(no message)
(no message)
the inner cities though.
(no message)
(no message)
Personally, I found it refreshing compared to Obama's interminable self loving/ America hating Castro-length ramblings. I don't know whether he will succeed or fail, but he is the Predident, I hope he succeeds in getting the GDP growth above the piss poor performance of the last 8 years, and a sea slug would be an improvement over Obama.
but that their policies have actually turned out counterproductive and must be reversed.
I thought I was pretty slow learner because I didn’t realize it until about last sept-Oct.. But many people on this board I think are much slower than me and perhaps even will never get it. I would like to single out Frank L and Chris94 as one among them.
I think we all know these 2 kinds of people in our real life: one can define themselves very well by words, who usually appear more intellectual; The other one define themselves only though actions. I think Trump is the latter one.
One simple example is, as a republican candidate, he barely talked about conservative principles during his campaign. I don’t think he even know these principles very well (as a theory), i.e. he doesn’t know conservatism. That’s why we all say he is not a conservative, he claimed he is a conservative candidate though. But if we take a look at his actions, e.g., his VP pick, his cabinet picks and his plan to downsize federal government (DOE, DOS, DOC..) and these departments' dramatic spending cut…, his actions are pretty conservative. So, his conservatism is in his actions, not in his words, and his liberalism also is in his actions, not in his words. Of course we don’t expect him a total conservative. A total conservative is hard to get elected, and even if he gets elected, it is hard to govern without compromise. So, the final results probably are no different.
I think the best part of his speech, which happens to be related to my point, is this: “We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action, constantly complaining but never doing anything about it. The time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action.”
(no message)
Kind of a ridiculous argument, don't you think?
(no message)
(no message)
actions are wrong or harmful. Capice?
is we shouldn't spend too much time to read what Trump says and writes. He is not a man of words. We'd better to judge him by his action, not by his words because this is how he defines himself. As for his actions themselves, right or wrong, are not the issue. If conservatives like one action done him, they certainly say this is a good action. if liberals don't like one of his actions, they certainly say his action is wrong.
man of action is much worse than being a man of words when the action is wrong. Words can be retracted or clarified. Actions are much harder to do so with. Which is one reason why your boy is a dangerous mo fo.
He said nothing different from what he has been saying for the last 2 years at his rallies and I'm amazed that people expected anything different.
I do enjoy watching grown men froth at the mouth and get hysterical in their opposition of this guy. There's a couple on this board that are just loons.
Other presidents used soaring rhetoric to help reach out to all Americans. To inspire.
Trump talked about "American carnage" in an attempt to paint a picture of national wreckage that only he can fix.
I also liked the comments from Michael Gerson, lead speechwriter for GWB's two inaugural addresses.
He was horrified too.
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/01/20/a-most-dreadful-inaugural-address/
"...every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.
...
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many.
...
this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.
...
the nuclear threat...the specter of a warming planet...those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents...the bitter swill of civil war and segregation...the old hatreds......those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict...those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent...starved bodies...indifference to suffering...consume the world's resources...our darkest hours... our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship...the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. ..."
DRO would consider Obama's speech to be a very dark speech, with lots of dark words. You would consider it a list of American carnage. I think you are both being too harsh on Obama and Trump. I think reciting the challenges we face is a common thing in inauguration speeches, and as with Obama and Trump, that list is followed by bold statements calling for unity and predicting great successes. The 2008 and 2016 speeches were very similar. I'm intrigued by the different reactions. I guess people really do hear what they want to hear, even when the same thing is said.
to Bush.
Like nah,nah,nah,nah. Your guy sucked so that excuses my guy sucking.
By the way I never said Obama wasn't divisive as well. Don will just take it to a new level.
Honestly, I expect a better answer from you than from the left. I think your dislike of his populism is more consistent. Theirs is purely partisan. They don't even know why they hate him.
The only thing I will say is the state of the economy was in much worse shape in 09, so he may have had something of a better argument for the picture painted.
Chris is the one being hypocritical. I thought both speeches were fine. You hated both (or would if you took the time to inform yourself on their similarities).
Lighten up, Francis.
(no message)
(no message)
Both listed carnage or dark obstacles. Both expressed the American ability to overcome anything. Both announced that now was the time that these great obstacles would be overcome.
Or Andy Jackson, even.
You love to try to say this is just partisanship.
It's not.
Link: http://amp.timeinc.net/time/4641547/inauguration-2017-donald-trump-america-first/?source=dam
Pithy, profound, riveting.
Learned, too, what with an Andrew Jackson reference. I myself might have gone with a Taft reference by virtue of a belching fit at his inauguration, but Old Hickory was a solid choice, as well.
(no message)
uplifitng for two reasons:
1) He wasn't just saying things on the campaign trail (as Frank had alleged - and there was a risk of this)
and
2) He's actually taking aim at the real problems.
Most of the people behind Trump in those stands are entitled rich government lifers who have had a hand in their own advancement at the expense of others. Most of them were born into their privilege as well.
Trump is the potential unlikely hero - one of them in so many ways - who appears to have sincerely come to the realization that he wants to re-empower the people. And he's not pretending and lying about their condition. Obama is a masterful speaker, but he lied constantly about the state of our economy, jobs, borders, safety from terrorism, infrastructure, and school systems (or very possibly was so privileged that he never realized it).
His speech was only dark to the status quo who don't want things to change.
Maybe I'll read your links. But, I suspect that they don't actually help your position since you won't even bother to pull a quote from them.
I showed how Obama did exactly what you and DRO criticize Trump for doing. You just ignore my posts, and restate your position.
(no message)
Or did you "TiVo" it?
How crappy could his speech have been if no one can point out a bad part of it?
…oh, and that was last night MAS - after work. Can't get enough of that Lawrence O'Donnell this week.
but I partook of the same delicious pleasure.
I still had to do conference calls all morning. Boy that sucked.
I hope I worked hard enough for MAS, though. I don't want to let him down.
(no message)
(no message)
Better T & A, plus the spectacle of Robert Conrad taking the competition way too seriously.
exceedingly boring and I had headphones with me.
(no message)
And if that doesn't point to sophistication, I don't know what does.