Stagecraft and Conviction
Last night President Trump delivered his historic 5th (and longest) State of the Union Speech. I regard it as his best. He not only reaffirmed his commitment to his policies, but he also took on the resistance of his opponents. He used stagecraft to let the country see exactly what democrats have become. The key moment was when he asked representatives to stand if they agreed with the statement: “The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens. ” Republicans then rose, while many Democrats did not, creating the memorable image that the administration and Republicans running in the midterms will surely use against them.
The stagecraft included the introduction of the gold medal-winning United States men’s hockey team as well as Eric Slover, an Army pilot injured in the operation to capture Nicolás Maduro, who was presented with the Medal of Honor. The President also presented the victims of violent crimes perpetrated by immigrants to the chamber. He introduced a young woman named Sage who is at the center of a lawsuit because of the way her school handled her gender identity. Trump reminded the American people: “Surely we can all agree, no state can be allowed to rip children from their parents’ arms and transition them to a new gender against the parents’ will." The widow of Charlie Kirk (Erika Kirk) was also introduced and a young woman was reunited with her father whom the President freed from a Venezuelan prison.
The issues he touched upon could be broken down into 4 categories:
1) The economy, which is a work in progress, the fruits of which will be revealed over the next few months. The President basically promised that the prices of groceries and gas would drop and that his tax cuts were helping workers.
2) Tariffs, which Trump believes would eventually “substantially replace the modern-day system of income tax."
3) Voting. Trump urged the Senate to put the Save Act to a vote despite the need for 60 votes for passage.
4) Foreign Policy. The President began to explain to the American people the difficult decision he must make on Iran. He also noted his foreign policy achievements up to this point.
The speech was followed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia's (the democrat who ran as a moderate but governed as a radical) rebuttal. For those who missed it, she claimed that the President wasn't making things more affordable. Very weak sauce.
Rep. Al Green got kicked out again and the New York Times did their usual fact check of Trump's speech. They never did one on Biden or Obama.
Tags
Who is online
95 visitors
I give it an A.
Not everyone was impressed.
In some circles self-agrandisement is impressive.
Modesty has never been one of his strong suits. It may bother some, but I have noticed that those it bothers have even greater character flaws.
Only in the circles that Dante wrote about...
Ooooh scary!
Let us know when you're ready for a debate
Yeah she was disrespectfully screaming the whole time like a howler monkey. As was our dimwit from Michigan, Tlaib.
I'm sure Trump has an available image you can borrow.
No I think that was destroyed by the staffer who posted it.
chapter 1 of the dementia monologues ...
Nah, we finished four years of that in 2024
Complete with about 15 million new aliens.
I guess shouting "you lie" was probably considered too obvious or just plain redundant ...
For the adults in the room and that watched, it did help idenitfy the children (not that they weren't already obvious).
And I heard some of Donalds friends saying he hasn't smiled this much since he raped that 13-year-old child along with his good friend Jeff Epstein.
[✘]
We, and the President, already knew who would stand for the American citizens and who wouldn't. And the expected response showed everybody where the Democrats loyalties lie.
This dude should have kept his role as the Geico Caveman.
Wasn't that a beautiful trap?
I can envision that image on every Republican advertisement going into the midterms.
This dude should have kept his role as the Geico Caveman.
I still don't get it! Who the hell votes for such vermin?
It was. But it was expected. They could care less about the American citizen. That became evident years ago. Those that remained seated are also the same vermin that refused to acknowledge a child with cancer, are supposed to be representing districts that are interfering with ICE operations and have been telling minorities that they are too stupid to read, get an ID, know what a computer is and that they need help in everything they do.
Vermin. These are the same voters who go out of their way to interfere with ICE operations, and violently attack anybody who disagrees with them (even in the slightest).
I think that is exactly how most people saw it last night.
Let us remember who Trump honored last night.
And let us remember who he confronted:
And let us never forget the America he loves
For emphasis
Yup, it sure sucks being them!
Yep, that is a whole lot of ugly, on the inside as well as the outside.
I did not see any Democrats standing up and applauding when that Medal Of Honor was presented. You know damn well none of the "Squad" did because they hate everything that medal stands for.
I was wondering about that but I have to say I am not surprised.
I don't think any of them understand what was happening.
You are the only one here who would confuse a stupid smirk on the face with love.
I think it was more like they could they could have cared less.
At minimum, the Vets in congress that didn’t show their respect broke the faith. Big time.
Nah, many aren’t confused. The ones who aren’t Trump triggered beyond help that is.
They have no idea of those who protect us all.
Love means different things to different people. I'm sure that Ilhan Omar loves her husband like a brother. Trump on the other hand noted a few days ago that his days may be numbered because of his patriotism.
Has he worn himself out? That would be good news.
Which is another problem in and of itself.
I think to them it was just a distraction to their booing, name calling, and hating Trump!
There was another potential assassin (Austin Tucker Martin) killed at Mar-a-Lago only days ago. That is when Trump said his days may be numbered.
Keep up the obscene rhetoric.
You approve of Trump???
Obama had a hard time understanding the military. We have lived off of the sacrifice of courageous young men since 1945.
That's an odd question.
Did you get his point?
Was that the date of the Tea Party in Boston or the day Crispus Attucks died at the Boston Massacre?
Your grasp of history needs some exercise.
do you recall what it was those americans that paid the ultimate price were fighting to defend?
The person you refer to was a Christian Trump supporter obsessed with the Epstein files
I stopped watching the annual "let me tell you why I am so wonderful" speeches years ago. That being said I would have loved to see the dems confusion as to if they should stand or not. The dems that did not show are probably glad they were not put into the position admitting where their loyalties lay or lie about it and stand.
I understand, but this one was also deliciously confrontational!
My wife turned it on for a very short time. Just so she could laugh at the Democrats and their idiotic behavior. I think she had it on maybe 5 minutes.
The fact they didn't show put their loyalties and their childish behavior on full display.
Same.
I was tempted to turn this one on just to see the hockey team honored, but I figured that would be a YouTube short anyway.
The first duty of the American government is to protect and follow the CONSTITUTION. Something Trump is woefully failing in.
Not to mention the fact that his administration is failing the American people with healthcare, affordability, upholding the law, and a myriad of other ways so that Trump can line his corrupt pockets.
it always cracks me up when the so called super patriot maga-vets fully support the criminal/traitor/child molester that can't fulfill his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, just like their adherence to their past oaths of service ...
Your list of examples is just so overwhelming. /s
Yet you could not even offer a single feeble factual counter.
So overwhelming that you are unable to present a defense to any of them...
Not his claim to disprove or prove.
Up to you to prove them
Nothing was provided to counter.
You gave nothing to even consider. Just opinion.
Seems it is often required that one side prove claims.
[✘]
He criticized the claim but offered no supporting argument. 'Nuh uh' is a feeble response.
So making a claim with no supporting argument is ok but calling out the claim with no supporting argument is not ok.
Uh huh, sure
Simple:
Healthcare - No healthcare plan despite the fact it was weeks away over 9 years ago. Plus Trump's big beautiful Bill has doubled the cost of healthcare for many many people.
Impact of the “Big Bill” on Medicare
Affordability - Are Tariffs Raising U.S. Retail Prices?
Walmart and other big companies say tariffs are forcing them to hike prices
Trump Tariffs Are Raising Prices for Consumers, Latest Evidence Shows
Upholding the law - How many of Epstein's clients has the DOJ charged?
The Trump administration has been accused of ignoring or flat-out defying recent federal court orders
Trump Pardoned Violent Insurrectionists That Brutally Attacked Police Officers – And Tried to Defund Law Enforcement
Your turn......
Unless it is right wingers?
A confused conclusion.
a maga conclusion ...
And as soon as you support that claim, MAGA disappears....
... or they deflect to attack the sources that don't have the maga seal of approval.
[✘]
[✘]
As expected, Trump delivered a hot mess that bore little connection to reality. There was very little substance to Trump's rally speech. Trump lied about jobs: DHS, alone, has made a significant contribution to job creation numbers. The inflation rate has not dropped below 2%. Millions of immigrants are not being deported. The economy is not stronger. The American Dream is not being revived. Trump's recitation of so-called facts proves that Trump is cooking the books in a fraudulent manner.
We're still stuck in NATO. We're still stuck with Ukraine. Trump stuck us with a long term commitment in Venezuela. Trump is threatening to drag the US into another quagmire with an Iranian war. Trump has turned the US into a threat for Europe. China is stronger today than before Trump returned to the White House. The entire world is totally confused and uncertain about Trump's trade policies. The US trade deficit has grown under Trump despite tariffs. Trump is taking credit on the world stage for things he did not do. And global leaders are too stupid to notice?
The speech was an 'okay' stump speech. Only 'okay' because Trump tried to whip too many dead horses. And the celebration of WWII has grown stale and Trump's delivery seemed all too fake and phony. (How the hell could Trump win a Medal of Honor since he never served in the military?) Trump is a 'stolen glory' President. That's not a role model for our children or a legacy to be proud of.
Trump did not deliver any sort of agenda. Trump did not present any sort of plan for the future. Trump provided no guidance for government or for the American people. The friggin' SAVE Act is the biggest thing on Trump's agenda? Really?
Even if two thirds of what you just said was true, we are still better off than the 4 years of the left's Orwellian nightmare.
I understand. Trump ended the Progressives gains since 2008.
Trump is presiding over a bigger and more intrusive big government than Biden's. Trump is not addressing the deficit or the national debt. Trump has given short shrift to small and medium sized manufacturing enterprises that are critical for reviving manufacturing because Trump wants big numbers posted on the scoreboard.
There is no way that Trump's policies will achieve what has been promised because Trump has engaged in half-assed implementation. Trump has created so many Doom Loops in the economy that it's becoming almost impossible to avoid total collapse.
Trump delivered a rally speech to throw red meat to a (shrinking) base of support. Trump did not deliver a policy speech. Trump did not deliver a vision speech. Trump didn't even deliver a 'stay the course' speech. Trump displayed petulance, not leadership. Trump displayed gaslighting, not cooperation. Where did the American people fit into Trump's speech?
We don't know what has been achieved yet.
Trump delivered a rally speech to throw red meat to a (shrinking) base of support.
I beg to differ. For example, after recognizing the families of victims of repeat offenders, Trump noted the Democrats who didn’t stand in respect. “How do you not stand? What do you think the American people thought of that? He noted that democrats are against voter ID even though most democrat voters are for it.
What he did was to show how un-American the democrat party has become.
People with half a brain know that they were remained seated to disrespect Trump, not the soldiers or families he was trying to leech honor off of. It was blatantly obvious that he used the people he mentioned as props.
I half expected him to waddle up to where the Medal Of Honor was and snatch it before it was placed around the soldiers neck.
The majority of Americans are done with Trump. It doesn't even matter much what was or was not in the speech last night.
So their hatred of Trump is more important than honoring people that deserve the award. Not surprising, just disgusting.
And yet back in the real world, he didn't
Understood. The hatred for Trump is so all consuming he could cure cancer and many on the left would still complain.
I think the Democrats should have all walked out at the start of the speech.
Them sitting while Trump played his games has nothing to do with disrespecting soldiers. Only blind fools cant see that.
They had to at least pretend to listen so they could go over the response they had already written a few days ago.
Only partisan hacks can't see the truth. Trump awarded people, dems did not stand for them. Spin it as you wish, the facts are the facts and real Americans (along with the people and families of the awarded) know the truth. Disgraceful.
The disgraceful thing is the corrupt dishonest buffoon you have been making excuses for over the last ten years.
When the facts can not be disputed deflect to the poster.
Weak
That's gaslighting. The American public isn't stupid.
What did the American people think of Republicans jumping to their feet every time Trump bullied, gaslighted, pandered, and exaggerated? It looked like a political rally for Republicans but not like a serious attempt to govern.
Perhaps. But Trump definitely demonstrated that compromise is dead in Congress. Trump showed the people of the United States that governing has become a cage match. Trump has deliberately tied up Congress in blood feuds to give himself a free hand, Constitution be damned. Trump wants Congress and the country divided so he can get away with violating the Constitution.
That's a cheap trick that relies on gaslighting, bullying, red meat pandering, outright lying, and intentionally ignoring Constitutional law. Trump's approach is not good for the country and we're going to pay a high price for it at some point.
Yes, we do have a clear picture of what Trump has achieved. Trump justified a Bigger Big Government with his statement "Stand up if you agree with this statement: The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens – not illegal aliens."
The first duty of government is to empower the people of the United States to secure their own future. We're not supposed to rely on a paternalistic Federal government to protect us. Trump's concept of Big Government is anti-American.
How is cheering for Trump's bigger and more intrusive Big Government a display of patriotism? I certainly would not have stood for Trump's vision of Big Government. I am not going to support Stalinism wrapped in the American flag. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's patriotism.
Is that what you believe?
The proof is in the pudding. Let's run the ads and see what the people think of it.
Another glimpse at a bizarre alternate reality where everything bad comes from Ds and Trump is a hero.
Do you really think that the American people will excuse them for not standing for putting American citizens first?
It was so easy and Trump was magnificent in hanging them with their own ideology.
That is about the most bizarre comment ever.
Most of the American people understand this Emperor has no clothes.
its worship of a false deity
Perhaps he meant it like a proctologist impressed by the size of a bowel impaction, "That massive 29 lb turd we removed from that mans colon was magnificent"...
... in addition to being brainless, spineless, and dickless like the majority of his maga coalition.
That must be it. The only possible explanation.
What is your definition of “most?” A majority of the triggered?
“Trump did not deliver any sort of agenda. Trump did not present any sort of plan for the future. Trump provided no guidance for government or for the American people.”
It did sum up the sad ‘state of the union’…a theatre of the absurd where division is celebrated, facts are irrelevant, derision is rampant, and all to satisfy the ego of a most mediocre megalomaniac. Embarrassing at best, an absolute joke of a ‘performance’ and an insult to all we should hold dear. Pathetic.
The dems got exposed for what they are.
The Ds, the Ds, …. This irrational hatred of the Ds is what got Trump elected and blinds supporters from recognizing the disaster they created by electing this buffoon.
The democrat party has been taken over by the left, just as Spain's Republican party was once taken over by Communists in the 1930s.
There is nothing irrational about hating them for the policies they subjected the country to under Biden.
They are definitely not the dems of old.
Correct, they more resemble the republicans of old, Reagan era republicans.
It's semi-irrational. Let's not pretend they help themselves.
Forgotten the term "Reagan Democrats", I see.
That refers to voters not the elected representatives. Guess you forgot that......
“They are definitely not the dems of old.”
Not even close. I’ve voted for plenty of dems over the years, along with repubs, this current rendition will NOT ever get my vote again until they pull their brainless heads out of their asses and gain some common sense.
Not even remotely believable
You don’t know anything about me, don’t act like you do.
Yes, white blue collar workers. "Reagan Democrats" are now Ultra super maga or whatever Biden called them as the Democratic Party has moved so far to the left as tot be almost unrecognizable to what it was a generation ago.
[deleted][✘]
Amen. Although there are still a few worthwhile dems. Of course the wingnuts are forcing them out.
Yea, right.
We all can read what you write and what you vote up.
Republicans have fascists and Democrats have stayed the same the say...
.
DOH!
“We all can read what you write and what you vote up.”
Lol, what i post on nt defines my entire adult life? To actually post something so stupid is moronically juvenile, absurd, and utterly void of logic, character, and integrity.
Roget that!?!
LOL, that joke passed 30K feet over most of the maga heads ...
Of course not. A stupid exaggeration.
What you post does reveal information about how you think and behave. Your current post illustrates this nicely.
Maybe now. Of course his comment that you seem to have a problem with was talking about the past. "I’ve voted for plenty of dems over the years, along with repubs, ".
I don't think this is necessarily about his comment. Notice the accusation:
Gazoo doesn't post that much so he's now catching shit for merely giving a thumbs up to somebody else's comment. He's had to endure more than a little of that type of bullying lately on several different occasions.
You wouldn't think people would read Orwell as an instruction manual, but apparently the Thought Police are now a thing.
No, he is hearing an explanation as to how people can learn about other's positions based on their interactions here in response to his objection to my not buying his claim. How terrible.
Surely you are not going to try to argue that what an individual posts and what an individual votes up provides no insight into the individual's positions.
“Of course not. A stupid exaggeration.”
acting like you know more about a person’s past than they do, then saying they made “A stupid exaggeration” is the height of irony.
“What you post does reveal information about how you think and behave. Your current post illustrates this nicely.”
What i post does reveal what i ThINK about TODAY’S democrats. It in no way reveals how i thought of past democrats, you know, the one’s that could admit men could not get pregnant, the one’s that weren’t batshit crazy. It’s foolish and arrogant to look at a person’s comments today and claim to know how they voted in the 80’s, 90’s, etc.
Do comments a person makes reveal how they behave? If so one nt’er goes around calling white people he disagrees with “racist”. Another regularly calls others “fascist.” Another expresses the most extreme hatred toward others that i’ve ever seen. Another goes around threatening trump supporters with physical injury, even death. While another goes around belittling and insulting anyone they disagree with. I could go on but i’m sure you get the point.
trump supporters should probably get used to it ...
Yes. He's been harassed on more than one occasion now for comments he never made.
It's a peculiar form of cowardly, neurotic bullshit to lambast somebody simply because they agree with something a third person said.
They have learned to ignore the far left ignorant wingnuts
Far left wingnuts are easy to ignore because there are far fewer of them than far right wingnuts. The far right wingnuts you can't seem to avoid these days, mostly because of how fat, stupid, lazy and undeservedly shameless they are.
Explain the 'irony'. You are just typing nonsense.
Does it occur to you that posts like the above provide info about how you think?
Further, I did not claim to know how you voted. I stated that I do not believe what you claimed. Very different. Knowledge vs. belief is a critical distinction. You are arguing a strawman. Recognize that.
To some degree, yes. Odd that you do not recognize this.
There are certain facts that are very telling. For example, the fact that someone would defend Trump, —especially at this point— is extremely revealing as to how a person thinks. Another example, those who constantly bash 'liberals' or 'Ds', etc. on any issue reveal themselves as blind partisans whose hatred for the 'other side' determines their political views.
Trump is an individual who is demonstrably and significantly harming our nation. He can and is criticized for cause. The mere fact that he is currently an R is irrelevant. No matter what party he claims, his actions and words are terrible for our nation. My comments about Trump, for example, have nothing whatsoever to do with party politics and have everything to do with his words and deeds. You do not see me bad-mouthing conservatives, Rs, 'the right' or liberals, D, 'the left' or anything like that. My comments are critical and based on facts, not politics.
Given your comments and your votes are exclusively pro Trump, your aggregate interactions on this site most definitely reveal much of how you think. How you might believe otherwise is peculiar.
More ridiculous exaggeration. Here is what I wrote:
Explaining how readers can learn about how a person thinks based on what they post and what they vote up is not, in any way, 'lambasting'.
Provide a serious argument from you showing that what a person posts and votes up is NOT providing information about their views.
I predict you will fail.
( For example, if someone routinely votes up pro-Trump posts —even those that make absurd claims— explain how that does not reveal any info about that person's views. )
It may be possible... .just maybe.... that the not everything is about you. Hence the phrase "on multiple occasions".
You have merely made a small contribution to a larger trend that has manifested in far more egregiously shitheaded ways.
“Explain the 'irony'. You are just typing nonsense.”
First, you insinuate that i lied about how i voted decades ago based on what i’ve posted for the last few years. Then you claim to know how i behave based on my posts from the last few years. If you can’t see how that is a major exaggeration i’m not qualified to help you.
“Further, I did not claim to know how you voted. I stated that I do not believe what you claimed. Very different. “
When someone says they don’t believe a person they are basically saying that person is a liar. It’s not “Very different” at all. It means they don’t have the guts to come right out and say it in black and white.
”To some degree, yes. Odd that you do not recognize this.”
do you think interacting with people face to face is the same as interacting with people online? I don’t. I think the interactions are very different. “Odd that you don’t recognize this.” There is little chance the examples i listed in post 3.2.22 interact with others, face to face, the way they interact here.
”There are certain facts that are very telling. For example, the fact that someone would defend Trump, —especially at this point— is extremely revealing as to how a person thinks.”
I don’t like many of the things trump says or does. Sometimes i wish he’d just shut up. I do like a lot of his policies, especially given the alternative. If you consider that “defending trump” so be it. I don’t agree nor care. That said, you should know that i think it’s bullshit for taxpayers to pay off other people’s student loans, that men cannot get pregnant and should not use women’s bathrooms nor participate in women's sports, that the border should be secure, that we need to control who comes into this country, that it’s a privilege for foreigners to be in this country, not a right, defunding police is a ridiculous idea, etc. I could go on and on. This is where the democrat party is today and it’s a far cry from where they used to be.
”Given your comments and your votes are exclusively pro Trump,,,,,”
no, pro trump policies.
”,,,,,,,,,,your aggregate interactions on this site most definitely reveal much of how you think.”
yes, that many of todays democrat policies and positions are absolutely nuts.
i’ve seen, over and over, how this plays out. No give and take, no agreement on anything, no common ground, it just goes on and on etc, devolving into more and more insults. Not interested. You know where i’m at, i know where you’re at. We will not agree. I’m done. The last word is yours.
More trolling from you. I stated what I wrote to illustrate how you have intentionally misrepresented.
Your posts are no longer serious, just low-grade trolling.
Real simple Gazoo, based on your posts and how you vote, I do not buy your suggestion that you are non-partisan.
That does mean that I know what you have done in the past, present, or what you might do in the future. It does mean that I do not believe your claims.
Your protests do not change my belief.
What percentage of Democrats do you believe think men can get pregnant ?
I think there are a bunch of zeroes in front of the percentage.
"Stand up if you agree with this statement: The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens - not illegal aliens,' he said"
That so many Democrats cannot stand and support this most basic and fundamental of principles of what it means to be a nation shows exactly why Trump won the Presidency, twice, despite all his issues.
Trump has a particular genius in demonstrating just how batshit crazy and hostile to Americans democrats can be.
And when he said, "These people are crazy," even Hakeem Jeffries had to grin. That line was definitely not part of the speech, but it was memorable and perfectly delivered.
They really are. They've lost their minds the last decade.
I'm sure they thought they changed the country, but in 2016 Trump said NOT SO FAST!
The other big moment demonstrating their rejection of common decency occurred when Democrats refused to stand for justice in the murder of Iryna Zarutska
How can any sort of decent person not stand for the promise of justice in a brutal murder? What could you possibly object to unless you support cold blooded murder?
That is the other narrative we are living under, which amounts to those who are designated as "oppressed" get to do anything without punishment.
Maybe because Trump lied about the murder? The guy who killed her is a citizen. He was born here.
I didn’t watch, but I’m curious. Did he have people stand for any of the people killed by ICE?
Never mentioned them. Doesn't fit the script.
Completely delusional.
100% projection
It’s actually not. See @8.
Why do Republicans and Democrats acting like brats at SOTUs over the years mean "The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens - not illegal aliens" is objectionable?
I wrote See 8, but I guess it should have been 9. I would bet real money it was 8 when I wrote that.
What part of my question confused you? Do you need a word explained?
LMAO!!
Trump in specific (and politicians in general) has the ability to frame subjects within a false dichotomy and thus give the appearance of an either or choice, as he does in the above quoted statement. Sean can follow Trump down this rhetorical rabbit hole of illogic and end up with the conclusion that members of the Democratic Party are "batshit crazy and hostile to Americans".
If one parses the President's statement on a logical level (for ohh, maybe a second or so), one quickly realizes that the either/or (protect American citizens vs. protect undocumented immigrants) presented by the specious argumentation (one must choose between these and only these characterizations) is a false dichotomy, a false choice. The statement assumes the unspoken assertion that only one of the pair can be true at the same time: one is mutually exclusive from the other. They are, in fact and deed, not mutually exclusive. They should both be done at the same time, thereby protecting the Constitutionally mandated rights of all persons.
This false binary is not a mistake.
It is a feature of this presidency.
A rhetorical trap designed to ensnare the unwary.
Protecting one group does not preclude protecting another.
Citizens should be protected. That is true. That is obvious.
So should all persons.
The Constitution says so.
The same Constitution Trump has publicly questioned whether he is bound to uphold.
So we are presented with a choice.
The premise is false.
The choice is false.
This is not argumentation. It is misrepresentation.
And repeating a falsehood does not make it true.
Defending it does not elevate it.
Defending it does not make it true.
It only ties the defender to it.
Before I forget, let me list the awards presented last night:
Chief Warrant Officer Eric Slover - MEDAL OF HONOR
Navy Captain Royce Williams - MEDAL OF HONOR
SSGT Andrew Wolfe - PURPLE HEART
Coast Guard Petty Officer Scott Ruskan - LEGION OF MERIT
This needs to be bigger so the childish clowns can see it.
Chief Warrant Officer Eric Slover - MEDAL OF HONOR
Navy Captain Royce Williams - MEDAL OF HONOR
SSGT Andrew Wolfe - PURPLE HEART
Coast Guard Petty Officer Scott Ruskan - LEGION OF MERIT
Trump has always wanted to host an awards show. Since no one would ever let him he created his own as a distraction from how he is ruining the country.
Well, we seem to have reached what writers refer to as the "pregnant pause." Around here that means people are receiving instructions.
Therefore, I shall conclude this little discussion by saying that the President was masterful in staying on point last night.
Have a good one.
Vic, no one is afraid of you or your lame ideas. We have to keep telling you that because you keep fantasizing.
John, we caught them right out in the open.
Do you understand that the rest of us have lives, too? And we aren’t all monitoring this website or your articles 24/7?
I'm glad to hear it!
Stay active, avoid protests & riots.
Stay active. Go to any protests of this administration you can find.
Go out. Monitor the government. Hold their feet to the fire.
Stay safe and good luck.
Rush - Stick it out
It is a counterrevolution and we must win.
Since 'we' means 'Trump and his minions' in that context, that notion is irrational, irresponsible, and unpatriotic.
Antonio Gramsci's idea was a great success in the US.
It may finally be coming to an end.
How much of this did you do during the Biden and Obama regimes?
More anti-intellectual nonsense.
You see him as an intellectual?
What I see is you again disparaging higher education.
You must mean what the left has done to higher education.
Are you aware that things are so bad now that many universities believe a novel is too much for students to read and that remedial mathematics courses are now necessary?
Stop searching for and holding extreme anecdotes as if they were the norm. It produces a distorted view of reality.
Starts earlier than that. Have you ever seen a cashier attempt to count back change without help of the register? Most of the dems solution to the education problem is to throw more money at it.
In our days, Latin/Greek/French/German/math/science were being offered and taken by Jr. High/High School students.
Today, remedial reading/writing/math/science are being pushed on college students 'cause they are that far in the hole of the learning curve.
Today's education system is fit for - ??????
everyone gets a participation certificate so they can pretend they know something.
“Stop searching for and holding extreme anecdotes as if they were the norm.”
The incessant quest for the most inconsequential of sources in their fawning to faithfully parrot the narrative makes one wonder if they consume their kool-aid as an aphrodisiac.
And can you believe the death of cursive has yet to be enumerated?
Not to mention Civics. Required course(s) in our day. The majority of today’s youth will fail a basic US Civics test. Just how the Marxist wonks in academia like it.
I don't have to search very far. Universities have violated the Constitution to fill quotas. They have diminished academic standards in the process.
No you don’t but our friends on the left work full time trying to hide the men and women behind that curtain. Futilely for most thinking folks.
You are using quite a wide net in your confused/misguided/irrational attack on higher education.
They discriminated against Asians and disenfranchised an entire generation of white men.
The Supreme Court Strikes Down Affirmative
Action at Harvard and the University of North
Carolina.
Updated June 30, 2023
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision upending precedent permitting limited use of
race in higher education admissions. In an opinion deciding a pair of cases, Students for Fair Admissions,
Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of
North Carolina, the Court held that the schools’ use of race in admissions violated the Constitution’s
equal protection principles.
Many commentators had been expecting this outcome.
LSB10893.2.pdf
You can't seriously be arguing universities did not discriminate on the basis of race?
Indeed, I am not arguing that. You just posted yet another strawman.
A question is not a strawman. Look up the definition.
But I'm glad you agree with Vic that universitates did in fact engage in race discrimination against whites and Asians.
Yet again, you engage in hasty generalization: extrapolating from individual data points to attack an entire category.
Harvard is NOT all universities. Across the board, universities vary considerably. They have not, as you suggested, (seriously) damaged higher education. And, most importantly, Harvard is not 'the left'. It can be justly considered a left-leaning university but it clearly is not 'the left'.
Your biased claims are far too wide in scope.
What are you talking about? I'm doing nothing of the sort. Which universities with competitive admissions do you believe did not engage in race discrimination?
Where you do imagine I said it was?
They have not, as you suggested, (seriously) damaged higher education
Of course race discrimination damages higher education. How could it not?
And, most importantly, Harvard is not 'the left'.
Outside of a few explicitly conservative/religious institutions, university administration is about as dominated by the left as any field is.
I am talking about you pretending that I have argued that no universities discriminated on the basis of race.
That is a strawman. I never made any such claim.
Without that he has to actually think, not just assert and then blanket condemn. It is much easier his way. Nowhere near correct, but it's easier. Less thought required when you just lump everyone in together.... "Oh! Immigrants? They're all the same! Democrats? All the same! Liberals? All the same. They all think alike, eat alike, look alike." He has already placed his prejudicial comments for everyone to observe: 3.2.4 (and I quote)
It represents the vast majority of universities, particularly the elite schools.
I know somebody who is in charge of the personal office for a local company. He tells me that he never hires graduates from the elite schools anymore. He prefers the second tier of colleges. The new hires are more efficient and have less issues.
There you go again taking 'some' and expanding it into 'vast majority'. I know you cannot back that up, so you have just expressed another factually incorrect view — a belief based on bias rather than fact.
just expressed another factually incorrect view
If it is, you’d prove me wrong but you can’t. So you make yet another factually incorrect declaration.
Per Chatgpt:
Among competitive or selective U.S. universities, the share that used race as a factor in admissions before the 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina was very high.
Several higher-education studies and surveys (e.g., by the American Council on Education and Brookings) found roughly:
So the practical answer to your question is:
Roughly 70–75% of competitive U.S. universities used race as a factor in admissions before the Supreme Court banned the practice
I was replying to Vic. Try again.
Per Chatgpt:
CHAT just verified what I said, again. Thanks.
Looks like you are reading only what you want to read. Confirmation bias is a great way to get things wrong:
I even highlighted the key parts per ChatGPT in blue and you ignored them:
Hello?
Words Matter. You are arguing against imaginary strawmen.
What I actually said, your post confirms yet again.
You are at the point in your failed 'argument' where you merely make claims.
In reality, the majority of US universities did not discriminate based on race. The fact that some used race in their admission criteria does not automatically mean that most did. Most did not.
This is really sad. your own link prove my argument correct. Everyone who can read can see that.
Yet, for reasons known only to you, you persist in denying reality and desperately pretend I said something I didn't. It's very bizarre.
So Ivey League? Interesting...
Your claim that “roughly 70–75% of competitive U.S. universities used race as a factor in admissions before the Supreme Court banned the practice” depends heavily on how one defines competitive. That term can mean anything from the top 20 schools to the top several hundred institutions.
There is also an important distinction between racial discrimination and considering race as one factor among many in admissions decisions. For a policy to constitute racial discrimination in the strict sense, race would have to be a primary or determinative driver of the outcome. Historically, the admissions policies at issue treated race as one contextual factor within a broader holistic review of applicants.
As for the contention that academic standards have been diminished as a result of affirmative action, I am not aware of credible empirical studies demonstrating that elite universities became academically weaker because race was considered as one factor in admissions.
What the available admissions data have shown, including in litigation over Harvard’s admissions process, is that the largest statistical admissions advantages were associated with recruited athletes, legacy applicants, and children of donors or faculty, not race.
No it does not. Your ChatGPT and my ChatGPT response both clarified that the race-considered selection was NOT done in the majority of US universities.
You are cherry-picking and ignoring the parts you do not like. Even though I highlighted them in BLUE.
Yes, Ivy League institutions are highly selective. Why do you find that interesting? It is common knowledge.
True, most are again. After they were forced to stop “affirmative action” type practices in their student selection process.
Gotta keep that Federal money flowing in to continue building those obscene Endowment funds.
Glad to see you finally admit it. So do you have to plug in to a pod or something like that, or do they just download on your phone?
Late to the party again, I see.
You missed me. Awwwwwww
That's about it. The President surrounded by Democrats.
Who is doing that?
Oh wow! So amazing. He really got ‘em! Exposed!
Not.
Ok, everyone participate now.
Raise your hand if you agree with this statement. “The first duty of anyone serving in American government is to the Constitution, not Donald Trump or his agenda.”
And again, this time with feeling:
Raise your hand if you agree with this statement. “The first duty of anyone serving in American government is to the Constitution, not to whatever political party you belong to.”
I don’t believe most Republicans in DC could do this honestly, right now.
Why was Trump’s stunt not the sick burn you think it was? I’ll explain.
See, ACTUALLY, when someone is sworn in to government office, they don’t take an oath to “protect American citizens.” They take an oath “to support and defend the Constitution.” What’s more, they swear to support and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, “foreign and domestic.”
Our Constitutional provisions - that guarantee due process, demand that search and seizures be reasonable, that warrants based on probable cause are required, and that punishment cannot be cruel or unusual - these things are guaranteed not to American citizens, but to “persons” and “the people.” That means, yes, they do apply to people from other countries. The Supreme Court has said so, numerous times. The government is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of national origin or ancestry.
He did. And the same people who think the government owes no higher duty to Americans than foreigners are the same people who thought it was no big deal that a nominee to the Court couldn't explain what a woman is just like they ignore every other 80/20 issue they are on the wrong side of. And then they get mad and can't figure out why they lost to Trump, twice.
And you think Democrats could? That's funny./
The negative governmental powers listed in the constitution are not why our government, nor any other national government, was formed. You are conflating very different things.
It's fine if you don't think our government doesn't owe a higher duty to citizens than foreign criminals. But most Americans, probably around 80%, think that's insane.
By all means, Democrats should absolutely campaign on it.
As I said, their duty is to support and defend the Constitution. So, I guess I don’t see you standing or raising your hand for that, eh?
They aren’t the ones in control, so I didn’t mention them. I don’t have special faith in them, but I also haven’t seen anything like what we are seeing now under any administration, no matter the party.
But is your only response on this topic, “what about Democrats?”
I think Thomas Jefferson would not agree.
That is: government exists to secure the rights of people.
I have never taken an oath to defend a party or a Potus.
I have been involved in too many swearing in ceremonies taking an oath to the Constitution and the laws derived from it.
...
Thank you for reiterating my points from the other SOTU article.
IT IS Pointless, I know, but thank you.
If you are still defending trump.......it's you, not everyone else.