The State of the Union Thread -- A Trumpist Reality Show better than Ed Sullivan's big show

[NorseThing]

Best single line in the speech: Americans are dreamers, too.

Best because all sides can read what they want to whether to be critical or to love the ideal.

Trump on immigration deal: 'Americans are dreamers too ...

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/30/trump-immigration...
Jan 30, 2018 · President Trump offered Democrats a bipartisan opening on immigration in his State of the Union address Tuesday night, saying he's willing to work with ...


White Nationalists Are Loving Trump’s “Americans Are ...

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/01/white-nationalists... · 13 hours ago
“Americans are dreamers too” is why President Trump is so remarkable. It shifts focus from a small group to the whole nation. — Newt Gingrich ...

and of course other links too numerous to mention from those who want to tie the Republicans ot the KKK or David Duke to those who simply want to further divide the citizens of the USA. I do not know what the intention of the line was to accomplish, but it was part of the really big show as promised. Reality TV at it's best.

[Basil II the B.S]

It isn't really different from saying ''all lives matter''.

Again, the hateful left will hate.

[Condottiere 40K]

All lives do matter, but some lives matter more.

I'm not so sure about all guns matter.

[Big War Bird]

All rights matter.

[NorseThing]

Point One: Compete everywhere.

Point Two: Design strategies that win despite the news media because you overmatch them.

Point Three: We have to have the courage to fight. You have to be prepared. When someone gets up, the junior senator from New York, and says, “You know, if you talk about chain migration, it’s racist.” But we need to say: “You must be losing this debate on the facts so badly that you’re now reduced to scream ‘racism,’ which is, by the way, what you scream about virtually anything, unless of course that’s homophobia or something else.” The Left has no arguments left except to yell nasty names.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...-november.html

Newt gave a good speech that is a bit of response to the State of the Union Big Show Speech. The entire article at the link is good, but I highlight the excerpt bit as something neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have been doing. Both parties need to compete in each and every district race -- make no exceptions. The bit about Kennedy speaking in front of the broken car at the tech school could have been priceless, but the Republicans are still not fighting to win. I feel this is a flaw within the Democrat Party as well.

[Condottiere 40K]

There's been a mass of desertions by sitting Republican Congressmen, holding rather powerful chairmanships, who'd you'd expect to be able to fill their warchests for any degree of electioneering to keep their districts.

Ryan supposedly saw the writing on the wall, before Trump phoned him to reconsider.

[NorseThing]

There's been a mass of desertions by sitting Republican Congressmen, holding rather powerful chairmanships, who'd you'd expect to be able to fill their warchests for any degree of electioneering to keep their districts.

Ryan supposedly saw the writing on the wall, before Trump phoned him to reconsider.

A bit of overstatement, perhaps. 9 Chairs and about 40 Representatives from the Republican Party are not running for reelection. How this varies from typical I do not know, but why is this characterized as mass desertion? They are simply not running again and each has differing reasons. I suspect that the Trump effect is part of the reason, but not because Trump is losing Congressional seats. The Republican Party is in the midst of change (as well as the Democratic Party). Politicians that will not change are probably best advised to step aside and get out of the way. By the way, what are the "mass desertion" figures for the party of Clinton?

[Condottiere 40K]

Ryan is a careerist, if he was quitting it would be for strategic reasons, mostly for a clean run at the nomination in either Twenty or Twenty Four; he also doesn't want to be caught in the Impeachment trap, because however he votes, it's a no win situation, probably why the GOP doubled down now to discredit Mueller and his investigation, rather than risk being judged by their base, the electorate, the country and history.

The Democrats are expecting a bloodbath, both in their primaries and in November.

If the Progressives become a sizable faction, there will be no compromise possible with the Trump Administration.

Firing Comey was the strategic blunder, since his investigation was aimed at minimizing Russian influence and caging Trump, not getting rid of him, like they let Reagan get off the Iran Contra scandal.

The FBI hates Hillary, but the difference is that they know everything Trump's been up to for the past forty years, much like most Western intelligence agencies know that his campaign, and probably the Trump Administration now, was and is colluding with the Russians.

[NorseThing]

I am not really certain what a 'Progressive' is. Maybe it is just my age, but when I hear 'Progressive' I think in terms of Pres. Teddy Roosevelt and mixing respect for the environment with support for industrial work and a desire to not have a business environment dominated by big players squeezing out the little guys not dissimilar to what Trump and the bits of the Reform Party of Perot stood for. This does not mean all businesses are evil versions of Darth Vader. This does not mean that all little guys are golden. If the Democratic version of Progressive cannot or will not deal with that, then there is no hope for the Democratic version of Progressive today.

On another note, but somewhat related:

However, Stivers acknowledged that history is not on Republicans’ side, considering the political party that controls the White House has over roughly the past eight decades lost about 26 House seats in midterm elections, as Democrats need to gain 24 to retake control of the lower chamber. (All 435 House seats are up for reelection this year.)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...-on-stump.html

So we get that the US House may flip, but the reporting is silent on the Democrats individual or collective prospects. It seems so slanted anti Trump and anti Republican -- even on Fox News. I cannot buy into the narrative that it is all easy for anyone with a D after their name to get elected to Congress. Maybe I am wrong, but anytime a narrative is this slanted, it tends to be in error and in error in sometimes big ways. Take the Clinton election sweep for example.

[HannibalExMachina]

i agree that slanted expectation can be a big problem if one is too complacent abouts ones chances. however, if the voter commitment keeps up, and the Ds manage not the up the goodwill that still mostly stems from the fact that they are not Rs, this can go somewhere. that would oc require the Ds finally getting over their pathological need to draw away some imaginary political center from the Rs.

i got the feeling (or maybe thats just because of their higher exposure) that its the groups united by strong ideological motives (still representing real underlying issues) putting in the most effort here, which would make sense. but as always, the much larger group of people suffering from some of the same issues needs to be brought in, and the Ds need a narrative to put against the usual jingoistic and often racist fairy tale propaganda of the Rs.

The US are oc sadly lacking any socialist tradition that could help here, but then, that one has been pretty tame in europe for a long time now as well. but given the fact that brexit has made a guy like corbyn more fashionable is certainly an indicator that there is a push against reactionaries.

dem dems need a dose of the good old YWC (Yes We Can) to counter the MAGA goblin. its really the same message, but one is about needed change vs going back to an imaginary past.