US State Of The Union Address 2019

Watching it right now. A couple of resources:

NPR radio coverage, with updated transcript and fact checking. I don't see an audio link, but there should be one later.

PBS TV also had coverage. (That's what I'm watching.)

"Here’s how to watch the 2019 State of the Union address online" (Digital Trends). It lists various places where it can be streamed. The SOTU will be over by the time you read this, but you may still be able to watch at those places.

(Will comment later.)

Comments

  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    I just can't watch it. Sorry.
  • That's ok. I eventually got bored, and started multi-tasking. But I got the gist.

    Stacey Abrams is going to do the Democratic response soon.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Well, whaddya know. T. Wrecks's annual "Act like a President" stunt. Wonder who wrote or plagiarized that speech for him; parts of it were nearly presentable. Only about 50% lies, as a guesstimate. If it weren't for T's weird delivery (and the fact that T's tweets in the next 12 hours will reduce it to shreds), it could in places have been almost inspiring.
  • I only watched the first part of his speech. My brother called and rescued me from watching the rest, including the Democrat response. Did I miss anything?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Define "anything."
  • He had good speech writers, and he stuck to the script. Means nothing.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    From what I remember:

    --Yes, parts of his speech were actually good, and parts were about good things: helping kids with cancer, etc. I don't think he could've written most of it. That's not abnormal, though: presidents have speech writers.

    --Watching his face throughout, T looked like he was building up to being very angry after the speech was done. Not sure why.

    --Kamala Harris and Alexandria O-C were not happy campers. I think some of that was to do with his various references to women and girls. Like when he was talking about undocumented girls/women need to be rescued from assault by traffickers, etc. (He didn't use that word.) T...assaulter in chief...standing there, saying that...grrrr.

    --Nancy Pelosi was...interesting. ;) She seemed tired, and like she was trying to hold herself together, and trying to approximate a happy and/or interested face.

    She was not a happy camper, either. As Speaker of the House, she sat elevated behind T. And she upstaged him by her behavior, too. At various times, she took out a sheaf of white paper and looked through it. Then she put it away. She just sat. Lather, rinse, repeat. Unless Nancy was so bored out of her mind (or angry) that she just didn't filter her actions or wasn't aware of them, I think she must have upstaged him on purpose. Sometimes, too, when people stood, she didn't sit back down quite as quickly as she might have...upstaging T even further.

    Any/all of that may have been unconscious, totally innocent, a function of being tired and having to sit through the SOTU at 9 pm Eastern time. (Why in the world do they start it so late?)

    She was *truly* happy when the "women in white" stood up about something. (They're celebrating recent gains by women in Congress, and the suffragettes evidently used to wear white.)

    That's all I can think of right now.
  • Schroedingers CatSchroedingers Cat Shipmate, Waving not Drowning Host
    I am really interested in shipmates views on this - I won't watch, because I value my TV.

    @Golden Key - just a couple of thoughts. Maybe T was angry because he had been told to read it as written. He doesn't like to do as he is told. He probably went back and swore at people.

    I wonder whether Nancy had a written copy of the speech, and was just checking through it. So there was nothing new for her. And it sounds like it was boring to listen to.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Watching the BBC analys this morning, the main thing that comes across is that T overstated a good number of figures by a reasonable margin.
    His defence of the wall is getting weaker.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I find it astonishing that he didn't so much as mention the recent shutdown, or the many federal workers who are still suffering as a result. He didn't mention education once -- not public education, not the increasingly out-of-financial-reach higher education.

    I am APPALLED at the sheer gall of all that WWII glorification packed into the speech, given that he's currently UNRAVELING all the efforts wrought in blood, sweat, and tears to make WWII the last such misadventure.
  • One notable thing: T said something to the effect of "if you want peace and legislation, you can't have war and investigation".

    Gee, wonder why he's worried about investigations...
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    One notable thing: T said something to the effect of "if you want peace and legislation, you can't have war and investigation".
    Considering that professional speechwriters were working on this, that is a remarkably stupid line. Yes, okay peace and war are opposites, so you can't have one if you have the other. That holds together in a facile sort of way. But "legislation" and "investigation" are not opposites. You can have both. Indeed, arguably you should have both (I'm not keen on legislation that is not the product of some sort of investigation first).

    And to the extent that legislation/investigation are meant to be equated to peace/war, that is just obnoxious. But then, this is a President who knows nothing about real war.

    As I understand it from newspaper accounts (like many others, I wasn't listening), that line was met with something of an awkward silence from Congress. If Trump was expecting his Republican flunkies to applaud, he was disappointed.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Any/all of that may have been unconscious, totally innocent, a function of being tired and having to sit through the SOTU at 9 pm Eastern time. (Why in the world do they start it so late?)

    The reason it's so late is so that the western part of the U.S. can watch it if they want to.

    I did not watch it -- he's not allowed in my home, and I can't stand his voice or his face. The N.Y. Times tells me whatever I need to know about it, including what statements were true, which were false, and which were misleading or exaggerated.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    I have choir practice Tuesday nights, which was a good excuse for not watching, but I wouldn't have watched it anyway.

    TV news reported this morning that one of his statements was something to the effect that the U.S. economy is in an astonishing growth cycle, and that the only thing that could stop it was failure to kiss his you-know-what over his policies.

    He should have said that the only thing that could stop it was the dozens of companies that have had to lay off, scale back, and close factories over the past year in response to his trade war.

    He should also have said that economic growth began long before he occupied the White House and would have continued growing had it not been for his meddling.
  • At least since FDR, and likely before then, the State of the Union and other speeches were always written by speechwriters-- Rexford Tugwell (FDR) and Arthur Schlesinger (JFK) have written entertaining accounts of their work (I think that Woodrow Wilson might have been the only one since the return of State of Union speeches to have actually written one). I think that its intent was to provide a programme for the next two years rather than rehash the embarrassing bits of his term so far. The fact checking accounts can give us an idea to the extent of accuracy--- that we now have automatic fact checking sections for presidential speeches is a phenomenon in itself.

    I cannot help but wonder to the extent he was unnerved by the solid phalanx of white-tunicked women and the fact that the audience's response was not that of 2016, with cascading standing ovations and MAGA hats.
  • Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    The N.Y. Times tells me whatever I need to know...

    Like Jews don't believe in Heaven?

    From the White House correspondent no less...

  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    ...I cannot help but wonder to the extent he was unnerved by the solid phalanx of white-tunicked women and the fact that the audience's response was not that of 2016, with cascading standing ovations and MAGA hats.
    One can only hope that he was.

    I didn't watch, but I viewed the highlights reel posted by my morning newspaper. He is hopeless. I was impressed by Stacey Abrams's response, though.

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth 8th Day Host, Mystery Worship Editor
    I cannot help but wonder to the extent he was unnerved by the solid phalanx of white-tunicked women

    Apparently not to the same extent as one of his senior campaign aids was.

    How despicably low will some people stoop -- and a woman at that!
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Gee, that's loathesome.
  • The reference shouldn't come as a surprise given the dims history with white outfits and the fact that there were obvious bigots and anti-Semites among the group in white last night.

    Meet the new boss (lady)...
  • romanlion wrote: »
    ...the fact that there were obvious bigots and anti-Semites among the group in white last night.

    For example???
  • It was broadcast live here on our 24 hour news channel. I kept an ear on it as I went about my business, but didn't watch the whole thing. I too was struck by the triumphalist stuff at the start and Trump's desire to undo all the good work of that generation of Americans who fought WW2 and the Cold War.

    Finally, he seems to be talking about the economy. Obviously from the point of view of equity, Trump's tinkerings have been disasterous. He rules for the few in his class, not the many. I saw an article today on my facebook feed that the Administration is winding back regulations on payday loan companies. In Australia, these sorts of businesses usually have links with organised crime, so Trump is clearly playing to the dirty end of the business sector, where his support comes from and where he belongs. I'm sorry, but that sort of action makes clear that the Trump administration has no regard whatsoever for working Americans. Payday loans are an exploitative poverty trap.
  • I wonder if maybe the anti-white-dress comments were influenced by the racism mess with the Dem. governor of Virginia? (And some other members of his gov't, AIUI.)

    I've also wondered if the accusations against the governor et al were purposely sought, dug up by, and publicized by political enemies. I don't know what the gov't folks may or may not have actually done, but none of this just happened to surface.
  • I heard somewhere that it was dug up in the usual way by a right-wing website.
  • Odd that the "opposition research" that handlers of candidates do (to find out any problems before the opposing candidates and media do) either didn't find out about the various black-face wearings of the governor, or didn't handle them well. Of course, if it takes his wife to keep him from reprising the moon walk at press conference *about his behavior*, when prompted by a reporter...maybe no one but his wife can handle him.

    That kind of cluelessness may mean he's not fit to be governor, even more than his past behavior.

    And there are other people in his administration who've had past alleged misdeeds spilling out--IIRC, the lt. gov. has been accused of sexual assault, and the...attorney general(?)...said he put on black face, too.

    Trying to understand, but not defending anyone: would they have had much experience of African-Americans in Virginia, back in the day? I'm guessing there would've been few, if any, at medical school.

    *If* a non-white fan of Michael Jackson, back in the day, had dressed up as him as a tribute to someone he admired, would it have been wrong to darken his face? I gather the pic in question is *not* from the MJ costume. So the MJ makeup *might* not have been so obviously just piled on.

    I'm just looking around at boundaries. I don't think anyone should ever put on black face as a joke or insult, and probably not at all. But, since I'm one of those annoying people who likes to look at things from different angles, and can hold a spectrum of contradictory ideas at once, is there *ever* a time when it's ok for someone to portray someone of another ethnic group, and make up their face and body to enhance that? E.g., portraying Othello, Cleopatra, Tiger Lily* (from "Peter Pan"), the real Pocahontas, the Buddha, Jesus.

    Thx.

    *I realize she's sometimes portrayed in a less than respectful manner, but that doesn't *have* to be the case--and I happen to like the basic character.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I wonder if maybe the anti-white-dress comments were influenced by the racism mess with the Dem. governor of Virginia? (And some other members of his gov't, AIUI.)

    I've also wondered if the accusations against the governor et al were purposely sought, dug up by, and publicized by political enemies. I don't know what the gov't folks may or may not have actually done, but none of this just happened to surface.

    Possible, but it may also have been a reference to the fact that for much of the 20th century, it was the Democrats who were the racist, Jim Crow law-making, white-sheet-wearing lynch mobs in the US South. That changed under Nixon's 1968 Southern strategy.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    I am not fit to run a sandwich booth at a train station and I possess the judgement of a European Carp. When Northam looked around to see whether there was space at the press conference for him to do a moonwalk, I knew I was looking at a bloke with a similar personality. If I could moonwalk, I would SO want to show my skill off in front of the nation's media.
  • Yeah, I'd thought about what if it was *just* about doing the moon walk, without the racism context. E.g., "Yes, reporter? Well, yes, I did do my share of dancing in med school. Did a mean moon walk. What's that? Can I still do it? I'm glad you asked..."

    That could be fun. :) But when the dance is related to his bad behavior that the press conference was about...
  • yeah, it was super-cringeworthy.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I wonder if maybe the anti-white-dress comments were influenced by the racism mess with the Dem. governor of Virginia? (And some other members of his gov't, AIUI.)

    I've also wondered if the accusations against the governor et al were purposely sought, dug up by, and publicized by political enemies. I don't know what the gov't folks may or may not have actually done, but none of this just happened to surface.

    Possible, but it may also have been a reference to the fact that for much of the 20th century, it was the Democrats who were the racist, Jim Crow law-making, white-sheet-wearing lynch mobs in the US South. That changed under Nixon's 1968 Southern strategy.

    It, and Romanlion's comment, probably have a lot to do with the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, and their alleged links to antisemitism. Frankly, as a Democrat I must admit that some of their comments are downright antisemitic, even if criticizing Israeli policy is different from making hateful statements about Jewish people and supporting those who hate them. Their comments, and their associations with others even more extreme than they, though have crossed that line.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Trying to understand, but not defending anyone: would they have had much experience of African-Americans in Virginia, back in the day? I'm guessing there would've been few, if any, at medical school.

    Very likely they would - more likely than in the North. It's true that there wouldn't have been many African-American students at the medical school, but the governor would have known any number of people in his childhood. I don't know what Northam's home life was like, but in families who could afford domestic help, any cleaners, housekeepers, nannies etc. they employed would likely have been black. Depending on where in the state he lived, I don't know if his schools would have been fully integrated in time for him to attend school and form relationships with black people his own age. If he even went to public school. Virginia was a pretty hot spot for segregation academies.

    A lot of the US's black population is still located in the South (you can see this illustrated on this dot map). African-Americans who moved north during the Great Migration tended to be isolated in all-black neighborhoods in major cities, so middle- and upper-class white Northerners are not all that likely to actually have meaningful relationships with black people. They don't have the geographic proximity.

    I grew up in North Carolina and went to public schools in the 80s and 90s when we were still under federal court-ordered desegregation. (Most public schools are now quietly being resegregated because nobody really cares to enforce the integration orders anymore.) It wasn't perfect, and there was a lot of de facto segregation within the school itself by separating white students into honors and AP classes and that sort of thing. But on the whole we had much, much more contact and relationship between students of different races than people did who weren't federally required to. Even today the most segregated school districts are in places like New York and Chicago where the feds weren't watching closely.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Trying to understand, but not defending anyone: would they have had much experience of African-Americans in Virginia, back in the day? I'm guessing there would've been few, if any, at medical school.

    Very likely they would - more likely than in the North. It's true that there wouldn't have been many African-American students at the medical school, but the governor would have known any number of people in his childhood. I don't know what Northam's home life was like, but in families who could afford domestic help, any cleaners, housekeepers, nannies etc. they employed would likely have been black. Depending on where in the state he lived, I don't know if his schools would have been fully integrated in time for him to attend school and form relationships with black people his own age. If he even went to public school. Virginia was a pretty hot spot for segregation academies.

    A lot of the US's black population is still located in the South (you can see this illustrated on this dot map). African-Americans who moved north during the Great Migration tended to be isolated in all-black neighborhoods in major cities, so middle- and upper-class white Northerners are not all that likely to actually have meaningful relationships with black people. They don't have the geographic proximity.

    I grew up in North Carolina and went to public schools in the 80s and 90s when we were still under federal court-ordered desegregation. (Most public schools are now quietly being resegregated because nobody really cares to enforce the integration orders anymore.) It wasn't perfect, and there was a lot of de facto segregation within the school itself by separating white students into honors and AP classes and that sort of thing. But on the whole we had much, much more contact and relationship between students of different races than people did who weren't federally required to. Even today the most segregated school districts are in places like New York and Chicago where the feds weren't watching closely.

    There is a new thread in Hell about the blackface (and alleged sexual assault) scandals in Virginia politics now.

    Here is some context about the experiences of both African-American and white students at Gov. Northam's medical school at the time the yearbooks in question were published.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I wonder if maybe the anti-white-dress comments were influenced by the racism mess with the Dem. governor of Virginia? (And some other members of his gov't, AIUI.)

    I've also wondered if the accusations against the governor et al were purposely sought, dug up by, and publicized by political enemies. I don't know what the gov't folks may or may not have actually done, but none of this just happened to surface.

    Possible, but it may also have been a reference to the fact that for much of the 20th century, it was the Democrats who were the racist, Jim Crow law-making, white-sheet-wearing lynch mobs in the US South. That changed under Nixon's 1968 Southern strategy.

    It, and Romanlion's comment, probably have a lot to do with the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, and their alleged links to antisemitism. Frankly, as a Democrat I must admit that some of their comments are downright antisemitic, even if criticizing Israeli policy is different from making hateful statements about Jewish people and supporting those who hate them. Their comments, and their associations with others even more extreme than they, though have crossed that line.

    The Muslim faith has semitic roots. Just they may not be friends fo Israel does not mean they are antisemitic in my book.

    My son lived in Palestine for a year. He got a taste of how the Israelis oppressed the Palestinians and why the Palestinians are against the nation of Israel. However, it is quite possible for a Jew and a Palestinian to interact with each other as brothers or sisters. Remove the nation of Israel from the equation and they both claim to be descendants of Abram
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Trying to understand, but not defending anyone: would they have had much experience of African-Americans in Virginia, back in the day? I'm guessing there would've been few, if any, at medical school.

    Very likely they would - more likely than in the North. It's true that there wouldn't have been many African-American students at the medical school, but the governor would have known any number of people in his childhood. I don't know what Northam's home life was like, but in families who could afford domestic help, any cleaners, housekeepers, nannies etc. they employed would likely have been black. Depending on where in the state he lived, I don't know if his schools would have been fully integrated in time for him to attend school and form relationships with black people his own age. If he even went to public school. Virginia was a pretty hot spot for segregation academies.

    A lot of the US's black population is still located in the South (you can see this illustrated on this dot map). African-Americans who moved north during the Great Migration tended to be isolated in all-black neighborhoods in major cities, so middle- and upper-class white Northerners are not all that likely to actually have meaningful relationships with black people. They don't have the geographic proximity.

    I grew up in North Carolina and went to public schools in the 80s and 90s when we were still under federal court-ordered desegregation. (Most public schools are now quietly being resegregated because nobody really cares to enforce the integration orders anymore.) It wasn't perfect, and there was a lot of de facto segregation within the school itself by separating white students into honors and AP classes and that sort of thing. But on the whole we had much, much more contact and relationship between students of different races than people did who weren't federally required to. Even today the most segregated school districts are in places like New York and Chicago where the feds weren't watching closely.

    Thanks for this post. It answers some of my questions about Virginia.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I wonder if maybe the anti-white-dress comments were influenced by the racism mess with the Dem. governor of Virginia? (And some other members of his gov't, AIUI.)

    I've also wondered if the accusations against the governor et al were purposely sought, dug up by, and publicized by political enemies. I don't know what the gov't folks may or may not have actually done, but none of this just happened to surface.

    Possible, but it may also have been a reference to the fact that for much of the 20th century, it was the Democrats who were the racist, Jim Crow law-making, white-sheet-wearing lynch mobs in the US South. That changed under Nixon's 1968 Southern strategy.

    It, and Romanlion's comment, probably have a lot to do with the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, and their alleged links to antisemitism. Frankly, as a Democrat I must admit that some of their comments are downright antisemitic, even if criticizing Israeli policy is different from making hateful statements about Jewish people and supporting those who hate them. Their comments, and their associations with others even more extreme than they, though have crossed that line.

    The Muslim faith has semitic roots. Just they may not be friends fo Israel does not mean they are antisemitic in my book.

    My son lived in Palestine for a year. He got a taste of how the Israelis oppressed the Palestinians and why the Palestinians are against the nation of Israel. However, it is quite possible for a Jew and a Palestinian to interact with each other as brothers or sisters. Remove the nation of Israel from the equation and they both claim to be descendants of Abram

    I don't know about these women, but there is a shitload of antisemitic stuff in the Muslim world. It might be a reaction, but it is vitriolic and draws from a long tradition of European antisemitism.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I wonder if maybe the anti-white-dress comments were influenced by the racism mess with the Dem. governor of Virginia? (And some other members of his gov't, AIUI.)

    I've also wondered if the accusations against the governor et al were purposely sought, dug up by, and publicized by political enemies. I don't know what the gov't folks may or may not have actually done, but none of this just happened to surface.

    Possible, but it may also have been a reference to the fact that for much of the 20th century, it was the Democrats who were the racist, Jim Crow law-making, white-sheet-wearing lynch mobs in the US South. That changed under Nixon's 1968 Southern strategy.

    It, and Romanlion's comment, probably have a lot to do with the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, and their alleged links to antisemitism. Frankly, as a Democrat I must admit that some of their comments are downright antisemitic, even if criticizing Israeli policy is different from making hateful statements about Jewish people and supporting those who hate them. Their comments, and their associations with others even more extreme than they, though have crossed that line.

    The Muslim faith has semitic roots. Just they may not be friends fo Israel does not mean they are antisemitic in my book.

    My son lived in Palestine for a year. He got a taste of how the Israelis oppressed the Palestinians and why the Palestinians are against the nation of Israel. However, it is quite possible for a Jew and a Palestinian to interact with each other as brothers or sisters. Remove the nation of Israel from the equation and they both claim to be descendants of Abram

    I can't think of a word that accurately captures the meaning of antisemitism, because the term anti-Judaism implies the religion rather than the Jewish people, and antisemitism is a form of racism directed at Jewish people, regardless of their religious observance. I agree that it is an inaccurate term in that it does not include other Semitic people.

    The language of conspiracy theories about Jewish people is baked into comments like that which Ilhan Omar made on Twitter saying that, "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel." Although the Israeli government does have powerful allies in the US government and in parts of the US Jewish community, claiming that Israel has "hypnotized the world" assigns a conspiratorial near-omnipotence to a group of Jewish people that is a classic hallmark of antisemitism. I am fiercely critical of the actions of the Jewish government in Palestine. However, I am well aware of the need to consider Jewish stereotypes in framing one's criticism of Israel, especially when one has a big megaphone with which to do so. It is important to differentiate not only between Israel and Jewish people everywhere, but also to differentiate between the Israeli government and the Israeli people (and, I would add although others might disagree, the right of the Israeli state to exist). There are hateful groups and individuals out there whose hatred and motivation towards violence are both strengthened by antisemitic dog-whistles within criticism of the State of Israel, and that who pass along these dog whistles in order to spread their hate.
Sign In or Register to comment.