State of the Union

[BoSoxGal]

Just an FYI that while the main attraction may be vomit-inducing, the Democratic response this year will be given by my Congressman Joe Kennedy III, a truly inspirational speaker very much in the mold of his grandfather Robert. So, not to be missed!

[Lord Jim]

I won't be watching it...

To see that unworthy piece-of-shit being treated with all the flummery and ritualized deference that accompanies a SOTU speech is too stomach turning a spectacle for me...

Besides, nothing that he says will matter. He'll probably give a speech that (by his standards) will sound relatively reasonable, and then piss all over it with tweets and off-the-cuff remarks within 24 hours, and render the speech irrelevant...

Because that's just how he rolls...

[Darren]

I'm waiting for Andrew McCabe's utterance. Comey has already chimed in.

[BoSoxGal]

LJ, please check out Joe Kennedy's response and let me know what you think of it. It’ll be on YouTube within the hour of him giving it, if you’re not willing to watch live.

[RayThom]

I won't be watching it... To see that unworthy piece-of-shit being treated with all the flummery and ritualized deference that accompanies a SOTU speech is too stomach turning a spectacle for... Because that's just how he rolls...

I totally agree, however, I'm going to watch as much of it as I can bear. At least a few minutes. I'm going to approach this much like a SNL cold opening. This is going to be chock full of humor, if only for the physical comedy delivered by our Jester-in-Chief.

[Big RR]

I listened to the highlights, and that was more than enough. For the most part, it was about what I expected (as his ultimate tweeting will be), but, after discussing immigration policy rationally (at least for him) I especially loved the part about the veiled "immigrants coming to murder us" threat when mentioning MS 13. Clearly a bone to his ardent base, it reminded me of the "all them Italians are Mafiosi" claims that I am sure were made. He just can't help it.

[Sue U]

Wouldn't watch, didn't watch, had better things to do. Trump has made presidential speechifying irrelevant, since he's likely to say the opposite thing shortly afterwards in a tweet or in off-the-cuff comments to the press. I heard on the news this morning that he called for $1.5 trillion in infrastructure spending, with no plan to pay for it. Pretty ironic since he just signed into law a $1.5 trillion tax cut for large corporations and the super-rich. Everything about this president and his administration -- and his GOP enablers in Congress -- is fucking awful.

ETA:
Oh, and also too, as well:

The Good Fight
Donald Trump Just Asked Congress to End the Rule of Law
This should be the biggest headline of the speech.

By Yascha Mounk
Jan 30, 2018 11:23 PM

Donald Trump’s first State of the Union was a deeply dangerous speech.

It was deeply dangerous because he finally followed in the footsteps of European leaders like Hungarian President Viktor Orban who have long ago learned to give an attractive look to authoritarian populism.

Like them, Trump eschewed openly racist remarks in his speech, even emphasizing how much he (supposedly) cares about the fate of Latinos and black Americans. Like them, he called for economic policies, like paid family leave, that would actually benefit ordinary people. And like them, he then cast himself as the only man willing to prioritize the interests of his supporters over those of foreigners and political elites.

It was Bannonism without Bannon’s penchant for shock and awe. And it played shockingly well.

But Trump’s speech was also deeply dangerous for an even more important reason: Under the cover of his soothing rhetoric about unity and bipartisanship, Trump called on Congress to give him unprecedented and unquestionably antidemocratic powers: “Tonight,” he said, “I call on the congress to empower every Cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers—and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.”

By design, it is easy to overlook the true significance of the second half of that phrase. But dwell on it for a moment, and imagine what this would actually look like in practice. Under Trump’s proposal, any Cabinet secretary could decide that, say, a law enforcement official investigating the president had “undermined the public trust” or “failed the American people”—and fire him on the spot. In other words, Trump is calling for an end to any semblance of independence for the IRS, the FBI, the Department of Justice, or any other federal agency.

To be sure, such legislation is unlikely to pass. While the constant standing ovations for Trump from the Republican benches demonstrate the degree to which the GOP has now embraced the president, they are not yet at the point of dismantling the rule of law quite so brazenly; even if they did, the Supreme Court would be very likely to strike such a law down as unconstitutional.

But the fact that Trump’s authoritarian demand is unlikely to be realized anytime soon does not make it unimportant. In his first State of the Union, the 45th president of the United States asked Congress for the authority to end the rule of law. And that—not Trump’s supposedly unifying policy proposals, much less his supposedly presidential ability to read a speech off a teleprompter—should be the headline of every newspaper tomorrow.

Source: Slate.

[BoSoxGal]

I was also chilled to the bone by that part of Trump’s speech, and while Joe’s was momentarily uplifting, I lack confidence in the Democratic Party to counter much of the awfulness of Trump. Listening to FOX News this morning (I’m doing extra days with my old gal) was like a mindfuck; they seem to have total amnesia about how Obama was treated in his SOTUs (heckled and called a liar!) and are all shrieking about the sourpuss faces on the D side, and how outrageous that they didn’t stand for Trump.

We are experiencing the slow motion descent of our government into madness. So many people poo-poohed me when I was freaking out right after the election; I’m sure the same people don’t recognize the scope of what could happen if Trump is further enabled by the GOP and his state television network propaganda. Rosenstein gone, then Mueller gone, then if we don’t take back the Congress in November, we are fuct. Trump could get re-elected. I sicken at the thought of what this country looks like after 8 years of Trump.

[Burning Petard]

There is an old Ivory Tower trick with these shows. Listen to the words without any video. Watch the video without any sound. Each carries different messages and there can be some surprises. Video only, notice how often POTUS stops and stands there motionless, displaying his right profile, chin raised, eyes narrowed, giving his Mussolini impression.

snailgate.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I did not see that bit - may have been falling asleep or fetching a cup of tea - and I agree is truly outrageous. What offended me most was the parading of the parents of the two kids killed (allegedly?? - not sure if the court case has happened yet) by MS-13. Of course it is a tragedy for those parents - no question. But, for example, 58 people were shot and killed in Las Vegas by an American property developer. If there are suggestions from progressives that maybe it would be a good idea to ban 'bump stocks' or maybe keep an eye on, and a record of, nutcases who purchase multiple semi-automatic weapons, of course that is egregious politicizing of a tragedy. I have not heard a suggestion yet that, for example, American property developers be rounded up and sent back to a country they don't know but where their parents emigrated from.

[Big RR]

I guess Alan Dershowitz would have cheered the suggestion that the president or his minions should have the authority to remove anyone for any reason, even to curtail an investigation. I agree it is scary, but it's even scarier that Dershowitz would likely endorse it.

As for rounding up developers, maybe it's about time; I know one we should start with.

[Econoline]

For some reason, whenever I see the term "SOTU" I have to consciously stifle an urge to read it as "STFU". (And I have discovered that I cannot stand to listen to Trump's voice for more than 5-10 seconds at a time without turning off whatever the broadcast source of the noise.)

As for the speech...it might have made some sense as an Inaugural Address (I for one would not have given him a whit more credibility or trust, but at least it would have shown some political savvy, some desire to become President of more than the 30 percent of the US that is his base), but after a year of proudly showing everyone what an asshole he is any talk of unity and bipartisanship comes across as empty and hypocritical political rhetoric.

Sue: yeah, I also noticed (and cringed at) the coincidence of the $1.5 trillion additional deficit in the tax cut and the $1.5 trillion necessary but unexplained new revenue in the infrastructure plans.

[Bicycle Bill]

I guess Alan Dershowitz would have cheered the suggestion that the president or his minions should have the authority to remove anyone for any reason, even to curtail an investigation. I agree it is scary, but it's even scarier that Dershowitz would likely endorse it.

As for rounding up developers, maybe it's about time; I know one we should start with.

Republicans have always been big on this, usually as part of their union-busting "Right to Work (for less)" policies.  It's called "free will" employment around here.  An employee can quit at any time, for any reason, and doesn't even need to give the customary two weeks notice; and the employer can discharge anyone, at any time, for any reason, and — in what I think is an attempt to circumvent EEO/ADA laws and regulations (or at the very least a huge "fuck you" to the employee) — does not have to provide any reason whatsoever for the termination.  Want to get rid of someone because they're getting older, or they're female, or black/brown, or on a medical restriction or needs some other accommodation normally covered under ADA policy, or even because you're a Yankees fan and they cheer for the Red Sox?  Just give 'em a letter saying "your services are no longer required and your employment is being terminated" — nothing more.  And since most people in today's economy don't have the time, the money, or the willingness to fight out what could become a long, dragged-out discrimination lawsuit against someone with far deeper pockets and who would consider the money spent as just one more 'cost of doing business' expense, you're home free.

-"BB"-

[Crackpot]

:: ahem:: that’s “at will” employment

[BoSoxGal]