Featured Post

Tallying the Body Count: Bad Ideas vs. Good Guns

Oh, come, Mister tally man, tally me banana Daylight come and me wan' go home Me say come, Mister tally man, tally me banana Dayli...

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Trump Does it, Again

Another great speech by President Trump.

He's got it down to an art: No flourishes, no purple prose, no overwrought rhetoric--just straight-forward facts and proposals. It's worth watching and reading, unlike the pathetic Democratic response by a weird-looking (What was that make-up?) Joe Kennedy III. If JKIII is the best they've got . . .

My favorite line in the Trump speech? "Americans are dreamers, too." Bam! A shot to the heart!

Perhaps even better than the speech were the reactions from the Democrats when he was giving it. They didn't know how to react.

Nancy Pelosi looked as if she were struggling with a set of ill-fitting dentures -- "sour face" does not begin to describe her look. Others could not bring themselves to acknowledge the suffering of black families at the hands of MS-13 gangsters; the black caucus could not even applaud the very positive employment numbers for the black community; the Dems could not express support for the coal miners of West Virginia who are seeing their economy revive. They could not applaud Trump's statement that the US is now a major energy-producing powerhouse and for the first time in years, an energy exporter.  They could not applaud the return of manufacturing and the repatriation of hundreds of billions of dollars. They could not acknowledge reality.

Trump cornered the Dems on the immigration issue and they knew it, and their faces showed it. They must now reject a path for citizenship for 1.8 million illegals and argue that it's better for them to stay illegal.

It was a masterful political exhibition by one of the most unusual and clever politicians ever to emerge on the world scene.

MAGA!


39 comments:

  1. Power to the people!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Advice to the Democrats -- Stop digging!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, No, No. Keep digging.

      Barry

      Delete
  3. SO very awesome. It was great fun to watch, and comment in real time on a private FB conservative group. Yes, MAGA!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought some of the props were overwrought.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Democrats made a plan to show resistance in solidarity. They were going to deny the buffoon of his spotlight and show they were united in defeating anything and everything Trump.
    And then he gave a masterful speech. Plain spoken strait to The People. Low unemployment overall. Significant employment numbers among both Black and Hispanic communities. Increased wages. Lower taxes. A Market setting records every week (and the fact that your 401K, IRA, Education accounts, etc are going through the roof) and the Democrats sit their stonefaced.
    American Heroes pointed out. Americans suffering loss and grief given some measure of comfort.American Compassion on display. And the Democrats are in disarray. Some applaud meekly...knowing its the right thing to do, unsure of the orders from their Party Leaders.
    An ending that brings chants of "USA"...and a Democrat Congressman caught on camera getting up and walking out.
    With an average positive rating from 75% of the total watchers; Democrats themselves had over 50% positive views of the speech. That is a troubling sign for the left. The leaders made a show of petulance and abstinence while half their base thought otherwise.
    And then the Counter...Joe Kennedy 3rd. On an empty factory floor with an apparently broken down car behind him (hood up? bad visuals) and a really bad makeup job that made it look like he was drooling, gives a lackluster response with no vision nor passion. Save for the part where he spoke in Spanish telling the "Dreamers" they will fight for them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I liked that I didn't hear a single "mmm," or a "ummm," or even a "hmmm."

    And perhaps best of all, it wasn't ALL ABOUT the speech deliverer!

    JK

    ReplyDelete
  7. Others could not bring themselves to acknowledge the suffering of black families at the hands of MS-13 gangsters;

    I haven't heard any Trup polocies that would curb MS-13 any more than we are able to, certainly none of the immigration changes Trump suggeted.

    the black caucus could not even applaud the very positive employment numbers for the black community;

    They are still about double white unemployment, as they always have been. What's to applaud?

    the Dems could not express support for the coal miners of West Virginia who are seeing their economy revive.

    Retraining them to have better jobs producing cleaner energy would have been worth cheering for.

    They could not applaud Trump's statement that the US is now a major energy-producing powerhouse and for the first time in years, an energy exporter.

    https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29433

    This prediction was made Jan. 5, 2017. Which of Trump's actions resulted in that prediction?

    They could not applaud the return of manufacturing and the repatriation of hundreds of billions of dollars.

    We added more manufacturing jobs in 2014 than 2017. Did you cheer Obama for that?

    They could not acknowledge reality.

    You have to hear reality to acknowledge it.

    Trump cornered the Dems on the immigration issue and they knew it, and their faces showed it. They must now reject a path for citizenship for 1.8 million illegals and argue that it's better for them to stay illegal.

    I don't think it will be hard on the Democrats to come back with 'What about the other 8 million illegals?'.

    It was a masterful political exhibition by one of the most unusual and clever politicians ever to emerge on the world scene.

    It was competent, which seems masterful by Trump's previous standards.

    MAGA!

    When did America stop being great?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Unibrow,

      Your tears are delicious.

      Delete
    2. Sometime around January 20, 1993, America stopped being great. It managed to struggle along not completely sucking until it took a nosedive January 20, 2009.

      Delete
    3. Just proves Dip’s point, they cannot acknowledge reality. Their self image as the smart, cool, good guys would go up in smoke if they did.

      Delete
    4. "This prediction was made Jan. 5, 2017. Which of Trump's actions resulted in that prediction?"

      Arguably I'd suggest letting the Keystone for just one instance. There are other instances forthcoming out of the regulatory tampdown.

      JK

      Delete
    5. There is certainly a common element in *all* analysis of potentially providing too much credit or blame to a president for the economy, that's fine as it is.... but that's not the overarching issue here.
      Trump certainly has brought something back into focus that was long out.... that America actually has people who matter. For a very long time, POTUS politics have been about what we give away via trade pact, foreign aid, financial support or military interference. We've been "acting on behalf of the world", instead of "acting on behalf of the USA". We previously had a blanket assumption of "what's good for the USA is what's good for the world", but that appears to have perversely converted to "what's good for the world is good for the USA". The latter is simply untrue. The former, occasionally correct. If there's one lasting impact Trump may have on politics, I hope it's that.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  8. Eskyman, That you take pleasure at others people misery, and don't afford the decency using the name people choose, says worse things about you than I would ever type.

    Humphry Dunphy, since this is a response to me, I am curious about the reality you claim I am denying. As for my self-image, I don't think of myself as particularly good, and definitely not cool.

    JK, How did Trump change policy on the Keystone pipeline two weeks before he was inaugurated, and do you understand Keystone carries foreign oil into the US? At best, it's contributions could only be neutral in terms import/export ratio.

    reader #1482, I never got the impression from any prior President that the American people did not matter, but I certainly acknowledge that Trump has emphasized Americans to a larger degree. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well there "One Brow" about all I'd suggest is, change where you're getting your information. I'd suggest Rigzone.com (a former wife sitting on the board of a multinational oil services company .. for which company I've done some *services myself sent me a link).

      Dateline - 24 January 2017

      "Fulfilling his campaign pledge to bring the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines back to the table, President Donald Trump signed executive orders Tuesday reversing the position forged by former President Barack Obama."

      {...]

      "These major infrastructure projects that will yield benefits for U.S. workers and consumers, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL)."

      "We thank President Trump for giving the American people the benefits of jobs and plentiful, affordable energy that pipelines will bring," said Andrew Black, AOPL's president and CEO, in a written statement."

      https://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/148228/republicans_laud_trumps_pipeline_revival_say_it_will_bring_oil_gas_jobs/

      Next?

      True the Keystone carries foreign product but that product is what they call in the oil bidness, "very heavy" and as such that product will primarily be refined in the US (Eldorado and Augusta Kansas) then utilized again primarily, within the US proper.

      That, very elementary my dear One Brow, frees up sweeter crude (but most crucially LNG) for export.

      JK

      Delete
    2. My suspicion is that his message (roughly) of "the american people are not being duly considered by the american elites" is something that's actually from him, and not an affectation. Looking back 20 or 30 years, and even in the middle of all of his sometimes liberal politics, he's been pretty consistent on stating that the leaders of america are failing to negotiate on behalf of the american people at large. Whether that's negotiating from a position of appeasing moneyed special interests, or negotiating from a position of giving things away to cement a legacy, or even giving things away in a sense of altruism that's not necessarily shared by the rest of the country. He noted that people aren't *seeing* their president work really hard to drive the best possible deal of america in so many of these cases. Negotiations are farmed out to junior staffers and rubber stamped, or what not.
      I don't know if Trump can deliver on that, but it's certainly something the people want.
      Was there ever really a doubt that Clinton would sign on to any version of NAFTA? Not really. The question, imo, was whether Clinton could get *congress* to go along with it. Was there ever really a doubt that Obama would sign just about whatever Iran would give him, whatever happened to be written in and called Paris? Again, no. It was just a matter of what happens when he's out of office and his 'pen' no longer has the magic ink.

      I don't think Obama, Clinton, or either Bush put up a credible show of fighting for a good deal for the people of the US. I don't think they really cared that much, it was just a bunch of technical details after all, right?

      What have we seen from Trump in office so far? A bunch of tweets. A bunch of tweets that seem to have certain segments of America chasing their tail in anger and frustration. We've seen a good amount of churn in executive branch personnel. Meanwhile, Trump's travel ban came into effect, 'his' tax plan went through, and he even effectively killed obamacare (which I'm not super excited about, as I felt obamacare was at least better than forcing the country into single payer, which will perhaps be the result of its failure). That leaves only one big question right now: Where's the wall? At *this* point, I'd bet it's coming.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    3. You may've noticed #1482 "some churn" in the DOW?

      There's some indications Amazon's, Berkshire Hathaway's, and Wells Fargo's intentions are to "do healthcare" resulting in drops of "the usual suspects" stocks price.

      Of course I make no personal claim either in real life or, on the Internet to being a Stocks Wizard (or Healthcare Expert) but, life experience informs me Competition, generally speaking, eventually wins out.

      I too *think* the wall will be.

      JK

      Delete
    4. where amazon goes, apple, facebook and google will surely follow.
      what I'm amazed at, is the lack of these behemoths running roughshod over the existing real estate industry.
      As interesting as it is, I'm also not excited about where this is all going.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    5. "Where amazon goes, apple, facebook and google will surely follow.
      As interesting as it is, I'm also not excited about where this is all going."

      You may #1482 well be right.

      A dim memory bulb flickers in my mind - I seem to recall some article implying that the character corporations you've mentioned could, "based on user searches and posts, diagnose patients' maladies with more accuracy than their primary physicians."

      If that memory serves #1482, it wouldn't, it seems to me too far-fetched to imagine using the gathered information, premiums for coverage could also be "diagnosed."

      And that, I'd further imagine (with an eye toward Lewis' Twitter denial of service) could be bad.

      JK

      Delete
    6. JK,

      Thank you for the information. I do not doubt that it is accurate. However, I don't see where it addressed either of my points. An order signed on Jan. 24 would not have traveled backward in time to a web page three weeks earlier. Using foreign-based energy in the US, and exporting an equivalent amount of US-sourced energy, is neutral in terms of import/export ratio.

      Being a net energy exporter is a fine thing. However, I don't see anything Trump did that contributed to that status.

      Delete
    7. reader #1482, It's easy to say better deals could have been had on NAFTA and Iran, but I don't know that is true. Certainly, we did not have Iran over a barrel, they were doing OK economically with the sanctions in place, and developing nuclear weapons. Would it be better if that had been allowed to continue?

      I agree there will be extensions to the current wall, for all the (lack of) good that will do.

      Delete
    8. JK, I can think of few ways to guarantee worse health diagnoses than relying solely on people to report their own symptoms, whether directly or indirectly. While I don't venerate competition (before you protest, you did capitalize the word), I agree that it has its place. However, medicine has different objectives than the creation of consumer goods, and the types of competition used need to serve the goals of medicine.

      Delete
    9. One Brow, not that my being so polishes anything associating to my chosen profession, as far as your most recent is concerned, I am the son of an MD. I recall my Dad saying, "The worst thing that has happened to the practice of medicine was Medicare." I suppose that dates me. wtf.

      Now where was I going? Oh yeah.

      You assert @ this date's 11:26 AM, "However, I don't see where it addressed either of my points."

      Fair enough - let us go back then to your observation of 31 January @ 1:38 PM

      "They could not applaud Trump's statement that the US is now a major energy-producing powerhouse and for the first time in years, an energy exporter."

      https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29433

      This prediction was made Jan. 5, 2017. Which of Trump's actions resulted in that prediction?"

      You'll note One Brow the italicized portion is your pasting from Diplomad's post? To which I would submit, you've attempted to change his presented observation of "as things stand now" to a position you'd prefer so to, as I recognize your offered wisdom, change the "now" to rather a "but but a year and [whatever number it takes to get to 'before Trump's inauguration'] days ago a dot gov issued a guess."

      Now One Brow you see how I might be confused as to whether its an "either of my points" or an 'all of the above of my points' I'm supposed to address?

      JK

      Delete
    10. #1428, if I may?

      As "One Brow" appears to be making an attempt to chide us each for failing One Brow's superior acquaintance with the finer points of Time-Travelling (I'm tempted to go with "Traveler" [as in "Fellow")

      Please allow me #1482 to make an effort on both our behalfs to provide One Brow an illustration from 2008 of just how terribly difficult it can be to do Star Trek stuff on a blog.

      Here ya go One Brow:

      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/feb/25/obama-bashes-clinton-nafta/

      Now One Brow (presuming you've read all that Obama Clinton 2008 time-shifting) you have some pity on a couple of old farts having difficulties following your er, quantum mechanics style of blog interrogation?

      JK

      Delete
    11. I beg to differ on Iran's economic status at the time sanctions were (my opinion) near unilaterally dropped. There had been a whole lot of domestic unrest, and a whole lot of untapped resources that the west was anxious to exploit. Obama was pretty clear that he was going to make a deal with Iran, the question was only "what could Kerry get from it". Military action was clearly taken off the table, and we publicly broke with Israel on Iran's nukes. With that kind of attitude going into negotiations, there could be little doubt that we would get nothing in return for dropping those sanctions.
      Let's put it this way, both Clinton and Bush had a particular non-negotiable when it came to Iran after the uncovering of its clandestine nuclear developments: no domestic separation. Asking Bush or Clinton for terms involving any amount of domestic separation was a non-starter. For Obama, that was an impediment to his hoped-for legacy (my characterization). We gained nothing from the Iran deal.

      It would be a valuable exercise for Trump to drop that deal fully, in order to show that when other nations are dealing with the US, they are dealing with a country, not a revolving dictatorship. Get the American people onboard (they weren't), get congress on board, but you can only do that if you're really going after a deal, not a giveaway.

      We might differ on these realities, but I would bet that a large fraction of the population do not think Obama drove hard bargains on behalf of the American people. fwiw, I don't think Bush or Clinton did either. It was just part of their job, not their job. I do hope Trump is different and takes this stuff very personally, like he promised.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    12. JK, I'm sure Medicare was terrible for many senior who could afford decent medical care without it. However, it's certainly better than no medical care.

      Regarding the timeline, my point was that US had been improving its energy export/import ratio for years before Trump took office, to the point where they could predict that 2017 would have a ratio over 1 for the first time. Why should the Democrats cheer Trump for something he did not do?

      I will make an effort to put my questions and statements in clearer context. I agree that it is my responsibility to make myself understandable.

      Delete
    13. reader #1482,

      Did Russia, France, England, Germany, or China get more from the Iran deal than we did? Were they all bamboozled? Do you think the world would have been better off with Iran being sanctioned and having nuclear weapons?

      I agree that it would have been better if the Senate had signed off the deal. However, would Trump's reversal signal more strongly signal that the US is not a dictatorship, or that when the US negotiates a deal, you can't rely on it to keep the deal?

      Should Trump renegotiate a trade deal to one you like better, and the Democratic Senate refuse to vote for this deal, will you still be such a fan of "no domestic separation"?

      Delete
    14. One Brow, since my husband has gone on Medicare, I hear more of what they will NOT cover rather than what is covered. Just like all governmental production, it is an inflated, convoluted mess of regulations that offer very little to the senior citizen on a fixed income. Need a special test to diagnose a condition? Not covered, you need an "auxiliary" plan. Prescriptions needed? Covered until for a few months, then 100% not covered for a few months, then covered again. Also, I am not aware that you can opt out of Medicare. My husband made no choice and no request to go on Medicare - they very helpfully began taking $140. out of his Social Security the month he turned 65, whether he wants Medicare coverage or not. Since Social Security is actually our own savings (which we would have done much better by investing ourselves rather than letting the government do it) we should be able to choose whether we want a government service paid from Social Security or not. In addition, more and more doctors are not "taking Medicare" anymore because of the insane paperwork. They don't want to have to hire the staff just to handle government paperwork that pays them very little. Federal government interference in every part of our lives is NOT a good idea, but a disaster.

      Delete
    15. @ One Brow,

      "I'm sure Medicare was terrible for many senior who could afford decent medical care without it. However, it's certainly better than no medical care."

      Just one anecdote from when I was a twelve year old: Dad had me accompany him on what back in the Stone Age was known as a "House Call." I'd accompanied him on previous house calls and found 'em kinda fun - sometimes there were other kids my age to play with and just generally shoot the pre-teen version of shit.

      This house call I'm talking about now though was different, Dad had an ulterior motive; you see I was "coming of age" and he and the parents of the patient we were to do "doctor stuff" on all decided the situation was a golden opportunity to teach me a valuable lesson.

      Pay especial attention here now One Brow for, this particular house call wasn't a simple ol' bee sting or a laceration needing a couple of stitches nosiree. Upon arrival I heard what I took to be a murder by torture in progress - maybe not that bad but it did sound pretty dramatic.

      Turned out Dad delivered the parents' child of of a brand-spanking newborn - imagine that! no hospital and no requirement to have in attendance four or so malpractice insurers and a lawyer! - and I was "properly horrified/chastened/whatever."

      I was further horrified a couple weeks later as I was playing out in our yard and an old pickup appeared on our driveway, the Dad of the new mother delivering my Dad's payment for delivering that baby which; turned out to be six very young piglets. (As in swine piglets One Brow.) (And guess who had a new job building a pork empire - at least that was, apparently, part of the payment/plan.)

      You do see the moral of the story doncha One Brow?

      Well if you don't I'll get a little into the weeds. You see that house call to perform an obstetrics procedure occurred pre-Medicare - the implication of which I hope you realize. No? Well its what you said up top that I italicized - "It's certainly better than no medical care."

      I'll add that after the passage of Medicare I still accompanied Dad on some housecalls but, thanks to Lyndon B. about all that I ever encountered then was stitches and bee stings. And certainly no livestock in payment.

      But Dad and Doctor Carl did have to add paper pushers to the overhead. And I guess Lyndon B. added some paper pushers of his own to handle the ensuing paper shuffle.

      I decided about 1968 that I would not follow Dad's footsteps.

      JK

      I feel your pain Mrs. Humeston. God bless.

      Delete
    16. @ One Brow,

      Apologies. My trip down memory lane got me.

      "Regarding the timeline, my point was that US had been improving its energy export/import ratio for years before Trump took office"

      For years? You mean years like 1859 when Colonel Drake struck the gusher that started it all or maybe 1973 or sometime later - I gotta have a general idea One Brow?

      You are kinda a prickly feller where time's concerned.


      "to the point where they could predict that 2017 would have a ratio over 1 for the first time."

      You're not surely One Brow, gonna want me to go back to when Shell UK and Royal Dutch Shell started naming their fields after birds and Frank Phillips marketing the Osage's product out in Bartlesville Oklahoma got to trying to figure out a way to predict prices based on what the Shell guys were likely to ask for their product? I realize you mentioned earlier you "don't venerate competition" but, like I intimated above One Brow, I need some kinda firm timepoint to figure from.

      "Why should the Democrats cheer Trump for something he did not do?"

      Personally One Brow, I don't give a shit if the Democrats ever cheer again. Actually I hope, they don't take up the habit until my Great-Grandkids have children of their own.

      JK

      Delete
    17. One Brow, since my husband has gone on Medicare, I hear more of what they will NOT cover rather than what is covered. ... Federal government interference in every part of our lives is NOT a good idea, but a disaster.

      Thank you for sharing your experience. Just out of curiosity, what do you think your experience would have been without Medicare? Would you have been on private insurance?

      While I have no idea where you live, if you are looking for practices that take Medicare, try the inner cities.

      Delete
    18. Turned out Dad delivered the parents' child of of a brand-spanking newborn - imagine that! no hospital and no requirement to have in attendance four or so malpractice insurers and a lawyer! - and I was "properly horrified/chastened/whatever."

      People can still opt for home births in every state. They are less common because there are more fatalities, but anyone can assume that risk.

      And guess who had a new job building a pork empire - at least that was, apparently, part of the payment/plan.)

      You do see the moral of the story doncha One Brow?


      I’m not sure I see the same moral as you. Your father went to help a family of small means (but that could still pay him back), and offered what would today be substandard care. You think that’s a good model for healthcare nationwide?

      Well if you don't I'll get a little into the weeds. You see that house call to perform an obstetrics procedure occurred pre-Medicare - the implication of which I hope you realize. No? Well its what you said up top that I italicized - "It's certainly better than no medical care."

      Not every person in need of care was lucky enough to have doctors nearby who were as accepting of creative payments as your father was, if there were doctors nearby at all. They often received no medical care.

      I'll add that after the passage of Medicare I still accompanied Dad on some housecalls but, thanks to Lyndon B. about all that I ever encountered then was stitches and bee stings. And certainly no livestock in payment.

      You think Medicare prevented your father from taking livestock in payment?

      "Why should the Democrats cheer Trump for something he did not do?"

      Personally One Brow, I don't give a shit if the Democrats ever cheer again. Actually I hope, they don't take up the habit until my Great-Grandkids have children of their own.


      Personally, I think it would be better is the opposition party was a little politer to the POTUS, but that’s not how they play the game in Washington anymore.

      Delete
    19. "[B]ut that’s not how they play the game in Washington anymore."

      Works for me One Brow.

      Happy trails.

      JK

      Delete
  9. Every policy point he made he justified by how it would improve the lives of the American people, ALL of the people not just some interest group. He was talking to the ordinary Joes and Janes out here in flyoverland who are working diligently, raising their kids best they can, and trying to provide for future needs.
    Sure it was obvious that he was speaking to the great middle, of both class and political spectrum, and making it virtually impossible for the Dems to deny the value to Joe & Jane of what he was proposing.
    By their behavior, the Dems revealed themselves as utterly refusing to consider compromise: which as we know, is that agreement where something is gained & something is given, by each party. They beclowned themselves by their sour look and infantile behavior.
    Whoever wrote that speech should take a bow, a deep bow: it was masterful.
    And Trump's finale, where he emphasized that he, and all those VIP Congresscritters gathered, are the employees of, and work FOR, the American people was brilliant. All he missed was a conclusion noting that the opening words of the U.S. Constitution, whereby the government was authorized and formed are, "We the People...."
    How refreshing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I can't abide listening to JKIII anymore than I could listen to obama without retching. I need to find a transcript.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please Pacman; might you type JFKIII?

      JK

      Delete
  11. neo comments at LI:

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/01/democrats-did-themselves-no-favors-with-their-sotu-responses/

    ReplyDelete