mexico. The southern border is a major problem today and was amajor problem during Trump's term and prior.

American healthcare costs are a major problem for most Americans. Trump campaigned that within 100 days of taking office his “terrific,” “phenomenal” and “fantastic” new health care plan would replace a repealed Affordable Care Act. Once in office, that transitioned to "who knew healthcare was so complicated".
There was no plan, no action, and healthcare remains a major problem. It was a problem prior, during and continues today.

Trump campaigned on a $1 trillion infrastructure plan. “We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals,” he said in his 2016 election night victory speech. “And we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it.”
He lied.
Infrastructure was not near the priority that playing golf on America's dime turned out to be once in office. This major problem existed while Trump was in office and is still a major problem.
However, it has been a priority for Biden.

I can go on.. gun violence, was and still is a major problem, illicit drugs was and still is a major problem, money in politics was and still is a major problem, continued funding for Social Security,Medicaid/Medicare..

I tend to think the delusion of Trump apologists exceeds mere loss of memory.

 

[DaisyDay]

I was talking about how biden should stop doing so with his reckless spending policies, just as the post you replied to said.

Don't you know that Congress controls the budget and dictates how much can be spent, how much must be spent and on what? The president executes the laws, he doesn't make them.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, for heaven's sake. That's a civilised way to conduct oneself. It works both ways. Show respect for the office. Listen to what's being said and then make any comment about it you like.

They did. They heard him lie about Republicans wanting to end Social Security, and then they said what they wanted in return. They just didn't happen to wait for an MSM personality to come along and ask them if what biden said was true or not, and then hope it would be aired if it didn't fit the biden/MSM narrative.

 

[Aldebaran]

Don't you know that Congress controls the budget and dictates how much can be spent, how much must be spent and on what? The president executes the laws, he doesn't make them.

He only "executes" the laws he agrees with; border security not being one of them.
But more accurately, he signs bills into law--if he agrees with the what the representatives of the people put on his desk. So far, he has agreed with all the spending measures put forth by Congress when it was in complete control by democrats--hence the current financial crisis.

 

[DaisyDay]

He only "executes" the laws he agrees with; border security not being one of them.

Right-wing rhetoric.

But more accurately, he signs bills into law--if he agrees with the what the representatives of the people put on his desk. So far, he has agreed with all the spending measures put forth by Congress when it was in complete control by democrats--hence the current financial crisis.

We're not in a financial crisis. Jobs are up. Unemployment is below what it was during the Trump years. Inflation is down from its peak. Of course, the GOP could force a financial crisis by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, but that would be on them.

 

[NxNW]

They heard him lie about Republicans wanting to end Social Security, and then they said what they wanted in return.

Republicans want to end Social Security and Medicare. They've been saying so for a long time. Biden simply reported to the American people what Republicans have been saying, and suddenly the Republicans changed their minds.

They just didn't happen to wait for an MSM personality to come along and ask them if what biden said was true or not, and then hope it would be aired if it didn't fit the biden/MSM narrative.

That's because it was true (see above), and Biden embarrassed them into reversing themselves on live TV.

 

[Aldebaran]

Right-wing rhetoric.


We're not in a financial crisis. Jobs are up. Unemployment is below what it was during the Trump years. Inflation is down from its peak. Of course, the GOP could force a financial crisis by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, but that would be on them.

Now you're just repeating (debunked) left-wing rhetoric, which is rather hypocritical considering your first statement.

 

[Aldebaran]

Please read what I am writing. In both the UK and Australian parliaments there are open discussions. It's called Question Time. To a certain extent, the gloves are off. The Speaker of The House in both cases is there to maintain a certain control. To make sure that the rules are obeyed. But it's rough. It's taxing. You need a thick skin. It's partisan. But respect is shown when formal speeches are being made. Any interactions such as we saw a couple of days ago would be roundly condemned by both parties and the person censured.

You seem to be moving away from that necessary respect. I can actually see it happening. And instead of condemning It you appear to be supporting it. Instead of feeling any shame that someone like MTG is shouting her mouth off during the speech you think it should be encouraged.

Good grief...

If you've been paying as much attention to American politics and news as it seems that you have been, then you would know that it's been accepted within our society that disruptors, agitators, and resistors are the ones who give voice to the opposition. Usually, that means burning down cities and throwing bricks at police officers. Those things obviously did not happen in this case, so maybe that's why it's being complained about by some people on the left so much?

 

[Bradskii]

If you've been paying as much attention to American politics and news as it seems that you have been, then you would know that it's been accepted within our society that disruptors, agitators, and resistors are the ones who give voice to the opposition. Usually, that means burning down cities and throwing bricks at police officers. Those things obviously did not happen in this case, so maybe that's why it's being complained about by some people on the left so much?

Hey, if you want to accept this behaviour as now being par for the course, then go for it. Me, I don't vary my standards depending on who is sitting behind the desk. I think you need to check your kitchen timer. That frog must be done by now.

 

[Aldebaran]

Hey, if you want to accept this behaviour as now being par for the course, then go for it. Me, I don't vary my standards depending on who is sitting behind the desk. I think you need to check your kitchen timer. That frog must be done by now.

I personally haven't accepted the behavior of burning down buildings and throwing bricks at police officers. But society seems to have, so it's puzzling to see anyone get bent out of shape because someone yelled a correction when the POTUS lied to the American public on live TV.

 

[NxNW]

I personally haven't accepted the behavior of burning down buildings and throwing bricks at police officers. But society seems to have, so it's puzzling to see anyone get bent out of shape because someone yelled a correction when the POTUS lied to the American public on live TV.

You've yet to point out when POTUS lied. Republicans want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, and Biden correctly pointed that out.

 

[Bradskii]

I personally haven't accepted the behavior of burning down buildings and throwing bricks at police officers. But society seems to have, so it's puzzling to see anyone get bent out of shape because someone yelled a correction when the POTUS lied to the American public on live TV.

If you want to treat this as normal behaviour from now on in because it fits your political views then that's your call. This is now acceptable from here on in as far as you are concerned. Because your standards vary depending on who is dragging them southward. There are those in this forum who take partisanship to lengths that would be deemed satire in most countries.

I've said this before but I am certain I could give you a scenario, an act by someone, a quote, a policy, a position held by someone and if I asked you if you agreed with if or not, you'd want to know who said it. You'd want to know who's position it was. Is it a good idea? Well, gee...you'd have to make sure it wasn't a Democrat proposing it first. Was it a stupid statement? Well, you'd have to check it wasn't a Republican before answering.

If someone wanted to know the state of US politics at this time, I'd direct them to this forum. A few words with you will tell them all they need to know.

 

[Fantine]

an Economy that was robust an in rapid recovery

Completely disagree. an example: refusing to work with Republican leadership on the debt ceiling. Not even willing to negotiate. The Democratic policy of “my way of the highway” is not unifying.

The years of trillion dollar deficits were caused by Republican tax cuts for the rich.
Why should they want to remediate the problem that caused on the backs of the rest of us.
They are not on our side.
They are not on our side.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I though we were all Americans.

 

[Always in His Presence]

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/3850219-the-seven-biggest-lies-biden-told-this-week/amp/

1: “Take-home pay has gone up.”

I predicted last week that Biden would utter this lie. Real wages have fallen every month for nearly two straight years under his administration as historic inflation swamps nominal wages and destroys living standards

2. “We have created a record 12 million new jobs.”


Biden tries to count the jobs backfilled post-pandemic as “new” jobs, but these positions were already created and merely temporarily abandoned due to COVID-19

3: “[I have presided over] the largest deficit reduction in American history.”

Again, Biden is trying to take advantage of the moderation from the unique pandemic baseline. In reality, Biden has presided over the largest two-year deficit — $4.2 trillion — in American history.

It is a good read

 

[Aldebaran]

If you want to treat this as normal behaviour from now on in because it fits your political views then that's your call. This is now acceptable from here on in as far as you are concerned. Because your standards vary depending on who is dragging them southward. There are those in this forum who take partisanship to lengths that would be deemed satire in most countries.

I've said this before but I am certain I could give you a scenario, an act by someone, a quote, a policy, a position held by someone and if I asked you if you agreed with if or not, you'd want to know who said it. You'd want to know who's position it was. Is it a good idea? Well, gee...you'd have to make sure it wasn't a Democrat proposing it first. Was it a stupid statement? Well, you'd have to check it wasn't a Republican before answering.

If someone wanted to know the state of US politics at this time, I'd direct them to this forum. A few words with you will tell them all they need to know.

We've already gotten to the point where a year of violent riots in the streets on a daily basis was accepted as "peaceful protest" and "free speech" when it was done by people with left-leaning ideology, so be ready to accept it when those with right-leaning ideology protest using words alone.

 

[Bradskii]

We've already gotten to the point where a year of violent riots in the streets on a daily basis was accepted as "peaceful protest" and "free speech" when it was done by people with left-leaning ideology, so be ready to accept it when those with right-leaning ideology protest using words alone.

This sums up your problem: 'Hey, I think you did something bad, so I can too!'

Most people leave that type of argument behind in kindergarten. But it's what passes for political debate with so many people these days. How about you condemn everyone who does something wrong. Without fear or favour. Rather than taking an opportunity to drag debate further into the gutter? Too difficult a concept? Here, let me try...

Anyone who riots instead of protesting peacefully is a criminal and needs to be treated as such. Anyone who shouts out and tries to interupt a state of the union address is a moron who doesn't show any respect for the office of the POTUS and deserves to be called out for it.

Now I know that's there's zero chance in you doing that, but I thought I'd give you an example so at least you'll know what it looks like when you see it.

 

[Aldebaran]

This sums up your problem: 'Hey, I think you did something bad, so I can too!'

Now you're attempting to mischaracterize my point of view by putting words in my mouth. Bad tactic.

Most people leave that type of argument behind in kindergarten. But it's what passes for political debate with so many people these days. How about you condemn everyone who does something wrong. Without fear or favour. Rather than taking an opportunity to drag debate further into the gutter? Too difficult a concept? Here, let me try...

Anyone who riots instead of protesting peacefully is a criminal and needs to be treated as such. Anyone who shouts out and tries to interupt a state of the union address is a moron who doesn't show any respect for the office of the POTUS and deserves to be called out for it.

Now I know that's there's zero chance in you doing that, but I thought I'd give you an example so at least you'll know what it looks like when you see it.

Sounds good in theory, but those who protest violently (for BLM, transsexuals, drag queens, etc.) are now being shown favoritism under the label of "free speech" while conservatives aren't allowed actual free speech. In case you don't know, the First Amendment of our Constitution chiefly protects political free speech, which is exactly what you are attacking.