Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

State of the Union is BACK ON!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • State of the Union is BACK ON!

    Nancy Pelosi formally re-invites Donald Trump to deliver State of the Union Address next month.

    If I were Trump, I would decline.

  • #2
    If I were Trump I'd make sure it will absolutely totally p!$$ off the Democrats so they look like the obstinate jerkwads they are in front of the whole nation. I'd want a speech that makes them scowl, frown, shake their heads "NO!," and let them sit there, squirming in their seats, refusing to applaud anything I said.

    I'd drive home a message It's the Democrats who are the problem here. You might not like me but don't blame problems Democrats created on me please.

    It would be especially delicious if Pelosi and Schumer gave a rebuttal as vapid and wooden as their last one to that speech.

    Comment


    • #3
      The purpose of the State of the Union address, as stated in Section 3, Article II of the US Constitution is for the president 'from time to time give to the Congress information on the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.'

      It is not a time to attempt to gain cheap political advantage or to 'absolutely totally **** off the Democrats...' as hinted above. And as he has to give a state of the union either orally or in writing, he cannot refuse to do it as it is constitutionally mandated. He does not have to give it to both houses of Congress assembled, but he has to do it.

      In short, the above two postings are childish, sophomoric, and more in line with the actions of an immature idiot...of course we are discussing Trump are we not?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        If I were Trump I'd make sure it will absolutely totally p!$$ off the Democrats so they look like the obstinate jerkwads they are in front of the whole nation. I'd want a speech that makes them scowl, frown, shake their heads "NO!," and let them sit there, squirming in their seats, refusing to applaud anything I said.

        I'd drive home a message It's the Democrats who are the problem here. You might not like me but don't blame problems Democrats created on me please.

        It would be especially delicious if Pelosi and Schumer gave a rebuttal as vapid and wooden as their last one to that speech.
        And you make the make the very point I was going to I was going to ask about

        Is the State of the Union really needed anymore. Why not go back to a written report.

        When was the last time you saw a good one that was informational and at least semi bipartisan.

        Comment


        • #5
          That "from time to time" doesn't require such be annual.
          The "such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" would allow for Trump to comment on the issue of border security and its enhancement (such as more barriers, walls, etc) and the impact of undocumented aliens present in this nation illegally, along with what hindrances and/or accommodations have been done in this matter during the past year.
          Among other topics as well.

          Some interesting history, excerpts;
          ...
          Including President Donald J. Trumpís 2018 address, there have been a total of 95 in-person Annual Messages/State of the Union Addresses. Since President Woodrow Wilsonís 1913 address, there have been a total of 83 in-person addresses.
          ....
          The constitutionally mandated presidential message has gone through a few name changes:
          • It was formally known as the Annual Message from 1790 to 1946.
          • It began to be informally called the "state of the Union" message/address from 1942 to 1946.
          • Since 1947 it has officially been known as the State of the Union Address.

          Earlier Annual Messages of the President included agency budget requests and general reports on the health of the economy. During the 20th century, Congress required more-specialized reports on these two aspects, separate from the Annual Message.
          • Budget Message, required by the National Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (42 Stat. 20) to be delivered to Congress no more than two weeks after Congress convenes in January.
          • Economic Report, required by the Employment Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 23), with a flexible delivery date.

          Over time, as the message content changed, the focus of the State of the Union also changed:
          ...
          Fewest Messages/Addresses given: President Zachary Taylor, 1; President William Henry Harrison, 0; President James A. Garfield, 0.
          ....
          https://history.house.gov/Institutio...-of-the-Union/
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by craven View Post

            And you make the make the very point I was going to I was going to ask about

            Is the State of the Union really needed anymore. Why not go back to a written report.

            When was the last time you saw a good one that was informational and at least semi bipartisan.
            It is required by the Constitution, but it doesn't have to be a formal speech. A written report the dog ate would probably satisfy the requirement better.

            Comment


            • #7
              More interestingly, has there ever been one of these given that was negative in tone?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                More interestingly, has there ever been one of these given that was negative in tone?
                depends on which side your on and which side is the president. Trumps last one was not impressed. Obama last few were not that good. They have become more political rallies than they use to be. Or maybe it the 24/7 news plus internet that really makes em kind of oh hum affairs.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                  It is required by the Constitution, but it doesn't have to be a formal speech. A written report the dog ate would probably satisfy the requirement better.
                  Nor is it required annually.
                  If one reads through the link I provided above, it originally and often was written.
                  Long dance short, POTUS ISN'T Required to get before Congress (House and Senate) and make an Oral Report. Written would do fine and was done often back when fast speed of communications was either horse or wind-powered sail ship. Getting all the thugs in one room and speaking to/in front of them is a relative recent development and fully a "political" dog-n-pony show.
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by craven View Post

                    depends on which side your on and which side is the president. Trumps last one was not impressed. Obama last few were not that good. They have become more political rallies than they use to be. Or maybe it the 24/7 news plus internet that really makes em kind of oh hum affairs.
                    Getting sorta close to the mark.
                    In past 70~100 years as electrical & electronic media has sped up cross-country communications, they tend to be more redundant when there is a near 24/7 reporting and opinionating from DC on DC.

                    Still, it has become something of an embedded tradition and institution, as well as a political show. Thing is, have more recent ones been "kind of oh hum affairs" because of content~reflecting past year's events and achievements, or the oratory style of the POTUS delivering ?
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Massena View Post
                      The purpose of the State of the Union address, as stated in Section 3, Article II of the US Constitution is for the president 'from time to time give to the Congress information on the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.'

                      It is not a time to attempt to gain cheap political advantage or to 'absolutely totally **** off the Democrats...' as hinted above. And as he has to give a state of the union either orally or in writing, he cannot refuse to do it as it is constitutionally mandated. He does not have to give it to both houses of Congress assembled, but he has to do it.

                      In short, the above two postings are childish, sophomoric, and more in line with the actions of an immature idiot...of course we are discussing Trump are we not?
                      And some of his supporters

                      cjones01232019_1.jpg?resize=807x807.jpg
                      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                      youíre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Massena View Post
                        The purpose of the State of the Union address, as stated in Section 3, Article II of the US Constitution is for the president 'from time to time give to the Congress information on the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.'

                        It is not a time to attempt to gain cheap political advantage or to 'absolutely totally **** off the Democrats...' as hinted above. And as he has to give a state of the union either orally or in writing, he cannot refuse to do it as it is constitutionally mandated. He does not have to give it to both houses of Congress assembled, but he has to do it.

                        In short, the above two postings are childish, sophomoric, and more in line with the actions of an immature idiot...of course we are discussing Trump are we not?
                        Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

                        And some of his supporters

                        cjones01232019_1.jpg?resize=807x807.jpg

                        Does anyone remember when Jennifer Aniston said Brad Pitt is missing a sensitivity chip?

                        Well, you two chaps are missing your sense-of-humour chips.

                        Lighten up. Life's too short to waste b!tching about Trump, day in and day out.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Massena View Post
                          The purpose of the State of the Union address, as stated in Section 3, Article II of the US Constitution is for the president 'from time to time give to the Congress information on the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.'

                          It is not a time to attempt to gain cheap political advantage or to 'absolutely totally **** off the Democrats...' as hinted above. And as he has to give a state of the union either orally or in writing, he cannot refuse to do it as it is constitutionally mandated. He does not have to give it to both houses of Congress assembled, but he has to do it.

                          In short, the above two postings are childish, sophomoric, and more in line with the actions of an immature idiot...of course we are discussing Trump are we not?
                          Another whining attempt at TDS. I pointed out a path Trump may well take. It's similar to his prime time 11 minutes last month. Pelosi and Schumer's response was wooden, vapid, and really pathetic. I'm not taking sides here either. In politics, appearance often trumps (nice pun there) substance.

                          The State of the Union address has of recent been a chance for a President to admonish the other party. Obama did it more than once in his SoU addresses. This isn't something new.

                          Also it doesn't have to be orally given, although that has become the practice. Nor is there a specific requirement on frequency or exact timing / date. So, your conclusions are nothing but a TDS rant.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Stacey Abrams chosen to give Democratic response to Trump's State of the Union

                            https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sta...e-of-the-union
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                              Stacey Abrams chosen to give Democratic response to Trump's State of the Union

                              https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sta...e-of-the-union
                              Who?

                              That the Democrats have to have a formal response tells you that the SoU speech has become nothing but a political football. But, the Democrats are picking a loser candidate who is Progressive to give their response. Good choice for their rank and file and true believers, but it's likely not to impress the rest of us. I don't expect her to be on message about more border security, more employment, improving the economy, or anything that normal people care about. Instead it's likely to be "Trump is evil" and messaging about how we need more "responsible" government.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X