advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: pdq
Date: January 08, 2019 08:27PM
Whad'ja think?

(...which is to say, whad'ja think of the prez's pitch and the Dems response tonight?)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2019 08:41PM by pdq.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: Ted King
Date: January 08, 2019 08:48PM
Fearmongering that, if it does anything, will maybe prop up his base enough to keep the cracks in support of Republicans in Congress from breaking open. I imagine that in his head he made such a compelling (fear! fear! fear!) case that he will have been able to change the dynamic that was clearly going against him. I doubt it works for long if it does at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2019 08:55PM by Ted King.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: January 08, 2019 09:01PM
He carried himself like a 9 year old kid reading a report in front of the class, was doing well by that measure so long as he was speaking of the plight of those seeking asylum in the United States (tho his refusal to mention the troubles that asylum seekers were fleeing came off as even more childish than that).

He looked like he was struggling so much to stick to the speech that I found myself rooting for him a bit, chanted "don't say the word 'wall'..." and I think he might have accomplished something had he avoided that word.

But then he said the word and the lies started pouring out and after characterizing immigrants (asylum-seekers) as women and children in need, he then insisted that immigrants were drug-smugglers and gang members and murderers. So, more of the same hateful racist bullcrap that only his cabinet and "MAGA" supporters care to listen to at this point.

Then came the adults trying not to say "bad baby" too harshly, which is how I am going to characterize the democratic response tomorrow at work.

This was supposed to convince Senate republicans to fight for him. He convinced nobody.

Stephen Miller is probably happy, because he's proven that if the words are sufficiently small and the concepts framed simply enough he can make 45 stick to a prepared speech.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: $tevie
Date: January 08, 2019 09:13PM
I didn't watch. I'd rather shave my head with a cheese grater while chewing on tinfoil than listen to that man.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: wave rider
Date: January 08, 2019 09:25PM
What’s with all the sniffing?

Definitely a Baldy Miller speech…



=wr=
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: hal
Date: January 08, 2019 09:37PM
Quote
$tevie
I didn't watch. I'd rather shave my head with a cheese grater while chewing on tinfoil than listen to that man.

me too, but I'm dying to know how effective his presentation was - can anyone address this? Without going overboard?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: January 08, 2019 09:40PM
How many of you "Patriots" donated either before or after his first campaign speech of the 2020 election?

Was it Elizabeth Warren's speech in Iowa three days ago that pushed him to set up this campaign fundraising event that provided no new information about the crisis on the border?



In tha 360. [url=Zee Maps Now requires a subscription/payment to work]MRF User Map[/url]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: January 08, 2019 09:47PM
I just read through the transcripts, I thought the Dem response but good, direct and to the point, but it also highlighted what a pointless exercise this was. Absolutely no new information and no path forward.
I really feel badly for the federal workers now missing a paycheck. Due to a manufactured crisis and to what one writer correctly called "presidential malpractice."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: January 08, 2019 10:00PM
Quote
hal
Quote
$tevie
I didn't watch. I'd rather shave my head with a cheese grater while chewing on tinfoil than listen to that man.

me too, but I'm dying to know how effective his presentation was - can anyone address this? Without going overboard?

Not at all effective. If you want to characterize his overall impression, I think the word that you're looking for is "churlish."

He might not have come off so badly if he'd ended the speech 4 minutes in, but he made a patently false and overtly racist case for his wall and ultimately he came off much the same as always, childish and narcissistic and not very smart.

Tomorrow there are going to be the usual "pants on fire" lie-counts.

He wasted everyone's time and a lot of money.

I'm sorry for those contestants on Ellen's game show who were pre-empted and may never get to see themselves on TV.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2019 10:06PM by Sarcany.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: $tevie
Date: January 08, 2019 10:40PM
Fox News Anchors Take Apart Trump's Oval Office Lie-Fest

Immediately after Trump's uninspiring and stilted presidential address about his government shutdown and fake wall, Fox News anchors Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace took apart many of Trump's lies in his very short speech.

Shepard Smith wasted no time fact-checking Trump's drivel.

"He made a number of claims there, speaking specifically about a murder rates among those who are undocumented immigrants," he said. "The government statistics show that there is less violent crime by the undocumented immigrant population than by the general population."

"He talked about drug crossings over the border, but government statistics show much of the heroin actually comes not over the unguarded border but through ports of call," Smith continued.

Next: "He talked about undocumented crossings over the past months. In fact, the number of undocumented crossings over the southern border has been steadily down over the last ten years, and the government reports that there is more outward traffic than inward traffic."

"As for the trade deal he mentioned with Mexico which he said would pay for the wall, that trade deal is not yet complete, and the president said that law enforcement professionals have requested a $5.7 billion. It's he who requested it and it is he who has said he would own the shutdown," he concluded.


Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace joined Smith to discuss whether Trump made the case for his base. (Ed. Note: OH, was that why he did this? He didn't say anything new. This is just rally speeches with a serious face.)

Wallace replied, "It does make the case for his base. The question is whether the base is enough, and the answer is it isn't because the Democrats won in an election in which the border wall was a major issue, took control of the House and they have enough votes in the Senate also to block any major legislation there."

Chris brought up the movie The Godfather and the famous saying of making an offer you can't refuse, Trump was making "an offer the Democrats can't accept."

Wallace also explained that when Trump talk about the shutdown and blamed the Democrats for it because they won't fund his wall, it is problematic since Democrats "already passed a bill to fund every agency in the government, including the DHS."

Wallace observed, "It's the president and Republicans in the Senate who have refused that."

[crooksandliars.com]



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: Speedy
Date: January 09, 2019 07:51AM
Hopefully they’ll dump Smith and Wallace and go with Tucker and Hannity next time.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: Lux Interior
Date: January 09, 2019 10:19AM
Quote
Speedy
Hopefully they’ll dump Smith and Wallace and go with Tucker and Hannity next time.

They just need Tammy Lohengrin to scowl at the camera while screaming that there is blood on all democrats hands.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: January 09, 2019 11:30AM
Quote
Lux Interior
They just need Tammy Lohengrin to scowl at the camera while screaming that there is blood on all democrats hands.
huh smiley
Esoteric much?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: pdq
Date: January 09, 2019 12:04PM
Quote
DeusxMac
Quote
Lux Interior
They just need Tammy Lohengrin to scowl at the camera while screaming that there is blood on all democrats hands.
huh smiley
Esoteric much?

Perhaps, but this is the world of some Trump supporters.

A world very different from our own. (and from, y’know, reality...)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: $tevie
Date: January 09, 2019 01:32PM
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: Steve G.
Date: January 09, 2019 02:22PM
Chuck and Nancy were ineffective. His delivery was dull (as usual), she looked shell-shocked.
How about using some Democrats what's good at talking?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: January 09, 2019 02:37PM
Quote
Steve G.
Chuck and Nancy were ineffective. His delivery was dull (as usual), she looked shell-shocked.
How about using some Democrats what's good at talking?

That format doesn't work well for anybody.
Well maybe except Obama but he has superpowers.
I thought they were fine; it was blessedly short and to the point.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: Ted King
Date: January 09, 2019 02:48PM
Quote
Steve G.
Chuck and Nancy were ineffective. His delivery was dull (as usual), she looked shell-shocked.
How about using some Democrats what's good at talking?

I think it should have been done by Pelosi alone and in a more relaxed setting. There is no emergency. Just lay it out like you know it Nancy. Don't go all stiff on us. You got this. Show your confidence.

As far as Chuck, he can go suck marbles with respect to being the public face of the Democratic Party as far as I'm concerned. He can bring his experience to the strategy table, but let Nancy do the public talking.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: $tevie
Date: January 09, 2019 03:19PM
This is funny:
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Well, at least that was brief.
Posted by: Acer
Date: January 09, 2019 03:45PM
It's not as easy as it looks. Fresh, young faces have been tried before:


Personally, I think the Democrats should have gone with AOC. Conservative media would have fused into a radioactive slag.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 98
Record Number of Users: 52 on November 20, 2014
Record Number of Guests: 2330 on October 25, 2018