Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

It's 2018 and the [State of the Union] is...

189101113

Posts

  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Did anything unexpected come out of the SOTU?

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.

    I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.

    The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.

    Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    CptKemzikshrykeGennenalyse RuebenmonikerSorceBlackDragon480Elldren
  • MatevMatev Cero Miedo Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.

    I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.

    The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.

    Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.

    Nah, patronage is ok when it’s your* people

    *= white, Christian, conservative, conspiracy theorist optional people.

    I knew it would be sound and fury, guess I’m relived(?) he didn’t directly call for the blood of the unbelievers?

    "Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
    Hail Hydra
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    Did anything unexpected come out of the SOTU?

    He called for purging the federal government of anyone not conservative.

    I know he and the rest of the GOP are fascists, but even that was a little surprising!

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
    ElvenshaeFencingsaxMegaMekKoopahTroopah
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Is this the thread for Sarah Sanders stating that democrats must choose between loving America or hating Trump?

  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    Is this the thread for Sarah Sanders stating that democrats must choose between loving America or hating Trump?

    "We choose both."

    Phoenix-DTetraNitroCubaneRhesus PositiveMrVyngaardArbitraryDescriptorArdolKnight_Emerlmaster999Hahnsoo1Duke 2.0shrykeElJeffelonelyahavaMatevKayne Red RobeGennenalyse RuebenmonikerMorganVBigJoeMJaysonFourElvenshaeDoctor DetroitRaiden333Mr RayAimiTunesIsEvilMan in the MistsJohnny ChopsockydavidsdurionsSorceCommander ZoomGiggles_FunsworthFencingsaxYoutubeMvrckSleepPolaritieeddizhereMegaMekPLABurnageShadowfireKoopahTroopahMild ConfusionForarBlackDragon480durandal4532TofystedethLawndartjimb213ApogeeFoolOnTheHillAridholMetzger MeisterBouwsTElldrenchrishallett83
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited January 2018
    Is this the thread for Sarah Sanders stating that democrats must choose between loving America or hating Trump?

    Fuuuuuuucccccckkkkkk That. I hate trump exactly because I love America and want to see it prosper as a whole

    Veevee on
    SyphonBlueArdolEmerlmaster999Duke 2.0lonelyahavaGennenalyse RuebenmonikerBigJoeMElvenshaeMan in the MistsdavidsdurionsCommander ZoomGiggles_FunsworthYoutubeSleepMegaMekBrainleechautono-wally, erotibot300KoopahTroopahDevoutlyApatheticBlackDragon480TofystedethMetzger MeisterElldrenchrishallett83
  • Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    OremLK wrote: »
    Is this the thread for Sarah Sanders stating that democrats must choose between loving America or hating Trump?

    "We choose both."

    I guess she missed Kennedy's speech

    ArbitraryDescriptorlonelyahavaKayne Red RobeGennenalyse RuebenDacMan in the MistsRedTideFencingsaxSleepMegaMekKoopahTroopahTofystedeth
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Heffling wrote: »
    Did anything unexpected come out of the SOTU?

    Trump stuck to his script, which was moderately surprising.

    He repeatedly trotted out victims of horrible tragedy and then made them relive their trauma in excruciating detail, which I didn't see coming.

    He pledged his support of a new nuclear arms race, eternal war in the Middle East, and political purges of federal employees, which I didn't expect him to actually be explicit about.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    lonelyahavamonikerElvenshaeArdoltynicShadowhopeForarSmrtnikEmerlmaster999TofystedethMortal SkyElldren
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Did anything unexpected come out of the SOTU?

    Trump stuck to his script, which was moderately surprising.

    He repeatedly trotted out victims of horrible tragedy and then made them relive their trauma in excruciating detail, which I didn't see coming.

    He pledged his support of a new nuclear arms race, eternal war in the Middle East, and political purges of federal employees, which I didn't expect him to actually be explicit about.

    He didn't talk about the investigation except perhaps for the purge-the-government request being an oblique reference. That was somewhat surprising.

    ElJeffeElvenshaeFencingsaxMegaMek
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Did anything unexpected come out of the SOTU?

    Trump stuck to his script, which was moderately surprising.

    He repeatedly trotted out victims of horrible tragedy and then made them relive their trauma in excruciating detail, which I didn't see coming.

    He pledged his support of a new nuclear arms race, eternal war in the Middle East, and political purges of federal employees, which I didn't expect him to actually be explicit about.

    He didn't talk about the investigation except perhaps for the purge-the-government request being an oblique reference. That was somewhat surprising.

    Maybe that meeting with the Russian spy chief was so he could hand over the Ritz-Carlton tape so the CIA could get Trump under control.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.

    I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.

    The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.

    Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.

    Transcontinental Railroad, but yeah. I really am surprised how little reaction there is to explicitly calling for political firings of the Civil Service. That seems like something that should be a big deal to the DC press.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Matev wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.

    I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.

    The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.

    Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.

    Nah, patronage is ok when it’s your* people

    *= white, Christian, conservative, conspiracy theorist optional people.

    I knew it would be sound and fury, guess I’m relived(?) he didn’t directly call for the blood of the unbelievers?

    That is a part of a lot of versions of populism. Corruption and patronage is OK when it helps the people, which is pretty much never defined as all citizens or everybody in the country. It is only bad when it helps those who aren't part of the people.

    FencingsaxYoutubeElldren
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.

    I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.

    The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.

    Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.

    Transcontinental Railroad, but yeah. I really am surprised how little reaction there is to explicitly calling for political firings of the Civil Service. That seems like something that should be a big deal to the DC press.

    They are too dumb to notice and most other people don't care or also didn't notice.

    CptKemzikFencingsax
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.

    I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.

    The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.

    Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.

    Transcontinental Railroad, but yeah. I really am surprised how little reaction there is to explicitly calling for political firings of the Civil Service. That seems like something that should be a big deal to the DC press.

    I think the loose use of "explicitly" is doing a lot of work here. In the quote I saw, he called for it being easier for heads of agencies to fire people. Connecting the dots with the fact that his administration is full of completely incompetent lackeys and hacks, one can infer that the effect of making it easier for agency heads to fire people would be that more dedicated civil servants got rotated out and more lackeys and hacks got rotated in. Furthermore, that's probably part of the point of bringing it up. But that's an educated prediction about what would happen and an educated guess about the motivation in play. It's not what he actually said. And what he did actually say--it should be easier for agency heads to fire people--is so of a piece with bog standard Republican ideology, which hates both worker protections in general and the federal government in particular, that it's not particularly remarkable on its face.

    I don't know if it's the hill I'm trying to die on or anything, but I feel like there's a vaguely Orwellian air to what seems to be a common tendency now to use terms like "explicitly" and "openly" to describe exactly those features of people's message that are indirect or inferred (often on the basis of extremely negative, even if accurate, background information).

    wandering
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.

    I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.

    The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.

    Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.

    Transcontinental Railroad, but yeah. I really am surprised how little reaction there is to explicitly calling for political firings of the Civil Service. That seems like something that should be a big deal to the DC press.

    I think the loose use of "explicitly" is doing a lot of work here. In the quote I saw, he called for it being easier for heads of agencies to fire people. Connecting the dots with the fact that his administration is full of completely incompetent lackeys and hacks, one can infer that the effect of making it easier for agency heads to fire people would be that more dedicated civil servants got rotated out and more lackeys and hacks got rotated in. Furthermore, that's probably part of the point of bringing it up. But that's an educated prediction about what would happen and an educated guess about the motivation in play. It's not what he actually said. And what he did actually say--it should be easier for agency heads to fire people--is so of a piece with bog standard Republican ideology, which hates both worker protections in general and the federal government in particular, that it's not particularly remarkable on its face.

    I don't know if it's the hill I'm trying to die on or anything, but I feel like there's a vaguely Orwellian air to what seems to be a common tendency now to use terms like "explicitly" and "openly" to describe exactly those features of people's message that are indirect or inferred (often on the basis of extremely negative, even if accurate, background information).

    I think "thinly veiled" or "very thinly veiled" request for powers to politically purge is a better description, yes.

    MrMisterFencingsaxSleepElvenshaeBurnageCptKemzikShadowhopeBlackDragon480TofystedethElldren
  • WACriminalWACriminal Dying Is Easy, Young Man Living Is HarderRegistered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.

    I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.

    The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.

    Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.

    Transcontinental Railroad, but yeah. I really am surprised how little reaction there is to explicitly calling for political firings of the Civil Service. That seems like something that should be a big deal to the DC press.

    I think the loose use of "explicitly" is doing a lot of work here. In the quote I saw, he called for it being easier for heads of agencies to fire people. Connecting the dots with the fact that his administration is full of completely incompetent lackeys and hacks, one can infer that the effect of making it easier for agency heads to fire people would be that more dedicated civil servants got rotated out and more lackeys and hacks got rotated in. Furthermore, that's probably part of the point of bringing it up. But that's an educated prediction about what would happen and an educated guess about the motivation in play. It's not what he actually said. And what he did actually say--it should be easier for agency heads to fire people--is so of a piece with bog standard Republican ideology, which hates both worker protections in general and the federal government in particular, that it's not particularly remarkable on its face.

    I don't know if it's the hill I'm trying to die on or anything, but I feel like there's a vaguely Orwellian air to what seems to be a common tendency now to use terms like "explicitly" and "openly" to describe exactly those features of people's message that are indirect or inferred (often on the basis of extremely negative, even if accurate, background information).

    I get what you're saying, but on the other hand we've lost a lot of ground by refusing to play hardball on things like this. For instance, we kept refusing to call things out as obviously, explicitly racially motivated, and then suddenly WHOOPS we're dealing with things like people chanting "blood and soil" in the streets.

    You may be right that "explicitly" is a bad word to use here, but we need to make sure that whatever we use instead is no less forceful. I'm tired of giving ground to plausible deniability.

    Giggles_Funsworth
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Well, he explicitly said he wanted it to be easier to fire people, in the context of organizations that are actively proving to be a thorn in his side. Everybody knows exactly what he's talking about.

    A non-stupid person would not announce his plan to fire a bunch of dudes in such a way as to clearly allude to political purges. He was explicit about what he was going to do, even if he technically only delivered his motivation via obvious subtext.

    So I guess yeah, imprecise language, shame on me, but I don't think this is that egregious a misuse of the word.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    DracomicronFencingsaxElvenshaeCptKemzikQanamil
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    And meanwhile, he DID explicitly say he wanted to build a shit ton more nukes and remain at war in the middle east for an indefinite period of time.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    WACriminalMan in the MistsMegaMekCptKemzikShadowfireKristmas Kthulhu
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    That's unusually blatant than the typical GOP government, but that is classic Trump. :(

  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Calling clean coal "beautiful" was just ... weird to me.

    Like, who uses that phrase and how does it make any sense and what is it even supposed to be conveying.

    Goddamn Miller is a shitty writer.

    Jet is a gemstone used in jewelry, and it is also a form of anthracite coal, which is what they refer to as "clean coal"*, so.....technically...I guess?

    *What that really means is that it doesn't contain contaminants that introduce other gases when it's burned, it just gives off pure CO2.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2018
    MrMister wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.

    I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.

    The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.

    Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.

    Transcontinental Railroad, but yeah. I really am surprised how little reaction there is to explicitly calling for political firings of the Civil Service. That seems like something that should be a big deal to the DC press.

    I think the loose use of "explicitly" is doing a lot of work here. In the quote I saw, he called for it being easier for heads of agencies to fire people. Connecting the dots with the fact that his administration is full of completely incompetent lackeys and hacks, one can infer that the effect of making it easier for agency heads to fire people would be that more dedicated civil servants got rotated out and more lackeys and hacks got rotated in. Furthermore, that's probably part of the point of bringing it up. But that's an educated prediction about what would happen and an educated guess about the motivation in play. It's not what he actually said. And what he did actually say--it should be easier for agency heads to fire people--is so of a piece with bog standard Republican ideology, which hates both worker protections in general and the federal government in particular, that it's not particularly remarkable on its face.

    I don't know if it's the hill I'm trying to die on or anything, but I feel like there's a vaguely Orwellian air to what seems to be a common tendency now to use terms like "explicitly" and "openly" to describe exactly those features of people's message that are indirect or inferred (often on the basis of extremely negative, even if accurate, background information).

    I think the loose use of a vacuum is doing a lot of work for you.

    This is what was said the day prior to his State of the Union by the Speaker of the House sitting behind him:
    “Let it all out, get it all out there. Cleanse the organization*,” Ryan, R-Wis. said.

    [*The FBI]

    After the President fired the Director of the FBI in an unprecedented move, forced the early retirement of the Deputy Director of the FBI on Monday, and the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee announced an ongoing investigation into the FBI and Department of Justice by his staff. All under the backdrop of repeated calls to end the investigation into the President's potential Obstruction of Justice and other criminality by the President.

    If we pretend those things didn't happen then calling for easing the firing of career civil servants could be dismissed as typical complaints about worker protections. But that is pretending, because those actions did occur. This speech wasn't given in a vacuum, so treating that call as a sui generis statement that's basically just a non sequitur and shouldn't be seen as chilling seems wrong.

    moniker on
    shrykeElJeffeHakkekageenlightenedbumCptKemzikjmcdonaldMild ConfusioniTunesIsEvilMatevKristmas KthulhuElldren
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.

    I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.

    The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.

    Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.

    Transcontinental Railroad, but yeah. I really am surprised how little reaction there is to explicitly calling for political firings of the Civil Service. That seems like something that should be a big deal to the DC press.

    It’s even super easy to link it to Russia. Just point out that what Trump wants is the equivalent to the commissar/political officer system.

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.

    I didn't watch the speech, but I might have paled a bit when I saw that bit on my Facebook feed.

    The Federal civil service is the only thing keeping this boat upright.

    Ending the spoils system is like the one good thing this country's government did between 1877 and 1901. But sure, let's repeal the bloody Pendleton Act.

    Transcontinental Railroad, but yeah. I really am surprised how little reaction there is to explicitly calling for political firings of the Civil Service. That seems like something that should be a big deal to the DC press.

    I think the loose use of "explicitly" is doing a lot of work here. In the quote I saw, he called for it being easier for heads of agencies to fire people. Connecting the dots with the fact that his administration is full of completely incompetent lackeys and hacks, one can infer that the effect of making it easier for agency heads to fire people would be that more dedicated civil servants got rotated out and more lackeys and hacks got rotated in. Furthermore, that's probably part of the point of bringing it up. But that's an educated prediction about what would happen and an educated guess about the motivation in play. It's not what he actually said. And what he did actually say--it should be easier for agency heads to fire people--is so of a piece with bog standard Republican ideology, which hates both worker protections in general and the federal government in particular, that it's not particularly remarkable on its face.

    I don't know if it's the hill I'm trying to die on or anything, but I feel like there's a vaguely Orwellian air to what seems to be a common tendency now to use terms like "explicitly" and "openly" to describe exactly those features of people's message that are indirect or inferred (often on the basis of extremely negative, even if accurate, background information).

    I think the loose use of a vacuum is doing a lot of work for you.

    This is what was said the day prior to his State of the Union by the Speaker of the House sitting behind him:
    “Let it all out, get it all out there. Cleanse the organization*,” Ryan, R-Wis. said.

    [*The FBI]

    After the President fired the Director of the FBI in an unprecedented move, forced the early retirement of the Deputy Director of the FBI on Monday, and the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee announced an ongoing investigation into the FBI and Department of Justice by his staff. All under the backdrop of repeated calls to end the investigation into the President's potential Obstruction of Justice and other criminality by the President.

    If we pretend those things didn't happen then calling for easing the firing of career civil servants could be dismissed as typical complaints about worker protections. But that is pretending, because those actions did occur. This speech wasn't given in a vacuum, so treating that call as a sui generis statement that's basically just a non sequitur and shouldn't be seen as chilling seems wrong.

    If you're offering a bunch of background information to contextualize what he said--including what the person sitting behind him said yesterday--then you're probably no longer talking about what he "explicitly" said. In describing what people "explicitly" say, you typically don't need to go beyond their actual words.

    Consider the following scene from Italy:
    In the election of April 1924 Mussolini had the support of the parties of the center and right and won an overwhelming majority.

    The electoral campaign had, on the surface, been relatively calm. But even during the campaign, there had been disquieting signs of what was happening in Italy. In one way or another, since the March on Rome, the facists had put their people into provincial and local positions. During the campaign these officers had "influenced" the voters, discreetly where possible, by torture and murder where necessary.

    When parliament met after the election, one of the most respected Socialist deputies, Giacomo Matteotti, rose to denounce these excesses. He ended by accusing the Facists of determination to maintain their power by force; the Facist deputies shouted back 'yes!'"
    --A Broken World: The Rise of Modern Europe 1919-1939

    You could contextualize the Italian fascists' remarks by referring to the violence in the earlier election. Indeed, you could contextualize them by pointing out that a few days later they would go on to murder Giacomo Matteotti. But you don’t have to! Because when it comes to what they explicitly said, they said “yes”, yes we intend to maintain power by force. They did say it openly, with no allusions or inferences on the part of the listener necessary, and that’s what made it so shocking. That they could say it explicitly shows how defunct democratic norms and functional government were in Italy, 1924.

    Using the term “explicitly” to describe what was in fact implicit suggests, hyperbolically, that the situation is much more like Italy circa 1924 than it really is. Even Trump, not known for being a cautious speaker, is not going to go out and explicitly say “I want to summarily fire all the Democrats from the executive, because they aren’t loyal or trustworthy Americans.” There are places and times where people would say that explicitly! But for here and now at least we keep it veiled.

    Oh well. I said I wasn’t trying to die on this hill. I bring it up just because I think this particular form of rhetorical overreach, omnipresent in the broader culture, is especially unhelpful on this board, where many of us seem already convinced that we’re living in Italy 1924, and so we are not in need of further figures of speech which fudge the distinctions.

    Korror
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    45 million is decidedly average for a SotU/ joint address.

    Elvenshae
  • Emerlmaster999Emerlmaster999 Scarf Prince Registered User regular
    Still less than Clinton, Bush, and Obama's first SOTUs.

    Course we can't let a little thing like facts get in the way now can we.

    KoopahTroopahSleepElvenshaeRhesus PositiveGiggles_FunsworthYoutubemonikerMan in the MistsElldrenMegaMek
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing to Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    The fact that he cares at all is embarassing

    AthenorEmerlmaster999MorganVElvenshaeTetraRayJohnny ChopsockylonelyahavaJaysonFourArdolDuke 2.0Giggles_FunsworthKristmas KthulhuYoutubeBurnagemonikerelectricitylikesmeSorceDark Raven XMan in the MistsElldrenMegaMekMild Confusionchrishallett83
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Did he get the most applause ever though?!?!?!

    We need to know! Where's the video?

    Youtube
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Man, his shit about asking to be able to purge the federal work force is disturbing as fuck but kinda seems to have snuck under the radar. I didn't even notice it the first time.
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Did anything unexpected come out of the SOTU?

    He called for purging the federal government of anyone not conservative.

    I know he and the rest of the GOP are fascists, but even that was a little surprising!

    Trump doesn't want to purge the federal government of anyone who's not conservative.

    He wants to purge the federal government of anyone who's not slavishly loyal to Trump.

    It's not like the folks at the FBI and DOJ who are not rolling over for Trump are all Clinton-loving liberals, they're just not willing to set their morals and career futures on fire to keep Trump warm.

    So, in Trump's mind, they have to go.

    shrykeCelestialBadgerEmerlmaster999ElvenshaeFencingsaxArdolHarry DresdenSorceBlackDragon480SmrtnikMan in the MistsElldrenMild Confusionchrishallett83
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    rYQO5qg.png

    xmj6VZH.png


    Hoo boy I'm gonna need to see some numbers on THIS poll

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
    MatevPolaritieJaysonFourRhesus PositiveDuke 2.0Giggles_FunsworthTomantadiscriderMan in the MistsElldrenTofystedethMegaMektynic
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    25% of speech watchers were hate watching instead of doing something more productive.

    davidsdurionsGiggles_FunsworthdiscriderMan in the MistsElldrenMegaMektynic
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    I'm gonna guess there is some heavy self-selection effect in who watched the speech. I sure as fuck didn't because I'm not looking to have a stroke.

    AistandavidsdurionsXaquinRedTideEmerlmaster999JepheryNyysjanMorganVAngelHedgieMrMisterKoopahTroopahFencingsaxCelestialBadgerArdolElvenshaeRhesus PositiveDuke 2.0Mr RaySealZomroGiggles_FunsworthAbsoluteZeroElJeffeKristmas KthulhuBurnageMillmonikerHakkekageIncenjucarchrisnlHavelock2.0BlackDragon480Dark Raven XMan in the MistsElldrenTofystedethMegaMektynicMild ConfusionKayne Red Robechrishallett83
  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    25% of speech watchers were hate watching instead of doing something more productive.

    I sure was.

    Also, isn't YouGov completely opt-in online polling?

    ... At first I thought that said "Among Speech Writers"

    Official member of the Grilling Gentry
    "Brevity is the soul of getting your shit read." - Tube
    Rarely-updated Collecting blog
    He/Him
    matt has a problemAutomautocratesElvenshaeRhesus PositiveCommander ZoomMan in the MistsElldrenjothkiKayne Red Robe
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    AFAIK SOTU speeches always give a bump. It just then goes away right afterwards. The whole thing is a big elaborate bit of nothing.

    moniker
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    "Speech watchers" is the key there. Most people don't like watching SOTU to begin with, so you've really got a whole bunch of true believers at the end of the day.

    Ladies.
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    I agree that Trump was trying to unite the country against immigrants.

    Was that somehow not clear to 1 out of 5 people?

    Astaerethshryke
  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited February 2018
    When authoritarians talk about uniting the "people," its important to look at who they don't consider part of the "people."

    LGBT? Nope. Not Christian? Definitely not a real American. Not a citizen? Get the fuck out of here.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    CouscousWACriminalEmerlmaster999Phoenix-DMatevCaptainPeacockMayabirdYoutubeCommander ZoomHarry DresdenMan in the MistsElldrenMegaMek
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    I agree that Trump was trying to unite the country against immigrants.

    Was that somehow not clear to 1 out of 5 people?

    United like a lynch mob.

    ACsTqqK.jpg
    shrykeArbitraryDescriptorElvenshaeMayabirdHarry DresdenMan in the MistsMegaMek
  • Slacker1913Slacker1913 Registered User regular
    At least 5% of watchers disapprove of Trump trying to unite the country?

    Eh, I'll get around to it.
    ArbitraryDescriptor
This discussion has been closed.